Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202229428)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229428

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

9 February 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:
    1. Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.
     

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident reported ASB from her neighbour on a number of occasions. The landlord closed the ASB case on 11 April 2022. This resulted in the resident raising a complaint on 14 April 2022. She advised that there had been longstanding difficulties with 1 neighbour causing issues for herself and several other neighbours. She felt that the housing officer had behaved unprofessionally and provided her name to the alleged perpetrator. She also was unhappy that all residents had been advised to remove ring doorbells, which she stated they had installed for safety reasons. 
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 May 2022. It stated that it had worked with the local authority and the local police to address concerns raised. It advised that the case had been progressed and closed, and that any action taken had to be proportionate to the evidence received. It did not uphold the complaint.
  4. The resident raised a review request on 11 May 2022. The resident advised the landlord that this was a group complaint from several residents in the block. Several neighbours provided witness statements in advance of the review panel, held on 17 June 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 June 2022. It stated that it had not completed any risk assessments during its handling of the ASB reports. It advised there had been a lack of evidence gathered. It found that mediation had not been offered. It confirmed that it would replace the housing officer. The new housing officer was to complete a risk assessment, agree regular communication with the resident, and explore solutions so that all residents could live peacefully.
  5. The resident continued to report ASB after the internal complaints process. Although the alleged perpetrator has since moved, the resident still has concerns of repeat ASB, due to the proximity of where the alleged perpetrator was moved. The resident has also installed further CCTV and the landlord has advised this needs to be removed. The resident would like the complaint to be investigated and for there to be a resolution which allows all residents to feel safe in their homes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that when the resident requested escalation of the complaint, she informed the landlord that it was a group complaint. The resident is not, in a formal capacity recognised by the Ombudsman, acting as a representative for any other party. For clarity this is not considered a group complaint, this investigation will focus on the individual concerns and communication raised by the resident to the landlord.
  2. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. Evidence has been submitted to the Ombudsman regarding reports of ASB that is over 6 months before the complaint was raised. This information is useful for context; however, it will not be considered as part of the formal investigation.
  3. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident has continued to report concerns about the landlord and its handling of ASB. The resident has also raised concerns regarding a dispute with the landlord on CCTV that has been installed by the residents. While we recognise that elements are a continuation from the previous ASB complaint, the Ombudsman can only investigate matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme. The Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord took the actions it advised it would in the stage 2 response, but we will not consider all reports of ASB made after the stage 2 response. We will not consider the resident’s concerns about CCTV as this was not brought to the landlord as part of this complaint.

The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour.

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that on receiving reports of ASB it will produce an action plan. The resident and a number of neighbours were sent a letter on 2 November 2021, outlining the actions the landlord would take in response to reports of ASB. This included speaking to the alleged perpetrator and liaising with relevant partner agencies. The landlord also asked residents to continue to keep diary sheets. The landlord made an appropriate action plan in response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. The landlord spoke with the alleged perpetrator on 8 November 2021. It noted that on 17 November 2021 it spoke to several people within the block of flats, including the resident. There are limited records of the specific evidence that the landlord gathered. However, it issued the alleged perpetrator with an acceptable behaviour agreement on 18 November 2021. This was an appropriate action to tackle ASB, in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  3. The Ombudsman has seen limited records on what communication the landlord had with the resident regarding the outcome of the ASB intervention. However, we have noted that it spoke with the resident on 2 December 2021 and that the resident felt that things were better.
  4. On 15 December 2021 the landlord noted that there were further concerns of ASB from the resident. The landlord has not provided any records of what the further concerns were, or when they had been raised. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that an action plan will be completed when ASB is reported. There is no evidence that a further action plan was issued at this stage.
  5. The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident and 2 neighbours on 25 January 2022. The residents described their lives as being ‘ruined’. The landlord felt there was a lack of evidence gathered. The landlord stated that victim support and the police were involved and that it would try to contact them. There are no further notes from this meeting or details of the outcome of this meeting. The landlord stated it would arrange a further meeting on 4 February 2022. There are no records to confirm if this went ahead. The Ombudsman considers that face to face meetings is a positive way to engage with residents, in the case of ASB. However, we are unable to comment on the benefits of these particular meetings, due to the lack of records.
  6. The landlord has noted that it would hold a meeting in the communal lounge on 8 March 2022. It stated that the police, ASB team, and a community safety officer would be present. It is unclear whether the resident was invited to this meeting. The landlord stated the purpose was to discuss how to move the ASB case forward as it felt that it did not have evidence of ASB. There are no records of whether the meeting went ahead, or what the outcome was.
  7. A meeting was held on 14 March 2022. There are no notes of what happened. However, it is noted that the community safety team and the local police attended this meeting. It is positive that the landlord was engaging with third parties in relation to the ASB. However, without sufficient records it is difficult to comment on what the outcome of this meeting was.
  8. The local authority wrote to the landlord on 29 March 2022. It stated that it had offered mediation to the alleged perpetrator but that this had been refused. It also stated that it would no longer be involved as there was no enforcement action or mediation referral.
  9. On 11 April 2022 the landlord closed the ASB case and wrote to all residents. The landlord advised it had worked with the relevant agencies and no evidence could be found. The landlord stated that the camera doorbells that the residents had installed needed to be removed as it contravened its CCTV policy. The resident advised these had been installed to help residents feel safe. The landlord’s policy stated that a camera doorbell could be installed in communal areas if it did not record live footage. The landlord did not discuss this option with the resident, and simply stated that the cameras needed to be removed.
  10. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The resident responded on the same day to advise she remained unhappy and that she felt she had not been heard. The resident made a further report of ASB on 9 May 2022. The landlord’s notes stated that a community protection order was put in place on 10 May 2022, however there is no record as to what this was for.
  11. On 13 May 2022 the landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised further reports of ASB. It stated that the case was closed. It offered new diary sheets, and asked the resident to continue reporting if there was evidence that the alleged perpetrator had breached their tenancy. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will not look at cases where there have been 3 or more closed cases of ASB for the same resident in the same year, where the reports are of the same type of incidents, and there is no new evidence. Where this was the case, the housing officer should have contacted an ASB officer, and a note should have been added to the system. It may or may not have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the further reports of ASB. However, there is no record that the landlord contacted an ASB officer and there are insufficient records to confirm that this was the third report of the same type of incident. The landlord failed to evidence that it had followed its ASB procedures.
  12. On 30 May 2022, the resident raised that she wanted to keep the camera doorbells as they made her feel safe. The landlord responded on 6 June 2022 agreeing to this request if the resident kept in line with the landlord’s CCTV policy. It was positive that the landlord considered the resident’s request and the resident’s circumstances, to reach a mutually agreeable solution for the camera doorbells.
  13. The stage 2 response identified a number of areas in which the landlord had failed to correctly support the resident during the ASB complaint. It replaced the housing officer and requested that a risk assessment be completed. It stated that an action plan was needed, and that regular contact was to be agreed with the resident moving forward. It also stated that mediation had not been explored. However, mediation had previously been refused by the alleged perpetrator.  The landlord identified and suggested some appropriate actions to improve its response in relation to reports of ASB for the resident. It may also have been appropriate to reconsider mediation. However, it should have been clear in its response that this had been previously explored and may not be a viable option moving forward.
  14. As noted in the scoping paragraph, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints after the stage 2 response. However, in order to determine whether the landlord took all actions it promised at stage 2, the Ombudsman has reviewed evidence up until the ASB case was closed for a second time, on 27 September 2022. The landlord conducted a risk assessment on 5 July 2022. The landlord has also recorded contacts with the resident which appear to be 2-weekly. However, there is limited detail regarding what was discussed. The resident continued to provide diary sheets and ASB reports. It is unclear if the landlord discussed specific incidents with the resident, which would have been appropriate. The landlord closed the case when it referred to mediation stating there was not enough evidence to take further action. It advised it would re-open the case if mediation failed. There is no evidence of an action plan, after stage 2.
  15. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord responded to some reports of ASB by the resident. There is evidence that the police and the local authority were involved at points during the complaint. There is evidence that the landlord issued an acceptable behaviour agreement. The stage 2 response identified areas in which the landlord could have been better in its response. It agreed to complete an action plan, agree regular contact, complete a risk assessment, and refer the case for mediation. The landlord completed some of these actions. However, the landlord did not complete an action plan. It has also failed to evidence that it has communicated with the resident appropriately, throughout the complaint. This failure has meant that no assurance was given to the resident that the landlord was taking the appropriate steps, within its power, to manage the ASB. The Ombudsman considers there to be service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that before a complaint response is issued, a case conference needs to be held. The landlord also must call the resident before or after the case conference. On 27 April 2022, the resident asked the landlord if they could speak to the person leading the complaint. The resident felt this was essential. There are no notes to suggest that the landlord made a call to the resident at any point during the stage 1 process. In failing to do this, the landlord has left the resident feeling unheard. It has also failed to discuss possible resolutions and fully address the resident’s concerns.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 within 13 working days. This was slightly beyond 10 working days as per its complaint policy, however the delay was not substantial.
  3. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day she received the stage 1 complaint that she was unhappy with the outcome. A panel review request form was raised on 11 May 2022. The landlord held the review on 17 June 2022 and provided its response on 20 June 2022. The landlord should have responded to the complaint within 20 working days at stage 2, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The time from the resident raising the review until the resident received the final response was 34 working days.
  4. Although the stage 2 was delayed, the Ombudsman has recognised that the landlord provided the opportunity for all affected residents to submit witness statements. It also took time to conduct a test meeting to ensure that the resident was familiar with the software that was needed to attend the meeting. It was important that the resident be heard, especially as she was not given this opportunity at stage 1 of the process. The delay was reasonable in these circumstances.
  5. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy at stage 1 of the process. As such the Ombudsman considers there to be service failure in relation to complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping.

  1. Throughout this report, it has been noted that there are insufficient records from the landlord to determine whether the actions it took were appropriate. The resident has made the Ombudsman aware that some communication was by WhatsApp, however we have not been provided with any WhatsApp communications from the landlord.
  2. The landlord has not clearly noted decision making during its handling of reports of ASB.  Records refer to communication with the resident, but do not contain detail of what was discussed. This has made it difficult to fully assess the landlord’s actions and the outcome of these actions. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
    2. Service failure in complaint handling.
    3. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to offer a meeting with the resident, with the opportunity for third party mediation if desired. The purpose of the meeting is to re-establish the relationship between the landlord and resident. It will be an opportunity to discuss the concerns regarding the handling of the ASB case, and any support or signposting which the landlord can offer. The resident is not obliged to attend if she does not wish to.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay £200 in compensation. This is £150 for the failures to communicate fully with the resident throughout the complaint and £50 for the failings in its complaint handling.
  3. The landlord is ordered to review the record keeping on this case and confirm what actions it will take moving forward to ensure its records on ASB cases contain sufficient details.
  4. The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders, within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to consider further training with its staff on ensuring that action plans are completed in cases of ASB.