Curo Places Limited (202228190)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228190

Curo Places Limited

11 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. The resident’s report of discrimination by the landlord.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s report of discrimination by the landlord.
Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 or otherwise, since this is a legal matter that would have to be determined by a court.
The resident stated on various occasions that in her view the landlord had discriminated against her. For example, the resident wrote to the landlord on 19 January 2023 and stated that she would be taking action because of alleged harassment and discrimination by the landlord. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 25 March 2023 and stated that she would be raising all evidence of the landlord’s reported discrimination against her in court.
This Service therefore considers the resident’s report of discrimination by the landlord to be outside of its jurisdiction and has therefore not investigated this element of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom, first-floor flat in a block. The resident had an assured shorthold starter tenancy, which began on 15 February 2022.
The landlord advised this Service that the resident was rehoused into alternative accommodation on 14 August 2023.
The resident advised the landlord that she had mental health conditions and her son had Autism.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 4 March 2022 to report concerns about noise complaints she understood a neighbour had made about her. The resident explained that she had bare floors as she could not afford carpets.
On 30 and 31 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that on 30 March 2022 her neighbour had been banging on the resident’s door and had made threats to kill her. The resident advised the landlord that the police had attended and arrested the neighbour but had later released her. Therefore, the resident said she did not feel safe. The landlord’s records show that it produced a risk assessment on 31 March 2022 following the conversation with the resident.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the neighbour on 31 March 2022 and 1 April 2022 regarding the incident. The neighbour confirmed that she had been arrested by the police but denied making threats to kill the resident. The landlord’s records show that it advised the neighbour not to engage with the resident and advised her that any decision by the landlord to take follow-up action would depend on the action taken by the police.
The landlord advised the resident on 1 April 2022 that it would look into whether it could provide support for the resident to obtain carpets and it confirmed that it would be fitting a video doorbell to her property on 6 April 2022.
On 3 April 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to request additional support as she said she was struggling with her mental health. She stated that the neighbour had locked the resident’s partner out of the main building twice and had switched off the resident’s electricity in the main intake cupboard. The landlord replied on 4 April 2022 and asked whether the resident was getting support from her GP or other agencies. The landlord asked the resident to provide further information about the support she was requesting.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 April 2022 and requested a transfer as she said she did not feel safe at the property.
During the remainder of April and May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to report anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour, including:
1. The neighbour allegedly emptying rubbish from the resident’s bin onto the ground.
2. The neighbour allegedly sending the resident abusive messages on social media.
3. The neighbour’s dog being off its lead in the communal areas (this was raised by the resident on 10 May 2022 when she also reminded the landlord that her daughter had previously been attacked by a dog in her previous property).
4. The neighbour allegedly causing noise nuisance.
5. The neighbour allegedly turning off the resident’s electricity.
On 23 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint about one of its staff regarding an “ASB order”. The resident stated that she was being unfairly treated and was being discriminated against because of past events involving neighbours. The resident argued that the noise from her property had not been unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 July 2022 to report that the neighbour’s dog was being allowed of its lead in the communal area. She also repeated that the neighbour had turned off her electrics.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 July 2022 regarding reports that she had been playing loud music and had caused rubbish to be strewn over the communal areas. The landlord stated that it had arranged to meet the resident on 1 August 2022 to agree a way forward and to request her to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). However, the landlord’s records stated that the resident refused to sign the ABC.
During August and September 2022, the landlord received various calls from the resident and her mother to report problems she was experiencing with her neighbour. For example:
1. The resident reported on 23 August 2022 that the neighbour had been verbally abusive towards her in the corridor.
2. On 1 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord about the ongoing situation with the neighbour. She stated that she had been threatened by the neighbour. The resident stated that she felt the landlord was treating her unfairly because it had not responded to her reports of ASB but had responded to the neighbour’s reports.
3. The resident’s mother advised the landlord on 2 September 2022 that the neighbour had been kicking her daughter’s door during the night.
The landlord’s records show that on 5 October 2022 it purchased new carpets and underlay for the resident’s property. It also paid the fitting costs.
During October 2022, the landlord’s records show that it was compiling witness statements and other documentation to apply for an injunction against the resident for ASB. Its notes stated that it considered this to be a proportionate intervention to resolve the ASB issues it had identified.
Also, during October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to discuss her starter tenancy review and a Subject Access Request (SAR) she had submitted.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 November 2022 and requested a face-to-face meeting to discuss concerns regarding her neighbour. She said she believed the neighbour had made unfounded allegations about her regarding noise and cannabis use.
The landlord’s records show that it installed carpets in the resident’s property on 17 November 2022.
An internal email from the landlord dated 18 November 2022 stated that the case worker had been attempting to speak to the resident for the past 3 days.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 November 2022 to report she had called the police that evening as she said she was verbally abused and threatened by the neighbour. She asked the landlord to request CCTV footage from the neighbour’s video doorbell as this would have captured the incident. The landlord replied on 2 December 2022 and requested the resident to provide the police reference number and details of the police officer who was investigating the matter. It advised the resident that it had no powers to force the neighbour to provide the CCTV footage. However, it said that the police may be able to obtain the footage.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 December 2022 and advised that she would need to cancel the meeting with the landlord scheduled for that day because her partner was ill.
The landlord received a complaint from the resident on 5 January 2023 regarding the SAR she had submitted.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 10 January 2023 and advised that she wished to raise a complaint about the way her ASB case was being managed by the caseworker. The resident advised the landlord that she had previously been rehoused because her daughter had been attacked by a dog and she had recently learned that one of her current neighbours was a friend of the dog owner. The resident stated that her neighbour had made false accusations to the landlord about her.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 January 2023 to acknowledge her complaint. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day and stated that she had already submitted a complaint previously about the issues.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 January 2023 to cancel the meeting she had arranged with the landlord on 16 January 2023. She stated that she had just returned from hospital and was not ready for the meeting.
On 18 January 2023, the landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed it had reviewed the way in which the current ASB caseworker had handled the case and was satisfied he had managed the case correctly.
2. The landlord had arranged an appointment in December 2022 for the ASB caseworker and the landlord’s complaints manager to visit the resident at home to discuss the case. However, the landlord pointed out that the resident had cancelled the appointment. The appointment had therefore been rescheduled and the landlord said that the resident had cancelled the appointment again.
3. The landlord said that it was satisfied the ASB caseworker had been taking the case seriously and it offered to reschedule the appointment with the resident if she wished.
4. The landlord advised the resident that based on the evidence, it was not upholding her complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord by social media on 19 January 2023 to confirm that she had received the landlord’s application for an injunction order against her and had contacted her solicitor. She stated that she would be taking action because of alleged harassment and discrimination by the landlord.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 January 2023 to report that her neighbour was playing loud music. She attached recordings to her email.
The landlord’s records show that it obtained an interim court injunction on 24 January 2023 forbidding the resident from causing ASB, including noise nuisance and using abusive language to anyone in the block.
The resident wrote on 14 February 2023 and requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she was not happy with the resolution. The resident also contacted the landlord on the same day to report the neighbour’s dog being off its lead without a muzzle in the communal areas. The resident stated that the dog had previously bitten her partner. She also said the neighbour had made threats about her on social media and she had reported the matter to the police.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2023 to report various ASB matters regarding her neighbour. These included:
1. The resident stated that in January 2023 she had submitted videos of the neighbour playing loud music.
2. The resident said the neighbour had verbally assaulted her father.
3. She stated that the resident regularly allowed her dog to roam the communal areas without being on a lead. She said she had sent in videos of the dog.
4. She stated that the neighbour had kicked her front door and thrown stones at her windows.
5. She questioned why she had not received an offer of mediation or a transfer.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 15 February 2023 and requested her to send date-stamped recordings as the previous recordings of the noise she had submitted had not been date-stamped. The resident agreed that in future she would submit any recordings using the Noise App.
An internal email dated 16 February 2023 from the landlord confirmed that one of its staff had seen the neighbour’s dog off its lead during the previous week.
The landlord’s ASB records show that it had carried out a risk assessment on 16 February 2023 in relation to the reports of ASB and had left voicemail messages for the resident on 16 and 17 February 2023. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 February 2023 and asked for her email to be treated as a formal complaint. She stated that she believed she was being discriminated against as the landlord had not addressed her reports of the neighbour playing loud music but had acted when the neighbour had made similar reports.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 February 2023 to confirm it had advised her previously that she should obtain legal advice and include her reports as part of her defence (in relation to the landlord’s injunction application). The landlord confirmed it had opened a new case regarding the reports of the neighbour’s dog being off its lead.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 February 2023 and informed her that it had escalated the complaint. It advised her that it had opened a new complaint as the previous one had been closed because she had not requested the escalation within 10 days.
On 22 February 2023, the landlord sent a letter to all residents in the block reminding them to keep pets on a lead when in the communal areas. The landlord’s file notes stated that it was sending the general letter rather than contacting the neighbour directly to avoid tensions rising.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 February 2023 to acknowledge that her complaint had been escalated to stage 2.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2023 and requested her to provide official evidence of her mental health diagnosis and of her child’s Autism. The landlord stated that it needed the information “to help review the current ongoing court case”. The resident replied on the same day and stated that she would provide evidence of her diagnoses to the court during the forthcoming court hearing. She did, however, provide some details about her mental health conditions. She stated that the landlord had discriminated against her and treated her unfairly. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 25 March 2023 and provided information regarding her disability. The resident stated that she would be raising all evidence regarding the landlord’s reported discrimination against her in court.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 March 2023 and phoned the landlord on 30 March 2023 to report that her neighbour had been banging on her ceiling and this had frightened her children. She stated that her neighbour had accused her of starting a fire in a neighbouring flat that evening. The resident advised the landlord that the neighbour had been arrested for allegedly being abusive and assaulting the resident. The resident also contacted the landlord on 31 March 2023 to advise that her neighbour had a court case pending because of the alleged assault.
The landlord phoned the resident on 31 March 2023 to complete a risk assessment with her. The landlord’s records show that it opened a new ASB case with a new caseworker and contacted the police on the same day to enquire about the reported arrest of the neighbour.
The resident informed the landlord on 4 April 2023 that the police were concerned about her safety. She requested the landlord to contact the police as she had experienced problems over the past few days due to her mental health and disabilities. The resident stated that the police neighbourhood team would be carrying out weekly checks on her safety.
The police wrote to the landlord on 8 April 2023 and confirmed that they had suggested to the resident that it would be best if either the resident or the neighbour was rehoused “due to their history”. The police stated that the resident had agreed with this. The police confirmed that the neighbour’s bail conditions included not contacting the resident or her partner and that these bail conditions would remain in place until June 2023 when the neighbour was due in court. They also stated that the resident had reported social media posts made by the neighbour, however, the police said these were not breaches of the bail conditions. The police concluded by recommending that the landlord separated the 2 parties.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 14 April 2023 in which it included the following points:
1. The landlord confirmed it had spoken with the resident and had agreed to allocate her a new caseworker to investigate her reports of ASB. The landlord said that the new caseworker had contacted the resident to take the matter forward.
2. The landlord advised that it had allocated a support worker to the resident to help sustain her tenancy.
3. The landlord acknowledged the delay in dealing with the complaint and had discussed a compensation payment with the resident. However, the resident had requested the landlord to remove her sofa instead of paying compensation. The landlord had therefore agreed to this.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 April 2023 and stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because she did not believe the landlord had done enough to protect her from the neighbour. She stated that she suffered with her mental health daily and did not leave the property for fear of the neighbour approaching her. The resident added that it had been 3 weeks since the neighbour had been arrested and she stated she had not received support during that period.
The police wrote to the landlord on 16 April 2023 asking whether it could move either the resident or the neighbour. The police also asked whether the landlord could introduce target hardening measures, such as CCTV. The police said they were aware that the landlord had given both residents video doorbells.
The resident advised this Service on 17 April 2023 that she had been offered £80 compensation for the delay in the complaints process. She stated that the outcomes she was seeking were for the landlord to take action to ensure the ASB ceases and for the landlord to permanently move her to an alternative property.
An internal email dated 24 April 2023 from the landlord stated that it had advised the resident it would support her to move. The landlord said it had spoken to the resident on 20 April 2023 and she had said she was open to moving. The landlord wrote to her on 25 April 2023 and requested information to accompany the request for rehousing. The landlord stated that its management team would then review the application for a management transfer. In the meantime, the landlord advised the resident not to read social media posts from her neighbour or engage in any conversations with the neighbour.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 April 2023 and stated that she was happy to move but wanted to stay in the same area to retain contact with her son. The landlord’s records show that the landlord approved the resident’s management transfer request.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 May 2023 to request the landlord to change a meeting scheduled with her on that day to a virtual meeting rather than in person. On 12 May 2023, the landlord was due to meet the resident but she cancelled the meeting as she was sorting out the arrangements to move.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 May 2023 to report that her neighbour’s dog was off the lead in the communal area. She requested the landlord to deal with this urgently as her daughter had previously been attacked by a dog.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 May 2023 to request the installation of CCTV as she reported that her post box had been damaged.
During the remainder of May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to report that she was being discriminated against because her neighbour had been placed in temporary accommodation. She stated the neighbour had made threats against her on social media.
On 14 June 2023, the resident requested the landlord to reschedule a meeting that had been due to take place with her on 15 June 2023. She advised the landlord that she could not attend due to sickness.
During July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord various times to report that her neighbour had installed CCTV and was using this to film the resident and her family members.
The landlord attended a multi-agency case review on 2 August 2023, which was also attended by representatives of the local authority, the police and health workers. The meeting considered the issues that had been reported by both the resident and the neighbour.
The landlord’s records show that the resident was rehoused on 14 August 2023 and any outstanding issues between the resident and the neighbour were being dealt with by the police. The landlord had therefore closed its ASB case.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 9 October 2023 that the landlord had forced her to leave the property and had then allowed the neighbour to move into the resident’s former property. The resident stated that the landlord had discriminated against her by making her leave the property.
The landlord advised this Service on 29 August 2024 that it had chosen not to apply for a full injunction against the resident in 2023, and instead it had chosen to support the resident to be rehoused in order to prevent further dispute between the 2 parties.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the landlord under the General Data Protection Regulation. This matter has not been investigated by this Service as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about data handling, confidentiality, compliance with the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation. Such matters are therefore outside of the remit of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman has received information regarding various events that occurred after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 14 April 2023. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. Therefore, the Ombudsman has focussed its investigation on the events up to 14 April 2023 and events after this have not been investigated because the Ombudsman has not considered it fair and reasonable to do so. This includes the landlord’s offer of alternative accommodation to the resident and her neighbour. Reference has been made to some of the events that took place after the stage 2 reply for contextual purposes.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s Tenancy Compliance Policy states:
1. “We work closely with other local partners to deliver the ASB service”.
2. “We will support perpetrators to change their behaviour and stop the ASB. Where this does not happen or they refuse to cooperate then we will use the various legal sanctions that are available to us to stop the ASB”.
3. “We will be tailoring the support we offer to meet individual needs and the circumstances of the case. Two weekly updates will be provided to all victims to advise on most recent actions”.
The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported happened or not. The role of the Ombudsman is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had been banging on her door and had made threats to kill her on 30 March 2022. The resident confirmed she had reported the incident to the police who she said had arrested the neighbour. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 31 March and 1 April 2022 to obtain her version of the events. It was reasonable that the landlord had spoken to the neighbour to investigate the incident that had taken place on 30 March 2022. It was also reasonable that the landlord had advised the neighbour that any follow-up action would be dependant on the actions of the police.
The landlord had carried out a risk assessment on 31 March 2022, which was appropriate so that it could understand the level of risk involved. The landlord then spoke to the resident on 1 April 2022 and advised her that that it would install a video doorbell. This was reasonable as it would provide reassurance to the resident that future incidents might be captured and used as evidence. The landlord also agreed to look into supporting the resident to buy carpets. This was also reasonable as the neighbour had complained about noise from the resident’s property and the resident had advised the landlord that she could not afford to buy carpets.
On 3 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request additional support. The landlord replied on the next day and asked the resident whether she was receiving support from her GP and other agencies. The landlord also asked for further details regarding the type of support the resident was requesting. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident whether she was receiving support from her GP as the resident had mentioned that she was struggling with her mental health. It was also reasonable for the landlord to ask for further details so that it could assess whether it could provide any additional support.
During the following months, the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident and the neighbour. This was appropriate as both parties had made allegations and counter-allegations regarding ASB. The evidence shows that the landlord had attempted to arrange for the resident to sign an ABC in August 2022and had then decided that it was appropriate to take court action to obtain an injunction against the resident.
As stated earlier, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether ASB was taking place. Therefore, it follows that this Service is not in a position to determine whether the landlord acted correctly in deciding to request the resident to sign the ABC and then to apply for an injunction. The evidence seen does, however, show that the landlord had gathered information from various sources, including from the resident and the neighbour before deciding to act. The evidence seen also shows that the landlord had taken into account the resident’s mental health conditions in deciding that an application for an injunction was a proportionate intervention.
While this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord’s actions were proportionate in the circumstances, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was right for the landlord to have sought a resolution to the situation. Both the resident and the neighbour had reported ASB incidents since March 2022 and the evidence shows that both parties found the situation distressing.
As well as taking legal action, the evidence shows that the landlord offered support by fitting carpets to the resident’s property on 17 November 2022 in an attempt to resolve the reported noise issues. It also fitted a video doorbell to the resident’s property as it had agreed to do. The landlord also attempted to meet with the resident at her property in December 2022 and January 2023 to discuss the issues. However, the meetings did not take place. Finally, in its stage 2 reply the landlord confirmed it had allocated a support worker to the resident to help sustain her tenancy. These were all positive steps taken by the landlord to provide additional support to the resident who was known to be vulnerable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 January 2023 to report loud music from her neighbour. The resident attached recordings which she said were evidence of the loud music. The landlord spoke to the resident on 15 February 2023 and requested her to submit recordings that were “date stamped”. Although this must have been frustrating for the resident, it is important that evidence, such as recordings, show the date (and preferably the time) of the recording as this adds to their validity and reliability as evidence. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to request date-stamped recordings. The resident agreed in future to use the Noise App, which would ensure that recordings were date and time stamped.
As the resident had submitted the recordings on 23 January 2023, it was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not responded until 15 February 2023. The delay had prompted the resident to chase the landlord on the day it responded.
One of the issues that the resident consistently reported was that the neighbour’s dog was allowed off its lead in the communal areas. For example, she raised this with the landlord on 10 May 2022, 13 July 2022 and 10 January 2023. She had also advised the landlord that she had previously been rehoused because her daughter had been attacked by a dog.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord addressed these reports about the dog with the neighbour during 2022. This was unreasonable as the landlord’s tenancy agreement states: “Your pet must not annoy, frighten or cause a nuisance to other people. For example, pets should not make excessive noise or be allowed to roam on the communal walkways and dogs should always be kept on a lead when in communal areas”. The landlord’s failure to address the issue was distressing for the resident because she had advised the landlord that this was affecting her daughter due to a dog attack at her previous address.
The landlord sent a letter to all residents of the block on 22 February 2023 reminding them to keep pets on a lead. The landlord’s rationale for sending a letter to all residents, rather than approaching the neighbour, was to avoid increasing tension between the resident and the neighbour. Given the various incidents that had occurred previously between the resident and her neighbour, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s decision to send a letter to all residents was reasonable. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any information explaining why the letter could not have been sent much earlier, for example, shortly after the resident reported the issue in May 2022.
On 29 and 30 March 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the neighbour had been arrested due to an alleged assault on 29 March 2023. The landlord opened a new ASB case and carried out a risk assessment with the resident on 31 March 2023. This was appropriate as it was important for the landlord to understand the level of risk posed to the resident. The landlord also contacted the police on 31 March 2023 to request information about the neighbour’s arrest. This was appropriate as the landlord was aware the police were dealing with the reported assault and, in line with its Tenancy Compliance Policy, it was important for the landlord to work with partner agencies to resolve ASB issues.
The police provided the landlord with information on 8 and 16 April 2023 about the neighbour’s arrest and bail conditions, which included not contacting the resident. The police also recommended that the 2 parties should be separated by rehousing one of them. The landlord’s records show that during April to July 2023 the landlord worked with the resident to progress her management transfer application and she was rehoused on 14 August 2023.
Although the Ombudsman has not assessed the events after the stage 2 reply on 14 April 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord had progressed the resident’s rehousing application as she had requested a permanent move on 4 April 2022 and the police had recommended separating the 2 parties on 8 April 2023.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord was faced with a difficult situation involving allegations and counter-allegations of ASB by the resident and the neighbour. The landlord maintained contact with the resident and carried out investigations into her allegations by speaking to the neighbour and working with the police. The landlord carried out risk assessments, provided support to the resident and supported her with her request for rehousing. The landlord therefore took reasonable measures to deal with the situation.
The Ombudsman has, however, found there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord acting in relation to the resident’s reports that the neighbour’s dog was in the communal areas without a lead. This Service has therefore found there was service failure because of this lack of action and has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100. The sum ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures where there were delays in getting matters resolved and this resulted in distress for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

There are 2 stages to the landlord’s complaint process, these are:
1. Stage 1 in which the landlord has 10 working days to agree a resolution.
2. Stage 2 in which the landlord has 20 working days to agree a resolution.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy states “When we have offered a stage 1 resolution, complainants will be given 10 working days to respond or provide evidence to support their claim, where required”.
The landlord’s Complaint Procedure states that it will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 3 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2023 and stated that she wished to make a complaint about the way her ASB case had been managed. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the next day, which was appropriate and in line with its Complaint Procedure. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 18 January 2023, which was 6 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord therefore replied to the stage one complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 February 2023 and requested it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she was not happy with the outcome at stage one. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 February 2023 to advise her that it had escalated her complaint by opening a new complaint. It explained that it had done this because she had not requested it to escalate her complaint within the 10-working day period stipulated in its policy. It had therefore closed her previous complaint. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 23 February 2023 to advise her that the complaint had been escalated to stage 2. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord had acted reasonably because:
1. It had followed its policy by closing the previous complaint when the resident had not responded within 10 working days.
2. Although the landlord was slightly outside its target of acknowledging complaints within 3 working days, it had written to the resident within a reasonable period on 20 February 2023 to advise her that it had escalated her complaint.
3. The landlord had then written to the resident on 23 February 2023 to confirm it was treating the complaint as a stage 2 complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 14 April 2023, which was 42 working days after the resident had requested the landlord to escalate her complaint. Although the landlord was in contact with the resident during the intervening period, for example on 31 March 2023, the time taken by the landlord to reply was nevertheless unreasonable. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord sent an interim reply to advise the resident that the response would be delayed.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord acknowledged the delay in replying to the complaint and confirmed that it had offered compensation. The amount offered was £80 but the resident had agreed for the landlord to remove her sofa instead of paying her the compensation.
The £80 offered by the landlord was within the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures where there were delays in getting matters resolved. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord therefore made a proportionate and reasonable offer of redress to put things right in terms of the delay in replying to the complaint. The landlord also acted reasonably by agreeing to the resident’s request to remove her sofa instead of paying the compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s report of discrimination by the landlord is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord maintained contact with the resident and carried out investigations into her allegations by speaking to the neighbour and working with the police. The landlord carried out risk assessments, provided support to the resident and supported her with her request for rehousing. However, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord acting in relation to the resident’s reports that the neighbour’s dog was in the communal areas without a lead.
The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 or otherwise, since this is a legal matter that would have to be determined by a court.
The landlord made a proportionate and reasonable offer of redress to put things right in terms of the delay in replying to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord also acted reasonably by agreeing to the resident’s request to remove her sofa instead of paying the compensation.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to pay the resident £100 in relation to its response to the resident’s reports about the dog being off its lead in the communal areas.