Torus62 Limited (202016458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016458

Torus62 Limited

20 September 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 how the landlord:
1. Responded to the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Managed its correspondence with the resident during the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days.
On 27 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the landlord to report ASB from a neighbour which had occurred the previous day. The resident described noise nuisance and a physical assault. The email also included a video of the incident. The resident explained that “I believe this to be clear breach of Torus’s tenancy agreement and could constitute a criminal offence but I do not wish to make a complaint to [the] Police.”
The landlord opened an ASB case into the matter on 28 January 2021 and on 29 January 2021 it contacted the resident and undertook a risk assessment.
On 31 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it that he had also reported the matter to the police.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 February 2021. It confirmed that an ASB case had been opened and summarised the conversation held on 29 January 2021. The landlord noted that the resident said he had sent three emails regarding ongoing issues of ASB, but that these had not been received. The landlord explained that it would be writing to the neighbour regarding the noise nuisance and the assault, but the assault would usually be classed as criminal activity. It explained that “You informed me that you have contacted [the] Police and they have confirmed that they would not be taking any actions over your complaint…it is difficult to take tenancy enforcement action over criminal activity without it being investigated by [the] Police as we would liaise with [the Police over such breaches as per our policy.” It hoped that its letter would act as a deterrent to any future ASB by the neighbour, but if the police did take action, the landlord could also consider tenancy enforcement action.
The landlord wrote again to the resident on 10 February 2021. It asked the resident to confirm whether he wished it to approach the neighbour about the assault and the potential tenancy breach. It said if it did not hear from the resident, it would close that aspect of the ASB case.
Then resident wrote to the landlord on 11 February 2021 and confirmed that he wanted the landlord to “take what enforcement action you can to allow me to have “quiet enjoyment ” of the property I rent. He asked to be informed of any action by the landlord “so I can be forewarned of any possible response by [the neighbour]” and said that the police were investigating their decision not to take action.
The landlord then wrote to the neighbour on 12 February 2021 about the noise report, and the risk to his tenancy. It also wrote to the resident on the same day, updating him on its actions. It explained that if the police brought charges against the neighbour in relation to the assault, the landlord could take action against the neighbour.
The landlord called both the resident and the neighbour on 18 February 2021 to discuss the ASB case. It then wrote to the resident to inform him that the neighbour had agreed not to play loud music at an unreasonable time again.
On 19 February 2021 the resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord. He asked the landlord to “consider the following issues” since he was assaulted:
1. He had unsuccessfully tried to phone his housing officer on the morning of the assault and had been told he could not have the housing officer’s email address. He had been told to complete an online form to report the assault.
2. Following his report of ASB on 29 January 2021, he had sent three emails to his housing officer, two of which included video files, which were not received by the landlord.
3. He had sent three further emails after 11 February 2021, but had only received automated response and no other acknowledgments or response.
4. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s email systems “in a time of pandemic”.
5. He concluded by explaining how his mental health had been affected by the assault and by his attempts to seek redress from the landlord and the police.
The landlord received the resident’s letter on 23 February 2021 and sent a stage one complaint response on 2 March 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. It had experienced technical problems receiving emails and apologised to the resident for the inconvenience that this had caused. It noted that it had yet to receive an email from the resident with a video file attached.
2. It explained that an internal investigation was looking into the issue it currently had with receiving emails and it would update the resident when this had been concluded.
3. It gave a timeline of events from when he first reported the ASB on 27 January 2021. It noted that during its conversation with the resident on, 17 February 2021, he confirmed that there had been no further incidents of noise nuisance.
4. It would continue to monitor the situation relating to noise nuisance and that it was currently waiting for the police to determine what action, if any, it would be taking relating to the assault.
The landlord concluded by apologising for the delay and inconvenience caused by the problem it had in receiving emails and offered the resident a £30 goodwill gesture in view of this.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 March 2021 and stated that, as per the stage one complaint response, it would continue to monitor the noise nuisance and if no further incident occurred in the next seven days it would close the case. It also confirmed that if the police decided to bring charges against the neighbour, it would look to take action against them for breaching their tenancy agreement.
The resident replied on 10 March 2021 and told the landlord he had not received a copy of the stage one response. The landlord sent it again on 11 March 2021. On 12 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked to escalate his complaint. He said that:
1. His failure to receive the stage one complaint response was another example of the poor communication he had received from the landlord.
2. He had contacted this Service as he thought the landlord had not sent a formal complaint response, which had caused further inconvenience.
3. The ongoing complaint and ASB case had caused an adverse effect on his mental health, which had not been addressed by the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 March 2021 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated. The landlord called the resident on 24 March 2021 to discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint and then sent a stage two complaint response on 25 March 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. It agreed that the resident had not requested compensation when he had raised a complaint, but that it believed that redress was appropriate for the failures in receiving correspondence. It confirmed that it had agreed to pay the goodwill gesture to a charity nominated by the resident.
2. It explained that there had been a break down in the system it had used to print out and send letters during the Covid-19 pandemic while its staff members were working from home. This has resulted in the resident not receiving a copy of the stage one complaint response on 2 March 2021.
3. It apologised to the resident for the delays and inconvenience caused by the problems he had experienced in sending emails to the landlord and receiving letters from the landlord.
4. During their conversation on 24 March 2021, the resident had said he was satisfied with how the noise nuisance from his neighbour had been handled, but that he believed it should have done more regarding the assault.
5. It had not taken any action against the neighbour at that point as it was waiting for the police to decide whether to proceed with charges. It said that if charges were brought, its position would be strengthened when taking action for the tenancy breach.
6. It recognised that the situation has caused a great deal of anxiety to the resident and again offered an apology. It also confirmed that it was committed to ensure that he felt safe and comfortable in his home.
The landlord concluded the response by confirming that that the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure. The resident brought his complaint to this Service on 30 March 2021 and on 12 May 2021 he described the outstanding issues of the complaint as:
1. The landlord’s refusal to investigate the more serious aspect of the ASB incident.
2. The adverse effect that the situation has had on his mental health.

Assessment and findings

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

The landlord’s ASB policy describes antisocial behaviour as ‘conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to some person and that directly or indirectly relates to or affects the landlord’s housing management functions; or conduct that consists of or involves using or threatening to use housing accommodation owned or managed by the landlord for an unlawful purpose”.
The landlord’s ASB procedure document describes the process when it receives a report of ASB from a resident. This states that the landlord will:
1. Open a case on its system and arrange to contact the complainant within five working days.
2. If the case is deemed urgent or an emergency, it will look to contact the complainant as soon as possible.
3. During the first interview with the complainant, it will take details of the complaint and undertake a risk assessment. It will also ascertain if a referral to a support agency would be appropriate.
Following the initial contact with a complainant, the landlord will then make the decision whether or not to progress the ASB case and then write to the complainant to explain its decision.
If the case is progressed, the landlord will then look to gather evidence. This may include interviews with the complainant and any witnesses, as well as liaising with outside agencies such as the police. The alleged perpetrator is usually interviewed about the allegation by the landlord at this stage.
The landlord will then take the decision whether or not to take further action based on the evidence it had collected and the advice given by outside agencies. The landlord will write to the complainant and the alleged perpetrator to inform them of its decision and explain how it was reached.
The ASB procedure document describes the type of action the landlord could consider taking. This includes:
1. Monitoring of the case. The landlord will review the case every ten working days and will consider taking more pro-active action if it believes this is required.
2. Warning letter. The landlord will write to the perpetrator, setting out the detail of the complaint and the likely consequences should this conduct continue.
3. Referral to another agency. The landlord will inform the police in cases where potential criminal activity had been identified.
Overall, the landlord has followed its ASB policy and procedures in this case. When it received the ASB report from the resident on 27 January 2021, a case was opened, and the resident contacted within five working days. A risk assessment was undertaken, and the landlord wrote to the neighbour about his loud music. The neighbour agreed to stop playing loud music and the landlord monitored the case. When no further noise nuisance was reported by the resident, the landlord closed the case.
The resident has expressed his unhappiness that the assault allegation was not also handled by the landlord via its ASB policy rather than involving the police. In its stage two response, the landlord explained that while it was not dependant on the police taking action, any action taken by the police would strengthen the landlord’s ability to take further action against his neighbour.
The risk assessment undertaken by the landlord on 29 January 2021 scored the assault incident reported by the resident as 24 out of 30 on its risk assessment matrix scale, which is considered as medium/high. The matrix recommends the involvement of the police as well as the landlord’s ASB team in cases within this category.
As previously stated, as per its ASB policy, the landlord will inform the police in cases where there is potentially criminal activity. In this case, the resident informed the landlord that he had contacted the police himself and reported the assault.
The police initially decided not to pursue the matter. This was disputed by the resident and the police investigating the issue again. This resulted in the neighbour being charged and the matter progressing to court.
As explained in the landlord’s ASB policy, landlords are able to pursue a range of measures against tenants for ASB. Landlords can ultimately take legal action against tenants for ASB which may result in the tenant being issued with an injunction to cease their behaviour or risk eviction. In the most severe cases, the landlord may ask the court for permission to evict a tenant for ASB without first seeking an injunction. Eviction should be considered as a last resort and when pursuing an eviction or injunction, the landlord would be expected to show the court extensive evidence that the behaviour was severe and persistent. The landlord would also usually be expected to demonstrate that informal attempts to resolve the ASB such as mediation and tenancy warnings had been attempted previously. The landlord could take legal action against the neighbour without waiting for the police’s investigation to be concluded. However, the outcome of the police investigation may provide significant evidence to support the landlord’s request for an injunction or eviction, increasing the chances of success in court. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide to wait until the police investigation was concluded before pursuing formal action against the neighbour.
How the landlord managed its correspondence with the resident during the complaint.
During the complaint process, delays were caused due to problems the landlord had in receiving emails and sending out post while its staff members were working from home as a result of Covid-19 restrictions.
In its stage one complaint response, the landlord explained that due to a technical issue affecting its systems, it had not received three of the resident’s emails and a further two emails only received automated response. It went on to inform the resident that it had started an investigation to identify and resolve the technical issue. It also apologised to the resident for the delay and inconvenience this had caused and offered a £30 goodwill gesture in view of this.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that the system that it had put in place to allow its staff members working from home to have letters printed and posted had failed. This resulted in the stage one complaint response not being sent out. The landlord apologised and explained that it had contacted the service provider in order to resolve the issue.
The landlord act appropriately when being informed by the resident of the difficulties he had in corresponding by investigating the issue with its emails internally and notifying its provider of the problems with sending out post remotely. The landlord also apologised to the resident and awarded a goodwill gesture for the delays caused by the email issue. This payment was broadly in line with the Service’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). The remedies guidance suggests that awards of £50-£250 should be considered in cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls. In view of this, the landlord’s offer of £30 was broadly proportional to the service failure identified. It is understood that the resident did not request compensation and has chosen to donate the compensation to charity. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation in this instance as an acknowledgement of its service failure and the effect this had on the resident.
It should also be noted that although the stage one complaint response was delayed, the resident’s escalation request and the landlord’s stage two complaint response occurred within the 20-working day window from the initial 2 March 2021 date of the stage one response.
When he brought his complaint to this Service, the resident described the adverse effect that this case has had on his mental health, which he said had been exacerbated by the delays and inconvenience caused to him by the landlord.
The resident’s concerns about the impact on his health are wholly understandable in the circumstances of this complaint. However, it is outside the expertise of this Service to establish a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by residents and the actions or inactions of landlords. However, consideration has been given to any general inconvenience and distress the resident experienced as a result of the situation involving his property. If the resident feels that his health has been adversely affected as a result of errors by the landlord, he may be able to pursue this as a personal injury claim. This is a legal process and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it responded to the resident’s report of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it managed its correspondence, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolved this aspect of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord followed its ASB policy and procedures in opening, investigating, and resolving the ASB case that related to the noise nuisance experienced by the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to decide to wait for the outcome of the police investigation before taking further action regarding the assault as the police were best placed to investigate this in the first instance.
The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by failures of its email and postal systems. It apologised to the resident and provided redress proportional to the service failure identified.