Sage Rented Limited (202223339)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house owned by the landlord. The landlord has recorded she has anxiety and depression. The resident has made complaints to the landlord about her neighbour, alleging antisocial behaviour (ASB). These allegations include, but are not limited to, verbal abuse, harassment, noise, and alleged drug dealing. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she is not satisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and the level of compensation it has offered her. The resident’s mother acts as her representative. For clarity, throughout this report, any contact made by the resident’s mother will be referred to as contact from the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the ASB.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. ASB – In summary, we found that:
   1. It was positive the landlord eventually identified the full extent of its failures. However, this recognition came nearly a year after the complaint process had ended. Had the landlord reviewed its position and identified these issues during the complaints process, we may have found reasonable redress in its handling of ASB.
   2. The landlord identified the following failures:
      1. Inconsistent case management.
      2. Poor record keeping.
      3. Ineffective handling of ASB reports.
      4. Failure to escalate safeguard concerns.
   3. Additionally, we found the landlord was not proactive in managing the case which resulted in avoidable resident contacts, frustration, and distress to the resident.
7. Complaint handling – In summary we found that:
   1. The landlord did not meet the required response timeframe at Stage 1, as set out in the Code.
   2. Due to poor record keeping, we were unable to determine whether the landlord responded within the required timeframe at Stage 2.
   3. The landlord did not identify the full extent of its failures during the complaint process. As a result, it did not put things right for the resident during the complaint stages.

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.

8. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines its commitment to early intervention and prevention. It adopts a victim-centred approach, aiming to keep individuals informed about the progress of their case.
9. Key elements of the policy include:
   1. Acknowledging new urgent ASB reports within 1 working day and non-urgent cases within 5 working days.
   2. Recording and monitoring ASB incidents.
   3. Risk assessing the impact of the issues on the individual.
   4. Working in partnership with external agencies such as the police and local authority.
   5. Developing a written action plan, using a full range of legal and non-legal tools to address ASB.
10. The landlord’s managing agent managed this ASB case before and during the complaint process up until January 2024 when it ended the contract. There is evidence the landlord took steps to address the ASB. This evidence includes various internal and external emails between the landlord and police, resident and landlord contact with the alleged perpetrator. In particular it:
    1. Provided diary sheets for the resident to use as part of its evidence gathering.
    2. Investigated wider issues involving a CCTV camera and report of abandonment at the alleged perpetrator’s property.
    3. Worked in partnership with the police to explore appropriate remedies such as a community protection notice.
    4. Kept open its offer of independent mediation and support to both parties.
    5. Issued good neighbour agreements and an action plan.
11. While it is positive that the landlord made efforts to resolve the ASB, we cannot be confident that these actions were taken in line with its ASB policy due to the lack of records available in support of its actions. This lack of documentation together with a lack of audit of events made it difficult for us to piece together what happened and when. The landlord’s poor record keeping was inappropriate and contributed to the ineffective management of the ASB case causing additional frustration and distress to the resident.
12. The landlord acknowledged a failure early in the complaints process regarding the loss of diary sheets submitted by the resident in 2021. It apologised for this in both its Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses and offered a practical resolution by arranging for an officer to personally collect diary sheets in future. We consider this to be a reasonable response to that specific failure.
13. The landlord later reviewed the complaint, however, this was nearly a year after the complaint process had ended. The landlord missed an opportunity to identify it’s failures much sooner and this was inappropriate. The failures it identified were:
    1. Inconsistent case management.
    2. Poor record keeping.
    3. Failure in its handling of ASB reports.
    4. Failure to escalate safeguard concerns.
14. Additionally, we have identified that the landlord did not always keep the resident informed throughout the case. This caused her avoidable contacts to the landlord, frustration, and distress. The landlord’s inactions were inappropriate.
15. When the landlord reviewed the case, it offered her compensation of £950 broken down as:
    1. £250 record keeping.
    2. £400 mismanagement of ASB reports.
    3. £100 for not fully considering her vulnerabilities despite a high-risk assessment.
    4. £200 distress and inconvenience.
16. Where a landlord has attempted to put things right, we refer to our Dispute Resolution Principles of:
    1. Be Fair.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
17. Our remedies guidance states that where there has been landlord failures which have had significant impact on the resident, the landlord should consider compensation between £600 to £1000 depending upon the circumstances of the case and the impact caused to the resident. In this case, the landlord identified its significant failures (albeit late) and offered her compensation at the higher end of our remedies guide. We therefore consider the landlord’s offer of £950 to be an appropriate level to put things right for her. However, these failures were not identified until a year after the complaint process had ended which was too late. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
18. We have made orders to reflect the identified failures that include an apology in writing, pay the resident compensation of £950 (if it has not already done so) and to contact her to discuss the new ASB reports in line with its ASB policy. This includes opening a new ASB case if appropriate and an action plan of how it intends to resolve the issues.

19. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case is the 2022 edition (April 2022). Our findings are:
20. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 December 2022. The landlord responded on 18 January 2023; 24 working days later and outside of the Code’s 10 working day timeframe. Additionally, there does not appear to have been any updates or an extension agreed with the resident. This was inappropriate and does not comply with the Code.
21. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response (date unknown). The landlord responded at stage 2 on 23 February 2023. Due to the landlord’s poor records we cannot assess whether the landlord complied with the Code’s 20 working day target. This was inappropriate.
22. The landlord recognised its failures and offered her £250 compensation. However, this was not until nearly a year after the landlord’s complaint process had ended. This is not within the true spirit of effective complaint handling and therefore we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, we consider the landlord’s late compensation offer to be an appropriate level in this case.

Learning

23. It is positive that the landlord has identified learning from the case that includes:
    1. Staff training.
    2. A single resident point of contact when dealing with ASB.
    3. Stronger emphasis on mediation at an early stage.
    4. Implementation of a digital system for submitting and storing incident diary sheets.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord has identified that its record keeping was poor in this case. It is noted the performance issues it identified with the managing agent contributed to its withdrawal of the contract. The landlord should refer to our Spotlight report on Knowledge Information and Management (May 2023) for best practice.

Communication

25. We are satisfied the landlord has identified its learning in relation to a single point of contact for residents when dealing with ASB. However, the landlord should make sure it sets out its frequency of communications within its action plan. The landlord should make sure it complies with the Code in relation to keeping residents informed when there is a delay in its complaint investigation.