London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202205105)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205105

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

5 September 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the ASB reports.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 18 February 2019 following a mutual exchange. The property is a three-bed house. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities recorded at the property.
The resident had experienced issues with their neighbour feeding pigeons, causing them to become a nuisance and limiting use of her garden. This escalated when the neighbour allegedly pointed a firearm at the resident when she recorded him feeding the pigeons.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord, as she was not satisfied with the management of the ASB complaint she raised.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says that the landlord will assign a priority for each case based on the type of ASB reported. It says that “High Priority cases of ASB will be logged and assessed by a Case Manager within one working day. All subsequent incidents of the same ASB case will also be assessed within one working day”.
In managing an ASB case, the policy says that it will:
1. Complete a Vulnerability Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) on all high priority cases.
2. Keep in regular contact with the reporting party.
3. Agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated throughout the case. It says this will show decisive actions and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery.
4. Treat those “affected by ASB sympathetically and sensitively”.
The landlord operated a two stage complaint process at the time of the complaint, this process is detailed as below:
1. Stage one – The landlord to acknowledge the complaint by the end of the next working day and provide a written response within ten working days. If it could not provide a response within this time, it would explain why and write again within a further ten working days.
2. Stage two – The landlord would make contact with the resident within two working days to discuss the complaint and provide a written response within 20 working days. If it could not provide a response within this time, it would explain why and write again within a further ten working days.

Summary of events

The resident first raised an ASB concern to the landlord on 8 June 2019, following a conversation with her neighbour. She said that he made threatening comments around contractor visits and said that “last time he got any grief from neighbours, people got stabbed in the neck”. He had also said that he went to prison following it. The resident said that she felt quite intimidated following this conversation and she “would not have moved to the property had she known about the neighbour”.
On 11 May 2021, the resident reported that her neighbour was feeding pigeons and leaving seed out for them. The landlord noted that this was causing “a considerable amount of mess in her garden/roof”. She explained that “she cannot put her washing out or sit in her garden due to the amount of pigeons” and “they are also now getting into cavities in her roof”. The landlord agreed to send letters to several neighbours in an attempt to stop anybody feeding the pigeons.
On 23 June 2021, the resident said that when she recorded the neighbour feeding pigeons in the garden, he had pointed a firearm at her. The resident contacted the landlord to report what had happened and she was told to contact the police. The resident said she was reluctant to do so, due to concerns for her and her family’s safety, but later that day she reported it to the police. The landlord spoke to the police and provided details of the neighbour. The resident was told by the police that they would be looking to obtain a search warrant for the neighbour’s property.
Within the ASB report of this incident, the landlord noted that there had been other ASB reports linked to the same neighbour. This is detailed as “residents on the road being scared to park their cars in front of his property due to them being vandalised” and that he “parks his car on leaseholders drive – leaseholder possibly scared of confrontation with him”.
The landlord’s records show a risk assessment was completed on 25 June 2021. This recorded the resident as being “extremely affected”, it said there were no safeguarding concerns, the issues occurred “most weeks” and they were getting worse.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and discussed the ASB issue. The resident asked that the neighbour not be contacted at this stage due to her fear of repercussions. The landlord said they would obtain further information from the police.
The landlord made a disclosure request to the police on 6 July 2021 for information relating to the incident reported by the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 August 2021 requesting contact from her case manager, as they had not contacted her.
The landlord responded on 18 August 2021. It emailed the resident, apologised for the delay, and said that she would be contacted within five working days.
On 10 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not had a response. She referenced the previous assurance of contact within five working days and said she felt “let down”.
The Tenancy Management Officer (TMO) from the landlord contacted the resident on 13 September 2021. Its notes said that the resident had said the neighbour had been “arrested and is currently on bail pending further investigation”. The resident said that the neighbour had recently “used his hose pipe every night to water the weeds which they had removed, they are now starting to grow again”. They reported that the neighbour had also “smashed a football against her window which frightened her as she related this to the gun incident”. The resident said they still did not wish for the neighbour to be contacted by the landlord.
On 23 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said she had “thought about it” and asked that the TMO be advised that they would like a “security light and a fire letter box” and said they “just don’t trust him”.
A contact note from 13 October 2021 shows that the resident contacted the landlord requesting contact from their TMO, as they were awaiting an update.
On 26 October 2021, the landlord received information from the police around the neighbour. It said that he had been arrested on 28 July 2021 for “possession of a firearm and further arrested for possession of drugs”. It said he was to return to court on 20 October 2021 and that the firearm had been confirmed to be an air pistol.
The landlord contacted the resident on the same day. The resident “was very upset” and explained that she felt the neighbour had been trying to intimidate her. The landlord said that depending on the outcome of police action, “appropriate actions will be taken against his tenancy”.
Contact notes from the landlord show that on 17 January 2022, a callback request was raised for the TMO. The resident advised that the neighbour’s case had been referred to Crown Court and requested the callback to discuss the proposed security lighting.
On 20 January 2022, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord. She said that this was due to the management of her ASB complaint by the TMO. The resident said the TMO had not contacted her despite her making several requests for call backs. She also said that the TMO had failed to liaise with the police regarding the case. The resident said she felt the TMO “is not taking her case seriously”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 January 2022, requesting to speak to the TMO. They were unavailable and the resident was told that she was due to receive a callback by 27 January 2022.
The TMO visited the resident on 27 January 2022. Following the visit, the TMO completed a “Vulnerable Residents Security Scheme” form recommending installation of a “Halogen spotlight with PIR sensor”. Within the form the TMO said “I consider the resident should be identified as vulnerable” and “I recommend that the works be carried out, as a matter of urgency as this resident is considered to be at risk”.
The resident raised a further ASB report on 28 January 2022, as her car had been damaged earlier that day. On the same day, the TMO made a request for updated information from the police.
On 31 January 2022, the resident called and requested a callback from the TMO. The landlord’s notes to the TMO said the resident “called to apologise for her behaviour the other day” the resident had said “she was really upset and took it out on you”.
The security light was fitted at the property on 3 February 2022.
On 10 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to request that her complaint be escalated to stage two, as she had not received a response to her stage one complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2022, as fencing had fallen down. The resident asked for help from the landlord, as she was “frightened” of dealing with her neighbour.
On 19 February 2022, the resident raised a repair request around the fencing as she had put a temporary fix in place but it prevented her from using the kitchen door. She expressed concern around the security of her property due to the issues with her neighbour.
On 10 March 2022, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response, 56 days after the complaint was raised. Within the response, the landlord upheld the complaint and offered a payment of £430. The payment was broken down as £400 for ten months of distress and inconvenience and £30 for the three months “complaint handling”. It said “we have not managed the ASB case you raised, or your stage one complaint, in accordance with policies and procedures”. It also provided the following responses:
1. It apologised for the delay in it providing the stage one response.
2. It acknowledged “there has been a breakdown in communication in terms of contact, and providing you with updates in response to further enquiries regarding the case handling and progression of the case”. It also said “we failed to speak to you about the impact this matter must have been having on you and your family, which would have enabled us to properly risk assess and consider any support needs you may have”.
3. The neighbour had been charged with a criminal offence, although it could not be more specific.
4. It acknowledged that “more should have been done by us at the time of the incident, such as considering the use of a civil injunction or other tools and interventions available to it”.
5. It said “if your neighbour is found guilty as charged, it will not hesitate in taking robust enforcement action against them”.
Within the stage one response, it said it made the following recommendations to the TMO:
1. An up to date risk assessment should be carried out and if required referrals to the relevant support services.
2. A review of the action plan should be completed.
3. A review of the contact agreement should be completed.
On 5 April 2022, the police contacted the TMO about the ASB reports and said they had spoken to the resident about safeguarding measures. They asked if the TMO could arrange for a motion control floodlights to be fitted for the resident.
The TMO emailed the resident the next day and said “please advise if there have been any further incidents” and “please also advise if you still wish to remain at the property”.
The resident provided a response the next day, 6 April 2022 and copied in the chief executive of the landlord. The resident expressed their dissatisfaction with the TMO’s management of the ASB case and the complaint handler’s management of the complaint. The resident raised the following concerns:
1. She reiterated concerns around contact with the TMO “you haven’t bothered with us in months” and “you said when we last spoke on the telephone, you would get back to me the very next day, but again you never did”.
2. Expressed concern around contact with other managers, “he said he would get back to me and email everything we had discussed, but never did”.
3. The resident reiterated concerns around the management of her ASB reports. “You have never sent me any correspondence regarding this incident or our complaints, you’ve just occasionally contacted me on only a few occasions in the last 10 months”. “You haven’t told us what your intentions are or what action up till now you have taken with” the neighbour. “You do not care for the safety of myself or my family”.
4. She confirmed “as for further incidents, yes there has been, and police attended yet again”.
5. The resident also added “my husband has changed his work now too, so he is here of a night”.
On 7 April 2022, the TMO and complaint handler replied to the resident. The TMO said “your comments have been noted and this matter is being addressed. I have contacted the police and will update you as soon as possible”. The complaint handler apologised for the delay in replying but said they were “currently working through a huge backlog of aged complaints”. They also said “the time taken to reply will also form part of a compensation package which will be offered to you” and “you will definitely receive a response” by the end of next week.
The landlord’s records show that on 19 May 2022, the TMO asked if the case could be closed, as the complaint team had been involved. Internal notes show the ASB case was passed to another TMO on 30 May 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 June 2022 and said they were still awaiting a stage two response, despite requesting the escalation to stage two in February 2022.
On 14 June 2022, the ASB case is noted internally by the TMO “I would like to close this case considering how long it has been opened. However I am mindful of the fact that the perpetrator is still living on the street, and I wonder if matters will ever be resolved considering it’s already been a year since this case first opened”. Shortly after this note, there is a record of a telephone call being made to the resident. In the note, the landlord noted that the resident had been upset, as there had been an ASB incident ongoing at the time of the call. She said the neighbour had left his hose running by their fence, spraying into her garden, and had gone into his property. The resident called back later that day to apologise if she came across rude and asked that the new TMO call her back.
This Service contacted the landlord on 28 June 2022 and directed it to contact the resident and provide a response within ten working days.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 25 July 2022 some 27 days later . It acknowledged that the resident remained unhappy with the handling of her ASB reports. Within the response it said:
1. As the initial incident was a criminal offence, the police were the main lead. It reiterated that should the neighbour be found guilty as charged, it would take robust enforcement action.
2. It acknowledged that it had proposed several actions in its stage one response. However, due to a career change, the TMO allocated to the case had not taken those actions.
3. It said that the new TMO had contacted the resident to carry out a risk assessment and update the action plan. It said the resident did not agree an action plan as “this had been done before and nothing has come from it”. The TMO also noted that the resident had refused mediation and weekly/fortnightly contact for the same reason.
4. It accepted that the “level of service you received was not reflective of the high standards that the landlord strive to provide”. It also said that “your inquiries should have been managed more effectively and there was also delays in responses due to a backlog, for which I sincerely apologise”.

The landlord offered a payment of £250, which it said was not open to further review or appeal. It said after “taking everything into consideration” it “sought management discretion to apply the maximum compensation for the following”:

Complaint handling at stage one – £150
Service failures – £50
Delay in response – £50

Post internal complaint process

Following the stage two response, the resident contacted the landlord on both 4 August 2022 and 26 August 2022 to request for a face to face meeting to discuss the ongoing ASB.
On 14 September 2022, the resident messaged the landlord to advise that they were still awaiting contact following their request for a meeting.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This report is focussed on the events between the ASB report in June 2021 and the end of the landlord’s internal complaint process in July 2022. Events detailed outside of this timeframe have been included for context purposes only. This is accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
When considering a case relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman assesses how a landlord has dealt with reports it received in the timeframe of a complaint, taking into account whether the landlord has followed good practice, and acted reasonably, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case.
Within the resident’s submission to this Service, their desired outcome from this investigation was that “she wants the neighbour evicted”. The investigation is focussed on the landlord’s actions, not those of the neighbour in question. When making a decision, this Service does not make orders that would adversely affect another individual. Therefore, the resident’s desired outcome will not be proposed in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports

It is acknowledged that the incident that occurred on 23 June 2021 would have been extremely frightening for the resident, especially given the neighbours claims that he had previously stabbed a neighbour. The accuracy of this claim cannot be verified. However, it could only have created a genuine fear for the resident in raising any other concerns around that particular neighbour. This is evident in her initially not wanting to report such a serious incident to the police, for fear of her safety.
It is clear that upon the issue being reported, the landlord liaised with the police to ensure that the incident was recorded and once it had been reported, they carried out a risk assessment in line with its ASB policy. Although its risk assessment detailed the resident as being “extremely affected”, its first noted contact with her is on 7 July 2021, 13 days after the incident occurred. Given the severity of this incident, this was a significant delay as this should have been done within a day, as per the landlord’s ASB policy. This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord as it left a frightened resident, in a high priority ASB case, without response to her reports and with no offer of support from the landlord or even a simple indication that it was investigating the matter.
Following the call on 7 July 2021, the landlord’s next contact with the resident was 67 days later, on 13 September 2021. During this time, the resident had made multiple requests for contact, as they were “waiting for my case manager to get back to me”. The resident made it clear in a later request for contact that they felt “let down” by the landlord. This shows that that the landlord had failed to “keep in regular contact” or agree an action or communication plan with the resident, as per its ASB policy. This is another significant failure by the landlord, as they failed to take key steps in providing the resident with a support structure for managing the ASB. This could not but have left the resident feeling alone in dealing with a neighbour that she was already intimidated by prior to the incident.
When the landlord discussed the case with the resident on 13 September 2021, it did not seek to agree an action plan or any regular ongoing contact with the resident. This was a missed opportunity to comply with its own ASB policy and to rebuild trust with the resident, given her saying she already felt let down by the landlord.
The landlord discussed potential security measures with the resident during the call on 13 September 2021. However, in keeping with the ASB policy, this should have been discussed immediately following the incident, especially given the allegation of a firearm being involved and the proximity of the neighbour to the resident. This is yet another significant failing by the landlord, as it shows no empathy or appropriate level of urgency to offer and to take steps that may have offered the resident some feeling of security, at a time when they felt most vulnerable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 September 2021 and requested the installation of a security light and a “fire letter box”, as per the discussion ten days earlier. However, the landlord failed to respond to, or acknowledge, this request. Its next contact with the resident is not until 26 October 2021, over a month later. During this time, the resident had made a further request for a call back on 13 October 2021. The call to the resident on 26 October 2021 was made immediately following receipt of the police disclosure request, rather than in response to the resident’s request. This is evident, as there is no discussion around the security measures that the resident had asked for, demonstrating a continued lack of both understanding or urgency of response to the concerns that the resident was raising.
During the call on 26 October 2021, the resident said that they felt the neighbour was walking past her house at night to try and make her feel intimidated, which she said she had. Despite the resident once again making it clear that they were living in fear of the neighbour, no further action was taken by the landlord to safeguard the resident or offer any form of reassurance. It said that action may be taken against the neighbour’s tenancy as a result of police action. However, given that it was unable to know when this would be, this would not have offered any immediate reassurance to the resident. The police operate to a criminal standard of proof and the threshold to take action is much higher than that in civil law or any other non-legal processes, including landlord action and response to reports of ASB. The landlord continually failed to separate itself and its responsibilities from the police investigation into the matter. In doing so, it has missed opportunities take further action, such as “use of a civil injunction or other tools and interventions available to it”.
At this stage, the landlord did not seek to make any offers of support in line with its ASB policy, or carry out a further/updated risk assessment, given the resident’s concerns. The ASB policy states that it should carry out a new risk assessment with each additional ASB report made. This is significant failing on the part of the landlord due to its continued failure to follow its ASB policy and not acknowledging the resident’s increasing concerns around her safety.
The resident raised her complaint around the management of her ASB reports by the TMO on 20 January 2022. This came shortly after the resident made another unanswered request for a call back on 17 January 2022. The resident’s complaint is that the TMO had failed to contact her despite several requests and she felt the TMO was “not taking her case seriously”. It is understandable that the resident felt this way given that there were only records of three calls in the seven months since the first ASB incident.
Shortly after the complaint was raised, the TMO visited the resident on 27 January 2022. Following the visit, a request was made for the installation of the security light. On the application for the security light, the TMO noted that the resident was “vulnerable” and the installation should be carried out “as a matter of urgency” as the resident was “considered to be at risk”. Considering its views on the resident on this application, it is concerning that these actions have only been taken after a formal complaint was raised. The resident had initially asked for the security light in September 2021, four months prior to the complaint and had later chased the landlord for its installation.
The police contacted the resident and discussed potential safeguarding options with her around 5 April 2022 and they made recommendations to the landlord. The TMO emailed the resident following this contact and rather than discuss the recommendations made by the police, they asked if there has been any more ASB and whether the resident wanted to remain at the property. The landlord’s response is characteristic of its handling of the residents ASB case. A minimal, almost generic response, with a significant lack of any sympathy for the resident’s position. Rather than looking to address the ASB problem, it asks if the resident would want to remain in the property, their home for three years. Although this could be seen as a potential solution, it is approached in such a manner, that it overlooks the gravity of somebody having to move from their home as a consequence of the behaviour of others and its failure to successfully manage the well document and unacceptable behaviour of its resident.
The resident’s response on 6 April 2022 demonstrated that they were very unhappy at the landlord’s email and they detailed their feelings on the management of the ASB report so far. The TMO responded to this clear outpouring of emotion by the resident to say “your comments have been noted”. Given that in that email, the resident had indicated further ASB had taken place, further enquiries should have been made to establish the facts and the records be updated to reflect those instances of ASB that were not already noted, along with a further risk assessment being carried out. Further to this, the resident had once again indicated that they felt the landlord “did not care” about their safety. The ASB policy says that the landlord “will treat those who have been affected by ASB sympathetically and sensitively”. It is clear that the landlord failed to act in line with its ASB policy and this is a significant failing by the landlord.
The TMO sought to close the case a month later, in May 2022, as there was an ongoing complaint at that time. Despite the formal complaint being around the management of the ASB case, this cannot be considered as an appropriate reason to suggest closed of the ongoing ASB case. This request demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of the resident’s situation appears to show a desire to close the case, rather than manage it.
The ASB case was assigned to another TMO in June 2022 and they requested permission to close the case on the basis that “it’s already been a year since this case first opened”. This was prior to any contact having been made with the resident and two months since the last contact with her. Upon contacting the resident, they found an ASB incident in progress at that time. This incident was noted and the resident called back later that day to apologise for their manner during the call. She requested a call back from the TMO but this Service has not seen any evidence of this being made. It is clear that a failure to contact the resident was an issue, regardless of the assigned TMO. This continued after the complaint process was exhausted, as requests for a meeting about the ASB went unanswered. The resident could only have felt isolated in managing this issue, given the lack of any real or meaningful contact and the lack of purposeful engagement from the landlord.
It is clear that the landlord failed to manage the ASB reports in line with its own ASB policy. There is a significant lack of support offered to the resident, following an extremely serious incident, which could only have left her and her family concerned about their safety. A risk assessment identified the resident as being “vulnerable” and “at risk” but it took eight months for it to arrange installation of security measures. No consideration was given to the use of other tools available to the landlord in this kind of situation, such as an injunction. In the thirteen months between the ASB report being made and the complaint process being exhausted, the landlord failed to maintain any regular or agreed contact and an action plan was never put in place to support the resident. The resident was left to chase contact and support, during which time they made it clear that they felt “let down” and that it was “not being treated seriously”. It is clear that the resident and her family felt threatened by the neighbour, who she reported continued to provoke and intimidate them throughout. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its failure to follow its ASB policy, its failure to take any additional actions, such as an injunction or to maintain contact with the resident. When considering the factors in the landlords management of this case, cumulatively this amounts to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

It is evident that the resident had made it clear to the landlord that she was unhappy with its handling of her ASB reports prior to her formal complaint. The resident saying she felt “let down” should have been seen as an expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord’s complaint policy states that “A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or a lack of action by the landlord, our colleagues, or those acting on our behalf”. In view of this, it is clear that the landlord missed an opportunity to register this as a complaint at that stage. Had it done so, this may have led to the resident’s concerns around contact and support being addressed sooner. This also potentially led to a delay in the resident being able to bring her complaint to this Service.
After the stage one complaint was raised on 20 January 2022, the landlord failed to acknowledge it the next working day or respond to it within ten working days in line with its complaint policy. The lack of acknowledgement led to the resident requesting an escalation of the complaint, on 10 February 2022, before the landlord had responded to the stage one complaint. Upon receipt of that request, the landlord still failed to acknowledge the delay. The response was provided four weeks later, significantly outside of its ten working day timeframe, with no acknowledgement of the delay throughout that period. This was a further failing on the part of the landlord as the resident was left thinking that her complaint was not being addressed. This could only have added to her feeling of having a no support from the landlord.
Within its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged its failure to follow its ASB policy and its lack of attempts to understand the impact on the resident’s family. It said it would look to rectify this failure by having the TMO carry out a risk assessment, review the action plan and review the contact agreement with the resident. The landlord has however in its response undervalued the scale and degree of detriment arising from its own inaction in proposing a review of the action plan and contact agreement, as there is no evidence of either being agreed previously. It took the landlord until 21 July 2022, four months after the stage one response , before it carried out the risk assessment, offered an action plan or tried to plan a contact agreement. Given the failures it identified, the landlord should have contacted the resident as a matter of urgency to carry out those actions. For the resident, this could only have been seen as a further lack of concern, empathy and support from their landlord. This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord, as it has not fully understood its own failings and has not demonstrated any learning from the initial complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The resident requested an escalation to stage two prior to the stage one response being issued. This Service has not had sight of another escalation request being made after its stage one response was issued. However, the landlord confirmed that it was investigating the complaint in its email dated 7 April 2022. Within that email, the landlord acknowledged the delay in providing a response and indicated that it would provide that response by the end of the next week, 15 April 2022. However, the stage two response was not issued until 25 July 2022, some 101 days later. This followed contact from this Service, related to the resident concerns around the landlords delay in responding to the complaint. This was over three months after it had assured the resident of a response and well outside of the timeframe set out in its complaint policy. The failure to provide a response in line with its own deadlines could not but have heightened the resident’s frustrations with the process.
Within the stage two response, it acknowledged the delay in the proposals from stage one being actioned. It suggested that this was due to a “career change” by the previous TMO but does not acknowledge that the case remained with that same TMO until 30 May 2022, two and a half months after the stage one response. It also failed to acknowledge that the TMO was in contact with the resident on 6/7 April 2022, or the manner and tone in which the correspondence was addressed. These oversights suggest a lack of any thorough investigation into the complaint, which is a failing when considering it is an important element of any effective dispute resolution.
The landlord confirmed that an action plan and contact agreement were offered on 21 July 2022, but these were refused by the resident as the resident felt they had been done before but were a “waste of time”. Given the landlord’s findings across both stages of the complaint that it had failed to meet its own standards, it is understandable that the resident might feel that these actions were not worthwhile. It is evident that the landlord missed an opportunity to rebuild a relationship with the resident at this stage, as it offered no further support in terms of managing the ASB case. It could have sought to restart the process, offering assurances around its future management of the ASB report in order to regain the resident’s trust.
The landlord offered a compensation payment of £250 in the stage two response. It is not clear whether this is in addition to, or in place of the offer made at stage one. Given that part of the payment is £150 for “Complaint handling at stage 1” and this was already considered at stage one, it is reasonable to assume that this is in place of the offer made at stage one. The rest of the offer is £50 for “Service Failures” and £50 for “Delay in response”. The offer does not specify which service failure or which delay that it is addressing within the offer. The offer made by the landlord is unclear as to what it is covering and it is neither consistent with previous offers made by the landlord, nor proportionate to the failings that it had identified. Ultimately, it is the view of this Service that the offer made by the landlord at both stages of its complaint process is significantly below what might be reasonably expected given the circumstances of the case and its acknowledged failings.
The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaint policy throughout. It failed to maintain contact with the resident, provided late responses and failed to action its own proposals. In addition to this, it made conflicting and inconsistent offers of compensation to address the complaint, despite offering no direct action to address the reason for the complaint. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports

The resident had already made the landlord aware of her being intimidated by her neighbour, prior to him aiming a firearm at her. The resident was so scared for her and her family’s safety, she was reluctant to report the matter to the police. It is clear that when the landlord became involved, it failed to manage the ASB reports in line with its own policy and failed to make the resident feel supported. A risk assessment was completed but no immediate support, action plan or contact agreement was put in place. The landlord then failed to maintain regular contact, or respond to call back requests in a timely manner. This left a resident who was already intimidated by her neighbour feeling alone in dealing with the matter. Other incidents were reported and although less severe in nature, this increased the resident’s fear of her neighbour. The landlord missed opportunities to offer support at each of these stages. It failed to respond to the resident’s request for security measures until a formal complaint was raised. Despite being aware of the resident’s continued concerns around incidents with her neighbour and the overall management of the ASB case, the landlord’s management continued in a distant and unempathetic manner. This meant that the resident was denied the quiet enjoyment of her own home throughout.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with its own complaint policy. At both stages there was no acknowledgement of the complaints, the responses were not provided on time and the resident was not updated as to any delays. At stage one the landlord fully upheld the complaint and acknowledged its failings, proposing that it contact the resident and take steps set out in its ASB policy. However, it did not action this until four months later, when it was producing the stage two response. The stage two response apologised again for the experience but offered nothing in the way of actions to address the resident’s ASB concerns. It failed to learn from either complaint and showed no urgency or drive to the reason for the complaint. The landlord has failed to demonstrate an understanding or show empathy to a resident who has continually indicated that they felt that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.

Orders

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £1,950 to the resident towards the extended distress and inconvenience experienced due to the landlord’s management of the ASB reports. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.

The landlords management of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £500 to the resident for the distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord must initiate and complete a senior management review of the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within 6 weeks of the date of this report and bring into its operations its improvement actions within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider the landlord’s oversight framework for its ASB casework management procedures to ensure at minimum:
1. Risk assessments are carried out on time and reviewed throughout.
2. Action plans are completed in each instance.
3. Regular updates to the complainant, in line with agreed action plan.
4. Regular reviews of the complaints are completed.
5. That balanced decisive actions are promptly taken with suitable regard for the protection and welfare of residents subjected to ongoing and significant levels of ASB.
If it has not done so in the past six months, the landlord to review its complaint management and oversight process, ensuring that all relevant staff:
1. Understand the landlord’s ASB policy, complaint policy and the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.
2. Provide complaint responses within the timeframes set out in the policy.
3. Ensure oversight of commitment made in complaint responses through to satisfactory completion.
4. Calculating redress.
5. Closing complaints.
6. Ensuring satisfactory completion of commitments made in complaint responses.