Regenda Limited (202339792)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202339792
Regenda Limited
22 August 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
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour.
- Complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy dated April 2011. The property is a 1-bedroom upper floor flat. The resident has vulnerabilities in relation to PTSD and mental health.
- The neighbour is a tenant of the landlord and there is a history of ASB between the resident and the neighbour. This is dating back to May 2020 with the resident reporting the neighbour for shouting up at his property, making “hostile comments” and killing his plants. It became apparent during the course of this investigation that the neighbour had vulnerabilities.
- Whilst this information provides contextual background to the complaint, this investigation is focussed on the resident’s recent reports of ASB from July 2022.
- It has been evidenced that the resident tried to raise a formal complaint in September and October 2022. However, despite the case notes saying a formal complaint was raised, there was no formal response provided.
- In October 2022, the landlord made an action plan and risk assessment following the resident’s report of a “hate related incident”. The resident continued to report the neighbour for being verbally aggressive and assaulting him on 2 occasions. Crime reference numbers were provided to the landlord.
- On 3 November 2022, the resident reported he was assaulted and verbally abused, this was also reported to the police and a crime reference number provided to the landlord.
- There were no further reports until May 2023 when the resident reported the neighbour was making accusations about him of drug dealing. The landlord visited the neighbour and discussed the reports.
- The resident made further reports in June, July, August, and October of 2023. He raised a formal complaint on 27 October 2023 and the landlord responded on 6 November 2023, saying it had worked with the police and residents to resolve the issue. Furthermore, it offered the resident a management move.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and raised the complaint to stage 2 on 14 November 2023. On 14 December 2023, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour and sent its final response on 5 January 2024. It said it had followed its ASB policy and apologised that resident had not “had the desired outcome so far.” It went on to say it would have further discussions with the police and possibly carry out “joint visits.”
- The landlord has explained to this service that it is waiting on an outcome to a recent criminal investigation in relation to the neighbour before considering further action.
Assessment and findings
Scoping
- This service would expect a landlord to respond to a complaint in a timely manner of an event occurring. It has been evidenced that the resident expressed dissatisfaction on more than 1 occasion in September and October 2022. It is therefore fair and reasonable to extend the scope of the investigation beyond that point.
- This service acknowledges that this is a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the ASB reported to the landlord has caused him distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and noise and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Policies
- The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 2 working days and provides response at stage 1 within 5 working days and stage 2 within 15 working days. It may extend each stage by 5 working days with the agreement of the complainant.
- It defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of actions by the landlord.
- The landlord’s ASB policy says:
- It takes a zero-tolerance approach to incidents of hate crime and is committed to identifying problems at the earliest possible opportunity and making positive interventions to prevent situations becoming more serious.
- It prioritises its response to reports of anti-social behaviour based on a harm-based approach, (i.e. impact on the victim).
- It communicates effectively with complainants by producing a clear action plan with agreed actions, timescales, and desired outcomes.
- Its policy continues by saying “all hate crimes are hate incidents, however not all hate incidents are recorded as a crime by the Police, as they do not always constitute as criminal offence. The landlord will deal with all hate incidents whether they are a crime or not and involve the Police where appropriate.”
- Furthermore, it says it will consider the use of all available tools to resolve cases, these include:
- Mediation
- Restorative Justice
- Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs)
- Verbal and written warnings
- Tenancy Cautions
- Community Protection Notices (in conjunction with Local Authority)
- Injunctions
- Possession Proceedings
- Eviction, (as a last resort)
The landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from the neighbour.
- It has been evidenced that the resident made numerous reports of ASB from the neighbour in relation to verbal abuse, derogatory comments, accusations of criminal activity and assault. These were also reported to the police and crime reference numbers provided to the landlord.
- On 27 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord saying that the neighbour had been “intimidating” him and making accusations about him. There are no case notes to evidence that this report was responded to, until the resident chased the matter. This was not appropriate, and it was a missed opportunity for an early intervention.
- The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 August 2022 as he said no one called him back and wanted to raise an official complaint. The case notes went on to say it advised the resident that the case officer had “not been in.” The landlord responded on 2 August 2022, 6 days after original report. Its ASB policy says responses will be provided within 5 days if the case is tenancy management or 3 days if it is tenancy enforcement and was therefore outside of its policy timescales.
- On 2 August 2022, the landlord said it would contact the neighbour to discuss the issue. However, there is no evidence that this happened, which was not appropriate and represents either a failure to make contact as promised or a failure to record and evidence the contact.
- The resident made a further report on 15 August 2022 that the neighbour had been making accusations about him and had thrown the garden furniture “everywhere”. He also reported an overgrown tree but said he was afraid if he cut it, he would get abuse from the neighbour. The case notes show that the call was transferred to another member of staff, but no details of the call were recorded. This was not appropriate.
- On 20 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord saying he wanted to speak to a manager as his case officer had not taken any statements from other residents despite saying they would. He went on to say he was sick of the verbal abuse from the neighbour. The landlord contacted the resident the next day and left a message. This was appropriate and a prompt response.
- On 22 September 2022, the case notes show the landlord contacted the resident again. The landlord responded within 2 working days by telephone “with details of the conversation noted” which was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy. Nevertheless, the conversation notes show the landlord was unsympathetic in its response, outlining the action it could not take and did not provide the resident with any positive steps to progress the investigation.
- It went on to advise the resident to contact the police to report any incidents he considered harassment. It noted that the resident was not happy but failed to offer a resolution which was not appropriate.
- On 10 October 2022, the landlord logged on its system a “hate related incident” following a report by the resident. An action plan and risk assessment were completed on 11 October 2022 outlining the resident was to continue to report issues to the police and the landlord. It said it would collect witness statements from other residents and issue a warning letter to the neighbour. The action plan was agreed promptly and in accordance with its ASB policy, which was appropriate.
- Whilst it was prompt in carrying out a risk assessment to the hate related incident, the landlord took 53 working days from the resident’s reports of intimidation from 27 July 2022 to risk assess the case which was not appropriate.
- Furthermore, the landlord has not evidenced that it sent a warning letter to the neighbour or collected witnessed statements from other residents, as it said it would. It is not clear if the landlord failed to send the letter or record that it had. We have no evidence; therefore, we cannot be sure if the action was carried out. Either way this represents a failure.
- Throughout October 2022 the case notes show the landlord and the resident liaised regarding an overgrown tree in the communal garden. One side that was close to the resident’s property and the other close to the neighbour’s property. A compromise was reached whereby the resident could cut back any vines encroaching on his property. This was resolution focused and appropriate.
- Following this, on 20 October 2022 the resident reported he was assaulted by the neighbour and verbally abused as he tried to trim the vines. The resident went on to say if he did not receive a call back, he would be raising a formal complaint. The case notes show the landlord attempted to pass the call to the case officer however they were on leave.
- The landlord responded on 25 October 2022 and a telephone message was left for the resident. Whilst the response was within its policy timescale, it was unreasonable that the resident could not speak to a member of staff until his case officer returned, especially given the seriousness of the report he was making. In order to provide good customer service, a landlord should have sufficient measures in place so that residents are not disadvantaged due to staff absence, especially as he said he would be raising a formal complaint.
- The case notes show that a visit was arranged to the resident and neighbour for 2 November 2022, however this was cancelled due to the officer being “double booked”. Given the seriousness of the reports and the dissatisfaction expressed by the resident, more awareness should have been paid to the case, to prevent failures such as this from occurring.
- On 3 November 2022, the resident reported that he was “grabbed and pushed” by the neighbour. He provided the landlord with a crime reference number. Again, the case notes show the case officer was on leave, and a response was provided to the resident 5 days later. As already stated, the response was within its policy timescale, however the resident was again disadvantaged due to staff absence.
- On 14 November 2022, the landlord visited the resident to view video footage of the reported assault. The case notes say that “there was not enough evidence.” On 24 November 2022, the landlord visited the neighbour and verbally warned her. This action was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy that says it “will consider the use of all available tools to resolve cases, including verbal warnings.”
- On 30 November 2022, the landlord offered the resident a management move, however the case notes show that the resident refused as it was too far away. This service acknowledges that the landlord was taking steps to resolve the problem, however the resident was within his rights to refuse.
- On 3 January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to ascertain if there had been any incidents over the Christmas period, which the resident confirmed there had not. On 12, 20 and 23 January 2023 the landlord contacted the resident again for an update on any incidents. The resident said on 2 occasions that he had “lost interest and was going to stay away from her”.
- There were no further reports made by the resident until 2 May 2023. He made further reports on 5 and 15 May 2023, saying he could not go anywhere in the communal area without the neighbour making comments. The case notes say that the resident said he would attend the landlord offices that day with recorded evidence of a verbal incident. The landlord failed to respond to his call of 5 May 2023, and it was not appropriate that the resident had to visit the landlord’s offices in order to get a response.
- As a result of the resident’s reports, the landlord visited the neighbour on 19 May 2023 but did not get a response. It visited again on 22 May 2023, with the case notes saying it discussed the issue with the neighbour. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss the reports, it took 9 working days to do so following the resident’s initial report. Early intervention is key when addressing reports of ASB and given the history of the case, the landlord should have been both proactive in responding to the resident and taking action such as visiting the neighbour much sooner.
- A visit was carried out on 11 July 2023 to speak to the neighbour. No case details were provided as to the visit. 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. An order in relation to record keeping has been made.
- On 24 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord saying he “was at the end of his tether”. He spoke to the police who said the harassment was “essentially a hate crime.” There was no evidence that this was responded to, which was not appropriate or in line with its ASB policy that says the landlord will take a zero-tolerance approach to hate crimes. Whilst there may not have been evidence of such, the landlord should have in the least contacted the resident to discuss the potential hate in relation to disability and the derogatory comments made to him.
- On 2 August 2023, the resident made a further report of verbal abuse. The case notes say the landlord had “written out to the neighbour” however there were no case notes to explain the content, nor was a copy of any correspondence provided to this service. This was not appropriate as the landlord failed to keep accurate records.
- On 19, 22 and 26 October 2023 the resident reported further issues of ASB. These were not responded to until he raised a stage 1 complaint on 27 October 2023 saying the landlord had failed to take action to address the ASB he was experiencing. This was not appropriate.
- The landlord made an action plan with the resident on 3 November 2023 outlining the action it was going to take. This included “to fully investigate and take reasonable and proportionate action” and “speak with neighbours in regard to complaints and ongoing issues and liaise with agencies involved.” Whilst these were appropriate steps to take, this should have been implemented in the early stages of the resident’s reports.
- The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 November 2023, it said that it had worked with the police and residents to resolve the issues. It went on to say that it had also offered the resident a management move and outlined the action it was going to take. The response was lacked any specific detail which was not appropriate.
- On 28 November 2023, the landlord interviewed the neighbour. The case notes say the neighbour admitted to using hate language and made counter allegations. The notes continue to say that the neighbour was advised she would be receiving a warning letter as a result. This was appropriate and in line with its policy that says it will deal with all hate incidents whether they are a crime or not and involve the Police where appropriate.”
- Case notes for 14 December 2023 say that a warning letter was hand delivered to the neighbour. The warning letter provided to this service was dated 1 December 2023, it said that any further incidents could result in action against the tenancy. It is unreasonable that it took the landlord 12 working days to deliver the warning letter, as any action taken should be prompt. It should have been delivered as close to 28 November 2023 as possible, following its visit the neighbour.
- On 4 January 2024, an internal email evidences that the police had also given the neighbour a warning about the hate crime. It also made reference to the neighbour’s vulnerabilities. It went on to say that there was another video where you could hear the neighbour making a “hate crime comment.” It said the police had recorded this as a new hate crime incident and “there was evidence so they can act.” Despite this, a warning letter was not sent to the neighbour until 31 January 2024 which was 19 working days later. As mentioned above any action taken should be prompt and as close to the event as possible.
- The landlord has advised this service that it is waiting on the outcome of a criminal investigation in relation to the neighbour before considering further action. An order has been made in relation to this.
- In summary, the landlord had failed to take any meaningful action or early interventions as outlined in its ASB policy. There was a delay of 12 working days to deliver a warning letter following the neighbour’s admission. It did not consider the use of an acceptable behaviour contract until 4 January 2024, this was despite numerous reports from the resident, and the neighbour admitting to the hate crime. When further recorded evidence was available it took another 19 working days to issue a further warning letter. The resident had been reporting the ASB for a significant amount of time, and he reported that the ASB was escalating, which included 2 incidents of assault. The landlord should have considered the options available to it as per its policy for example an ABC much sooner. The resident had said he was at the end of his tether and could not use the communal area for fear of verbal abuse.
- As outlined above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour. Therefore, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident for almost 18 months following the landlord’s failures in its handling of his reports of anti-social behaviour, £350 compensation has been awarded.
Complaint handling
- On 1 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord saying no one called him back and he wanted to make an official complaint. The case notes show that the landlord advised him the case officer had not been in. This was not appropriate, and it should have raised a formal complaint as per its policy.
- On 20 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord saying he wanted to speak to a manager. The landlord again did not raise a complaint, which was another opportunity to record the resident’s dissatisfaction and raise a complaint.
- On 20 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord saying he would raise a formal complaint if he did not receive a call back. The case notes show the call was passed to the case officer who was on leave. This was the third missed opportunity to raise a complaint.
- The resident continued to report ASB to the landlord, he again expressed his dissatisfaction on 27 October 2023 and a stage 1 complaint was raised. The landlord responded on 6 November 2023; it outlined its proposed action which included raising a new ASB case. The resident was unhappy with this suggestion, saying there had been no resolution to the original case. He then raised a stage 2 complaint on 14 November 2023.
- The landlord sent its final response on 5 January 2024 which was 35 working days after the resident had raised a stage 2 complaint. The response was vague and did not explain to the resident exactly what it had done to investigate his ASB case, which was not appropriate. The handling of his case was what he had expressed dissatisfaction at, and the landlord failed to address it adequately in its response.
- In summary the landlord missed 3 opportunities to raise a formal complaint for the resident on 1 August, 20 September, and 20 October 2022. It was not until 316 days later that a stage 1 complaint was first raised. It is evident that this was frustrating for the resident and may have prevented an earlier resolution to his complaint. This service complaint handling code say, “the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents is key to effective complaint handling.”
- The resident had been clear in expressing his dissatisfaction on several occasions, particularly around the lack of call backs. The landlord failed to raise a complaint, which was in direct contrast to its complaints policy.
- Furthermore, its final response was late, and it did not offer the resident any compensation for this to put things right.
- Therefore, as outlined above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. As a result, £255 compensation has been awarded to the resident for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. This is made up of £15 each month for 17 months, between 1 August 2022 and 5 January 2024.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration for
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour.
- Complaint handling.
Orders
- Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
- Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £605 made up of:
- 350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him in relation to the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB from the neighbour.
- £255 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
- Provide the resident and this service with an update regarding its proposed action in relation to the ASB. Should it decide no action is necessary, provide details as to what considerations it made in coming to the decision.
- Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its ASB policy and procedure, in order to ensure that the above failings do not happen again. In particular, to highlight the need for an early intervention to ensure that prompt, appropriate and decisive action is taken.
- Assess its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/ , if this has not been done recently.
Recommendation
- Give consideration to what support is available to the resident and the neighbour in relation to their vulnerabilities.