Havebury Homes (202318928)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat in a purpose-built block. He has previously reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) taking place on a small area of grass alongside the building. This area can be seen from the resident’s property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There were some failures in the landlord’s handling of the investigation into ASB reported by the resident. These failures were identified by the landlord as part of its complaint responses and it provided appropriate redress in line with its compensation policy.
6. The landlord identified that it had given the resident incorrect information about how to raise a complaint. It offered compensation for this, but the compensation offered was not in line with its compensation 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.

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.

7. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the steps it will take when investing reports of ASB. This includes carrying out a home visit, maintaining regular communication, and agreeing an action plan with the complainant. It also explains that informal resolutions such as warnings, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts will be considered before more serious formal action such as injunctions or eviction.
8. The resident first reported ASB to the landlord on 16 June 2023. He reported that a dog belonging to a neighbour was barking excessively, was being allowed off the lead in the communal garden and that there was dog fouling in communal areas. The resident later also reported being unhappy with the way other residents were using the outside areas.
9. The landlord’s policy sets out that a home visit to a tenant reporting ASB should be completed within 10 working days. There is no evidence that a home visit took place after the ASB had been reported. This was not in line with its policy.
10. The landlord took steps to resolve the resident’s concerns informally, it:
    1. Reminded residents about the need to be considerate when using the outside space.
    2. Spoke to the resident’s neighbour whose dog had been barking and reminded him of the need for responsible pet ownership.
    3. Offered mediation to the parties involved as a means of resolving the dispute.
    4. Issued an acceptable behaviour contract to one of the resident’s neighbours to try to prevent the issues continuing.
    5. Took steps to combat dog fouling with increased visits to the area and improved signage.
11. These actions show that the landlord took a balanced and holistic approach to the ASB and made reasonable attempts to engage with residents to resolve the issues. As well as this, the landlord asked the resident to report noise nuisance through the noise app and keep a diary log of incidents of ASB.
12. The landlord made attempts to keep in contact with the resident to advise him of the actions it was taking throughout its investigations. These communications were not always well received by the resident, who asked it to stop contacting and visiting him. The landlord still maintained communication through a specific point of contact and provided written updates where necessary. This was positive.
13. The landlord did not agree that all activities reported by the resident were ASB. These included talking, sitting outside, and using the outside communal areas. The landlord made good attempts to explain to the resident why these activities were not considered as ASB, and why it would not be taking action to stop them. This was in line with the principles of its ASB policy.
14. The resident told the landlord that he wanted it to evict his neighbour and that this was the only way he believed the issues would stop. The landlord repeatedly explained to the resident that this was a last resort and that a court order would be necessary for this. It explained that the collection of evidence by the resident and his explanation of the impact the issues were having on him would be needed as evidence for any legal process. It also explained that it needed to show that it had exhausted other options before seeking possession. This was appropriate and showed the landlord was making efforts to manage the resident’s expectations.
15. The resident stopped providing evidence to the landlord when he became frustrated with the continuation of the ASB he had reported. The landlord explained to the resident the importance of evidence collection again and explained it would keep its ASB case open to allow it to monitor the situation. This was positive and showed the landlord was committed to resolving the issues that had been reported to it.

The landlord identified some failures in the way it had handled the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. It offered compensation of £300 for these failings in its complaint responses. This payment falls into the moderate range in the landlord’s compensation policy. Its policy says this is appropriate when a failure in service has adversely affected the resident. Considering the short term nature of these failures, and that the landlord continued to investigate the ASB reported by the resident, the compensation offered was appropriate. It is also in line with a finding of maladministration in our remedies guidance.

16. As the landlord continued to investigate the resident’s concerns in line with its policy, and took reasonable steps to deal with the ASB that had been reported there is no need for it take additional steps to compensate the resident.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy says that a response will be provided within 10 working days of a complaint being received at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. The resident raised his complaint on 31 October 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 November 2023. This was within the landlord’s policy timescale. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 6 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 7 December 2023 and provided its stage 2 response on 9 January 2024. This was in line with its policy.
18. The landlord identified in its stage 2 response that it had given the resident the incorrect information about how to raise his complaint. It apologised and offered £25 compensation for the impact this caused. The amount offered was lower than the range given for a mild failure in the landlord’s compensation policy, and so is not appropriate. The landlord should make a payment of £50 which is in line with a mild failing in its compensation policy and also in line with a finding of service failure in our remedies guidance.

Learning

19. The landlord identified some failings in the way it handled the investigation into the ASB reported by the resident. This is positive and it should take steps to ensure that any learning from this is applied to future investigations into reports of ASB.
20. The landlord also asked an external party to carry out a review of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This is positive and shows that the landlord was seeking to improve the way it handles investigations into ASB. It should consider the outcomes of this review and ensure any learnings are applied to future ASB investigations.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord provided comprehensive notes showing the actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. This is positive and it should continue to do so in future investigations.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication with the resident was good throughout its investigation into the ASB and through its complaint process. It showed good practice in the way it managed communication with the resident that it considered inappropriate.