Places for People Group Limited (202347293)

Background

1. The resident held an assured tenancy for a ground floor flat. The resident has depression, anxiety, spinal arthritis and fibromyalgia. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from two neighbouring properties, dating back to May 2023. The resident complained the landlord ignored her requests to escalate her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The reports of ASB.
   2. The handling of the complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord’s decision not to pursue an ASB case for littering was fair and reasonable.
   2. The landlord has not demonstrated it thoroughly investigated the reports of noise.
   3. The landlord did not agree an action plan when the ASB was initially reported.
   4. The landlord has not demonstrated it responded appropriately to reports a neighbour used the resident’s bin.
   5. The landlord has not evidenced its decision about the kite was fair and reasonable.
   6. The landlord has not demonstrated its decision not to consider a managed move was fair and reasonable.
   7. The landlord did not respond to the complaint within the required timeframes.
   8. The landlord did not address all the resident’s complaint points
   9. The landlord has not demonstrated it agreed an action plan, completed a risk assessment or booked further visits, in line with the commitments made in its stage 2 response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. Since the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident continued to report new incidents of ASB. We are only able to investigate issues raised and responded to within the complaint process. This includes any actions agreed in the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord’s handling of matters following the stage 2 response would need to form part of a separate complaint should the resident remain dissatisfied.
8. The landlord’s ASB policy lists what is considered ASB, including loud music, disruptive parties, slamming doors, dumping/fly-tipping rubbish and swearing. It follows that reports of the above should be dealt with under the landlord’s ASB policy.
9. The policy also sets out what the landlord should do following a report of ASB. This includes, completing a risk assessment and agreeing an action plan on all cases. The landlord should also attempt to resolve disputes early, investigate reports thoroughly using all methods available, and make proportionate, evidenced-based, decisions.

Noise issues

10. In relation to the noise issues, between May 2023 and May 2024 the resident made numerous reports of noise, including several disruptive parties, loud music playing at night and throughout the day, shouting and swearing, banging, and slamming of doors. For instance, in her emails on 3 December 2023 and 29 January 2024 the resident reported loud music.On 24 March 2024 the resident raised reports of music, shouting, banging/slamming noises. And on 28 April 2024 the resident reported being sworn at by the neighbour’s visitors.
11. The landlord has not provided an explanation or evidence to demonstrate what action it took in response to the resident’s reports of several parties in May 2023. Therefore, we are unable to say the landlord has demonstrated it investigated those reports thoroughly, in line with its policy. It follows that we cannot say the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably in relation to this.
12. The landlord decided not to act in December 2023 as it said parties were expected at that time of year and it considered it an isolated event. It suggested the resident discuss the matter with her neighbour directly, and if the issue continued after this it could send an advisory letter to the neighbour. This was in accordance with the landlord’s policy, which says it will encourage residents to resolve matters with neighbours. As a response to the reports of noise in December 2023, we think this was fair and reasonable.
13. On 16 December 2023 the resident told the landlord she had spoken with and written to the neighbour about the noise and the issue had continued. After December 2023 the resident continued to report noise issues from the flat above. Despite the resident’s reports that the issue had continued, we have not seen evidence the landlord sent the advisory letter or took other action beyond asking the resident to provide evidence.
14. While we recognise that landlords require evidence to act on reports of ASB. It remains the case that the landlord must satisfy itself and this Service that it acted in line with its ASB policy. The landlord has already acknowledged that it departed from this by failing to complete a risk assessment and it has offered compensation for this. As this is not in dispute, it’s not necessary to comment on this in detail. However, we do note that given the resident’s reports of the severity of the impact on her mental health, it is concerning the landlord did not complete a risk assessment. We have assessed whether the compensation the landlord has offered for this is fair and reasonable in our overall consideration of this complaint.
15. Additionally, while it did commit to an action plan in its complaint responses, the landlord has not recognised that it should have agreed an action plan when the ASB issues were initially reported. This was unreasonable and is a failure by the landlord. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to clearly set out how it would respond to the reports of ASB, how the case would progress, and what action it needed the resident to take. It is clear not doing this caused the resident avoidable uncertainty and contributed to her feeling insufficient action had been taken.
16. We expect landlords to complete actions agreed in their complaint responses, unless it is no longer necessary or appropriate. We have not been provided evidence to show that following the stage 2 response the landlord put an action plan in place, and we have not been provided records to show it arranged further visits to support the resident, or what support was given. So, we are not satisfied the landlord has demonstrated it acted fairly and reasonably in relation to this.
17. Moreover, while the landlord has provided a copy of a risk assessment form, this appears to be incomplete and has not been signed or dated by the resident. On balance, we are not satisfied this is sufficient to show the landlord completed a risk assessment in line with its policy or the commitments made in its complaint responses. Following through on the actions it agreed at stage 2 would have demonstrated that the landlord had learned from the failures it had recognised and taken appropriate steps to put things right.

Litter issues 

18. In relation to the litter, between May 2023 and May 2024 the resident made numerous reports of rubbish either blowing onto or being deliberately placed on her pathway leading to her rear garden. She also reported rubbish being thrown into her back garden and put in her bin. She sent the landlord videos and photos to evidence this. For instance, the resident reported rubbish and provided videos in her emails on 31 January 2024, 8 February and 7 April 2024.
19. We have reviewed the photos and videos the landlord has provided us which show minor amounts of litter on the resident’s property. It seems the landlord did not receive evidence directly linking this to the resident’s neighbour. On review of the evidence, we are satisfied the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in deciding not to pursue an ASB case for the littering. It remains the case the landlord should have completed a risk assessment and agreed an action plan on receipt of the reports of litter related ASB.
20. Although we have not seen evidence of it, all parties appear to accept a neighbour did place rubbish in the resident’s bin. While not ASB, the tenancy agreement requires residents not to disturb others. It’s clear the neighbour reportedly putting rubbish in the resident’s bin disturbed the resident, so we would expect the landlord to respond to that. The landlord has said it spoke to the neighbour about this. However, we have not been provided evidence to show this. This is poor record keeping and as a result the landlord has not demonstrated it acted fairly and reasonably in response to this.

Other issues

21. In relation to the resident’s complaint about the neighbour hanging a kite on their fence. We note the landlord has said this would not be a breach of tenancy. We haven’t been provided evidence in relation to this. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord, and it means we cannot say the landlord has demonstrated that its response to this part of the resident’s complaint was fair and reasonable.
22. The landlord has said the resident did not meet its criteria for a managed move. The landlord has not provided a copy of its transfer policy or other evidence to demonstrate this. So, we simply cannot say the landlord has shown its decision was fair and reasonable.

23. Landlords must acknowledge, define and log complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days of receiving them, and stage 1 responses must be sent with 10 working days of the acknowledgment. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the ASB on 8 January 2024 and asked to escalate this to stage 2 on 27 January 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 April 2024 and its stage 2 response on 30 May 2024.
24. The landlord said it should have made it clear to the resident that her concerns raised in January 2024 were dealt with at the local level, rather than as a stage1 complaint. The landlord has not demonstrated in its complaint responses it fully recognised its complaint handling failure. While the landlord should have provided a clear explanation, the key failure is that the landlord should have dealt with the resident’s concerns as a stage 1 complaint when they were raised in January 2024. Failing to do so clearly caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing her complaint after this.
25. It seems the landlord began dealing with the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint following her correspondence on 30 March 2024. We have not received a copy of the complaint acknowledgment. It is unclear whether this is because no acknowledgment was sent or because the landlord cannot or has chosen not to provide this. In any case, we cannot say the landlord acted fairly and reasonably.
26. At stage 2 landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and responses must be sent within 20 working days. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 26 April 2024, which was 8 working days after the escalation. So, there was a delay here. The landlord sent its stage 2 response letter on 30 May 2024, which was 22 working days after the acknowledgment. So, there was a further delay here.
27. Additionally, the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint definition. We note the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of a SAR, the conduct of the Place Manager, and the landlord’s handling of reports a neighbour had hung laundry from a balcony above the resident’s property. The landlord did not address these in its complaint responses. This was not reasonable and was a failure by the landlord.

Learning

28. Landlords should follow their policies and procedures to ensure residents are treated in a consistent and fair way. In this case the landlord did not follow its ABS or complaint handling policies. This indicates a training need.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. Landlords should maintain appropriate records so they can satisfy themselves, their residents, and external organisations like the Ombudsman that they have responded to issues in a way that’s fair and reasonable. In this case, the landlord did not provide clear records to demonstrate this. This indicates more effective record keeping is needed.

Communication

30. Landlords must be able to identify the difference between a service request and a complaint. If the landlord was unsure whether the resident’s concerns raised in January 2024 were a complaint or a service request, it should have queried this with the resident. This may have avoided confusion and saved the resident time and trouble. It remains that the landlord should have addressed the concerns as a stage 1 response.