Clarion Housing Association Limited (202016189)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016189

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 September 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response:
1. to the resident’s report of anti- social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours.
2. to the resident’s report of staff conduct.
3. to the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has had a secure tenancy with the landlord since 12 December 2005. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident has informed us that she has mobility conditions and osteoarthritis in her hands and fingers.
The tenancy agreement obliges the resident not to cause a nuisance or annoy anyone in the local area. This includes playing loud music, making noise or causing alarm or distress.
The landlord’s ASB policy recognises that ASB can take many forms including noise nuisance and verbal abuse. It defines ASB as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
The ASB policy explains that reports regarding day to day living situations which are not intended to cause nuisance is not considered as ASB. This includes the noise from TV which are not excessive. Furthermore, on receipt of a report of ASB, it will log reports, investigate within five working days, whether the threshold is met and monitor outcomes. It will consider a range of interventions such as the issue of warning letters and where necessary, consider legal action.
The landlord’s complaints procedure has two stages with the complaints investigated within 10 working days at the first stage and within 20 working days at the second stage.
The resident’s brother has corresponded with this Service and with the landlord on the resident’s behalf during the complaint investigation. Any contact from the resident’s partner will be referred to as being from the “resident” in this report.
The resident’s complaint concerns the actions of two neighbours living on either side of the resident. This Service has not been supplied with copies of their agreement with the landlord regarding their occupation of the properties, however if the landlord is responsible for the management of their property, it is possible to conclude that the landlord has a responsibility to ensure adherence to the terms outlined in their agreement.

Summary of Events

The resident has complained to the landlord regarding the conduct of its member of staff and the two neighbours living on either side of her property.
The landlord’s records show that on 15 May 2020, the resident made a report that she had experienced verbal abuse from Neighbour B. On learning of the incident, the resident’s representative, went to speak to Neighbour B and he was also abused by Neighbour B. The resident was shaken by the incident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 June 2020, to advise that it had decided not to take any further action regarding the report of ASB that it had received and the ASB case would be closed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2020 regarding the landlord’s decision to close its ASB file. The landlord informed the resident that the verbal abuse had been investigated and it had not met the threshold for investigation. Furthermore, it had considered that the verbal abuse had not been reported to the police by the resident. It advised the resident that going forward, reports of verbal abuse should be made to the police.
On 15 July 2020, the police contacted the landlord regarding the resident reports of verbal abuse from Neighbour B. In response, the landlord advised that it had spoken to the police the previous week about the same matter and provided the police with the following information:
1. It had not referred the resident or Neighbour B to the community multi-agency risk assessment conference.
2. The resident’s property was visited every day and it had not received any new complaints regarding the actions of Neighbour B.
3. It had spoken to Neighbour B regarding the incident, however it was unlikely that Neighbour B would remember the content of the conversation due to his medical condition.
4. It had spoken to the resident’s representative and requested that there was no further communication with Neighbour B.
The police responded on the same day, 15 July 2020, confirming that it had previous contact with both parties and considered that the actions the landlord had taken were appropriate. It advised that it was willing to conduct a joint visit if required.
The landlord called the resident on 28 July 2020 who made a report of ASB from Neighbour B. The resident advised that they had called the police to report the verbal abuse it had received and that the police had told them to discuss the incident with the landlord. Later the same day, 28 July 2020, the landlord called the resident to obtain the incident number for the reported verbal abuse. When it did not receive a response, it left a voice message for the resident.
The landlord called the resident on 11 August 2020 and obtained the police incident number for the report of ASB. The landlord was informed that Neighbour B was continually using explicit language when she spoke to them.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 25 September 2020, it noted that it had liaised with the police regarding the verbal abuse. In addition, the resident and her representative had been told to stop contacting Neighbour B.
On 25 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it would not take any further action regarding the ASB report made by the resident and that the ASB complaint had been closed. It advised that the complaints of ASB had been resolved locally and it had not received any further reports of ASB.
The resident called the landlord on receiving the ASB closure letter to advise that she was unhappy with the decision and its member of staff.
On 27 November 2020, the resident ‘s representative called the landlord and complained about its staff member. The resident’s representative provided examples of the scheme manager’s conduct:
1. On requesting an explanation for the cessation of the visits to the scheme, the scheme manager had advised that this was due to the budget. Then she had said, that as the resident had a carer living with her, visits were not required to the property.
2. Whilst in the bathroom, the resident had responded to the scheme manager, advising that she did not require help. The scheme manager had reported that incident as the resident being abusive.
3. The scheme manager alleged that the resident had chased her around the carpark. However, this was not possible, due to the resident’s mobility issues.
4. As a consequence of the allegations, the resident had a risk marker on the database. Three operatives had attended the resident’s property to carry out a repair, when the other residents had a single operative attend to carry out the repair.
The resident also complained on 27 November 2020 that the complaints about noise nuisance had not been investigated properly and that the scheme manager had removed the CCTV footage from the scheme. The resident advised that the preferred outcome was for the resident’s name to be cleared and the scheme manager removed from the scheme.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to acknowledge the complaint.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 11 December 2020. The landlord was informed that the issues regarding Neighbour A and Neighbour B had been ongoing for months. This had been reported and no action had been taken. The resident disputed that she had verbally abused the scheme manager, that there was a need for the risk alert on the database and that going forward, she did not want the scheme manager to visit her property.
The landlord’s internal records note on 16 December 2020 that it had created the risk alert on the resident’s account following threatening behaviour from the resident. The risk alert would be reviewed in line with its policy. In addition, as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic, it was now making calls to residents instead of conducting daily door knocking to residents. It requested further information regarding the noise nuisance that had been investigated regarding the noise from Neighbour A’s TV.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 15 /16 December 2020. The main findings were:
1. The complaint about the conduct of the scheme manager was being dealt with by her manager.
2. As a result of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), it could not provide the outcome of its investigations into the conduct of its staff.
3. The risk alert was present due to aggression received by its staff and would not be removed until its review in April 2021.
4. It had received one report regarding the volume from Neighbour A’s TV. It had spoken to the neighbour, who had denied that their TV volume was loud. It had requested that Neighbour A be mindful of its neighbours.
5. It advised the resident to keep reporting ASB if it occurred.
6. It apologised that it could not provide any further information.
The landlord spoke to the resident on the 16 December 2020. It confirmed that the staff alert would not be removed until its review in April 2021. It advised the resident to keep a diary and keep recording any ASB that was experienced.
There are no further reports or communication between the landlord and the resident until 11 March 2021 when the resident made a new complaint about the scheme manager. The resident complained that the scheme manager had been abusive and that the accusations made by the manager regarding the resident were untrue. The resident requested that as an outcome to the complaint, the scheme manager be sacked.
The landlord’s spoke to the resident on 11 March 2021 regarding the complaint. The resident advised that she felt victimized by the manager and that that false allegation had been made, which led to her being placed on the risk register. In addition, complaints had been made about the noise nuisance from the two neighbours. It is noted that the resident was unable to supply dates with relation to the nuisance complaints.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct on 17 March 2021. It advised that the scheme managers conduct was being investigated by her manager and that it could not give the resident details of the outcome of the investigation. It apologised for this and the inconvenience experienced.
The resident emailed this Service on 17 March 2021 to advise that on 4 September 2020 the resident was falsely accused of harassing the scheme manager. A telephone complaint had been made to the landlord regarding this and about the ASB from the two neighbours. She stated that the volume from Neighbour A’s TV was too loud and that she experienced banging from that address. In addition, that Neighbour B had verbally abused her and had accused her of ringing his buzzer early in the morning.
In addition, the resident advised that the landlord had made contact on 16 March 2021 to advise that it did not believe the reports of ASB. The resident advised that as an outcome, she wanted both the neighbours to be quieter, an investigation held in the conduct of the scheme manager and an apology given.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 23 March 2021 requesting that the landlord respond to the complaint made by the resident in September 2020.
On 25 March 2021, the landlord provided its complaint response to this Service. The response had two dates 15 December 2020 and 16 December 2020 which it had sent to the resident’s address. The landlord advised that it had not received a request for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaint procedure.
This Service emailed the landlord on 13 April 2021 to advise that the resident had not received its complaint response sent in December 2020 and had informed us that they remained dissatisfied with the response as no appropriate action had been taken. This Service requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to the next stage of the complaint procedure.
The landlord contacted this Service on 6 May 2021 to advise that it had had trouble in contacting the resident by phone.
The landlord provided a further update on 26 May 2021 to advise that it had opened a Stage two complaint on 14 April 2021. However, it had closed the complaint on 18 May 2021 as it had been unable to make contact with the resident and provided a copy of its communication dated 18 May 2021. It confirmed that it had raised a new Stage 2 complaint for the resident.
The landlord’s records show that it wrote to the resident on 26 May 2021 to advise that it was investigating the complaint about staff conduct and noise nuisance.
On 22 June 2021, the landlord’s internal records show that it discussed the risk alert placed on the resident’s file and that this was due to the resident’s aggression towards the scheme manager and another member of staff.
The landlord responded on 23 June 2021, at the final stage of the complaint procedure. It apologised for its delayed response. The main findings were:
1. It had received a complaint from the resident’s representative on 27 November 2020, regarding its staff member and complaints about noise nuisance.
2. It had responded to the complaint on 15 December 2020 and issued a further response on 17 March 2021.
3. The complaint about the conduct of its staff has been investigated by her manager.
4. The noise reports had been reviewed and one of the residents complained about had been absent from the property for three months.
5. It had not identified any service failures in its handling of the investigation into the conduct of its staff or the noise complaints.
6. It acknowledged its delay in responding to the complaint and had arranged for an award of £50 compensation for this.
After the complaint process had been exhausted, the landlord’s internal records note on 23 August 2021 that Neighbour B had been in hospital during the period that the resident was making reports of noise nuisance. In addition, it had taken the following actions:
1. It had requested that the resident complete incident diaries but she had not done so.
2. It had assisted in the application for a mutual exchange.
3. Mediation had been offered to the resident but it had not been taken up.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service advising that the landlord had made unfounded accusations regarding the verbal abuse of the scheme manager and that she was being targeted by the landlord. In addition, the ASB experienced from Neighbour A was ongoing and described it as banging on the walls from Thursday evening until Sunday night. He disputed the information provided from the landlord that neighbour B was in hospital for a three-month period as the landlord had stated.
The landlord informed this Service on 8 September 2022 that it is experiencing severe disruption to its systems following the cyber-attack on its records, consequently, it holds limited information regarding the ASB reports.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s report of anti- Social Behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours.

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its procedures and acted appropriately. The report will consider the landlord’s response to the reports that it received and to the formal complaint. The report will consider whether the landlord’s response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its polices and obligations under the tenancy agreement.
The resident complained about the behaviour of the neighbours who lived on either side of the property.
Looking at the report of ASB from Neighbour A, the resident has reported that the TV volume is too high and that banging noises can be heard from the property. The landlord has said that due to the cyber-attack it has limited information that it can provide regarding its investigations into the complaint.
However, from the available information, it appears that the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy. The landlord’s complaint response stated that it had only received a single report regarding the volume from Neighbour A’s TV. In accordance with its ASB policy, it had spoken to the neighbour and reminded him to be mindful of his neighbours.
Whilst the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to their reports of ASB, the resident have not provided dates when they reported the incidents to the landlord. The ASB policy states that unless the volume of the TV is excessive, it is not normally considered as ASB. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident continue to make reports for it to establish whether it was required to take further action.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded in an appropriate manner to the report of verbal abuse from Neighbour B. The evidence shows that it liaised with the police, considered the information that it had received and once it had spoken to both parties considered that the reports of verbal abuse had been resolved. In accordance with its ASB policy it advised that it did not consider that further action was required and that the ASB case file was closed.
The landlord has been willing to obtain a resolution to the resident’s report by informing the resident to keep incident diaries, offering mediation with its neighbours and offering to assist the resident with a mutual exchange. These are reasonable measures used to resolve the ASB reports bought to the landlord’s attention

Staff conduct

The landlord has a responsibility to manage the health and safety of its staff.
The resident denied the allegations that she had verbally abused the scheme manager and that she had chased the scheme manager around the car park.
The available evidence shows that the landlord’s records has a risk alert on the resident’s records regarding allegations of threatening behaviour towards its staff. The risk alert was placed on the resident’s records before the incident with the scheme manager. The landlord has not provided its policy of handling reports of threatening behaviour but it is reasonable to have a mechanism to alert its staff and to have a period of review for its risk alert
The landlord acted reasonably in passing the complaint to the resident’s manager to review. This is accordance with management of its staff and to assess whether there was any disciplinary action to be taken.
The landlord in its complaint response advised the resident that it could not share the outcome of the investigation into staff conduct as a result of GDPR. This was not correct as the landlord could inform the resident of the outcome of its findings. This was a short coming. This was corrected in the landlord’s final complaint response where it advised that the investigation had been concluded and that it had not found any evidence of service failure.

The related complaint

The landlord complaints process states that it will respond within 10 working days at the first stage and within 20 working days at the final stage.
The resident’s representative made a complaint regarding staff conduct and the noise related ASB on 27 November 2020. The landlord sent its response on 15 December 2020. The landlord’s complaint response contains two dates, 15 December 2020 and 16 December 2020. This is a short coming as complaint responses should contain accurate information showing the correct date that the landlord provided its complaint response to the resident.
The resident made a further complaint on 11 March 2021 regarding the conduct of the landlord’s staff. The landlord responded within its published time scale on 17 March 2021.
The resident advised that it did not receive the landlord’s response dated 15 December 2020 /16 December 2020. The landlord raised a Stage 2 complaint following the intervention of this Service on 14 April 2021. However, as it was unsuccessful in making contact with the resident, this complaint was closed on 18 May 2021.
The landlord raised a further Stage two complaint on 26 May 2021 and responded on 23 June 2021. This was slightly outside its published complaint handling target of 20 working days. The landlord appropriately awarded the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of ASB from her neighbours.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB. From the information available, the overall handling of the ASB reports were proportionate and appropriate
The landlord investigated the conduct of its staff and informed the resident of the outcome of its investigation.
The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint, apologised and offered an award of compensation for the delay in its response.

Recommendations

If it has not already done, pay the resident the £50 compensation awarded in its final complaint response.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.