Acis Group Limited (202009656)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009656

Acis Group Limited

30 June 2023

 

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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbouring properties, and;
    2. an email sent to the resident not intended for her which the resident felt was derogatory.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2014. The property is a two-bedroom house in a cul-de-sac with approximately 30 dwellings.
  2. The resident occupies the property with her teenage daughter.
  3. The resident began reporting anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the landlord in 2019. The ASB continued throughout 2020 and 2021 and involved several households in the street. Throughout 2020 there was a marked deterioration in relations between the resident, her immediate neighbour, and several households in the street leading to a high number of reports of ASB from the resident.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB. The landlord’s response was that it had acted in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  5. In her stage 1 complaint the resident also complained about an email the landlord sent to her by mistake that the resident felt was derogatory. The landlord’s final response was that it had given a sincere written apology, had discussed the matter with the individual concerned, and provided training to its staff team on organisational standards.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. On 24 September 2021 the landlord declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2 stating that it had addressed the complaint fully at stage 1, all the pertinent information had been considered, and no new information or facts had been provided. It further stated the investigation and response were factually correct and it had completed the actions agreed in its stage 1 response. Therefore, it considered its complaint process had been completed.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with this and brought her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. To resolve the issues the resident seeks compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident.
  3. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states “We strive for people to feel safe and secure in their homes and communities. In our management of ASB we will:
    1. Adopt a risk-based approach ensuring victims are at the centre of our actions, take quick and decisive action wherever this is possible.
    2. Adopt a professional and objective approach to dealing with all matters.
    3. Work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and resolve ASB where appropriate.”
  2. In November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to advise she had been told neighbours were speaking about her and that the neighbour in the adjoining property had been making unacceptable noise. The same day the landlord provided the resident with diary sheets to complete and return and advised it would monitor the situation. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy and procedure.
  3. The documents provided to the Ombudsman demonstrate the landlord correctly identified that the alleged perpetrator was vulnerable and had high support needs. Documents demonstrate it wrote to the alleged perpetrator and the alleged perpetrator’s support worker to advise them that it was going to investigate the resident’s complaint of unacceptable noise. In the letter the landlord cautioned the alleged perpetrator that enforcement action could be taken.
  4. On 3 December 2019, the landlord updated the resident and advised her that it had reviewed the case and it would install noise recording equipment at her property which it duly did.
  5. Throughout December 2019 the resident submitted 8 online reports about banging and noise from the neighbour, however, the noise monitoring equipment did not provide any evidence to support the allegations of deliberate noise.
  6. On 31 December 2019, the resident reported that she had been verbally abused on her doorstep by her neighbour. In response to this report, the landlord visited the resident jointly with a PCSO on the next working day to discuss the December issues. The landlord also interviewed the alleged perpetrator on the same day.
  7. The documents provided demonstrate the alleged perpetrator was spoken to and given strong words of advice. In the circumstances, the actions and outcome of the landlord’s joint visits with the police were proportionate and appropriate.
  8. In February 2020, to find a resolution the landlord made a referral to Lincolnshire police service to facilitate a restorative justice process between the resident and her neighbour. Considering the ongoing and entrenched nature of the dispute the landlord’s referral to the restorative justice practitioner was appropriate multi -agency working.
  9. During March 2020, the resident continued to report low-level nuisance and on 17 March 2020 the landlord and police convened a joint meeting to discuss the case. On 23 March, a ‘stay home’ order was issued because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the documents provided appear to indicate a cessation in the difficulties between the households.
  10. However, during May to August 2020 there was a severe decline in neighbour relations. The landlord held an ASB reduction meeting with West Lindsey police team where a joint decision was made to issue several households in the street (including the resident) with an Acceptable Behaviour Contract. The contracts were issued to the households concerned in person by the landlord and police.
  11. During 2020 the landlord continued to hold regular ad-hoc ASB reduction meetings with West Lindsey police team to review the progress of the situation and agree and assign actions. The Ombudsman finds the landlord worked consistently and effectively with West Lindsey police team to manage the ASB.
  12. In September 2020, the resident activated a community trigger. As per the requirements of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, the case was reviewed and discussed in detail at the September ASB reduction meeting.
  13. The agencies present at the community trigger review meeting were the landlord, West Lincolnshire District Council and West Lindsey police team. The outcome of the review was no further recommendations or actions for the landlord in its approach to the case and the case would continue to be monitored by all the agencies through the monthly ASB reduction meeting.
  14. In October 2020 at the ASB reduction meeting the actions noted were the landlord and a named police officer from West Lindsey police team would act as specific points of contact for each other going forward. The Ombudsman finds the landlord had effective communication plans in place to manage and monitor the ASB.
  15. At the November 2020 ASB reduction meeting the landlord advised the agencies present that it had received several complaints about dog fouling on communal grass. The landlord identified there was a lack of evidence about which household caused the issue and adopted a fair and consistent approach by writing to all dog owners in the street.
  16. The records show that in the early part of 2021 the resident reported a wide range of issues to the landlord such as staring, verbal abuse and filming of her movements. These reports were considered by the landlord and the police and given an outcome of no further action due to lack of any evidence. However, the case was kept open for monitoring by the police and the landlord.
  17. In June 2021 the landlord offered the resident a management move as a solution to the issues. The landlord’s offer was sensible but does not appear to have been taken up by the resident.
  18. Looking at all the circumstances of the case the Ombudsman finds the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB robustly and in accordance with its policy and procedures. It provided the personal emails of officers managing the case, correctly categorised the resident’s reports, and responded in line with its published timescales. At times, the resident exhibited challenging behaviour, and this was handled appropriately by the landlord.
  19. There was an appropriate level of oversight of the case by senior managers of the landlord and importantly the landlord met its policy aim by engaging and working effectively with partner agencies such as West Lindsey police team and West Lincolnshire District Council before, during, and after the time of the pandemic.
  20. Accordingly, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB.

In respect of an email sent to the resident not intended for her which the resident felt was derogatory.

  1. On 28 May 2020, the landlord was in communication with the resident by telephone about the ASB issues. Following this, an officer of the landlord mistakenly sent the resident an email that was intended for a colleague. The resident felt the email concerning her was derogatory and complained.
  2. The officer concerned immediately apologised to the resident and informed her line manager who also verbally apologised. The landlord followed this up with a written apology to the resident.
  3. In its letter of apology, the landlord informed the resident that the individual had been spoken to and the wider staff team had received training on organisational standards.
  4. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s apologies were sincere and its approach to handling the issue was good.
  5. The Ombudsman finds the landlord offered redress to the resident which resolves the matter satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of Anti-social behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress which resolves the matter satisfactorily in respect of the email sent to the resident not intended for her which the resident felt was derogatory. This is because the landlord acknowledged its mistake, swiftly apologised, shared that the individual concerned had been spoken to, and the landlord extended further training amongst its wider team.