Hyde Housing Association Limited (202102491)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102491

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 August 2022

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

This complaint is about:
1. How the landlord handled the resident’s personal data.
2. The landlord’s response to:
  1. The resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours.
  2. Allegations of ASB made about the resident by her neighbours.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident complained that the landlord had discussed her medical information with the Police and had failed to process her SAR correctly, including her request that the landlord share a video from October 2020 which it had received regarding an allegation of ASB against her.
In its final response, the landlord again acknowledged data protection failures in its handling of the resident’s case and increased its offer of compensation to £700.
The resident referred her complaint to the Information Commissions Officer (ICO). The ICO considered the resident’s complaints that the landlord had discussed her medical information with the Police and had failed to process her SAR correctly. The ICO issued its response on 19 July 2021, stating that the landlord had not complied with its data protection obligations.
Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling her personal date is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This is because this complaint relates to a reported breach of Data Protection regulations for which the ICO issued its findings on 19 July 2021. The Ombudsman will therefore make no further comment on this element of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 12 February 2007. The property is a two-bedroom, first/second floor maisonette.
It is understood that there has been a history of allegations and counter allegations of ASB by both the resident and her neighbours covering a number of years.
The Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable time of the matter complained about occurring, normally within six months. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events that occurred between the resident’s report of ASB by her neighbours on 25 July 2020, nine months before she logged her formal complaint, and the landlord’s final response of 27 July 2021.

Summary of events

On 28 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident, following its discussion with her the previous day regarding her report of her neighbour’s daughter shouting abuse at her and telling her to shut up on 25 July 2020. The landlord noted that the resident had agreed to provide further details of the incident by the next case review on 5 August 2020. It in turn had agreed to pass the case to a local ASB officer to discuss this matter with her. The landlord completed a Risk Assessment the same day, scoring the risk as medium. The Risk Assessment noted that the resident had a medical condition which caused her to shout out in pain.
On 5 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that a letter would be sent to her neighbour. The landlord said that a case review would take place on 2 September 2020 and that it would contact her on or around that date to discuss progress.
On 24 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that noise nuisance, in the form of someone shouting/screaming very loudly in her property, at various times of the day and night, had been reported. The landlord said that it was possible that the resident was not aware that her actions were causing a nuisance and that she should use this opportunity to make sure that there were no further incidents of this nature.
On 28 August 2020, the resident called the landlord to report that her neighbour had shouted and sworn at her, telling her to shut up or they would ruin her life. The resident advised the landlord that she had a recording of this on her phone but it was too large to send, and so asked that someone visit her and listen to it.
On 3 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord advised that the allegations had been addressed with her neighbour and that they had agreed that they were shouting and swearing on the day. They were having an argument with a member of their household and that there actions were not directed at the resident. The landlord said that a case review would be carried out on 30 September 2020 and that it would discuss the resident on or around that date to discuss progress.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 30 September 2020. At this point the resident made no further allegations of ASB and it was agreed that the case would be reviewed in four weeks.
On 7 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had tried to call her that day, as arranged in its letter to her of 1 October 2020 but was unable to contact her or leave a voice message. The landlord said that it needed to arrange another telephone appointment with her to address the allegations of ASB made about her between 26 July and 22 August 2020, relating to her shouting, screaming, banging and growling.
On 28 October 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident about the allegations that had been made about her. The landlord referred to a letter it had sent the resident on 22 October 2020, which the resident said she did not receive. The landlord said it had been provided with footage of her making reference to her neighbour’s daughter being ‘an ugly whore’ and telling her neighbour to ‘pick up her rubbish, tramp’’. The resident asked that the landlord let her see the evidence referred to, to which the landlord responded that it was unable to do so due to data protection. The landlord followed up its conversation with the resident with a letter confirming what had been discussed.
On 19 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the allegations made against her in October 2020. The landlord said that:
1. On 5 October 2020 it was provided with footage of the resident saying ‘you ugly whore’ and reference to her neighbour’s daughter, and her neighbour saying ‘don’t grab me like that’.
2. On 16 October 2020, it was provided with footage of the resident saying to her neighbour, ‘it’s yours it was outside my door, I mailed it to you, pick up your rubbish you tramp’.
3. The resident had raised a complaint following this letter about videos not being provided to her at the time and had explained that it was unable to do so due to data protection.

The landlord asked that the resident contact it to discuss these allegations further and that if it had not heard from the resident by 3 December 2020, it would make a decision on its next steps based on the information it had been provided. The landlord said that the resident would be informed of this in writing.

On 24 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that a review of the ASB case regarding her reports of ASB by her neighbour had been carried out and that the case would be closed. The landlord noted that the reason for the closure was that a letter had been sent to her neighbour and no further allegations had been made by the resident.
During a call with the landlord on 8 December 2020, the resident said that she could not respond to the allegations made about her if she was not able to see the evidence submitted against her.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s further request to see the evidence provided by her neighbour. The landlord confirmed that it did not have permission from the owner of the videos to share them with the resident at this time and so was unable to provide them. The landlord noted that the resident had requested that the case be put on hold and confirmed that whilst it does not usually do this, due to staff changes, this case would be passed to a new officer in January with a view to progress the case.
On 29 April 2021, during a telephone conversation with the landlord, the resident raised a complaint about its response to her reports of ASB by her neighbour and that she had had no contact from the landlord about the allegations made against her. The resident asked why she had not been provided with a copy of the video her neighbour had sent to the landlord and for further information about the injunction which the landlord had mentioned in the same call, when it had thought her to be her neighbour.
During a call with the resident on 6 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had received consent from her neighbour to share the videos they had submitted in October 2021 and that these would be forwarded to the resident on 10 May 2021.
On 19 May 2021, the resident submitted and online report stating that her neighbours were playing offensive music and shouting abusive words at her whilst she was on her balcony. The resident also said that they were recording her on a mobile device.
On 2 June 2021, landlord wrote to the resident following its discussion with her that day about another incident of ASB, involving her neighbour shouting ‘herpes’ at her over the balcony. The landlord noted that the resident had advised that there had been two more incidents of her neighbours recording her and shouting the same word over the balcony. The landlord said it would contact the alleged perpetrator to make them aware of the allegations and give them an opportunity to respond. The landlord noted that the resident had agreed to provide details of any further incidents by the next case review, which would be carried out on 2 July 2021 and that it would contact the resident around this date to discuss the progress of the investigation.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 3 June 2021.
1. With regards to the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in it responding the resident’s online report of 19 May 2021, saying that it would investigate her report as soon as possible.
2. With regards to the its handling of ASB reports made about the resident, the landlord said that it had had initially refused to share the videos it had received with the resident as it had not had permission to do so. Permission had since been received and the videos shared with the resident. With regards to the resident not being unable to access them, it would look into this and find a way of addressing this so that she would be able to discuss the allegations made between 5 and 16 October 2020.
3. Whilst it noted that the resident had not had contacted from its ASB officer since that time, it was continuing to receive complaint about the resident’s behaviour towards her neighbours.
4. It was aware that there was a pending investigation by the Police and there had been bail conditions put in place for the resident not to contact her neighbours.
5. It was its intention to apply for an injunction to stop this behaviour from happening.
On 7 June 2021, the resident called the landlord to say that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s stage one response and asked that it be escalated to stage two. The landlord noted that the resident was not happy that her reports in May had not been investigated and wanted to know the reason for the injunction and what that meant.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord wrote to resident to update her on its stage two response. The landlord noted it was hoping to provide its full response by 12 July 2021 but needed more time to check the details. The landlord apologised for the keeping the resident waiting and said it would hope to provide its full response by 4 August 2021.
The landlord issued its final response on 27 July 2021. The landlord said that:
1. Its ASB team investigated complaints from all parties on harassment to ensure this is fair. In all ASB cases actions need to be proportionate and evidence is required to take action against residents or their tenancies. In the resident’s case the team had seen evidence that meant that it was proportionate to seek an injunction against her.
2. It was progressing and application with the court for an injunction, explaining that an injunction was a civil court order that prohibits a person from doing a specific act, and/or requires them to do something. Choosing whether to grant an injunction, its terms and its duration is at the discretion of the court.
3. It noted the resident’s request to be moved and provided her with details of the local authority choice based lettings process.
When the resident bought her complaint to this service she said that she remained dissatisfied with landlord’s handling of ASB, she said that the landlord was biased against her and had not:
1. Acknowledged or investigated all her complaints..
2. Informed her about complaints against her since October 2020 but had stated that they continually received complaints.
3. Provided her with a fair chance to respond to allegations against her or provided the video evidence even though she was told she could have this
4. Taken her disability into account when she was accused of being the perpetrator.
5. Explained why it was going to take out an injunction against her.

Assessment and findings

This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have caused her distress. The Ombudsman will assess how the landlord dealt with the reports it received, and whether it has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.

Relevant agreements, policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will aim to deal with ASB in a proportionate and appropriate manner. Its approach will include engaging with complainants and alleged perpetrators, providing support and/or taking enforcement action.
The landlord’s website details that on receipt of ASB reports, it aims to assess risk and contacts a complainant in a timeframe based on this. It then aims to agree next steps and a case review timescale with a complainant. It aims to monitor situations and ask a complainant to keep it informed about when problems happen, how these affect the complainant and if there are witnesses. It explains that reports are dealt with in line with a complainant’s views and wishes, although in most cases it contacts the person causing a problem.
The landlord’s has a two stage complaints policy which states that it will aim to provide its responses at both Stage One and Stage two within 20 working days. The policy also states that the customer must be kept informed and updated on the progress of their complaint until the matter is resolved.

The resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours.

Between 25 July 2020 and the landlord’s final response of 27 July 2021 the resident submitted four reports regarding ASB by her neighbours. The reports refer to her neighbours shouting abuse and filming her on mobile phones.
Following the resident’s report of her neighbour’s daughter shouting abuse at her and telling her to shut up on 25 July 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident on 27 July 2020, wrote to her the following day and on 5 August confirmed that a letter would be sent to her neighbour.
Following the resident’s following report on 28 August 2020 that her neighbour had shouted and sworn at her, and told her to shut up or they would ruin her life, the landlord spoke to the neighbour. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take given that it had already written to the neighbour to advise them that a report of ASB had been made about a member of their household.
In this case, the neighbour acknowledged that they had been shouting and swearing but said that this was the result of a family argument and was not directed at the resident. Given that was the case, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take any further action at that time.
In accordance with its ASB policy, the landlord monitored the situation, reviewing the case on 30 September 2020 and on 24 November 2020. Following the review on 24 November 2020 and having received no further allegations, it was appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident to advise that the case had been closed.
There is no further evidence of the resident reporting ASB by her neighbour until 19 May 2021, at which point the resident submitted an online report stating that her neighbours were playing offensive music and shouting abusive words at her whilst she was on her balcony
There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s report of 19 May 2021. It is noted, however, that prior to issuing its stage one response on 3 June 2021, the landlord did contact the resident on 2 June 2021 about a separate report she had made about her neighbours. As this was about the same neighbours, the resident would have had the opportunity to discuss the concerns she raised in that report when the landlord contacted her on 2 June 2021.
The delay in its response to the resident’ report of 19 May 2021 was acknowledged by the landlord in its stage one response of 3 June 2021. The landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation. It is unclear how much of the £500 offered at stage one, or the increased level of £700 compensation at stage two, was related to this failure and how much to the landlord’s acknowledged data protection failures. However, as the landlord has recognised there was a shortcoming in its response to her report of 19 May 2021 and apologised for this then this is considered reasonable redress for the failing identified.

Allegations of ASB made about the resident by her neighbours.

Between 27 July and 22 August 2020, the resident’s neighbours made eight reports of her shouting, screaming, banging and shouting coming from her property. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident regarding these reports until 24 August 2020, almost one month after the initial report, at which point the landlord wrote to the resident about her behaviour.
The landlord’s letter acknowledged that it was possible that the resident was not aware that their actions were causing a nuisance/ disturbance and suggested that they use this opportunity to make sure that there were no further incidents of this nature.
However, there is no evidence of the landlord calling the resident to give her an opportunity to respond prior to it writing to her. There is also no evidence of the landlord giving any consideration as to whether the resident’s reported behaviour might be related to the medical condition she had advised it of on 28 July 2020, which she said caused her to shout out in pain. Given that the nature of the allegations it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed this with her. The landlord is expected to provide the resident a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations which it can then consider when making an informed decision about how best to proceed.
There is no evidence of any further contact by the landlord regarding these matters until 7 October 2020, two months later, when the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had tried calling her to discuss the reports that had been made about her between 27 July and 22 August 2020. The landlord did say that it had written to her on 1 October 2020, however, this service has not seen a copy of that letter.
By the time of its call with the resident on 28 October 2020, the landlord had received two further reports of ASB related to incidents on 5 and 16 October 2020, this time relating to how the resident had behaved towards her neighbours. The landlord said that it had sent the resident a letter on 22 October 2020, this letter has also not been seen by this service.
The landlord addressed the reports made by the neighbours with the resident and the resident had an opportunity to respond. However, the resident refused to discuss the more recent reports with the landlord until she had seen the video evidence which the landlord said it had received regarding the events of 5 and 16 October 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 29 November 2020, asking that she make contact to discuss the allegations relating to 5 and 16 October 2020 and advised the resident that if it had not heard from the resident by 3 December 2020, it would make a decision on its next steps based on the information it had been provided.
The resident continued to refuse to discuss the reports of 5 and 16 with the landlord until she had had the opportunity to review the video evidence and on 8 December 2020, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s request for a copy of the video would be passed to its SAR department for processing. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR request was considered by the ICO and therefore will not be discussed further here.
As the landlord had said it did not have permission to share the video with the resident, it would have been reasonable to expect it to have contacted the neighbour to seek their permission. This service has seen no evidence of the landlord doing so.
However, it is clear that by the landlord’s stage one response of 3 June 2021, the landlord had sought permission from the neighbour and had shared the video with the resident. The landlord noted that the resident had experienced difficulties accessing it and said it would look into this and find a way of addressing this. No evidence has been provided as to whether the landlord did this or not.
It was understandable that the resident would want to view the video, however, this would not have prevented her from discussing the reports with the landlord. Equally, for the landlord to take over six months to seek permission from the neighbour was not reasonable and also contributed to the delay in the matter being progressed.
By the time of its stage one response the landlord said that it was continuing to receive reports about the resident’s behaviour towards her neighbours but failed to provide the resident with any details. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident about any other reports after 16 October 2020 prior to issuing its stage one response. There is also no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident, prior to its final response regarding the information it said it was aware of regarding a pending investigation with the Police.
This was not a helpful approach for the landlord to take. If it had received additional reports about the resident’s behaviour from either her neighbours or the Police, the landlord would have been expected to contact the resident about these in accordance with its ASB policy and not to simply refer to them in its complaint response without providing any further details.
Despite being asked by the resident on 29 April 2021 and in her escalation request to provide further information about the injunction, the landlord also failed to provide the resident with any details nor an explanation on what basis it considered that to be an appropriate step to take. The landlord simply advised the resident that it was considering an injunction and provided a description of what an injunction was.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged its data protection failures and delays in dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour, the landlord failed to identify or acknowledge any service failure with regards its handling of the allegations made about her by her neighbour.

Handling of the associated complaint

The resident first complained to the landlord about how it had responded to her reports of ASB about her neighbour and reports made about her by her neighbour on 29 April 2021.
In accordance with both the landlord’s Complaints Policy, the landlord was expected to log the resident’s email of 29 April 2021 as a formal complaint and to have responded to that complaint by 27 May 2021, within the 20 working days timescale set out in its complaints policy. The landlord issued its stage one response on 3 June 2021, exceeding its target timescale by five working days.
Being dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two on 7 June 2021. In accordance with its Complaint’s Policy, the landlord was again expected to respond within 20 working days, by 5 July 2021. However, the landlord did not provide its final response until 27 July 2021. Whilst this exceeded its target timescale by 16 working days, there is evidence of the landlord writing to apologise to the resident for the delay on 12 July 2021, and in its final response the landlord recognised its failures for which it again apologised and offered the resident £50.
Overall, whilst there were acknowledged failures by the landlord in respect of delays in it providing its responses at both stage one and stage two, as these were of a relatively short duration and did not have a significant effect on the overall outcome for the resident, I am satisfied that the apology and £50 compensation offered by the landlord provides the resident with sufficient redress for those failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its response the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB made about the resident by her neighbours.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It discussed the issues with the resident, completed risk assessments, addressed the reports received with the neighbour, reviewed the evidence and wrote to the neighbour. This Service has seen no evidence that the information available to the landlord warranted further action than that taken against the neighbour. Whilst there was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s report of 19 May 2021, the landlord’s apology, and financial remedy provide, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate level of redress in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles and remedies guidance.
There were delays in the landlord contacting the resident about the reports that had been made about her. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident about the reports it said it was continuing to receive or the Police action referred to in its stage one response. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with a reasonable explanation for its decision to seek an injunction despite being asked to do so on 29 April 2021 and following its stage one response. When dealing with ASB the Ombudsman expects the landlord to take into account all the circumstances of the case. In failing to make any reference to the resident’s reported health conditions in any of the correspondence seen by this service, the landlord has also failed to evidence that took into account of all the circumstances of the case when considering how it should respond to the reports made.
While there was a delay in the landlord’s stage one and final response, the landlord’s response, apology, and financial remedy provide, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate level of redress in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles and remedies guidance.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. The landlord is to apologise and pay the resident a total of £250 for the failures identified in this report.
2. If it has not done so already, the landlord is also to provide the resident with:
  1. Details of the reports it said it continued to receive about the resident’s behaviour towards her neighbours after 16 October 2020.
  2. An explanation of its reasons for seeking an injunction against her.
3. The landlord is to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the resident the £700 it offered for its acknowledged failures with regards to its handling of her personal data and her reports of ASB by her neighbours. The landlord is also to pay the resident the £50 it offered in its complaint responses for its acknowledged failures with regards to its complaint handling.