Home Group Limited (202112948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112948

Home Group Limited

22 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a flat.

Summary of events

On 2 September 2021 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord regarding its response to and handling of her reports of ASB from tenants (the tenants) who lived in a neighbouring property. The resident confirmed that the ASB had commenced in early 2021. The resident explained that the ASB directed towards her included threatening and aggressive behaviour, verbal and physical abuse, and harassment. The resident set out that the ASB also included “domestic arguments”, drug use, damage to the landlord’s property and breaches of Covid-19 legislation. The resident confirmed that the police had issued the tenants with a Community Protection Order (CPO) and they had been charged with “intent to supply” cannabis. The resident stated that despite reporting the ASB to the landlord, and it being aware of the police’s intervention, the landlord had failed to address the tenants’ continuous breaches of tenancy.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response under its complaint procedure following a telephone conversation with the resident on 9 September 2021. In summary the landlord said:
1. While the ASB case was open the resident had had a change in Housing Manager (HM) which would have been unsettling, especially as its communication around the change “fell short”.
2. The new HM had been in touch with the resident regularly regarding the ASB, confirming that a fortnightly contact plan had been put in place to discuss any updates on the case.
3. The resident had sent evidence which demonstrated the ASB she had been experiencing which had been collated alongside reports from the Community Safety Team and police.
4. When an ASB report was made a resident should be advised on what action it could take. It explained that early intervention action such as “reiterating contractual agreements, mediation or informal warnings” were often enough to resolve ASB.
5. It had taken a multi–agency approach in respect of the resident’s ASB case working closely with the police, Community Safety Team and health care professionals.
6. In May 2021 the police had issued the tenants with a Community Protection Warning (CPW) “around conduct”.
7. In July 2021 the police issued the tenants with a Community Protection Notice (CPN) as the CPW was not adhered too. It confirmed that following the CPN the HM had issued the tenants with a “stage two formal warning” which was a “step [in] building a case for legal tenancy action should the police take further action”.
8. The resident’s recent video evidence, dated July and September 2021, showed “intimidating behaviour in the communal area”. It set out that it was however unclear if the tenants’ behaviour was directed at the resident as her “name was not used”.
9. While it acknowledged that at times the tenants had behaved unacceptably, and “therefore breached a number of tenancy terms and conditions”, it was “correctly following progression stages to tackle” the ASB. It set out that it hoped its recent warning letter would stop the ASB. It confirmed that its approach must be “unbiased and look at the factual evidence” available to determine the level of action which could be taken. It confirmed that it would “pursue action if the police [did] charge”.
10. It was able to refer the resident for additional support through one of its partnership agencies as it understood that it was a distressing time.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may request to escalate the complaint if she was unhappy with its response.
In early April 2022 the resident contacted this Service to seek assistance in escalating the complaint. The resident stated that despite asking the landlord to escalate her complaint in November 2021 it had failed to do so. (The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request.)
On 4 July 2022 following requests from this Service on 14 April 2022 and 31 May 2022 the landlord provided its stage two (final) response. In summary the landlord said:
1. At stage one it found that its response to the resident’s reports of ASB had been appropriate. It confirmed that the complaint was closed in October 2021 as no request to escalate was received during the eight week escalation period.
2. The ASB case was also closed in Autumn 2021 as no further reports of ASB were received.
3. It was sorry for the delay in providing its stage two response following this Service’s contact in April 2022. It explained that the delay was due to it believing that the request to escalate was in relation to another open complaint about service charges.
4. It noted that the resident had advised this Service that she had requested to escalate the complaint in November 2021. It confirmed that following a review of its records it was unable to find any evidence of this. It confirmed that it had however received a stage two escalation request in relation to service charges in November 2021.
5. In response to the resident’s escalation request and most recent ASB report it held a meeting with the local authority to discuss the case. It confirmed that an action plan was agreed which included meeting with the resident, meeting with the tenants and attending the next Safeguarding Hub meeting to discuss the case.
6. As a result of the actions from the meeting it had updated its ASB plan and it was in the process of issuing an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) with the tenants outlining its expectations.
7. Following a review of its records it was satisfied that action had been taken quickly each time the resident had reported ASB. It stated that the “tenancy action being taken… [was] appropriate and in line with its processes and policies”. It noted that it was unable to disclose the tenancy action “in any detail” due to data protection considerations.
The landlord concluded by confirming that in respect of its handling of the resident’s ASB case it was “satisfied this [had] been handled in line with process”, however it acknowledged there had been some initial poor communication in the period of change over between HMs and delays in complaint handling. The landlord confirmed that it would therefore like to award £150 compensation comprising £75 poor communication and £75 complaint handling. The landlord advised the resident she may refer her complaint to this Service if she was unhappy with its response.
In July 2022 the resident contacted this Service to request that the Ombudsman investigate her complaint as she was not happy with the landlord’s response. The resident stated that she was unhappy as “no overall resolution” to her complaint had been provided.
In February 2023 the resident contacted this Service to provide an update on the ASB. The resident advised that the tenants continued to commit ASB. The resident set out that she understood that the tenants had recently received an injunction following an application made by the landlord in respect of the ASB. The resident stated that she believed she had been referenced during the proceedings, however the landlord had not confirmed if this was true or not.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received in the timeframe of the complaint, and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, followed good practice and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have caused significant distress and upset.
The landlord defines ASB as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person”.
The landlord has an ASB policy which sets out that:
1. It will ensure a service for reporting ASB.
2. It will respond to reports of ASB, taking each report seriously.
3. Where possible it will use early intervention to stop ASB before it escalates, including the use of warnings and ABAs.
4. It will work with partner organisations to tackle and investigate ASB.
5. It will undertake action that is reasonable and proportionate, using all the legal powers available to it.
As the resident’s ASB allegations fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB it was therefore necessary for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its handling of the resident’s ASB concerns. The records document that in response to the allegations the landlord undertook the following interventions while the complaint was live:
1. Reviewing the resident’s evidence and completing internal risk assessments.
2. Meeting with the tenants to discuss their tenancy obligations.
3. Liaising with the police regarding the tenants.
4. Issuing the tenants with a “second stage warning for breach of tenancy” in September 2021.
5. Issuing the tenants with an ABA in July 2022.
This Service acknowledges the resident’s view that the landlord has not taken adequate or proportionate steps to investigate and address her allegations of ASB by the tenants. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions were reasonable to establish whether the resident’s allegations could be substantiated or not, and to provide the tenants with an opportunity to modify their behaviour where it was found that they were conducting their tenancy in an unsatisfactory manner.
The Ombudsman notes that in order to evict a tenant a landlord will need substantial evidence that it can rely on in court to demonstrate that an individual’s behaviour is serious and persistent and all other interventions have failed. Thus the second stage warning and ABA were appropriate as formal interventions should the landlord have been required to build a legal case to terminate the tenants’ tenancy.
This Service can see that there has been police involvement in this case, which has included the police issuing the tenants with a CPW and CPN. The landlord’s records show that on receipt of information from the police it did assess the information provided. This was appropriate as a landlord should be responsive to evidence shared by other agencies. As no criminal charges were established against the tenants, during the period under investigation, and the landlord had demonstrated that it had considered the evidence presented to it, it was reasonable for it to not pursue them for a breach in tenancy as a result of the CPW, CPN or other reports from the police at that time.
As part of its handling of the ASB case the landlord offered to refer the resident to one of its partnership agencies for support as it understood that it was a distressing time for her. This was appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy which sets out that it will adopt a supportive approach in dealing with ASB which may include a referral to other agencies where support needs are identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The complaint chronology demonstrates that the landlord promptly provided the resident with its stage one response on 20 September 2021 following her written complaint on 2 September 2021, and a conversation with her on 9 September 2021.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident reports that she requested for the landlord to escalate her complaint in November 2021 however the landlord failed to do so. As this Service has not been provided with any evidence to document the escalation request, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord failed to respond to the resident in November 2021. This is because the Ombudsman’s investigation relies on documentary evidence. The Ombudsman notes that an internal record by the landlord dated 22 June 2022 confirms that it received an escalation request from the resident in November 2021 in relation to service charges but not ASB.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will provide its stage two, final response, within 20 working days. This Service requested a stage two response on 14 April 2022 which was provided by the landlord on 4 July 2022. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s service standard. The Ombudsman considers that this will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident in addition to the resident feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously. It was also unacceptable as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage.
Within its final response the landlord acknowledged that its response was delayed, apologised and offered £75 compensation. Where a landlord has acknowledged a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider if it has made an offer of redress to resolve the matter. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the failings identified and the impact on the resident. An offer of compensation was also in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which sets out that discretionary compensation may be offered “when it is clear mistakes have been made”.
In responding to the complaint the landlord also acknowledged that its communication around the change of HM was poor, which would have been unsettling to the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised this and awarded £75 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. This including reviewing the resident’s evidence, meeting with the tenants, liaising with the police, issuing a tenancy warning notice and using an ABA. These actions were appropriate in order to manage the tenants’ behaviour and to gather evidence.
While the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaint policy it has identified and acknowledged its service failure, apologised and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.
The landlord’s offer of compensation in recognition that its communication had fallen short in relation to the change over of HM was appropriate.

Recommendations

In light of the resident’s report to the Ombudsman that the tenants continues to engage in ASB, the landlord should contact the resident to gain further information and to update her on any action it has been taking. On receipt of the information the landlord should carry out a risk assessment and produce an action plan, providing the outcome to the resident detailing any action or investigations where appropriate. The landlord should also ensure that the resident has a dedicated point of contact to liaise with regarding the issues she is reporting and it should re-offer a referral to its partnership agencies for additional support. The landlord should complete this recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should ensure that it responds to complaints within its published service standards, which should be in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Where a complaint response cannot be delivered within the service standard the resident should be updated and kept informed of the revised timescale.