Southern Housing (202214261)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her next door neighbours. The reported behaviour included verbal abuse, threats, assault, noise and other ASB such as throwing stones. The resident said this had caused her whole family distress, with her 3 autistic children particularly impacted and living in fear. She complained the landlord had not taken her reports seriously. She was not satisfied with its final response to her complaint and asked us to investigate.

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 investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

6. The landlord did not carry out a thorough investigation in line with its ASB policy. It delayed in completing a risk assessment and its communications with the resident were poor.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint. It only responded when we intervened. It then delayed in escalating the complaint to stage 2 in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.

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.

8. Throughout the first half of 2023, the resident reported ASB to the landlord, completed diary sheets and submitted noise recordings. She did all that was required of her to bring the matter to the landlord’s attention, and she reported incidents to the police where appropriate. It was evident from her communications that she and her family were distressed and feared for their safety. The landlord, however, failed to handle her reports in line with its ASB policy.
9. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took any investigative action in response to the resident’s reports during the first half of 2023.For example, there is no evidence that it attempted to speak to the neighbour about the reports during this time. The first record of it having contacted the neighbour during 2023 was in August when it sent her a warning letter.
10. We also have seen no evidence that the landlord spoke to the police in April 2023 when the resident told it she had made a police report about stone throwing. This was despite the resident providing it was a police reference number for her report. It was not until she reported the later assault on her son on 5 July 2023 that the landlord appears to have contacted the police.
11. The landlord’s communications with the resident throughout this time period were also poor. For example:
    1. It did not acknowledge or respond to the noise recordings she submitted through a mobile phone app between January 2023 and April 2023.
    2. It sent an email to acknowledge some, but not all, or her email reports between April and mid-July 2023. In the acknowledgement emails it said it had passed her reports to the relevant staff member who would investigate and respond to her. However, the first record of that staff member contacting the resident was in mid-July 2023 when she asked to speak with her about her formal complaint. This meant the resident received no substantive response from the landlord to her reports for over 6 months. This was contrary to its ASB policy which required it to agree an action plan with her and provide updates at least once every 15 working days.
12. A significant failure by the landlord was that it did not complete a risk assessment until 11 July 2023. It completed the assessment upon receiving the resident’s report her son had been assaulted. It told us it did not complete a risk assessment sooner because up until then it had been treating the resident’s reports as “estate nuisance”.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy explains that when it receives an ASB report, it may deal with the report under its ASB Procedure or its Good Neighbourhood Management Procedure. The policy states it will deal with reports as the latter if they are a particular type of ASB, such as dog nuisance and misuse of communal areas. In other words, if the report relates to estate nuisance. Its policy requires it to complete a risk assessment only for reports it is dealing with under its ASB Procedure.
14. As outlined above, we have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports at all between January 2023 and mid-July 2023, regardless of categorisation. We have seen no records to show that it considered the nature of the reports and decided to categorise them as relating to estate nuisance only. We acknowledge that some of the reports the resident made during this time, such as dogs barking and shouting in the street, could reasonably categorised as such. However, some of the reports she made in April and May 2023 were of ASB directed towards her and her family personally. For example, threats of assault, verbal abuse and her house being singled out when stones were being thrown. The landlord failed to categorise these as ASB in line with its policy which led to a delay in it completing a risk assessment.
15. The landlord’s ASB policy explains that a risk assessment enables it to identify any vulnerabilities and the impact of ASB on residents. It creates an opportunity for it to discuss next steps with the resident about what action it will take. The risk assessment score influences how the landlord will respond to further reports. If the risk assessment score is high, it will respond to further reports within one working day. If it is medium or low, it will respond within 5 working days. Had the landlord completed and acted upon a risk assessment sooner, it may have avoided some of the communication and investigative failures we have identified above.
16. Another significant failure by the landlord was that it did not seek legal advice. The warning letter it sent the neighbour in October 2022 stated that it was the third formal warning letter it had issued. The other 2 had been sent over 12 months previously. The letter set out the behaviour the neighbour and her family should refrain from. It explained that the landlord could consider taking legal action against her if it received any further reports within the next 12 months.
17. Over the next 10 months the resident made numerous reports that the neighbour and her family were behaving as the letter warned them not to. The neighbour had already told the landlord in October 2022 she did not want to take part in mediation. It had also tried to get her to agree to an ABA around that time, but she had refused to engage with it. Given this, we would have expected the landlord to seek legal advice about next steps. Instead, it appears to have done nothing until August 2023 when it issued another warning letter.
18. The landlord said in its stage 1 response in July 2023 that it intended to refer the case to its in-house legal team for advice. However, by the time of its stage 2 response 3 months later, it still had not obtained that advice. Instead, it had changed its position. It suggested in its stage 2 response that it would only get the neighbour to sign an ABA if mediation, which she had agreed to in August 2023, failed. If she then refused to sign the ABA, only then would it make the referral to its legal team.
19. This was unreasonable, in our view, given the long running history of the case and the escalation of threats to physical violence in July 2023. We recognise the legal advice may not have changed the action the landlord took at that time. However, it would have ensured it was fully informed and ready to act if the mediation failed, without the need to spend further time seeking legal advice.
20. The resident has now moved out of the property and is no longer a tenant of the landlord. We have therefore not ordered it to take any further action in relation to her reports of ASB. However, we have recommended that if it receives ASB reports from other residents about the same individuals, it seeks legal advice given the history.
21. It is evident from the resident’s communications with the landlord that the failures in its handling of her ASB reports caused her significant distress and inconvenience. In recognition of this, and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, we have ordered it to pay her £500 compensation.

22. The landlord has a complaints policy which complies with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. This requires it to acknowledge new complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. It must then issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of sending its acknowledgements.
23. The resident initially complained about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports within an email dated 14 September 2022. Even though she specifically asked it to treat the email as a formal complaint, it did not acknowledge this request. It did not log the email as a complaint and failed to issue a stage 1 response in line with its complaints policy.
24. This led to the resident spending time and trouble contacting us. Following our intervention, the landlord wrote to the resident on 22 June 2023 to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint. This meant it was due to issue its stage 1 response by 6 July 2023. However, it wrote to the resident on this date to advise it required up to 10 further working days to reply. This was in keeping with the extension provisions of its complaints policy and it then issued the stage 1 response within this revised timeframe.
25. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 July 2023 and asked it to escalate her complaint. It failed to acknowledge this request within 5 working days as required by its policy. This led to the resident spending time and trouble in sending 4 further emails in which she asked the landlord if it had received her request. It took until 12 September 2023 before it sent her an acknowledgement.
26. The landlord apologised to the resident within its acknowledgement email for its delay in escalating the complaint. It said it would consider this within its stage 2 review of her complaint. However, when it issued its stage 2 response, it made no further comment about its delay. This was unreasonable given it had taken 50 working days in total to issue the response. It should have apologised and offered her compensation in line with its compensation framework which states it will offer £50 for complaint handling failures.
27. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. This is to compensate the resident for her time and trouble in pursuing the landlord for responses to her initial complaint and escalation request.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord should have kept a full record of all the ASB reports made by the resident. However, in its stage 1 complaint response it overlooked that she had submitted noise app recordings from January 2023 onwards. It also asked her in the response to complete an ASB diary log of incidents dating back 18 months. It should have already had a record of these. It said in the response it had spoken to her in mid-July 2023 but provided us with no record of this discussion. This is poor record keeping. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023), which sets out best practice and makes recommendations for landlords.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It delayed in acknowledging her reports of ASB and failed to provide substantive responses prior to investigating her complaint. Even after it issued its stage 1 response, it was slow to acknowledge her further ASB reports.