Raven Housing Trust Limited (202505393)

Background

1. The resident lives at the property with her adult daughter, who has been acting on her behalf in relation to this complaint. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and her daughter are referred to as ‘the resident’. The complaint concerns reports made by a neighbour that the resident had behaved in an intimidating manner and issues relating to parking. The resident has made a counter-reports against the neighbour, and the matter remains ongoing. The resident complained to the landlord about how it dealt with both her reports, and reports that had been made about her, and is unhappy with its response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made by and about the resident.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB made by and about the resident.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB made by and about the resident

4. The landlord appropriately investigated the reports made about the resident. However, it did not follow its policy in a timely manner when responding to the resident’s reports of ASB, and delayed in assigning a tenancy enforcement officer. The landlord appropriately acknowledged these failings, apologised and provided proportionate compensation.

Handling of the associated complaint

5. The landlord issued its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy. While it informed the resident of extensions, it did not provide an explanation for the delay, in line the Code and failed to acknowledge the resident’s frustration regarding the delays.

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.

6. The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the same definition of ‘antisocial behaviour’ the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014. This defines ASB as:
   1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
   2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to any person’s occupation of residential premises.
   3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.

ASB reports about the resident

7. Our role in investigating ASB complaints is not to establish whether the ASB took place. Instead, it is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations.
8. On 11 June 2024, the neighbour reported to the landlord that the resident made comments about them on social media. The landlord responded the same day and provided diary sheets to record further incidents. This was reasonable as it was in line with its policy, which requires evidence gathering at an early stage.
9. Throughout June and July 2024, the neighbour provided further reports of intimidation and parking concerns. The landlord visited the neighbour on 3 July 2024, introduced the tenancy enforcement officer (TEO) and reviewed the evidence that had been submitted.
10. The landlord issued warning letters to the resident regarding the reports of intimidation in June/July 2024 and again on 19 July 2024. While this was consistent with its ASB policy, there is no documentary evidence of these letters. A record of this communication should reasonably have been maintained. It is unclear if the landlord has this, and it has simply failed to provide it to us. Nevertheless, it is indicative of record keeping issues.
11. A further letter was sent on 28 August 2024, which included issues relating to parking. Following additional reported incidents, the landlord continued to add information to the ASB case. It also spoke with the resident on 30 and 31 August 2024 to explain its position and seek an informal resolution, including asking the resident to change where she parked. This was a reasonable attempt to resolve the dispute without escalation.
12. Between September 2024 and March 2025, additional reports were made concerning parking, withholding post, intimidation, incorrect use of CCTV and more comments on social media.
13. In relation to the CCTV, the landlord correctly identified that there are privacy laws around the use of these and whether they record outside a boundary. It sent letters to the resident, explaining its position on this and to give the resident ample time to remove them. It reiterated Its position on the CCTV in its stage 2 complaint response.
14. We appreciate that receiving warning letters from the landlord may have been distressing for the resident. However, the landlord acted reasonably and within its ASB policy, giving the resident the opportunity to resolve issues before looking at taking enforcement action.

ASB reports made by the resident

15. On 30 August 2024, the resident reported ASB by the neighbour, mentioning harassment and parking issues. The landlord acknowledged this on 2 September 2024 and issued diary sheets on 4 September 2024. It stated it needed completed diary sheets before allocating a TEO, which was not stated in the ASB policy.
16. Between 5 and 23 September 2024, the resident submitted evidence on 3 occasions. However, on 23 September 2024, the landlord reiterated that it required completed diary sheets before allocating a TEO. This approach was inconsistent with its ASB policy, which states that cases should be opened and allocated within 5 working days of receiving supporting evidence. We are satisfied that the resident provided evidence in accordance with the policy. As the resident had already submitted evidence, the landlord should have progressed the case at that stage.
17. The landlord may have had valid reason for advising that it needed the diary sheets (if it considered that the evidence was inconclusive/weak). But, if this was the case, then it should have been explained to the resident.
18. The resident subsequently submitted diary sheets and chased a response in October 2024. The landlord advised that it had not received them and on 17 October 2024, it asked the resident to resend them. At this stage, the landlord missed the opportunity to explain why diary sheets were required, despite the resident having already provided evidence.
19. Although the landlord advised on 21 October 2024 that it would assign a TEO, records show this did not happen until 13 November 2024. This significantly exceeded the policy timescales and caused frustration for the resident, exacerbating the distress she was already experiencing.
20. The landlord visited the resident on 13 November 2024 and introduced her to TEO. The TEO discussed the case as well as a further report of ASB against the resident made by another neighbour. The resident asked the landlord to pass on a message regarding this complaint, which appeared to resolve matters.
21. Between December 2024 and April 2025, the landlord engaged with social services and visited the resident and her mother. Created an action plan with the resident, managed expectations around the disabled bay and offered mediation, which the resident accepted in the end. Based on the evidence that it available, aside from the delay in allocating a TEO, its overall actions were proportionate in following its own policy.
22. The resident has stated that this situation has caused her stress and affected her mental health. We acknowledge that this has been a difficult time for her. However, we are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something has caused an impact to health or not. She could seek independent advice regarding this or consider a claim through the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord.
23. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it failed to act and allocate a TEO for the resident quickly. As a result, it missed the opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. Once it allocated a TEO, it acted responsibly and dealt with the matter. It recognised the impact of its failing on the resident. It apologised for the delay and awarded the resident compensation od £350. The landlord has provided evidence that this has been paid to the resident.
24. Having considered our approach to remedies – as set out in our remedies guidance – the landlord’s award was proportionate to address the distress and inconvenience caused. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord took steps to put things right prior to our investigation.

25. Our Complaint Handing Code (The Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation.
26. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within the 5 working days which was compliant with the Code. The stage 1 complaint response was due on 18 December 2024. On 11 December 2024, the resident provided additional information, stating she felt victimised by the landlord’s handling of the case.
27. The landlord notified the resident of extensions on 23 and 31 December 2024, stating it wished to complete a comprehensive review. It issued its stage 1 response on 8 January 2025, 22 working days after the complaint was made. While the landlord communicated extensions, it did not seek the resident’s agreement to an extension sooner.
28. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 February 2025. The landlord did not respond until 18 March 2025, when it advised that it would extend the response deadline to 15 April 2025. It did seek the resident’s agreement for the extension sooner, which is not in accordance with the Code. The resident chased the response on the same day, demonstrating the inconvenience caused by the delay. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not acknowledge the delays at stage 1 or the impact on the resident, which was unreasonable.
29. Given the failings we identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience by its complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance (as reference above) which suggests awards in this range, where there were repeated delays with the response and the detriment was not acknowledged.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. We have identified failures in the landlord’s record-keeping around letters issued to the resident and neighbour. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report, if it has not already done so.

Communication

31. In this case the landlord mostly responded to the resident’s communication promptly and accurately. It should consider if it may have been more helpful to provide proactive communication rather than be reactive.

Complaint handling

32. The landlord may wish to remind complaint handling staff that extensions to the deadlines should be agreed with residents and comply with the Code.