The Guinness Partnership Limited (202424349)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat and has the use of a wheelchair. The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour in 2023 which the landlord investigated both in 2023 and again in 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords:
   1. Handling of reports of ASB.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlords handling of the ASB.
   2. A reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the ASB

5. The landlord acknowledged a number of failures within its complaint responses in relation to its handling of the resident’s 2 ASB cases. However, it did not acknowledge all of its communication failures, the delays or lack of completing an action plan and the failure to issue a timely warning to the neighbour. Additionally, it did not fully address the resident’s worry and the impact on her. While it apologised and offered compensation, this was not sufficient to put things right.

Complaint Handling

6. The landlord did not respond in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) or its policy but has apologised and offered compensation which was proportionate to the failures identified and the impact on the resident. It demonstrated that it had taken learning from its failures.

Putting things right

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we have not looked at

7. In the complaint the resident raised the impact the ASB had on her physical and mental health. We do not dispute this, but it would be fairer, more reasonable, and effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute. We’ve not investigated this further but can decide if the landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
8. In her formal complaint, the resident said the ASB had been ongoing for over 2 years. While we do not dispute this, we may not consider issues that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the issue arising. In this case, due to the lack of available evidence and due to passage of time, we have not looked at any historical events. This investigation has focused on the issues which occurred in the 12 months prior to the complaint beginning in June 2023. This is also acknowledged in the landlord’s complaint response. We have considered matters up to the stage 2 response but not beyond that date, as any new issues had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of ASB

9. When the resident reported the ASB from her neighbour on 16 June 2023, the evidence shows that the landlord tried to contact the resident the same date to discuss the ASB. The landlord was unable to contact the resident and so appropriately issued a letter to her asking her to contact it, otherwise it would close the case.
10. Following that, the landlord and resident spoke on 19 June 2023. However, we cannot see that the landlord completed an action plan with the resident or completed a risk assessment. This was not in line with its policy which sets out that it would agree a plan with the resident to tackle the ASB.
11. On 19 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to discuss the possibility of herself sending the neighbour a letter to help resolve the issues. The landlord appropriately encouraged this, in line with its ASB policy which sets out that it would encourage residents to resolve matters on their own.
12. The resident provided a copy of the letter to the landlord for it review on 22 June 2023. However, the resident retracted this following a further reported incident on 24 June 2023. The landlord contacted the resident again on 27 June 2023; however, this was outside of its 2 working day timescale to contact residents. While the delay was not detrimental in this instance, the landlord needs to ensure to has an effective system in place to ensure it follows its policy timescales.
13. On that date, the landlord said it would reach out to the neighbour to discuss the ASB and appropriately encouraged the resident to continue reporting issues. However, the landlord did not try to contact the neighbour until 17 July 2023, just over 3 weeks after it said it would. This is not in line with its ASB policy which said it would work with both parties to agree a plan to tackle the ASB.
14. During this period, the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates. If the landlord had agreed an action plan with her, it could have set a contact schedule to manage expectations. Its failure to do so left the resident uncertain about the steps it was taking, prompting her to seek updates.
15. On 27 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say there had been no direct incidents, but the neighbour had been staring out the window at her and talking to others about her. As the neighbour had also made counter allegations, the landlord responded to say it would continue to monitor the situation. Neighbour disputes are often hard for a landlord to manage, but the landlord clarified that it did not have enough evidence to support action. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord to continue to monitor the situation.
16. It may have been useful though, at that stage, for the landlord to have set out to the resident what behaviour would constitute ASB to manage her expectations.
17. The ASB officer informed the resident it would provide an update after a period of annual leave; however, it did not do so which caused the resident to chase the landlord. Landlords need to ensure they have effective diary management to ensure they make callbacks within the timeframes promised. Not doing caused the resident to chase the landlord for updates.
18. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 August 2023 to say that it did not have enough evidence to progress with any enforcement action at that stage. A landlord must ensure in cases of ASB its action is proportionate to the issues raised. It was entitled, based on the evidence it had, to not take any further action at that stage.
19. On that date, it appropriately asked the resident to consider mediation. The resident responded to say she had asked for this “more than once” but told it would be “tricky” due to the case history. While we do not dispute this, we do not have evidence from either party to make a determination about this issue. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer this at that stage.
20. The resident agreed to mediation; however, we cannot see that the landlord acted upon that request until it raised the issue again on 7 September 2023 when the resident declined the mediation as she had written a letter to the neighbour.
21. The landlord responded to say it felt the letter the resident had written was fair and did not proportion blame. It appropriately told the resident to contact it if any further issues arose.
22. The landlord closed the ASB case in October 2023. In the absence of evidence to support the residents claim, the landlord was entitled to close the ASB case and take no further action. However, we cannot see that it communicated this to the resident. It did acknowledge this failing and apologise in its complaint response.
23. The resident reported a further incident on 25 April 2024 when the neighbour made a threat to kill the resident and kicked her door. The landlord appropriately reopened the ASB case. While it completed a risk assessment, it has not provided evidence to show that it completed an action plan with the resident. Doing so would have enabled the landlord to manage the resident’s expectation around the steps it would take to tackle the issue and the frequency and method of communication it would use to update the resident.
24. After the incident, the landlord provided the resident with a video doorbell and offered a panic alarm. These measures were reasonable and demonstrated the landlord’s concern for the resident’s safety.
25. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it would liaise with health professionals and the police for details about the incident. The evidence shows the landlord did this on 1 May 2024. The landlord continued to liaise with both health professionals and the police throughout the duration of the case.
26. The landlord appropriately conducted a home visit to the neighbour to discuss the incident. Given the serious nature of the incident, this was reasonable and in line with its policy. It also issued a warning to the neighbour, in line with its policy.
27. It confirmed to the resident, on 24 May 2024, that it had issued the warning which involved the neighbour refraining from all contact with the resident and confirmed it would continue to work with the services to monitor the situation. While we are aware the landlord was unable to disclose the full nature of the conversation with the neighbour, its update was helpful and aimed to provide reassurance to the resident that it was working to resolve the situation.
28. However, the evidence shows it did not actually issue the warning to the neighbour until 6 June 2024; 13 days after it said it had. While it was in line with its policy that it had issued the warning, during that time the resident had continued to report the neighbour calling at her window, which she believed had put the neighbour in breach of the warning. Telling the resident it had issued the warning, at a time when it had not, raised her expectations that it could take further formal action against the neighbour. This was unreasonable.
29. On 1 June 2024, the resident reported a further incident in which the neighbour had caused harm to themselves and had been waving a knife threatening to stab people. Given, the serious nature of the incident it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reached out the resident to have revisited the risk assessment and a further opportunity for it to have completed an action plan with the resident.
30. Evidence shows the landlord did not contact the resident until 4 June 2024, and only after she chased for an update. This lack of communication—especially after a serious incident—was inappropriate and contrary to its policy, which required responding to ASB reports within 2 working days, or sooner if someone was at high risk of harm. Given the severity of the reported incident, the landlord should have contacted the resident at the earliest opportunity and not after she had to chase the landlord again for updates.
31. The landlord provided an update on the action it had taken on 12 June 2024 when it also put further counter allegations to the resident. While we understand the landlord must investigate all reports of ASB, given the serious nature of the incident on 2 June 2024, and the resident’s continued reports of issues, including concerns for her safety, it may have been useful for the landlord to have considered completing a home visit to the resident to discuss the concerns. Its email on 12 June 2024 lacked empathy and did not highlight an understanding about the resident’s perceived risk.
32. The resident reported a further incident on 28 June 2024, yet we cannot see that the landlord responded to the resident. This caused her to chase the landlord again on 8 July 2024. While during that time we can see the landlord was liaising with the neighbour in relation to any support needed, it is not appropriate that it seemingly ignored the resident and her concerns.
33. Due to the resident’s concerns of the ongoing ASB and the landlords lack of communication, she reported the landlord to the community trigger process held on 18 July 2024. While we have not been provided details of this, the landlord was asked to contact the resident to discuss the ongoing ASB. While it emailed the resident on the same date to advice it would visit her to discuss the concerns, it did not do so. Instead, it closed the case on 5 August 2024. While the landlord was entitled to close the case given the lack of evidence of ASB to support taking any further action, not following through with the action of contact was inappropriate.
34. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reached out to the resident prior to closing the case to understand if the ASB had stopped or if she had just stopped reporting the issues. Its failure to do so showed a lack of empathy towards the resident and her perceived risk.
35. Throughout the ASB case, the resident repeatedly asked the landlord to take formal action against the neighbour, including legal steps. When a resident reports ASB, a landlord has two key duties: first, to conduct a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the behaviour; second, to balance the evidence and both parties’ rights before deciding on appropriate action. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord’s investigation was proportionate and its actions within its powers. In this case, we have seen evidence that the landlord considered appropriately options, and its response to not undertake any legal action was proportionate and in line with its policy.
36. The resident also raised with the landlord many times the impact the situation with her neighbour was having on her wellbeing, including that it had caused a decline on her mental health. Yet we have seen no evidence that show that the landlord ever considered offering support or signposting to the resident. Landlords need to take a victim centred approach to ASB and its failure to offer support to the resident did not align with this principle.
37. During the second investigation into the ASB, the landlord underwent a restructure which meant the ASB case came under its safer neighbourhoods’ team (SNT). The SNT spent time liaising with the police and health professionals following the transfer to ensure the neighbour was receiving support and to understand if any legal action was pursued. While this was positive, the SNT only reached out the resident once in the time in which it handled the case before closure. Its lack of communication was not appropriate, especially following the reporting of a serious incident.
38. However, it is important to note that the landlord accepted its communication had been poor at the time of both ASB cases, and that it had failed to respond or delayed in responding at many points throughout the duration of the ASB cases. It apologised and offered compensation of £200 to reflect the failings in its communication and its delays. However, the landlord missed to acknowledge failures identified in this report such as its delays in mediation during he first ASB, further delays with action plan and clarity about it and its considerable failure to issue warning in a timely manner.
39. Additionally, it did not fully recognise the impact on the resident. As such, we have found the compensation was not enough to reflect the failings and to put things right for the resident. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s award of £200 is within this range but does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. Nor does it reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord missed the chance to put things right resulting in the finding of maladministration.

40. Our Code sets out 2 stages of complaint process and when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales, which are 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
    2. The resident raised a complaint about ASB in an email response to a different complaint on 6 June 2024. We have not seen evidence to show the landlord acknowledged that complaint in line with its policy.
    3. The resident then raised a complaint about the same issue via the landlord’s website on 10 June 2024. Again, the landlord has not evidenced that it acknowledged the complaint.
    4. As the resident had not received a response to her complaint, she requested to escalate this to stage 2 on 11 July 2024. We cannot see that the landlord acknowledged this request.
    5. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 16 August 2024 to ask for an extension before it replied. In that request, the landlord said it was responding at stage 2 meaning it had skipped providing a stage 1 response. This is not appropriate, even where there is a delay in providing a response, the resident was still entitled to pursue her complaint through a 2 stage complaint process to ensure fair outcome.
    6. It is also important to note that the extension request came 6 days after the response was due. The landlord needs to ensure it communicates any delay to the resident at the earliest opportunity and prior to the response due date.
    7. The landlord provided the stage 2 response within the timescale set out in its extension request.
    8. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £175 compensation which amounts to a reasonable offer of redress and is in line with our guidance on remedies. The landlord confirmed the learning it had undertaken as a result of the failures it had identified and explained the steps it had taken to put things right.
    9. As such the compensation was sufficient to acknowledge the time and trouble caused to the resident and we are satisfied that it has taken steps to prevent this failing in the future.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in this case, which is essential for thorough investigations. In ASB cases, accurate records allow the landlord to review the full history and make informed decisions about appropriate actions to take.

Communication

42. The landlord did not demonstrate effective communication in this case, a key aspect of ASB case management and effective complaint handling. Going forward, it needs to ensure it sets clear timeframes for providing updates to residents to manage expectations.