Sovereign Network Homes (202113716)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113716

Network Housing

27 April 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

The complaint is about:

The landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived at the property since 2010. The property is a first floor, three-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident had experienced previous incidents of anti-social behaviour caused by the resident and family of a neighbouring flat. The landlord’s records show that there are no vulnerabilities noted for the resident on their systems.
This Service has previously made a determination on a case relating to the same anti-social behaviour issues as reported by the resident, however this investigation focused on further incidents reported by the resident, following the outcome of the previous case in 2020.

Summary

The resident provided the landlord with an ASB incident log on 4 August 2021. She reported that threats had been made by her neighbour’s adult daughter towards her own daughter on 28 July 2021.
On 8 August 2021 the resident sent an email to another of the landlord’s officers as she had not received a response to her email dated 4 August 2021. The resident also asked for confirmation as to who her housing officer was so that she could report ongoing anti-social behaviour caused by her neighbour.
On 14 August 2021 the resident sent another email to the landlord, attaching the incident log she had sent to it on 4 August 2021. She again asked the landlord to respond to her about her reports of anti-social behaviour.
The landlord’s customer service team responded to the resident on 17 August 2021 via email and advised her that she should receive a response from its neighbourhood team within the next five days. The resident was also advised to contact the police via 999 in the event she received any threats. It also provided a link to its website where the resident could find out more information on anti-social behaviour. The landlord’s records show that its customer services team called the resident the following day and the resident confirmed that there had been no further incidents since 28 July 2021. The resident was advised to call the police should the situation escalate. It stated that the details of the call had been added to the resident’s ASB case.
On 24 August 2021 and 25 August 2021 the resident sent emails to the landlord, chasing it for a response. In her email dated 25 August 2021 the resident asked again for the contact details of her neighbourhood officer and asked what action it was taking regarding the incident on 28 July 2021 and further incidents since then. She advised that she had been informed that a member of its neighbourhood team would be contacting her.
The landlord called the resident on 25 August 2021 and advised that it had logged a call back request for its neighbourhood team. The resident was advised again to contact the police if there was any escalation in the anti-social behaviour. In a further email that same day the resident asked the landlord to provide her with a copy of the ASB incident form she had provided to it on 4 August 2021 so that she could pass a copy to the police.
The resident chased the landlord again via email for a response on 1 September 2021. She stated that the incident on 28 July 2021 which she had reported was serious and asked if she could have the direct telephone number for its neighbourhood team so that she could call them to discuss the incident. She also asked if she anti-social behaviour case.
The landlord’s customer service team responded to the resident via email the following day and asked if she had completed an online ASB form for via its website and provided the details of the police officer investigating the alleged incidents. The landlord further advised that they had called the resident on 18 August 2021 where she confirmed that there had been no further incidents with her neighbour. It also advised that all customers must first go through its customer services team when reporting anti-social behaviour, but that customers could contact its officers directly where the officer had provided their telephone number.
On 3 September 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord in which she stated;
1. She had completed an ASB incident report form via its website in August 2021. Within the form she had provided the details of the police officer dealing with the alleged incident from July 2021 and also provided the related crime reference number.
2. She had received an automated response email confirming receipt of her form on 28 August 2021.
3. She stated that the email response informed her that she would receive a reply within two working days but the landlord had not responded.
4. She confirmed that she had received a call from an officer of the landlord, however she had asked in a previous complaint that this officer did not contact her in the future. She also named another officer who she did not want to speak to.
5. She reported feeling stressed and infuriated by the landlord’s lack of action in her case and also felt that it was only interested in closing down her case.
6. She requested that its neighbourhood team contacted her within the next two days and asked for written confirmation of the actions it had taken so far in her case.
The landlord’s customer services team responded to the residents email on 6 September 2021. It apologised for its delays in responding to her. It confirmed that it had passed her call back request to its neighbourhood team who would call her within the following five days. It also confirmed that it would request that two officers named by the resident would not contact her, as per her request. The resident responded to the email that same day and voiced her frustrations that she would have to wait another five days for a call back when she had requested a two-day response, and written confirmation of the actions it had taken.
The landlord’s customer service team responded to the resident via email the following day. It apologised for her not receiving contact with the timescale she requested and stated that it had passed her query to its neighbourhood team and had logged this on her anti-social behaviour case. It reassured her that the team would contact her as soon as possible.
On 9 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord via email again to chase it for a response. In her email she outlined the following;
1. She stated that she was frustrated and found the landlord’s inaction wholly unacceptable, given the serious nature of the incident with her neighbours on 28 July 2021.
2. The resident requested that the landlord opened a formal complaint on her behalf as she felt it had showed a lack of professionalism, empathy and understanding in dealing with her case. She also outlined the stress it had caused her which had taken a toll on her mental and physical health.
3. She outlined again that she had requested a call back and a letter from it but after several weeks she had not had any response or offers of support.
4. She requested that the landlord responded to her complaint within the next seven working days.
5. In a separate email that same day, she asked the landlord to confirm receipt of her formal complaint request.
The landlord confirmed receipt of the residents formal complaint on 13 September 2021. It stated its complaints team were investigating and would respond to her directly. It also confirmed that it had passed the details of her complaint to its neighbourhood team and requested that they contact her. It had also added the details to her anti-social behaviour case.
On 14 September 2021 the landlord’s complaints team contacted the resident via email. It thanked her for making contact on 11 September 2021 although it is noted from the landlord’s records that this was the date that the resident’s complaint was sent by its customer service team to its complaints team; the resident made her formal complaint request on 9 September 2021. It confirmed to the resident that it would investigate her complaint and issue its response by 27 September 2021; within 10 working days. It would contact her should its investigations take longer.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord’s head of neighbourhood management sent an email to the resident. They stated that they had been contacted by the complaints team regarding her request for a call back. The email further stated that they would call the resident that same day or the following day.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records if the call outlined above was made, however on 20 September 2021 the landlord’s head of neighbourhood management sent another email to the resident. They stated the following;
1. They wanted to discuss her concerns around the management of the building within which her flat was located and how its neighbourhood management team could assist her.
2. They asked for her availability and contact number so they could call to discuss her concerns.
3. They wanted to understand why the resident did not want to deal with two members of the team.
4. They referred back to a historic offer of setting up an meeting between the resident and the landlord’s officers to discuss her concerns. They stated that they were still happy to facilitate such a meeting and they would attend also.
5. They stated that they wanted to resolve the resident’s concerns amicably.
The resident responded to this email that same day and confirmed that she had requested a call back from the landlord’s neighbourhood team, which she had never received. She confirmed that a member of staff she had asked not to contact her had called her, despite her wishes for that not to happen. She also asked if they had an update on a request unrelated to this case, which was regarding the front garden of the properties being changed into a parking space, which the landlord’s head of neighbourhood management had dealt with previously. Further emails between the resident centred around her request for the front garden to be changed to a parking space.
On 27 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident in which it stated;
1. It confirmed that it had received her formal complaint request on 9 September 2021.
2. It apologised for the delay in responding to her report of an anti-social behaviour incident which occurred on 28 July 2021.
3. It confirmed that it had sent a warning letter to her neighbour in relation to that incident.
4. It confirmed that an officer from its neighbourhood team had called her, however stated that the resident had since stated that she did not wish to deal with that officer. It reiterated its offer to arrange a meeting between the resident and the officer to resolve her concerns as the officer was responsible for the management of the resident’s property.
5. It confirmed that the resident’s anti-social behaviour case had been passed to another officer to investigate. It would review the resident’s case once the officer had interviewed the resident about her concerns and agreed an action plan with her.
On 3 October 2021 the resident sent a letter to the landlord advising that she was not satisfied with its stage one response and requested an escalation to stage two of its complaints process. The landlord confirmed her request the following day and stated that it would provide its stage two response by 1 November 2021.
On 5 October 2021 the landlord’s newly assigned officer to the residents case contacted her and agreed actions which it confirmed in an email as follows;
1. It stated that it took all reports of anti-social behaviour extremely seriously.
2. It requested that the resident reported any further incidents to the police and asked her to provide it with any crime reference numbers.
3. It would contact the police directly to request relevant information and to confirm what action(s) the police were taking.
4. It would arrange an interview with the resident’s neighbour and discuss the alleged anti-social behaviour with them.
5. It asked the resident to send her video evidence to it so that it could carry out a review.
6. It would contact the resident again on 22 October 2021 to review the situation and offer the resident support.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord interviewed the resident’s neighbour via telephone regarding the alleged incidents of anti-social behaviour. Counter allegations were made against the resident. The landlord advised the neighbour that due to the threat of violence made, they would receive a warning letter outlining its intentions to seek possession of the property should there be any repeat of the behaviour. The landlord later sent the warning letter to the neighbour.
On 13 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report an further incident of ASB caused by her neighbour. The landlord’s customer services team responded to the resident and advised that they had added the details to her anti-social behaviour case. They also advised that the officer dealing with her case would contact her as agreed on 22 October 2021.
The landlord’s records show that on 20 October 2021 it received an update from the police who advised that due to a lack of supporting evidence, no action was being taken against the resident’s neighbour. The police advised that they had given words of advice to both parties to refrain from contacting each other.
On 22 October 2021, the landlord’s officer called the resident as agreed in its action plan. However, the resident was not able to take the call due to work commitments and confirmed this in an email to the officer on 24 October 2021.
On 1 November 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident in which it stated;
1. It had reviewed the detail contained within its stage one response dated 27 September 2021.
2. It had discussed her concerns with teams involved and reviewed all of her correspondence.
3. It admitted that it had not carried out a thorough investigation into her concerns.
4. It hoped that it would be able to assist the resident in resolving the ASB going forwards and would offer her support.
5. It confirmed that it had now interviewed her neighbour and reminded them of what is expected going forwards.
6. It apologised for its failings yet did not make any offer of compensation in its response.
The landlord’s records state that its neighbourhood officer attempted to call the resident about her case on 1 November 2021 but the resident did not answer.

Post complaints process

On 6 November 2021 the resident sent a detailed email to the landlord, outlining her dissatisfaction with its stage two response. She stated the following;
1. The landlord had failed to follow their own policies when handling her case, which related to what she considered a very serious case involving verbal threats and threatening behaviour.
2. It failed to make contact with her on numerous occasions despite the seriousness of the incident.
3. It had failed to explain any action they were going to take.
4. It failed to respond to her request for a written explanation of what action they had taken and when.
5. She felt that the landlord had treated her like a person of absolutely no importance in relation to the serious incident she had reported.
6. She stated that she was shocked and appalled that the only consequence the neighbour had received was to warn her of what is expected of her. She felt that her neighbour and her adult daughters had been given another green light to do whatever they feel without consequence. She stated the landlord had provided her with no information on the outcome of its interview with the neighbour and her daughters.
7. She reported that following the incident, her neighbour’s daughters who had threatened her and her family had visited several times and made their presence known in the form of noise in an attempt to annoy her.
8. She felt that the landlord had again and again failed to understand the issues she had to cope with for the last six years.
9. She outlined that the neighbourhood officer she was in contact with had explained all theoptions available to stop the ongoing harassment suffered but it seemed that none of these had been used.
10. She felt that reporting incidents to the landlord achieved nothing as they were still failing to act on her previously reported incidents. She believed that it had failed to take serious action against her neighbour for harassment.
11. She stated that she had heard all of the words and excuses made by the landlord before and years on she was still continuing to suffer with no end result in sight.
On 7 November 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident and advised that it did not have a stage three complaint within its complaints process. The landlord advised the resident that she may wish to bring her complaint to this Service or her local MP or councillor.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 November 2021 to advise that they had now interviewed her neighbour. The landlord stated that it was awaiting information from the police and would update her once the information was received. The landlord also discussed counter allegations that her neighbour had made about her. The resident denied the allegations and stated that they were malicious. No further action was taken regarding the counter allegations.
On 27 November 2021 the resident submitted an incident log to the landlord in which she reported that on 24 November 2021 her neighbour had maliciously called its repairs team out to her property due to a leak. The resident reported that her son allowed operatives access to the property to inspect the bath however no leaks were found. On 29 November 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident advising that they must investigate any reported leaks but on this occasion they had found no wrongdoing by the resident and no further action was taken.
On 9 January 2022 the resident’s neighbour moved out of the property. The landlord’s records show that the resident did not report any further incidents of anti-social behaviour after that time and her case was closed on 13 January 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it will tackle anti-social behaviour and states that it is committed to taking effective, appropriate and proportionate action using a range of tools and powers. It also outlines the following;
1. It will support its resident’s and communities in tackling ASB and manage their expectations.
2. It lists types of ASBas high level and low level; stating that it will respond to high level incidents within one working day and low level incidents within five working days.
3. It will assign an experienced neighbourhood officer to the case who will manage resident’s report and their primary point of contact.
4. This officer will complete an action plan and identify any vulnerabilities. They will carry out risk assessments and refer to appropriate support services where necessary.
5. It will work with its partners (including the police) to tackle ASB.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a two-stage complaints process. It will respond at stage one within ten working days and at stage two within 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that it will make compensation payments and offer other remedies when it upholds a resident’s complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy describes the circumstances where it will consider offering financial redress to a complaint. These include:
1. Taking too long to do something
2. Not following its own policies or the law
3. Giving the wrong information
4. Treating someone unfairly
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlies that when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour, agencies must consider the effect that such behaviour has on victims and witnesses. It also states that agencies should recognise and consider the debilitating impact on that persistent or repeated anti-social behaviour can have on victims, more so over a period of time.

The landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified

The evidence reviewed by this service shows that the resident had to chase the landlord eight times for it to respond to her report of the serious incident which she first reported on 4 August 2021. Whilst the landlord’s customer services team did respond to the resident during this period, it took three months for its neighbourhood team to contact her and agree an action plan. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will respond to reports of high level anti-social behaviour within one working day. Residents should have confidence in their landlord when reporting anti-social behaviour and it was unreasonable for the resident to have to chase the landlord for a response This Service finds that this is a significant failing in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report as it failed to follow its own policy.
During the time the resident was chasing the landlord for updates on her case, there was no evidence to show that it carried out any investigations into her reports. This means that it missed the opportunity to obtain further evidence to support the resident’s case and to resolve the situation as early as possible on her behalf. Whilst the landlord did interview and warn the neighbour about the alleged behaviour as part of its investigations, it did not do so until 12 October 2021. This is despite the fact that it was made aware of the serious incident some three months earlier. This Service finds that this is a significant failing in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report as it failed to follow its own policy and investigate and resolve anti-social behaviour as promptly as possible.
It is noted that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour improved after it reassigned her case to another officer in October 2021 however the landlord should have arranged this much sooner in the case, as per its own policies. Whilst the officer did agree reasonable and proportionate actions in the case at that time, this Service has not received any evidence to show that at any point in the case it had assessed and identified any potential vulnerabilities that the resident may have had, nor did it offer her any support. The landlord missed the opportunity to consider urgent legal action against the resident’s neighbour and her daughter by not responding to the resident’s report of the serious incident within one working day. This Service therefore finds that the landlord failed to follow its own policy and procedures.
It was appropriate for the landlord to be in discussion with the local police about the incident and is in line with its ASB policy. It was also reasonable for it await details of what action the police may have taken before deciding on its most appropriate course of action. However, the resident stated that she had provided the landlord with the police’s crime reference details in August 2021 yet the landlord’s records show that it was not until October 2021 when it requested the relevant detail from the police. Despite the landlord following its own ASB policy by requesting information from the police, the Service finds that its unexplained delays in doing so meant that it delayed its ability to resolve the resident’s case much sooner, thereby causing further inconvenience and distress to the resident.
It was appropriate for the landlord to raise counter allegations with both parties but there is no evidence that it considered speaking to other local residents as part of its investigations. Its records also show that it did not seek to obtain any other independent evidence. This Service finds that had the landlord done so at the earliest opportunity, any evidence received may have assisted it in resolving the resident’s case sooner.
Based on the findings above, this Service finds that the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour amount to maladministration.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s records show that it incorrectly logged her initial complaint on 11 Sept 2021, despite the landlord receiving it on 9 Sept 2021. This caused further delays to the resident receiving its stage one complaint response. This is despite the landlord acknowledging in its response that she had submitted her complaint on 9 September 2021.
Whilst it is positive that the landlord’s head of neighbourhoods contacted the resident to discuss her case and the associate complaint, their priority focused on repairing the relationship between the resident and a neighbourhood officer. This is opposed to the resident’s continued requests for the landlord to tackle the reported anti-social behaviour which the resident had reported some six weeks earlier. The nature of their contacts then later centred around the use of the communal front garden, again as opposed to addressing the reported anti-social behaviour. This Service finds that whilst it was appropriate for the member of staff to contact the resident directly, the landlord missed the opportunity to discuss her concerns regarding the anti-social behaviour and also to apologise and explain its delays in dealing with her case. Such action could have assisted the landlord in repairing its relationship with the resident and taking steps to tackle the anti-social behaviour.
It is encouraging that the landlord admitted in its stage two response that it had failed to properly investigate the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and that it sought to apologise for its failings. It did not however apply its own complaints and compensation policies by offering the resident any financial redress for the time, trouble and inconvenience she suffered from the landlord’s inactions. Nor did it consider the distress she suffered. This Service therefore finds that the landlord did not follow its own policies by offering any redress to the resident as a result of its identified failings.
Based on the findings above, this Service finds that the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints amount to service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond quickly, as defined in its ASB policy to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour. It did not explain the reasons for its delays to the resident who had to chase it for updates on her case. Its neighbourhoods team did not fulfil its duties by investigating as soon as possible the serious incident that the resident reported.
Whilst the landlord did eventually agree actions with the resident in October 2021, this was three months following her initial report of a serious incident involving her neighbour. Had it agreed actions with the resident when she first reported the incident in August 202, they are likely to have been different and more relevant to those it later agreed, given the short space of time between the incident occurring and the resident reporting it.
The landlord did not assess the resident’s vulnerability at the earliest possible stage and did not offer her any support during her case. This is a significant failing as the ASB, crime and policing act 2014 clearly states that landlords should put victims and witnesses at the centre of its approaches to tackling anti-social behaviour, with a key emphasis on support. Additionally, the landlord’s ASB policy states that it will assess vulnerability and offer appropriate support yet it failed to do so.
Whilst the landlord did apologise to the resident in its complaints responses, it did not consider its own policy guidelines by offering any financial redress to her for the delays, inconvenience and distress caused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, and to provide this Service with a copy of its response.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident £850 compensation which is comprised of;
1. £750 which reflects the time, trouble, inconvenience and distress the resident has experienced in this case.
2. £100 to reflect its failings in the handling of the resident’s associated complaint.