My Space Housing Solutions (202424079)

Background

1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, she resided in supported accommodation provided by the landlord. She complained that the landlord was not effectively responding to her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB by neighbours.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB by neighbours.
   2. Complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord’s apology and compensation offer was proportionate redress for the failings we found in our investigation.

Recommendations

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

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

5. The resident told the landlord that its handling of the issues had a detrimental impact on her health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

6. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to keep adequate records of its actions in response to the resident’s ASB reports throughout this case. This has meant that we have not been able to assess if all its responses were proportionate in the circumstances. This investigation, has therefore, relied on the evidence available to determine this case.
7. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. When this is the case, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and identified learning) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
8. Despite the resident reporting several instances of ASB between January and July 2021, there is no evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case. This meant it did not implement the actions set out in its ASB policy, such as agreeing an action plan with the resident. Its failure to adequately respond delayed a resolution. It also likely led to the resident feeling frustrated and ignored.
9. Following further reports of ASB from the resident in February 2022 the landlord took appropriate action. This included issuing a tenancy warning letter and acceptable behaviour agreement to the neighbour. It carried out regular risk assessments and reviewed diary sheets it had provided to her.
10. That said, it failed to keep the resident updated regarding the actions it was taking to address the matter. This led to her having to chase it for updates, causing avoidable time and trouble.
11. The resident repeatedly reported ASB between February and October 2022. Although the landlord visited her home and issued diary sheets, it took no further action. It closed the ASB case on 28 September 2022 without notifying her, contrary to its ASB policy.
12. In February 2023 a serious incident occurred at the neighbouring property involving the police. The landlord appropriately visited the resident and made referrals to its ASB team. It subsequently served a notice of seeking possession to the neighbouring tenants and re-housed them on 17 March 2023 to seek to resolve the ASB.
13. On 26 February 2023 the resident told the landlord that another neighbour was causing ASB. The evidence shows that between March and May 2023 the landlord took proportionate action to address her reports. This included regular home visits, issuing tenancy warning letters and regularly assessing any risk involved. The landlord subsequently re-housed the perpetrator on 22 May 2023 to resolve the matter.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 response was comprehensive and demonstrated it had investigated matters thoroughly. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s earlier ASB reports. It recognised the impact of its service failures and offered £650 compensation for the substantive issue. It identified learning points to avoid repeating its failings.
15. The landlord’s offer of £650 was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which significantly affected a resident. In our view, this, along with its apology and identified learning was proportionate and in line with our dispute resolution principles.
16. The landlord apologised in its final response for any confusion caused by its stage 1 wording. It clearly set out its position on the issues she had disputed, including ASB report dates and its failure to mention the resident’s health conditions. It explained that it had considered these in its compensation offer. It also recognised the resident’s time and effort in escalating the complaint and providing further information. It offered a further £200 compensation for any miscommunication and time and trouble. This was reasonable and demonstrates it listened to the resident’s concerns.
17. The landlord said at both complaint stages that it could not investigate the resident’s concerns about a staff member’s conduct during her initial ASB case. There is no evidence of the resident raising the issue at the time, and the staff member had since left the organisation. Due to this it was unable to use its internal procedures to investigate. This was reasonable in the circumstances. We encourage residents to raise complaints when problems occur or within a reasonable period, usually within 12 months.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
19. The landlord failed to record the resident’s complaint on 26 May 2022 and 19 August 2022, despite her chasing a response. It only did so following further contact from her nearly 2 years later, on 30 July 2024. Therefore, it was reasonable that it used its discretion to investigate issues that had occurred outside of the 12-month time period mentioned in its policy.
20. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it apologised for its delay to log the resident’s complaint. Although it mentioned her complaint made in August 2022, it overlooked original contact from her in April 2022. It identified learning that it had implemented following involvement from this Service and offered £100 compensation.
21. The landlord subsequently considered events from 2021 onwards during its investigation, which mitigates its failure to acknowledge the resident’s original complaint date. Although omitting this date was a shortcoming, we do not consider it as warranting a failure finding. Its £100 compensation was within the range of awards where a failing adversely affected the resident. Combined with its apology and identified learning, the response was proportionate and aligned with our dispute resolution principles.

Learning

22. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event. Had the landlord acted within its policy guidelines it would have avoided the failings identified in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of actions completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

24. In this case, delays in the complaint process occurred because its housing management and complaints teams did not communicate effectively. It should put a clear process in place to support good internal communication, keep residents informed, and track the progress of complaints.