Salix Homes Limited (202507009)

Background

1. The resident has reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) including criminal activity from a neighbouring property’s residents and visitors for several years. He complained that the landlord did not take further action to stop the ASB by getting its own evidence to evict the neighbours instead of expecting him to provide this. The resident was also unhappy it sent him a warning intended for his neighbours and shared his evidence with the police without first telling him it might have to. He seeks for the landlord to change its procedure and resolve the ASB.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB including criminal activity from a neighbouring property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB including criminal activity from a neighbouring property.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s ASB reports and generally followed its policy to try and resolve this. However, it was responsible for some delays and lack of records and this and the fact that it sent him a letter for the neighbours showing his address affected their landlord tenant relationship and its ability to resolve the ASB.
6. There was a minor complaint handling delay at stage 1 by the landlord, its complaint responses did not fully remedy acknowledged failures, and it did not fully investigate all of the complaint at stage 2.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. We usually do not investigate complaints that fall properly within another Ombudsman’s, regulator’s, or complaint handling body’s jurisdiction. The resident has explained that he is unhappy with how the landlord handled the personal CCTV data he gave it and that the police then raided him for this. These issues fall properly within the Information Commissioner’s Office’s (ICO) and the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s (IOPC) jurisdiction, respectively. This is because the ICO considers complaints about the handling of personal data and the IOPC considers complaints about the police. We have therefore only investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s CCTV as part of his ASB reports, and not in relation to his data protection rights or police conduct.

What we investigated

8. The resident previously reported ASB including criminal activity from a neighbouring property’s residents and visitors to the landlord that it contacted him and the police about. It then responded to a 13 December 2023 report about them damaging property by twice writing to the neighbours from 11 January 2024 to attend interviews with it on 22 and 30 January 2024.
9. The neighbours did not attend the interviews so the landlord wrote  again to remind them that the behaviour was unacceptable and a breach of their tenancy agreement. It said it would closely monitor the neighbours, who risked further action including to evict them if it received more ASB reports about them. The landlord’s letter was undated. It included the neighbours’ names, but the address was the resident’s. The resident received the letter on 9 February 2024.
10. The landlord interviewed the neighbours on 15 February 2024. It also spoke with the resident on 8, 22 and 28 February 2024. The resident provided CCTV footage on 8 February 2024. However, on 28 February 2024, the landlord recorded that the resident had ‘decided not to give me the CCTV at this point as he is worried this could come back on him’.
11. The landlord’s above steps tried to follow its ASB, hate crime, and domestic abuse policy. This found all ASB, including nuisance and crime such as vandalism, to be unacceptable and said it would interview the parties within 5 working days for non-emergency cases. This was in line with the landlord’s tenancy agreements, which did not allow its residents or their visitors to cause or allow such ASB and allowed it to evict them for this. There was a delay of 20 working days in it inviting the neighbours to the first of the above interviews and of 33 working days before it visited the resident. However, it was appropriate that the landlord contacted them twice to do so and then tried to remind them of the above tenancy terms when they did not attend.
12. It is nevertheless concerning that the landlord did not give us the date of its undated second letter inviting the neighbours to the interview on 30 January 2024. It is even more concerning that the landlord’s third letter to the neighbours in February 2024 did not follow its policy by carrying out confidential, sensitive, and supportive ASB investigations. This is because that letter included the neighbours’ names but was addressed to the resident’s property and so was delivered to him by mistake. Given the neighbours names on the letter and the close proximity of the property, it could easily have been delivered to the neighbours (despite the incorrect address). This error by the landlord potentially put the resident at risk of identification and reprisal.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response addressed the above letter and the resident’s reports that his housing officer did not respond to him about this twice. It apologised and upheld this part of his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s distress and that the housing officer did not apologise to or discuss this with him. However, it then only confirmed that its governance officer had contacted him on 28 February 2024 to confirm this was a data breach and to ask him to return and delete any copies of the letter. It did not offer him any other remedies or take any other action for this. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not consider this further and only repeated its findings at stage 1, which is discussed below in the complaint handling section of this report.
14. This report will not consider the data protection aspect of the landlord sending the resident a letter for the neighbours showing his address for the reasons mentioned above. However, it was unreasonable that it did not do more to put things right for the distress it acknowledged this had caused him, as well as his housing officer’s failure to contact him about it at the time. It was also inappropriate that the landlord did not show the resident it had learnt from the outcome of this by taking steps to make sure such communication errors did not happen again. It would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles for it to have done so and this could have helped repair the landlord tenant relationship with the resident to progress his ASB case further.
15. Given the distress caused, the landlord should have also considered compensating the resident for its handling of the above letter, as recommended by its compensation policy and our compensation guidance. It was also a failure by it to not explain how it would stop its communication errors happening again. It is additionally concerning that the landlord did not give us details of the reports the resident made about this before his complaint, as it acknowledged that he previously contacted it about the letter at least twice. Its difficulties in trying to resolve his ASB case showed how important it was for it to have kept his confidence in its communications and handling of information.
16. This is because the resident told the landlord in February 2024 that he did not want to let it use his CCTV of the neighbours and their visitors causing noise and vandalism. He then asked it and the police to set up their own CCTV instead on 14 April 2024 and so it discussed this with the police and gave them reports of drug dealing and theft about the neighbours from the next day. However, the landlord told the resident on 17 April 2024 that any CCTV it set up would be limited by its privacy obligations so it needed to use his CCTV as evidence for legal action against them.
17. The landlord also responded to the further ASB reports about the neighbours with an undated letter inviting them to another interview on 22 April 2024, which they attended. It then responded to another report of them causing noise on 28 April 2024 by repeating its above warning to them in another undated letter. It is again concerning that the landlord did not record the dates of either letter, but it did interview the resident and the neighbours within its policy’s above timescale. The landlord also updated the resident monthly from 22 April 2024, which was appropriate, and contacted the police about reports of further ASB from the neighbours on 13, 20, and 22 May 2024. This was in line with the policy’s requirements for it to give the resident progress updates and work with the police.
18. This meant it was also appropriate that the landlord visited the neighbours with the police on 25 July 2024. The police then applied to the court on 2 August 2024 for a closure order against the neighbours’ property to stop any visitors from going there and causing ASB. The landlord discussed this internally and with its solicitors, the police, and the local council from 5 August 2024. It also told the neighbours to improve the condition of their garden on that date and that it would consider legal action to evict them if they were charged and convicted because of the ongoing police investigation of them. The landlord got advice about this from its solicitors from 10 September 2024 to 2 October 2024, who then gave the neighbours notice it intended to apply to evict them on 15 October 2024.
19. It was appropriate that the landlord followed its policy by continuing to work with the police and the local council and by getting advice about taking legal action against the neighbours. It was also reasonable that it contacted the council on 31 October 2024 for advice about putting up CCTV with them to get evidence about the neighbours because the resident felt it was unsafe for him to let it use his CCTV. This was in line with his previous request for the landlord to do so in April 2024. The landlord has indicated that it also considered installing CCTV in a nearby void property, but it was unable to identify a suitable property. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm this.
20. It is concerning that it took the landlord over 8 months to discuss the option of installing CCTV in the street with the council after the resident explained in February 2024 that he did not want his CCTV to be used. It is unfortunate that the landlord found that it was not suitable or realistic for it to put up CCTV, but it should not have taken it until 6 November 2024 to confirm this to the resident.
21. The police then gave the landlord a witness statement on 3 November 2024 supporting its legal action to evict the neighbours. This was for reports of criminal activity including drugs, theft, and violence, which it updated the resident about on 22 November 2024. However, from 7 January 2025 the landlord’s internal panel reviewed the legal action to evict the neighbours at their request and found there was not enough evidence to do so. It noted that their circumstances, the closure order, and the fact that other neighbours had not reported any more ASB from them meant its solicitors had advised it needed more evidence for the legal action to be successful. The landlord nevertheless agreed to review this again if criminal charges were brought against the neighbours.
22. The landlord’s above actions followed its policy. This required it to consider using legal action to try and stop the most dangerous ASB from happening if it was appropriate and proportionate to do so. The policy also said the landlord had to do so effectively. It was therefore reasonable that it warned and then gave the neighbours notice about legal action to evict them in light of the evidence it had of ASB from their property. However, it was also appropriate that the landlord then followed its solicitors’ expert advice that it would not proportionate or effective to continue legal action without more evidence after it tried to get this from the resident, the police, and the local council. It is also positive that it agreed to review this again if it got more evidence.
23. The landlord told the resident the above review of its legal action against the neighbours was happening the day after they requested this on 29 October 2024. However, it is concerning that it took until 24 January 2025 to reach a review decision and then waited until 13 and 17 February 2025 to give this to the neighbours and to him, respectively. However, the landlord did contact the resident on the date it reached the review decision to say that it had done so.
24. The landlord also contacted the resident within its policy’s above timescale on 24 January 2025 after he gave it CCTV of vandalism from the neighbours on 14 January 2025. It additionally previously managed his expectations about its inability to put up its own CCTV on 25 October 2024 and 6 November 2024, and about the difficulty of taking legal action without his CCTV on 30 October 2024 and 14 and 22 November 2024. The landlord also offered the resident measures to protect his property and to refer him for support on 14 November 2024. Its complaint responses described its above actions after he complained that it did not intend to take any action against the neighbours and put him at risk by relying on his CCTV instead of getting its own evidence to do so.
25. The landlord’s complaint responses added that its above regular contact with the resident had included checks on his safety and wellbeing and offers of safety measures such as additional locks and letterbox closers. It also said that it offered to consider moving him as a priority but that he declined this as well as the safety measures. The landlord therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaints about its handling of his ASB reports, apart from sending him the above warning letter for the neighbours. Its above actions were in line with its policy’s requirements for it to give him regular progress updates, work with other agencies, consider proportionate and effective legal action for dangerous ASB, and consider his welfare.
26. However, the landlord was also responsible for delaying some of its communication and responses to the resident’s ASB reports, sending him a letter for the neighbours showing his address, and failing to remedy or learn from this. It also did not record the dates of some of its ASB letters. The landlord’s actions contributed to the resident’s lack of confidence in letting it use his CCTV as evidence for its legal action to evict the neighbours, and to its resulting decision to stop this. Its actions also contributed to his decision not to share evidence with it and the police. The resident has since given us further evidence of serious ASB, which is outside the scope of this investigation as it has not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, but that shows this is unresolved.
27. Our decision, orders, and recommendations have taken into account that the landlord was generally responsive to the resident’s ASB reports and took steps to try and resolve this in line with its policy. These have also considered our compensation guidance’s recommendation for failures that negatively affected the resident.

28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint 1 working day later than its customer feedback and complaints policy’s 5-working-day timescale. It then extended its 10-working-day stage 1 response timescale within that timeframe by another 10 working days and responded within the new timescale. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint within its policy’s timescales. The policy was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code) and there is no evidence the resident was negatively affected by the minor delay at stage 1.
29. However, the Code also required the landlord to investigate all of the elements of the complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure. Its stage 1 response addressed each part of the complaint in detail but its stage 2 response only repeated the stage 1 decision about it sending the resident a letter for the neighbours showing his address without giving any reasons or further details. There was therefore no evidence that this part of the complaint was fully investigated at stage 2, contrary to the Code. The above ASB handling section of this report also confirms that neither of the landlord’s complaint responses offered a remedy beyond an apology or showed any learning in relation to the above letter, which we have remedied in that section.
30. Our decision, orders, and recommendations have taken into account that the landlord’s complaint handling delay at stage 1 was minor, its stage 1 response fully addressed the complaint, and its stage 2 response gave a decision on each part of the complaint. These have also considered our compensation guidance’s recommendation for minor complaint handling failures.

Learning

31. The landlord’s complaint responses did not identify any learning for it from the resident’s case. However, this report has found improvements it could have made in its handling of his ASB reports and the associated complaint. The landlord could improve this in the future by following our dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord’s record keeping was not accurate enough for it to fully follow its policy’s requirement for it to carry out confidential, sensitive, and supportive ASB investigations and record the dates of all of its ASB correspondence. It could improve this in the future by making sure it applies our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management to its handling of ASB.

Communication

33. Some of the landlord’s ASB communication and its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement was slightly delayed and its stage 2 response did not fully address all of the complaint. Its future communication could be improved by making sure it follows its policies’ timescales and the Code’s requirement to investigate all elements of the complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure.