Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202110558)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110558

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

15 March 2022

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord. The property is a studio flat in a block of similar properties. The tenancy start date was 15 July 2019 and the resident moved out of the property on 31 August 2021.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident reported noise nuisance from a neighbour in December 2019 and February 2020.The landlord advised her it would speak to the neighbour about it.
  3. There were no further noise nuisance reports recorded from the resident until October 2020. On 30 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to say that it had visited the neighbour and that “There does appear to be some issues which substantiate what you informed us of. Due to this we have decided to serve notice on this tenant, this will be done next week” Although we do not have a record of the original report from the resident referred to in this email, the landlord’s subsequent stage two complaint response on 5 March 2021 refers to the resident having made this report on 27 October 2020.
  4. On 31 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord as she had had to call security and the police that morning as a man was banging and kicking at the neighbours door. The man disappeared before police arrived, but returned later with another man she believed may be the neighbour, and the two men entered the neighbour’s property together, before the first man left again shortly after.
  5. The landlords records show an internal email conversation on 3 November 2020 where it decided to “serve a precautionary notice” on the neighbour. The emails do not clarify whether this was in connection with the resident’s reports or another reason.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 November 2020 saying that “we will be serving notice [on the neighbour] this week, as you can appreciate it is a long process which means we cannot legally evict until the beginning of next year at the earliest”. It also offered the resident the option of moving to another studio flat in the building if she felt unsafe.
  7. In response to the landlord emailing the resident for an update on 11 December 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour had been quiet at night but loud in the day, when she believed he was using drugs. The landlord advised that, due to the Covid pandemic, they were unable to evict anybody for at least six months but that it would check if anything could be done in the interim. There are no records of any further contact with the resident in December.
  8. On 15 January 2021 the resident raised a complaint. She said she wanted to report criminal activity as she believed her neighbour regularly used illegal drugs and made noise disturbances when he did. She explained that she had first reported the noise nuisance to two specific officers on 16 December 2019 and had spoken to them several times since then, but they had not resolved the problem. They had requested that she provide evidence of any illegal activity, but she felt doing that would be unsafe. She had however contacted the police about her suspicions, and they were investigating. The neighbour was continuing to cause noise nuisance, and she felt very unsafe living in close proximity to what she believed were criminal activities.
  9. An internal email on 18 January 2021 states that “Although this is an ASB issue (which might need confirming during the response), [the resident] can complain about how we processed/followed our ASB policy.”
  10. On 2 February 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. The complaint was investigated, and responded to, by one of the officers named in the resident’s complaint (officer A). The officer apologised for the resident feeling the need to complain about the handling of her reports. She said the landlord had asked other residents if they had witnessed any noise nuisance or unusual activities by the neighbour, but none had been reported. The officer advised the resident to make contact if she saw any criminal activity during office working hours, as the landlord was logging any complaints or activities around the neighbour’s property.
  11. The officer explained that the landlord could not evict a tenant based on suspected drug dealing, and that now the resident had reported her suspicions to the police, it was up to the police to investigate. She said the police had visited the landlord to report that they had found no evidence of illegal drug use at the neighbour’s property, but that they would continue to monitor the situation. She explained that following the resident’s ASB reports, the landlord had informed the neighbour that any further disruption could result in him losing his tenancy. The officer confirmed that following a report from the resident in November 2020 the officers had visited the neighbour and told him that if complaints continued they would serve him notice to leave the property. She said they were documenting all complaints received about the neighbour’s property and that as the current government guidelines meant the landlord could not serve notice to evict residents, it must wait until the government had lifted the ban on evictions. She said “Once the restriction has been lifted, [the landlord] intended to serve notice [on the neighbour] for other reasons”.
  12. The resident escalated the complaint on 9 Feb 2021. She explained that the outcome she sought was that “noise disturbance complaints are handled in an effective way and not simply closed and dismissed.” And for something practical to be done to restrict access for non-residents, such as a CCTV system that would pick up when non-residents entered the building as well as deterring and/or collecting proof of criminal activity.
  13. In an internal email response on 17 February 2021, officer A told the officer who was investigating the escalated complaint that the ASB policy had not been followed, as she and her colleague had not really experienced any formal ASB complaints before. She further explained “We are also not familiar with the actions to take, for example logging the reports on the ASB system – How do we access the system? If any training is available this would help [us]”
  14. On 5 March 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It apologised that its service had not met the resident’s expectations or satisfaction. It said that it agreed that it had not dealt with the matter well. There had been failure in the way it recorded the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) as it should have logged an ASB case on its system. This would have meant any communication from the resident and others would have been kept in one place, giving a detailed log of events that could be used when serving notice and applying to the court to end the tenancy. It explained that it had warned the neighbour about his behaviour and told him he was in breach of his tenancy, but that ending a tenancy for anti-social behaviour was a long process, made more difficult by the pandemic. It had followed up each time the resident reported a disturbance, and informed her of the action taken, despite not opening an ASB case. The landlord had also learned from the way the case had been handled and had arranged to run ASB training and refresher courses for employees by the end April 2021.
  15. The landlord confirmed again that it was the police who would investigate reports about drugs. It explained that “due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), [it was] unable to install camera’s internally as [it] must respect people’s privacy and having cameras facing residents’ flat doors is classed as overly intrusive.” It said it would remind people in its next residents’ newsletter not to allow others to follow them into the building. It also explained to the resident how to refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  16. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported more noise nuisance in March. On that occasion the landlord arrived at the property within 20 minutes but by then the noise had stopped.
  17. The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 July 2021 as she had experienced more noise nuisance on 3 July 2021. She stated it had been over eight months since she had been told that notice was going to be served on the neighbour and still, nothing had been done. After some initial confusion about whether to raise a new complaint, the landlord referred her to this Service, as the resident had already received a stage two complaint response about the same issue.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has made reference to historical reports of noise nuisance going back to December 2019, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised until 15 January 2021. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, states that The Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events in the months leading up to the complaint to the landlord in January 2021. Furthermore, while the resident has provided information to this Service about her reasons for moving from the property, the investigation can only focus on the specific information provided to the landlord at the time of the complaint and leading up to it.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

  1. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two complaint response that it did not follow its ASB policy. It explained that an ASB case should have been opened when the resident first reported the ASB, and explained how this would have kept all reports from all residents about the neighbour in one place, and built up a case history that could be used for any potential legal action in the future. The landlord’s ASB policy does not specify timeframes, however its ASB handbook advises that the landlord will contact residents within five days for non-urgent nuisance reports such as household noise, unreasonable behaviour, and suspicion of drug dealing or other illegal activity. Therefore, despite not specifically following its ASB policy, the timeframes the landlord contacted the resident within after each ASB report was reasonable, as it was in line with those timeframes.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states a commitment “to be clear with customers on the range of interventions and solutions available.” However, as the officers initially dealing with the resident’s reports were not aware of the ASB policy, they were also not aware of the other interventions and solutions that were available, and therefore were unable to advise the resident of them either. The option to seek a possession order and evict a tenant because of ASB is extreme. It should always be the last resort, and only be considered when other options have been exhausted. In this case, the possibility of eviction was suggested to the resident as a possible outcome very early in the process, but nothing in the evidence indicates that was in any way a reasonable or proportionate option at that stage. Other options suggested in the ASB booklet were not explored, such as mediation, or good behaviour contracts with the alleged perpetrator. This failure to follow the relevant policy meant that the resident’s expectations were poorly managed in relation to what the landlord could realistically achieve, and other more appropriate resolution options were overlooked. It was a significant service failure.
  3. In its stage two complaint response the landlord identified and acknowledged that it had not followed its ASB policy, and explained that it had learnt from the complaint by arranging further ASB training for employees. It’s apology for not following ASB policy was reasonable, as an apology is the starting point for remedies for low level service failure in its complaint policy. However, it failed to recognise or compensate for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failure or for the resident’s time and trouble. Therefore, an apology and training partly remedied the landlord’s failings, but compensation should have been considered also, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy and procedures say that in order that the complaint handler can complete their duties independently and without bias “…each complaint is reviewed to ensure that there is no conflict of interest with the appointed handler. If a conflict is identified (i.e. the complaint involves the investigating person, or the complainant is known to them) a suitable alternative in the regional team will own that complaint.”
  2. The resident’s original complaint in January 2021specifically referred to two of the landlord’s officers. One of those officers investigated and responded to the complaint. As there was a clear conflict of interest, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have found a suitable alternative to take ownership of the complaint instead. The fact that this did not happen was unreasonable, as it went against the landlord’s complaint policy, and was contrary to basic complaint handling principles of fairness and impartiality.
  3. In its stage two complaint response the landlord failed to identify that it had not originally followed its complaint policy, and that an officer named in the original complaint had investigated it at stage one. As the service failure was not identified, the landlord also failed to apologise or compensate the resident for that failing in its stage two complaint response. That was a significant complaint handing failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident:
    1. £200 for the miscommunication and poor handling of the ASB reports.
    2. £100 for the failings in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord is also ordered to:
    1. Provide evidence of the ASB training it has provided to its staff following this complaint.
    2. Create an action plan explaining how it will ensure complaint handling staff adhere to its complaints policy and good complaint handling practice.
  3. Evidence of compliance with all orders must be provided to the resident and to this Service within four weeks of this report.