The Guinness Partnership Limited (201911472)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911472

The Guinness Partnership Limited

10 May 2021

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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The length of the notice period required by the landlord before the resident left the property, as well as the rent payable during this period.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The length of the notice period required by the landlord before the resident left the property and the rent payable during this period.

On 26 May 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and informed it that she wished to vacate the property and gave two weeks’ notice. The resident called this Service on 21 July 2020 and stated that the landlord had informed her that she was required to give four weeks’ notice and that it was requesting the rent for this period be paid in full.
During a further telephone conversation between this Service and the resident on 10 February 2021, the resident stated that the issue of rent arrears had now gone to court and she that had received a court order requiring her to pay the arrears.
Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider matters that “are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings”. The issue of the notice period and the amount of rent payable during this period have been the subject of legal proceedings. Therefore these matters will not be considered by the Ombudsman as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association, from February 2013 until June 2020. The property is a flat in a communal building.

Summary of Events

On 15 November 2018, the resident contacted the landlord to report drug use by individuals in the communal areas of the building. The landlord opened an ASB case and called the resident on 16 November 2018 to discuss the matter.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 November 2018 with an action plan regarding the ASB. It informed the resident that it would:
1. Employ security guards to patrol the estate.
2. Interview a neighbour to determine whether they were linked to the individuals who were reported by the resident as using drugs.
3. Engage with the police so that a police presence or regular patrols of the estate could take place.
The landlord also requested that the resident send it any incident logs, pass on any recordings or photographs showing ASB, and advised her to report any incidents to Crimestoppers, highlighting that she would not be required to give any personal information when making such reports.
On 22 November 2018 the landlord and resident discussed the security guard patrols and the latest issues she had experienced. The landlord advised her to pass on any photographs and also made internal enquiries relating to the door entry system of the building allowing access to non-residents.
On 27 November 2018 the resident informed the landlord of recent incidents of drug use she had witnessed and described the effect that this was having on herself and her family. The resident also requested to meet with the landlord to discuss the ongoing issues.
The landlord replied to the resident on 27 November 2018. It informed her that it had spoken with the police regarding obtaining a dispersal order, that it would be writing to two households which may have been linked with this issue, and that it had contacted the local authority’s ASB team to request a meeting. The landlord also requested feedback on the effectiveness of the security guards serving the building.
A meeting was arranged for 5 December 2018 between the landlord, the local authority’s ASB team and the police. A follow-up meeting between the landlord and the neighbourhood policing team was then held. An internal landlord email sent on 21 December 2018 summarised the follow-up meeting and stated that it was informed by the neighbourhood policing team that patrols had been stepped up and the use of stop and search had been increased, that the police’s violent crime team had made arrests, and that they had delivered leaflets to all households on the estate giving information on how to report incidents.
On 7 January 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that it had closed the ASB case and provided information on how to report any further incidents. It also informed her that if any incidents were reported within three months of closing the case, the ASB case would then be reopened.
On 8 November 2019 the resident used the landlord’s website to raise a formal complaint. The resident described the elements of her complaint as the ongoing issues of drug use in the communal areas of the building and the landlord’s response to this.
The resident described the effect of the smell of drugs entering her property and her frustration that when she had raised the issue with the landlord, she was advised to report the matter to the police. The resident held that it should be the landlord’s responsibility to contact the police and for it not to do so was a breach of its responsibilities under her tenancy agreement.
On 29 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and informed it she had yet to receive a response to her request to raise a complaint. She also included a copy of the original complaint she had submitted to the landlord’s website.
The landlord replied to the resident on 3 December 2019 and informed her that her email had been passed on to the member of staff who was handling the matter.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 December 2019 and requested to escalate her complaint. She also requested that all correspondence be via email, rather than receiving telephone calls. The resident also highlighted her concerns about the impact of the ASB on the health of her family and that it would be unlikely she would be able to successfully transfer properties while the issue remained outstanding.
On 4 December 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her of the action it had recently taken. It stated that it had written a letter to all residents of the building regarding drug use and passed on the resident’s concerns directly to the police. The landlord also advised the resident to first contact the police for ASB matters relating to drug use as “they have policing powers to arrest/caution/disperse users from particular areas”.
The landlord wrote again to the resident on 6 December 2019. It apologised to the resident if she felt it was not supporting her and noted that it was limited in what enforcement it can make on matters relating to the law. It reiterated its earlier advice to report any further incidents to the police and informed the resident that it had spoken with the local police, who had agreed to “keep a close eye on the goings on in your block”.
The landlord also informed the resident that if she was able to provide it with the identity of the neighbours she believed were involved, it would be able to work with her in order to prevent illegal drug use. The landlord further assured the resident that her details would not be disclosed to the neighbours concerned.
Between 24 December 2019 and 29 January 2020, the resident and landlord continued to correspond about the matter and what support it could provide her.
On 6 February 2020, the resident called this Service and expressed her dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling her complaint. Following further correspondence with the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 25 March 2020 to enquire on the status of the resident’s complaint. The landlord replied on 26 March 2020 and confirmed that it had now opened a formal complaint into the matter.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 March 2020 to confirm that it had opened a complaint and that it aimed to send a response within ten working days.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 April 2020. In this, it stated that, following the closure of the ASB case in January 2019, it did not receive any further reports from the resident until November 2019. The landlord informed the resident that, following a review of the correspondence, it was not in a position to take further action against any neighbours as she did not provide any detail of the individuals that she suspected of being involved. The landlord noted that it had written a letter to all residents of the building reminding them of their expected conduct and encouraged the resident to contact the police if she felt threatened. It further informed her that it had made the local police aware of her reports.
The landlord concluded the response by stating it was satisfied that the ASB case was properly closed, that the reports made by the resident from November 2019 onwards were correctly responded to and noted that although it took all reports of ASB seriously, it was unable to take action against individuals without first gathering evidence to support the action.
On 26 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction that the ASB was still ongoing and that she had received no contact from it for ten weeks. She described the latest issues she had experienced and gave notice to it that she was ending the tenancy. The landlord replied on 27 May 2020 and informed the resident that her email had been passed on to its lettings team, who would be in touch to discuss the notice period for her to end the tenancy.
On 29 May 2020 the resident called this Service and informed us of her unhappiness that the landlord wanted the notice period to be four weeks, as she gave two weeks’ notice before leaving the property. She requested that this element was added to her formal complaint. This Service passed on the resident’s request to the landlord, who replied on 3 June 2020. The landlord stated that it had already sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 April 2020. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 11 June 2020 and provided a copy of the stage one response.
On 19 October 2020 the resident called this Service and stated that the landlord had not responded to several requests she had made to escalate the complaint to stage two of its process. This Service passed on the resident’s comments to the landlord. It replied on 21 October 2020 to explain that it had no record of an escalation request from the resident, but that it would now contact her and escalate the complaint to stage two.
On 30 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It informed her that it had been attempting to call her to discuss her complaint and enquired what the outstanding issues were and her desired outcome to resolve the complaint.
The resident responded on 3 November 2019. She informed the landlord that she was “unhappy with all aspects of the complaint”. She explained that she felt she was forced to leave the property due to health and safety issues, that she and her family were “forced to inhale cannabis for more than 14 hours a day”, and that she did not believe that the landlord properly addressed her reports of ASB and the issue of drug use and drug dealing in the area.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 3 November 2020. It informed her that:
1. It had attempted to call the resident on 21 and 30 October 2020 to discuss the complaint and enquire on the outcome the resident was looking for to resolve the matter. However, it was unable to speak with her or leave a message.
2. It then sent a follow-up email which the resident replied to. However, her email did not specify what her desired outcome to the complaint was.
3. It had undertaken a review of the complaint and it was satisfied that it was handled appropriately at stage one of its process.
4. When the ASB being reported is of a criminal nature it should be reported to the police and that, based on the information she provided, its staff members took as much action as the evidence allowed.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not; rather it is our role to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as: “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”. The behaviour the resident had reported, including drug taking would meet this definition of ASB.
In line with the tenancy agreement and its ASB policy, the landlord had an obligation to investigate the ASB which the resident had reported. The landlord would be expected to investigate by interviewing the alleged perpetrators and gathering further evidence by asking the resident to provide incident logs and recordings etc. The landlord would also be expected to liaise with other organisations such as the police and local authority as appropriate to address any allegations of criminal activity such as drug taking. The landlord could only take formal action against the alleged perpetrators if there was extensive evidence to support the allegations.
When the resident first informed the landlord of drug use in the communal areas on 15 November 2018, it opened an ASB case on the same day and on the following day it called the resident to discuss the issue, then sent an action plan.
The landlord arranged to have security guards patrol the area and liaised with the local authority’s ASB team and the police. Following a meeting with the neighbourhood police team, the landlord acted on advice from the police to give them access to its CCTV room, lock a gate to prevent easy exits of suspected perpetrators when they attended the estate, and to consider the installation of bollards.
These actions saw a reduction in ASB, and the case was closed by the landlord on 7 January 2019.
Overall, the landlord has followed its ASB policy during this case. It identified the reports made to by the resident as ASB, contacted her within its timescales and sent an action plan within 24 hours. It employed security guards, wrote to all residents to remind them of their responsibilities as per their tenancy agreements, remained in contact with the resident and sought her feedback on the effectiveness of the action it had taken.
The landlord also recognised the seriousness of the ASB, by contacting and working with the local authority and police. The landlord arranged meetings and acted on the advice given to it by the local neighbourhood police team. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident made any further reports to the landlord until November 2019. In the absence of any further reports, the landlord may have reasonably assumed the matter was resolved and would not have been expected to take any further action during this time.
When the resident made further reports of ASB in November 2019, the landlord again responded within its timescales. It wrote to all residents regarding the issue and advised the resident to inform the police of any criminal activity. The landlord passed on the resident’s concerns to the local neighbourhood police team.
The landlord also informed the resident that it would be unable to take action against any individual residents unless it had corroborating evidence of their behaviour. For a landlord to take formal action against an alleged perpetrator it requires sufficient supporting evidence to enable to take further action.
In summary, it is evident that the landlord responded to the reports of ASB made by the resident in line with its obligations, acknowledging her reports and undertaking an investigation. The landlord liaised with the police, wrote to all residents regarding illegal drug use, and raised the resident’s case with the local authority’s ASB team. Given the lack of supporting evidence to confirm the identity of the perpetrators, it was reasonable that the landlord did not pursue formal action against individual residents. However, the neighbourhood police team did inform the landlord that arrests had been made that related to the issues raised by the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy describe its two-stage complaints process. Paragraph 9 of the policy relates to timescales and states that the landlord:

“aims to resolve all complaints within ten working days of receiving them. This is the first stage of our process. We will discuss the complaint with the customer to try and agree an effective solution. We will keep customers informed at regular intervals about what we are doing to fix the problem. If the customers are dissatisfied with the proposed solution, they can move to the second stage where a manager who has not previously been involved in the complaint will complete a review within a further ten working days. Normally, we will only conduct a review of a complaint within six months of the complaint being received.”

The resident’s email sent to the landlord on 29 November 2019 was titled “FORMAL complaint” and clearly stated in the first line that the resident had attempted to raise a complaint through the landlord’s website on 8 November 2019 and that she wanted a formal complaint opened into how her reports of ASB had been handled.
This email was passed on to a member of the landlord’s staff who was the resident’s point-of-contact when the ASB case was open. This member of staff then dealt with the recent incidents of ASB reported by the resident. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord passed the 29 November 2019 email on to its complaints team, in line with its process as set out above.
It took the intervention of this Service on 25 March 2020 (four months later) before the landlord opened a formal complaint. The stage one complaint response sent on 8 April 2020 did not make any reference to this delay.
Moreover, the stage one complaint response did not provide any information on how the resident could request an escalation of the complaint. This appears to have caused confusion as the resident was of the opinion that she had requested an escalation, while the landlord had stated it had no record of an escalation request. It again took the intervention of this service for the complaint to be escalated.
The delays in opening a formal complaint and not providing any information in the stage one response on how to escalate the complaint to stage two are service failures by the landlord. These elements should have been addressed in the complaints process and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide an apology to the resident and to have considered suitable redress for any distress and inconvenience caused by these errors. In view of this, the landlord should now offer the resident £150 compensation .

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took appropriate action in line with its ASB Policy when investigating the resident’s reports.
It was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action against individual residents given the lack of supporting evidence.
The landlord did not open a formal complaint when first requested to by the resident causing a delay of four months. The landlord also did not explain in the stage one response how to escalate the complaint, causing confusion as to whether the resident had, or had not, submitted an escalation request. This caused a further delay.
The landlord did not address the delays in the complaints process in either of the two responses it sent to the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £150 compensation for its service failure in its complaint handling.
This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.