Places for People Group Limited (202318254)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about ASB involving another resident. She included signatures from 7 other neighbours to support her complaint. The resident said the ASB had been ongoing for 10 years that involved noise nuisance, cannabis smoking, irrational behaviour, and damage to the alleged perpetrator’s property. The resident had lost faith in the landlord resolving the situation and told the landlord she was not prepared to continue to complete diary sheets.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also considered the associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found service failure with the landlord’s response to concerns about ASB.
5. We have found service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not evidence it followed its ASB policy by completing a risk assessment and action plan on the reported incidents of ASB.
7. While the landlord recognised its stage 1 complaint handling failures it did not address the resident’s group complaint or provide clear records of the dates of its actions.

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. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will take a victim-centred approach by making it easy to report ASB. It commits to complete a risk assessment when it receives an initial report of ASB and complete a written action plan with all complainants. It will also record and monitor incidents of ASB and take reasonable, proportionate action to deal with the complaint.
9. The resident reports that the ASB had been ongoing for approximately 10 years. However, in the interest of fairness and in line with the complaints process, our investigation will focus on the period from 2022 up to the landlord’s final complaint response issued in December 2023. For background context only, we may make reference to incidents reported after the landlord’s final complaint response.
10. The landlord’s records show that between November 2022 and August 2023 there were ongoing communications between the resident, the landlord, and the alleged perpetrator regarding reports of noise nuisance and what the landlord described as reports of low level ASB.
11. During this period, the resident raised concerns about the prolonged nature of the ASB, stating that it had been ongoing for around 10 years. The resident alleged that the perpetrator was stalking a young mother, causing noise disturbance, smoking strong cannabis, and damaging the alleged perpetrator’s car. She explained that she was unwilling to complete further diary sheets, as she did not consider the “system to be fit for purpose.”
12. The landlord’s records show that it contacted the alleged perpetrator to discuss the concerns raised and advised the resident to continue completing incident logs so that evidence could be gathered. While these actions represented positive steps, there is no evidence to show that the landlord completed a risk assessment following the resident’s initial reports, or that it created a written action plan in line with its ASB policy. The landlord’s lack of record keeping was inappropriate.
13. In September 2023, the resident submitted a complaint about the ASB. She told the landlord that the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour was “challenging” and that there had been an “obvious deterioration in his mental health.” She described him as an “unstable individual” and stated that the police had been called on numerous occasions. The resident told the landlord she wanted the alleged perpetrator to be evicted from his home.
14. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in October 2023. In its response, the landlord stated that it had not identified any failings in its actions. It explained that it did not have sufficient evidence to take enforcement action against the alleged perpetrator. The landlord reiterated the importance of providing evidence through diary logs and offered advice on how the resident should continue to report ASB.
15. The resident escalated her complaint in mid‑November 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in December 2023. In this response, the landlord reiterated its earlier position and provided further detail on the level of evidence required to pursue court action. It also outlined its contact with the police, noting that they had not raised any concerns regarding the welfare of the alleged perpetrator.
16. In conclusion, the threshold of evidence for a landlord to consider repossession proceedings on ASB grounds is high. The landlord did not have enough evidence to substantiate the alleged ASB. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to explain and manage expectations that it could not take enforcement action against the alleged perpetrator. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it complied with its ASB policy. In particular, there is no evidence that it completed a risk assessment following the resident’s initial reports or, where appropriate, put a written action plan in place. For these reasons, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the ASB. Given the resident recently told us that issues had improved over a 1-year period, we have ordered a landlord apology for its identified failures and no further actions.

17. The resident raised her complaint on 7 August 2023 and then again on 12 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 October 2023 and requested an extension of time to respond until 18 October 2023. The stage 1 response was sent on 18 October 2023.
18. The landlord acknowledged it had not logged her complaint of 7 August 2023, it apologised and offered her £75 compensation including learning from the complaint in relation to staff training. The landlord’s response was reasonable, resolution focused and aimed to put things right for the resident. The level of compensation is aligned to our compensation guidance.
19. The landlord’s complaint records refer to the resident’s escalation request on 18 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 November 2023 and responded on 5 December 2023 and in compliance with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 20 working day timeframe.
20. In conclusion, while the landlord recognised its complaint handling failures at stage 1, there were 2 issues it did not address:
    1. Its position on whether it would consider a group complaint given the resident had signatures from other residents.
    2. Its poor record keeping. Some dates in its correspondence did not align to its actions.
21. For these reasons, we have found service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. While we have not ordered any additional compensation, the landlord must review its failures to ensure learning is actioned.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record keeping let it down. It is important that the landlord keeps robust ASB and complaint handling records to demonstrate its audit of actions and satisfy itself that it is fully compliant with its policies. The landlord should review the complaint and identify learning. It should refer to our Centre for Learning for best practice.