Torus62 Limited (202308287)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308287

Torus62 Limited

11 September 2024

 

Our approach

  1. 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.
  2. 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 resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and her tenancy began in 1993. Her complaint relates to ongoing ASB from a neighbour. The resident said she is the main carer for her disabled son. The resident said the ASB has had a detrimental impact on her health and her son’s behaviour.
  2. The resident said she experienced ASB since 2019. She said the neighbour used to be the landlord’s tenant, but they now own the property. The landlord said counter allegations have been made by the neighbour about the resident.
  3. The evidence provided shows the resident reported ASB in 2020 and complained to the landlord in 2021 and 2022 about its handling of her ASB complaint. These complaints were taken through the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident did not bring her complaints to the Ombudsman at that time. The landlord provided its stage 2 response, issued on 14 October 2021, to this Service. It said the resident had reported low level ASB, however, the issues had ‘calmed down’. The landlord said the resident’s neighbours had agreed to try mediation, but the resident had declined the offer. Meditation is a recognised tool for resolving ASB disputes.
  4. On 31 May 2023 the resident made an ASB report to the landlord. She also raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s ASB handling. She said the neighbour had climbed into her garden and this had been recorded on CCTV. The landlord said it closed the ASB case on the system in error that same day.
  5. On 4 June 2023 the resident brought her complaint to this Service. She said she had experienced harassment, intimidation and homophobia from her neighbour. The resident felt the landlord had not supported her or followed its own policies.
  6. The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 12 June 2023. It said the resident’s reports of ASB had been ‘sporadic’. The landlord said it had previously explained to the resident that it needed evidence to progress her ASB case further. It said the resident had declined its offer of mediation. The landlord offered to do a support referral for the resident and her son. It said the resident could report a new case of ASB to the landlord and it would record any new incidents for the next 4 weeks. It did not uphold her complaint.
  7. The evidence suggests the resident escalated her complaint soon after she received her stage 1 response. The request has not been provided by the landlord.
  8. On 6 July 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It repeated the concerns she had raised at stage 1. The landlord said it was satisfied she had received a ‘thorough and detailed’ response at stage 1. It said no service failures had been identified. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint and no offer of compensation was made to her.
  9. The landlord subsequently told the Ombudsman there were ‘failures’ in the way it dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB. From this it has identified process improvements to the service it provides to residents experiencing ASB. No compensation was offered to the resident following the landlord’s review of the case.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The resident has expressed concerns about the effect the situation has had on her and her son’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are better suited to be decided by the courts, which can consider medical evidence and reach legal findings. However, where landlord failings are identified, the Ombudsman may give consideration to general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The landlord confirmed the resident had reported ASB as early as 2020. No details have been provided on the landlord’s responses to the reports of ASB from 2020 to 2022. However, those reports were the subject of an investigation by the landlord who responded to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process. Following this process, the matters were not referred to the Ombudsman by the resident at the material time.
  2. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited to various factors including the time that has passed. As such, given the passage of time since the landlord provided a final response to the resident in respect to her reports of ASB from 2020 – 2022, it would be unfair to now consider its handling of those complaints. Given the above, our investigation will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from 31 May 2023 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

  1. On 31 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report ASB from her neighbour. She said the neighbour had climbed into her garden and this was captured on CCTV. The resident said she had also experienced intimidation from them. She said the neighbour had broken a fence panel between their gardens and would not fix it. The resident said her mental health had suffered from this.
  2. The evidence does not show what action the landlord took following this report of ASB by the resident. There is no evidence to show the landlord contacted the resident or her neighbour following the report of trespassing, intimidation and damage to the fence.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says when dealing with issues of ASB it can do the following with the complainant:
    1. agree a realistic action plan,
    2. do a risk assessment,
    3. refer and/or agree a provision of ongoing support.
  4. There is no evidence to show the landlord completed any of these actions with the resident. This meant it did not adhere to its policy following the resident’s report of ASB. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 says good practice is to assess the risk of harm and potential vulnerabilities when an ASB complaint is received. The failure of the landlord to create an action plan, risk assess or refer for support was an inappropriate breach of its own ASB policy. The resident would have felt unsupported by the landlord and the lack of action would have caused her distress.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on the same day. She said she was not happy that the landlord had ‘done nothing to help her’. The resident described her allocated caseworker as ‘impatient’ when she reported ASB to her. She said that the landlord told her to record disturbances on a ‘noise app’. However, the resident said her caseworker told her the recordings ‘didn’t work’ and the recordings on the app ‘never do’.
  6. On 12 June 2023 the landlord replied to the resident’s complaint, at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It said it had reviewed the resident’s case and her complaints had been sporadic over ‘several years’. The landlord said the resident had previously taken a complaint on the same issue through its internal complaints process.
  7. The landlord said it previously agreed an action plan and had ‘already told her’ the evidence it required for it to act. It was unreasonable for the landlord to focus and rely on what had been said to the resident on previous complaints. The onus was on the landlord to ensure that the resident understood what she needed to do in the current situation. There was a lack of empathy in the landlord’s complaint response.
  8. The landlord said that if the resident had CCTV of any ASB it could review the footage for evidence. It also said it could liaise with the local police if the resident gave permission for this. These were reasonable responses by the landlord as it showed it was willing to look into available evidence and co-ordinate with relevant stakeholders
  9. Within the reply the landlord said that mediation had ‘previously been offered’ to the resident, but she had declined it. It said it ‘encouraged’ the resident to think about this as an option to resolve the ASB. This was an appropriate response by the landlord as mediation can be a successful tool in dealing with ASB.
  10. In the stage 1 response the landlord also said the resident could raise a new case of ASB if a new incident occurred. It said it would then monitor the case for 4 weeks. However, the landlord’s response appeared to be counter intuitive to its actions. The resident reported a new instance of ASB on the same day she raised her complaint. The landlord’s response that it required a further instance of ASB to be reported for a new case to be opened was an unreasonable reply. It was unfair that the landlord failed to act on the resident’s report dated 31 May 2023.
  11. The landlord said it had not identified any service failures and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It failed to assess or review its response to the resident’s reports of ASB against what should have happened as outlined in its ASB policy. Therefore, the landlord acted unreasonably.
  12. Following the landlord’s response at stage 1 the resident escalated her complaint. This Service requested the information regarding the escalation request, but the landlord did not provide the details.
  13. On 6 July 2023 the landlord replied to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It reiterated that it had identified no service failures at stage 1 of its process. The landlord said it was satisfied it had dealt with the case as per the ‘agreed actions’. It did not give details of what those ‘agreed actions’ were or what had taken place. There was a lack of meaningful detail in the landlord’s stage 2 reply.
  14. It was inappropriate of the landlord to fail to address how it was specifically responding to the resident’s complaint of 31 May 2023. It referenced previous ‘agreed actions’ without specifying what these were. The landlord’s lack of action resulted in it failing to meaningfully support the resident through the ASB she was experiencing and reporting to it. The landlord’s response appeared to assume that the reported ASB was low level and like the resident’s complaints reported previously. It did so without demonstrating it investigated the reports, as was evident in its lack of subsequent action. The landlord provided a generalised response which lacked empathy. This could have undermined the resident’s confidence that any further reports would be assessed on its own merits.
  15. The landlord did not address its failing to follow its ASB policy. There was a failure to provide a meaningful response that was specific to the resident’s most recent reports of ASB. The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate it treated the resident’s complaint seriously.
  16. The landlord said on 11 July 2023 it told the resident that her complaint was closed. It did not contact the resident prior to making the decision to close the case. This lack of communication on why they were closing her case would have caused further distress to the resident. The landlord told this Service it has since changed its procedure for closing complaint cases down. It now contacts all complainants before closing complaints to ensure all responses have been delivered for the resident. This demonstrates the landlord has learnt from this case. However, it has still failed to provide redress by way of apology or compensation to the resident for the mistake that affected her.
  17. On 22 August 2023 the resident reported ASB to the landlord. She said her neighbour was ‘making her and her disabled sons’ life hell’. The resident said her neighbour was being abusive, making threats and damaging her property. She said her neighbour was being homophobic and racist to her friends and family when they visited. She said she felt ‘let down’ and ‘extremely vulnerable’. She said she had submitted many complaints with supporting evidence but ‘to no avail’.
  18. On the following day the landlord replied to the resident. It said it had logged the ASB complaint on the system and it would investigate. It provided the resident with an incident diary to fill out any further incidents of ASB. The landlord told the resident she could contact them directly with any incidents that occurred. It also confirmed with the resident that they would have fortnightly contact.
  19. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will be ‘clear about how incidents of anti-social behaviour may be reported’. This was therefore a reasonable response by the landlord as it had agreed contact with the resident and how she could report any further ASB.
  20. However, there was no evidence again that a risk assessment was completed with the resident. This was a breach of its ASB policy. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will deal with ‘reported complaints promptly.’ There is no evidence to show that it contacted the resident’s neighbour to investigate the allegations. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to take these steps, especially when considering the severity of the allegations that had been made. The lack of risk assessment for the resident was inappropriate and a breach of its ASB policy.
  21. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 November 2023 and reported a further ASB incident involving an alleged hate crime against her daughter. She said she was receiving help from her GP for depression as an impact from the ASB she had experienced with her neighbour. The resident said it was also impacting her son’s behaviour.
  22. The landlord said it contacted the resident regarding this report. Following that a referral was made to the local authority as it said the landlord’s internal complaints process was exhausted. Local authorities can help if ASB is occurring in properties not owned by the landlord. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will ‘take harassment or hate crime in any form against any member of our community extremely seriously’. The referral to the local authority was therefore a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
  23. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it explained to the resident why it made a referral to the local authority. It had a duty to support the resident during the ASB she was experiencing.
  24. The landlord provided a case note to this Service which said the resident did not provide evidence of ASB to the local authority. This was following its referral. It also noted she did not agree for the local authority to request information of the ASB from the police.
  25. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord was supportive or took measures to understand the reluctance of the resident to engage in the process. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord should have been more proactive around supporting her, other than simply making a referral. To meaningfully assist in resolving the resident’s complaints, the landlord could have supported the resident to gather and present evidence. It could have also provided effective signposting to agencies. This was particularly relevant given the landlord was aware the resident had shown reluctance to engage with third parties through its previous offer of mediation.
  26. The landlord closed the ASB case and wrote to the resident on 3 January 2024. It said the resident had not engaged with the local authority, the police information request or the offer of mediation. It said therefore there was no further action to be taken. The resident appealed this decision on 8 January 2024. The landlord contacted her on the same day, but it noted the resident was unwilling to discuss the case. It wrote to her on 12 January 2024 to advise it could ‘not proceed’ with the case. The landlord said it assured the resident that it would reopen the case if there was new evidence. It also offered to signpost the resident to ‘appropriate support agencies’.
  27. The landlord notes that a further ASB complaint was made by the resident about her neighbour on 31 January 2024. It said it contacted the resident on 8 and 27 February 2024 but she declined any intervention from the landlord. The landlord said on its case note this was due to her bringing her case to this Service.
  28. Following the resident bringing her case to this Service the landlord reviewed the resident’s case. On 15 March 2024 the landlord told this Service it had since recognised there were ‘failures’ in the way it dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB. From this it has identified process improvements and implemented changes to the service it provides to its residents. These included a complete review of all open ASB cases and an audit of complaint responses to ensure correct closure of cases. The landlord also said it has made changes to its ‘Neighbourhood Service Model’ with the aim to be responsive to low-level ASB.
  29. The landlord did not offer any measures to the resident to put things right. This was despite the landlord’s review process and identifying there were failures with how it handled the resident’s case.
  30. In summary, the resident’s reports of ASB since March 2023 were not investigated by the landlord as per its ASB policy. There is no evidence that an action plan or a risk assessment were completed at any stage. Through its complaint investigation the landlord failed to correctly review the action it had taken against its own ASB policy.
  31. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour to discuss the allegations made by the resident. It failed to take reasonable steps to gather evidence, such as speaking to neighbours or the alleged perpetrators. In its complaint responses the landlord failed to reissue the instructions to the resident for her case to progress. The landlord unreasonably assumed a level of understanding and that the resident had access to previous communications by the landlord. All the failures outlined will have caused distress to the resident.
  32. The landlord had a series of failures in the management of the residents reports of ASB. The failures were in contravention to its policies, in relation to effective case management and a lack of meaningful communication or support to the resident. These failures and the resulting impact on the resident amounts to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to;
    1. apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of her reports of ASB and her complaint. The apology must reflect the findings above.
    2. pay the resident £600 in compensation. This is for the distress caused to the resident for the failure to follow its ASB policy.
  2. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and establish whether there are any concerns regarding ongoing ASB. It should reiterate and reassure the resident how to report any further ASB. The landlord should provide a copy of this correspondence to this service.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on:
    1. the measures it will take to ensure residents will receive a level of service which aligns with its ASB policies in all instances. This will include the steps taken to ensure all cases are appropriately risk assessed and have action plans which are updated at appropriate points in the complaint timeline.
    2. the steps the landlord will take to ensure reasonable support is provided to residents where the landlord is not the lead investigating agency for complaints. This should include how the landlord will provide effective communication and signposting with its residents, emphasising the importance of staff being polite, respectful, and empathetic in their approach. The landlord may benefit from referring to this Service’s spotlight report on “Attitudes, respect and rights” and the recommendations contained within the report.
  4. The landlord should reply to this Service providing evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales outlined above.