Origin Housing Limited (202337143)

Background

1. The resident reported noise, harassment, and antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour. She complained to the landlord as she did not feel it was doing enough to address her reports and safeguard her. She said her mental health conditions had significantly deteriorated as a result.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The resident’s request for rehousing.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for the handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
   3. No maladministration in the handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of ASB

4. The landlord did not always follow its policy in responding to the resident’s reports. While it acknowledged some of its failings, it did not acknowledge them all.

The resident’s request for rehousing

5. The landlord did not take all the actions available to it in a timely manner. However, it acknowledged this failing and offered reasonable redress. The overall actions taken were in line with its policy.

Handling of the complaint

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. The resident reported that the handling of the ASB had affected her health. While we do not dispute her account, we cannot determine causation or liability for any health impacts. This may be more appropriately dealt with via a personal injury claim for the courts to decide. Our investigation has therefore focused on the likely distress and inconvenience from any service failings, and on how the landlord responded to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
8. The resident said she had reported issues with the neighbour for years. However, there is no evidence of earlier formal complaints to the landlord or to us before January 2024. To ensure a fair and proportionate investigation, we have focused on the 12 months preceding the formal complaint and up to the stage 2 response.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to acknowledge initial ASB reports within 2 working days and to use a case management approach, including opening a case and creating an action plan. Its vulnerability policy requires it to proactively reduce risks linked to vulnerabilities.
10. The resident reported that on 24 June 2023, after confronting her neighbour about their children kicking a ball against her windows, her neighbour attacked her, injuring her hand. She said the incident affected her mental and physical health. She said she contacted the police and attended hospital.
11. The landlord opened an ASB case on 7 July 2023. It said it had interviewed both parties, contacted the police, and agreed an action plan with the resident which was to consider mediation. It said it would put in place an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA). It also completed a risk assessment, categorising the resident as high risk. These initial actions were reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
12. On 20 July 2023, the landlord recorded that neither party agreed to mediation. It noted the neighbour refused to sign the ABA, alleging harassment by the resident. It said the police was not taking any further action and there were no independent witnesses to the allegations. At this point, the landlord should have clearly set out its position on the ASB case. Given the high risk and resident’s vulnerabilities, we would have expected to see how the landlord used this information to inform its decisions and any support for the resident. There is also no evidence it considered whether the children kicking a ball against the resident’s windows required further action under the tenancy agreement.
13. The resident said she believed the neighbour had signed the ABA but was later told it was a good neighbourhood agreement. Records show she repeatedly asked the landlord to enforce the ABA but it was not clarified until stage 2 that it was a different agreement. This was not appropriate and did not manage her expectations. We have not seen the good neighbourhood agreement or what was discussed with the neighbour in relation to it. Therefore, it is unclear what obligations it contained or what steps the landlord could take if breached.
14. On 19 July 2023 the resident reported ongoing noise which left her unsettled and alarmed. There is no evidence of any associated action taken by the landlord. On 28 August 2023, the landlord completed a safeguarding assessment after being informed the resident was spending time away from home to support her mental health. It decided to progress a transfer application and said it was continuing to manage the ASB, which was positive. However, the status of the ASB case still remained unclear.
15. The transfer request was approved on 3 October 2023. The form outlined the significant impact the incident in June 2023 had on the resident. It recorded that the neighbourhood manager, the police, and the community trigger process had all seen bruising on the resident’s hand, which she said was caused from the neighbour. It noted she was extremely vulnerable and feared for her safety. The form said the neighbourhood manager was addressing the ASB.
16. It is concerning that there is no evidence of further action taken with the neighbour or any consideration of additional safety measures. The landlord confirmed it had not issued any warning letters throughout the timeframe of this investigation. Although the police took no further action, the landlord has a different burden of proof and should have acted in line with its policies.
17. In October and November 2023, the resident’s GP and mental health services provided letters confirming her health conditions and the impact of ongoing intimidation and harassment. On 10 November 2023, the local authority community safety team (CST) contacted the landlord after receiving similar information. It asked the landlord to contact the resident as soon as possible. On 15 November 2023 the CST confirmed the actions it had taken so far, including liaising with the landlord, providing an impact statement and referring the resident for support. It again asked the landlord to contact the resident as soon as possible.
18. We cannot investigate the actions of the local authority, but we would expect to see records of its contact with the landlord. The landlord has not provided these, which makes it difficult to determine whether it acted in line with its obligations. We can also see a community trigger was initiated but we have not been provided with the outcome or any actions arising from it. While it is evident a number of services were involved in supporting the resident, without the records to evidence its communication with those services, the landlord has not demonstrated effective partnership working.
19. On 17 November 2023, the landlord told the resident’s sister it would contact the lettings team for an update and said it had written to the neighbours about an incident on 26 October 2023. Aside from GP confirmation that the resident attended A&E that day, we have not seen details of an incident with the neighbours on 26 October 2023. We have also not seen the letter which was provided to the neighbours or any follow up with the resident. In the absence of this information, we cannot assess whether the landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.
20. On 21 November 2023, the resident sent the landlord videos which she said showed the neighbour intentionally abusing and harassing her. The landlord said it did not hear any abuse in the footage. On 1 December 2023, the resident sent further videos which she said were of the neighbours (adults and children) ringing her doorbell and harassing her. The landlord advised her to show the videos to the police.
21. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to speak with other neighbours to establish whether anyone else witnessed or experienced similar issues. The neighbours were not available when visited on 6 December 2023 but given the ongoing concerns, the landlord could have followed up again or issued block letters to gather information.
22. On 8 December 2023, the landlord spoke to the neighbour, who denied the allegations and made counter allegations. It said further investigation was needed but we do not know what that involved. Given it told the resident to report footage to the police, it should have stated its own position on the footage. The resident continued to report incidents throughout December, and the landlord acknowledged it failed to respond appropriately.
23. On 8 February 2024 the resident reported her neighbour had broken a lock on a communal window and was repeatedly closing the corridor door. She explained why she preferred the door to remain open for safety reasons and asked the landlord to speak to the neighbour. We have not seen evidence of any response to the resident, which demonstrated additional failure in the handling of the ASB.
24. The landlord said in its complaint response that additional safety measures would normally come from the police. But under its vulnerability policy, we consider the landlord was required as far as possible to ensure a safe and secure environment for the resident. It was therefore positive that the stage 2 response confirmed temporary cameras would be installed in the communal areas. Though it could have considered installing these sooner.
25. The stage 2 response referred to previous reports the resident made about other neighbours and counter allegations made against her. This may have been reasonable for context but it was not solution focused. It did not show how it applied the part of its ASB policy recognising that some residents may be disproportionately affected due to protected characteristics. It is clear there were serious concerns regarding the resident’s wellbeing. The landlord reasonably liaised with its internal support teams and arranged welfare checks. But other than for the move and the cameras, it was unclear how its liaison with other parties and risk assessment informed any other actions it could take.
26. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings and went some way to put things right for the resident. We do acknowledge that cases such as this where there are multiple stakeholders involved and counter allegations can be difficult for landlords to manage. However, the landlord did not acknowledge all its failings. It did not take sufficient action against the neighbour, demonstrate effective partnership working, or show sufficient consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities when determining its actions.
27. The landlord’s total offer of £400 did not provide a breakdown of how it was attributed to the resident’s issues regarding ASB and her request to be rehoused. Where a landlord fails to provide a breakdown, the Ombudsman is able to attribute compensation however it finds appropriate. In this case we have attributed £200 to the ASB and £200 to the request to be rehoused. £200 was not proportionate to the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failings related to the ASB. Our additional order of £300 aligns with our remedies guidance for where some failings were acknowledged, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
28. The resident has since reported issues with the CCTV and reported further incidents with the neighbour. The landlord has said there have been no recent reports of ASB from the resident. These fall out of the scope of this complaint but our order to provide an update on the current status of the resident’s ASB case should give clarity on any next steps.

29. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy outlines that “priority A” transfers apply in exceptional cases of ASB where targeted abuse is having a significant impact on a resident’s quality of life. It says “priority A” can also be applied where there are safeguarding issues that require a household to move. The policy states that successful transfer applicants will receive 1 direct offer of accommodation. If they refuse the offer they will be removed from the list unless they can show why the property was not suitable for their needs.
30. On 28 August 2023 the landlord said it would complete a transfer application for the resident. This followed information that she had been staying away from her home and the ASB was impacting her mental health and wellbeing. The landlord’s action at the time was reasonable and followed the applicable policy.
31. The application was then submitted on 21 September 2023, it is unclear why there was a delay, although supporting evidence may have been required, which can take time. The transfer was approved on 3 October 2023 and given “priority A”, which was again reasonable in the circumstances.
32. Further medical information was provided by third party professionals in October 2023. They recommended the resident stay in the local area to receive ongoing support. We have seen communication which shows the landlord sent the medical evidence to its independent medical assessor and updated its lettings team. On 17 November 2023, it updated the resident’s sister and explained it was waiting for a suitable property to become available. It also chased the relevant teams again to explain the urgency for a move. Its actions were appropriate.
33. The resident continued to report issues with her neighbours and the impact it was having on her. On 1 December 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident and contacted its lettings team again. The lettings team advised the area the resident wished to remain in had the least number of voids, so the move might take some time. On 8 December 2023, the landlord updated the resident and explained the property it initially considered was no longer available. It said it had made enquiries about suitable mutual exchanges.
34. It was reasonable for the landlord to explore other options after learning about the limited availability of properties in the resident’s preferred area. It is unclear whether the resident was informed about the limited availability at the time as doing so may have helped to manage her expectations.
35. On 19 February 2024, the landlord’s mental health support officer spoke with the resident’s sister about the option of supported living. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 February 2024 confirming she was interested in that option and would like further information. We have seen evidence of the landlord then contacting the relevant teams to explore the supported living options, which was appropriate.
36. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reasonably explained the limitations linked to the area the resident wished to move to. It also advised that widening her preferred areas could help speed up the process. The landlord confirmed it had contacted the local authority about a reciprocal agreement, although acknowledged progress had stalled. It said it was continuing to liaise with the local authority, though such agreements were rare. The landlord also spoke with the resident’s sister on 11 March 2024 to ensure she was registered on the mutual exchange website. On the same day, it submitted an application to a charity that helps secure housing for people at high risk of harm who need to move to another area.
37. The landlord acknowledged the actions taken on 11 March 2024 should have happened sooner. In its correspondence to us it said it could not offer temporary accommodation at the time as doing so might complicate the next property offer and the likely timescales. While we cannot comment on whether temporary accommodation would have been appropriate, an updated risk assessment may have supported this decision and helped identify where additional safety measures were needed in the meantime
38. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation. As mentioned previously, the compensation was not broken down, therefore we consider £200 was toward the failures associated with the request for rehousing. This amount was reasonable and in line with remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident. The landlord acknowledged where it could have acted sooner. However, its overall action and next steps were appropriate. It showed awareness to the urgency of the situation for the resident, while managing her expectations.
39. As an outcome to her complaint the resident would like to be moved to a suitable property. It is not within our remit to order a landlord to move someone. We understand that subsequent offers of accommodation were made which the resident did not feel were suitable. We have not investigated that aspect of her complaint, however, the resident has the option to raise a further complaint with the landlord if she wishes to do so. Our recommendation is intended to clarify the current status of the resident’s transfer request.

40. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will aim to responded at stage 1 within 10 days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. This is in line with our Code,
41. We have not seen evidence which shows the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord provided its stage 1 response within 12 working days which was within the overall timeframe for it to respond to a stage 1 complaint.
42. It provided its stage 2 response within 31 working days but said it contacted the resident on 27 February 2024 advising of an extension due to the complexities involved. The landlord then provided its stage 2 response 10 working days later.
43. This was in line with our Code which allows for landlords to extend the timescale when considering the complexity of the complaint and to inform the resident. It says an extension must be no more than 20 working days, and in this case, it was provided within 10 working days. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were reasonable.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. Accurate and complete records can help a landlord in having oversight of ASB cases and when reviewing its handling of an ASB case through its complaint procedure. They can also help when providing evidence during other processes including our investigations and enforcement proceedings. As mentioned above, the landlord has not provided us with complete records relating to the resident’s ASB complaint. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. If it has not already done so, the landlord should review why this was and what steps it could take to prevent it repeating the same failings again.

Communication

45. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its communication failures with the resident. It aimed to put things right by outlining it would update the resident on a fortnightly basis in line with its ASB policy. If it has not already done so, the landlord should also ensure it applies its vulnerability and reasonable adjustment policy when considering how best to communicate with the resident going forward.