Magna Housing Limited (202210864)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210864

Magna Housing Limited

12 April 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a first floor flat. Her lease began on 19 May 2020. The landlord is the freeholder of the property. The resident lives opposite the alleged perpetrator, within a communal block. The alleged perpetrator is a tenant of the landlord.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour procedure says:
1. An action plan will be completed with the complainant to agree reporting methods and frequency of contact.
2. A risk assessment will be done in every case.
3. The landlord will contact the alleged perpetrator once it has gathered information about the antisocial behaviour.
4. There are various options of support available to complainants.
5. The landlord will use non-legal remedies to resolve the antisocial behaviour, such as mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts. Legal options are available if the antisocial behaviour persists, or the action is proportionate to the behaviour reported.
The landlord’s CCTV policy and procedure says that it will carry out an assessment before installing CCTV. The assessment must justify the use of CCTV and will only be considered when other forms of evidence or possible solutions are inappropriate or prove inconclusive.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service Complaint Handling Code. Stage one complaints are responded to within ten working days. Stage two complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider paying compensation when it has been negligent in its service delivery, failed to meet its service target, not acted reasonably, the complainant has suffered loss or inconvenience, or no other form of redress is suitable.

Summary of events

The resident first contacted the landlord on 31 July 2020 to report concerns about the alleged perpetrator. The resident said that she had reported several incidents of antisocial behaviour to the landlord since July 2020. She said that she had also provided recordings and evidence of death threats, threats to harm her family and verbal abuse.
Sometime in October 2020, both the resident and alleged perpetrator engaged in mediation arranged by the landlord and conducted by an independent agency. The mediation failed due to an altercation between the alleged perpetrator and the resident.
In November 2020, the landlord considered a management transfer to move the alleged perpetrator to an alternative property. The proposed action was supported by other involved agencies. The transfer did not take place as the landlord decided that it was not appropriate in the circumstances.
On 17 November 2020, the resident sent the landlord two videos of antisocial behaviour. She said that the noise went on for over three hours. She asked the landlord to contact her to discuss a plan of action.
The landlord’s records show that on 7 December 2020 it served a notice seeking possession on the alleged perpetrator.
Between 8 December 2020 and 31 March 2021, the resident said that there were 12 separate serious incidents of antisocial behaviour, including threats to her family, false allegations of child abuse sent to her employer, and a warning that she was being watched. The resident said that some of these incidents were witnessed by the landlord’s operatives.
On 10 March 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint by telephone as incidents of antisocial behaviour had continued and the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s management of the case. The landlord sent a stage one response letter to the resident on 16 March 2021. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the way it had handled reports of antisocial behaviour and accepted that it had not followed its policies and procedures consistently.
2. Acknowledged that its communication with the resident had been unclear and lacking in structure at times, which resulted in a failure to adequately manage the resident’s expectations.
3. Explained that it had attempted to manage the case by considering a move for the alleged perpetrator, rather than taking action based on a risk management plan.
4. Said that a new team structure had been implemented and a specialist consultant had been brought in to carry out a best practice review.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2021 and 1 April 2021 and requested a discussion about the alleged perpetrator’s CCTV camera as she felt “unnerved” by it. The landlord contacted the resident and she agreed to wait for the outcome of a police visit to the alleged perpetrator. The landlord told the resident that the action it could take against the alleged perpetrator for the use of CCTV was based on what was in the tenancy agreement. The landlord said that it had contacted a specialist group for advice.
On 4 May 2021, the case officer contacted the resident by telephone. He apologised for an email that had been sent to the resident on 28 April 2021 by a colleague. The content of the email has not been disclosed, however the landlord said that it was not the style of communication that it supported or expected. CCTV was discussed and the resident said that she did not think cameras were needed at the time, as things had been quieter. The case officer said that he would actively support the resident’s request for CCTV should she feel it was necessary in the future.
In June 2021, the alleged perpetrator contacted the landlord on three occasions, making allegations that she was being harassed and bullied by her neighbours. The alleged perpetrator said that she had complained several times and contacted the police. She said that she had clear evidence on CCTV of the resident threatening her.
The landlord replied to the alleged perpetrator on 3 August 2021, requesting a copy of the footage.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator and challenged her about her behaviour, and her partner’s behaviour, towards the landlord’s contractors. The landlord detailed several alleged incidents and told the alleged perpetrator that her behaviour was not acceptable.
On 1 September 2021, the landlord agreed an action plan with the alleged perpetrator. The action plan stated that the landlord would enquire about moving the stairwell light and switch, change the lighting to emergency lighting and install its own electricity supply or offer compensation to the alleged perpetrator, chase up the kitchen ceiling replacement and raise a job for the loft hatch lock. The alleged perpetrator agreed to continue to look for a mutual exchange, apply to local councils with any local connections and continue to ignore neighbours and report any issues to the landlord and the police.
The resident said that the antisocial behaviour continued, and on 1 December 2021 she made allegations that the alleged perpetrator had assaulted her in the communal hallway. The resident reported the incident to the police and notified the landlord by email. She requested that the landlord install CCTV to protect her from further harm.
The alleged perpetrator made counter allegations to the landlord on 3 December 2021. She said that on 1 December 2021, the resident had banged and kicked her front door, tried to open the door and then stood in the doorway.
On 3 December 2021, the resident sent the landlord two recordings and a transcript of the alleged incident on 1 December 2021. She also sent images of a message that had been sent to her employer by the alleged perpetrator. The message threatened to expose them on social media for employing a “child abuser”. The landlord responded and told the resident that she had a new case manager and he was going to liaise with the police and then contact the resident to discuss. The landlord also said that the alleged perpetrator had made a counter complaint against the resident and asked whether it could do anything to make the resident feel more secure in her property.
The resident responded to the landlord and said that she was unaware of the counter allegation, although she was aware that the alleged perpetrator had contacted the police. The resident requested that the landlord install CCTV on the landing.
The landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator and said that it had audio recordings of the incident and screenshots of messages that the alleged perpetrator had sent to the resident’s workplace.
On 6 December 2021, the resident contacted her MP and the police and crime commissioner. She informed them of the alleged assault and said that she had not heard anything from the landlord or the police, and she asked for assistance. The MP sent an email to the landlord and asked if there was anything that could be done to assist the resident.
The landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident on 9 December 2021. The score was recorded as ‘19’.
On 14 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord complaining about its lack of contact since the alleged assault. The resident said that she felt depressed and anxious and felt at risk coming home from work at night. The landlord responded on 16 December 2021 and said that it had carried out a review of the case and it was happy with the way the case was being managed. The landlord said that it was working closely with the police who were leading on the investigation. The landlord also updated the MP.
On 20 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord reporting further incidents of antisocial behaviour. She said that the landlord was not keeping her updated and she felt vulnerable, ill and in despair. On 22 December 2021, the landlord responded and said that it was waiting to hear back from the police. The landlord said that it would contact the resident the week commencing 3 January 2022 to provide an update. The landlord also said that, whilst the police investigation took place, it was “constrained” as to its next steps.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 10 January 2022 as he had been contacted by the resident, and by a neighbour of the resident, complaining about antisocial behaviour. He said that the situation had deteriorated. The resident had told her MP that the landlord said it was treating the alleged assault as “50/50” and “tit for tat”. The resident was unaware of the allegations against her. The resident also told her MP that she was too frightened to leave her flat to walk her dog and she had not heard from the landlord since Christmas. She said the alleged perpetrator had:
1. Switched her light on many times.
2. Thrown her doormat down the stairs.
3. Opened and slammed their door 20 times in a matter of minutes.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2022. She said that she had received an email from her MP. She was very unhappy that the landlord had not discussed a counter allegation from the alleged perpetrator, in relation to the alleged assault on the 1 December 2021, with her directly and that she had been informed by her MP. The resident informed the landlord that she was looking to sell her property.
On 27 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said that she had no option but to leave her flat. She explained that she had tried to sell her flat but could not, so she asked for permission to let it. The landlord did not respond.
On 14 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to inform her that it had been made aware that she had let her flat, and this had not been agreed with it. The landlord said that it had not received the resident’s email of 27 January 2022 and informed the resident that she would incur costs if she wanted to change the lease.
On 30 April 2022, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord requesting an update of any developments in the case.
On 5 May 2022, the resident made a second formal complaint to the landlord. She told the landlord that she had moved out of her home due to continuing incidents of harassment. The complaint was about:
1. The landlord’s failure to take action to protect customers and to follow its own antisocial behaviour policies and procedures.
2. The way that the landlord has treated people who complain about antisocial behaviour.
3. The landlord’s ineffective communication.
The landlord responded to the resident on 20 May 2022. The landlord said that it would contact the resident to discuss support following the police decision to charge the alleged perpetrator. The landlord also said:
1. It would review the progress and steps taken in the recent investigation.
2. The investigation was still ongoing, and the action taken was reasonable and proportionate based on the available evidence.
3. It acknowledged historic delays in finding a solution to the case.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 May 2022. She told the landlord that she did not believe that she had received a full and final response to her complaint, as her questions and her concerns had not been addressed.
The landlord sent the resident a further response on 1 June 2022. The landlord said that several of the issues raised regarding communication and the antisocial behaviour investigation had been addressed in the stage one response.
On 22 August 2022, the resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord as it was unclear as to whether the resident’s complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
On 24 August 2022, the landlord sent the resident an email. It said that the housing team were working with the alleged perpetrators to resolve their housing situation. It also said that if the alleged perpetrator was found guilty of assault, it would need to consider what was just, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances before considering any action. The landlord said that it had not had any direct reports about the alleged perpetrator for five months, however the case remained open and would be monitored.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord issued a stage two final response letter. The landlord apologised that the resident had felt the need to move out of her home and confirmed that the antisocial behaviour case was still open. The landlord said:
1. The stage one response dated 16 March 2021 answered most of the resident’s complaints.
2. A new structure had been put in place.
3. A community safety lead had been appointed.
4. A consultant had been brought in to conduct a best practice review.
5. CCTV is only installed in specific circumstances.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour has occurred. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of antisocial behaviour, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour procedure sets out how the landlord will manage a complaint of antisocial behaviour. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence, such as records of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, records of the investigations conducted by the landlord, contact notes, case notes and copies of correspondence between the landlord, both parties and third parties.
In response, the landlord failed to provide records that indicate it carried out a full investigation into the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, and in particular the alleged assault. The landlord was unable to provide this service with a copy of the notice seeking possession served on the alleged perpetrator in December 2020, or any records that indicate it agreed an action plan with the resident, in line with its procedure, despite a specific request. The landlord informed the resident that the police were leading on the alleged assault case. However, it has not provided this Service with any evidence of its communication with the police or any actions agreed, despite its procedure clearly stating that “it is crucial that a multi agency approach is adopted”. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core landlord function, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also to assist the landlord in fulfilling its obligation to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour in its neighbourhoods.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour procedure says that a risk assessment will be done in every case. The resident first reported concerns to the landlord in July 2020. However, there is no indication that the landlord completed a risk assessment until December 2021, even though the antisocial behaviour was serious enough to warrant a notice seeking possession being served on the alleged perpetrator in December 2020. Although the landlord did complete a risk assessment with the resident on 9 December 2021, following the alleged assault, it is unreasonable that it did not provide any records that indicate how the results of the risk assessment influenced its next actions in the case.
The landlord told the resident that it was limited as to the action it could take whilst the police investigation into the alleged assault took place. This position is not supported by the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy or procedure and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is not a reasonable approach. Best practice would indicate that the landlord should take a joint approach with other agencies, ensuring the best outcome for the affected parties. Landlords have access to legal and non-legal tools and powers that can be used alongside a police investigation.
The landlord has not provided this service with information that supports its decision not to install CCTV on the landing. It is accepted that landlords must carefully consider the use of CCTV and comply with the relevant legislation and codes of practice. However, there is no evidence to suggest that an informed decision was made or that the landlord provided the resident with a reasonable explanation for the refusal over and above quoting the CCTV procedure.
Based on the information provided, it is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s communication with the resident was generally poor. Although the landlord has said that it was in constant contact with the resident, it has not been able to provide contact records or correspondence to support this. The landlord has provided copies of emails from the resident requesting contact, specifically following the alleged assault. Rather than the landlord taking a proactive approach with contact, it has generally only contacted the resident on the occasions when she has requested it, which is unreasonable in the circumstances, and not in line with the landlord’s procedure where it states that the landlord will agree the method and frequency of contact with the complainant.
The impact of the landlord’s failings has had a substantial detrimental effect on the resident. She told the landlord in December 2021 that she felt depressed and anxious and felt at risk coming home from work at night. In early 2022, the impact of the ongoing situation meant that the resident felt unable to live in her own home and she moved out into rented accommodation. The resident said that, as she could not sell her flat, she was forced to let her property out to tenants. This meant that the resident incurred significant costs, as there was a shortfall between her outgoing rental costs and her incoming rent.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour procedure says that in cases of persistent or serious antisocial behaviour, the case officer must consider what further support can be provided. The examples given in the procedure include referrals to the landlord’s own specialist support service, or to other agencies such as victim support, the implementation of target hardening to improve security, and advice from the police around crime prevention. Despite this, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was offered any support, either internally or from an external organisation. It is inappropriate that the landlord did not act in accordance with its procedure and failed to assess, and deliver, support to the resident, despite her repeated reports of the impact this matter was having.
In conclusion, the Ombudsman finds that there were significant failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, specifically in relation to the landlord’s case management, record keeping and its communication with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The Ombudsman has also considered whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaints fairly, and in line with its own policies and procedures.
The evidence shows that the landlord failed to apply its own policies and procedures, as it did not adequately respond to the resident’s complaints at the correct stages.
The landlord dealt with a complaint from the resident in March 2021 at stage one. There is no evidence that this complaint was escalated to stage two and the resident made a second formal complaint to the landlord on 5 May 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the length of time since the first complaint was made, the second complaint should have been recorded by the landlord as a new stage one complaint, and dealt with in line with its complaints policy and procedure. Because it did not do this, the landlord failed to adequately address the more recent concerns raised by the resident in her second complaint. This is a clear failing and evidence of poor complaint handling.
The landlord also failed to comply with its own complaint procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code as, in its responses to the resident on 20 May 2022 and 1 June 2022, it did not confirm the complaint stage, complaint definition, or make a decision on the complaint. The landlord also did not provide details of how to escalate the matter if the resident remained dissatisfied with the response.
The resident responded on 21 May 2022. In the circumstances, this response should have been recorded as an escalation request to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The landlord responded to the resident on 1 June 2022 but the response appears to refer to the resident’s first formal complaint in March 2021. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not investigate the concerns raised by the resident in her May 2022 complaint, and in particular, her concerns relating to the alleged assault in December 2021.
The landlord did not provide a stage two final response until prompted to do so by this Service. The stage two response in October 2022 incorrectly refers to the corresponding stage one complaint as the first complaint made in March 2021, and refers to the responses provided by the landlord in May and June 2022 as reviews. This is a clear failing and is not in line with the landlord’s own formal complaints procedure or the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code which make clear that there are two complaint stages only, and if the matter is not resolved following completion of stage two, then the next step should be to escalate to this Service.
In summary, there were significant failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which would have caused the resident additional time and trouble, frustration and distress. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in a suitable timeframe, at the correct stages or address the concerns raised by the resident since the alleged assault. The landlord also did not recognise these failings in the final stage two response or provide reasonable redress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour was unreasonable, not in line with its policy and procedure, or best practice. The landlord failed to fully investigate the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, it did not adequately agree actions with, or provide support to, the resident and failed to effectively communicate and manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s record keeping is inadequate and this is reflected in its inability to provide the necessary evidence to the Ombudsman to carry out a full and thorough investigation.
The landlord’s complaint handling lacked clarity and structure. The landlord failed to follow its own procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. It failed to fully address the resident’s complaints or identify that its handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory and did not provide reasonable redress to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £800, made up of:

a. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour;

b. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures highlighted in this report.

Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord should write to the resident to:

a. apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report;

b. update her on the current action plan for resolving any ongoing antisocial behaviour;

Review its record keeping practices and carry out staff training in relation to antisocial behaviour case management and complaint handling. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, and to ensure information can be provided to the Ombudsman when required for review purposes. It should create an action plan within eight weeks of the date of this report to show the outcome of its review.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.