Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202013561)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013561

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

25 November 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 the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s anti-social behaviour reports.
   2. Anti-social reports made about the resident.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 20 May 2015. The property is a two-bedroom flat.
3. Between February to September 2021, various reports of noise nuisance were made against the resident by her neighbour. During this time, the landlord had proceeded to ask the neighbour to complete diary sheets, use a noise monitoring app, and had conversations with the residents about this.
4. On 7 July 2021, there was an incident with the resident and her neighbour. She had stated the neighbour was verbally aggressive to her partner and threatened her family. The following day the resident had made the landlord aware of her concerns, she had also informed the police. Following this on 12 of July the resident had chased the landlord for a response to her concerns. The landlord had tried to call the resident back; however, it was unable to discuss matters with her, it then proceeded to follow up with an email. The following day the resident attempted to call the landlord again to discuss matters, but was unsuccessful, the landlord made a follow up call on 20 July 2021 to the resident. Subsequently three conversations took place between the landlord and the resident on 23, 27 and 29 July 2021.
5. The resident’s stage one complaint was logged on 20 July 2021 and the landlord issued its response on 2 August 2021. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint was about how her reports of ASB were handled. The landlord outlined the resident’s concerns to be the following:
   1. The landlord did not respond to her email dated 8 July in a timely manner. This was regarding an incident that took place with her neighbour.
   2. She has not received timely responses when contacting her case manager.
   3. She felt the landlord had mismanaged her report of anti-social behaviour against her neighbour, which put her family at risk.
   4. Allegations of noise nuisance made against her by her neighbour and the investigations into these reports had caused her a high level of stress.
6. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s email dated 8 July 2021 in accordance with its timeframes. It apologised to the resident and explained it would be upholding this aspect of her complaint.
7. The landlord reviewed correspondence between the resident and her case handler. It explained that following the resident’s initial report the case handler had followed up with phone calls and emails within the expected timeframes.
8. The landlord also said that it reviewed the history of ASB cases and acknowledged there was a service failure in regard to the resident’s initial report of 8 July 2021. The landlord explained that it is standard practice in ASB case management to assess all reports of ASB for risk, taking into consideration the history of the ASB being reported, along with personal circumstances and support level. However, in this case the landlord did not see that this had been carried out.
9. The landlord stated that following the case handler’s conversation with the resident on 20 July 2021, it proceeded to speak to the neighbour about the allegations of her behaviour and threatening language on the same day, it also further discussed this with the neighbour on 23 July 2021. However, it was noted that the landlord did not formalise this in writing, which would be expected in this instance. The landlord apologised for the service failure and said it would be upholding this aspect of the complaint.
10. In regard to stress caused by allegations made by the neighbour, the landlord explained its procedure for dealing with noise nuisance complaints. It explained that after investigating the concerns raised by the resident’s neighbour, it was found that the noise was attributed to reasonable use of the home and therefore it did not require any intervention action. The landlord apologised for the stress this investigation would have caused, but explained it was obliged to follow up on allegations of ASB. Therefore, it did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
11. To conclude the stage one response, the landlord apologised for it service failings. It explained the proposed actions and learning from this complaint.
12. On 12 August 2021, the resident stated her neighbour called the police claiming that there was domestic violence in the resident’s home. This resulted in police visiting the property, however this was later noted as a malicious phone call by the resident. The resident stated that following this, the neighbour had spread false claims to other residents in the estate which was fed back to the resident.
13. On 23 August 2021, the resident expressed her disappointment with how the landlord had dealt with the ASB claims. The resident expressed that because of the neighbour’s actions, her family did not feel safe in the apartment block. The resident informed the landlord that most recently, the neighbour had called the police and social services with false and defamatory claims. The resident also expressed that due to the landlord’s acknowledged service failures, it did not want the case to be handed back to the previous housing officer.
14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 23 August 2021. Following this, it spoke to the resident on 25 August 2021 to discuss the ongoing concerns. Subsequently it proceeded to issue its stage two response on 21 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged the resident was unhappy about the following:
    1. The resident’s concerns that the landlord did not correctly assess the risks to her and her family.
    2. Due to the risks, the resident and her family cannot remain living with their neighbour and wish to be rehoused.
    3. The resident’s concerns that had effective action been taken against her neighbour, as highlighted in the stage one response, the ASB case would not have recently escalated, resulting in a referral to social services.
    4. The resident would like confirmation that her neighbour’s allegations have been assessed as malicious, as she is fearful of the impact of future allegations.
    5. The resident requested the landlord to replace her case manager due to a lack of confidence in her ability to effectively investigate the ASB case. This included unnecessary bias and language that she has used in her investigation.
    6. The resident was concerned about the impact this case was having on her and her family’s wellbeing, she did not feel an apology was adequate.
15. The landlord agreed to undertake a risk assessment and would confirm the status of current cases and how any new allegations would be managed.
16. Regarding the risk assessment, the landlord stated there had been several opportunities for it to conduct a risk assessment following the resident’s concerns, however it had failed to do so. The landlord apologised for this failure which it states was in breach of its ASB policy. In recognition that there were additional opportunities to complete a risk assessment the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation. The landlord also informed the resident that it had requested a risk assessment.
17. In relation to rehousing, the landlord stated the decision to move residents due to risk of harm from a neighbour would need to be taken in conjunction with its partners, particularly the police. It explained that it had discussed alternative ways the resident could be rehoused.
18. In regard to ASB case management concerns, the landlord recognised the case was not managed in line with its ASB policy and procedures. The landlord apologised for this and the impact it had on the resident. It explained that whilst it is possible that had it written to the neighbour about their behaviour, this might have resolved matters, there was no guarantee this would have been the case.
19. In response to the neighbour’s allegations and the resident wanting confirmation whether this had been assessed as malicious, the landlord explained that assessing whether complaints are malicious is difficult to prove. The landlord confirmed that it had not determined that the allegations against the resident were malicious.
20. Regarding the ASB case manager, the landlord states it did not find bias in how the case had been managed by the case handler. However, given the resident’s concerns, it arranged for her to have a new case handler.
21. The landlord confirmed that if it received new allegations of noise nuisance that was deemed to be household noise, it would not open a new case or contact the resident. The landlord also confirmed that social services had confirmed they were not taking any further actions.
22. As the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, the complaint was brought to this service for our adjudication.
23. Most recently, the resident informed this service that she was no longer a tenant of the landlord and had moved homes.

Assessment and findings

24. This service understands there has been a history of reported ASB and noise nuisance between the resident and her neighbour. For the purpose of this investigation, this service has looked into the incidents which occurred around the time of complaint and investigation. This service can see further incidents which occurred after the formal response, we have noted this as context however this will not form the scope of this investigation. This is because 42(a) of the Housing scheme states, ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’.

The resident’s anti-social behaviour reports.

25. The resident has expressed that she did not feel the landlord addressed her concerns correctly about the risks to her and her family from her neighbour. She had also expressed that had the landlord followed the correct procedures this may have prevented the neighbours’ escalations to involve social services.
26. This service understands how the involvement of social services would cause further stress to the resident. However, it is not within our scope to make assumptions whether or not social services would have been involved, had the landlord initially followed its procedures.
27. The landlord ASB policy states that it will respond to all initial reports of ASB within one working day. It states, ‘a risk assessment will be undertaken to determine case priority, response times and frequency of contact. The risk assessment will include an assessment of the complainant’s vulnerability. High priority cases are likely to include cases which involve immediate danger, including violence or threats of violence, hate crime or domestic abuse and will include liaison with other agencies including the police’.
28. In this instance, following the resident’s reports on 8 July 2021, she had to further chase a response on 12 July and 13 July 2021. Whilst this service acknowledges the landlord had attempted to get in touch with the resident within its expected timeframes on the 12 and 13 July 2021, it is clear that it did not follow its procedures with responding to the resident’s concerns on 8 July 2021.
29. The evidence shows that when the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns, it had proceeded to speak with the resident’s neighbour on two separate occasions in July 2021 about the incident. However, this service has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord had followed up its meetings or discussions with the neighbour in writing, so it is difficult to know what was discussed.
30. The landlord has acknowledged it did not follow the correct procedure when dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB on 8 July 2021. It explained that it should have responded to the resident’s initial claims within the expected timeframes and should have followed up in writing to the neighbour. To put things right, the landlord had stated that it would ensure a risk assessment was completed and compensated the resident for this failure. The evidence shows that the landlord proceeded to arrange for a risk assessment to be done during September 2021.
31. Whilst it is clear the landlord did not follow its procedures when the resident reported the issue, the landlord has been proactive in acknowledging its service failures and apologising to the resident, conducting a risk assessment as per is policy and awarded compensation to the resident for its failures.
32. The landlord’s compensation policy states in instances where it has failed to meet its service standards and customers are inconvenienced it may offer compensation, however this policy does not state specific amounts. Therefore, this service has considered if the amount is reasonable given the circumstances.
33. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, whilst it is clear there was service failings by the landlord, it has acknowledged this and taken steps to remedy the matter, such as conducting a risk assessment, speaking to the neighbour about its actions and offering compensation. Taking into consideration the length of time it took the landlord to investigate the reports, the amount offered to the resident is considered reasonable.

Anti-social reports made about the resident.

34. The resident expressed she was unhappy with reports her neighbour had made about her and her family to the landlord. These were concerning allegations of noise nuisance and domestic abuse. The resident had complained about how this would impact her in future and wanted the landlord to treat these reports as malicious.
35. This service understands that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of ASB reports made against her and her family. We also note the resident had expressed the level of impact and stress this was having on her and her family. However, the landlord had stated that it would be difficult to prove these reports were malicious. Whilst this service recognises that the allegation was unfounded, and were upsetting to the resident, it is the ombudsman’s opinion that in order to deem the reports as malicious the landlord would need to have a significant degree of evidence to substantiate this and be able to prove that the neighbours’ intent was malicious. Therefore, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
36. The evidence shows that when the resident’s neighbour had made reports of ASB about the resident, the landlord proceeded to investigate the matter in line with its policy. Following reports, the landlord had discussed matters with the resident, sent letters to residents of the block and asked the neighbour to use diary sheets.
37. During the landlord’s stage two response, it had explained that following its investigation into the neighbour’s reports of noise nuisance, it had determined the resident’s noise was reasonable use of the home and therefore no intervention was needed.
38. Whilst this service understands there had been an ongoing occurrence of the neighbour reporting the resident for ASB and noise nuisance, in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, it is required to investigate reported concerns of noise nuisance and ASB. Therefore, when it proceeded to investigate the concerns, it was following the correct procedure.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports made about the resident.

Reasons

41. This service recognises there was service failings by the landlord when dealing with the resident’s initial reports of ASB. However, the landlord apologised, proceeded to look at the residents reports in line with its ASB policy and appropriately applied its compensation policy. In the view of the Ombudsman, it offered reasonable compensation.
42. There were no service failings by the landlord investigating reports made about the residents in regard to noise nuisance. The landlord followed its correct procedures.

Recommendations

43. If not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident is offer of £150 compensation. This should be done within four weeks of the date of this letter, and the landlord should inform this service when it has been completed.