Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202337118)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337118

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

29 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association.
  2. The resident reported issues of ASB in May 2023 concerning her neighbour which included verbal abuse, threatening behaviour, noise nuisance and the misuse of public areas.
  3. On 2 January 2024 the resident raised a formal complaint as she did not consider the landlord had taken prompt or effective action to deal with the ASB. She was also unhappy with the lack of communication over the previous 6 months. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 8 February 2024. It apologised and said that it was actively reviewing the case and would keep the resident informed of the future steps it would take.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 February 2024, and this was responded to on 22 March 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint, apologised for its failings and offered the resident £850 compensation. It said that it should have and would do more to address the persistent issues of ASB emanating from the resident’s neighbour. It also advised that it would support the resident in any dealings with the local authority and police. The stage 2 response also set out future actions that it would take to address the ASB.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this service following receipt of the stage 2 complaint response. After this referral the resident has made further formal complaints about the landlord’s actions since the stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is understood that the resident has raised further formal complaints about the landlord’s actions or lack of action since it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 March 2024. These new formal complaints have yet to exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the actions of the landlord between the initial reports of ASB in May 2023 and 22 March 2024 (the date of the stage 2 response). Should the resident remain unhappy with the landlord’s actions after it issued its stage 2 response she should continue through the landlord’s complaint procedure.

Handling of ASB reports

  1. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather it is to assess how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received, and whether it has reasonably followed its policy and good practice, considering all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord implemented a new ASB policy in May 2024, at the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord’s ASB policy defined ASB as conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. The policy separated ASB into 3 categories. Category A was for serious criminal behaviour. Category B was for serious ASB and could include verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour. Category C was low risk and included issues such as noise nuisance, nuisance from vehicles, misuse of public area and youth nuisance. The policy also provided some examples of issues that would not be categorised as ASB and these included children playing, lifestyle clashes and general living noise.
  3. The resident initially reported that she had ongoing ASB issues with her neighbour on 2 May 2023. After receiving this report the initial actions by the landlord were reasonable, quick and in line with its policy. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 5 May and left a voicemail with contact details and information on how to get in touch with the relevant caseworker. At the same time, the caseworker contacted the community mental health team (CHMT) as it was flagged on the landlord’s system that the resident had some vulnerabilities. The landlord arranged with the CHMT to contact the resident and carry out an assessment. Once this was completed it then called the resident to discuss the ASB issues. It conducted a risk assessment and gave advice to the resident on gathering evidence and when to report incidents to the police.
  4. Following the landlord’s call it emailed the resident with the ASB case reference number, contact details and information on how to gather evidence. It attached diary sheets and advised on how to use a noise app. It also set out that the landlord and CHMT would visit the resident and provided a link for victim support. The landlord also explained that it would be visiting the resident’s neighbour to discuss the reports made against them. This follow up action provided clear communication and information on the next steps for the resident. This was a good example of how to assess, plan and manage expectations in relation to ASB.
  5. Between 9 May and 23 June 2023, the landlord continued to be proactive in its handling of the ASB case. The resident made further reports that her neighbour and the neighbour’s children were causing disturbances such as loud arguing, playing with balls in public areas and using explicit language. The landlord often returned calls the same day, or as a minimum within 5 working days of the report being received. The landlord ensured that each report was recorded on the case file, and on 23 June 2023 visited the resident to discuss the case and the impact on her. It was agreed during the visit that the CMHT would contact the resident regularly to offer support, and that the landlord would visit the neighbour to discuss the allegations. These actions were in line with its ASB policy which said that it would take a victim-centred approach and work decisively in close partnership with other “key stakeholders”.
  6. On 17 July 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour had broken her front gate and threatened her. She advised that this had been reported to the police. Following the report, the landlord contacted the resident within 24 hours of the report to discuss the incident, it emailed the police about the incident to obtain relevant information, and it also made an internal request for installation of a doorbell camera at the resident’s property. These actions were in line with the ASB policy for cases that are high risk, which said that additional measures would be considered. This included providing additional security to the property and liaising with appropriate agencies.
  7. The landlord also called the neighbour on 20 July 2023 to discuss the incident, and the allegations made. As part of this call the landlord provided some information to the neighbour on how to limit or stop the allegations from continuing or escalating. By contacting the neighbour swiftly the landlord showed that it was taking the report by the resident seriously and that it was using its ASB policy to decide on the relevant, proportionate, steps to take.
  8. The landlord received communication from the police on 23 July 2023 which confirmed that they had been called to an incident earlier that week. The police said that they had given words of advice, the neighbour had admitted and apologised for their actions, and that the case had been closed with a ‘community resolution’. The landlord logged this information onto its ASB case system but took no further action with the neighbour in relation to this incident. Having spoke to the resident the Ombudsman understands that she considers that her neighbour has a ‘public order notice’ against them and that the landlord failed to act on this. However, the evidence shows that the landlord was provided with details that a community resolution had been agreed and that no further action was taken under the Public Order Act (1986).
  9. A community resolution is a type of out-of-court disposal used to deal with low-level offences or ASB through an informal agreement between the parties involved. It is an alternative to cases being progressed through the traditional criminal justice process. The landlord took the view that this did not constitute a breach of the neighbour’s tenancy and therefore, no formal action would be taken. However, it did speak to the neighbour shortly after the incident was reported and remind them of their responsibilities. This was a reasonable and proportionate decision to take that was in line with its own ASB policy.
  10. The evidence shows that the landlord did not contact the resident to discuss the ASB reports in August 2023. The landlord had set up an action plan after the original reports stating that communication would be ‘regular’. During September 2023 the communication by the landlord with the resident became intermittent. The resident contacted the landlord on 6, 8, 11 and 12 September 2023 before the landlord replied on 15 September 2023 to arrange a visit for the 19 September 2023. This lack of regular communication for the 7 weeks leading up to the visit was unreasonable. The resident was left with a feeling of being unsupported and this increased her distress.
  11. Following the visit on 19 September 2023 the landlord asked the resident if she was willing to participate in mediation with the neighbour. However, in a call dated 9 October 2023 the resident refused mediation as she did not believe that the neighbour would improve or be willing to stop the actions that were causing her distress. While the offer of mediation was refused this was a positive action for the landlord to take. It showed that the landlord was looking at ways, in line with its policy, to potentially resolve the ASB even when it considered the evidence to take formal action was limited.
  12. In the call on 9 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had arranged to meet with the neighbour to discuss the alleged ASB. The landlord said that it would contact the resident once the visit had taken place to provide an update. However, the resident had to chase the landlord on 12, 16, 18, 25 and 26 October 2023 and 24 and 29 November 2023 before the landlord contacted her to provide an update on 4 December 2023. This delay in communicating with the resident for 8 weeks was unreasonable. This left the resident with an increased sense of frustration at the landlord’s actions and reinforced her view that the landlord was unsupportive.
  13. On 4 December 2023 the landlord advised the resident it was conducting a case review and that this was due to take place on 12 December 2023. Despite this the landlord’s communication continued to be poor. The resident called for an update on 12, 14 and 20 December 2023 before she raised a formal complaint on 2 January 2024. This failure to provide updates for a further 4 weeks caused the resident to become upset at the service she was receiving and the lack of progress since July 2023.
  14. Following the complaint, the landlord contacted the resident on 12 January to say that it would issue its stage 1 complaint response by 30 January 2024. This was due to the complexity of the matter. The stage 1 response was issued on 8 February 2024. This complaint was escalated on 15 February 2024 with a stage 2 response being issued on 22 March 2022. The stage 2 response upheld the resident’s complaint and increased the stage 1 offer of compensation to £850. It also set out some specific actions that the landlord would take to address the ASB which included visiting the neighbour to formally address the ongoing ASB issues.
  15. When considering the actions of the landlord this can be split into 2 periods. Between May and July 2023, the actions of the landlord were prompt, proportionate and in line with its ASB policy. However, the landlord failed in several areas in the period between August 2023 and March 2024. It’s communication and failure to follow its ASB policy left the resident feeling distressed and unsupported at what was a very worrying time for her. When considering all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman has considered if the offer of compensation is fair and proportionate given the failings identified.
  16. It is acknowledged that the resident was understandably worried and upset by the actions of her neighbour during this period. ASB can often be harmful and a situation where ASB is ongoing can have lasting effects and may reduce the resident’s enjoyment of her home. However, this is an impact caused by the alleged perpetrators of the ASB rather than the landlord itself. The findings in this report do recognise that there were failings by the landlord, and the Ombudsman would consider the failings identified as maladministration. In this Service’s remedies guidance if there has been maladministration that has caused a significant impact to the resident payments of £600 to £1,000 would be appropriate. Therefore, the payment of £850 offered by the landlord is in line with what is expected for failings of this type. Considering this offer of compensation and the specific steps the landlord set out to address the ASB, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this amounts to reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will acknowledge the initial complaint no later than 1 working day after the complaint is registered, that it will contact the resident no later than 3 working days after the complaint is received and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. After escalation it will respond with its stage 2 response within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timescales the landlord will let the resident know.
  2. Despite the landlord acknowledging and contacting the resident within its policy timescales at stage 1, there was an unreasonable delay in providing this response. After receipt of the complaint on 2 January 2024 the landlord contacted the resident on 5 January 2024 and 12 January 2024 to advise it would require an extension of time. This was initially agreed to be to the 16 January 2024 and then revised to the 30 January 2024. However, the landlord failed to issue its complaint response until 8 February 2024. This was a total of 26 working days after the complaint had been raised and 7 working days after the extended deadline. The resident was unhappy and frustrated at this delay.
  3. After the resident escalated her complaint on 15 February the landlord took 25 working days to provide a stage 2 response. The landlord failed to contact the resident to agree an extended deadline, and this caused some further distress to the resident.
  4. When considering these delays, the Ombudsman recognises that even if the responses would have been provided sooner the outcome of the complaint would not have changed. The delays themselves were only short and while it did cause the resident some distress and frustration, the impact to the resident was short lived. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. This Service’s remedies guidance says that where there has been an impact to the resident of short duration that did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the case, a payment of between £50 to £100 is appropriate. As such, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to make a payment of £50 to acknowledge the impact these delays caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the delay in handling the complaint.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused due to the delay in complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should make a payment £850 compensation to the resident as set out in its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contact or meet with the resident to discuss the ongoing ASB. It is encouraged to create an action plan for the resident so she is clear on what the requirements are for evidence gathering. The landlord is also encouraged to set out what actions it may take after reviewing evidence to help manage the resident’s expectations.