Vico Homes Limited (202317417)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317417

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

28 March 2025

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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Information held on its records and sharing of information.
2. Reports of a leak to the resident’s bedroom ceiling.
3. The resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application.
4. The resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
5. Concerns raised by the resident about staff conduct.

Background

The resident is an assured joint tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in April 2010. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
The resident reported an incident of ASB to the landlord on 1 May 2023. The resident told the landlord that a neighbour had threatened her husband. This was because her husband had asked him to stop walking through their garden to access his friend’s property. The landlord sent the resident an ASB case update letter on 15 May 2023.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 May 2023 as she was unhappy with the content of the letter and the way the landlord had managed her report of ASB. She also raised concerns about the behaviour of the landlord’s staff.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 2 June 2023. It accepted that there had been service failures in the way it had allocated and managed the ASB case. It also accepted that there had been failures in the level of customer service it had provided. However, it did not accept that there was any evidence of widespread poor conduct from its employees. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £125 compensation for the identified failures.
Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. It re-iterated its apology to the resident and increased its offer of compensation to £200.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.

Information held on its records and sharing of information

Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints that “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
Part of the resident’s complaint is that she believes the landlord does not appropriately manage information held on its records. She also believes the landlord shared information belonging to another party without consent.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body responsible for upholding information rights in the public interest. It is responsible for oversight of all complaints where a member of the public remains dissatisfied with an organisation’s response in regard to a complaint about the following:
1. It has not properly responded to a request for personal information.
2. It is not keeping information secure.
3. It holds inaccurate information about a person.
4. It has disclosed information about a person.
5. It is keeping personal information for longer than is necessary.
6. It has collected information for one reason and is using it for something else.
7. It has not upheld any of a person’s data protection rights.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the landlord’s handling of information held on its records and sharing of information sits outside of our jurisdiction. This is because the resident’s dissatisfaction about the landlord’s response to her complaints about data and information management should be made to the ICO.

Reports of a leak to the resident’s bedroom ceiling and the resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints that “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
Parts of the complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s bedroom ceiling and its handling of the resident’s RTA application. After carefully considering all the evidence, the landlord’s handling of both these issues sits outside of our jurisdiction. This is because there is no evidence to show that the resident formally raised these specific issues with the landlord as part of this complaint. The landlord has also not addressed either of these issues within its complaint responses.

Scope of investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint is about a dispute relating to a neighbour’s right of way over the resident’s property. The interpretation of land registry titles and disputes over rights of way are matters for a court to decide upon if they are in dispute. As such, these matters are not considered as part of this assessment.
The resident says she has been subjected to incidents of harassment from neighbours for many years. However, this investigation will only consider the most recent incident of ASB in May 2023. This is because the landlord’s records show that prior to this incident, the last reported incident of ASB was 2018.

The resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The purpose of this investigation is for us to decide whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures. We will also look at whether its actions were fair and reasonable. We will not decide whether ASB took place, or which party in the neighbour dispute was responsible.
The resident’s property is subject to a legal right of way. Her next door neighbour is allowed to use a pathway that runs from the back of his property, through her back garden, along the perimeter of her property, and out onto the road. This appears to be because the next door neighbour’s property is a mid-terrace with no direct access to the back garden.
The resident reported an incident of ASB to the landlord and the police on 1 May 2023. Another neighbour (referred to as the alleged perpetrator in this report) had entered her garden to access her next door neighbour’s property via the right of way. The evidence suggests that the alleged perpetrator cut across the resident’s garden through a gap in the fencing. He did not use the defined pathway from the front of the resident’s property. The resident’s husband asked the alleged perpetrator to stop walking through their garden. The resident told the landlord that the alleged perpetrator then threatened to assault her husband.
At the time of the report the landlord completed a risk assessment in line with its ASB policy. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s score was 17. The landlord has not provided a copy of the risk assessment. So, it is unclear exactly how it assessed the risk to the resident and her family.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that a score of 17 is “low risk” and low risk cases are dealt with by its estate management team. It also says that a low risk score “suggests that although there is a nuisance issue, it is not targeted directly at the individual and there are no real concerns about their vulnerability or that of their family”. However, this assessment contradicts the reported incident, as the resident told the landlord the alleged perpetrator made direct threats of violence to her husband. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord queried why an incident involving threats of violence would result in such a low risk assessment score. The unexplained contradiction was unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly as the resident was very distressed and in fear of her safety.
The resident contacted the landlord again on the same day. She said the police confirmed they would be attending her property. She also reported the alleged perpetrator and a few other people had gathered in her back garden. The landlord told the resident to keep her doors locked and not to go near the windows until the police arrived. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord completed a further risk assessment based on the escalation of the incident. Had it done so, it would likely have seen that the risk to the resident and her family had increased at this point.
The landlord’s ASB policy also says its community safety team will deal with “all cases relating to physical violence or direct threats of physical violence”. However, even though the resident had reported a direct threat, the landlord still allocated her case to the estate management team based on the risk assessment score alone. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and not in line with the ASB policy.
The landlord also bases the timescales for contacting complainants on the risk assessment scores. The higher the risk, the quicker the response time. However, this meant the landlord had up to 7 working days to contact the resident because of her “low risk” score. This was inappropriate given the serious nature of the allegations and the impact the incident was having on the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 May 2023 in a distressed state. She told the landlord her son was scared to leave the house to go to school. She said she was also scared to leave the house as she was worried the alleged perpetrator would assault her. The landlord tried to visit the resident at home on 4 May 2023. Although the evidence suggests this was not a pre-arranged visit. As the resident was not at home at the time of the visit, the landlord left a calling card.
The landlord made a further appointment with the resident for 9 May 2023 at 10am, which was over a week after the reported incident. The resident arranged for her local councillor to be present. However, the landlord did not attend until 11:30am, and by this time the resident was not at home. The evidence shows that the landlord had no intention of visiting at 10am as agreed. This is because the case officer already had an appointment at that time elsewhere. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident as she was expecting the landlord to attend at the agreed time.
The landlord visited the resident at home on 11 May 2023. The resident’s local councillor was present. The landlord’s records show during the visit it approached the alleged perpetrator and issued a verbal tenancy warning. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
In response to the warning they received, the alleged perpetrator informed the landlord of the right of way. He said it was for “everyday use and access to the rear” of the resident’s next door neighbour’s property. The landlord said it was not aware of the right of way and said it would look into it. It said it could not restrict the alleged perpetrators access whilst he was carrying out work for the resident’s next door neighbour. The landlord informed the alleged perpetrator he was not to be abusive or act in a way that could cause alarm, harassment or distress to the resident.
The landlord also told the alleged perpetrator he must use the specific right of way only and not access the resident’s garden from the gap in the boundary fencing. This was reasonable in the circumstances as the landlord was not in a position to restrict access to a legal right of way, but it did remind the alleged perpetrator of the appropriate route to get to the right of way.
The evidence shows that the landlord offered the resident wellbeing support and mediation in line with its ASB policy. The landlord also completed an action plan in line with its policy, which was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the resident declined both mediation and support.
The landlord sent the resident a follow up letter on 15 May 2023. It confirmed there was a right of way over their property and said the alleged perpetrator had been “advised about the correct usage”. The landlord told the resident that she could install new boundary fencing (between her property and the alleged perpetrator’s property) to close the gap in the fence, subject to obtaining permission. It also said it would monitor the situation and it asked her to report any further incidents.
The landlord also sent the alleged perpetrator a warning letter in line with its ASB policy. It said he must use the right of way “respectfully to neighbouring properties, with the permission of the homeowner to access his land”. It confirmed that he was not to access the property via the gap in the fenced area to the rear of his property.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 May 2023 as she was unhappy with the way the landlord had dealt with her report of ASB. She disputed the landlord’s version of events during the visit on 11 May 2023 as she felt the landlord had behaved unprofessionally. She also questioned the right of way access.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 2 June 2023. It apologised and offered the resident compensation of £125. It acknowledged it should have allocated the ASB case to its community safety team due to the threat of violence. It also acknowledged that it had logged the resident’s call on 3 May 2023, although it was unsure whether the case officer had taken the call into consideration. It accepted that the case officer had made an appointment and then did not attend at the agreed time. It said it needed “sufficient evidence to satisfy a court that there has been sustained and persistent breaches” of a tenancy before it could take enforcement action. It also said, as the police had closed their investigation, it was limited as to the action it could take.
Although the landlord apologised, offered compensation and acknowledged its failures, it did not fully address one of the resident’s main concerns, which was the right of way. It also made an incorrect statement that it was “limited to the action it could take” because the police had closed their investigation. Landlords can take their own action against alleged perpetrators using civil remedies. There does not have to be an open police investigation. In addition, a landlord does not always need to show that there were “sustained and persistent breaches” of tenancy to take legal action. In some cases, a single significant and serious incident can be enough. This is in line with sector wide best practice based on the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 June 2023 as she felt that the landlord had not fully responded to her complaint. She said her family just wanted privacy and to be safe. She said they needed a boundary fence and for the landlord not to allow other residents to enter their garden.
The landlord closed the ASB case on 7 June 2023 as there had been no further incidents of ASB.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 17 July 2023. It said it understood that the incident on 1 May 2023 was upsetting and distressing. It said it had spoken to the alleged perpetrator about their conduct and sent a follow up warning letter. It said it had enclosed plans which showed a legal right of way over the resident’s property along the side and rear of her home. It said the resident could not obstruct, block, or restrict the right of way. It said the wording of the right of way did not specifically refer to visitors’ rights. It said its legal team had advised that if the matter were put before a court, the court would interpret the right of way as allowing use by all those accessing next door. However, it said the use of the right of way must only be via the footpath, not through the resident’s garden.
The landlord said it would not erect a rear boundary fence as a resolution as it was disproportionate to the complaint and would have no impact on the use of the right of way. Although it did say that it would replace the missing fence panels to the left-hand boundary. It said the resident could replace the right hand dividing fence at her own expense. The landlord increased its overall offer of compensation to £200, as it noted during the investigation it had not responded to one of the resident’s emails.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s apology, its offer to replace the missing fencing, and its offer of £200 compensation represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Concerns raised by the resident about staff conduct

The resident raised concerns about the behaviour of the landlord’s staff in her formal complaint dated 20 May 2023. She said she felt that there was widespread aggression that “swam through the core of its employees. She gave the following examples to support her complaint. She said:
1. The landlord told her “It’s up to you, not us, to keep yourself safe” when she suggested the landlord had a responsibility to ensure its tenants were safe.
2. A member of staff had said “it’s up to you as a parent to look after your child, not us” when the resident reported that her son was frightened to go to school.
3. A member of staff had said ”I don’t book appointments. You said you would be there all day” when the resident had not been at home for a visit.
4. The landlord told her ”I’ll warn you once the applications are in, we do nothing, the properties are just left wind and watertight” when she enquired about the RTA.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 2 June 2023. It apologised and acknowledged that it had given the resident an unsatisfactory explanation for a missed appointment. It also apologised for the comment it made in relation to the resident’s son not wanting to go to school. It said the issues were being dealt with separately by the relevant manager. It said that although it had found service failures, it could find no evidence of wider “aggression that swam through the core of its employees”.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 June 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She also said she felt the landlord had ignored the “widespread culture of aggression” within the organisation.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 17 July 2023. It said it had addressed the comments made by individual members of staff in its stage 1 response. However, it re-iterated the apology. It said the statement made by the resident that “aggression runs through all of its employees” was a wide statement to make. This was because the resident was referring to all the landlord’s employees and not just those she had dealt with. It said it had an accessible complaint process that allowed customers to report dissatisfaction. It said it took all complaints seriously and it investigated each complaint thoroughly.
The evidence shows when making her complaint, the resident made a generalised statement about the culture within the landlord’s organisation. It is important for the landlord to understand the resident’s view. However, it is difficult to respond to general statements of dissatisfaction. This is because general views are subjective and cannot be measured against specific obligations within a tenancy agreement or a policy. As such, it was reasonable of the landlord to only focus on the specific incidents raised during the complaint, and whether it had responded in a fair and reasonable manner.
In the circumstances the landlord’s apology, its acknowledgement of the issues relating to the conduct of individual staff members, and its assurance that it was dealing with the individuals concerned represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, although there were instances where the conduct of the landlord’s staff fell below the expected standard, the landlord tried to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of Information held on its records and sharing of information is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak to the resident’s bedroom ceiling is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s RTA application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of concerns raised by the resident about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £200 it offered in its stage 2 response.
It is also recommended that the landlord write to the resident clarifying the full extent of the right of way over her property. This should include details of who is entitled to use the right of way and how this affects the resident and her family.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendations.