Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202409459)

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.

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.

What we have not investigated

6. The resident raised a separate complaint with us under case reference 202430044 that looked at the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports from 7 May 2024. This investigation will not duplicate the other investigation and looks at matters between 21 October 2023 and the landlord’s final complaint response of 7 May 2024.
7. The resident has provided medical letters which refer to the impact the ASB is having on her. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide though, if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

8. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord agreed to investigate ASB reports in line with its ASB policy. Its policy says If it can’t solve the problem straight away, it will draw up an action plan, with timescales. It will regularly provide updates on progress and discuss options at every stage. In dealing with the case, it will aim to bring the ASB to an end as quickly as possible. If the situation is serious and things don’t improve, it will consider taking the case to court but there must be enough evidence.
9. On 23 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had been experiencing issues with her neighbour making noise. The landlord visited the neighbour on 27 October 2023 but was unable to confirm there had been a noise nuisance. The resident reported further issues on 30 October 2023, but the landlord did not complete a risk assessment or investigate this further in line with the ASB policy. Instead, it closed the case and failed to tell the resident it had done that and it was the resident’s complaint in February 2024 that prompted further action.
10. The landlord agreed an action plan with the resident on 13 March 2024. It said it would send a warning letter to the neighbour, speak to a manager on how to proceed and consider re-housing the resident. However, it later explained that moving her was unlikely to be a viable option. It said transfers were managed by the council’s choice based letting system, and she would need to complete a transfer application. It did offer to assist her with that, if needed.
11. The landlord confirmed a warning letter was sent to the neighbour on 18 March 2024 and it sent diary sheets for the resident to complete. It said it would collate evidence and get legal advice to consider all options available. On 3 July 2024 the landlord explained it had not had any further reports regarding new noise nuisance since May 2024. It had reviewed the information and evidence it had, and it had also contacted other neighbours. As there were no further reports of noise nuisance or ASB it was limited in the action it could take. It also meant there was insufficient evidence to consider any legal action. So, as per its ASB policy, it could not consider evicting the neighbour.
12. The landlord did manage the resident’s expectations in relation to possibly being re-housed and taking legal action. However, it acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response it should not have closed the ASB case when it did and that it failed to inform the resident it had done so. It accepted its communication had been poor and promised that would improve by arranging for the resident to be contacted by 27 March 2024. In the meantime, the resident completed the diary sheets and submitted them to the landlord as requested.
13. Aside from sending a warning letter, there is no evidence of things improving. The landlord did not contact the resident as it had promised and in accordance with its ASB policy, and the resident reported further issues. It also did not suggest fitting a sound monitoring system until 31 July 2024, several months after issues were first reported. The landlord could have been more proactive. If the landlord decided the ASB was not at a level it could investigate, it should have told the resident to manage her expectations. The resident escalated her complaint and in its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted it had not provided accurate information earlier. It also accepted its communication had again fallen short, which it apologised for. It arranged for her case to be overseen by a manager, who would meet with the resident to put an action plan in place. It also set out the process the resident would need to follow if she wanted to apply to move.
14. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord apologised for its errors and offered £50 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. However, its stage 2 complaint response failed to increase the compensation to take in to account the additional frustration caused to the resident by it repeating the same mistakes. The landlord seemed to only take action when prompted by the resident either chasing or complaining. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £200 compensation in keeping with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures that adversely affected the resident. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience from its failures in handling her ASB reports.

15. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It must log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
16. The landlord took 7 working days to acknowledge the complaint and didn’t give the resident the correct date, for when to expect a response. The 2-day delay, while modest, was outside of its policy timescale, but the landlord did apologise and correct the response due date, when the typographical error was brought to its attention.
17. The stage 1 response addressed all issues raised, and its decision to not investigate 3 additional issues was in line with its complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged it had not progressed the ASB case and its communication had fallen short. It was therefore appropriate that it apologised for that and took steps to put things right by offering compensation.  At stage 2, the landlord complied with its obligation to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days.
18. The landlord’s apology for putting the incorrect date on its 6 March 2024 email was a proportionate response to a minor oversight. The only issue with the landlord’s complaint handling was the 2-day delay acknowledging the complaint. The resident was not inconvenienced by this, and as the delay was minimal, there has been no maladministration.

Learning

19. The landlord could have done more to explain to the resident at the outset, the amount of evidence it would need to be able to take action to address ASB, so her expectations were properly managed. It should also create an action plan and carry out a risk assessment as early as possible so it is clear what it will do and when, as per its ASB policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord closed the ASB case and did not tell the resident, which meant no action was being taken. It should therefore check all staff dealing with ASB are reminded of how ASB cases should be recorded and dealt with in accordance with its policy.
21. The landlord should also check that it holds all details of an ASB case on a centralised case management system so that if, for example, the case was handed over to a new housing officer or progressed to legal action all the relevant information would be held together in a single accessible place.

Communication

22. The landlord should ensure that whoever it responsible for monitoring an active ASB case, regularly updates the resident and discusses options with them at every stage, as per its ASB policy.