Amplius Living (202329768)

Background

1. The resident lives in a property in an Older Person’s Living Scheme. She is disabled and has health conditions that impact her mobility. She raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour. She reported that her neighbour was harassing her over a parking space and had installed cameras which were recording her.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy. It did not complete action plans or risk assessments and missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations. It occasionally delayed acting on the resident’s ASB reports and failed to attend appointments on multiple occasions. It did not recognise this in its complaint process and has not put these failings right.
7. The landlord acknowledged complaint handling delays and offered appropriate compensation, but it did not recognise that it failed to recognise the resident’s earlier complaints.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

8. We previously investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the parking space between October 2021 and September 2022 (under case reference 202224549). We determined that case in May 2024. While we saw failings in the landlord’s communication with the resident and policies around parking, we noted the landlord’s decision to have unallocated parking in the circumstances was reasonable. Therefore, we have not considered the landlord’s decision not to allocate parking to residents in this investigation.

What we did investigate

9. This investigation focuses on the ASB raised in the resident’s formal complaint. We have reviewed the resident’s concerns up to February 2024 to ensure the landlord has had a fair opportunity to investigate and respond through its complaints process. The resident may wish to pursue any more recent issues directly with the landlord as a new complaint.
10. The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy says that it will:
    1. Respond to non-high-risk reports of ASB within 5 working days.
    2. Review potential vulnerabilities and the risk of harm to the complainant during the initial assessment, and complete further risk assessments throughout the case in line with its ASB procedure.
    3. Complete an initial action plan that takes risk assessment into account and do further action plans as and when appropriate until the case is closed.
    4. Consider and complete referral and signposting to support agencies.
    5. Participate in multi-agency partnership working.
11. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether the ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather, we assess how a landlord dealt with reports it received, and whether it followed its policy and good practice. We note that, after the resident’s complaint, the landlord underwent a merger in December 2024.
12. The resident said her concerns were ongoing for years. The landlord does not dispute that the resident reported her neighbour’s behaviour from as early as August 2022. In a complaint response dated 2 September 2022, it said the resident had not formally requested her concerns be looked at through its ASB process, and it had agreed with her that it would contact her and open an ASB case so she could log any future incidents.
13. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s early reports in September 2022. She was concerned about the neighbour looking at her car and possibly using his CCTV cameras to record her. The landlord followed its procedure, warned the neighbour about the use of his cameras and directed the resident to the police and Information Commissioner’s Office for advice on her data concerns.
14. It took a proactive approach and continued to contact the resident in October 2022. It completed regular case reviews and confirmed there had been no further tenancy breaches. Its actions were reasonable and in line with its policy and procedures.
15. Between November 2022 and February 2024, the resident made 29 reports about her neighbour. The landlord continued to act on, and respond to, her reports but there were some delays.
16. Between November 2022 and January 2023, it said it spoke to the neighbour and arranged a visit to check his cameras. It asked the resident to share any updates from the police with it.
17. However, it did not always keep the resident updated in line with its policy. There was a delay of around 17 working days from 25 November to 20 December 2022 after the resident reported further incidents and asked that it add her comments to her ASB case.
18. There was a further delay between 22 December and 20 February 2023, approximately 40 working days, in the landlord providing updates. It also agreed to visit the resident and neighbour on 1 March 2023, but we have not seen evidence of this taking place. These delays were inappropriate.
19. On 7 March 2023, the landlord told the resident it would speak to the police. It noted she declined mediation and said it would update her when it had more details. On 8 March 2023, it issued a stage 1 warning letter to the neighbour about his cameras.
20. Between March and April 2023, the landlord contacted the police for support and requested a referral to its problem-solving group. It offered mediation, which it noted the resident declined. It issued a warning letter to the neighbour about the position and signage for his cameras. It completed regular case reviews. This was positive and showed the landlord was taking reasonable steps to resolve the ASB.
21.  In April and May 2023, the resident reported an escalation in the ASB. She said her neighbour had been intimidating her and there was verbal abuse and shouting. The landlord said it would conduct a joint visit with the police and told her to keep notes of this. However, there is no evidence the landlord completed a joint visit, or that it investigated these reports. It did not complete a risk assessment or record that it followed up on the reports with the neighbour. This was not in line with its ASB policy.
22. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint on 25 May 2023 and appropriately explained its findings and the next steps. It said it had investigated all allegations, and it was satisfied the neighbour was not recording the resident’s property. It offered mediation and said it would arrange a joint visit with the police once the police had confirmed their availability.
23. However, it did not identify or address delays, or the lack of a risk assessment and action plan, or that it had not followed up on her reports of intimidation and harassment. As explained above, we have also seen no evidence it completed the agreed visit with the police or explained if it cancelled the visit.
24. The resident made further reports about being filmed in June 2023. The landlord appropriately discussed options with her, including mediation and a good neighbour agreement. It completed a referral to an independent mediation service once the resident agreed to this. This was positive and showed the landlord was making attempts to resolve the ASB.
25. The mediation took place in July 2023. As an outcome, the neighbour agreed to move a camera that covered part of the resident’s garden and said he would remove cameras from communal areas once the landlord installed its own CCTV. Both parties signed good neighbour agreements.
26. The resident reported new incidents in July 2023. On 2 August 2023, the landlord said it had spoken to the complainant and closed the case. The resident made a further report that day, which it gave a new case number. We have seen no evidence the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the case closure or the opening of a new case. The lack of communication caused confusion, and it is not clear why it gave the case a new number.
27. Between September and December 2023, the resident raised 5 further reports. These included concerns about a new camera, the neighbour taking photos of the car park and him using 2 parking spaces. She also said she had tried to contact the mediator about ongoing issues and reported that the landlord did not attend an agreed visit in October.
28. The landlord asked the mediator to update both parties, restarted welfare calls to the resident following new ASB reports, completed visits and held an ASB call. During the call, the landlord recorded that the resident said her only concern was parking. In October and December 2023, it confirmed there were no parking restrictions or allocated spaces. These were reasonable steps to make.
29. In its complaint response on 8 December 2023, the landlord confirmed its position on parking. It said it had addressed her concerns through its ASB process, and the mediator was continuing to follow up on this. It appropriately confirmed that it had checked the neighbour’s property, and his cameras were not pointed at her property. It said it found no failings.
30. However, the landlord failed to confirm what actions it would take moving forward, or whether it would close the case. It missed the opportunity to provide clarity on its overall position regarding the ASB and resolve the complaint.
31. In its final response of 20 February 2024, the landlord explained how it had addressed her reports of ASB. It said it did not believe the neighbour’s cameras were filming her property, but if she felt he was filming her, her best point of contact would be the police. It maintained it managed the cameras and car parking in line with policy and said there were no service failures.
32. The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports of ASB, including arranging mediation and carrying out regular case reviews. It met with both parties and issued appropriate warnings.
33. However, there is no evidence the landlord completed a written action plan or risk assessment for the resident, as required under its ASB policy. It also failed to show it investigated her reports of verbal abuse and intimidation appropriately, despite defining these as examples of ASB in its policy. The landlord did not acknowledge delays or missed appointments in its complaint responses and, as such, did not put these failings right.
34. The landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations about what actions it could take and how often it would update her. Its failure to complete action plans or provide written confirmation of case openings or closures caused the resident additional time and trouble.
35. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £200 compensation to put right the adverse impact of its failings on the resident.

36. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy used in December 2022 and the updated policy of February 2023 were in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022).
37. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the parking space in September and October 2022. We considered its complaint handling for this as part of our previous investigation.
38. In an email on 16 December 2022, the resident raised concerns about how the landlord was handling her reports of ASB. She said that it was ‘passing the buck’ to her to resolve the issue with the neighbour’s cameras, and she said she wanted the landlord to do something about it.
39. The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 January 2023. The landlord did not respond until 25 May 2023, which was a delay of 81 working days. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its response, apologised and offered £50 compensation.
40. Following the May 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord noted on 5 June 2023 that the resident was not happy about that response. The Code says that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such, and that emails can be used to submit complaints. The landlord should have confirmed if the resident wished to raise or escalate a complaint at this point. This was a failing.
41. Following further contact in late 2023, the landlord issued another stage 1 response on 8 December 2023.
42. On 12 January 2024, the resident tried to escalate her complaint. She wrote a letter to the landlord dated 16 January 2024, and it confirmed it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 the next day. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 February 2024 to acknowledge her complaint, and it apologised for the delay. It agreed an extension for its final response with the resident and provided its response within this time. It offered a further £50 compensation for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint.
43. The landlord did not explain the reasons for its delay at stage 1 or show that it took any learnings to prevent future delays. While it was positive the landlord took steps to put this right, its total £100 compensation offer did not appropriately reflect the length of the delay at stage 1. The landlord also did not identify that it failed to recognise the resident’s earlier complaint or escalation requests and, as such, it has not put this right.
44. Given the additional failings we have identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay further compensation of £50 for complaint handling. This is in line with our Guidance on Remedies for service failings which have impacted the resident.

Learning

45. The landlord should ensure it follows its processes and appropriately carries out action plans and risk assessments when managing ASB cases. This would allow it to clearly evidence to residents what steps it will take and will help manage expectations of the ASB process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. The landlord maintained good records of communication with the resident and recorded the steps it was taking to investigate her concerns.

Communication

47. The landlord should ensure it is responding to residents within the timeframes set out in its policies.