Places for People Group Limited (202330742)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. He complained to the landlord about how it was handling his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by other tenants living in his building. The reported ASB included noise, drug use and drug dealing. He told the landlord he was a former drug addict so found this particularly difficult. He suggested that it had intentionally housed the other tenants there to harass him and make him move out.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of ASB reports.
   2. Response to harassment concerns.
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 ASB reports.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to harassment concerns.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of ASB reports

7. The landlord did not handle the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. It failed to put in place an action plan and complete a risk assessment. Its communications were poor and it did not keep the resident updated on action it was taking to address the ASB.

Response to harassment concerns

8. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable and evidence-based.

Handling of the complaint

9. The landlord delayed in logging the complaint and responding in line with its 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.

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.

What we have not looked at

10. This investigation focussed on the resident’s ASB reports in the 12 months before his complaint up until the landlord issued its stage 2 response (December 2022 to April 2024). We have not investigated any ASB reports the resident made after this. We understand he has recently raised a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB and the landlord has issued a stage 1 response. If he escalates that complaint and is unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response, he may then refer it to us.
11. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of ASB in his building has had an adverse impact on his mental and physical health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for him to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any 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 looked at

12. The landlord is required by its ASB policy to take a “victim-centred approach” when investigating ASB reports. We are not satisfied that it took such an approach in this case.
13. We have seen no evidence that it agreed an action plan with the resident at any stage during the period we investigated. This was despite him reporting numerous incidents of ASB from 2 sources. This is contrary to its ASB policy which requires it to complete a written action plan for all residents who report ASB.
14. We similarly have seen no evidence it completed a risk assessment. Its ASB policy states it should do so in all cases to understand the severity and impact on the victim. The resident in this case is a former drug addict. He told the landlord that being exposed to drug use and dealing in his building was particularly difficult for him as a result. This vulnerability made it all the more important for the landlord to consider risk.
15. The landlord asked the resident on a number of occasions if he had support and it signposted him to support services. This was good practice. However, this is not the same as a risk assessment. When we spoke to the resident he told us that the landlord had asked to complete a risk assessment with him and he refused. We do not know when this conversation occurred. However, if this was the reason the landlord did not complete a risk assessment, it should have clearly recorded this on its ASB case file.
16. The landlord took robust action to address the behaviour of the tenant in flat B. During 2023 it began enforcement proceedings, resulting in the tenant’s eviction in September 2024. We do not know, however, what action it took in relation to the tenant of flat A. The resident provided it with sound recordings of flat A and diary sheets in December 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt and said it would review the evidence. However, its records do not show if it did so, what its findings were, and if it communicated this to the resident. The only thing we can say with certainty is that it received the evidence.
17. As there was no action plan in place, there was no agreement between the landlord and resident about how often it would provide him with updates. It said in its stage 1 response on 16 February 2024 that it would provide him with a “more detailed update in due course”. We have seen no evidence that it provided any such update prior to sending its stage 2 response on 19 April 2024. Its records reflect that the only contact during this 2 month time period was instigated by the resident. This included him sending it the audio recording of staff and making one further report of an ASB incident.
18. The resident reported the further ASB incident, which involved flat A, on 29 February 2024. In line with its ASB policy the landlord should have responded to this report within 5 working days. It did not so until 22 March 2024. It said it was working with flat A to resolve the reported issues but provided no further information.
19. The landlord therefore did not provide the resident with the “more detailed update” it committed to in its stage 1 response. It failed to acknowledge this in its stage 2 response which provided no further detail on the action it was taking in relation to either flat.
20. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of his ASB reports.

21. The resident suggested in his complaint that the landlord had intentionally moved unsuitable residents into his building to harass him and make him move. His complaint was against the landlord generally and he did not name any specific staff members.
22. The landlord addressed this in its complaint responses. It assured the resident it would never intentionally house someone who was likely to breach their tenancy agreement by causing ASB. It explained it had applied its sensitive lettings policy when filling empty flats in his building. This meant it had carried out extra checks on prospective tenants. It acknowledged this did not guarantee it would always get it right and that some people who flagged no concerns could go on to cause a nuisance. It assured the resident it had no interest in trying to make him leave his home. In the absence of any further evidence to support the resident’s claims, this was a reasonable response to his concerns.
23. During the stage 2 investigation, the complaint handler and another staff member listened to the recording in which the resident suggested staff were talking about him. They could not hear any audible words. We have also listened to the recording during our investigation and similarly could not hear the words the resident said were spoken. The landlord reasonably suggested in its stage 2 response that if he provided a clearer recording it would review this. He did not provide any further recording. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable.

24. The landlord has a complaints policy that aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy requires it to acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. It must then issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The policy also includes provision for extending these deadlines.
25. The landlord failed to comply with its policy at both stages. It did not acknowledge this in either complaint response. Its failures were as follows:
    1. It did not acknowledge or log the resident’s complaint in December 2023.
    2. When the resident followed this up in January 2024, it apologised for its 5 week delay in logging the complaint. It said it would consider this during its stage 1 investigation. However, it did not acknowledge this delay in its stage 1 response.
    3. It was 21 working days after it acknowledged receipt of the complaint before it issued its stage 1 response. It did not tell the resident in advance that its response would be delayed. It did not acknowledge the 11 day delay within its response.
    4. The resident does not appear to have received the stage 2 response until 35 working days after the landlord acknowledged receipt of his escalation request. The response was contained within a letter dated 19 working days after the acknowledgement. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord sent this by post or email to the resident on this date. The only evidence we have seen is that the resident emailed it after 35 working days and asked it to send him its stage 2 response. It sent him a copy of the stage 2 letter that day by email.
26. The landlord’s delays at both stages meant the resident spent time chasing it for a response. To compensate him for this time and trouble, and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay him £100.

Learning

Victim-centred approach to ASB

27. We remind the landlord that, in line with its policy, it should adopt a victim-centred approach when responding to reports of ASB. This includes completing actions plans and risk assessments, keeping victims regularly updated and considering vulnerabilities.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord provided us with limited ASB records for the time period we investigated. We do not know if this is because it took limited action and had limited contact with the resident, or because it failed to record all action and contact. This contributed to our finding of maladministration in its handling of the ASB reports.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communications with the resident were poor. It was responsive, rather than proactive, and failed to provide him with regular case updates.