Lancaster City Council (202210325)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202210325
Lancaster City Council
8 October 2024
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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
- The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, from 2018 until the tenancy was surrendered in November 2022. The property was a 2-bedroom 10th floor flat.
- Between August 2019 and July 2022, the resident made multiple reports of ASB to the landlord. On 16 August 2022, with the assistance of this Service, she made a complaint to the landlord about its lack of response to her reports of ASB and failure to communicate updates. She asked that the landlord investigate her concerns and consider moving her to a more suitable property.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 August 2022. It said the ASB management system (ASBMS) records showed that the resident had been making reports, including an alleged physical assault which was reported to the police at the time. The landlord upheld her complaint, accepting that she was not kept properly up-to-date, and the process was not made clear to her. It said this was due to staff training issues. It went on to say that, following the alleged assault, the resident’s case was considered for rehousing in July 2021, but the panel concluded that the situation did not meet the threshold for an emergency move.
- The landlord apologised for its failure to keep the resident updated on progress and outcomes, and that the service provided was not up to standards. It arranged for the estate manager to contact her to discuss any ongoing ASB and provide support and advice, including on options for rehousing.
- In the resident’s stage 2 complaint she provided a detailed account of the ASB reports she had made and the impact on her health, and said that she felt deeply let down by the landlord in its failure to support her.
- In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 11 November 2022, it said the stage 1 response was reviewed to confirm the resident’s complaint was dealt with in accordance with the landlord’s policies and procedures. It also apologised for its failure to respond to her request for escalation to stage 2, necessitating the involvement of this Service to elicit a response.
- The landlord reiterated the upheld decision at stage 1 and said measures had been put in place to address outstanding issues, and every effort had been made to contact the resident to provide the offered support. It said she had not been available during post–stage 1 attempted visits, did not respond to requests for contact, and had in fact surrendered her keys via a friend and vacated the property.
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service in August 2023, when she advised that she wanted the landlord to accept its service failures and to offer her compensation for her distress and inconvenience.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has told this Service that the matters complained of have negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health.
- The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB
- It is important to note that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish the validity of the ASB reports made. Instead, it is for this Service to assess the landlord’s handling of the report and determine whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Further, the landlord accepted its poor service levels in the stage 1 and 2 responses. Therefore, the question before this Service is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether appropriate redress was offered to put things right.
- The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it responds to reports of ASB. It says it seeks to respond to each report of ASB as quickly as possible and within its target times; these target times are determined by the grading (of seriousness) it applies to each report after the initial assessment.
- The standards set out in the policy say every report will be acknowledged within 2 working days (with the relevant policies and procedures leaflets enclosed), risk assessed, and investigated via interviews with all parties involved. The report should be responded to with advice, conciliation, mediation, support, and/or legal action (where appropriate). How the landlord responds to each report is once again determined by an assessment of the report and in line with the assigned grading. All reports should be recorded on the landlord’s ASBMS and monitored on an ongoing basis.
- In submitting evidence to this Service, the landlord accepted that it did not have detailed records on its ASBMS and that no risk assessments were carried out. Further, this Service has seen no evidence that: the resident’s reports were acknowledged in line with the landlord’s service standards; assessments were carried out to assign a grading to each report; action plans were put in place; or any of the other steps were followed in line with its process and policies as set out above.
- There are 1 or 2 reports where interviews with all parties involved were conducted, advice was given, warning letters issued, and consideration to rehousing the resident was given. However, there is no evidence of ongoing proactive monitoring of the reports, or of dealing with things pragmatically using the knowledge and evidence gained from previous reports to inform the landlord’s approach to the overall situation. On the whole, the handling of the resident’s various reports was not in line with the landlord’s policy, industry good practice, or this Service’s expectations in this regard.
- The resident was candid in her descriptions of the impact the situation was having on her, sharing personal medical information and her health conditions. Even where the landlord had insufficient evidence and/or conflicting testimonies which prevented it from taking action, the resident might have expected it to have provided her the support and reassurance she needed at the time. Certainly, it would have reduced the confusion, uncertainty, distress, and her feelings of being ignored and left to deal with things alone. Therefore, the landlord’s failures in this instance amount to maladministration.
- The landlord has acknowledged staff training issues, taken steps since this complaint was raised to address internal processes and set up a new team to bring its handling of ASB in line with sector best practices for future cases. These are positive steps that show the landlord has taken action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principle to learn from outcomes.
- However, the landlord has not taken any steps to redress or acknowledge the impact on the resident of its failings, in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair and put things right. Therefore, it is ordered below to apologise for its failings and to pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
- The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its staff, or those acting on its behalf.’ It states that a complaint can be made in a number of ways, including by phone, email, and in writing.
- The policy set out timeframes for responding to complaints; namely 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It also stated that complaints would be acknowledged at both stages within 5 working days of being made.
- The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had no evidence of the resident making a formal complaint to it until she approached this Service, but there was a possibility that it had failed to make the process clear to her. This Service’s investigations showed that the resident had been raising her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports for a long time. She made calls to the landlord and visits to its hub where she made clear she was unhappy with the ongoing ASB and felt the landlord was not helping her. These expressions of dissatisfaction should have been treated as a formal complaint much sooner, and as the landlord acknowledges, the process made clear to her at the time.
- Further, when the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2, it did not respond to her until 42 working days later, when this Service intervened once again. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had escalated her complaint on 13 September 2022, but the email had not been read or responded to. It went on to say that, at the time of writing its stage 2 response, the resident’s email remained unopened.
- It is therefore not clear whether the landlord reviewed the resident’s detailed email of 13 September 2022 before responding at stage 2. Certainly, the comments made by the resident within her email were not addressed within the stage 2 response. Instead, there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the intended purpose of stage 2 in the landlord’s handling, where it assessed its own handling of the complaint at stage 1 rather than reviewing the resident’s complaint to provide a comprehensive response. The stage 2 of the complaint process was not an opportunity for the landlord to review itself, but rather the complaint the resident had raised; a review of why she remained unhappy post–stage 1.
- The above-mentioned failures in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint amount to maladministration. The landlord is therefore ordered to write to the resident with an apology for its failure. It is further ordered to pay the resident £200 for the upset and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
- On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The new Code applies from 1 April 2024 and the Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
- However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the formal complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of ASB.
- Associated complaint.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Write to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its:
- Failures in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
- Complaint handling failures.
- Pay directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £700 compensation, as follows:
- £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ASB reports.
- £200 in recognition of the upset and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the associated complaint.
- Review the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.
- Provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
- Write to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its: