Clarion Housing Association Limited (202225583)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202225583
Clarion Housing Association Limited
30 September 2024
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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Viewing of the property.
- Reports of antisocial behaviour.
- Request for an urgent management transfer.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 16 December 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in a block of 4 within a converted victorian house. The resident’s property is on the third floor.
- The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, information provided for this investigation shows that during the complaint the resident was under NHS services, registered with an advocacy service and the adult complex needs service.
- During his viewing of the property on 9 December 2021 the resident asked the landlord if there was any Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) or “violent history issues” related to the premises. The landlord advised the resident that there were none. On 24 December the resident telephoned the landlord to report ASB caused by neighbour ‘A’. On 26 July 2022 the resident emailed his landlord to report ongoing ASB caused by neighbour A. Having kept a log of incidents between 10 August to 5 September the resident requested an Urgent Management Transfer (UMT).
- On 24 November 2022 the landlord decided that it could not grant a UMT because the case did not meet its threshold. The complaints about ASB were ongoing. During its response the landlord liaised with relevant partner agencies to take action against neighbour A. It also arranged to install a video doorbell at the resident’s property. The ASB came to an end when neighbour A terminated his tenancy.
- The resident contacted this Service on 23 January 2023 to raise his concerns about the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB. We wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on the same day, 23 January, to raise a stage 1 complaint. We requested that it provide a response by 6 February.
- On 8 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
- It apologised for the delay in issuing its complaint response which it said was due to high volumes of customer contact.
- It set out the action it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of ASB from 25 July 2022 to 7 March 2023.
- It had emailed an action plan to the resident on 21 December 2022.
- It could not find any other ASB cases on its system relating to neighbour A. Therefore, there was no reason or cause for it to notify the resident of any ASB concerns during the viewing.
- It could not install a spyhole because this would compromise the safety of the fire door. It was considering installing CCTV as an alternative.
- It confirmed that evidence that it had corroborated from other residents was “sufficient for the purposes” of any legal action it may take.
- Its handling of the ASB case had been reviewed by the head of housing who was satisfied that its case handling was appropriate.
- The case was complex and it was required to consider the vulnerabilities of both the resident and neighbour A prior to starting any legal action.
- It had obtained independent advice from an external ASB consultancy firm and was following it accordingly.
- The complexity of the case meant it could not be resolved quickly and that legal action would take in excess of “90 days due to current court waiting times.”
- The complaint was not upheld because there had not been a failure to provide a service.
- It offered £50 compensation for the delay in issuing the complaint response.
- On 21 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to set out his ongoing dissatisfaction, the main points being:
- The landlord had not addressed the “serious” allegations and had “trivialised” early reports of ASB made in the summer of 2022.
- It had not actively pursued practical measures such as the installation of CCTV and spyholes, the latter having been installed at other properties in the street.
- The landlord had not contacted other residents to see if they were experiencing issues.
- The resident’s advocate was not invited to participate in the next committee meeting to discuss UMTs and could therefore not provide support for his request.
- He had provided “sensitive” medical information to support his request for a move but he had never been informed directly that his request for UMT was rejected or the grounds for its decision.
- It had not communicated with him in a timely matter about timeframes and had failed to do what it said it would.
- The landlord’s decision to contact an ASB consultant took too long.
- He had been asked to provide a witness statement but the landlord had not clarified the context of his role in any legal action. Furthermore, there was no indication of legal action being taken.
- He felt that the ongoing logging of incidents on diary sheets was a lot of effort for little gain.
- On 7 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
- It apologised for the delay in issuing its response which it had wanted to be as comprehensive as possible.
- Having reviewed its records it had identified that an ASB report had been logged about neighbour A in July 2022. Since this was 7 months after his tenancy start date it would not have been possible to share this information with him during his viewing. It apologised for the inaccuracy in its stage 1 complaint response and offered £50 compensation.
- Its stage 1 complaint response had correctly confirmed that it had followed the correct process but that due to the complexity of the case it could be lengthy. It acknowledged that it was a “protracted and sensitive case.”
- It was working closely with agencies which affected the rate of progress.
- There were factors relating to the case which it could not share due to data protection requirements. It acknowledged and apologised that this created a difficult position for the resident. However, it was satisfied that appropriate action had been taken and that issues in the block did not threaten his personal safety.
- It encouraged the resident to keep completing diary sheets so it could manage the case effectively.
- As recommended by the local authority a video doorbell was fitted on 6 June 2023. It apologised for the delay in confirming this since its stage 1 response.
- An inspection of the front door was booked for 10 June. It would then be able to advise further regarding the resident’s request for a spy hole.
- UMTs were exceptional and the threshold was high. For ASB a resident must experience “serious antisocial behaviour or harassment that puts their life at risk.”
- It acknowledged that the resident had appointed an advocate however, it required evidence of risk to life from a statutory agency such as the police. In the absence of this the threshold had not been met.
- Medical information provided by the resident did not meet the grounds for a UMT under its policy. It signposted the resident to the local authority and to the mutual exchange process.
- On 6 February 2024 the resident contacted this Service to request that we investigate his complaint because he did not feel the landlord had acknowledged its failures or the impact on him.
Assessment and findings
Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures
- The landlord’s ASB procedure says it will:
- Ensure that residents know their rights and responsibilities in relation to ASB.
- Record incidents of ASB and categorise them as crime, noise or other ASB.
- Investigate reports of ASB in accordance with its policy and inform residents if their complaint has not reached the threshold for investigation.
- Assess the vulnerability of complainants and tailor its response accordingly.
- Keep residents informed about the status and progress of their case.
- Use the tools and powers available to us to resolve ASB where it will make a difference and the use of its resources is proportionate.
- Work in partnership with other agencies to ensure that the most appropriate action is taken to resolve ASB and challenge them to use their powers, where appropriate.
- The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 set out the need for landlords to put victims at the heart of their response to ASB. Landlords must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the life of the victim.
- The landlord’s management transfer procedure in place at the time of the complaint said that:
- Management transfers should only be considered if the police, or other specialist professional agency “confirm in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to the life of the tenant, or a family member, which means it is no longer safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at their property.”
- When a management transfer request was declined it would inform the resident they had 10 working days to appeal if they were unhappy with the decision and believed it to be incorrect.
- The landlord’s interim complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint said that it would:
- Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt and provide a response within 20 working days.
- Acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 10 working days and provide a response within 40 working days.
- Its compensation policy says that discretionary compensation may be paid to recognise a particular adverse effect on a resident. The policy says that compensation of:
- £50 to £250 could be paid where there was a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses where the failure had no significant impact.
- £250 to £700 can be offered where there was a failure over a “considerable” period to act in accordance with a policy.
- £700 and above may be considered where there was “mishandling or partiality” in an ASB case leading to exacerbation of resident relations.
Viewing
- In his complaint to the landlord the resident said that when he viewed the property on 9 December 2021 he asked if there were any issues with ASB or violence with the neighbours to which it replied there were none.
- In evidence provided for the purposes of this investigation the resident asserted that neighbour A was convicted of a crime in 2011. He said the landlord had known about this at the time of the viewing. Neighbours had also told him that neighbour A had caused ASB previously. He said had he known this was the case he would not have accepted the property.
- This Service does not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence which shows the landlord was aware of the criminal case in 2011 or that the conviction was directly linked to neighbour A’s tenancy. There is also no evidence that the ASB issues disclosed by his neighbours had been reported to the landlord. Therefore, this investigation is unable to make a determination on this point.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 8 March 2023 said that, with the exception of the current case, there were no other records of ASB complaints relating to neighbour A. In its stage 2 complaint response of 7 June it confirmed that it had given inaccurate information at stage 1. This was because there had been another report of ASB made after the start of the resident’s tenancy. It appropriately apologised and offered £50 to put things right.
- The compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. Therefore, this investigation finds that while the landlord’s handling of the response could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.
ASB
- The landlord’s ASB records include reports made by the resident on 5 and 24 May and 26 July 2020. However, this cannot be accurate because the resident’s tenancy did not commence until December 2021. This is a record keeping failure.
- On 26 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that neighbour A was causing ASB by playing “very loud” television and music “throughout” the night and shouting. He was also having frequent visitors to his property who were talking loudly in the stairwell and banging doors at night. They were also leaving the front door unlocked.
- The resident said he was feeling “exhausted and deeply depressed” and was “fearful” when coming to and from his home. He said he had already raised this with the landlord. He was told it had been referred to the ASB team but he had not received an update. The landlord’s ASB records dated 27 July 2022 state that it rang the resident. However, there are no details as to what was discussed.
- On 2 August 2022 the landlord carried out a joint visit to neighbour A with the police. The neighbour denied causing any ASB and both agencies agreed to monitor the situation.
- On 10 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that a member of staff would be in contact that day. Its records note that it contacted the resident as promised and advised that it would be contacting neighbour A the following day. Its records also noted that it had called another of the resident’s neighbours ‘B’ on the same day who corroborated the resident’s diary notes about noise nuisance.
- On 11 August 2022 the landlord contacted neighbour A again to discuss the allegations of ASB and issued a first warning. An entry on the ASB log dated 17 August says “update call to both” which suggests the landlord provided an update to the resident accordingly.
- The records note that on 22 August 2022 the landlord received further complaints about ASB which were discussed with neighbour A on 24 August.
- On 25 August 2022 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on his behalf to raise concerns about ongoing ASB. In its reply of 7 September the landlord confirmed it was meeting with neighbour A on 8 September to discuss the situation. It said it would continue to liaise with the resident regarding his concerns and act as necessary.
- On 5 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, attaching diary sheets covering the period 10 August to 5 September 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the diary sheets and/or provided a response which was inappropriate.
- This Service has not been provided with copies of the resident’s diary sheets. By way of response to our request to provide them the landlord emailed on 24 May 2024 saying it had “no records of any sent or received”. This is inaccurate because the landlord refers to having received diary sheets in correspondence in the case. For example, in its letter to the MP on 7 September 2022 and its stage 2 complaint response to the resident of 7 June 2023 it refers to having received diary sheets. Therefore, this is a record keeping failure.
- In his email to the landlord of 21 March 2023 the resident said it had “trivialised” his early reports of ASB made in the summer of 2022. There is evidence that the landlord took the reports seriously. This is because it carried out a joint visit with police and contacted neighbour B to corroborate the resident’s reports of ASB. It also spoke to neighbour A to discuss the allegations and issued him with a verbal warning.
- The landlord’s response to this Service of 24 May 2024 confirmed that the first ASB case was opened on 28 October 2022. The landlord failed to open an ASB case and categorise the resident’s reports made earlier that year. Therefore, it failed to manage the case in line with its ASB procedure.
- Furthermore, there is no evidence that it assessed the risk of harm and/or vulnerability of the resident to tailor its response accordingly. This was particularly inappropriate given that in his email of 26 July 2022 the resident said he was exhausted and depressed. In a further email dated 5 September he said his mental and physical health was being impacted.
- There was also no evidence that it complied with its ASB procedure by interviewing the complainant and agreeing an action plan. There is evidence that the landlord contacted the resident but the records lack detail. There is no evidence that it engaged in meaningful dialogue with the resident to ensure he was fully informed about the status and progress of his case in line with its ASB procedure.
- In the MPs letter to the landlord of 25 August 2022 it asked the landlord to consider practical solutions such as CCTV or an intercom system to assist with evidence gathering. The landlord’s letter of reply dated 7 September failed to provide a response on this point which was inappropriate.
- Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the suggestion. This was inappropriate because its ASB procedure says it will consider targeted use of CCTV to help design out ASB.
- In its stage 1 complaint response of 8 March 2023 the landlord said it was considering the use of CCTV in the communal areas and that it would provide an update. While this was a positive step the landlord’s response was delayed, being 7 months after it was first raised by the resident’s MP.
- It said it could not install a spy hole because it would affect the integrity of the fire door. In his email to the landlord on 21 March the resident expressed his frustration around the length of time it was taking to make a decision on these matters. He advised that other residents in his road had spy holes in their doors.
- In an email to the resident on 3 May 2023 the landlord’s officer emailed the resident to say that he did not have “any authority to order or instruct Clarion technical services regarding the CCTV/video doorbell and I do accept your extreme frustration over this matter.”
- This was an inappropriate response because the landlord’s ASB procedure says that requests for CCTV should be made to the head of housing and neighbourhood housing manager in the first instance. There is no evidence that the officer’s request was escalated to a more senior manager as set out in the procedure. Had he done so, the matter may have been resolved earlier.
- On 12 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord, local authority, police and his MP to express his frustration about the delay in installing CCTV. In it he provided evidence that the police had endorsed the proposal in January. He also referred to a meeting with the local authority’s community safety team on 30 March in which they suggested the landlord could make a request for video doorbells. He enquired how they could move forward on this issue.
- On 12 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it was chasing up the possibility of video ring doorbells and hoped to have an answer the following week. It emailed the resident on 22 May to say progress was delayed because an officer was on annual leave.
- On 23 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say that it had approved the cost of installing video doorbells. The local authority had offered the use of its locksmiths to speed up the process. It was in the process of liaising with their repairs team to confirm details and a timeframe for installation.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 7 June 2023 confirmed that the video doorbell was installed on 6 June. It said it would arrange to inspect the door to see if it was possible to install a spy hole. However, during a call with this Service on 10 September 2024 the resident said that the provision of a video doorbell had negated the need for a spyhole.
- The landlord delayed in its consideration of the request for CCTV and did not adhere to its ASB procedure. It declined to install a spy hole without fully considering whether it was possible, considering the style of the door. Had it done so it may have been able to carry out a relatively straight forward practical measure which would have provided some reassurance to the resident who was feeling vulnerable. This is evidence that the landlord did not adopt a victim led approach which was inappropriate.
- The first ASB case was opened on 28 October 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord followed its procedure by interviewing the resident, assessing his vulnerability and creating an action plan. Action plans are an important part of ASB case management as they help to ensure residents know their rights and responsibilities, as set out in the landlord’s ASB procedure. However, the evidence shows that the landlord engaged with relevant partner agencies to ensure it took a joined up approach to the situation in line with its ASB procedure.
- Having issued a verbal warning to neighbour A on 8 October 2022 the landlord appropriately escalated its response to ongoing reports. On 24 November and 16 December the landlord took proportionate action against neighbour A by issuing a written warning and an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA). It appropriately continued to liaise with relevant agencies, including police and the local authority community safety team, throughout.
- The evidence shows that the landlord continued to review its multi-agency response to the ongoing reports of ASB. For example on 26 January 2023 it met with the local authority to discuss the case. On 27 January it sought advice from an independent ASB consultant. Consequently, it considered its approach in terms of the tools and powers available which was appropriate and in line with its ASB procedure. In doing so it also appropriately considered the vulnerabilities of neighbour A. It concluded that it would consider an application for an injunction against neighbour A’s visitors which was reasonable in the circumstances. It updated neighbour A that it intended to take further action against him.
- The landlord undertook necessary checks with partner agencies to ensure that an application for an injunction was an appropriate remedy. On 7 March 2023 it concluded it was able to pursue an injunction. On 25 April it wrote to neighbour A to confirm that it intended to take legal action. The evidence shows that the application was delayed because the landlord had to correct a mistake in the evidence provided to it by the police. On 11 May it met with its legal services to progress matters.
- A multi-agency meeting took place on 6 June 2023 where it was agreed that the application for an injunction would go ahead. However, on 20 June the police obtained a full closure order on the property which expired on 20 September. It is unclear why there was a change in the multi-agency approach. While there was no detriment caused to the resident by the decision, this is a record keeping failure.
- The landlord served neighbour A with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) on 15 August 2023, almost 2 months after the closure order was obtained. The landlord’s records dated 6 August say that the preparation of the NOSP was delayed due to annual leave and sickness. As a result of the delay the landlord was unable to commence possession proceedings prior to the expiry of the closure order.
- This demonstrated a lack of joined up working with the police at a critical time in the process and a lack of recognition of the impact on the resident. The evidence show that on 19 September 2023 the police said they would not apply to extend the closure order for a further 3 months because of the landlord’s inaction. This meant neighbour A was able to return to the property after 20 September. This caused distress to the resident who, in his email to this Service of 15 February 2024, said that “I actually vomited, I was so distressed by the news.”
- The case was opened on 28 October 2022 however, as confirmed in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 June 2023 it did not provide an action plan until 21 December. This was almost 2 months later which was inappropriate. There is evidence that the landlord provided some updates to the resident. Generally these updates came at significant points in the case. For example on 3 February 2023 following the decision to apply for an injunction and on 11 May to share timescales following the legal meetings.
- While this was positive and necessary, there is no evidence that the landlord agreed an established pattern of regular communication with the resident. Such agreements typically form part of an action plan and are based on the resident’s needs and wishes. Regular communication provides the resident with an opportunity to raise any concerns or ask any questions. It also provides landlords with the opportunity to continually assess risk and/or vulnerability and to proactively manage resident’s expectations about the progress. That it did not make an agreement to do so was a failure.
- The evidence shows that the case was complex because neighbour A was also vulnerable. The landlord was therefore also required to consider his circumstances. Due to these vulnerabilities it was particularly appropriate that the landlord took steps to show it had escalated reasonable and proportionate action prior to taking legal proceedings. It was also appropriate that it liaised with partner agencies, its legal team and an independent ASB consultant during the process. Unfortunately, resolution of such cases may be slower due to these requirements.
- In such cases data protection requirements impose restrictions on how much information landlords can provide to residents when providing updates with regards to action. It puts both the landlord and resident in a difficult position because the landlord is unable to be fully transparent which makes it difficult for a resident to understand their response. The landlord’s response on this point in its stage 2 complaint response of 7 June 2023 was appropriate.
- In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on ‘live’ documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The landlord’s ASB record keeping is muddled. Some entries on the ASB records are not in date order, lack full dates and detail. Entries for 2020 appear to be incorrect given the resident’s tenancy start date. The landlord has not provided copies of the diary sheets submitted by the resident.
- The welfare, safety and wellbeing of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported ASB is having on a resident, particularly if repeated incidents are having a cumulative effect on their mental or physical wellbeing. A continuous and organised risk assessment will help to identify cases that are causing, or could result in, serious harm to the resident.
- The landlord’s ASB procedure says it will assess the vulnerability of the complainant. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out an assessment of the risk of harm to the resident.
- Its stage 2 complaint response of 7 June 2023 said there was no evidence that the ASB was a threat to the resident’s personal safety. This may have been the case but risk of harm is not restricted to physical harm from the perpetrator themselves. Physical and mental harm can be caused because of the resident’s own personal circumstances including their health and/or perception. The landlord failed to consider the effect the behaviour had on the resident as set out in the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014.
- The failures identified include:
- Record keeping failures.
- No evidence of reviews of and response to the resident’s diary sheets.
- Failure to adhere to the ASB procedure in relation to CCTV and opening ASB cases.
- The landlord did not carry out any risk and/or vulnerability assessments.
- The landlord failed to agree timely action plans and/or a timetable for communications.
- It delayed in serving NOSP demonstrating that it failed to use the complaint to expedite the process.
- It also failed to consider the impact of the ASB on the resident.
- These failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £600 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. This reflects the landlord’s failure to assess risk of harm to the resident and communicate effectively. These failures were by compounded by his vulnerabilities.
- Following a determination in case reference 202208746 on 27 February 2024 the landlord provided this Service with a list of proposed changes to its ASB policy and procedure. This includes the introduction of a standard risk assessment matrix to be completed for each new ASB case and existing cases where the circumstances change or new information becomes known. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make an order on this matter.
Urgent Management Transfer
- On 5 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request that it consider his request for a UMT. He attached letters from his doctor and NHS psychiatrist/therapist support to his email. The landlord replied on 9 September and enquired if the resident had contacted the local authority regarding its transfer process. It also asked if the resident had sought support from an advocacy service which was something they had discussed previously.
- In its email to the resident’s MP on 7 September 2022 the landlord confirmed it had advised the resident he could apply for a UMT. On 28 November it wrote to the MP to update that the resident did not meet the threshold for a UMT. It advised that the management transfer process could not facilitate a discretionary move on medical grounds. The reasons it gave were appropriate and in line with its management transfer policy. It appropriately signposted the resident to the local authority and advised him to make sure they were aware of his medical needs. It also signposted the resident to the mutual exchange process. On 29 November the landlord also emailed the resident’s advocate to advise them of the same.
- While it was appropriate that the landlord would update those who the resident consented to act on his behalf, there is no evidence that it provided the outcome to the resident himself. The resident made the application himself therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to also communicate its decision to him directly. That it did not undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
- In his email to the landlord of 21 March 2023 the resident expressed his dissatisfaction that neither he nor his advocate had been given the opportunity to make representations to the panel. In its stage 2 complaint response of 7 June the landlord reiterated that it would require evidence from a statutory agency, such as the police, to evidence risk to life. This was an appropriate response which was in line with its management transfer policy. It reiterated its housing options advice.
- The landlord’s decision making regarding the UMT was appropriately in line with its policy.
- However, in the landlord’s letter to the resident’s MP of 7 September 2022 it confirmed it had advised the resident he could request a UMT and that he may benefit from the support of an advocate.
- The landlord’s management transfer policy clearly sets out the circumstances under which a management transfer should be considered. There was no evidence that there was a serious risk or threat to the life of the tenant. Given that there was no realistic prospect of the resident’s application being approved it is unclear why the landlord suggested that a UMT was an option for him. In doing so it raised his expectations, causing avoidable disappointment and distress when it concluded his case did not meet threshold.
- The landlord failed to communicate its decision directly to the resident which was inappropriate. Furthermore, it failed to advise the resident, whether it be directly or via his MP or advocate, that he had 10 working days in which to appeal the decision if he was unhappy or believed it was incorrect.
- The failings set out above amount to maladministration because there were failures which had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.
Complaint handling
- The resident contacted this Service for assistance on 23 January 2023. We wrote to the landlord on the same day, 23 January, to raise a stage 1 complaint on the resident’s behalf. We asked it to provide a response by 6 February.
- The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 2 February 2023 to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and to scope out the complaint definition. It said it would contact the resident to provide a further update the following week. This was 8 working days after receipt of the complaint which was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy.
- However, the landlord failed to provide an update to the resident causing inconvenience, time and trouble because he had to contact this Service again on 20 February 2023 for support. We wrote to the landlord on 1 March to request that it provide its stage 1 complaint response by 8 March.
- Its stage 1 complaint response of 8 March 2023 was issued 32 working days after it first received the complaint which was 12 working days out of time. In its response it apologised for the delay which it said was due to high levels of customer contact at that time. It appropriately offered £50 compensation as a means of putting things right. This was appropriately in line with its compensation policy.
- The resident made his stage 2 complaint on 21 March 2023. The landlord failed to provide a response causing the resident frustration, time and trouble when he had to contact this Service again for support on 1 June.
- We wrote to the landlord on the same day, 1 June 2023, to request that it issue its stage 2 complaint response by 8 June. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June. This was 52 working days after it received the complaint which was 12 working days out of time.
- While the landlord apologised for the delay on this occasion it failed to provide an explanation and did not try to put things right for the resident. Not only did this demonstrate a lack of fairness to the resident, but it also demonstrated a lack of consistency in the landlord’s approach to redress for complaint handling failures.
- The complaints policy in place at the time was an interim policy following a cyber incident. Its complaint response times did not comply with those set out in the Code. The updated complaints policy on the landlord’s website is compliant with the Code so an order has not been made in this regard.
- The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The resident was caused frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble to resolve his complaint. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £125 for the complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an urgent management transfer.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its response to the resident’s viewing of the property.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
- Pay the resident £875 compensation comprised of:
- £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
- £150 for the distress caused by the failure in its response to the resident’s request for an urgent management transfer.
- £125 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
- Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation.
- Pay the resident £875 compensation comprised of:
- In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review to ensure that the use of action plans, including communication agreements, is embedded into the proposed changes to its ASB policy and procedure.
- The landlord is to confirm compliance to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
Recommendation
- The landlord should reoffer the £50 compensation offered in relation to the viewing if this has not already been paid.