Magenta Living (202338224)

Background

1. The resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour was harassing her. The resident has informed it of her vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.
6. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord acted in line with its policy when the resident reported ASB to it. Without evidence and the resident’s permission to speak to the neighbour, it was limited in the actions that it could take. The landlord tried to support the resident in other ways in relation to the ASB.
8. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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.

9. Our role is not to make an assessment on whether the ASB occurred and what action a landlord should take. We make an assessment on whether the landlord has appropriately followed its ASB policy when ASB is reported to it.
10. The resident reported her neighbour was harassing her on 18 November 2023. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will assess initial reports and open a case if required. Once a case is opened, a resident should be contacted within 3 working days. The landlord opened an ASB case on the same day of the report and called the resident on 20 November 2023 to discuss the situation. The landlord acted in line with its policy.
11. The landlord spoke to the resident again on 22 November 2023. Its ASB policy says the landlord will agree an action plan with a resident and confirm what action it will be taking. The policy also says the landlord will carry out a risk assessment to understand the effect on the resident. It adds this will identify any support needs and enable appropriate referrals. There is evidence that the landlord undertook a risk assessment. However, it is undated. The landlord should ensure such documents are dated. Good record keeping supports transparency and accountability.
12. The landlord did not agree an action plan with the resident because the resident asked it not to contact her neighbour. The landlord agreed to not contact the neighbour at that time and that the resident would report any further incidents and provide any evidence she collected. Even though an action plan was not completed, we consider these were reasonable actions to take in the circumstances. The landlord agreed next steps with the resident, which is the purpose of an action plan. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take.
13. In the call on 22 November 2023, the landlord committed to contacting the resident every 2 weeks. The evidence shows that the landlord followed through with this commitment and was in contact with the resident throughout the ASB case until it was closed on 8 February 2024. The landlord demonstrated good customer service and this shows it looking to support the resident in this period.
14. The landlord opened a second ASB case on 6 March 2024, after a further report from the resident. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day. The landlord also contacted the resident on two further occasions to ask whether it could speak to the resident to complete an action plan and risk assessment. A risk assessment was completed, but we have not been provided with evidence of an action plan. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy when contacting the resident and completing a risk assessment, but it should have completed an action plan or recorded why it was not doing so.
15. The resident has detailed her dissatisfaction to this service that the landlord did not conduct a multiple-agency meeting. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take a multi-agency approach, but not specifically that it will have a meeting with all agencies. It says it will work with the police and other agencies to tackle ASB and support victims. The landlord met with the police and the resident’s support worker to discuss the second ASB case. We have not been provided direct evidence of these meetings, but both the landlord and the resident refer to them happening. We consider that this does show the landlord taking a multi-agency approach, in line with its ASB policy.
16. The ASB policy says it should take a victim-centred approach, offering support to victims of ASB. During the resident’s reports, the landlord:
    1. Offered to consider a housing move for the resident.
    2. Regularly checked in with the resident to see if she had evidence to supply.
    3. Assisted the resident when she said she had evidence to provide.
    4. Arranged a property inspection of the neighbour, with the resident’s consent, where it spoke to the neighbour generally.
    5. Offered to supply the resident with a video doorbell camera as a safety measure.
    6. Arranged for its security to check in on her property while the resident was away.
    7. Asked the resident what other support it could offer her.
    8. Tried to accommodate the resident’s wishes when it came to a face-to-face meeting.
    9. Offered assistance from its Sustainability Support Service.
17. We consider that taking these actions represents the landlord taking a victim-centred approach and attempting to support the resident throughout this matter. The landlord followed its ASB policy here.
18. This policy says it will close a case where there is no possible action to take. The resident was consistent in telling the landlord that she did not want the landlord to discuss the issues with her neighbour. The landlord’s position is it did not have adequate evidence. Without evidence to progress the matter, it is reasonable that the landlord would want to discuss the issues with the resident’s neighbour. Discussing allegations with an alleged perpetrator is common practice when it comes to ASB cases.
19. We recognise the resident was scared of the impact that this could have, as she feared a response from her neighbour if this happened. Unfortunately, this did limit the actions the landlord could take in this case. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its ASB policy when it closed the ASB cases due to a lack of supporting evidence. Given the lack of evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take action against the perpetrator.
20. The landlord closed the second ASB case, in part, due to a lack of engagement from the resident. The resident disputes this, saying that she sent in emails and wanted a zoom call that the landlord did not provide. The landlord did offer the resident a zoom call in its stage 2 response on 6 December 2024. It referenced offering one previously, but we have not seen evidence of this. We have not been provided with evidence that the resident accepted or engaged with this. Without the evidence to suggest otherwise, we consider it reasonable to say that the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy when it closed the second ASB case.
21. We acknowledge the situation has caused clear distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord has followed its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

22. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its timescales, though we have not been provided with evidence of it acknowledging the stage 2 escalation.
23. The landlord’s complaints policy says a resident should receive a formal response to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 9 working days, so within its timescales.
24. The resident requested our assistance in escalating her complaint to stage 2. We requested the landlord escalate the complaint on 4 November 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this to us on 13 November 2023. The landlord responded to the complaint on 6 December 2024, 17 working days from the acknowledgement. The landlord acted within in line with its policy here.
25. The resident had written to the landlord on 1 November 2024 to describe her continued concern about her neighbour. While the resident did not state that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 in this communication, the landlord should have considered whether to do so. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction then it must be progressed to stage 2. This email from the resident showed that she was still dissatisfied with the matter. The landlord should have considered whether this represented an escalation. It did not follow the Code here.
26. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within its timescales. The time between the resident writing to the landlord and us writing to the landlord to escalate the complaint was 1 working day. We consider that this represents a minor impact on the resident. We therefore find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping in this matter was mixed. While it has provided evidence of its actions, it would appear that some evidence has not been provided. There is no direct record of the landlord’s meetings with other agencies, such as a meeting with the police and the resident’s support worker. The landlord’s complaint responses also reference emails it has sent to the resident, some of which have not been provided. An undated risk assessment has also been mentioned in the above assessment.
28. Landlord’s should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records as they provide an audit trail and increases a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems. Failing to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, or missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate. It can also affect our ability to conduct a thorough investigation. The landlord should be mindful of our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management and what it says about ensuring information is captured effectively.

Communication

29. For the most part, aside from the instances identified above, the landlord communicated consistently and appropriately with the resident throughout the complaint. We note this as a positive in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.