Great Places Housing Group Limited (202421628)

Background

1. The resident has lived in his 2 bedroom, third floor flat since 2010. He has several health conditions which affect his breathing and mobility. Over recent years, he has reported a number of antisocial behaviour incidents to the landlord, including noise complaints and the use of cannabis within the block.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The resident’s request for a move.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The resident’s request of a move.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord was pro-active in its initial approach to the resident’s complaint about noise.
   2. The landlord took limited action to investigate the resident’s reports of cannabis smells in the block.
   3. The landlord provided advice regarding the resident’s options to move. However, it failed to properly consider his reported medical conditions in the context of the alleged ASB and impact on his use of his property and did not fully address this through the stage 2 complaint response.
   4. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timescales in its policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident has described how the ASB impacted his health. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to any landlord failings.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as a wide range of unacceptable activity that can negatively impact the lives of many people, often on a daily basis. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether the ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather, we will assess how a landlord dealt with the reports it received, and whether it followed its policy and good practice.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will record and respond to reports of ASB within 3 working days. It will use a combination of professional judgement and risk assessment to decide how it responds. It will seek a multi-agency approach when dealing with reported issues and will work with partner agencies such as the police.
10. The resident first contacted the landlord regarding the ASB incidents on 30 September 2023. He said the noise of a dog barking started in the early hours of the morning. While he was aware that several flats now had dogs, he alleged the noise could be coming from the flat beneath. He also alleged this same flat had caused problems throughout the summer by smoking cannabis. He acknowledged not reporting this to the landlord at the time as he felt nothing would be done.
11. The landlord responded appropriately to the initial noise concerns. The records show it visited the flat where the alleged noise was coming from the next working day to speak with the neighbour. During the visit, it confirmed the dog would only be staying for a week so it would not take any further action.
12. In relation to the complaints of cannabis usage, the landlord acted reasonably in not addressing this report at this time as it was a historic complaint (the resident admitted that his report was about events in the months beforehand). It would however have been reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to report any further issues in a timely manner in order for it to address these concerns.
13. The resident reported a noise nuisance incident on 26 October 2023. This involved an argument along with the slamming of doors from a neighbouring flat. The alleged incident occurred in the early hours of the morning and reportedly lasted over 3 hours. The resident confirmed he had recordings of this incident. The landlord responded appropriately by contacting the resident the following day to arrange an appointment to listen to the recording. However, the resident declined this offer and stated he did not wish to pursue the report. There was no failing on the landlord’s part.
14. The resident raised a number of concerns regarding the block of flats on 8 June 2024. These included:
    1. Allegations of noise nuisance from dogs.
    2. The allocation of flats to under 35s, which the landlord initially prohibited.
    3. Consent not being sought by neighbours for lodgers before they moved in.
    4. The smell of cannabis within the communal areas and lift (and several health concerns that affected his breathing and mobility).
15. The landlord responded appropriately by arranging a home visit to discuss the resident’s concerns. It confirmed its findings from the meeting in its stage 1 response later that month. It stated:
    1. It had addressed the incident of noise nuisance from a dog barking and this appeared to be an isolated incident.
    2. As the resident declined to share further details about lodgers, it could not pursue the allegations. It advised these neighbours may have sought permission but this could not be disclosed due to data protection.
    3. Restrictions on the allocation of flats to under 35s had been removed over the years to react to the demand on social housing. It also needed to bring its policies in line with local authority lettings policies.
16. These were appropriate responses and show it took the resident’s concerns seriously and took the time to address each area of his complaint.
17. The landlord has not treated the reports of the smell of cannabis as ASB. It is noted that the reports were sporadic with limited information provided. We acknowledge the landlord has referred to speaking with other neighbours who reported not noticing the smell. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the impact on the resident’s reported health and vulnerabilities. The records show that the landlord historically issued block warning letters regarding cannabis usage, which had proven effective. This would have been an appropriate step to work towards a resolution given the resident’s concern that the problem had returned.
18. In the resident’s complaint escalation, he disputed the landlord’s findings that other neighbours had not smelled cannabis in the block. He expanded on the effect this was having on his day to day life. He stated that on one occasion the smell of cannabis was so overpowering in the lift, he simply returned to his flat.
19. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it sought to clarify its position regarding the reports. It advised that due to the lack of information regarding a specific perpetrator there was little action it could take. It recommended that the resident direct any further reports to the Police and confirmed it would work with them to try and eradicate the problem. This was a reasonable approach and in line with its policy for a multi-agency working to address a problem.
20. However, given the resident said the problem meant he struggled to leave the property, it is unlikely he would have had opportunity to identify the alleged perpetrators. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to use a more proactive approach to assist its own investigation by visiting the block (as the resident requested) and evidencing the neighbouring properties it spoke to who said there was no cannabis in the block. Although the landlord correctly said cannabis use was a criminal matter and it would take a multi-agency approach (in line with its policy), it should not have overlooked the steps it could take to try to witness the reports.
21. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. Its initial responses, including visits to a neighbour and the resident, show that it took the resident’s noise concerns seriously. However, there was little follow up or pro-active action to investigate subsequent reports. The landlord said previous interventions were effective, and it is unclear why it did not consider similar actions when the resident said cannabis smells had returned. It did not do all it reasonably could to investigate the resident’s reports.
22. The landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused to him by the lack of pro-active investigation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure of a short duration.

23. The landlord’s lettings policy states it will facilitate the priority rehousing of residents who require a management move due to risks to health and safety or asset management considerations. This includes where a resident agrees to downsize.
24. As part of his complaint on 8 June 2024, the resident requested the landlord’s assistance with a move. He said that, due to his current block of flats having changed over the years, he no longer felt safe. He also stated a number of health conditions he was diagnosed with since moving into the property.
25. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it referenced rehousing advice given to the resident during a home visit on 14 June 2024. This advice included information on mutual exchanges and Rightmove. It also confirmed it would be able to assist the resident to downsize to a 1 bedroom property. This was appropriate advice and in line with its lettings policy.
26. In his escalation request, the resident confirmed he was not prepared to downsize. He said that due to his health conditions, his welfare should be the landlord’s priority.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address the resident’s continued concerns or comment regarding his welfare. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not acknowledge or demonstrate it considered this element of the complaint. He highlighted the changes in his health throughout the timeline, his difficulty in using the lift at time to access his third floor property and the related impact of ASB. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s move request, in the context of the ASB reports alongside his health concerns and stated difficulty when he could not use the lift and provide an answer within the stage 2 response.
28. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move. It was positive that in its stage 1 response the landlord explained the options available for an exchange. However, its policy states transfers will be considered where ‘elderly or disabled customers are living in accommodation where severe hardship is incurred through the unsuitability of current dwelling’. It has not provided evidence to show that any assessment of this type was completed, or that it answered the resident’s concerns for his welfare in its stage 2 response.
29. The landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the lack of response to the concerns about the suitability of his property raised in his complaint escalation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure of a short duration.

30. The resident raised a complaint on 8 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 June 2024 and issued its stage 1 response 10 working days later on 27 June 2024. This is within the timescale stated in its complaints policy.
31. The resident escalated his complaint on 30 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged this within 4 working days. It issued its stage 2 response 19 working days later on 1 August 2024.
32. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The responses were all issued in line with its policy.

Learning

Communications

33. It was positive that the landlord was able to respond to complaints in line with its policy and met with the resident to discuss his concerns at an early stage.

Record-keeping

34. The landlord generally retained good records of its contact with the resident but did not evidence some of the actions it says it took to speak to other occupiers of the block about cannabis use.