Peabody Trust (202106338)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106338

Catalyst Housing Limited

23 June 2023

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and his subsequent request to re housed.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord.
On 21 April 2021 the resident reported ASB from his neighbour to the landlord. He said that his neighbour was socialising late into the night, constantly thumping, banging and stamping. He mentioned that a sound engineer had attended his property on 9 April 2021 and asked the landlord to get in touch with him to discuss his options. On 29 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged his reports of ASB and said that it would respond to him within five working days.
On 20 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and raised concerns about its communication with him. He was also unhappy that the landlord had approached his neighbour before speaking with him. The landlord responded on 25 May 2021 and said that it had discussed several allegations with his neighbour and that the neighbour wanted to discuss the concerns with the resident directly. The landlord advised the resident to keep a diary of the noise and send it to it once a week. It also advised him to report the noise to the local authority.
On 15 June 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. In summary, he said that the landlord had handled his reports of noise issues poorly and that there had been a lack of communication with him. As a resolution to his complaint, he said he wanted to be moved. The landlord acknowledged his complaint the same day and said that it would respond by 6 July 2021.
On 10 August 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaints process. In summary, the response said:
1. That household noise was not generally considered antisocial, but it recognised that the low-level persistent noise had been having a serious impact on him.
2. That with everyday living noise, residents were encouraged to seek an informal resolution before escalating to their landlord.
3. It was not equipped or qualified to determine a statutory noise nuisance and it encouraged residents to approach the local authority noise nuisance team.
4. He was provided with diary sheets and information on how to submit them.
5. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused to him for having to chase it for guidance and advice.
6. He had the right to apply for re housing but that it could take years to be moved into another property and that he could register for a mutual exchange.
7. That the offer of mediation was still open for him.
During October 2021 the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the same neighbour, saying that his life could be in danger and referring to threats he had received, and asked to be moved. He said that there had been no communication from the landlord, and it was not taking his concerns seriously. The landlord responded and said that it would ask the ASB officer to contact him urgently. It said that it would not consider this a part of his complaint and that he would need to log a new complaint.
On 10 November 2021 following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to contact the resident to escalate his complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days.
On 11 January 2022 the landlord issued its final response to the resident. In summary, the response said:
1. That it had advised him to report his concerns to the Police in the first instance.
2. The ASB officer had followed his reports up with the Police and there wasn’t enough evidence of risk to support a managed move at this stage.
3. He was given a first point of contact and it would do all it could to support him.
4. It was awaiting further contact from him so it could progress his case and gather as much evidence as possible to support a managed move.
5. As a resolution to his complaint, it offered a virtual meeting with him to put together an action plan. It awarded £100 compensation for the failure to get back to him within its timescales and for not providing him with clear information and advice.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord had passed him around to different people throughout the process and that it would never respond back to him. He said he was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered and that he wanted the landlord to move him.
The resident has recently advised this Service that the ASB is continuing and that it is affecting his mental health. He also said that the landlord had not met with him as agreed in its final response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he raised concerns that the reported ASB had affected his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s statement. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and the resident’s mental health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and his subsequent request to be rehoused (ASB).

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b. Put things right, and;

c. Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide copies of its records relating to the ASB case, such as the resident’s ASB reports, any records concerning the landlord’s investigation into these such as interviews/meetings with the victim, witnesses and alleged perpetrator, and copies of any correspondence or notices sent to the complainant or the alleged perpetrator.
The information that the landlord provided in response included no information prior to the resident’s formal complaint on 15 June 2021. In light of this, the Ombudsman again asked the landlord to provide these records. It responded with very brief general notes from April to June 2021. This resident has provided this Service with copies of emails exchanged between himself and the landlord during this same period, but the landlord has been unable to provide copies of these.
Further, the landlord was unable to provide evidence of any meaningful actions it took in response to the resident’s reports. This is a failing and indicates poor record keeping: A landlord should keep accurate and complete ASB records, not only so that it can evidence its actions when requested to by the Ombudsman, but so that it can record and track ASB cases and information, ensuring that these are dealt with appropriately. The Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in this regard.
When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its tenants within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will follow up all ASB cases within five working days. The evidence provided from the resident to this Service showed that it took the landlord eight days to acknowledge the resident’s reports and over three weeks to respond to his concerns. The landlord failed to act in line with its policy and the resident had to chase the landlord for a response. This would have caused stress and inconvenience to the resident.
The evidence provided from the resident indicated that the landlord had arranged for a sound engineer to attend and assess his property at the beginning of April 2021. The resident has stated that the landlord did not update him on any outcomes from the visit. From the evidence this Service has seen the resident tried contact the landlord to “discuss his option”’ following the visit. In the absence of evidence to the contrary the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord failed to communicate the sounds engineer’s findings with the resident. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will obtain the consent of the victim when carrying out an investigation and that before interviewing an alleged perpetrator it would inform the victim. As part of the landlord’s response to his concerns the evidence from the resident indicated that that the landlord had discussed his reports with his neighbour. While this was a reasonable approach to take, there is no records of these conversations. Further, the evidence showed that this action had not been agreed with the resident beforehand. This was contrary to the landlord’s policy. Whilst the Ombudsman notes that the landlord had difficulty contacting the resident via telephone, it could have emailed him. The landlord’s failure to seek an agreement with the resident before contacting his neighbour would have undermined his trust and confidence in the landlord.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, he asked the landlord on more than one occasion to move him urgently due to threats from the neighbour’s family and concerns for his safety. Despite the landlord stating that somebody would contact him urgently, it failed to respond to the resident within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s records indicated that its first meaningful conversation with the resident about his requests to move happened over a month later.
The landlord’s final response said that there was not enough evidence to support “his risk need being reassessed” (to support a managed move), however, the landlord has not provided evidence that a risk assessment was carried out on the resident. The Ombudsman can therefore only conclude that it did not carry one out and therefore it failed to act in line with its policy, which states that it will risk assess all cases of personal antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s final response also indicated that it had contacted the Police following his reports of feeling unsafe. The response inferred that this had formed part of the landlord’s assessment in not considering a managed move, however, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any correspondence between the landlord and the police and therefore is unable to assess the accuracy of this assessment.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and his subsequent request to be rehoused was unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman considers that the level of compensation awarded by the landlord for its service failures (£100) does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. The Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £100-600 should be considered where there have been failures from the landlord that have adversely affected the resident. There were a cumulation of failings from the landlord that would have caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord should provide redress to the resident for the service failures identified in this report and an order of compensation is made below for remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In May 2021 the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s professionalism and lack of communication. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as being an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about its standard of service or lack of action. This was, therefore, a missed opportunity to formally respond to the resident’s concerns through its complaints process.
In June 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint. It took the landlord almost two months to respond. During this time the resident had to chase the landlord for a response. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its policy which states that it will respond to complaints at stage one within 10 working days. Its response also failed to inform the resident how he could escalate his complaint to stage two if he remained unhappy.
In October 2021 the landlord refused to escalate his complaint following contact from our Service, saying that it would not consider his request to be moved as part of his complaint until he had been provided support from the ASB team. This advice was incorrect. His request to be rehoused related to his reports of ASB and formed part of his original complaint. He also said he was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and that he felt the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously. At that point, the landlord should have escalated his complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
This Service wrote to the landlord again on 10 November 2021 and asked the landlord to contact the resident and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. The landlord contacted the resident within a reasonable timescale to discuss his concerns, however it did not issue its final response for another two months. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s request and its own policy which states that it will respond to complaints at stage two within 10 working days.
Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its complaints policy and the delays were significant. The landlord did not apologise or offer redress to the resident for its complaint handling failures. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord that has not been ‘put right’ for the resident. The landlord should provide compensation to the resident as detailed in the order below, for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and his subsequent request to be re housed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders

The landlord must, within the next four weeks, take the following action:
1. Pay the resident £750 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £550 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and his subsequent request to be re housed (if the £100 offered in its final response has already been paid, it can be deducted from this).
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. Carry out a review of its ASB record keeping and the landlord must write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.
3. If it has not already done so in the last year, conduct a staff training exercise to ensure that all staff members involved in ASB cases deal with reports in line with its ASB policy.
4. Review the complaint handling failures identified in this report and write to the Ombudsman with an action plan setting out what actions it will take to ensure this does not happen again.
5. Visit the resident, review his case and consider the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise. The landlord should carry out a risk assessment on the resident and provide an action plan regarding how it will investigate the issue further (with a copy also provided to the Ombudsman).