Salix Homes Limited (202227764)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227764

Salix Homes Limited

15 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour regarding their neighbour and their dog.
2. The landlord’s lack of response to emails the resident sent on 27 July, 28 July, and 16 September 2022.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 12 May 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a high-rise block.
On 12 July 2022, the resident called the landlord to report that another resident was walking around the car park with his dog off the lead. The resident said that the dog was barking at people. The landlord’s records note that during the call the resident was saying ‘don’t come near me,’ referred to the alleged perpetrator as trying to intimidate him, and that they had tried to headbutt him.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 July 2022, to say that he had seen the alleged perpetrator with his dog which again was not on its lead. The resident described the lead as ‘a massive chain’ which he said was in the alleged perpetrators hand. The resident said that the alleged perpetrator came close to him and swung the chain at him, and when he challenged them, the alleged perpetrator had then threatened to shoot him and told him to go back to where he came from. The resident said that he had reported the incident to the police and provided a crime reference number.
At the beginning of November 2022, the resident reported that they had again seen the alleged perpetrator’s dog off the lead.
The resident was not satisfied with the ASB officer’s response and so on 16 November 2022 raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to their reports. The resident also complained that they had sent emails on 3 separate occasions for issues to be looked at, but they were ignored by the landlord. The resident confirmed that these emails were sent on 27 July 2022, 28 July 2022 and 16 September 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 December 2022. The landlord said that it was sorry that the resident did not feel it had handled his reports of anti-social behaviour case regarding his neighbour’s pet correctly but did not uphold the complaint. The landlord explained that this was because:
1. Overall, the resident’s ASB Officer carried out her investigations in line with its ASB policy and procedure throughout. They had also given the correct advice once all parties were spoken to and relevant visual and audio footage was obtained and viewed, and he was kept updated during the investigations.
2. This case had now been referred for closure due to no further evidence provided to substantiate a breach of tenancy. It would continue to monitor the situation and if there are any further issues, asked the resident to contact their ASB Officer to report these. The landlord said that it wanted to assure the resident that it was ‘fully committed’ to assisting him in resolving any further incidents of nuisance behaviour.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint that they received no response to emails they sent on 27 July, 28 July, and 16 September 2022, saying:
1. It had seen the email the resident sent on 27 July 2022, which was addressed to the complaints team and the ASB officer, and in which he had requested a copy of a telephone recording between the ASB Officer and the Police. Later that same day the ASB officer responded to him via email to advise that she did not speak to the Police via telephone so there would be no recording available. The ASB officer suggested that the resident contact the Police to confirm that they had recorded the correct details on the crime report. The landlord said that it was therefore satisfied that the resident received a timely response to that email.
2. On 28 July 2022, the resident sent a further email to the ASB officer and the complaints support team in relation to this ASB case. The landlord said that the ASB officer passed the resident’s queries to the Police and requested that they contact him direct to clarify the information on their crime report. The landlord apologised that this action was not communicated to the resident at the time, noting that it had found no email response to his email on that date.
3. With regards to the email of 16 September 2022, which the resident sent to the ASB officer, its Enquiries inbox, and its complaints support team. This concerned a dog at the resident’s block and, as this was an ASB related complaint, it would have expected the response to come from his ASB officer rather than the complaints support team. This would be unless the resident was raising a formal complaint about an aspect of the handling of his ASB case. The landlord said that it understood that the resident’s email was in response to its ASB officer’s email request for evidence which she had sent to the resident earlier that day. As such the ASB officer treated the resident’s email as diary evidence and incorporated it into the existing ASB case. The landlord went on to say that, despite this, his email should have been acknowledged by the ASB officer and it apologised that this did not happen at the time.
4. The landlord said that it had spoken to the ASB officer regarding the expectations in relation to customer communication and advised that even where an email required investigation and could not be immediately responded to, an acknowledgement should be sent to give customers reassurance that it had been received and was being looked into. The landlord said that it was sorry that this was not the customer experience the resident received on two of the occasions detailed above.
The resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint on 17 December 2022 and the landlord issued its final response on 16 January 2023.
In its final response the landlord said that it was satisfied that the position given in its stage 1 response, that the resident’s ASB Officer had followed its ASB policy and procedure correctly in how the case had been managed, was correct. With regards to the resident’s complaint that they received no response to emails they sent on 27 July, 28 July and 16 September 2022, the landlord confirmed that it remained the case that this element of his complaint was partially upheld. It also said that it was satisfied that the stage 1 investigation appropriately addressed the concerns raised and was fair and reasonable in its conclusions. The landlord apologised for the areas where it had not met its expected standards in relation to maintaining contact with the resident and thanked him for bringing the matter to its attention so that it could learn from his feedback.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes.’
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour regarding their neighbour and their dog.

The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports it receives. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the allegations reported to the landlord amounted to ASB, but rather, we will consider whether the landlord dealt with those allegations fairly and reasonably given all the circumstances of the case.
Following the resident’s call to the landlord on 12 July 2022, the landlord immediately opened an ASB case and it was suggested that the ASB Officer requested a copy of the call, as both the resident and the alleged perpetrator could be heard talking to each other. It was also suggested that the CCTV cameras at the block were checked at the time of the call.
The following day:
1. The ASB officer requested a copy of the call and sent a request to the CCTV provider for the CCTV footage.
2. Sent an email to the resident asking that he get in touch so that they could take a statement.
3. The resident and the ASB officer spoke and later that day the ASB officer sent the resident a follow up email confirming their conversation and requesting full details of the incident, including if he knew where the alleged perpetrator lived. This was provided by the resident on 14 July 2022.
4. The ASB officer referred the recording to the landlord’s Community Safety Officer, who the ASB policy states is responsible for progressing legal cases associated with ASB, Hate Crime and Domestic Abuse.
These were reasonable, proportionate, and timely actions for the landlord to take and in accordance with its ASB policy.
The Community Safety Officer listened to the recording and watched the footage. They noted that the alleged perpetrator did not have their dog on the lead initially but when confronted by the resident they put the dog on the lead straight away and then appeared to be taking it for a walk. They also noted that there had been no other complaints about the dog and if it was aggressive they would have expected there to have been other complaints from residents, especially those with children, of which there were many in the 2 blocks in that area. From the video the dog seemed to be very calm, was not pulling on the lead, nor ‘trying to go’ for the resident.
The Community Safety Officer advised under the circumstances she would not recommend pursuing legal action against the alleged perpetrator as there was not enough evidence to support an application for an injunction. They also noted that they were however concerned about the resident’s behaviour and attitude as he had been warned before about recording other residents going about their daily business.
The ASB officer wrote to the alleged perpetrator on 18 July 2022 to inform them that allegations had been made in relation to ASB and that he was invited to attend a telephone interview to discuss the allegations in more detail and to give him an opportunity to respond.
Having also spoken to the alleged perpetrator, the ASB officer wrote to both parties on 22 July 2022. In their correspondence, the ASB officer:
1. Advised the resident that they had spoken to the alleged perpetrator and that he had agreed to keep his dog on a lead. The ASB officer recommended that, if the resident saw the alleged perpetrator again, to make a note of the date and time and to let them know. The landlord’s record note that the ASB officer advised the resident not to approach the alleged perpetrator.
2. Advised the alleged perpetrator that whilst on the grounds of the flat blocks his dog must remain on the lead at all times. The ASB officer said that they would continue to monitor the case and warned that further ASB could result in tenancy action being taken against them.
All the above were reasonable, proportionate, and appropriate actions for the landlord to take and in accordance with its ASB policy.
It was following the ASB officer’s correspondence of 22 July 2022 that the resident contacted the landlord to say that, on 20 July 2022, he saw the alleged perpetrator with his dog which was not on its lead. The resident described the lead as ‘a massive chain’ which he said was in the alleged perpetrators hand. The resident said that the alleged perpetrator came close to him and swung the chain at him, and when he challenged them, the alleged perpetrator had then threatened to shoot him and told him to go back to where he came from. The resident said that he had reported the incident to the police and provided a crime reference number.
Given the nature of the report, it was appropriate, and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, for the ASB officer to make enquiries with the Police, which they did the same day. The police responded, following which the ASB contacted the resident to say that they had told them that an incident had been reported by the resident but there was no mention of a threat to shoot him.
The resident emailed the ASB Officer disputing that he had not reported the shooting element of his complaint to the Police and asked her for a copy of the call recording between herself and the Police Officer she spoke to. The ASB officer advised the resident that no call was recorded, and she had liaised with the Police via e-mail.
On 25 July 2022, the resident forwarded a video to the ASB officer which they said recorded the alleged perpetrator shouting racist abuse at them. The ASB officer contacted the alleged perpetrator who denied making any threats towards the resident and said that it was the resident who threatened his dog.
The new evidence was again referred to the landlord’s Community Safety Manager and on 26 July 2022, the ASB officer issued the resident with a warning letter. The ASB officer explained that at no point on the footage provided could the alleged perpetrator be heard using racial language towards the resident, but the abusive language the resident used towards the alleged perpetrator was unacceptable and would not be tolerated. The ASB officer said that the landlord had a process for the resident to log incidents, capturing footage if it was safe to do so and reporting it. The resident was advised that he should not be retaliating in the way he had in the video he had provided. Going forward if the resident experienced any further incidents he should make a note of the date, time and location and contact the ASB team.
Again, these were reasonable, proportionate, and appropriate actions for the landlord to take and in accordance with its ASB policy.
The resident responded to the warning letter, again challenging what the landlord said the Police had told them regarding the shooting element of his complaint. Given the resident’s concerns, and the seriousness of the allegation, it was appropriate for the ASB officer to email the Police again, which they did.
On 29 July 2022, the Police provided a copy of the report in which the resident did make reference to the alleged perpetrator threatening to shoot him. However, the Police said that there was no mention of a gun in the crime report. The Police went on to advise that the alleged crime reported by the resident against the alleged perpetrator had been closed due to insufficient evidence, and that they had advised the resident to keep a diary and record any future incidents.
On 6 September 2022, the ASB officer emailed the resident to ask if they had any further update concerning the alleged perpetrator. The ASB officer emailed the resident again on 14 September 2022, following on they said from their email of 6 September 2022. The ASB officer advised that if they had not had a response from the resident by 16 September 2022, they would assume that the resident had experienced no further ASB and would close the case.
Again, these were reasonable, proportionate, and appropriate actions for the landlord to take and in accordance with its ASB policy.
At the beginning of November 2022, the resident again reported that they had seen the alleged perpetrator’s dog off the lead. The ASB officer asked if they had any evidence, to which the resident replied that they had not seen the dog but had seen the alleged perpetrator with the same chain in his hand that he used for the dog.
In response the ASB officer said that, as the resident had not seen the dog on this occasion, they could not say for definite that it was off the lead. The ASB officer asked the resident to contact them again if they saw the dog of the lead and they would revisit the case. The resident asked if the CCTV had been checked to which the ASB officer replied that it had and on that occasion the dog was not seen off a lead.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the CCTV evidence was challenged by the resident, given that this had been checked and that the dog could not be seen in the footage, it was reasonable for the ASB officer to take no further action at that time and to ask the resident to contact them again if they saw the dog of the lead and they would revisit the case.
Overall, and having considered all the evidence, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour regarding their neighbour and their dog. This is because following each report, the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in accordance with its ASB policy.
It promptly opened up an ASB case, recorded all the relevant details, carried out a ‘light touch’ risk assessment to establish what had occurred and how the reported ASB had affected the resident. It made, and maintained, communication with the resident and sought to gather evidence from both them and other sources, such as CCTV, to establish the facts. It interviewed the alleged perpetrator and contacted the Police to try to find out if the allegations could be substantiated and what actions the Police intended to take. The ASB officer also referred the evidence to the landlord’s Community Safety Officer, who the ASB policy states is responsible for progressing legal cases associated with ASB, Hate Crime and Domestic Abuse, and responded promptly to the recommendations made by them.

The landlord’s lack of response to emails the resident sent on 27 July, 28 July, and 16 September 2022.

With regards to the resident’s email of 27 July 2022. This email has been seen by this Service, as has the ASB officers response of the same date. This evidence confirms that the landlord’s position that this email was responded to was accurate.
With regards to the resident’s email of 28 July 2022. The resident’s email and the ASB officer’s contact with the Police has been seen by this Service. However, as the ASB officer did not respond to the resident to advise what they had done, it was both fair and appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for this.
With regards to the email of 16 September 2022. As the landlord identified in its stage 1 response, whilst this was responded to by its complaints support team, as the email was also sent to the ASB officer, it would have been appropriate for them to also respond to the resident, which they did not do. Given that was the case, and to put it right, it was appropriate for the landlord to again apologise to the resident.
In this case, in addition to correctly identifying where its service had fallen short of what was expected, and apologising to the resident for this, the landlord also recognised the need for it to take learning from the complaint and to ensure that a similar situation did not reoccur. To do this it spoke to the ASB officer regarding the expectations in relation to customer communication and advised them even where an email required investigation and cannot be immediately responded to, an acknowledgement should be sent to give customers reassurance that it had been received and was being looked into.
Overall, whilst there were failures by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s emails of 28 July and 16 September 2022, it is the view of this Service that its apology and the steps it took to learn from the outcomes provided the resident with reasonable redress in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour regarding their neighbour and their dog.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its lack of response to emails the resident sent on 27 July, 28 July, and 16 September 2022.