GreenSquareAccord Limited (202312997)

Background

1.                 The resident lives alone in a 2-bedroom first floor flat in a low rise block. In May 2023 there was a fire in the resident’s flat. She alleged that her neighbours began filming her and her visitors after the fire and verbally abusing her. Between 2023 and 2024 the landlord investigated reports of ASB from, and about, the resident. In December 2023 there was an alleged assault involving the resident, her family, and another neighbour. The police arrested the resident and her family members. The resident asked us to investigate as she felt the landlord treated her unfairly and she was unhappy with its handling of her reports.

What the complaint is about

2.                 The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

3.                 We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4.                 There was maladministration in the landlord’s:

1. Handling of reports of ASB.
2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5.                 We found that:

1. There was no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s letters in July 2023 or January 2024.

2. The landlord did not properly risk assess the resident’s reports of ASB or provide an action plan.
3. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

6.                 The landlord uses the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014’s definition of ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. The resident’s allegations about her neighbour’s conduct while in communal areas could be considered ASB under this definition.

7.                 In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether the ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather it is to assess how a landlord dealt with the reports it has received, and whether it has followed its policy and good practice.

8.                 The landlord’s ASB policy and procedures say that it responds to reports swiftly based on the impact of the report. It will normally acknowledge reports within 7 working days. It will complete a risk assessment, an action plan, and agree frequency of contact. It expects residents to try to resolve disputes or disagreements themselves when it is safe to do so. Where this fails it will work with, and support, residents by effectively managing the ASB.

9.                 In her letter to the landlord on 7 July 2023, the resident said that she unsuccessfully tried calling it 6 times between May and July 2023. She advised that her husband told the landlord that she had attempted suicide in June 2023 and had no response from it. We have not seen any record that the landlord acknowledged or responded to the resident’s letter in July 2023.

10.             The landlord opened an ASB investigation into the reports of ASB with the resident as an alleged perpetrator in July 2023. Because it treated the resident as the alleged perpetrator, it did not complete a risk assessment, action plan, or agree a frequency of contact. We found no record that it considered the impact the ASB had on the resident’s health throughout its investigation. It did not address these concerns later in its complaint responses and this was a failing.

11.             Once the landlord opened an ASB case, it took steps to investigate the allegations and resolve the neighbour dispute. The resident’s allegations of ASB centred around filming in the communal areas and damage to her property. Although it is unclear if the landlord reviewed all the resident’s recordings at the time, its records show that it discussed the allegations it received with both parties. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns, visited both parties and considered the allegations and counter allegations made. It appropriately offered mediation to resolve the dispute and gave reasonable advice to try and stop the issues escalating.

12.             When its early interventions were unsuccessful, it appropriately set up acceptable behaviour contracts with each involved party in October 2023. This clearly set out its expectations on how they should behave in communal areas. It showed that it was considering the tools and powers available to it to resolve what was at the time a low-level neighbour dispute.

13.             When the alleged assault occurred in December 2023, the landlord held off further action while the police investigated. Its records show that it maintained regular contact with the police and assigned the ASB case to its enforcement team to consider if legal action was necessary. It conducted regular case reviews and kept clear records to support its decision making.

14.             The landlord did not maintain clear or regular communication with the resident between December 2023 and March 2024. This lack of communication contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience during this period. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord not to make further comment on the incidents that occurred in May and December 2023 in its stage 2 response. These incidents were subject to criminal investigation at the time and outside of the landlord’s control.

15.             The landlord accepted there had been communication failures in its stage 2 response in June 2024. Its offer of £50 compensation for these failures was fair. It reflected the lack of promised contact in April 2024. However, it did not reflect the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, including by its failure to properly address her reports in July 2023 highlighting the impact the ASB had on her health.

16.             The landlord went some way to putting things right. It acknowledged the issues with its communication and its assessment of its handling of the reports of ASB was reasonable. However, it failed to fully consider the reported impact the ASB had on the resident in June/July 2023. Under its ASB policy, the landlord was required to assess whether reports met with the definition of ASB and then create an action plan but it failed to do so.

17.             The resident sought to complain about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB in November 2023 and January 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge these complaints. As a result, the resident took additional time and trouble asking us to intervene in January and March 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge her complaint until we wrote to it asking it to respond on 15 March 2024.

18.             The landlord appropriately wrote to the resident seeking an extension to issue its stage 1 response on 27 March 2024. It also apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response on 4 April 2024. However, it did not address the combined delays or lack of acknowledgement of the resident’s earlier complaints in November 2023 or January 2024.

19.             Although the landlord offered £50 compensation for some inaccuracies in its complaint responses, it did not put right its complaint handling delays.

Learning

20.             Where the landlord has received counter allegations during an investigation into ASB, it should consider opening a separate case to ensure that it has the appropriate risk assessments, action, and contact plans. Its failure to do so in this case meant that it overlooked the resident’s serious reports of the impact the ASB had on her health.