Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202204655)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204655

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

8 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background 

  1. The residents were assured tenants of the landlord from March 2017 to July 2021.
  2. The residents explain that they have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and mental health conditions, which are noted in the landlord’s evidence.
  3. From March to May 2021, they reported that their car had been vandalised, drug dealing from next door, and noise disturbances late at night from people shouting. They had previously reported that their shed had been broken into and trespassers in their garden. The residents informed the landlord their vulnerabilities meant the ASB was having a significant effect on their wellbeing.
  4. On 11 July 2021, police attended the area because fighting had broken out amongst neighbours and spilled over into the residents’ garden. The following day, the residents contacted the landlord to report that their neighbours car had been set on fire on their driveway whilst someone was sleeping inside. The residents had called the emergency services, given a statement to the police and provided a copy of their CCTV. The residents informed the landlord they were fearful of repercussions from this incident and that threats had been made towards them. They asked to be rehoused as they no longer felt safe living at the property. On 15 July 2021 they informed the landlord that they had purchased a caravan, were leaving the property, and asked for information on relinquishing the tenancy. The landlord waived the notice period.
  5. On 22 July 2021, the residents moved out of the property and informed the landlord they felt they had no option but to flee, as a neighbour had been ‘running around with a large kitchen knife’. They said it was too dangerous to take their CCTV down, so they had left this behind along with carpets, blinds and sheds.
  6. On 25 August 2021, the residents made a formal complaint. They said they had been forced to leave the property due to threats made against them, intimidating behaviour and criminal activity. They complained that this was the result of the failure of the landlord to appropriately respond to their reports of ASB and appeals for help over 2 years. The residents claimed approximately £30,000 compensation, which included loss of income as a result of closing their business, the cost of personal belongings left behind and the cost of hotel stays.
  7. The landlord provided its stage one response on 3 September 2021. It detailed the ASB that had been reported since the beginning of the tenancy and the advice given and action taken as a response. It stated it contacted the residents following the incident of July 2021 and provided details of emergency accommodation following their request to be rehoused, however they did not wish to contact the homelessness team. The landlord agreed to fit a fireproof letterbox to the property and made a referral for the residents to a Victim Care and Support service.
  8. The landlord stated it had worked with the police in relation to the incident, and acted on every report it received within its power as a landlord. The landlord believed it provided alternatives to try and find a resolution for the residents, and cleared the property in good faith as left over items would usually be disposed of at the end of a tenancy. It said it was unclear what the closure of the business related to, as there was not a record of a business registered at the property, so did not comment. The landlord did not recognise any failings in its handling of the ASB reports and did not offer any compensation.
  9. The residents remained dissatisfied and escalated their complaint on 3 November 2021. They reiterated their complaint that the landlord had failed in its duty of care towards their family, and was responsible for their current situation.
  10. The landlord provided its response on 15 November 2021, and reconfirmed its position that the correct action was taken in response to the ASB reports. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
  11. Unhappy with this response, the residents referred their complaint to this Service. They stated that they have incurred significant financial losses as a result of the landlord’s handling of ASB and their need to flee their home. They are unhappy the landlord has failed to acknowledge any shortcomings in its approach and have complained it failed to adhere to its own policies or provide any meaningful support. To resolve the complaint, the residents would like £30,000 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The residents refer to a history of ASB, beginning in 2017, with an improvement in 2020, and the issues beginning again in early 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. Residents are encouraged to bring the unresolved problems through to the Ombudsman after the landlord’s complaints process, as this will enable any areas of potential service failure to be identified and addressed. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled. Evidence becomes difficult to obtain and authenticate, and accounts become less reliable. As such, this investigation will not consider the landlord’s handling of the events from 2017 to 2019 as they were not raised as a formal complaint until August 2021 which is more than six months after the events occurred. Any reference to these events is for context only.
  2. The residents have raised concerns that the reported ASB and the landlord’s response has affected their mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents statement. However, it is beyond the expertise of this service to make a determination on a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and the residents’ mental health. Further, part of the claim for compensation is about the loss of income from the resident’s business. The residents said they had to close the business due to the stress and impact of the ASB, and fear of being seen in the area. While the residents’ comments about the effect of the ASB on them are not disputed, as above, this this service is unable to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the reports, and the closure of the residents’ business.
  3. The above matters may be better for the courts to decide, where evidence such as medico-legal report can be assessed, and an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing. A court can instruct medical experts who can advise on whether a series of circumstances will have prevented the claimant from fulfilling the duties associated with their job. As such, this investigation makes no determination on these matters. This is in line with paragraph 42 (g) of the scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. The residents therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a claim if they consider that their health and business has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to tackle ASB before it escalates. It states it will investigate, intervene early and have effective support mechanisms in place.
  2. It states it will acknowledge all incidents of ASB within 1 working day, and residents will receive an appointment within 3 working days to discuss the case and agree a plan of action. It further states that a vulnerability assessment will be completed for all new reported ASB incidents and for any new complainants on ongoing cases, with residents being contacted every 5 working days to review the case and give feedback.
  3. Regarding the end of a tenancy and left over possessions, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord: ‘will remove and store possessions for a maximum of one calendar month and will take reasonable steps to notify the resident’.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
  3. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/resident relationships, and improve the experience of residents residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
  4. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord should have acknowledged all incidents of ASB within 1 working day, and given the residents an appointment within 3 working days to discuss the case and agree a plan of action. It further states that a vulnerability assessment will be completed for all new reported ASB incidents and for any new complainants on ongoing cases, with residents being contacted every 5 working days to review the case and give feedback.
  5. Having reviewed the landlord’s actions from the date of the resident’s reports of ASB made in March 2021 until the final response on 15 November 2021, whilst the ASB was not resolved during this timeframe, the landlord took some steps to address the issues being reported. From March-May 2021, it acknowledged the residents reports, kept in timely contact and updated the residents on contact with the police. Internal records from this time note that the landlord ‘chased police for an update’ and when this was not forthcoming, began the ‘ASB process’ in April. Overall, the communication was adequate during this period and the landlord reasonably engaged with the residents.
  6. In correspondence from 20 April 2021, the landlord stated warning letters had been sent to the alleged perpetrators. It followed this up with the resident by contacting to check on the situation, in line with its ASB policy of contacting the residents every 5 working days. This Service has not seen copies of these letters, however there is a record in the evidence of the landlord confirming with the residents that these had been sent, and the residents stating that this had resulted in a neighbour approaching them.
  7. While, in light of the above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that warning letters were issued to the neighbours, and that was an appropriate course of action, a landlord should keep accurate and complete ASB records. Not only so that it can evidence its actions when requested by the Ombudsman, but so that it can record and track ASB cases and information, ensuring that these are dealt with appropriately. Neither is there any other record of the landlord’s contact with the neighbours. A finding of service failure is made in this regard.
  8. The records available show that the landlord acted appropriately in response to the July 2021 car incident. It immediately contacted the police to request information, discussed the situation with the resident, and outlined an action plan, stating that it would liaise with relevant agencies to establish more details and best action from a tenancy perspective, and would then discuss options with the resident. It made a referral to Victim Support and also provided details of emergency accommodation following the request to be rehoused, and agreed to fit a fireproof letterbox. Three days later the residents informed the landlord that they had purchased a caravan and were relinquishing the tenancy. As noted by the landlord in its later correspondence and in its ASB policy, it is appropriate to work with external agencies in order to address ASB and where criminal activity is involved, the police are the appropriate external agency. The landlord has evidenced its contact with the police, and shared this with the residents where possible.
  9. At times however it is evident that the landlord failed to act appropriately or reasonably when handling the residents’ reports. The landlord has told this Service that there were no vulnerabilities recorded for the residents. The residents have stated they informed the landlord of their vulnerabilities in their initial housing application, though this has been disputed by the landlord. From the evidence provided, it is apparent that the resident informed the landlord the ASB was affecting her mental health on 4 June 2018. On 28 September 2020, in the residents’ application for rehousing, they informed the landlord they had PTSD and were under secondary care for their mental health. Furthermore, in text correspondence to the landlord from May 2021 the residents explained that they did not want to get involved further as they feared for their safety, and also referred to their PTSD. So, the landlord reasonably ought to have been aware of the these vulnerabilities and should have acted accordingly. There is no evidence a vulnerability assessment was carried out. Neither is there any record of an agreed plan of action in relation to the ASB, or any other risk assessment.
  10. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy aim to support those affected by ASB and was a failure to adequately take the resident’s vulnerabilities into account. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered carrying out a vulnerability assessment at that time, given that the residents had advised that their mental health vulnerabilities meant that they felt ‘extremely vulnerable here’ and said they did not feel safe. An action plan would also have provided the residents with reassurance that their concerns were being taken seriously, and that the landlord had a plan in place to address these. Further, while the evidence shows that the landlord did try to obtain information from the police at the start of the reports in 2021, when this was not forthcoming it would have been appropriate to make further enquiries. Also, the residents explain that they provided the landlord with CCTV footage in May, but did not hear back. While it is noted that the residents also stated in May that they did not wish to pursue the ASB matter, it would still have been good practice for the landlord to have responded. Overall, there were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports, which led to the residents feeling that their concerns were not being taken seriously, so exacerbating their distress.  As the landlord has not identified these failings in its complaint response, it has not taken action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  11. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean they are more affected by a landlord’s actions than other people may be. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Landlords should therefore note any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental health condition) when responding to complaints and take these into consideration when determining how to “put things right” for a resident, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, so as to ensure any redress offered properly reflects the impact an event had on them. By not accurately recording or responding to the residents’ vulnerabilities, as the landlord ought to per its ASB policy, the overall distress and inconvenience to the residents was increased.
  12. A landlord is responsible for addressing reports of ASB, in line with its policy and procedure. However, it is not responsible for the actions of it tenants, or other members of the public. As such, and while the Ombudsman acknowledges the impact of the ASB on the residents was more significant due to their situation and vulnerabilities, it is unable to conclude that it was the landlord’s failings as set out above, that were responsible for the residents’ decision to leave their home.
  13. In respect of the landlord’s failings, orders are made below to ‘put things right’. The compensation ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

 

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord must, within the next four weeks, take the following action:
    1. Pay the residents £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Review its procedures for interactions with vulnerable residents during ASB cases and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that residents’ circumstances will be fully considered, and appropriate support will be offered.
    3. Carry out a review of its ASB record keeping, and write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders.