Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (201916108)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916108

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

1 October 2021

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. Administration of the resident’s rent account.
2. Handling of an anti-social behaviour (ASB) allegation about the resident.
3. Response to the resident’s ASB allegation reported on 3 July 2019.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or aspects of a complaint, will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure.
As part of the resident’s referral to this Service he raised concerns about the landlord’s recent administration of his rent account, including that its calculations following his monthly rent payments did not add up.
As there is no evidence that the resident’s complaint regarding the administration of his rent account had been considered by the landlord under its internal complaint procedure, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it is not one which falls within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. This is because the landlord should have the opportunity to address a complaint under its own internal complaints procedure before the Ombudsman considers it. This is vital to this Service’s consideration of a complaint as it is the landlord’s responses to the initial incident and throughout the complaints procedure that are under investigation, as well as the matters that lead to the complaint being made in the first place.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a flat.

Summary of events

On 3 July 2019 the resident called the landlord to discuss his tenancy. The landlord’s written record of the call sets out:
1. The resident stated that his ex-partner was spreading “horrible rumours” about him. The resident noted that despite informing the police regarding his ex-partner’s conduct the police had not taken any action.
2. It informed the resident that as his ex-partner did not have a relationship with it, there was no action it could take in respect of the matter, and it was for the police to respond to.
On 12 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that another resident had reported that he had engaged in ASB, namely “intimidation [and] harassment”. The landlord confirmed that it had made an appointment to visit the resident at the property on 18 July 2019 (the meeting) to discuss the allegation.
On 25 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident following the meeting, in which the police were also in attendance. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident denied that on 4 July 2019 he had committed an act of ASB towards his neighbour (the neighbour), including verbal abuse and an attempted assault (the incident).
2. The resident made counter allegations against the neighbour that he had made an inappropriate comment towards him on 4 July 2019. The resident noted that he believed that the neighbour’s comments were linked to the rumours which were being spread by his ex-partner.
3. The neighbour had denied the resident’s counter allegations when put to them.
4. If the neighbour’s allegations were true it would be a breach of the property’s tenancy agreement. The landlord therefore reminded the resident of his tenancy obligations to not cause a nuisance or engage in ASB.
5. It would monitor the situation between the resident and neighbour. The landlord confirmed that if it received further complaints about the resident’s conduct it may consider taking enforcement action against him.
6. As discussed during the meeting the resident should avoid any contact with the neighbour.
7. It was able to offer mediation between the resident and neighbour.
8. During the meeting the resident requested that it check its records as he stated that he had reported ASB by the neighbour during a phone call with it on 3 July 2019. The landlord confirmed that it had checked the record of the phone call and there were no complaints relating to the neighbour.
On 1 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident following “recent emails regarding the ASB case [it] was investigating”. The Ombudsman has not had sight of these emails. In summary the landlord said:
1. The police attended the meeting as it works in partnership with the police, and the police were also investigating the same issues.
2. It was sorry that it did not tell the resident that the police would also be in attendance during the meeting. The landlord noted that the police offered to make another appointment to discuss the ASB, however the resident agreed for the police to be present.
3. It would not be looking into any complaints regarding the resident’s ex-partner.
4. The resident and neighbour had both agreed to avoid contact with each other.
5. It would monitor the situation and the resident should report any incidents involving the neighbour promptly so that it could investigate.
On 2 August 2019 the resident replied to the landlord setting out that it was concerning that the landlord appeared to have no record of him reporting ASB by the neighbour on 3 July 2019.
On 16 August 2019 the landlord responded. The landlord said that its records showed that the resident contacted it on 3 July 2019 raising concerns in respect of his ex-partner, however there was no mention of complaints about the neighbour.
On 13 September 2019 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord. The resident did not provide details of his complaint, however noted that he would “explain in full” when the landlord contacted him.
The landlord’s internal record document that it attempted to contact the resident on 17 September 2019 to discuss the complaint however it was unsuccessful. The landlord confirmed that it left a voice message.
On 18 September 2019 the resident contacted the landlord reiterating that he wished to make a complaint but he had not had any contact from it.
On 30 September 2019 the resident provided details of his complaint to the landlord. The resident stated that his complaint was that the landlord had failed to make a record of his ASB concerns about the neighbour which he had reported during the phone call on 3 July 2019. The resident advised that the landlord should listen to the call on 3 July 2019 to confirm what was discussed.
On 1 October 2019 the landlord and resident spoke regarding his complaint. The landlord’s record of the conversation noted:
1. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not responded to the ASB allegations which he alleged to have raised on 3 July 2019 about the neighbour.
2. The resident’s ex-partner continued to spread rumours about him.
3. During the meeting to discuss the neighbour’s ASB allegation the resident felt the officer in attendance was arrogant and did not listen to him.
4. The resident was not informed that the police would also be in attendance during the meeting.
5. It would listen to the recording of the phone call with the resident on 3 July 2019.
6. It would investigate its handling of the ASB allegations against him.
On 14 October 2019 the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord opened its response by confirming that it understood that the resident’s complaint was about:
1. Its management of an ASB case which he was involved in.
2. Its failure to address concerns regarding the neighbour which he raised during a phone call on 3 July 2019.
In response to its management of ASB:
1. On 5 July 2019 it opened an ASB case in which the resident was named as the perpetrator. The landlord confirmed that in response it discussed the case with the neighbour, the reporter, and agreed an action plan. The landlord noted that the neighbour informed it that the police were also aware of the ASB incident subject of the case.
2. As it works in partnership with the police, it attended the meeting with the police in order to discuss the neighbour’s allegation with the resident. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was not informed in advance that the police were also going to be in attendance for which it was sorry.
3. It was sorry that the resident felt that its officer, who was present during the meeting, appeared “uninterested and arrogant”, as this was not their intention. The landlord set out that the officer’s main focus was to ensure that they provided the resident with the allegations against him and to gain a clear understanding of his version of events.
4. After considering the allegations from both parties, the resident and the neighbour, it issued them with a warning letter reminding them of their tenancy obligations.
In response to the phone call on 3 July 2019:
1. It had reviewed the phone call between the resident and its customer service team.
2. A number of issues were raised during the phone call.
3. The main issue reported by the resident was that his ex-partner was spreading rumours about him.
4. During the phone call the resident did raise issues regarding the neighbour, however he did not “specify that [he] wished to log an ASB case”. The landlord acknowledged that it should have responded to the resident’s concerns “more efficiently” and apologised for any impact it had on the resident.
The landlord concluded by confirming that if its response did not resolve the complaint he may request to escalate it.
The landlord’s internal records document that in December 2019 the resident contacted it to advise that he was unhappy with it stage one response as he believed that it made “no mention of the misconduct from [the neighbour]” and he felt that it was “deliberately lying to undermine the situation regarding the neighbour’s conduct”.
On 29 January 2020 the landlord provided its stage two, final response, following a phone conversation with the resident on 15 January 2020. The landlord opened its response by confirming that it understood that the resident’s outstanding concerns were:
1. Its management of an ASB case which he was involved in and named as the perpetrator.
2. It had failed to effectively manage ASB concerns that he had reported about the neighbour on 3 July 2019.
3. It had failed to inform him that the police would also be in attendance during the meeting.
In response to the resident’s outstanding concerns the landlord said:
1. It should have been more explicit in explaining how it concluded that the resident had not raised ASB concerns about the neighbour during the phone call on 3 July 2019. The landlord explained that details of what was discussed during the call were logged on its system, however there was no record noting that ASB about the neighbour was discussed. The landlord confirmed that this led it to conclude that ASB by the neighbour was not discussed.
2. It noted that the resident believed that it should have listened to the phone call prior to denying that he had not raised ASB about the neighbour. The landlord however explained that its “processes and telephony [did] not allow [it] to routinely listen to calls and instead [it used] written records”. The landlord confirmed that it was sorry that the record of the phone call was not accurate, believing that it was a genuine mistake rather than an attempt to mislead or undermine the resident’s ASB report to it.
3. It had responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the meeting and the police’s attendance within its stage one response. The landlord added that had the meeting been conducted in a way in which enabled the resident to feel listened to and supported he would have felt more trusting of the officers involved.
The landlord concluded by upholding the complaint as its letter dated 25 July 2019 should have included more detail explaining how the information relating to the phone call on 3 July 2019 was recorded and communicated internally. The landlord confirmed that it would like to offer the resident £100 compensation. The landlord advised the resident that he may refer the complaint to this Service for adjudication if he was not satisfied with its position.
In March 2020 the resident referred his complaint to this Service for adjudication. Within his referral the resident reiterated the complaint which he had raised with the landlord and advised that he was yet to receive the compensation which had been awarded to him. In an update to this Service in April 2020 the resident advised that he believed that the £100 offered in respect of his complaint was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case, and it was unsatisfactory that the compensation payment had been delayed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of an anti-social behaviour (ASB) allegation about the resident

In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, taking into consideration the issues being reported.
The landlord has adopted the definition of ASB as detailed in section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which states that ASB means behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord has an ASB policy which sets out that:
1. It will ensure a service for reporting ASB.
2. It will respond to reports of ASB.
3. It will liaise with partner organisations in relation to ASB.
4. It will undertake action that is reasonable and proportionate.
The Ombudsman has been provided with details of the neighbour’s ASB allegations about the resident. The allegations include verbal abuse and an attempted assault – the incident. As the neighbour’s allegations could fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB it was therefore necessary for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified. This is because in line with the landlord’s ASB policy the landlord has an obligation to all its tenants to investigate matters concerning ASB.
In response to the neighbour’s allegations the landlord met with the resident on 18 July 2019 – the meeting. This was appropriate in order for the landlord to put the neighbour’s allegations to the resident, and to provide him with the opportunity to respond, and to determine what action, if any, was needed.
During the meeting the evidence shows that the neighbour’s allegations were discussed and the resident responded by explaining his version of events and advising that the neighbour had committed ASB towards him. Following the meeting the landlord wrote to both parties. The Ombudsman has seen the letters to both parties and notes:
1. Both letters contained an instruction to avoid further contact with the other party.
2. The resident’s letter referenced his tenancy conditions whereas the neighbour’s letter did not.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s warning letter was a proportionate first response to the allegations from both parties to prevent any future incidents occurring, including as it had no corroborating evidence from either party to verify their allegations. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was also reasonable for the landlord to reference tenancy obligations within the resident’s letter and not the neighbours, as the neighbour’s allegations were more serious in nature as they alleged an attempted assault by the resident. The landlord also offered mediation to the parties, within the letters, which was reasonable to help the parties manage any differences in lifestyles and to try and reach a resolution between themselves. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of police action following the meeting.
Also present at the meeting was the police. The landlord acknowledged, in responding to the complaint, that it had not notified the resident that the police would also be in attendance and therefore apologised. The landlord additionally explained that the police were in attendance as it had also been notified of the ASB allegations and was making its own enquiries. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s apology for not informing the resident of the police’s attendance prior to the meeting was proportionate to its omission and the impact on him. This is because it was open to the resident to decline for the meeting to go ahead at that time and until proper notification had been given. The Ombudsman notes that partnership working is also in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy and therefore it was not unreasonable for it to request the police’s attendance at the meeting as it was aware that it had also been notified of the allegation and to support its decision making.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB allegation reported on 3 July 2019

In responding to the resident’s complaint the evidence shows that the landlord listened back to the phone call between its customer service officer and the resident. As the resident had advised that the landlord’s written record was incorrect, as it did not document him reporting ASB by the neighbour, this was an appropriate course of action.
The landlord’s record of the review of the phone call notes the following:
1. The main issue reported by the resident was harassment by his ex-partner, including assault and rumours.
2. The resident reported that the neighbour had started to ignore him and make comments towards him following the rumours by his ex-partner.
3. The resident had mentioned a specific incident where the neighbour had made inappropriate comments in relation to his sexual preferences.
4. It advised the resident that his ex-partner’s conduct should be reported to the police as she was not one of its tenants.
5. In response to the resident’s question “what about [the neighbour]” it asked him to confirm if the neighbour was causing him problems. The resident advised that the neighbour was not causing problems “as such” however asked what causing trouble would entail. The landlord confirmed that this may include spreading rumours or effecting day to day living. The resident replied that the neighbour did “not have the bottle to do that – [they did] it in a discreet way”.
6. It offered to log an ASB case against the neighbour however the resident “goes off subject”.
7. It ends the call by reiterating that it cannot resolve the resident’s concerns in respect of his ex-partner.
The record concludes with the landlord confirming that the officer “forgets to link back to the neighbour and logging an ASB case” and therefore that its communication and administration could have been better.
In responding to the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged, following a review of the phone call on 3 July 2019, that its written record of the phone call was not accurate as it omitted to document the concerns which the resident had raised in respect of the neighbour and therefore its handling of the reported issue had been unsatisfactory.
Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider if it has made an offer of redress to resolve the matter. In this case the landlord apologised and awarded £100 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the failings identified and the impact on the resident. It was also in line with the landlord’s compensation matrix which sets out that it will offer between £51 and £150 for a service failure causing a medium impact. It was also reasonable taking into account that the landlord did consider the resident’s concerns about the neighbour during the meeting, which occurred 15 days after the phone call, therefore mitigating the impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman can see that there was a delay in the landlord processing the compensation following the resident’s acceptance. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 March 2020 to apologise for the delay and to explain that this was due to an “internal error where the payment was not processed” and it would now be processed as a matter of urgency. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the apology was proportionate to the delay, including as it demonstrated that it was taking steps to put things right.
The landlord also explained within its complaint response that it relied on a written record of a conversation with a resident, rather than the actual recording of the telephone call due to access issues. This was appropriate to explain why the landlord advised within its response dated 25 July 2019 that it had no record of the resident reporting ASB by the neighbour on 3 July 2019.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of an ASB allegation about the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its response to the resident’s ASB allegation reported on 3 July 2019.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of an allegation about the resident

The landlord’s response to the neighbour’s allegation about the resident was appropriate as it met with the resident in order to discuss the allegation and to provide him the opportunity to respond. Following the meeting the landlord wrote to both parties instructing them to avoid contact with the other party. This was reasonable in light of the allegations and counter allegations between the parties and in order to prevent future incidents from occurring. The landlord also offered both parties mediation which was reasonable in order help the parties manage any differences in lifestyles and to try and reach a resolution between themselves.
The landlord’s apology for not informing the resident that the police would also be in attendance during the meeting was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint and the detriment experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB allegation reported on 3 July 2019

The landlord acknowledged that its written record of the phone call with the resident on 3 July 2019 was not accurate as it omitted to document the ASB concerns which the resident had raised in respect of the neighbour. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded £100 compensation. The landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the failings identified, the impact on the resident and it was also in line with the landlord’s compensation matrix. It was also reasonable as the landlord did consider the resident’s concerns about the neighbour during the meeting which took place 15 days after the phone call.
The landlord apologised and provided an explanation to the resident for the delay in processing the compensation it awarded which was proportionate to the length of the delay.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has taken steps to put right a complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should remind its officers of the importance of taking comprehensive records of a conversation with a resident, to ensure that its records can be relied on when necessary.