Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Origin Housing Limited (202208035)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208035

Origin Housing Limited

23 January 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;
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident informed this Service and the landlord that she and her husband both suffer with mental health vulnerabilities, as well as her husband having physical health conditions.
  2. On 18 July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB by her neighbour. She stated that she had experienced various instances of ASB, which included verbal threats and abuse by her neighbour, as well as drug use in the property. The resident stated that the landlord’s staff were treating her neighbour more favourably than her, and her ASB reports were not being taken seriously.
  3. The landlord issued a warning to the neighbour on 18 July 2022. The resident continued to report various incidents of ASB between 18 July- 2 August 2022, which included drug use, loud music at unreasonable hours and intimidating behaviour by her neighbour.
  4. On 8 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response. It advised the resident that it had opened an ASB case and agreed that the resident would continue reporting ASB to the landlord and police where necessary, as well as completing diary sheets and utilising a noise application. The landlord also arranged to conduct home visits with both the resident and her neighbour.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 11 August 2022. The landlord issued its stage two response on 14 September 2022. In its response, the landlord assured the resident that it was working with the relevant parties to resolve the ASB, and a mediator had been instructed following home visits to both the resident and neighbour. However, it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaints regarding staff being biased towards her and breaking confidentiality.
  6. It acknowledged that communication had been poor at times, and apologised. It also offered the resident £200 compensation.
  7. The resident informed this Service that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, as she does not believe that the landlord handled the matter fairly and did not take accountability for the complaints she had raised. The resident wishes for the landlord to apologise for its failings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has referenced historical reports of ASB. The landlord has also provided evidence of the resident reporting ASB in August 2021. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, 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 from July 2022, where we can see that a complaint was made.
  2. Similarly, it is recognised that the resident has continued to report ASB following the landlord’s final response to her complaint. Nevertheless, this investigation has only focussed on the landlord’s handling of the ASB issues reported up until the time of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because the landlord would not have had the opportunity to explain to the resident (formally) the further steps it has taken to remedy the issue. Any further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of matters after its stage two response will need to be raised directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. In accordance with the ASB policy, the landlord has a duty to treat all reports of ASB seriously, with the resident being involved in agreeing actions to be taken to resolve the reported ASB. The policy further stated that the landlord would endeavour to resolve the matter amicably between the relevant parties by talking and offering suitable advice and mediation, whilst working in partnership with the local police and other agencies.
  2. When ASB is reported by a resident, a landlord has a duty to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish whether ASB is occurring, and if so the nature and extent of the ASB. To undertake a thorough investigation, the landlord is expected to engage with the resident and provide means by which the resident can accrue evidence. Likewise, a landlord has a duty to engage with the alleged perpetrator, in an effort to resolve the issues.
  3. The resident’s complaint is the first instance of the resident reporting ASB in 2022 that this Service has seen. However, the content of the complaint alludes to the resident reporting ASB on various occasions. Furthermore, the landlord issued an ASB warning letter to the resident’s neighbour on 18 July 2022, which indicates that the landlord had been made aware of ongoing ASB prior to the resident’s complaint.
  4. Following the first report, the landlord should have provided the resident with diary sheets to log specific details of the incidents, but the landlord failed to do so. Failing to provide diary sheets could potentially prevent the resident from compiling an accurate record of incidents, thus impacting any subsequent investigation by the landlord. Having said this, the evidence reviewed by this Service indicated that the resident was still able to make reports to the landlord via email, which she actively did.
  5. The resident stated that the landlord told her that the reports were not enough for the landlord to act, which was not accurate. However, the landlord clarified in its stage one response that the reports were taken seriously, and there had been miscommunication regarding when the landlord could take action for ongoing ASB. It confirmed that an ASB case had been opened on 8 August 2022 to monitor and investigate the ongoing issues.
  6. It also stated that the resident would utilise a noise app and diary sheets moving forward, as well as submitting any other relevant evidence from CCTV and videos to the landlord. It also recommended that the resident continued to report matters to the police, where necessary. Following home visits to both the resident and her neighbour on 19 August 2022, the landlord arranged for mediation to commence and engaged with the police safer neighbourhood team.
  7. While positive that the landlord was taking reasonable action and implementing the correct measures to monitor the ongoing issues, it is unclear why an ASB case was only opened in August 2022, especially as the neighbour had already been issued an ASB warning in July 2022. This was inappropriate, given the landlord was aware that ASB had already been occurring to a point that a warning letter was warranted. With intervening action being taken a month prior, this Service would expect that an ASB case would have already been opened to appropriately manage and investigate the ongoing matter, and to set out a plan of action to manage the resident’s expectations.
  8. The resident raised significant concerns regarding landlord staff disclosing to her neighbour that she had made a complaint about ASB. The resident believed that this caused the neighbour to behave more negatively towards her and placed her family at risk of harm. The landlord denied telling the neighbour that the resident had made a complaint, and stated that given the nature of the complaints, her neighbour could have reached her own conclusion regarding who had complained. The resident also claimed that staff members acted with unfair bias towards her, which they denied.
  9. The Ombudsman’s role when investigating complaints is to assess the evidence that is available and reach a conclusion as to whether the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations in its response to the complaint. This investigation understands that the resident found events involving members of staff distressing but notes that there are differing accounts of these events.
  10. On that basis, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding as to what transpired at the time; however, the Ombudsman has assessed how the landlord investigated the matter and whether its response was appropriate in the circumstances. In this instance, the landlord discussed the resident’s complaints with the relevant staff members and documented their version of events, which was appropriate.
  11. The landlord was unable to uphold the resident’s complaints regarding specific staff members handling of her case, as their accounts differed. In the absence of definitive evidence to corroborate the resident’s and the staff member’s comments, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord would have arrived at an alternative conclusion.
  12. Through the complaints process, the landlord recognised there had been earlier failings in its communication with the resident regarding her ASB reports and how the landlord was able to handle them. It apologised for this and awarded compensation of £200. This offer was a proportionate level of compensation that acknowledged the detriment to the resident regarding its communication failures.
  13. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord duly acknowledged the resident’s concerns following her complaint. This Service has seen sufficient evidence that the landlord liaised with both the resident and neighbour, offered mediation and worked jointly with the Police to address the concerns. It also offered appropriate redress to acknowledge its previous communication failings.
  14. However, it is not possible for this Service to determine that the landlord handled the resident’s ASB reports appropriately prior to her complaint. This is due to the landlord’s poor record keeping and lack of evidence to show when the resident made reports of ASB, and how it acted to address them. Given the neighbour was issued with a warning, it is evident that some measures were taken by the landlord to manage the ASB, but there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord did enough.
  15. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of ASB reports, responses, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s ASB record keeping was inappropriate. Therefore, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  16. The resident has advised this Service that ASB is ongoing, which has resulted in her and her family being unable to use their garden. Due to the ongoing distress and anxiety that the resident is experiencing, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to thoroughly discuss ongoing issues and how they can work together to resolve them.
  17. This Service is aware that the resident withdrew her acceptance to commence mediation in December 2022, however the landlord should revisit this with the resident and neighbour to try and reach a positive resolution.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. This definition is also set out in this Service’s complaint handling code (CHC).
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This is in accordance with the response timescales outlined within this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC). The CHC is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints.
  3. The resident initially complained on 18 July 2022. The complaint was clear and unambiguous, outlining that she was dissatisfied with how the landlord had handled her reports of ASB, and how she felt that staff had acted favourably towards her neighbour. The resident also complained that the landlord had failed to take her reports seriously and she wished for an investigation into the handling of her case.
  4. According to the resident, the landlord contacted her upon receipt of the complaint letter and advised that it would not progress it any further, as the staff member did not understand the nature of the resident’s complaint.
  5. While this Service has not seen any evidence to verify or dispute the resident’s claim, she contacted this Service at the time to intervene. This Service instructed the landlord to issue a stage one response by 8 August 2022.
  6. The CHC sets out that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation should be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process. While there is no evidence to confidently determine if the landlord did refuse to consider the complaint, it is recommended that the landlord reflect on this and ensure that all expressions of dissatisfaction are treated as complaints at the earliest opportunity, and without the need for this Service’s intervention.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one response on 8 August 2022; 16 working days after the complaint was raised. While slightly outside the timescales outlined within the landlord’s complaints policy and the CHC, the minor delay did not have a detrimental impact on the resident. It is also noted that the landlord adhered to this Service’s instruction regarding a response date.
  8. The stage one response was detailed and informed the resident that it would undertake further investigation around some of the complaints made. Positively, the landlord was proactive in undertaking further investigation and wrote to the resident on 11 August 2022 with further clarifications. This was reasonable and evidenced the landlord acting in a proactive, timely manner to address the resident’s complaint.
  9. The CHC states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. In her complaint, the resident referred to landlord staff intimidating her and treating her and her family with bias and less favourably than her neighbour. However, the landlord failed to respond to that element of the complaint in its stage one response.
  10. The lack of acknowledgment could arguably make the resident feel that her negative experience was not important or considered, thus damaging the landlord and resident relationship. The landlord should reflect upon this to ensure that resident’s experiences are not overlooked, and complaints are thoroughly responded to at the earliest opportunity.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 August 2022. The landlord issued its stage two response on 14 September 2022; 25 working days after the escalation. Again, this was not in line with its complaints policy or the CHC whereby stage two responses should be sent within 20 working days. While not significantly outside of the required response timeframe, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay. An apology would have reasonably remedied this failure, but its lack of acknowledgement for the delay was not appropriate.
  12. The landlord’s stage two response was detailed and addressed the issues that the resident remained dissatisfied with, as well as the issues that the landlord failed to address at stage one. This was appropriate.
  13. The landlord also acknowledged that following an investigation regarding the phone call the resident had with the landlord about her complaint not being progressed, failings and learning had been identified. The landlord established that no record had been made about the call between a staff member and the resident, which was not in line with its expected procedure. The landlord stated it would remind staff of its expectation to make appropriate records of its communication with resident’s and the matter would be covered in future training. This was reasonable and highlighted the landlord’s willingness to learn from failings and what it could do to put things right.
  14. Overall, its failure to respond to all the resident’s complaints was not appropriate and caused the resident a degree of frustration. Furthermore, the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a remedy for the delay at stage two was unreasonable and amounts to service failure. The landlord will be ordered to issue an apology to the resident for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation within the next four weeks. This is made up of:
    1. £200 previously offered to the resident for its communication failures, if it has not already been paid.
    2. £50 for the identified failures in the landlord’s record-keeping associated with the resident’s ASB reports.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record-keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
  2. The landlord should review its ASB staff training to ensure that they are aware of how to manage communications and manage expectations when it comes to its ASB investigations.