Hyde Housing Association Limited (202223914)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223914

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 February 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to apply for possession of a property on the estate where the resident lives.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a flat in a tower block on an estate (the estate) owned by the landlord. The landlord is responsible, along with the police and the local council, for controlling anti-social behaviour (ASB) on the estate. The estate consists of several tower blocks.
4. The resident is the chairman of a residents’ association (RA) and they had concerns about ASB on the estate. In particular, they wanted the landlord to do more to control the behaviour of people who they believed were responsible for drug dealing and other criminal and antisocial activity. In October 2020, the landlord agreed to attend the RA’s meetings, which took place approximately every 6 weeks, to discuss its enforcement actions against one resident who lived in a flat (Flat X) on the estate.
5. The landlord attended these meetings for 2 years, providing the RA with regular updates about the current ASB investigations over the estate, breaking the cases down by location and category. In October 2022, the landlord’s ASB team decided it would no longer attend these meetings, but continued to provide information about ongoing investigations to the RA.
6. On 4 October 2022, the landlord informed the RA that it had decided not to apply for possession of Flat X. The resident was very disappointed and corresponded over several days with the landlord about it. In an email of 7 October 2022 he complained formally about the decision.
7. On 9 January 2023, having received no response from the landlord, the resident wrote to us saying he was writing as chairman of the RA to complain on behalf of residents about the landlord’s failure to control ASB on the estate. He wanted it to reengage with the RA and employ more ASB staff.
8. Following our intervention the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 14 July 2023, saying the complaint was about “ongoing reports on ASB”. It said it should have replied to the complaint sooner but it did not accept that it had failed in the management of ASB. It apologised and offered £175 compensation for complaint handling failures.
9. The resident escalated his complaint, saying he was unhappy that the landlord had addressed its response to him personally, rather than the RA. He did not believe the landlord had properly considered his complaint and asked for a meeting.
10. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 25 July 2023 it said it had given a fair reply and maintained its stage 1 position. It apologised again for the failure to set up a formal complaint in October 2022 but said it had provided “a proportionate, effective and efficient response to any reports of ASB”.
11. The resident referred his complaint to us, saying he wanted: a further £100 compensation; letters reissued to him as a representative of the RA rather than personally; and regular meetings between the landlord and RA to resume.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. We sometimes receive complaints from RAs or similar representative groups acting, or claiming to act, on behalf of a number of residents. An RA cannot bring a complaint to us in its own right as we can only accept complaints from individuals who have the requisite relationship with a member landlord or people who have been authorised to act on their behalf. We can sometimes look at group complaints brought by a representative of a group but only if the issue complained of affects all residents equally and they have consented in writing to being represented.
13. In this case, the resident claims to represent other residents as chairman of the RA. The RA passes reports of ASB from residents to the landlord. However, we have seen no evidence that any resident asked the RA to complain on their behalf and there is no signed authority that would allow us to consider a group complaint in this case. For that reason, we have treated this as a complaint by the resident.

Failure to apply for possession of a property on the estate

14. The resident’s original complaint email to the landlord had a title which read “RE: ASB Case: – Flat X – Complaint”. The complaint was made in response to the landlord telling him, on 4 October 2023, “we have made a decision that … we will not be pursuing possession [of Flat X] at this time”.
15. In an email of 7 October 2022 the landlord said it had followed its policies before reaching the decision not to apply for a possession order for Flat X. The resident said that he was “confident that you will have ensured your internal policies will have been followed”. However he felt the decision not to apply for the order had been wrong and asked for the complaint number to be sent to him when it had been set up.
16. The resident raised wider issues of ASB in his later January 2023 complaint to us. We wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to his original complaint in June 2023 and it wrote to him on 10 July 2023 asking for information about the complaint. In response, the resident referred the landlord to his emails of 7 October 2023.
17. When the landlord considered those emails, it should have seen that the complaint was about the decision not to apply for possession of Flat X. Its failure to do so was a complaint handling failure (see more below). In this section, we address the landlord’s handling of the single issue of the decision not to apply for a possession order, as this was the subject of the original complaint.
18. We understand the resident’s frustration with ongoing ASB on the estate and the landlord’s decision not to apply for possession of Flat X. There had been allegations of drug dealing and other ASB over several years. However, we do not hold landlords responsible for the ASB itself and do not expect them to manage residents’ behaviour on a daily basis. Our role is to assess how a landlord responds to reports of ASB during the period under investigation. We assess whether it followed proper procedure and good practice and behaved reasonably in all the circumstances.
19. The landlord’s ASB policy statement says it is committed to meeting the needs of all customers. It says it “aims to deal with ASB in a proportionate and appropriate manner” and this will “include engaging with complainants and alleged perpetrators, providing support and/or taking enforcement action.” It says, “We will consider legal action where there is sufficient evidence. Eviction will only be considered … as a last resort.”
20. When the landlord met with the RA between 2020 and 2022 it shared ASB figures and information (although for data protection reasons it could not provide operational details). The relationship appears to have been cordial and this was an example of good customer service.
21. The landlord has provided evidence that it interacted with the police and the council and held internal meetings about the issue of ASB and crime at various addresses on the estate over several years. For data protection reasons we also cannot set out the actions it took in relation to specific reports of ASB. However, we can say that the landlord’s approach to reports of ASB in relation to Flat X were proportionate, appropriate and effective.
22. In its email to the resident of 7 October 2022 the landlord said, “Unfortunately there remains a lack of evidence allowing us to take further action.” It said this lack of evidence meant that any application for possession would be unlikely to succeed in any event. Therefore, the landlord complied with its policy and good practice by taking proportionate and practical action in response to reports of ASB by Flat X. As this action appeared to have had the desired effect, it did not apply for possession. The landlord’s policy says it aims to meet the needs of all customers, even those who are disruptive. As a result, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to apply for possession in October 2022.
23. It is noted that, some time later, the landlord successfully applied for possession of Flat X. However, given that this investigation is focused on the landlord’s actions based on the information available at the time of the complaint, this does not have a bearing on the findings in this case.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 response that it had failed to respond in time to the complaint of 7 October 2022. Its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) say that it should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and responded to within a further 5 working days. It did not do so. In fact, it did not provide a stage 1 response until 14 July 2023, 193 working days later.
25. Much of this delay was caused by the initial failure to identify the complaint in October 2022. The landlord has apologised for that error and paid the resident £175 compensation, which was appropriate recognition in line with our remedies guidance.
26. We first contacted the landlord on 28 June 2023 and, in line with the resident’s complaint to us, we stated that the complaint was about “reports of ongoing issues with ASB”. When the landlord sought clarification on the complaint, the resident referred it back to his email of 7 October 2022. There was then internal discussion about the case and the landlord identified that it had failed to open a complaint when it should have done. We therefore understand that the landlord was in receipt of, and had considered, the October 2022 email. However, it still failed to accurately identify the subject of the complaint (the decision not to apply for possession of Flat X) and instead responded to a general complaint about ASB issues. This was a further complaint handling error.
27. The landlord should have either clarified what the resident’s complaint issues were by sending a complaint definition in its complaint acknowledgment (as is required by the Code) or by speaking to him about the matter. Instead, it provided a non-specific and inadequate response which merely said there had been no failures in its handling of reports of ASB. It said it, “cannot see that we have failed in the management of ASB and as such, we cannot uphold this part of your complaint”. This complaint response was dismissive and frustrating for the resident as it did nothing to address his concerns in any meaningful way.
28. In an email sent after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident asked the landlord to resend the letter to him as chairman of the RA rather than as an individual. In its response of 19 July 2023, the landlord said there had been no mention of the RA in our letter of 28 June 2023. However, the wording of our letter was not definitive as we had not seen the resident’s original complaint. The details of this were in the emails of 7 October 2022 and, in these, he mentioned his connection to the RA on several occasions. To rely on our letter, particularly given that the landlord then sought further clarification on the complaint, was poor practice and a further complaint handling failure.
29. The combined complaint handling failures by the landlord were significant and impacted upon the resident. We recognise that the landlord did acknowledge its delay in responding to the complaint and awarded him £175 compensation. This went some way to put things right, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. However, the landlord did not recognise all the failings identified in this report and the sum offered was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused. For that reason, a finding of service failure is made and additional compensation is awarded.
30. The landlord has provided a compensation procedure document but this does not contain any guidance on levels of compensation in complaint handling cases. We have, therefore, referred to our own guidance on remedies when deciding on a suitable financial remedy. This guidance says that, in cases where a landlord is responsible for service failure we would normally award compensation of between £50 and £100. In this case, however, we have made a slightly higher award as, in our view, the circumstances require it given the number of complaint handling failures overall.
31. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300, including the £175 already offered him. If it has paid him £175 already, it need pay him only £125 more.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to apply for possession of a property on the estate where the resident lives.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident and apologised for the complaint handling errors identified in this decision.
    2. Paid the resident £300 compensation (inclusive of the £175 already offered) for those errors.
    3. Either resend the complaint responses to the RA or explain to the resident why it will not do so.