Midland Heart Limited (202423017)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her partner. They have experienced alleged ongoing anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour since January 2023. The resident reported a new ASB incident in March 2024, which resulted in the landlord opening an ASB case and legal action.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to investigate its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB prior to her making a complaint and despite her requesting it do so as part of her complaint.
7. It did not issue a warning to the resident’s neighbour in a timely manner following her report to it in March 2024. The landlord failed to complete a risk assessment in line with its ASB policy. It also failed to carry out reviews of its risk assessment during the ASB case.
8. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for its poor communication following the resident’s reports of an ASB incident in July 2024. It explained what had gone wrong and gave her reassurance the case had been progressed.
9. Its offer of compensation was appropriate for the failure it identified in its poor communication. However, our investigation has found further failings that the landlord did not address. Therefore, its offer was not proportionate to the overall impact to the resident.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord was delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, but the amount of compensation offered adequately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this failure.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

11. The resident first complained to the landlord about its handling of the ASB case in September 2023. We have already assessed this complaint and the landlord’s actions during this time.  Therefore, this current investigation is focussed on the landlord’s handling of ASB from March 2024, as this is when she made a new report of ASB to the landlord. The historical issues, however, provide useful contextual background to the complaint and are referenced where relevant.
12. The landlord did not investigate its handling of the ASB case from March 2024 to July 2024 despite the resident asking that it did so as part of her complaint. This was a failure by the landlord to address all points of the resident’s complaint.
13. The landlord acted promptly by opening an ASB case on 10 March 2024 following her report to it that day that her partner had been threatened by her neighbour. It generated a provisional action plan, advised her to keep a record of any further incidents, and attempted to contact her. It also contacted the police as the resident had reported the incident to them too. These actions were in keeping with its ASB policy.
14. The landlord failed to categorise the risk of the ASB case in line with its ASB policy when it assessed it as ‘medium.’ Its policy states this level covers cases where ASB is causing ‘trouble, annoyance or suffering to the local community at large rather than to an individual.’ The incident reported was targeted at the resident’s partner due to ongoing ASB reports. The landlord should have categorised the risk at its highest level which covers cases where ASB is ‘perceived to be targeted at an individual or group rather than the community at large.’
15. The landlord did not complete any further risk assessments. Given the escalating behaviour of the neighbour and the ongoing nature of the ASB, the landlord should have done so. It did regularly review the ASB case, sending the resident an updated action plan each time which was positive. However, there was still failure by the landlord as risk assessments are vital tools to identify the support it might put in place for the resident and to assess the impact the ASB was having on her.
16. We have found similar failure in the previous complaint made by the resident about the landlord’s handling of ASB (case reference 202329340). This found the landlord had failed to consistently risk assess the case. It is concerning that the landlord appears not to have taken learning from this case. As such, we have made a learning order for it to review this case.
17. Despite not categorising the risk of the case appropriately, it did identify the serious nature of the incident in Mach 2024 and sent the evidence to its legal team to apply for an injunction against the neighbour. This was appropriate action by the landlord and in keeping with its ASB policy which states it will take injunction action as ‘a quick and effective way of stopping anti-social behaviour.’ An interim injunction with powers to arrest was granted on 10 May 2024.
18. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 25 April 2024 and warned him about his behaviour. It told him his actions were a breach of his tenancy, and it would be making an application to the court for an ASB injunction. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to issue the neighbour with a warning, it did not do this in a timely manner as the resident had reported the first incident more than a month before. This was a failure by the landlord in its handling of the ASB case.
19. The resident reported a further incident on 19 May 2024, where the neighbour said “keep going above my flat” in a threatening tone to the resident. This was the same phrase he had previously used when threatening her partner during the incident in March 2024. The landlord emailed the neighbour on 22 May 2024 to remind him of his obligations to abide by the terms of the interim injunction order. However, it failed to mention the incident on 19 May 2024 and told him it had not received any new reports to show he was not adhering to the order set out in the injunction. This was failure by the landlord as it should have addressed the specific incident with the neighbour and warned him not to do it again.
20. The landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident following her report of a further incident on 18 July 2024 had been poor. It acted appropriately by apologising to her and explaining what had gone wrong. It also gave her reassurance that her evidence had been sent to its legal team, and another case officer would be in contact to discuss the incident and issue the neighbour with a warning.
21. The resident queried whether the neighbour had breached the interim injunction. It advised that since the neighbour had stopped his behaviour after being warned, it was unlikely the judge would be willing to sentence the neighbour for the breach. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and said the landlord’s failure to pursue a breach of the injunction only enabled the neighbour’s behaviour. We recognise the distress the ASB was causing the resident, but the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its legal team when considering the likelihood of it being successful at court.
22. The full injunction was granted on 16 September 2024. On 1 October 2024, the resident told the landlord that apart from loud music being played by the neighbour, “things had mostly been quiet” since the court hearing. This suggests the injunction had been successful in stopping the ASB up until this point.
23. However, the next day, the resident reported the neighbour had verbally harassed her using abusive language. The landlord advised her the evidence would not be strong enough for a judge to award criminal proceedings against the neighbour and explained why. It also explained it was intending on serving the neighbour with a notice of seeking possession. This was appropriate as it demonstrated the landlord was exploring further legal actions it might take to resolve the ASB. It also confirmed if the resident did send it evidence strong enough for a judge to award criminal proceedings against the neighbour, it would apply to the court for a breach of the injunction.
24. During this time, the landlord also attended the neighbour’s property to ease and adjust his front door to reduce the level of noise when the neighbour closed it. This was appropriate action from the landlord and shows it was trying to reduce the impact of the ASB on the resident.
25. When the landlord has made an offer, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Our approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance published on our website. The landlord’s offer of £50 for its failure to communicate appropriately following the resident’s reports of an ASB incident in July 2024 was appropriate for that failure.
26. However, we have identified further failings by the landlord in its handling of ASB which amount to maladministration. Our Remedies Guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where there have been failures by the landlord which have adversely affected them. For the reasons set out in this investigation, we have determined an order of £350 is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s overall failings in its handling of ASB. This is inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord.
27. We understand that the resident continued to experience ASB from her neighbour after the landlord’s final response to her complaint on 22 November 2024. Whilst we understand this has caused her distress, it is outside the scope of our investigation to look at the landlord’s handling of ASB after its final response. This is because the landlord needs to have the opportunity to respond to this through its complaint process should the resident be dissatisfied with its handling of the ASB. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may be able to refer the new complaint to us for consideration.

28. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
29. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timescales set out within its policy. However, it was significantly delayed in both acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and did so in 60 working days. The landlord apologised to the resident for this failure and offered her £200 compensation. The amount the landlord offered adequately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this failure.

Learning

 Record keeping

30. It was positive the landlord was able to provide a detailed record of the ASB case details to us. Clear, accurate and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

31. The landlord should have measures in place when staff go on leave to ensure resident’s reports are properly addressed. Had it done so, this might have prevented the distress it caused to the resident by this failure.