Hyde Housing Association Limited (202348333)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348333

Hyde Housing Association Limited

24 January 2025


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 handling of:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. She occupies a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of a small block and moved into the property in October 2016. She advises she is vulnerable and has mental health conditions.
  2. In July 2023 a neighbour moved into the flat beneath the resident. On 1 August 2023 the resident reported the neighbour frequently smoked cannabis within their property. She made further reports between August and November 2023 about daily cannabis smoke and noise nuisance which she said affected her mental health, and she felt the landlord had failed to safeguard her.
  3. On 23 October 2023 the landlord agreed a number of actions with the resident. It asked her to provide details of further incidents and encouraged her to report drug use concerns to the police. It also said it would contact the neighbour to make them aware of the allegations and give them an opportunity to respond. It advised that the case had been passed to a local ASB officer who would discuss the matter further with her and carry out a case review around 13 November 2023. On 20 December 2023 the landlord issued a tenancy warning letter to the neighbour on the basis of the drug use allegations. The resident continued to make multiple reports of the neighbour smoking cannabis in December 2023 and January 2024.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 24 January 2024. She said the neighbour continued to smoke cannabis daily and play loud music antisocially despite her multiple reports to the landlord. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to either move the neighbour or move her. 
  5. Between February and March 2024, the resident made further reports of cannabis and noise nuisance. She also reported dog faeces in the communal areas which she attributed to the neighbour’s dog. As she did not hear back from the landlord, she asked to escalate her complaint on 28 February 2024 and again on 8 March 2024. She said that although she had been reporting the issues since August 2023, the situation had not improved.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2024. It said it had sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 20 December 2023 but did not receive a reply, so visited the block on 20 January 2024. The ASB officer knocked at the neighbour’s door but they did not answer. The officer said they did not smell cannabis in the hallway; however, they spoke to other residents who said they believed that the reported cannabis smells came from the neighbour’s property. The landlord attempted another visit to the neighbour on 9 February 2024, but again there was no answer. It also noted the neighbour’s social worker had advised they could not smell any cannabis during their previous visits and the landlord proposed a joint visit with the social worker. The landlord recognised it should have taken action much sooner and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered compensation of £350 made up of £150 for customer efforts, £150 for distress and inconvenience caused, and £50 for the complaint handling failures.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint the same day she received the stage 1 response, explaining that she had made 59 ASB reports to date and that while she appreciated the offer of compensation, it did not resolve the ASB which she said was a daily occurrence. She reiterated her escalation request on 18 March 2024. As a resolution, she wanted the neighbour to be moved.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 27 March 2024. It said there had been no service failure as its ASB officer – after the initial delay – managed the case appropriately in line with its policy and procedures. It said it had updated the resident on 22 March 2024 and noted the ASB officer carried out a recent visit to the block but was unable to smell any cannabis. It said it would arrange another visit and was looking into other options. It advised it would provide further information to the resident about alternative accommodation.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman the same day she received the stage 2 final response. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and felt the issues were not treated with the necessary urgency. She reported that the situation was continuing and felt that the landlord was failing to act. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to move her to another property.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Where there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused, and this investigation will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and legal obligations and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.
  2. The resident initially made reports of ASB in August 2023 and subsequently made a formal complaint in late January 2024. The landlord issued its final response to this complaint in March 2024. The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord issued another stage 1 response on 3 October 2024 in respect of the resident complaining about the lack of communication in the ASB case. As this new complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, and as per paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme which sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, we will not investigate the resident’s subsequent complaint made about the lack of communication since. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of her reports from August 2023 until its March 2024 final response.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this situation has been distressing to the resident. When assessing these types of complaints, our role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. On receiving reports of ASB, the landlord should take appropriate steps to manage expectations and set out how it will assist the resident and what steps it can reasonably take to resolve their concerns. Its ASB procedure outlines that all reported ASB incidents are assessed based on risk and priority. Drug use and noise nuisance are prioritised as category B. These cases should be logged and assessed within 5 working days. In response to ASB reports, the landlord will provide advice and support, and agree an action plan with the reporting party, keeping them updated throughout the case.
  3. The landlord’s ASB procedure also outlines a range of possible interventions it may utilise in relation to ASB, from warning letters through to the full range of legal powers available to it which include tenancy warnings and eviction. The methods used should be proportionate and appropriate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour, the level of risk that it poses to those affected, and the evidence available to support the case.
  4. The resident made an initial report of cannabis smoke on 1 August 2023. Despite making at least 4 further reports between August and September 2023, the landlord did not take any meaningful action until 23 October 2023 when it contacted the resident and agreed actions. This was contrary to its ASB procedure and was an avoidable delay that caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt her reports about ASB were being ignored. Additionally, this was contrary to its ASB policy statement which recognises that early intervention is important to resolve cases and/or stop escalation.
  5. The landlord promised to contact the resident again around 13 November 2023; however, it failed to do so, which was inappropriate. Furthermore, despite reassuring the resident on 1 December 2023 that it had written to the neighbour, there is no evidence that it had done so. Indeed, the evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the neighbour 19 days later. This was not only misleading but also poor management of the resident’s expectations. Moreover, it did not appear to attempt to visit the block until 20 January 2024 – over 120 working days after it was made aware of reports of cannabis smoke. These were avoidable delays and the landlord should have undertaken these interventions much sooner.
  6. In a number of the resident’s reports, she was concerned about the health and wellbeing of the young child living with the neighbour who, the resident said, was around cannabis smoke. The landlord advised on 5 January 2024 that it would check its system to see if there were other complaints and, if so, would record as ‘child cases’. This showed that it understood her concerns and would take appropriate action.
  7. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she stated that she had reported the issue on many occasions since August 2023. The landlord’s records show this was a broadly accurate statement, and while the landlord may not be expected to respond to each report individually, it should take proportionate action to investigate the resident’s concerns. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to highlight in its stage 1 response that it had contacted the neighbour and that it would arrange to meet them to try and get the issues resolved. This demonstrated that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and was making reasonable efforts to try and substantiate her reports by visiting the block.
  8. Further, the landlord appropriately encouraged and signposted the resident to report her concerns to the relevant agencies such as police, social services and environmental health, which the resident said she did. The landlord subsequently engaged with the neighbour’s social worker in February 2024 which was reasonable and in line with its policy where multi-agency partnership working is encouraged.
  9. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated that the ASB officer could not smell cannabis smoke when they visited the block, but a single visit is a brief snapshot of time. This service appreciates this was a difficult situation for the landlord, particularly as the social worker also confirmed they had carried out visits and did not smell cannabis. The absence of proof on these occasions affected the landlord’s ability to take more comprehensive action, as its policies advise it should explore a range of intervention tools before considering tenancy enforcement.
  10. The landlord made efforts to speak with the neighbour by carrying out unannounced visits on 20 January, 9 February and 10 April 2024, but the door was not answered. After managing to speak with the neighbour on the telephone, the landlord met with the neighbour on 30 April 2024. This shows the landlord did explore intervention as a way to try and resolve the issues but, as recognised by the landlord itself in its stage 1 response, it should have taken action sooner.  Indeed, internal landlord communications in June 2024 noted that it should have taken some ‘very simple interventions a lot sooner’.
  11. It is noted that the landlord did not appear to carry out risk assessments in 2023 and that its action plan was delayed. It did not keep the resident regularly updated which was a missed opportunity to build trust and reassure the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously and to manage her expectations from the outset. It appears that the landlord gave some consideration to the risk to the resident because it has since made an adult safeguarding referral; nevertheless, where the landlord is aware of a resident’s vulnerability, it is good practice for the landlord to undertake a formal risk assessment. As such, a recommendation has been made below.
  12. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the frustration and distress this situation would have caused the resident and appreciates that the situation has been going on for a considerable period. The landlord has recognised that its repeated delays in responding to the resident and its lack of proactivity contributed to the resident’s distress and it made an offer of compensation of £300 at stage 1 for its handling of reports of ASB. This was broadly in line with our remedies guidance which suggests awards from £100 where a resident has been adversely affected. Additionally, it reassured her that it was monitoring the situation and had since implemented a number of measures to resolve the ASB which were fair and reasonable and in line with its policy, namely interviewing the neighbour, multi-agency partnership working, site visits, speaking with other residents in the block and issuing warning letters. In view of this, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made reasonable redress, prior to investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 final response recognised that the resident wishes to move away and said it would provide further information explaining her options. In November 2024, it added it would look to complete a managed move and asked which areas the resident would like to consider. This demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to assist the resident and that it adequately considered the impact the situation was having on her wellbeing.
  14. Further, the service has seen the landlord proceeded with court action against the neighbour. The resident continued to make a number of reports of ASB between March and November 2024 and recently informed this service that the ASB continues and that she still wished to move. While these matters are outside of the scope of this investigation, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her options for a managed move. 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord aims to acknowledge complaints at stage 1 of its complaints process within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. Its complaint procedure says any complaint open for more than 10 working days must be extended in agreement with the resident, and a clear explanation for the reason for the extension must be provided. The landlord aims to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  2. The resident initially made a complaint on 24 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 9 February 2024 – 12 working days later which was contrary to its policy timescales. On 22 February 2024, the landlord told the resident that it was unable to issue its stage 1 response within time and that it would need to extend the deadline to 8 March 2024. However, it failed to provide its response by this date. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 March 2024, 35 working days after receipt of the initial complaint. This was outside its policy timescales and caused distress to the resident who likely felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns, as well as time and trouble in chasing the matter.
  3. Although the landlord did not apologise for the delay in responding at stage 1, it did recognise there were ‘complaint handling failures’ and offered £50 for this. Apologising when things have gone wrong is an important part of effective complaints handling. It is often the first step to repairing a damaged relationship and, while apologising cannot change what has happened, it can help to restore trust. In view of this, a recommendation has been made below.
  4. Additionally, the landlord’s stage 2 response, while issued within 20 working days, was poorly phrased. It said that there was no service failure in the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB despite the stage 1 response having recognised that it should have acted much sooner. This would have caused confusion to the resident. Nevertheless, this error was minimal and did not affect the overall outcome. As such, the compensation offered at stage 1 was broadly in line with the service’s remedies guidance and therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, adequately reflected the detriment caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with respect to its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with respect to its handling of the associated complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. contact the resident to discuss her current housing situation and continue to work with her regarding her request for a managed move. It should provide relevant information to facilitate this, if it has not done so already.
    2. ensure that, in future similar cases, it undertakes a risk assessment upon receiving reports of ASB so as to take into account any vulnerabilities of the household making the reports.
    3. apologise for the complaint handling failures at stage 1 and ensure that if a service failure is identified and compensation is considered, it should be accompanied with an apology and recognition of learning, where appropriate.