Gateway Housing Association Limited (202216373)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216373

Gateway Housing Association Limited

15 May 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:
1. Handling of allegations of anti-social behaviour (ASB) about the resident.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of harassment.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat within a block of flats. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the building. The landlord has said the resident has a disability.

Landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy says it will adopt a supportive approach when working with victims, witnesses and alleged perpetrators. It explains that it will support initiatives to prevent ASB occurring and its staff are committed to tackling ASB.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy, applicable in 2022, explains that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. For stage 1, it says it will respond within 10 working days and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. The policy also says that it can make a payment of £25 for a delayed complaint response.

Summary of events

In February 2022 a neighbour made allegations of ASB against the resident. The landlord notified the resident of this on 8 April 2022 and it met with the resident on 29 April 2022 to discuss the allegations. The Service has not been provided with notes of the meeting.
On 3 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident thanking her for attending a meeting with it on 29 April 2022. It confirmed points discussed at the meeting and said:
1. It had received allegations of noise nuisance.
2. The resident denied the allegations and made counter allegations about the neighbour.
3. It acknowledged the resident’s agreement to mediation.
4. It listed the agreed actions following the meeting which included: permission for it to discuss the case with the neighbour, the resident was to complete diary sheets and report issues to the relevant agencies and that the resident would consider capturing evidence where it was safe to do so.
5. It would continue with its investigation and agreed to keep the resident update as the case progressed.
Throughout May 2022 the landlord investigated the alleged ASB. Its investigation included visiting the building and speaking to other residents. It found the building was “quiet” and there was no collaborative evidence relating to the allegations made about the resident.
The landlord’s system notes show that it attempted to call the resident on 17 and 18 May 2022 but received no answer. It then wrote to the resident on 25 May 2022 explaining this, it said it had offered mediation to the neighbour and said it would keep the resident updated with this.
A completed incident diary sheet from June 2022 records the resident allegation that the neighbour called her a “liar” on 9 June 2022. The resident said she reported this to the police and told the landlord how she felt the neighbour was harassing her.
Further system notes show the landlord’s attempt to call the resident on 13 June 2022 were unsuccessful. The landlord wrote to the resident about its call attempt and asked her to call it.
On 14 June 2022 the police contacted the landlord about the issues between the resident and neighbour. The police explained they had attended the property and asked if the landlord had an update on the situation. At that time the police said the resident had gone abroad for a couple of months.
In July 2022 the neighbour declined mediation. The landlord told the resident of this on 11 July 2022 and explained that it had found no corroborative evidence supporting the reports of alleged ASB against the resident and said it had closed the ASB case.
The resident raised her complaint on 3 August 2022. She said:
1. The landlord failed to resolve the longstanding ASB issue. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s investigation of false claims made about her.
2. The landlord’s staff had not dealt with the issue as per its ASB policy. She said it was not truthful and honest in its meeting on 29 April 2022 and said it told her there was another person that had complained about her but did not provide any further detail to support this.
3. The following policy “breaches” had occurred:
  1. It not acting in a way to prevent, intervene and enforce action against the neighbour for making false claims against the resident and harassing her for a prolonged time.
  2. It not acting in a supportive manner. The resident alleged that she was laughed at by the housing officer during the meeting from 29 April 2022 and says she was treated as “guilty” from the beginning of the meeting. She explained the landlord’s approach to investigating the concerns by listening at her door for noise was not appropriate behaviour.
  3. It not taking the case seriously as it had been ongoing for 5 years and was not resolved. She explained how she felt she had not received fair treatment and how she lived in fear of further harassment. She told it of her worries that the harassment could put her personal safety at risk.
  4. She told it how closing the case without an explanation was not an appropriate resolution.
  5. The landlord did not keep her updated on the status of the case like it said it would.
4. The agreed actions had not been followed up and it did not call her and this was an example of it being dishonest. She explained how communication had been poor.
5. She was being denied her right to live in a “safe and peaceful” environment. She said the landlord was failing in its duty of care towards her which was causing her “significant” distress and impacting her mental health.
An internal email from 5 August 2022 notes that:
1. The resident was the alleged perpetrator and the landlord carried out an interview according to its policy and procedure (interviewed both sides and agreed actions).
2. It had not received an incident diary sheet at that time from the resident.
3. It had been told that the resident was abroad for a couple of months and explained that this maybe why she did not answer her phone.
4. It was right for it to investigate the matter as the neighbour had made a report to it. But as no corroborative evidence was found it closed the case and told both sides. It said it had not breached its policy.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 August 2022. It said:
1. It had investigated the ASB case where it completed interviews and agreed actions. It explained it had conducted site visits where it approached other residents. It said the resident was the alleged perpetrator so she was interviewed and actions were agreed to substantiate any counter allegations she made.
2. It had not received any reports of new incidents from the resident but she agreed to fill incident diary sheets to ensure appropriate action was taken.
3. It made calls in May and June 2022 but was unable to speak to the resident. It said it wrote to the resident 4 times between 3 May and 25 June 2022 and received no response.
4. In response to concerns about the meeting on 29 April 2022. The landlord said its records showed a second complainant but it did not mention the name. It explained that this did not mean its staff had been dishonest or untruthful if they did not name the second complainant.
5. It reviewed the handling of the case and found no gaps in its service delivery. It also said its staff did not laugh at the resident on arrival and instead offered her a drink. It explained how it found no evidence to show inappropriate treatment during the meeting.
6. It was pleased the resident had accepted mediation but explained this had been declined by the neighbour. It added that as there was no corroborative evidence to support the reports of ASB, the case was closed.
7. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 29 August 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she received the stage 1 response by email on 18 August 2022 and explained her unhappiness. She said:
1. The landlord’s version of events were inaccurate:
  1. She had been treated disrespectfully and not in line with its policy during the meeting on 29 April 2022.
  2. It did not communicate with her as it described and its claims that she had been called were not correct. She said she did not receive letters from 25 May, 17 and 25 June 2022 either.
  3. She had provided an incident diary sheet but received no follow up from the landlord.
2. It had not offered any alternative to mediation after the neighbour declined it.
3. In resolution of her complaint she was seeking a formal apology for the way she was treated on 29 April 2022, a clear plan of action to resolve the issue and an explanation as to why it did not respond to her incident diary sheet from 9 June 2022. She said she wanted the landlord to ensure she could live in her own home without fear of harassment and compensation for the “significant” distress caused.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 September 2022 and said it would respond within 20 working days.
On 5 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had not received its stage 2 response.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. The resident had escalated her complaint as she disagreed with its version of events and it repeated its understanding of her escalation request.
2. The stage 1 response was based on its system notes which captured visits, calls and conversations. It apologised the resident felt the response was not accurate and said it would address the points.
3. In relation to the meeting from 29 April 2022, it said it found the meeting was conducted in a professional manner and inline with its standards. It did not distribute meeting notes or allow recordings but said it would take onboard the resident’s feedback for future meetings.
4. It would resend the letters mentioned within its stage 1 response and apologised that the resident had not received them.
5. It noted the feedback about missed calls and agreed other methods of contact should be used. It said it was in communication by email and letter and asked the resident to confirm a preferred method of contact.
6. It checked its system and could not find any records of incident and police reports from the resident. It asked the resident to email these and provide crime reference numbers. It said the resident could open a new ASB case if she felt she was being harassed.
7. The ASB case, where the resident was the alleged perpetrator, was closed so it did not try to find an alternative to mediation as per its policy. It repeated how it found no evidence of long term issues and said the case was closed.
8. It concluded it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged its delayed stage 2 response and offered the resident £25 compensation.
The resident disputes receiving the landlord’s stage 2 response at that time. On 23 December 2022 and 11 January 2023 she chased the landlord for a response to her complaint. On 19 March 2023, the Service asked the landlord for its stage 2 response. It is understood that the stage 2 response was provided around that time.
The Service has seen a copy of a mediation agreement between the neighbour and resident from May 2023.
The Service spoke to the resident on 8 May 2024 where she said the situation remained the same between her and the neighbour. She said the situation had been ongoing for several year and explained the impact the situation was having on her. She said she was worried about things escalating and avoided going into her garden.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is important to explain that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether an incident amounts to ASB or whether ASB had occurred. Instead it is the role of the Service to consider the actions taken by a landlord when reports of alleged ASB have been made to it and to decide whether those actions where appropriate or reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident has told the Service that the issues between the neighbour have been ongoing since 2017 or 2018. The issues referred to here involve reports of ASB and counter allegations between the parties. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the resident to have raised complaints about the landlord’s handling of such reports or allegations within a reasonable time, usually 6 months of the issue arising.
As per paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.” However, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB about the resident and the resident’s counter allegations from February 2022 and the issues that formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response from 24 October 2022.
It is noted that the resident has disputed receiving telephone calls from the landlord on 17 May and 13 June 2022. This Service has seen the landlord’s system notes which show it attempted to call the resident on 17 May and 13 June 2022. The system notes demonstrate a chronological log of events and contact with the resident. They also fit in with the timeline of events. As such, they have been accepted as attempts made by the landlord to contact the resident.

Handling of allegations of ASB about the resident

It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate reports of ASB from the neighbour in early 2022. The landlord investigated the allegations by conducting an interview with the resident. While this would have been difficult for the resident as the allegations were about her, it was appropriate for the landlord to speak with her to establish what happened and to allow it to decide the actions it should take.
The landlord interviewed the resident on 29 April 2022 and appropriately wrote to her on 3 May 2022 explaining it would continue with its investigation. Its system notes show it attempted to contact the resident in May 2022 and June 2022 explaining its next steps. It then told the resident that it had closed the case on 11 July 2022 due to no evidence supporting the allegations made. The landlord’s approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff when it met with her in April 2022. She said she was laughed at when she entered the building, she was treated as though she was “guilty” and the landlord was incorrect in saying 2 complainants had raised concerns about her. The evidence shows that following the resident’s complaint about these issues the landlord investigated the concerns by asking staff that were present at that time. It was reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the concerns once it was made aware and it then explained its position within the stage 1 response.
It is important to explain that the Service does not dispute how the resident felt at the meeting. However, it is difficult to establish what did or did not happen at that time. Instead the evidence shows the landlord took reasonable steps in investigating the resident’s concerns and gaining input from its staff.
It is understandable that the resident would have been caused some frustration in being told there were 2 complainants and not being provided with further information about this. However, without explicit consent the landlord would not be able to share details of those making a report of ASB. The landlord’s approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
Overall, when considering the evidence available, the landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB about the resident was reasonable in the circumstances and there was no maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s reports of harassment

An agreed action following the meeting in April 2022 was for the resident to fill in diary sheets to record incidents of ASB. The evidence shows the resident did this on 9 June 2022 and told the landlord how she felt she was being harassed as the neighbour had called her a “liar”. She provided a crime reference number and described the impact of the incident on her. The landlord date stamped the incident diary as received on 13 June 2022. However, there is no evidence to show it did anything further with this report. This was not appropriate.
Instead the landlord repeatedly told the resident it had not received reports of new incidents on 15 August 2022 and again in its stage 2 response from 24 October 2022. It took the landlord over 4 months to ask the resident to resend the incident diary and there is no evidence to show it took any further action following this. This was not appropriate.
It is unclear why the landlord did not trigger its ASB process following the resident’s report in June 2022 or explain why it would not. It is clear this would have caused the resident some upset and left her feeling her concerns had been ignored.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of harassment was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.

Complaint handling

The resident escalated her complaint on 29 August 2022. The landlord appropriately acknowledged it on 1 September 2022 and said it would respond within 20 working days. However, it did not do this and took 40 days in total to issue its stage 2 response. This was despite the resident chasing it for a response. This was not appropriate and exceeded the timeframe set within the landlord’s policy.
The resident has disputed receiving the landlord’s response on, or around, 24 October 2022. She chased the landlord for a response in December 2022 and January 2023. Despite her repeated contact the landlord did not resend the stage 2 response to her at that time. This meant she had to involve this Service before she received the landlord’s stage 2 response in March 2023.
It is unclear why the resident did not receive the landlord’s response from 24 October 2022. Nonetheless, when she told the landlord she had not received a response, its failure to resend the response for almost 4 months was unreasonable.
In addition to the above points, the resident also told the landlord about inaccuracies within its stage 1 and 2 responses. The resident repeatedly said she did not receive letters it said it had sent to her on 25 May, 17 and 25 June 2022. While this Service has seen the landlord’s letter from 25 May 2022, the landlord has not provided letters from 17 and 25 June 2022 or explained why it does not have these. The evidence provided, including the landlord’s system notes, does not refer to contact with the resident on 17 or 25 June 2022 either. The landlord’s failure to provide these letters or explain why it does not have them is unreasonable. It should have processes in place to ensure it provides accurate information about its contact, especially within its complaint responses.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling failings combined amount to a maladministration.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately acknowledged its stage 2 response was late and offered the resident £25 compensation. However, when considering the length of time exceeded to issue the stage 2 response, the failure to resend the response within a reasonable time and it referring to letters it has not been able to provide, a further compensation amount would be more appropriate in the circumstances. As such the Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB about the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of harassment.
2. complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably when handling allegations of ASB about the resident. It conducted its investigation which included interviewing the resident and attempted to keep her updated. It acted quickly in closing the case when it found no evidence to support the allegations. It also took reasonable steps in investigating the resident’s concerns about its meeting.
The landlord did not progress the resident’s report of alleged ASB from June 2022. It incorrectly said it did not receive an incident diary from her despite receiving it on 13 June 2022. It took over 4 months to ask the resident to resend the incident diary and there is no evidence to show it took any further action at that time.
The landlord took 40 days to issue its stage 2 response, exceeding the timeframe it set within its complaints policy by 4 weeks. When the resident told it she had not received its response, it took the landlord almost 4 months to resend a copy of its stage 2 response. While the landlord told the resident it wrote to her on 17 and 25 June 2022, it has been unable to provide evidence to show it did this and missed opportunities to check if this was correct.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £625 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by it handling of the resident’s reports of harassment.
2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. £25 it previously offered the resident, if it has not already paid this.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to conduct a management review of this case within 6 weeks of the date of this report. It should provide a copy of its review to this Service and a summary to the resident. The review should focus on:
1. What went wrong and the changes/improvements it will make to ensure its procedures and processes for handling and recording reports of ASB incidents are working effectively.
2. How it will ensure its systems and processes for recording contact with the resident are accurate and working effectively.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident to establish if there are any further reports of ASB incidents since the mediation agreement. If the resident repots there are, the landlord should consider how it will approach these. The landlord should let the Ombudsman and resident know of its decided approach.