The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Hightown Housing Association Limited (202125333)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125333

Hightown Housing Association Limited

26 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
  2. Antisocial behaviour (noise nuisance) by a neighbour.
    1. Inconsiderate parking.
    2. Poor complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat. The tenancy start date was 11 September 2020.
  2. On 27 December 2021 the resident reported to her housing officer (HO) that neighbours were parking inconsiderately in bays other than their own. The HO said they would inform the resident’s new HO. On 5 January 2022 the resident reported to the new HO that her neighbour below (Neighbour A) was causing noise nuisance by letting his children run around making noise and running his washing machine at 1am. They also discussed the parking issue. On 7 January 2022, the HO advised the resident they would be sending a letter to Neighbour A about noise nuisance and requested the resident get full address details of the neighbours involved in the inconsiderate parking so the landlord could look into that as well. There is no record of the resident responding to that email; however, the resident had previously provided details of the neighbours that were parking in other bays to the old HO on 29 December 2021.
  3. On 14 February 2022, Neighbour A reported that the resident was using her washing machine till around 1.30am. The following day the resident reported that Neighbour A was using his washing machine until around 1am and that his children were making noise. The HO questioned whether it may be another neighbour using the washing machine as both the resident and Neighbour A were reporting the same thing. The resident said this was impossible due to the layout of the flats. The HO said they would try to visit to familiarise themself with the area and do a “door knock”.
  4. Later that day there was a physical altercation at the resident’s property between her ex-partner and Neighbour A. Neighbour A contacted the police and both the resident and Neighbour A reported the incident to the landlord on 16 February 2022. The resident asserts that the HO told her during a telephone call that day, to expect the police to knock on her door, and that had made her feel anxiety, which increased the next day when the landlord’s contractor (who was due at 10.30am) knocked at the door at 7.30am, as she thought it was the police.
  5. After contact from the resident on 17 February 2022, this Service asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of “noise and parking nuisance”. The landlord logged a complaint that day, noting that the resident felt that its actions, including the call from the HO about the police were affecting her mental health, and felt that the altercation would not have happened if her previous ASB reports about Neighbour A had been dealt with properly. In its stage one complaint response on 3 March 2022, the landlord said that it could only look at ASB reports from the previous six months and that it had acted in line with its ASB procedure. It said it was unable to listen to calls made by the HO but apologised if the call and subsequent contractor visit had heightened the resident’s anxiety. It said it had discussed this with the HO, would arrange refresher training for the housing team and contact the contractor to ensure they did not visit outside appointment times. It apologised that the resident did not feel she had received clear progress reports from her HO, and said that the HO would contact her.
  6. The landlord said it could not take tenancy enforcement action about the parking issues but would arrange a tenant consultation to see if parking control would help. On 18 March 2022 the police notified the landlord that they would be taking no further action in relation to the altercation. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 March 2022, as the HO had not contacted her. She also asked how she could move home and mentioned unrelated issues that included a “wonky” cupboard and carpet strip that were defects in her property, and a communal smoke alarm that was showing an error message.
  7. On 22 March 2022 the HO contacted the resident to discuss the altercation and advised her that both she and Neighbour A would be receiving formal warnings for the incident and that the landlord would monitor the case forsix weeks and if there were no further altercations the case would be closed and no further action would be taken. The HO suggested mediation but the resident said it may have worked before the altercation but not now.
  8.  In its stage two complaint response on 8 April 2022 the landlord said it had been unable to locate a letter that the HO agreed to send to neighbour A on 15 February 2022 and apologised that it may not have been sent. It apologised for the delay in the HO contacting the resident and said it had spoken to the HO’s line manager to ensure there were no further delays. It said its development team would contact the resident directly about the defects. It also signposted the resident to its Home Swapper scheme and the local authority’s housing options website for advice on her options for moving to another property.
  9. The resident contacted this Service the same day as she did not feel that the landlord’s response had addressed all the points she had raised, and said her neighbour was still causing noise nuisance. The landlord received no responses to its parking control consultation by the closing date in May 2022 so no parking controls were introduced. The resident contacted this Service again in November 2022 to report that the smoke alarm was still showing a fault error and she was still experiencing noise nuisance from her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has referenced how she feels the landlord’s actions have impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is outside our remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s health. However, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her mental health.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (noise nuisance).

  1. In her complaint on 17 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had been reporting Neighbour A since she moved into the property in September 2020, and that she felt its poor handling of her previous reports had led to the altercation. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord said that it was only able to look at any reports the resident had about her neighbours’ behaviour in the previous six months. This is incorrect and the landlord should have looked back at earlier reports too. This is discussed in more detail in the complaint handling section of this report.
  2. In order to investigate this case this Service requested that the landlord provide records of all the reports the resident had made about any neighbours since September 2020. The landlord was not able to provide records of any reports before July 2021 (The July report was not related to Neighbour A or noise nuisance and therefore does not form part of this report as it is not directly relevant to the current complaint) As the landlord has not been able to provide any records of any reports about Neighbour A before the six- month period it originally investigated, this Service is only able to assess its handling of the reports about Neighbour A, from the start of that original six month period in August 2021 to the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 8 April 2022. And those are the dates this report will focus on. The landlord’s failure to look for any records before August 2021 meant that the discrepancy between its records, and the resident’s version of events was never identified or investigated. Therefore, it is not possible for this Service to determine why there are no records of any earlier reports,or whether this is due to poor recordkeeping on the landlord’s part.
  3. The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) policy and procedure, separate ASB into two categories: Type 1: which includes noise nuisance (excluding normal daily living noise) which it aims to action within five days, and Type 2: which includes violence and the threat of violence, which it aims to action within 24 hours. The first record we have been provided with of the resident reporting noise nuisance from Neighbour A was on 5 January 2022. The landlord took appropriate steps to contact the resident to discuss her report and to issue a letter to Neighbour A about the noise within the five-day timescale in its ASB procedure. On 15 February 2022 when the resident made another report about Neighbour A’s use of the washing machine, the landlord took appropriate steps to discuss the report Neighbour A had made the previous day about the resident using her washing machine.
  4. It was also appropriate that the HO arranged to visit the block to introduce themself and see the layout of the property as that may have helped to resolve the issue. The landlord also appropriately agreed to send another letter to Neighbour A. However,as there is no record of this being sent this was a failing by the landlord. Though it may have been helpful to raise the option of mediation at this stage, it is not possible to determine if that would have prevented the altercation, particularly as that happened later the same day, which would have been before a mediation session could have been realistically arranged. Ultimately, the landlord is not responsible for the actions of the resident’s neighbour and no action the landlord could have taken would be guaranteed to have prevented an altercation from taking place.
  5. On 16 February 2022, when both the resident and Neighbour reported the physical altercation, the HO responded appropriately by discussing the case with both parties within the 24 hours. As Neighbour A had reported the incident to police, the landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident of this and that the resident may hear from the police. It is noted that the resident said that the landlord caused her unnecessary anxiety by telling her to “expect police at her door”, which was then made worse by the unfortunate timing of a contractor knocking the door unexpectedly at 7.30 in the morning, leading the resident to think it was the police at the door. The landlord has provided internal emails which confirm that HO’s telephone had not initially been set up to record calls but it has now taken appropriate steps to ensure they are recorded. The landlord did appropriately apologise if the call had heightened the resident’s anxiety and took appropriate steps to address the issue with the HO, to arrange refresher training for the housing team and to contact the contractors to ensure they did not turn up outside agreed appointment times.
  6. In its stage one complaint response on 3 March 2022, the landlord said it would contact the resident to discuss the possible actions it could take in response to the reports of the altercation. However, it then failed to do so. This resulted in the resident escalating her complaint on the 21 March 2022. The complaint handling section of this report addresses the fact that the resident also reported a number of unrelated issues during the escalation request, and reiterated that she felt the landlord’s response to her previous reports had led to the situation escalating.
  7. When the landlord contacted the resident on 22 March 2022, it appropriately apologised for the delay in contacting her (The landlord also took steps to apologise for this delay in its stage two complaint response).The landlord had liaised with the police, and , when the police decided not take no further action the landlord took appropriate steps to explain to the resident that the landlord would be issuing warnings about the altercation to both the resident and Neighbour A.In its stage two complaint response the landlord noted that theresident was no longer experiencing noise nuisance. However, as the resident has informed this Service that she is still experiencing this, the Ombudsman will be recommending the landlord contact the resident to discuss what the current situation is regarding noise nuisance and what action it is taking or can take going forward. This Service is aware that the landlord has already signposted the resident to its own and the local authority’s rehousing schemes for information on her options for moving. However, as the resident has expressed to this Service that she wants to move home due to the noise nuisance, this Service will also be recommending that the landlord discusses whether any further support is available from either itself or any other organisations to the resident in her request to be rehoused.
  8. Although it was only possible for this Service to assess the ASBreports from after August 2021, on the whole during that time period the landlord handled these reports in line with its legal obligations and its own ASB policy and procedure. However,the landlord either failedto send the letter to the neighbour on 15 February 2022, or to keep an accurate record of sending it (it is not clear which), and also failed to contact the resident, as it had agreed in its stage one complaint response.Although the landlord did take appropriate steps to apologise for its failings,it did not show that it had properly taken into account the impact of the failings on the resident, who had already explained that she was suffering from anxiety. It is a reasonable conclusion that failing to contact the resident about an issue that was already causing her stress and anxiety, would likely result in causing her additional stress and anxiety. Therefore, this Service does not consider an apology alone to be sufficient remedy, and as such will be ordering the landlord to award compensation of £200 for its maladministration in respect of this aspect of the complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies guidance suggests awards of compensation in this range for cases where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of inconsiderate parking.

  1. On 27 December 2021, when the resident first reported issues with some neighbours parking inconsiderately outside her property, the landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident that it would pass the information to her new (HO). The parking was discussed during a telephone conversation between the resident and the new HO in January 2022. At that point it appears that the landlord was waiting for the resident to provide address details for all the neighbours before it investigated the issue. It appears that the new HO was either unaware that the resident had previously provided the details to the old HO or was requesting the details of the neighbours that were parking inconsiderately at the time – if different from the old ones the resident had stated previously.
  2. In the telephone conversation with the new HO in January 2022, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have informed the new HO that they had already sent the details. With this being said, it would have also been helpful if the landlord had reminded the resident at some point, that it was still awaiting the details. The resident subsequently provided details of the neighbours parking inconsiderately again in their stage one escalation email dated 21 March 2022.
  3. Once the resident raised a complaint on 17 February 2022, which included the parking issues, the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for a tenant consultation, to see if residents would like parking management put into place. As nobody responded to the consultation, it was reasonable that the landlord did not introduce parking management. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of inconsiderate parking. It is not clear whether the inconsiderate parking has continued. However, this Service will be recommending that the landlord contact the resident to clarify whether it has continued, and if so, to consider writing to residents to remind them that they should only be parking within their allocated bays and to give some guidance on where those with more than one car should park any additional cars.

Complaint handling.

  1.  As the landlord’s complaints policy states that service requests such as reporting antisocial behaviour are not classed as complaints, it was reasonable that the landlord had not raised a formal complaint before this Service contacted it on 17 February 2022, at which point it appropriately raised a complaint and responded to it at both stages of the complaints process, within the timescales specified in its complaints policy and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlord’s complaint handling. In its stage one complaint response the landlord said “Under our complaints policy and in accordance with Housing Ombudsman guidance in their Complaints Handling Code, I am only able to investigate complaints relating to incidents which have occurred within six months prior to the complaint being made” and, as such, it only referred to reports the resident made from August 2021.
  2. However, section 1.5 of the 2020 Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, (that was in effect at the time the complaint was raised) says “A complaints policy shall clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents. For example: The issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over six months ago. Where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue for the resident.”. (This is also covered in 1.8 and 5.4 of the 2022 Complaint Handling Code).
  3. As the resident had indicated that the noise nuisance was a recurring issue, and also felt that the poor handling of her earlier reports about Neighbour A had led to the situation escalating into a physical altercation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered any earlier reports that the resident had made about her neighbour. However, it failed to do so. When the resident escalated her complaint, she reiterated that she felt if the landlord “had taken better action from my complaints for over a year” then the altercation would not have happened. However, the landlord still failed to consider looking into the previous reports the resident had made. It is important to note that this Service is not saying that the altercation was in any way justified or that the landlord could have prevented it. However it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have looked at the earlier reports the resident said she had made.
  4. As detailed in the section of this report that addresses the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord has since confirmed that it has no records of any reports from the resident about any neighbours before July 2021. The landlord’s failure to look for reports going back further than six months during the complaint process resulted in it missing the opportunity to identify and investigate the discrepancy between the length of time the resident said she had been reporting her neighbour and the records it had of her reports. In view of the above, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. Therefore, this Service will be ordering the landlord to award £250 compensation for this aspect of the complaint. Which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where a failure adversely affected the resident, where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. The Ombudsman will also be recommending that the landlord update its complaint policy to include the correct information about how to investigate recurring issues.
  5. The resident also raised a number of unrelated issues whilst escalating her complaint through the landlord’s process. The landlord’s complaint policy states that “additional unrelated matters will not be added to an existing complaint. Where an unrelated matter meets the categories of complaints outlined above, these will be logged and investigated as a separate complaint.”. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not add those additional issues in its final response to the current complaint. Its stage two complaint response confirmed that its development team would contact the resident about the cupboard and carpet strips. However, it is not clear whether the landlord addressed the other issues or whether the option of raising any separate complaint was explained. Therefore, this Service will be recommending that the landlord addresses these issues if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (noise nuisance) by a neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of inconsiderate parking.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 for its maladministration in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour about a neighbour.
    2. Contact the resident to confirm whether she is currently experiencing noise nuisance, and confirm what actions it can take to address them if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident £250 for its maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.
    4. Review and update its complaint policy to include how it should handle complaints about recurring issues.
    5. Evidence compliance with the above orders to this Service by the deadline detailed.
  2. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Contact the resident to provide an explanation clarifying how the actions it is taking in relation to the parking management will assist in deterring residents from parking and leaving their car in the visitors parking spaces.
    2. Confirm whether the resident is currently experiencing parking issues. If the resident states the issues are still ongoing, it should provide an update in relation to the actions it can take to address them moving forward if it has not already done so.
    3. Offer or signpost the resident to any additional support in her request to be rehoused.
    4. Unless it has done so already, contact the resident to confirm whether it has addressed all of the issues she raised in her escalation and whether any new complaints should be raised.