Vico Homes Limited (202414925)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414925

Vico Homes Limited

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The landlord’s complaint handling is also considered.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy that started on 22 December 2003. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a high-rise block. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has a learning disability and health issues.
On 31 March 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of reports of drug use in his building.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 April 2024. It set out the reports of ASB made by the resident and its responses. The landlord said it had investigated the reports but there had been insufficient evidence to proceed further, and it had closed the cases. The landlord said there had some “procedural errors” in its handling of the reports, but it was confident this had not affected the outcome. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 15 May 2024 the resident asked for his complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 29 April 2024. The landlord said the resident’s reports of ASB had been investigated thoroughly and in line with its ASB procedure. It said it had conducted unannounced visits to the block and the police had followed up the resident’s reports, but there had been insufficient evidence to take enforcement action. It said it had made wellbeing referrals to support the resident. The landlord said it had identified recordkeeping and procedural errors, but these would not have affected the outcome of the cases. The landlord awarded £240 compensation for the procedural errors. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident referred the complaint to us on 11 July 2024 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of ASB

On 18 April 2022 the resident told the landlord the smell of drugs was entering his property. The resident said he believed his neighbour (‘neighbour A’) was using drugs.
The landlord’s ASB policy includes “using and selling drugs” as an example of ASB.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states the landlord will:
1. Record all ASB reports and complete a risk assessment matrix (RAM).
2. Determine whether a report warrants investigation. The landlord can exercise discretion in making this assessment. An example of a report that may not be investigated is where the activity did not breach the conditions of the tenancy agreement.
3. Visit complainants within 5 working days. In serious cases the landlord will contact a complainant within 1 working day. The landlord will conduct an interview and where possible complete a case ‘action plan’ with the complainant and issue diary sheets. It will consider referrals to relevant agencies.
4. Aim to interview the perpetrator within 2 working days.
5. Keep a case open until all actions agreed with a complainant are completed. The landlord must explain to a complainant the reason for closing a case, prior to doing so.
There is no evidence the landlord the landlord completed a RAM when it received the resident’s reports. The landlord subsequently advised the resident to complete diary sheets to record any further incidents. However, there is no evidence the landlord then completed a case action plan with the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 May 2022 and said it had been unable to contact him since his reports. It asked if the resident wanted to pursue the matter. The landlord also said it was important to report any suspected drug use to the police.
The landlord’s records show it spoke with the resident on 10 May 2022 and explained all suspected drug use should be reported to the police. It said the police would provide a reference number, which would be passed to the landlord and could be used as evidence.
The resident made a report of suspected drug use at the building to the police on 26 May 2022.
The landlord tried, unsuccessfully to call neighbour A about the matter on 27 May 2022. It attempted to visit the neighbour and the resident on 1 June 2022, but neither were at home. The landlord’s records show during the visit it detected the smell of drugs but was unable to confirm if this was from the neighbour’s property. There is no evidence the landlord conducted a follow-up visit.
On 24 June 2022 the resident confirmed to the landlord the issue was ongoing but said the smell of drugs was not as strong. The landlord told the resident it would write to neighbour A to remind him of his tenancy obligations. The landlord has not provided a copy of the letter it sent to the neighbour A.
The resident told the landlord on 12 July 2022 the smell of drugs was preventing him from sleeping.
The landlord called the resident on 13 July 2022 but was unable to speak with him.
The evidence shows the resident made a further report about drug use at the building to police on 23 July 2022.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 29 July 2022, 2 August 2022 and 7 September 2022. On 7 October 2022 the landlord spoke with the resident, and he confirmed the situation seemed to have been resolved and he was happy for the case to be closed.
On 30 April 2023 the resident reported noise nuisance. The evidence shows the report concerned the same property, but that a different tenant (‘neighbour B’) now lived at the property. The resident told the landlord he asked neighbour B to stop making noise and 1 of the occupants responded aggressively.
The landlord conducted a risk assessment and determined the report to be ‘low level’. The landlord concluded the report did not to constitute ASB, nuisance or a breach of tenancy. The landlord failed to tell the resident his report would not be investigated.
On 25 May 2023 the resident reported the smell of drugs coming from the neighbour’s property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 June 2023. It said it had been unable to contact the resident to discuss the report. The landlord asked the resident to provide diary sheets within 7 days, or it would close the case.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 21 June 2023 and said any suspected drug use needed to be reported to the police. It said without police action there was little the landlord could do. The resident questioned whether making a report was effective. There is no evidence the landlord completed a case action plan with the resident.
The landlord contacted neighbour B the same day. Neighbour B told the landlord a visitor had smoked drugs at her property on 1 occasion. The landlord then wrote to neighbour B and set out her obligations under the tenancy agreement.
On 4 August 2023 the landlord responded to an enquiry from the resident’s MP. The landlord told the MP it was investigating the report made by the resident on 25 May 2023. It said it had written to the neighbour and would monitor the situation. It said the resident had refused to contact the police, which made tenancy enforcement action difficult.
The landlord said it carried out a quality assurance check of the case on 11 September 2023. This identified there was no action plan and advised a plan to be completed. There is no evidence an action plan was completed thereafter.
On 27 October 2023 the resident reported noise and the smell of drugs coming from neighbour B’s property. The police visited her but found no evidence of drug use. The landlord said it spoke with neighbour B about the reports of ASB, and she said the noise was due to a carpet being fitted. Neighbour B also made a counter allegation about the resident’s behaviour to the landlord.
The landlord visited the resident on 10 November 2023. It asked the resident to stay away from the neighbour and to provide evidence to support any further reports of drug use. Following the visit, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said comments made by the resident during the meeting were unacceptable and it reminded him of the requirement of the tenancy agreement not to “use violent, abusive or threatening behaviour or language” to landlord employees. The landlord said it would close the ASB case due to lack of evidence.
On 23 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had reviewed the information relating to a report of nuisance behaviour and would take no further action. The landlord then closed the case.
On 26 December 2023 the resident reported the smell of drugs coming from the neighbour’s property.
The landlord closed the case on 8 January 2024. It left a voicemail for the resident to tell him the case was closed as no further evidence was provided.
On 29 January 2024 the resident said the landlord had not acted on his reports of the smell of drugs in the building. The landlord visited the resident on 31 January 2024. It told the resident it was unable to act without evidence.
On 12 February 2024 neighbour B made a report to the landlord about the resident’s behaviour. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident on 26 February 2024 and said the tenancy agreement required him not to cause a nuisance, annoyance, disturbance or harassment to another person.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 February 2024 to request help to move to a different property. The landlord provided a medical application and advised the resident to complete the form and submit it to the local authority. There is no evidence the landlord offered to assist the resident with the process of completing the form.
On 31 March 2024 the resident reported the smell of drugs in the building. He asked to speak to the chief executive of the landlord. The resident asked why he should pay increased rent when the issues were ongoing. The landlord completed a risk assessment.
The landlord called the resident on 2 April 2024 but was unable to speak with him.
On 5 April 2024 the resident told the building caretaker he could smell drugs near the neighbour’s door. The caretaker went to the area concerned but could not confirm the presence of a smell of drugs.
The resident then attended the landlord’s office. He asked the landlord to knock on every door in the building to locate where drugs were being used. The landlord told the resident it was unable to do this.
On 15 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord said it had attempted, unsuccessfully to contact the resident. It restated the importance of reporting concerns about drug use to the police.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 April 2024. It set out the reports of ASB made by the resident and its responses. The landlord said it had investigated the reports but there had been insufficient evidence, and it had closed the cases. The landlord said there had some “procedural errors” in its handling of the reports, but it was confident this had not affected the outcome. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
After the resident asked for his case to be reviewed, the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 28 June 2024. It listed the reports of ASB made by the resident since 18 April 2022 and how it had responded. The landlord said the reports had been thoroughly investigated in accordance with its ASB procedure. The landlord said both it and the police had carried out unannounced visits at the building. It said there was insufficient evidence to act in response to the resident’s reports of the smell of drugs in the building. The landlord said it had made 5 wellbeing referrals for the resident and this support remained available to the resident. The landlord said its complaint investigation had identified recordkeeping and procedural errors, but it was satisfied these have not affected its management of the resident’s case. It awarded £240 compensation “by way of an apology for these errors”.
The resident told us on 14 April 2024 he found it difficult to continue living in the flat. He said he was in the process of moving to a different property.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and/or compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In summary, the landlord has said there were “procedural errors” in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, but that it did not believe these affected the case outcomes. The evidence shows the procedural errors included the landlord’s failure to conduct a RAM and failure to complete case action plans with the resident. A quality assessment identified this omission, however, the evidence shows the error was not corrected. The landlord also failed to tell the resident a report he made would not be investigated and that it intended to close another the case in relation to another, previously made report.
The resident has a learning difficulty and was distressed by the situation he was experiencing. In response to the resident saying he found the situation stressful, the landlord made ‘wellbeing referrals’.
On at least 3 occasions, the landlord failed to complete an action plan with the resident or offer the resident the opportunity to participate in drafting one. The action plan sets out the actions the landlord would take in response to an ASB report and the frequency of communication with the resident. The resident has a learning difficult and specific communication needs. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have used the action plan process to engage with the resident’s communication needs, managed his expectations and explained the investigation process. Had the landlord adhered to its ASB procedure this could have helped lessen the resident’s distress and accounted for the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord’s compensation award was calculated according to the number of procedural errors it had identified. It did not, however, account for the distress these errors caused to the resident or the detriment it had on the resident’s relationship with the landlord. The evidence shows the level of distress was aggravated by the landlord’s inability to engage with the resident. This was a failing by the landlord and not reflected in the landlord’s compensation award.
As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay a further £60 compensation to the resident. This brings the total compensation to £300, which falls within the range set out in our remedies guidance for failings that have an adverse impact on a resident.

Landlord’s complaint handling

On 1 February 2024 the resident’s MP asked the landlord if the resident had exhausted its complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action, by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The Code requires the landlord to log a complaint at stage 1 when it is received.
On 31 March 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states at stage 1 the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days. The policy states at stage 2 it will provide a policy within 20 working days. The policy states that if further time is needed to provide a response the landlord will agree this with the resident.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 2 April 2024.
On 16 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had been unable to contact the resident by phone to discuss the complaint and extended the response timeline to 30 April 2024.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 April 2024. This was within the amended response time the landlord had communicated to the resident.
On 15 May 2024 the resident asked for his complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s request on 22 May 2024.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 28 June 2024. This was 31 working days after the resident asked for his complaint to be reviewed and 11 days after the response timeline set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
In the response the landlord acknowledged the resident had said several times that he was dissatisfied with how the landlord had dealt with his reports of ASB. It said it should have logged a complaint after the MP’s enquiry on 1 February 2024. The landlord apologised to the resident for failing. It did not provide compensation.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged it failed to log a complaint in response to the resident’s dissatisfaction in its handling of ASB, or the MP’s enquiry. This delayed the resident’s access to the complaints process. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have compensated the resident for this, but it did not. As a result of these failings there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay £80 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £380 compensation. This comprises:
  1. £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. £80 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The landlord can deduct from this amount any award paid at stage 2. The compensation awarded by this Service should be paid direct to the resident and not to a rent or service charge account.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance of these orders to this Service within the specified dates above.