Places for People Group Limited (202219419)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219419

Places for People Group Limited

19 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint Handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies the property with her daughter. The landlord is aware the resident suffers with her mental health.
The resident submits that she raised a complaint with the landlord in July 2022 (she latterly stated that this was about the landlord’s communication). However, it is not clear how this complaint was submitted or specifically what issues were raised, as no evidence of the complaint has been provided by either party. The landlord has said it has no record of receiving this complaint.
The resident has provided to the Ombudsman screenshots of iPhone notes showing incidents she had recorded about her neighbour’s behaviour between 14 and 23 August 2022. The notes included: doors slamming; loud music; litter outside the front of the property; and damage to a gas metre cupboard outside the property which she believes was caused by her neighbour. She has said these incidents were reported to her landlord, although no evidence of this has been provide to this Service.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 August 2022, requesting its ASB policy and asking when it would be visiting the neighbour in response to her reports. She said her complaint was about a lack of communication and that she had been advised by a member of landlord staff that her reports of ASB were not as serious as other cases, and not serious enough to warrant action against the neighbour (no evidence of this has been provided). The resident said that she had merely been advised to submit diary sheets to the customer service team. Finally, she explained that the issues with the neighbour were impacting her mental health. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to this email.
The resident emailed again on 1 September 2022, when she again requested an update, reported loud music from the neighbour’s property, and stated that the neighbour had been revving her car engine, playing loud music and driving up and down the street between 12am and 1am the previous night. The landlord responded that it had sent the resident diary sheets to record these incidents, but she advised that she had not received them.
A formal complaint was logged by the landlord on 2 September 2022 and it attempted to telephone the resident on 7 September 2022, when a voicemail was left. The landlord has not provided any details of the complaint it had logged or any records of its attempts to contact the resident in that regard. At this time, the resident reported to the landlord that the issues with the neighbour were causing her mental health to breakdown and to have suicidal thoughts.
On approximately 8 September 2022, the landlord met with the resident at her property and she advised that completing diary sheets triggered her so it had been agreed that she would send details of any further incidents to a specific member of staff. No records of this meeting have been provided by the landlord.
There is no record of any further reports of ASB being made by the resident until she contacted the landlord on 29 September 2022, requesting help with obtaining an injunction against the neighbour. She said she had contacted 31 different agencies in order to resolve the ASB issues and this had resulted in medical intervention. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to this email.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance on 24 November 2022 and, on the same day, this Service requested a complaint response from the landlord. It acknowledged the complaint the following day and issued a stage 1 response on 8 December 2022. It stated that it had not received any further contact from the resident until the referral received from the Ombudsman. However, it had been attending multi-agency meetings regarding ASB allegations and counter-allegations made by both the resident and the neighbour. It concluded that there was no evidence of ASB by the neighbour, but there was evidence of the resident harassing the neighbour.
In the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 9 December 2022, she said that she had provided evidence of ASB by the neighbour to a number of agencies including the landlord, and that she had made reports on a regular basis.
In response to the neighbour’s counter-allegations about the resident, and upon receipt of supporting diary sheets, the landlord opened an ASB case against the resident on 14 December 2022. Both parties agreed to mediation on 20 December 2022 but this was ultimately withdrawn by 23 January 2023 as they could not agree on a suitable method of communication. There are no records of the landlord’s communication with either party during this time.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 16 January 2023, it advised that it had been unable to identify a breach of tenancy by the neighbour and had tried to support the resident by:
1. giving practical advice to avoid neighbour confrontation/contact
2. notifying her how to correctly report concerns and complete daily diary sheets as evidence
3. reporting alleged criminal damage to the police
4. arranging mediation sessions with her neighbour
5. undertaking partnership working so the resident had more support.
The landlord closed the ASB case against the resident in March 2023 after her neighbour moved house.

Assessment and findings

From the outset, it may be useful to make the distinction between a resident reporting ASB by a neighbour to their landlord (and requesting the landlord to provide a service by investigating and resolving the issue), and a resident making a formal complaint about the way in which the landlord responded to that request for service. Simply making a report of ASB would not automatically constitute a service complaint or prompt an investigation into the landlord’s handling of the report.

Handling of ASB

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether ASB was actually perpetrated or by whom, nor to tackle the ASB itself. Instead, this Service considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and seeks to establish whether it acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out what activities it considers to be ASB. It says harassment, noise nuisance and damage to property/vandalism are considered to be ASB but incidents relating to domestic noise are not (including banging doors and low level noise from TVs, radio or music). It will only take formal action if it is satisfied evidence demonstrates an individual has acted in an anti-social manner.
The ASB policy states that, following an ASB report, the landlord will:
1. assess the incident.
2. ask the resident to complete an initial ASB report detailing the incident and provide supporting evidence. Where a customer is identified as unable to do this due to disability or vulnerability it will assist with this process, considering various options to aid reporting. This will be assessed by a Community Safety Specialist and it will inform the resident of the outcome in 5 working days.
3. in most instances, ask the resident to complete diary sheets detailing the issues over a 2-week period.
4. consider not pursuing the case if diary sheets are not returned or completed appropriately, or the resident fails to co-operate with any other part of the investigation.
5. contact the resident to progress and open an ASB case if the issue is assessed as requiring action.
The Ombudsman notes the incidents recorded in the resident’s screenshots, and does not dispute that they occurred, but has not seen any evidence the landlord received notice of those incidents. The Ombudsman also acknowledges the resident was looking for help by contacting other agencies, but this investigation is limited to the actions of the landlord so we must be satisfied that the landlord has received the reports in order for it to have had a reasonable opportunity to respond.
The landlord’s policy says it will ask the resident to complete an initial ASB report detailing incidents and provide it with supporting evidence. It has not provided evidence of completed initial ASB reports, so it is unclear what the resident reported and when. It said diary sheets were sent to the resident but were not returned, resulting in it not pursuing the case in line with policy. Whilst the Ombudsman has concerns about the landlord’s records (more on this below) there is insufficient evidence of the resident reporting ASB to the landlord to warrant further action under its ASB policy. We cannot, therefore, say that the landlord acted unfairly or inappropriately by closing the case when it did.
However, there is also no evidence to confirm whether the landlord informed the resident it was not pursuing the ASB case against her neighbour, or that it responded to her emails of 17 August and 29 September 2022. The landlord could have managed her expectations better by clearly explaining that banging doors and music may not be considered ASB in the first instance, and that it requires evidence before pursuing an ASB case against her neighbour. This lack of communication caused inconvenience to the resident as she chased for updates on at least two occasions. This would have been understandably frustrating for her and, as a result, she looked to other agencies for support.
As outlined above, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s communication causing some inconvenience to the resident, and it should take learning from this report to improve its responses to ASB in the future. However, this must be balanced with the fact that there no evidence of the resident returning diary sheets to the landlord or reporting incidents to it following their meeting. As a result, the Ombudsman can only deduce that the landlord was not made aware of the incidents and was not, therefore, required to take further action under its ASB policy.
Following the neighbour’s counter-allegations, the landlord demonstrated that, once it is provided with completed diary sheets and evidence of ASB, it takes action and has processes in place to resolve the ASB by its attempt to arrange mediation between the neighbours. Taking everything into account, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2 stage process:
1. it has an ‘on the spot put it right’ within 24 hours, and if unable to resolve the complaint it should be considered a stage 1. Logging and acknowledgement of complaint should be done in five working days.
2. a stage 1 response should be sent 10 working days from receipt of complaint.
3. a stage 2 response should be sent 20 working days from receipt of escalation.
The resident’s email of 17 August 2022 was an expression of dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s lack of communication and should have prompted the landlord to start its complaint process. It did not do so which is a failing.
There is no evidence the landlord clearly explained the difference between submitting a report about a neighbour’s behaviour (thus beginning its ASB process) and making a formal complaint about its handling of the ASB reports (thus initiating its complaints process). This was a failing which caused the resident inconvenience as she had to chase for an update on 1 September 2022 for a complaint that does not appear to have been logged, as the landlord sent diary sheets instead and started its ASB process.
The landlord said it entered the resident into its complaints process on 2 September 2022 and tried to call the resident on 7 September 2022. It is unclear what complaint was to be investigated, or the purpose of the call, as no records have been provided in that regard. It is also unclear what happened with this complaint as no stage 1 response was issued at that time. This represents a failing as it caused the resident inconvenience having to contact this Service after not receiving a complaint response.
The landlord’s complaint investigation was only prompted by this Service’s intervention, which is not a reasonable approach for it to take. Instead, it should have either investigated the complaint regarding the lack of communication and/or its action dealing with the neighbour’s ASB and sent a response, or clearly communicated with the resident and agreed an outcome as part of its on the spot put it right process.
Once the complaint was logged following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the stage 1 response was issued within 10 working days, in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy. The resident then escalated the complaint the following day and the landlord issued its stage 2 response 22 working days later. This was just 2 working days outside of the timescale set out in the landlord’s policy, which the Ombudsman does not consider to be an unreasonable delay.
Having considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our guidance on remedies, there was maladministration without redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not compensate the resident for the inconvenience and at least a 3 month delay before it started to investigate her complaint. As a result, it did not act fairly, put things right or show that it had learnt from outcomes.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation where there has been unreasonable delay, and where the overall resident experience requires recognition to acknowledge it fell short with its expected standards, but it does not provide guidelines for amounts. This Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out guidelines for amounts. Having regard to these documents, an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation to reflect the impact on the resident.

Landlord’s Record Keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. 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 staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by either a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. The landlord did not provide evidence of the initial ASB reports and whether these were completed, communication with the resident either by phone, in person or by email, details of the meeting held around 8 September 2022, or details of the complaint raised in September 2022 and what the outcome was.
The landlord’s inability to provide these also calls into question the accuracy of its responses and demonstrates that its processes are not operating correctly. The lack of records has also delayed the Ombudsman’s investigation causing further time and trouble to the resident. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping as it either did not have, or did not provide, multiple records which would have helped this investigation. An order has been made that the landlord pay £150 compensation to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £350 compensation made up of:
  1. £200 for inconvenience caused to the resident chasing for updates to her complaints and poor communication around the complaints and complaints process.
  2. £150 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failures in record keeping.
2. Carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide the results of this assessment to this Service.