We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Town and Country Housing (202400473)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400473

Town and Country Housing

9 October 2024


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Reports of concerns with the condition of a communal bin store.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy.
  2. The resident suffers from parasomnia, as does his partner.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 19 April 2023 to report anti-social behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours. He reported 3 of his neighbours for various reasons. These included excessive noise throughout the day and night, drug-taking on the premises, as well as the number of visitors. The landlord acknowledged these reports on the same day and arranged visits to the perpetrators on 2 May 2023 and 10 May 2023.
  4. Following the resident’s reports of more ASB on 28 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the alleged perpetrators on 30 May 2023, warning them about their behaviour and of breaching their tenancy agreement. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 21 June 2023, advising him that if it did not hear from him in 7 days, it would be closing the ASB case as it had not received any further reports of nuisance.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 July 2023 raising his complaint. He said that the block had suffered from ASB problems for the last 16 years and that the landlord was culpable for a failure to properly manage this. The resident said that he no longer felt safe in his flat due to the frequent violent altercations and behaviour associated with drug use. He was unhappy that the onus was on residents to reports incidents to the police and felt that the landlord should be doing more to work with the relevant authorities. He was also unhappy with how the communal bin store had been poorly maintained resulting in bad smells and flies.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2023. It did not uphold his complaint. It said it had looked through his previous ASB reports and found no service failure in its handling of these. It said it had been unable to progress towards enforcement actions towards neighbours due to a lack of evidence. It described to the resident how he could continue to record evidence to help it build its case. It also said it had inspected the bin store, finding this in an acceptable condition. It said that it would complete improvement works however to try and manage any ongoing issues. It also said it would be in contact to discuss a possible move away from the property.
  7. The resident e-mailed the landlord on 23 August 2023, requesting it escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. He said that he did not believe the landlord had logged all of his ASB reports and felt that he had provided the landlord with evidence of the ongoing ASB. He said he was unsure of how the landlord intended to deal with the issues without putting him at risk. He also stated that the landlord had not finished the repairs which it said would reduce noise from the communal doors.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 October 2023. It again did not uphold the complaint. It said it had found no evidence of reports it had failed to deal with, and the resident had not provided it with any evidence despite its requests. It again said it was satisfied it had not found any service failures and a housing officer would be in touch to provide more information about the roles and responsibilities of all the parties and authorities involved in dealing with ASB. It asked the resident to continue to work with it to complete diary sheets and to make reports to the police about any criminal activity.
  9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 4 April 2024 to refer his complaint to us. He said that he felt the landlord’s response to ASB had been lacklustre and that its failures had caused a significant affect on his and his family’s health. To resolve his complaint, he has said he wanted the landlord to take proper definitive action regarding the ASB.  

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which ‘were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising’. This means that the resident’s reports of ASB brought over a year before he raised his complaint will not form part of this investigation. The Ombudsman has however viewed these as part of the wider context of the resident’s complaint.
  2. When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to reach a decision on whether ASB has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s approach to ASB has 4 stages. These are as follows:
    1. Prevention. The landlord uses starter tenancies for new tenants as well as Good Neighbour Agreements. The landlord also seeks to educate residents on how to reduce ASB.
    2. Early Intervention. The landlord uses this to try and seek swift resolutions after receiving reports of ASB. These include actions such as mediation, warning letters, home visits and Acceptable Behaviour Agreements.
    3. Enforcement Action. The landlord can take legal action where early intervention has failed. The landlord says that the case manager and a line manager will consider if legal action is necessary. Actions available to the landlord include possession action, injunctions and demotions of tenancy.
    4. Support for victims. The landlord says it will carry out risk assessments for the complainants and refer to other agencies when appropriate.
  2. Throughout this ASB case, the resident reported 5 separate incidents of ASB, including 3 different neighbours. The resident raised allegations of excessive noise from neighbours and their visitors, drug use, intimidating behaviour, and a neighbour ringing on his doorbell.
  3. Following his reports, the landlord undertook visits to each of the alleged perpetrators and provided each with a formal written warning letter. The landlord’s letter identified that there had been a potential breach of tenancy and warned them of the need to cease their behaviour. The landlord acted in line with the early intervention aspect of its ASB policy.
  4. The landlord acted swiftly upon reports whenever the resident raised these. When the landlord opened a new ASB case in April 2023, it performed a risk assessment the following day and outlined its plan of action for dealing with the issues. The landlord communicated promptly with the resident about its actions and regularly contacted the resident in order to check the status of the ASB. The landlord was generally very pro-active in managing the ASB and communicating with the alleged perpetrators.
  5. The resident has stated that he would like the landlord to be more pro-active and to work with other agencies such as the police to identify potential breaches in tenancy. He feels this would allow it to move forward with any enforcement action. The landlord stated in its complaint response that, at that time, it did not have sufficient evidence to be able to proceed with any legal or enforcement actions. It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident of this, and to advise him of the types of evidence it would require moving forwards. The landlord’s action in providing the resident with a written follow-up letter detailing who to contact in what situation was also fair.
  6. The landlord’s evidence indicates that it has had some discussions with external agencies about the ongoing ASB at the property and the alleged perpetrators. The Ombudsman however recommends that the landlord considers bringing the matter to the local authority’s Community Safety Partnership. This will allow it to consider an action plan with wider engagement for dealing with the ongoing ASB at the property.
  7. The resident stated that he would like to move from the property due to the ongoing ASB. The landlord’s management move policy says that it generally will not move complainants or perpetrators of ASB cases. In this instance, the landlord has made an exception and has provided the resident with support regarding a move. It has also advised and encouraged him to speak with the local authority about this move. This was fair from the landlord and represented a resolution focused response to the resident’s request.
  8. In its complaint responses, the landlord also mentioned that it was considering the addition of CCTV. It considered this in relation to both the ASB, and the ongoing issue of residents incorrectly using the bin store. The landlord has now installed this in the building. It also undertook repair works to communal doors in order to lessen the sound made when these closed. Whilst there were some delays in the landlord finishing these works, these were not significant enough to amount to a finding of service failure.
  9. Following the landlord’s intervention, the resident did not make any new reports of ASB until the conclusion of the complaint. The resident has made new reports since the complaint ended. These were not part of the complaint under consideration and so the Ombudsman has not assessed the handling of these as part of this investigation. If the resident is dissatisfied with the handling of new reports since October 2023, he may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord.
  10. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB. The landlord responded to the reports in line with its policies and took reasonable steps to attempt to manage the ongoing ASB during the complaint period.
  11. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord writes to the resident requesting an update on any current ASB with an outline for how it intends to continue to manage this. It should also list what steps it will be taking if the ASB does escalate and what external parties, such as the Community Safety Partnership, it can involve.

The landlord’s handling of reports of concerns with the condition of a communal bin store

  1. The landlord’s management of the improper usage of the communal bin store falls under its anti-social behaviour policy. This lists both littering and fly-tipping as a form of anti-social behaviour. These, along with poor maintenance of the bin stores and smells, are the issues that the resident reported.
  2. The landlord undertook a visit to the property 8 working days after the resident first reported concerns. The landlord inspected the bin-shed and found it to be in an acceptable condition. It reported that it looked ‘fairly clean’ and in ‘working order’.
  3. Nonetheless, the landlord undertook works to improve the overall condition of the bin-store and to ensure that it prevented any future misuse. The landlord internally discussed if the number of bins was sufficient, before finding that it fell in line with the statutory requirements. It also added both a roof to the store and a lock to prevent further misuse or fly-tipping. The landlord later investigated if it was in fact better to have this locked via a keypad rather than a key after a neighbour left bin bags outside of this.
  4. The landlord also investigated, and has since added, CCTV to the area which covers the bin store. The landlord believed that doing so would be a deterrent to potential fly-tippers and neighbours who may have been dumping rubbish incorrectly.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s handling of this matter was fair and there was no maladministration. It inspected the area, finding no immediate concerns. It then undertook actions in order to reduce the chances of further issues. Its internal correspondence indicated that, throughout the course of the complaint, it continued to monitor the reported concerns. The landlord’s actions represented a pro-active response to the problems the resident raised.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, the landlord says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 days of sending the acknowledgement. At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord says it will provide a response within 20 working days. It also says that if there are any delays in providing responses within these timescales, it will inform residents.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord failed to provide a response within the timescales set out in its policy. It took the landlord 4 days to provide its acknowledgement, and then a further 17 days to provide its stage 1 response. It therefore took the landlord 21 working days to complete stage 1 of its complaints process. Whilst this was only a small delay, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to acknowledge its delay in its complaint response, which it failed to do.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord again failed to provide a response within the timescales outlined in its policy, taking 38 working days to provide its response. Again, it failed to acknowledge its delays in the response itself. Given these delays, a compensation award would have been appropriate.
  4. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord for failing to respond to his calls in November 2023 and January 2024. Whilst the landlord should always be logging and responding to all requests made from residents, as this took place after the conclusion of the stage 2 complaint response, this would not form part of this investigation. The stage 2 final complaint response signposted the resident appropriately on how he could escalate his concerns further.
  5. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Both the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were not provided within the timescales specified in its policy. It also failed to acknowledge these delays. For this failing, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends amounts in this range for minor service failures.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of concerns with the condition of a communal bin-store.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident £50 for its delays when handling his complaint.
    2. Apologises to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Provides evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord writes to the resident outlining how it intends to deal with any future occurrences of ASB. This should also include information on how it intends to work with any external agencies such as through the Community Safety Partnerships.