Together Housing Association Limited (202416104)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property which is a ground floor flat. She has medical conditions and disabilities which she said are exacerbated by stress. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports that her neighbour was harassing and stalking her. She wanted the landlord to take her reports seriously and deal with her neighbour.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
4. We found service failure in its handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the ASB

5. There was an initial delay in the landlord carrying out the appropriate actions to address the resident’s concerns and support needs. Its communication was also poor and likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. The landlord eventually took proportionate action to address the issues. But it did not identify or consider the impact of its earlier failures.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. It identified some learning it would take from the outcome of the complaint. But it did not put things right in line with its compensation policy. 

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.

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.

7. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will respond to reports of nuisance and harassment within 5 working days, and personal threats within 1 working day. It states it will conduct a risk of harm assessment at the onset of an ASB case and agree an action plan.
8. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident first contacted it about her neighbour on 13 October 2023. The landlord’s records show the resident contacted it about her neighbour on 2 October 2023. The notes stated she said he was a nuisance with the neighbours. She also believed he had put raw chicken in her letterbox. In line with its policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond within 5 working days. It did not open a case until 13 working days later, this was after the resident chased it and called again. The delay likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
9. On 23 October 2023, the landlord noted the resident had reported further complications with her neighbour. She said he had been abusive to her in the car park and had sent footage of the altercation. It said it had asked for an update from the police and was waiting for a response from the ASB team about how to move forward. On 13 November 2023 the resident reported the neighbour had been abusive again and they had been going through her bins. She said the police said it was stalking and harassment. On 14 November 2023 the landlord informed the resident there had been counter allegations from her neighbour.
10. It was reasonable for the landlord to say it would liaise with the police following the resident’s reports on 23 October 2023. However, we have not seen evidence of it doing so at the time or following her later reports. As such, it is unclear whether it acted in line with its obligations. Such information can aid a landlord’s own investigation when considering the appropriate steps it can take for both the resident and the alleged perpetrator.
11. The resident provided footage to it and raised concerns for her safety. Therefore, in line with its policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider any other early intervention/evidence gathering steps it could take in the meantime. There is no evidence of it doing so.
12. Following her formal complaint on 15 November 2023, the landlord reviewed the case and put together an action plan. The plan included contacting the resident to obtain CCTV evidence, confirm specific dates and times, and discuss any witnesses. It said it would discuss the CCTV claim and give advice. It said it would interview the neighbour and speak to the resident about any counter allegations, if necessary.
13. These were proportionate steps to take but the landlord should have taken them sooner, and not as a result of the resident submitting a complaint. Over a month had passed since the resident’s initial report. The delay in taking action led to a breakdown in the landlord tenant relationship.
14. On 20 November 2023, the landlord noted the resident no longer wanted to speak with it and wanted her victim support officer to act as her representative. The resident said she felt the landlord had “stripped her down as a character” with the counter allegations. The landlord noted the resident said she was no longer staying at her property due to the neighbour and wanted the landlord to pay for each night she was not staying at the property. It said it would be contacting the police to retrieve the evidence from them.
15. There may not have been an obligation for the landlord to provide alternative accommodation to the resident. Although, it could have considered the reasons why she did not feel safe in her property and what measures it could put in place to support her to return home. As per its policy, a risk of harm assessment would have assisted with this. Yet there is no evidence of it carrying it out. It was evident the resident was receiving support from victim support. However, a risk assessment would have shown the landlord fully considered the resident’s welfare and mental health needs.
16. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 November 2023, it said it would check in with her every 2 weeks and that it had left a voicemail for the police. It referred to contact it had received from her victim support officer and asked if it was ok to discuss the case with them. The resident confirmed she wanted contact to go through victim support. She said her GP had suggested it due to the impact on her health. The landlord responded to the resident to say it needed to speak to her and for her to engage. It said she had a legal agreement with it and it needed direct lines of communication. It asked her to consider a telephone call where an advocate could support her.
17. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. It did not show consideration to the impact its direct communication was having on the resident. The victim support officer highlighted that they could not see any reason why a third party could not facilitate communication between the resident and the landlord. This may have also helped to repair the relationship. We can see the landlord did then communicate via the victim support officer. However, its initial response likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
18. On 12 December 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to an upcoming multi agency meeting. It confirmed it was happy to attend the meeting with the resident in order to clarify her complaints. It explained it had previously offered meetings in person, via telephone, and via a video call to the resident and her advocate. It provided an overview of the resident’s complaints and the complaints made about her. It said it would be useful to clarify the details with her. The landlord confirmed it had spoken with the police who did not have any further evidence to support her complaint. The letter was a proportionate step for the landlord to take to progress its investigation. However, it would have been appropriate to send it to her advocate, as per her request.
19. The landlord attended a multi-agency meeting on 18 December 2023. This was appropriate given the ongoing concerns and multiple stakeholders involved with both the resident and the neighbour. It confirmed it had advised both parties not to contact each other until the matters were dealt with. We cannot share all the details of the meeting. We have seen there was consideration to the risks posed to the resident and what was in place to mitigate that. This included the support she was accessing, her having a car dash camera, and doorbell camera. It also noted the need to re-engage the resident and/or her representative. The police confirmed the case was ongoing.
20. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained it could not disclose the action taken in regard to the neighbour. We have reviewed the action taken by the landlord at the time and we acknowledge some of the difficulties it faced. As with the resident, the landlord had an obligation to consider both the counter allegations and the needs and requirements of the neighbour. It is understandable the landlord could not share all the action it was taking. Although, an updated action plan, along with regular updates on the information it could share, may have helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
21. We recognise the resident felt the landlord should have evicted the neighbour. Taking legal action against a tenant is not something a landlord can do without sufficient evidence. To do this a landlord must be sure it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. At the point of the stage 2 response, we have not seen there was sufficient evidence for the landlord to be able to do this. Given the complexities of the case, it was reasonable for the landlord to escalate the case to its specialist neighbourhood safety and enforcement team and to look to arrange a meeting with the resident.
22. The landlord identified learning in its stage 2 response. It said it did not ensure the resident had support in place at the start of the complaint. It said as per her request, it should have obtained her consent and communicated with her advocate. It also said it made errors in its choice of language when stating it wanted to interview her. It apologised for any unnecessary upset and frustration caused.
23. It was positive the landlord identified where it would do things differently and the impact caused to the resident. In its stage 2 response it said it was satisfied it followed its ASB procedures. We consider the landlord did eventually do so, but the initial delays, lack of risk assessment, and lack of early action were not in line with its procedure. The landlord did not account for those failings. As a result, we cannot conclude the landlord was fair in its responses, fully learnt from the outcomes, or put everything right for the resident. We have found maladministration.
24. The resident raised further issues since the stage 2 response. This investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to a complaint prior to our involvement. As such, we cannot consider issues raised after the formal complaint stages. The resident can raise any new issues directly with the landlord as a formal complaint. She can also raise a new case with us if she remains dissatisfied with its response.

25. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord provided a formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.
26. The landlord’s complaints policy says where something has gone wrong, it will ensure it acknowledges it and will set out what action it has taken or will take to put things right. It sets out examples where it may offer discretionary compensation which includes a failure to provide a service and a failure to follow policy or procedure.
27. In recent communication to us the landlord has provided further learning from the complaint. It recognised it outlined service failures in its stage 2 response and it should have offered compensation to reflect the impact, in line with its complaint handling procedure. The landlord confirmed it had improved its complaint handling processes since the complaint to align with our Code.  It also reflected on the resident feeling unsupported and said it could have given much more consideration to her physical and mental health.
28. Due to the time that has passed since the stage 2 response, it would not be fair for us to consider this learning as part of our investigation. The landlord had the opportunity to recognise and put right its failures as part of its complaint process and in line with its policy. It did not do so. As such, we have found service failure. It is, however, encouraging to see the progress made since its complaint responses and what action it has taken to ensure it does not repeat the same failures again.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. Accurate and complete records can help a landlord when reviewing its handling of an ASB case through its complaint procedure. They can also help when providing evidence during other processes including our investigations and legal proceedings. In this case, the landlord did not provide evidence of all its attempts to contact the police or what action it had taken in assessing the evidence provided to it by the resident. In the absence of these records from the landlord, we were unable to confirm whether the landlord reasonably investigated the reports and took proportionate action at the time.

Communication

30. As highlighted in the report the landlord’s earlier communication was poor and inappropriate at times. The landlord identified some learning around this but it is evident it had a significant impact on the resident. It contributed to the relationship breakdown with the resident and the resident is still reporting a lack of trust in the landlord. We have made orders to assist with this. The landlord should consider any additional steps it could take to help rebuild the landlord tenant relationship.