Tower Hamlets Homes (202115528)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115528

Tower Hamlets Homes

18 February 2022

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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy and procedure.
   2. The landlord’s handling of ASB allegations made against the resident by her neighbour (A).
   3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(f) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its ASB policy and procedure.
4. Paragraph 39(f) of the Scheme, states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern policies which have been properly decided by the member in accordance with relevant and appropriate best practice, unless the policy may give rise or contribute to a systemic service failure”.
5. The resident has complained that the landlord’s published ASB policy and procedure is largely absent, not transparent, not proactive or investigative, and avoids action against false claims made by residents including vulnerable ones. She has also complained that this gives rise to systemic failures, including a lack of responses, the prevention of further ASB reports, and it subsequently reviewing only previous correspondence and documentation, as well as demonstrates its lack of adherence to best practice, such as the “Respect: ASB Charter for Housing” and this Service’s guidance notes.
6. There is, however, no evidence that the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure may lead to a systemic service failure. This is because it has provided this Service with its extensive internal ASB policy and procedure that accords with relevant and appropriate best practice, including proactive and investigative action, responses, the acceptance of further ASB reports, and reviewing evidence beyond previous correspondence and documentation.
7. As there is also no indication of many other reports than the resident’s suggesting that the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure still gives rise to a systemic service failure, this instead suggests that any failings by the landlord in her case relate to its lack of adherence to the policy and procedure and not to these leading to systemic failure themselves. Therefore, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

8. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
9. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 11 June 2021. She relayed that it had informed her on 21 September 2020 that an ASB allegation had been made against her, but no details were given to her. The resident was aware that, under the landlord’s ASB policy, it was to write to people who were accused of ASB to provide details and it was to give support to those falsely accused. She said that, to date, she had received no further communication about the allegation made against her.
10. The resident relayed that she had since contacted the landlord on 10 November 2020 and 29 March 2021 to request more information but had received no response other than an acknowledgement. She wanted it to now investigate her counter claim of ASB against A for making false accusations against herself and three others. The resident also reported that A had used CCTV to watch her while in the communal garden and had been “stalking and filming [her] aggressively with [their] mobile phone”. This incident was reported to the police but was not passed to the landlord.
11. The resident reported that A had displayed “escalating antisocial behaviour”, and the resident wanted the details of her police report to be recorded by the landlord. She also requested that it correct complaint responses it had provided to another tenant, which said no other tenants had complained about A.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 June 2021 to offer her an appointment to discuss her report of ASB from A. She replied to it to decline the appointment pending the outcome of her complaint.
13. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 21 June 2021, in which it said it was sorry if she had not received a more detailed response to her previous communication. It confirmed that it had assigned her counter-allegation to an ASB officer who would be in contact with her to discuss the case.
14. On 8 July 2021, the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord to the final stage of its complaints procedure. She said that it had not addressed her dissatisfaction with the way it had handled the historic ASB allegation made about her. The resident repeated that, other than a telephone call on 21 September 2020 when the landlord informed her that “very serious allegations” had been made against her, she had received no other follow up or information. This was despite her efforts to contact its ASB team, and she remained unaware of what had been alleged.
15. The resident was aware that the ASB case had been closed and highlighted that the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure was absent from its website. She noted that it was signed up to the “Respect: ASB Charter for Housing”, which stated that alleged perpetrators of ASB were to be provided with an opportunity to discuss any ASB allegations made against them, and to have a separate ASB case opened for any counterclaims of ASB. The resident said that she, and three other tenants who had had allegations made against them, had been denied the opportunity to make counterclaims against A.
16. The resident contended that the landlord had no ASB policy or procedure, and this had led to it taking a “make-it-up-as-you-go-along” approach. She said that it had told her that it had written to her, and the three other tenants concerned on 23 October 2020, but nobody had received this letter. The resident contended that her report of ASB from A in her stage one complaint should lead to A’s ASB case being re-opened, as it had been reported to the police. She presumed that she had been accused of committing a hate crime, which she asserted was false and therefore the accusation was malicious.
17. The resident asserted that the landlord had not followed its ASB policy and procedure, as displayed on its website, as it had not taken action against A for making “malicious accusations”. She requested that it should work with its partners, such as the police and community mental health support, to carry out an ASB investigation into A’s conduct. The resident also reiterated that she wanted the landlord to update its records, and correct a complaint response issued to another tenant, which had said that they were the only ones to have reported ASB by A. She reiterated that the landlord did not have a “working ASB policy” and did not adhere to the “Respect: ASB Charter for Housing”.
18. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 6 August 2021, in which it acknowledged that it had contacted her on 21 September 2020 about allegations of ASB made against her. It confirmed that, following its conversation with her, it informed the accuser that the allegations were unsubstantiated. The landlord noted that it should have communicated with her after this to confirm that these allegations had not been substantiated and apologised for not doing this.
19. The landlord explained that this was due to the investigating staff member leaving its employment and the follow up communication being missed. The landlord also apologised for its failure to respond to the resident’s subsequent enquiries about the allegations made against her. It acknowledged that this was not in accordance with its service standards.
20. The landlord confirmed that it had opened a new ASB case in response to the resident’s report of ASB in her stage one complaint. It noted that she had asked for the investigation to be paused while she awaited the outcome of her complaint. Regarding the resident’s concern that the landlord had not responded accurately to another tenant’s complaint, it advised that it would be inappropriate for it to discuss complaints relating to a third party.
21. The landlord and the resident corresponded between 6 and 11 August 2021 when she expressed continued dissatisfaction with the landlord not addressing her contention that its ASB policy and procedure were inadequate. In the course of this correspondence, it provided her with its ASB policy and procedure.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

22. The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure, regarding alleged perpetrators of ASB, states that it will keep up to date records of all contact and provide support for both victims and perpetrators of ASB.
23. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure provides for a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, no timeframe is provided for a complaint, although it expects to resolve complaints at this stage within 20 working days. At the final stage of the complaints process, it is to respond within 20 working days.
24. The landlord’s redress and compensation policy states that compensation may be offered in recognition of a resident not receiving a reasonable level of service. This compensation may be offered when a resident has suffered distress or for their time and trouble in pursuing a justified complaint. The policy provides for payments of £25 to £250 to be offered for the resident’s time and trouble, and broadly between £200 and £1,000 per annum for inconvenience and distress dependent on the severity and duration of the failure.

The landlord’s handling of ASB allegations made against the resident by A

25. The landlord has a duty under its above ASB policy and procedure to investigate reports of ASB to determine whether a breach of tenancy or lease has occurred. When it receives a report of ASB from a resident about another, it may be appropriate to contact the alleged perpetrator of the ASB to discuss the claims. If the landlord does so, and finds that the ASB report was unsubstantiated, then it would be expected to update the alleged perpetrator. Failure to do this may lead to distress or inconvenience for the alleged perpetrator.
26. In this case, there was no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to inform her of the outcome of its investigation into A’s report of ASB about her. This was an unreasonable omission on its part, as the resident would have had a reasonable expectation that she would be kept informed about the investigation and given an opportunity to provide her response to the allegations.
27. The landlord acknowledged, in its final stage complaint response to the resident on 6 August 2021, that it had failed to communicate effectively with her about the ASB allegations and provided a partial explanation for this. Given that it acknowledged this failure to communicate, it would have been reasonable for it to offer compensation to her under its above redress and compensation policy for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to her by this. Therefore, an order to this effect has been made below.
28. While the landlord failed to inform the resident of the outcome of the allegations made against her, this did not prevent her from reporting to it any instances of ASB she experienced from A. There is no difference between a counterclaim of ASB and a claim of ASB in this respect as, if the resident experienced ASB at any time, this could have been reported to the landlord for it to investigate in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure. This was demonstrated by her report to it in her stage one complaint of 11 June 2021 that A had watched and filmed her in a manner that she found threatening.
29. For a landlord to take action against a resident for ASB under its ASB policy and procedure, it must firstly be made aware that this resident is committing ASB. If the resident in this case felt that malicious accusations were being made about her by A, then this would need to be reported to it to allow it to investigate this. While such an allegation may be found to be unsubstantiated, this does not automatically mean that the allegation was malicious, and it would not expected of a landlord to treat an unsubstantiated allegation as ASB in itself, without a report that the allegation was made in bad faith.
30. There was no evidence that the resident previously reported A to the landlord for committing ASB, and so it would not be reasonable to expect it to have investigated ASB committed by A until the resident reported this, including in relation to allegedly malicious accusations. Therefore, there was no failure on its part for not investigating ASB by A sooner than the resident’s report of ASB by A to it in her stage one complaint.
31. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £250 where there has been a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact, which accords with the landlord’s redress and compensation policy. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to communicate effectively with the resident, contrary to its ASB policy and procedure, which led to further effort on her part, however this failure did not prevent the resident from reporting any ASB to the landlord.
32. Therefore, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of communication, compensation of £150 should be paid to her by it, which has therefore been ordered below, together with recommendations for it to review its handling of ASB communication and provide relevant staff training. On a separate note, as she has also expressed concerns about its ASB policy and procedure largely being absent from its website, it has additionally been recommended below to seek to resolve her concerns about this by considering publishing its internal ASB policy and procedure on its website in full.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

33. The landlord’s responses to the resident at the first and final stages of the complaints process were issued in accordance with the timescales in its complaints policy and procedure above. However, the landlord, in its stage one complaint response on 21 June 2021, appeared to treat the stage one complaint as a report of ASB about A only, and it did not use the opportunity to address the resident’s report of its lack of communication over ASB allegations made against her.
34. This is because the landlord’s stage one complaint response merely said that it was sorry if the resident had not received a more detailed response to her previous communication, and it confirmed that it had assigned her counter-allegation to an ASB officer who would be contact with her to discuss the case. This alone was inappropriate, as her stage one complaint to it of 11 June 2021 had also explained that she had not received any details or further communication about A’s ASB allegation against her since it had first informed her of this on 21 September 2020, despite her subsequent requests for these on 10 November 2020 and 29 March 2021. However, the landlord’s stage one complaint response failed to address these concerns expressed by the resident.
35. This failure by the landlord’s led to further effort and inconvenience on the resident’s behalf in pursuing her complaint. Its final stage complaint response on 6 August 2021 also failed to address her concerns about its ASB policy and procedure, outlined in her final stage complaint to it of 8 July 2021, which again led to further effort on her part to seek clarification on the matter.
36. This is because the resident’s final stage complaint to the landlord described her as being dissatisfied with issues including both its above lack of further ASB communication and the absence of its ASB policy and procedure from its website, as well as a lack of further action by it against A in response to her ASB reports about them. Whereas its final stage complaint response only addressed the lack of further ASB communication, and not the status of the ASB policy and procedure or her dissatisfaction that it had not taken further action against A.
37. Therefore, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s redress and compensation policy above, compensation of £150 should be paid by it to her for its failure to address her complaint fully at both stages of its complaints process, which has been ordered below. It has also been recommended below to provide relevant staff training to seek to prevent this from occurring again in the future.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its ASB allegations made against the resident by A.
39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

40. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident, but it offered her no compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by this, and it did not explain how it would prevent this from occurring again in the future.
41. The landlord failed, at both stages of its complaints process, to fully address the resident’s complaint, leading to further involvement on her part, and it neither acknowledged and remedied these failings nor took steps to try and stop them from happening again.

Order and recommendations

42. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £300 within four weeks, which is broken down into:
    1. £150 compensation to her for its acknowledged failures in communicating with her about the ASB allegations made against her.
    2. £150 compensation to her for its failure to address her complaint fully at both stages of its complaints process.
43. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its handling of communication with alleged victims and perpetrators of ASB to ensure that relevant parties are kept updated with progress and the outcomes of investigations, in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure.
    2. Consider publishing its internal ASB policy and procedure on its website in full.
    3. Provide refresher training to its staff to ensure that its ASB and complaints handling staff and adequately trained and resourced to allow them to address ASB cases and formal complaints in full at the first opportunity to prevent unnecessary involvement by residents, in accordance with its ASB and complaints policies and procedures.
44. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendations.