One Vision Housing Limited (202014686)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014686

One Vision Housing Limited

10 January 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 behaviour and actions of the landlord’s staff in investigating the resident’s previous antisocial behaviour (ASB) complaint;
    2. the landlord’s decision to issue a ‘red card’ to the resident regarding ASB.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 18 August 2014. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a high-rise block of flats.
  2. The resident has previously referred a complaint to this service regarding a specific incident of ASB which occurred in June 2020, which was determined on 30 June 2021, case number 202010064. The Ombudsman determined that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the ASB report. In particular, the Ombudsman found that the landlord had responded appropriately, proactively and with transparency throughout the process.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
  4. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that conduct which causes distress to a person or is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person, is considered ASB which the landlord will investigate. The policy also notes the landlord will forward reports relating to crime or drugs to the police. Regarding evidence, the policy notes the landlord may request incident diaries, or use CCTV recording equipment. The landlord may also issue ‘yellow cards’ and ‘red cards’, being a warning letter to alleged perpetrators. These letters are aimed at reminding alleged perpetrators of their obligations as tenants, informing them of the allegations against them, and warning them of further action. The landlord may also use mediation as a method of resolving ongoing disputes.

Summary of events

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has made numerous reports about noise and other forms of ASB from his neighbours. The incidents of further ASB include, amongst others, “slamming blinds,” concerns regarding benefit fraud, and drug use. These reports are made to multiple members of the landlord’s staff, often on a daily basis. While reference will be made to these reports, the Ombudsman notes that these concerns are not the subject of the complaint in this investigation.
  2. On 30 September 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a ‘yellow card’ warning letter regarding allegations of ASB against him. The letter gave examples of the allegations, being loud music and a “car racing/screeching” noise coming from the resident’s property in the early hours of the morning of 28 September 2020. The letter went on to reference the tenancy agreement and remind the resident of his obligations regarding noise.
  3. It is evident that the resident reported his concerns regarding ongoing ASB to his local MP in or around November 2020, who subsequently made enquiries with the landlord. The landlord responded to the MP on 24 November 2020, noting a recent report from the resident of ASB on 14 November 2020. The landlord advised its ‘CCTV team’ had investigated the report but did not find any evidence to support further action. It noted it had informed the resident of this outcome and offered mediation to both parties, but that the resident had not pursued this offer. This service has not been provided with copies of the communications referred to.
  4. On 30 November 2020, the landlord issued a warning to the resident regarding his level of communication. The landlord noted the resident had made repeated requests to investigate issues it had already investigated, despite it making its position clear it would not be taking any action. The landlord advised it would restrict the resident’s communication with it if this continued. The landlord also noted it had previously made enquiries with the resident about whether he required any additional support, to which the resident had confirmed he was already receiving support. The landlord advised it was able to make further referrals if required by the resident.
  5. On 3 December 2020, the local authority’s environmental health team contacted the resident to warn him that his neighbours had reported excessive noise coming from the resident’s property, including “unusual sounds played on loop.” It advised it was drawing these concerns to the attention of the resident in the hope the matter would be resolved without any further involvement of the local authority.
  6. On 23 December 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a ‘red card’ warning letter regarding allegations of ASB against him. It provided specific examples of the allegations made against him, including threatening neighbours with “this is your last warning” and “screaming abuse at the top of your voice” on 15 December 2020. The landlord again reminded the resident of his responsibilities as a tenant and warned that further complaints may result in it taking further action.
  7. On 4 January 2021, the resident made a formal complaint. The complaint included the following:
    1. that he had been issued a “wrongful” red card warning on the basis of the word of his neighbour. He advised he considered this to be a lie and that he had audio evidence proving the noise referred to was not him. He further advised he considered the use of the red card was to “bully, intimidate and harass”;
    2. that the landlord had previously informed the police and his local MP that the ASB complaint was open, but that it had also advised him that it had now been closed, which he advised was evidence the landlord had “lied”;
    3. that he considered a number of his neighbours to be committing benefit fraud and were violating COVID-19 restrictions;
    4. that a number of named staff members of the landlord had called him a “liar,” had spoken to him “inappropriately” or hung up on him and had acted with indifference at his situation. The resident further advised he had audio recordings of the behaviour he was describing.
  8. The resident advised he wanted an apology for the red card warning and for the staff members of the landlord to “receive a lesser [than termination] but significant punishment.”
  9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 January 2021 and provided its stage one response on 12 January 2021. It advised that the red card warning “was served correctly.” It further noted it had previously investigated the allegations raised against the resident’s neighbours and that it had not received any evidence that confirmed noise nuisance had occurred. Regarding its staff, it advised it did not agree with the allegations made and that it would not be taking any action against its staff members. Regarding the resident’s concerns about drug dealing and breaches of COVID-19 restriction, the landlord advised the resident to report this to the police.
  10. The resident subsequently appealed to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure and the landlord provided its stage two response on 26 January 2021. The landlord reiterated it considered the red card warning had been issued “issued appropriately in accordance with our policies and procedures and the evidence received.” Regarding concerns about his neighbours, the landlord noted it had repeated its position a number of times and that it had not received any further evidence regarding noise. It also reiterated that drug concerns should be reported to the police, and any concerns about benefit fraud should be reported to the local authority. It further advised that it would not be taking any action against its staff and concluded that the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
  11. The landlord noted the resident had the option of referring the complaint to an independent tenants panel, which the resident subsequently did on the same date. The panel replied on 9 February 2021 that it was unable to deal with the resident’s case. It did not provide a detailed explanation.
  12. As noted above, the resident continued to make frequent, sometimes daily, reports of ASB, including what he described as a “heartbeat” noise at night coming from his neighbour’s property. It is not evident if this was intended to refer to music or a domestic appliance. The resident noted he had recordings he could provide to the landlord.
  13. On 16 February 2021, the landlord advised the resident it had decided to limit his contact due to excessive communications and unreasonable demands of its service. It reiterated it would not reinvestigate issues it had already investigated. It advised the limit of contact would be reviewed in six months, and that it would continue to read his emails on a fortnightly basis. It also confirmed he would still have access to other services such as repairs.
  14. On 28 February 2021, the resident noted he was open to relocation given that he considered the ASB issues were continuing. On 1 March 2021, the landlord advised it was open to considering a management move if the resident identified a suitable property using its online system. It also noted he could continue to bid on other suitable properties.
  15. It is evident that the resident has used a legal representative to pursue his concerns with the landlord and on 15 April 2021, the landlord replied to the legal representative. It noted that it had not received any evidence of noise nuisance and that it had offered mediation to the resident, but he had not pursued this option. It also advised that the resident’s circumstances did not meet its criteria for a management move, but it had nevertheless used its discretion to offer the resident a one-bedroom bungalow. The resident has since advised this service he considers this offer not to be fair given that his current property has two bedrooms and management moves should be on a like for like basis.
  16. On 15 November 2021, the landlord gave a further warning to the resident regarding the amount of communications it was receiving. It also gave a further warning regarding allegations against the resident for ASB noise. The landlord has provided this service with a number of communications from neighbours of the resident which allege numerous noise complaints.

Assessment and findings

Staff behaviour

  1. As noted above, the complaint which is the subject of this investigation is not the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding ASB, but the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of the landlord’s staff towards him. This service cannot enforce actions against individual members of a landlord’s staff but can assess how a landlord responded to concerns raised about its staff. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation into a resident’s concerns, which may include reviewing communications or requesting further information about specific incidents.
  2. In his initial complaint, the resident referenced incidents about conversations with the landlord’s staff which had caused him concern. While he listed the names of the staff members he was concerned about, he did not provide specific dates for the incidents referred to. He did, however, note he had recordings of some of the incidents.
  3. Following the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint and provided its stage one response within a reasonable timeframe. Regarding the complaint about its staff, the landlord advised it disagreed with the resident’s allegations and that it would not be taking any action.
  4. One of the key purposes of a stage one investigation is for the landlord to demonstrate to a resident that it has carefully considered and investigated their complaint and provide details of how it reached any outcomes. While it may be the case that the landlord disputes the resident’s position about how its staff had interacted with him, the stage one response did not provide any detail about how it had reached this conclusion. The Ombudsman would consider it best practice in such circumstances for a landlord to have listened to either its own call recordings, or to have requested the resident’s recordings, and to provide commentary on why it then disagreed with the resident’s position. Failing to have done so would have caused the resident distress that his complaint had not been properly investigated and meant the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had followed a fair process in its investigation of the complaint.
  5. The resident also expressed his desire that the members of staff receive a “significant punishment.” While the Ombudsman would expect a landlord’s staff to remain professional in its communications, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the incidents referred to by the resident would not justify a “significant punishment” and so it was reasonable for the landlord to advise it would not be doing this.
  6. Following the resident’s escalation of his complaint, the landlord had a further opportunity to demonstrate that it had carried out a reasonable investigation into the resident’s concerns, however, in its stage two response, the landlord again only advised it would be taking no action against its staff in a single sentence.
  7. The Ombudsman understands that there had been frustration in the communications between the parties leading to the landlord deciding to limit the resident’s communication. This does not preclude, however, the reasonable expectation for a formal complaint to be investigated properly. While the landlord’s decision may have remained the same, its failure to give even a basic explanation of how it investigated the complaint and reached the decision in either of its complaint responses would have caused distress for the resident and constitutes a service failure. In the circumstances, an amount of £50 compensation is appropriate to reflect this service failure.

Red card

  1. Matters where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage, especially where there are counter allegations made between the parties. Closely following a robust ASB policy is essential in such circumstances. The landlord’s ASB policy includes an innovative yellow and red card warning letter approach to provide initial warnings to residents when it receives allegations of ASB. The Ombudsman considers it usual practice for landlords to initially send warning letters prior to a full investigation, and the yellow/red card heading is useful to alert a resident to the issue.
  2. Following reports from the resident’s neighbours, the landlord provided the resident with both a yellow card warning in September 2020, and a red card warning in December 2020. The landlord has provided this service with copies of some of its complaint records from the other tenants in the building which detail noise complaints against the resident. Having received such complaints, it was appropriate for the landlord to act on them in accordance with its ASB policy and issue these initial warnings.
  3. The warning letters were sufficiently detailed and provided specific dates and descriptions of the reports received by the landlord. The landlord also made reference to the resident’s responsibilities under his tenancy agreement and provided excerpts from the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not seek to take further action at this point but highlighted that such behaviour as reported to it may result in further action.
  4. The resident has expressed his concern that aside from the reports from his neighbours, there was no additional evidence to corroborate he was the perpetrator. The Ombudsman recognises that the resources of a landlord are finite and to carry out a detailed of investigation of ASB in the first instance may not be a suitable use of its resources where an initial warning letter may prove effective. The Ombudsman also recognises that it may be frustrating for a resident to be accused of ASB where they believe they are innocent, however, as noted above, no further action was being pursued by the landlord at this time, and it is reasonable for a landlord to highlight resident’s responsibilities with an initial warning without a full investigation.
  5. In his formal complaint, the resident expressed his concern that the red card warning was unjustified and that he wished for an apology. As noted above, based on the reports received by the landlord, a warning letter was reasonable in the circumstances. The Ombudsman notes, however, that as with the complaint about the landlord’s members of staff, the landlord failed to demonstrate it had carried out an investigation or otherwise provide any additional reasoning for its comments that the red card warning was “served correctly.” This was also the case with its stage two response. In this instance, the Ombudsman does not consider these omissions to constitute service failure as the landlord provided an appropriate level of detail for its justification in sending the warning letters within the content of the letters themselves.
  6. Additionally, the Ombudsman notes that the resident noted his concerns about ongoing benefit fraud and drug dealing at his neighbour’s properties. The landlord appropriately responded by signposting the resident to the correct bodies to investigate these issues. While it may have been helpful for the landlord to have forwarded these concerns on the resident’s behalf, it was evident that the resident was already in communication with these bodies, and so it was reasonable for the landlord not to have done this.
  7. Regarding the landlord’s decision to limit the resident’s contact, as noted above, a landlord’s resources are finite, and it does not have the ability to respond to multiple daily messages. The landlord appropriately gave an initial warning regarding the level of contact. When taking the step to limit contact, the landlord also appropriately gave specific examples of the unreasonable contact, and provided a time frame the measure would remain in place.
  8. While not part of the resident’s formal complaint, the Ombudsman further notes the landlord has provided appropriate assistance for the resident on how to bid on alternative properties. While the resident has expressed his concern that the management move offer made by the landlord was not sufficient for his needs, as this was not part of the complaint considered under the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident should raise this as a formal complaint in the first instance if he remains concerned.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the behaviour and actions of its staff.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its decision to issues a ‘red card’ to the resident regarding ASB.

Reasons

Staff behaviour

  1. The resident gave examples of the behaviour he was concerned about and advised he had recordings of the incidents, however, the landlord, in dismissing his claim, failed to advise how it had investigated the complaint to reach this decision, despite having multiple opportunities to do so.

Red card

  1. The landlord’s decision to provide warning letters was reasonable given that it had received complaints from other residents. Given that this initial letter merely reminded the resident of appropriate behaviour without taking further action, it was also reasonable that it did not carry out a full investigation at this stage. Its decision not to rescind or apologise for the red card letter was therefore reasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for any distress caused to the resident by its failure to properly investigate his complaint regarding the behaviour of its staff.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff consider how to construct a complaint response to include information about its investigation into the complaint. This should also include consideration of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, and this service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/disputeresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.