Together Housing Association Limited (202300939)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300939

Together Housing Association Limited

31 January 2025

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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lived at the property, a second floor 2-bedroom flat, between January 2018 and May 2023. The resident’s daughter is disabled, and the landlord is aware of this.
During the complaint, the resident reports ASB from 2 neighbours, they will be referred to as N1 and N2. Both occupied the flat below the resident at different time periods.
Between April and November 2022, the resident reported ASB from N1 such as loud music, banging and shouting during the night and verbal abuse. She was also unhappy that N1 had installed cameras which were pointing at communal areas. She told the landlord that her daughter no longer felt comfortable playing outside as she felt she was being watched. In August 2022 she informed the landlord that she had asked for an ASB case review from the local council. In the same month, the landlord arranged mediation between the resident and N1 where both parties agreed to be considerate of the other.
N1 moved to another flat within the building in October 2022 and N2 moved in. Throughout November the resident reported that N2 and their other occupants had been shouting and making noise in the night, smoking in communal areas, and she suspected cannabis use. She made a complaint to the landlord on 22 November 2022 as she felt that the landlord was not following its ASB policy.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 30 December 2022 and did not uphold her complaint. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint.
2. It believed that the issues with N1 had been resolved as he had moved to another flat.
3. It had written to all residents to remind them of its policy on drug use and smoking and had given the resident ASB diaries.
4. It was unaware of any issues with N2 prior to moving them to the property and denied that it had knowingly moved a “problem tenant”.
The resident was unhappy with this response and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 January 2023. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 9 February 2023 and said:
1. It appreciated the resident felt the ASB was unresolved, however it needed to open a new case as it was a different neighbour.
2. It opened a new ASB case regarding N2 and encouraged the resident to record the ASB on the diary sheets it provided.
3. It had investigated all incidents relating to N1, including a counter allegation made against the resident. Shuttle mediation took place, and both parties agreed to work on improving relations. There had been no issues since N1 moved.
On 28 June 2023, the resident made another stage 1 complaint as she was unhappy that she received a tenancy warning, and wanted to complain about staff conduct. The LL responded on 18 July 2023 and did not uphold the complaint. She escalated to stage 2 on 25 August 2023 and contacted her MP for advice.
it responded on 13 October 2023 to say:
1. The tenancy warning was withdrawn as it had been identified that the warning was not specific enough, and the resident’s personal circumstances had not been considered.
2. It cannot independently assess staff conduct at a face-to-face meeting when both parties have differing opinions, but it has fed back her concerns to the staff member. It agreed to arrange a meeting with key staff involved in the ASB case to ensure they were aware of the level of service required.
3. Following thorough checks, it confirmed that N1 did not use their cameras inappropriately or breach General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It gave the resident information on how to contact the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and said that as she had informed them that she had had recently installed a camera she would also need to be mindful of using it correctly.
4. It was looking at smoke monitoring options for the block given her concerns about smoke. It offered the ASB app as a method for tracking any incidents as the resident was doing paper logs and passing them to her neighbourhood officer.
5. It acknowledged that it was a complex situation with several complaints and counter complaints from residents, and its focus was remaining fair and protecting confidentiality.
6. It recognised that there was a 4-week delay with responding to her after she made her complaint, and this was not consistent with its policy of acknowledgement in 5 working days.
7. It agreed that her case should not have been closed without speaking with her and determined that the stage 1 complaint should have been fully upheld rather than partially. It committed to changing the pre-closure letter to add clarity for residents, and ensure it uses a variety of methods to contact residents before closing their cases.
8. It apologised for shortfalls in standards of service and said that it would arrange a reflective learning session to ensure positive changes were made.
Between March 2023 and April 2024 there were multiple allegations and counter allegations between the resident, N1 and N2. Issues raised included:
1. Use of cannabis
2. Noise complaints during the night
3. Inappropriate language
4. Aggressive gestures
5. Barking dogs
6. Gluing communal locks
7. Inappropriate use of home security cameras.
8. Some incidents had been captured on video, with footage passed to the police.
The resident told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the ongoing issues with neighbours had affected her daughter’s physical and mental health. On 24 May 2024, the landlord moved the resident by management move to a house in a different area.

Assessment and findings

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that behaviours it would class as ASB include:
1. Use of or supply of illegal or controlled drugs.
2. Harassment including verbal abuse, offensive communications, or stalking.
3. Noise nuisance such as loud music, excessive shouting during the day or night.
4. Youths or individuals hanging around a property causing nuisance.
Behaviours it does not class as ASB include:
1. Minor neighbour disagreements, including personal differences or arguments between/about children.
2. Household noise.
3. Dogs barking (unless linked to neglect or persistent during unreasonable hours).
Based on the types of report made by the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to open an ASB case. While not every report related to incidents defined as ASB, there was reason for it to investigate further. We have seen evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident and N1 individually once it had opened the case.
The offer of mediation remotely was reasonable and gave both parties opportunity to discuss matters and come to a resolution without having to be in the same room. The resident later informed the landlord that she did not feel the mediation was useful, however the offer was consistent with the early intervention strategy in its policy.
She also told the landlord that she felt her daughter had been the victim of hate crime as N2 had used ableist slurs. She reported this to the police and informed the landlord. We have not seen evidence that any neighbours were charged as a result. The landlord’s policy defines a hate incident as incidents based on age, alternative subculture, disability, gender, gender identity, race, religion/faith, sexual orientation.
The landlord discussed the allegations with N1, who denied them. They alleged that the resident had committed a hate crime against them, which they reported to the police.
The landlord provided the resident with diary sheets to make note of any incidents. When the resident informed it that she was having difficulty sending them electronically, it arranged for the neighbourhood officer to collect them. There is evidence that the resident was given the option to use the ASB phone app but it does not appear that this was used.
Internal records show that when she raised her concerns about N1’s security cameras, the landlord visited them to check the positioning and usage. Based on this visit it was determined that they were being used appropriately. The landlord provided the resident with details of the ICO, and this was appropriate. They gave the most up to date and appropriate advice regarding personal data protection, closed-circuit TV (CCTV), and home security cameras.
On several occasions the police became involved in the dispute between the resident, N1 and N2 as there had been reports of verbal abuse from all parties. Even with police involvement the landlord had a duty to remain balanced and fair, and to consider all parties’ concerns equally. The landlord’s records show that it responded on time, was responsive to reports and worked in partnership with the Police. This was appropriate action in line with its ASB policy. There was regular contact between the landlord and the resident, and the landlord and the neighbours.
The resident made it clear to the landlord throughout the period investigated in this complaint that the situation with her neighbours was causing her considerable distress including thoughts of self-harm. She also felt that it had impacted significantly on her daughter’s health particularly given her disability. She said that her daughter often did not feel comfortable enough to leave the house due to the security cameras. She had also experienced distress because of children repeatedly pressing the intercom buzzer, as a symptom of her disability was noise sensitivity.
The landlord conducted several visits to the property to discuss the situation with the resident and her daughter. Following one of these visits the landlord submitted a safeguarding referral to the local council. The resident has said she felt distressed by this, and that she felt that it was a criticism or punishment. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to act if it had a concern about the welfare of the resident and her daughter.
Based on the records provided by the landlord it was clear that the situation was complex due to the number of parties making reports of ASB. The resident made a complaint against a staff member, she said that she had been spoken to inappropriately in her home.
In situations where 2 parties have differing views of the same situation, we recognise that it is difficult for the landlord to know for certain what occurred. It was appropriate that it fed back the issues to the staff member.
During the second complaint in June 2023, the landlord committed to having reflective learning sessions with its staff, and this was a positive step. We are not aware of whether any learning from these sessions was recorded, so a recommendation will be added to this report for the landlord ensure that key learning from these sessions is easily accessible for its staff.
The landlord’s decision to move the resident did resolve the ASB, and we are not aware of any ASB reports at the resident’s new property. She has expressed concern at the condition of the new property when she moved in however, she has made a complaint to us separately about this so we will not cover it in this report.
The resident said that she felt that she was being “scapegoated” by being the individual that had to move and that her neighbours did not receive any punishment. While we do not deny the resident’s experience and viewpoint, we do find it reasonable that the landlord gave the resident the option to move. Although there were reports made about N1 and N2, there were also reports of ASB from other children and adults in the local area which may have continued to affect the resident if she had stayed in the block.
We find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB. We recognise that the resident and her daughter experienced distress and anxiety because of the ASB. However, we have seen evidence that the landlord offered solutions such as mediation, partnership work with the police and residents, kept a fair and balanced approach and took her concerns seriously about the wellbeing of her daughter. Its decision to give the resident the option to move property was also reasonable.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint handling process. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. The policy signposts residents to us if they are unhappy with the outcome of the complaint at either stage.
The resident complained on 25 August 2023, as this was related to the complaint from 28 June 2023 it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a stage 2 investigation. However, due to confusion around whether to raise a new complaint or escalate the previous 1, the stage 2 response took 35 working days to be issued. This was 15 days longer than the 20 days set out in its policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to make discretionary payments where it finds that there has been inconvenience, disturbance, distress, or annoyance experienced by its residents. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, its policy does not set a minimum or maximum level of compensation and will calculate awards based on what is fair in the circumstances of the case.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged delays in the stage 2 response and apologised. It also found that her previous complaint should have been upheld and it had closed her ASB case too quickly. However, it did not offer compensation. The resident had been clear about the distress and inconvenience both she and her daughter felt. Taking this into consideration, and the fact she felt that she needed to contact the Ombudsman and her MP for support, the landlord should have offered compensation in line with its compensation policy.
We find that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its complaint responses were detailed and responded accurately to the resident’s complaints. However, its records were not clear enough for its staff to correctly establish whether it needed to escalate a complaint or raise a new one.
We recognise that the resident made several complaints, but the landlord’s records should be clear enough that it is easy for its staff to interpret. It identified service failures in its final stage 2 complaint response, but did not provide any redress to the resident. Positively, it did commit to reflective learning to examine the circumstances of the complaint and highlight areas for improvement.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should pay the resident £100 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with its complaint handling. This payment should be made directly to the resident and not to her rent account unless she specifically requests it. It should provide proof of payment to the Ombudsman as evidence of compliance.
2. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord should review its complaint process to ensure it is easy for complaint handlers to determine whether to escalate a complaint or raise a new one. The outcome of this review must be communicated to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure that key learning from its reflective learning sessions following a complaint is recorded so that all staff can benefit from them. It should clearly state any areas of concern and any suggestions for improvement.