Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited (202306383)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306383

Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited

4 October 2024


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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. the resident’s reports of inconsiderate parking.
    3. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom semi-detached house. The resident is recorded on the landlord’s system as being disabled.
  2. On 6 April 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he wanted to make a complaint about inconsiderate parking of its contractors. He said that they were parking on the “H bar” outside his driveway on a regular basis, and the situation was causing him distress. The landlord acknowledged his complaint and said it would respond to him within 10 working days.
  3. On 14 May 2022 the resident reported that his neighbour had cut a branch off his tree, which had not been overhanging. He said that:
    1. he had reported the incident to the police as he believed that it was a hate crime.
    2. he wanted the landlord to arrange for an injunction or a restraining order against his neighbour.
    3. the landlord had still not responded to his complaint.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about inconsiderate parking on 18 May 2022. It said it was sorry and assured him that it had spoken to its contracts manager, and the situation would not happen again. However, between May and September 2022 the resident continued to report issues relating to his neighbours and contractors parking across his drive. As a result, he made another formal complaint on 5 September 2022.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 21 September 2022. It said that:
    1. it had reviewed the history of his reports against his neighbour, and they did not meet the threshold for legal action.
    2. it had spoken to the other party and the police. The police had confirmed they would be taking no further action. It was willing to speak to any other witnesses the resident had, and in the meantime asked him to consider mediation.
    3. it was sorry that its operatives had continued to park across his driveway. It would discuss the matter as part of its ongoing training. It could not enforce parking restrictions against his neighbour and advised him to contact the local authority.
  6. The resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked it to reconsider the evidence he had provided. The landlord wrote to him again at stage 2 of its complaint process on 28 October 2022. It explained that:
    1. it was sorry for the delay in responding to his complaint, which was due to a period of staff illness.
    2. it had reviewed the evidence he had provided. It was clear that its contractors had blocked his driveway, and it was sorry for this. It had tried to offer him compensation for the inconvenience caused, but he had declined it.
    3. it had tried to manage his expectations with regards to his neighbour. Where there were counter allegations made about his own behaviour, it encouraged him again to reconsider mediation.
    4. whilst it could not take enforcement action beyond what had already been taken, it would ensure it would continue to review any further incidences and engage with the police with regards to his allegations of hate crime.
  7. The resident informed the landlord that he felt it was not taking his complaint seriously. At the time, the landlord had a 3 stage complaint process in place and the matter was referred to its complaint’s panel. The hearing took place on 9 February 2024 and the landlord followed up the outcome in writing on 4 May 2023. It said that:
    1. it was sorry for the length of time it had taken to provide him with a written outcome of the hearing. Although he had been kept informed of the reasons for the delay, 3 months was unacceptable.
    2. an external independent legal review was completed in early March. It was satisfied that the ASB he had reported was investigated appropriately. There was insufficient evidence to satisfy a court that an injunction was warranted, and the police could not corroborate his claims.
    3. there was no evidence to support it had discriminated against him and upheld the decision made at stage 2 of its complaint process. He could consider taking legal advice if he wished to pursue the matter further.
    4. it wanted to give clarity on what constituted evidence, this included specific dates and times incidents took place. Without this, it would not be able to take any further action on his reports.
    5. it accepted that its contractors had parked inconsiderately. It had raised this with the individuals involved and discussed the matter during its training sessions.
    6. whilst it did not uphold his complaint at stage 3, it wanted to offer him a financial remedy for his experience. This was made up of:
      1. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused by inconsiderate parking from its operatives.
      2. £100 for the delay in concluding the outcome of his complaint in writing.
  8. In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident explained that he felt that the landlord did not take more affirmative action against his neighbour at an earlier date, despite the evidence he had provided. After the conclusion of the complaint, he spent £1,500 on security equipment which he used to submit further evidence. He reported that the landlord acted on the later evidence and things went quiet for a period of time, however issues arose again causing him frustration and distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. It is noted that the resident reported ASB from 2016 to 2021. Following no further reports from the resident, his case was closed in September 2021. This assessment is therefore focussed on the events from April 2022 onwards, which is the date from which the resident raised new reports of inconsiderate parking and ASB.
  2. Within the resident’s complaint he made a claim that the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB amounted to disability discrimination. While the serious nature of this allegation is acknowledged, whether the landlord committed discrimination is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law.
  3. It is worth noting that the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to his concerns about the conduct of its staff, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. What we have not done is decide on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to discrimination as defined by the Equality Act 2010. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue the matter further.
  4. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB have affected his health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. It is more appropriate for this to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

  1. It is acknowledged that the situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of ASB. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
  2. On 14 May 2024, the resident made a report to the landlord that his neighbour had cut a branch off his tree which he felt was not overhanging. In isolation, this incident would not meet the threshold for an investigation in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. However, the resident reported that he felt the incident was a hate crime and requested an injunction was taken out against his neighbour.
  3. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, a report of hate crime will be responded to within 1 working day. Whilst the landlord was in contact with the resident about his concerns about parking and his associated complaint around the same time, it was not until 24 May 2022 that the landlord spoke to the resident about the tree incident. It is during this discussion that the resident made further reports of drug use and abusive behaviour.
  4. Although the landlord’s response was delayed, it tried to manage the resident’s expectations from the outset. The limitations for legal action were explained to him and he was given suitable advice about the level of evidence that was required for an injunction which was appropriate.
  5. Key to the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is multi-agency working between partnership agencies to tackle issues. In this case, the landlord contacted the local police to see if any criminal proceedings were in progress to support the resident’s claims, which was appropriate. When it was confirmed that the police were taking no further action on the incident, the resident was updated accordingly and the limitations of what the landlord could do were explained to him again.
  6. When managing a case of ASB, it is of upmost importance that the landlord considers the risk posed to the resident and makes referrals to any additional support as appropriate. In this case, and as part of the Ombudsman’s request for evidence, the landlord has provided 2 risk assessment matrix (RAM) that were completed for the resident. Both RAM it supplied were undated and therefore it is difficult to establish at what point they were completed. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to ensure that all RAM are date marked.
  7. There is also evidence that the landlord specifically asked the resident what it could do to support him which was appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy. An example of this is within an email the landlord sent the resident dated 20 July 2022.
  8. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This should include mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles. Whilst the resident’s reports were not exclusive to noise, the principle remained the same.
  9. In this case, the landlord spoke to the neighbour about the allegations which was reasonable. Where counter allegations were made, the landlord offered the resident mediation on several occasions. Evidence shows it also asked other neighbours to come forward with any reports of ASB and appealed for any witnesses to corroborate the resident’s claims. The landlord’s actions were proportionate and reasonable, based on the evidence that had been presented to it at the time.
  10. The resident submitted a statement to the landlord on 28 June 2022. Whilst he explained the impact the situation was having on him, his comments about the behaviour of his neighbour did not include sufficient dates, times and detail that would have enabled the landlord to have sought an injunction. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 12 July 2022 about the ongoing allegations, and an explanation was given to the resident about what constituted reliable evidence was given which was reasonable.
  11. Throughout its handling of this case, the landlord has addressed each incident the resident reported on its own merit, and he has been updated of the outcome accordingly. For example, around 12 July 2022 the resident alleged his neighbour’s visitor was caught on camera calling him “weird”. The landlord responded appropriately to this specific allegation and explained that their response was not necessarily unfounded given that he had accosted them with a camera. It explained that whilst it had spoken to the neighbour, it could not take further legal action against them because they had denied the individual was their visitor and the landlord could not prove otherwise. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports were reasonable.
  12. The crux of the resident’s complaint stem from his frustration that the landlord was not taking more robust enforcement action against his neighbour. On 7 December 2022 the resident requested a referral to the community trigger (now known as an ASB case review). There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request which was unreasonable. However, the impact on the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to progress the matter via community trigger was minimal. This was because around the same time, it referred the matter to its complaints panel and independent legal team for a full review to consider whether it had acted reasonably which was appropriate.
  13. The landlord’s decision to refer the matter to an independent legal party demonstrated openness, transparency and a willingness to ensure that it had done all that it could to support the resident. A recommendation has however been made for the landlord to make its ASB case review process clearer at the time a resident requests it.
  14. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that after the conclusion of the complaint, the landlord considered further evidence he provided as a result of the installation of new security equipment. This demonstrates the landlord followed through on commitments it made to the resident within its complaint responses to review any new evidence, which is appropriate.
  15. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It’s communication with the resident was clear and the actions the landlord took have been proportionate and fair. It has considered early intervention tools in accordance with its ASB policy, liaised with partnership agencies and considered how it could best support the resident. The landlord’s complaint responses have been comprehensive and consistent throughout, and its decision making has been supported by independent solicitors.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of inconsiderate parking.

  1. The resident first contacted the landlord on 6 April 2022 to advise he wanted to report the landlord’s contractors blocking his drive. The landlord was delayed in responding to the resident’s concerns, and it was not until 10 May 2022 that it discussed matters further with him. The delay caused the resident time and trouble in chasing his complaint.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord’s contractors, his neighbour or their visitors parking across the resident’s drive caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. It is important to note that the landlord does not have the ability to enforce parking restrictions, in the same way the local authority would.
  3. The resident expressed that he felt discriminated against by the landlord’s staff because of the way its contractors had parked across his drive, because he was elderly and disabled. The landlord directly acknowledged his concerns, which was appropriate, and after considering all the evidence presented to it, explained that there was no evidence of ill intent to support his claims. As explained in paragraph 12 of this report, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue the matter further.
  4. When the resident presented evidence of identifiable commercial vehicles belonging to the landlord’s operatives parking across his drive, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the matter. Where there were several individuals parking inconsiderately and where evidence permitted, records demonstrate that the landlord spoke to those concerned. The landlord used the resident’s experience as an example for training of its staff, both in team meetings and “toolbox talks”, asking its contractors to be mindful and considerate of the impact of where they parked their vehicle which was reasonable.
  5. It is evident that despite the landlord’s interventions, several vehicles continued to park across the resident’s drive. The landlord was fair in its explanation to the resident that he should contact the local authority to enforce the parking restrictions, particularly where the owner of the vehicle could not be identified.
  6. Evidence shows that the landlord sought to offer the resident compensation for the inconvenience that had been caused to him in October 2022 which he declined. It later offered him £100 compensation following the panel hearing which took place in February 2023. The offer was made in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and was sufficient to put matters right.
  7. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
  8. In this case, the landlord acted fairly and proportionately in its response to the resident’s concerns about inconsiderate parking. It raised the matter with the individuals involved when there was evidence to do so, kept the matter at the forefront of its training with staff and compensated him for the inconvenience it had caused, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a 3 stage complaints process in place. It is noted that it has since updated its complaint policy to a 2 stage process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which became a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.
  2. When receiving a complaint that references ASB, it is important that the landlord distinguish whether the resident is complaining about the ASB itself, or the handling of the landlord’s ASB case. The danger of not recognising the difference can lead to confusion as to whether the landlord intended to treat the resident’s concerns as an ASB report or a formal complaint, as was seen in the handling of this case.
  3. When the resident contacted the landlord on 6 April 2022, he said he wanted to make a complaint about the behaviour of the landlord’s operatives, who had been parking their van inconsiderately. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to establish whether this was the first time the resident had reported it or whether he wanted to make a complaint about its failure in service to address the issue.
  4. The landlord’s failure to establish whether the resident was complaining about the ASB itself or the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports makes it difficult to pinpoint at what point the resident’s formal complaint started. Although the landlord’s communication was consistent about what steps it intended to take to address the inconsiderate parking, it gave the resident both formal and informal responses on the matter throughout May 2022 which was confusing.
  5. For the purpose of this investigation, the Ombudsman considers the resident’s correspondence on 6 September 2022 to be a clear expression of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service. In this communication, the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response, reporting that he felt it “did not care”. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day which was appropriate. It also responded to the resident with a stage 1 response within 10 working days, in accordance with its complaint policy.
  6. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what date the resident requested an escalation to his complaint, but it was acknowledged on 4 October 2022 and a response was issued 19 working days later. This was 9 days outside of the timescale expected within the landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered him an apology which was appropriate.
  7. The panel hearing was conducted in line with the landlord’s policy. It involved the resident and the executive director, who established all that the resident remained dissatisfied with. The history of the resident’s case was reviewed alongside 16 documents relevant to the case. The landlord explained to the resident that to conclude matters, it also wanted to refer all the evidence collated to an external independent firm of solicitors for their review. As explained in paragraph 26 of this report, this was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
  8. It is not disputed that the resident experienced delays in getting the matter concluded at stage 3 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time explained that it “aims to take 20 working days, from escalation to the final stage, to the outcome of the hearing”. It further stated that the complainant will be kept to date if the landlord needs further time.
  9. The landlord kept the resident informed that there would be delays in providing him with a written outcome of the hearing. Records show that between February and April 2023, it was in contact on 5 occasions to inform him that its response would be delayed. Despite there being legitimate reasons for the delay, including that the solicitor was delayed in their review of his case, it was prolonged and caused the resident evident frustration.
  10. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that although it had kept him regularly informed of the delays, 3 months for a final response was unacceptable. It apologised for his experience and offered him £100 for his time and trouble. The amount was made in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, was reasonable and sufficient to put matters right, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inconsiderate parking satisfactorily, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that:
    1. the landlord pays the resident £200 it offered in its final response dated 4 May 2023, if not already paid.
    2. the landlord ensures that all RAM completed on ASB cases are date stamped for quality and assurance purposes.
    3. if a resident requests it, the landlord is clear on its process for referral a to an ASB case review (formally the community trigger).