Sanctuary Housing Association (202125039)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125039

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 August 2023


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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy which began on 5 March 2019.
  2. The property is a first floor flat in a sheltered scheme for older persons.
  3. The resident previously had a complaint with this service about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour from her neighbour, reports of mice in her property, and the associated complaint handling. The landlord’s internal complaints process for these issues concluded on 21 July 2021. On 26 October 2021 the resident e-mailed the individual mediating between her and her neighbour to inform them of an incident with their neighbour standing outside shouting obscenities at her. The mediator responded to the resident telling her to call the police which she did. The resident reported a further incident to the mediator on 28 October 2021. The resident has mentioned further incidents with the neighbour on 17 November 2021 and 28 November 2021, however the landlord has no record of these.
  4. The resident contacted this service on 6 December 2021 about the incidents in October 2021. Following this, this service advised her to raise a new complaint with the landlord about this. The resident was unhappy that the ASB was still ongoing and felt that she had been experiencing harassment for over 12 months. She stated that because of this she had not had quiet enjoyment of her home since moving in. She also felt that her neighbour had not properly been vetted for moving into the block. The resident sent further e-mails to the landlord about this on 9 December 2021, 17 December 2021, and 9 January 2022. This was also chased by the resident’s local councillor. The landlord e-mailed the resident on 12 January 2022 sending a new ASB diary and asking her to fill this out with any incidents of ASB. The resident chased the landlord about her complaint again on 30 January 2022, 9 February 2022 and 2 March 2022. Following an e-mail from this service requesting an update on the complaint the landlord sent the resident an e-mail acknowledging her complaint on 2 March 2022. The resident’s neighbour who the reports of ASB concern, moved out of the block in April 2022.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 May 2022. It said it was unable to locate the original complaint from 6 December 2021. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it felt it had responded to all the ASB reports it had received. The resident then asked a friend to e-mail the landlord on her behalf on 15 May 2022 demonstrating that her e-mails were not being received by the landlord. The resident then called the landlord on 24 May 2022 requesting her complaint be escalated. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 June 2022. It offered the resident £850 compensation for the delays in dealing with her complaint as her complaint had been accidentally blocked by the landlord’s spam filter. It did, however, say that it had dealt with all the ASB reports provided to it and would not be providing the resident with compensation for the loss of enjoyment of her home.
  6. The resident advised this service on 16 July 2022 that she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses and wished for this service to investigate the complaint. She felt that the landlord had not dealt with the ASB and that in failing to do so had failed to provide her with quiet enjoyment of her home. To resolve her complaint the resident wanted financial compensation for the landlord’s failure to allow her quiet enjoyment of her home.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. This service previously investigated a complaint referred from the resident about reports of anti-social behaviour concerning her neighbour. This service will not investigate any of the issues, or the matters that were already considered as part of the previous investigation.
  2. The resident raised concerns that her neighbour had not been through the proper vetting process prior to being granted her tenancy. Under paragraph 42(h) of Housing Ombudsman Scheme this service may not consider complaints that ‘concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes’. As this relationship is not between the resident and the landlord this aspect of her complaint will not be considered.

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour

  1. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that when it receives reports of ASB, it will assess the vulnerabilities of the victim, carry out an investigation, and then attempt resolution through early intervention methods such as mediation. After these actions, it will then consider the use of formal enforcement action such as legal actions.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that on occasions where it is noted that it is “not best placed to lead on the resolution of a case… staff will ensure that residents are aware of this arrangement”. The landlord’s communication of this arrangement was dealt with as part of the resident’s previous complaint with this service. This has not therefore been considered as part of this complaint.
  3. The resident was involved in mediation with her neighbour when the incidents in October and November occurred. Her point of contact for any incidents at this time was the mediator. She informed him of the incidents, and he advised her to go to the police. She did this, and the police visited the resident on 4 December 2021 but took no further action.
  4. The resident did not report this incident to the landlord until 6 December 2021, when she made her complaint. Since the resident and her neighbour’s mediation was ongoing, the landlord would have directed the resident to speak with her point of contact. Due to the resident already completing this, the mediator managed the report of the incident appropriately. This indicates the landlord had sufficiently made the resident aware of the correct process whilst the mediation was ongoing and the reported issue was appropriately addressed.
  5. The landlord did not receive the resident’s emails about the incidents due to its spam filter. Although the mediator handled the specific incidents as the landlord intended, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge or record the events caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. 
  6. The resident also raised other ASB-related issues in the timeframe of the investigation. These were issues with rubbish being placed outside her door, the placement of the neighbour’s bins, and the neighbour being seen at the property after they moved out. The landlord visited the property when investigating the rubbish and appears to have found no further cause for action. The landlord also reiterated to the resident in its stage 2 response that the neighbour would not be moving back into the block.
  7. There were no further significant incidents reported to the landlord, whilst the resident’s neighbour moved out of the property in April 2022. Given the lack of additional incidents following the mediation process there was no evidence that the landlord needed to begin the use of formal enforcement actions.
  8. The resident has requested compensation from the landlord for its failure to allow her quiet enjoyment of her home. As the landlord explained in its stage 2 response, the right to quiet enjoyment means the right to make use of your home without the disturbance from your landlord or anyone acting on their behalf. There is no evidence that the landlord’s actions or any of its contractors have breached this right.
  9. Whilst the landlord would not be expected to take different actions in response to the reports, the resident’s emails not receiving an acknowledgement or response caused her distress and inconvenience. The landlord offered the resident £400 for this. This service considers this was appropriate reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, it aims to respond to a complaint within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to provide its response within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord failed to fulfil its obligations at stage 1. The resident first raised her complaint on 6 December 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 2 March 2022. Following this, it did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 11 May 2022. It took the landlord over 6 months to respond to the resident’s complaint.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord again failed to fulfil its obligations under its policy. After receiving the resident’s request for escalation, it took 25 working days to provide its stage 2 response. Its actions again constituted a failure in adhering to its policies.
  4. The landlord’s reasons for its delays were due to its spam filter blocking the resident’s e-mail address. The resident informed the landlord, via different means, that she had raised a complaint on multiple occasions. The landlord failed to investigate this until 16 May 2022. The landlord failed to be proactive or to recognise the issue despite the resident’s efforts.
  5. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 complaint response. For these, it offered the resident £450. It broke this down as £50 for the delay at stage 1, and £400 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience its actions caused throughout the complaints process. Given the level of distress and inconvenience to the resident, this was an offer of reasonable redress.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. If the landlord has not already paid the £850 compensation it offered to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response on 28 June 2022, it should reoffer this.