Estuary Housing Association Limited (202211445)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211445

Estuary Housing Association Limited

15 February 2023


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
    3. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman is concerned to note that the resident reported that a member of the landlord’s staff discriminated against during their handling of her ASB reports. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord or its staff amounted to discrimination as it is not possible for this Service to assess an individual’s motives. Allegations of discrimination are also legal issues better suited to a court to decide on. However, what the Ombudsman can consider is the circumstances surrounding the reported discrimination and whether the landlord responses were appropriate, fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. It is noted that among the resident’s desired complaint resolutions, she wishes to be allowed onto the housing transfer list in spite of existing arrears. However, this is not something that is within the power of the Ombudsman to order.
  3. The resident’s email to the landlord on 9 August 2022 mentioned having trouble with raising a complaint about another matter. As there was no evidence that this new complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, its response to the new complaint will not be considered within this investigation. It is suggested that the resident progress the new complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure and she retains the right to bring it to this Service for consideration if she remains dissatisfied with its response.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord, a housing association. Landlord records indicate it was aware that she had mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident first reported ASB to the landlord, loud music from her neighbour, on 27 April 2022. After it spoke to the neighbour, the landlord closed the ASB case on 27 May 2022, noting that the resident was satisfied ASB had not reoccurred. She reported further ASB (noise from communal areas) to the landlord on 11 July 2022, which resulted in the landlord sending a letter to residents of the block.
  3. On 18 July 2022, the landlord’s officer called the resident. During this call, the resident asked the landlord to visit her to view video footage she had recorded as evidence of the communal noise ASB. The resident stated she had been unable to complete ASB diary sheets due to her mental health vulnerabilities. The landlord refused to visit the resident to view the footage and declined the resident’s suggestion to send it to a work telephone for consideration. During the call it also discussed the sustainability of the resident’s tenancy.
  4. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord the same day, stating that she had been discriminated against by its refusal to review the evidence of ASB unless it was in a specific format. In its stage one response, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 9 August 2022, reiterating that she felt she had been discriminated against and adding that her stage one complaint had been issued late.
  5. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 25 August 2022, in which it upheld the complaint, acknowledging that it should have considered her emotional state and should have agreed to visit her to provide more assistance. It apologised that this did not occur and acknowledged the support it offered should have been adapted to meet her needs. The landlord also acknowledged that there was “miscommunication” in its discussion of the management of her tenancy which was “not particularly helpful”. It said it had provided feedback to its officers to ensure that appropriate support was provided in future, such as ‘floating support’, and offered to send a different officer to visit the resident to discuss her housing issues.
  6. The resident told the Ombudsman on 20 October 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s response sought resolutions which included:
    1. Compensation for her distress.
    2. Not to deal with the member of staff she had complained about in future.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it encourages residents to “work and cooperate fully to resolve disputes by attending mediation, providing written or other suitable evidence and attending court if necessary”. This policy also states that it aims to “support those affected by ASB and where applicable carry out an assessment of the vulnerability of the complainant at the earliest opportunity”.
  2. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate actions in tackling the ASB the resident reported. In response to her first report regarding noise nuisance from her neighbour, it promptly spoke to the neighbour concerned and contacted the resident at reasonable intervals to provide updates. It then closed the case after a month when the resident had advised the ASB had ceased. In response to her later report of noise nuisance in communal areas, it sent a letter to all residents within two days to outline the standards of behaviour it expected for use of communal areas. These were reasonable and proportionate actions in the circumstances and the landlord acted promptly on each occasion.
  3. When the landlord wrote to the resident on 27 April 2022 in response to her first report of ASB from her neighbour, this stated that it would investigate ASB using incident diary sheets. It also provided details on how to download and use its ASB reporting app. The landlord explained that this enabled the resident to include photos, sound recordings and “small video files”, which would be received directly by its case management software and recorded by its staff. This showed that the landlord made the resident aware of how she could submit suitable evidence for investigation.
  4. However, while the information the landlord gave the resident on how to submit evidence was in accordance with its ASB policy, its refusal to view or accept her video evidence of the communal nuisance was unreasonable. The ASB policy does not specify what evidence was “suitable” and therefore it was unreasonable for the landlord to disregard the video footage without satisfying itself of whether it was indeed suitable or not.
  5. This refusal was also not in line with the landlord’s policy aim to support those affected by ASB and was a failure to adequately take the resident’s vulnerabilities into account, given that she stated her vulnerabilities prevented her from submitting evidence through ASB diary sheets. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered carrying out a vulnerability assessment at that time, given that the resident had advised that her mental health vulnerabilities posed difficulties for her in reporting the ASB.
  6. In her complaint, the resident also stated that the conversation during which the landlord refused to view the ASB footage, while also discussing her tenancy management, had led to a deterioration of her mental health. While it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether any action or lack thereof by the landlord had a direct impact on the resident’s health, the overall distress and inconvenience she experienced must be considered. The landlord’s refusal to accept or view the resident’s video footage evidently made her feel unsupported and caused her distress and frustration.
  7. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean they are more affected by landlords’ actions than other people may be. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Landlords should therefore note any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental health condition) when responding to complaints and take these into consideration when determining how to “put things right” for a resident, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, so as to ensure any redress offered properly reflects the impact an event had on them.
  8. It was appropriate the landlord recognised in its final stage response that it had identified learning from the case and that it acknowledged it should have carried out a home visit and could have provided more flexible support to the resident in light of her vulnerabilities. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not sufficient redress for its failure. It was already aware of her mental health vulnerabilities and it recognised, in its stage one response, that at the time of her speaking to its officer she “may have been overwhelmed due to various issues”. Therefore, the landlord should have given more consideration to the likely impact the situation would have had on the resident and the potential for her to have experienced a greater sense of detriment.
  9. In light of the above, the landlord should pay £200 compensation to the resident. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, which provides for awards of £100 to £600 for a failure which the landlord did not fully put right, and had an adverse effect on the resident. This is because its refusal to accept the resident’s video footage caused her distress, prevented her from progressing her report of ASB and led to her feeling that she was being discriminated against. This was not appropriate and meant that, despite the acknowledgements within its final complaint response, it could have done more to “put things right” and ensure the resident was treated fairly.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over staff conduct

  1. A landlord is expected to ensure its interactions with residents are handled sensitively and are appropriate to the circumstances. The landlord has not disputed that when it spoke to the resident on 18 July 2022, it inappropriately raised questions about her tenancy and queried her ability to sustain her tenancy. The resident stated this led her to feel like she was being asked to end her tenancy. The landlord acknowledged this was inappropriate first in an email sent on 10 August 2022 and later in its final stage complaint response, when it stated the questions had “not (been) particularly helpful”. Given that the landlord recognised the resident may have been “overwhelmed” at the time of the conversation, it was appropriate it acknowledged it had not acted appropriately and its offer of further support with her housing issues and proposal that a visit be carried out by a different staff member were reasonable steps for it to take.
  2. While the landlord’s response acknowledged that it had not acted appropriately in the circumstances, it should have taken greater care to consider her known vulnerabilities, both at the time and during its complaint responses. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it should have done more to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience and an award of compensation would have been appropriate. Therefore, an order is made for compensation of £150 to be paid to the resident to recognise that the landlord’s failings had an impact on the resident, which it acknowledged but did not fully put right. This award is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, mentioned above.
  3. As one of her desired resolutions to the complaint, the resident stated that she did not wish to deal with the officer who questioned her ability to sustain her tenancy in future, and it is noted that the landlord already acted proactively to propose this in its final response. While the Ombudsman cannot order this, as landlords are bound by resourcing constraints which mean that it must deploy its resources in a practical way, it will be recommended that the landlord continues this approach to minimise any further distress to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints and customer feedback policy provide for a two-stage complaints procedure. Complaints should be acknowledged within five working days of receipt and complaint responses should be provided to the resident within ten working days of the acknowledgement at both stages.
  2. The resident’s stage one and final stage complaints were both acknowledged within five working days of receipt. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on the ninth working day after the acknowledgement on 12 August 2022. It issued its stage one complaint to the resident on the eleventh day after its acknowledgement on 25 July 2022.
  3. The resident contended that the stage one complaint response was issued late as she received it after 5.00pm on 9 August 2022. While the stage one complaint response was issued on the eleventh day after the acknowledgement, the stage one acknowledgement specified that the stage one response would be issued on 9 August 2022. It therefore provided a clear date for when it would respond, and this did not specify that the response would be sent during working hours.
  4. While its stage one response was issued a day after the ten-working-day timeframe specified in its policy, the Ombudsman does not consider that a failure occurred as the landlord had updated the resident regarding when she could expect the response, which sought to manage her expectations. While it would usually be considered best practice to send formal emails during working hours where possible, there was no stipulation as to at what time on 9 August 2022 its response would be issued. Overall, the delay of one working day was minimal, and there is no evidence that this led to any significant detriment for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £350 in total.
    2. Review its procedures for interactions with vulnerable residents and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that residents’ circumstances will be fully considered, and appropriate support will be offered.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Consider continuing to assign a different officer, other than the one complained about, to interact with the resident to minimise distress caused.
    2. Ensure that appropriate further support is provided to the resident, such as the ‘floating support’ mentioned in its complaint response.