Yorkshire Housing Limited (202218179)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218179

Yorkshire Housing Limited

28 February 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the padlock on the communal back gate.
2. The resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. The resident’s concerns about being informed about who she could and could not let into the building.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has an assured tenancy. There is a communal garden to the rear of the property shared by several residents and properties.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that following a complaint being received it follows the following process. At stage one:
1. Its tenancy management officer will contact the party bringing the complaint within five working days to arrange an interview. It will determine at this time whether it qualifies as an urgent case. The landlord’s policy defines urgent cases as those “involving violence or threats or violence; hate abuse or crime; deliberate damage to property; domestic abuse or domestic violence”.
2. If the ASB issue being reported is not urgent the interview with the complainant will be carried out within five working days. The landlord will also carry out an alleged perpetrator interview within a further five working days.
3. The tenancy management officer will assess and evaluate the information gathered and decide what action to take. The outcomes at stage one includes:
  1. Case closed no further incidents.
  2. Counter allegation investigated.
  3. Successful mediation.
  4. Escalation to stage three.
  5. Involvement & support from health services for perpetrator and/or victim
  6. Warning to perpetrator.
4. The landlord will confirm in writing to both the complainant and perpetrator the outcome of stage one of the ASB process.
If there are further reports of ASB the complaint will move to stage two of the procedure. A maximum of three further reports of ASB will be investigated at stage two. If a fourth report is received the matter will be escalated to stage three and assistance will be sought of the ASB team.
At stage two the process used by the landlord involves an investigation with both the complainant and perpetrator in the same manner and timescales as at stage one. Outcomes at stage two are as those at stage one as well as:
1. Contentious closure letter to complainant.
2. Escalation to stage four (which is legal action).

Summary

The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2021 to make a ASB complaint concerning her neighbour (herein referred to as B). She explained that B had been acting in an intimidating and threatening manner over a number of issues. This included putting a padlock on the gate to the garden which had restricted her access to garden. A second incident had been a “threatening note” to her after she had let in operatives of the landlord in to do remedial work.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 October 2021 to acknowledge her ASB issue. It provided her with a case reference for the matter.
The landlord’s call notes state it had spoken to her on 11 November 2021, after being unable to speak to her on two previous occasions. The landlord’s notes explained that the resident had set out that B was a “big guy who has been known to threaten and intimidate others on multiple occasions”. She sent the landlord the note he had sent to her as well as an earlier note from 2020. The landlord stated it would speak to the neighbour to request the removal of the padlock for health and safety grounds. It noted the resident did not want to take part in mediation.
The landlord spoke to B on 19 November 2021 and recorded that B had denied putting the padlock on the gate. The landlord raised a job to get it removed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 November 2021. It explained that it had removed the padlock from the gate and would not be replacing it. It added that, whilst it accepted the letters the resident had sent to it from B were unsettling, it did “not feel at this point it is sufficient evidence of harassment and intimidation”. It referred the resident to contacting the police if the neighbour was “verbally or physically aggressive towards you”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 November 2021, in response to the landlord’s email of 22 November 2021. The resident:
1. Asked if the landlord could speak to the postman for his recollection concerning a recent issue when B had made a scene, in front of that individual. She added that B had threatened other neighbours in the early morning. She also referred to an issue in 2019 in which B had sent her a letter, which she no longer had as she had destroyed it.
2. Explained there was no option to go to the police as there were no witnesses and he did not answer his door to them when they had previously called to the property. The resident explained that B was “cunning, manipulative, aggressive, intimidating, threatening and a little bit creepy, and that unsettled feeling you refer to is what I have lived with during this period”.
3. Stated that B had been making videos of her, as well as of other neighbours.
4. Wanted help from the landlord in this matter or assistance to help her move.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 December 2021 setting out that it had removed the padlock from the gate. It added that the resident should speak to police over her concerns about the behaviours the neighbour was displaying as it would “be deemed to be harassment and intimidation”. In terms of speaking to B, it explained that it he had not been willing to discuss the matter so it could not complete its usual process. It asked the resident if she had any further recordings of harassment from B as it explained it did not have enough at that time to constitute any breach of tenancy by B.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 January 2022, in response to a chaser email from it asking if she had any further recordings of harassment by B. The resident stated B had been shouting at workmen on 10 December 2021, however she had not recorded it. She wanted the landlord to send B a letter about the December incident, as a resolution. The resident also enquired as to what the landlord’s policy was if a tenant had refused to engage in the complaints procedure as B had done.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 31 January 2022 that it had sent a letter to B about his aggressive behaviour. It also informed the resident that the padlock on the back communal gate would be replaced and it would provide her with the code.
The resident emailed the landlord on the same day asking why the padlock had been replaced and whether a lock was being installed on every garden gate or just simply this one. She stated the landlord had previously informed her it would not be replacing the padlock and that she objected to it being installed so asked it to stop the process.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 February 2022 to enquire how things were processing, following it having sent a letter in January 2022 to B. It sent a further email on 8 March 2022 and the resident confirmed that things were quiet at the time.
The resident called the landlord on 14 March 2022 to enquire why it had replaced the padlock. The landlord explained that it had felt that a combination padlock was a compromise. The resident was unhappy with this explanation and felt the landlord was “kowtowing to the other resident”. The landlord stated it understood the resident’s concerns were with being able to open the lock, and B had wanted security, therefore applying a new lock was the solution. The resident sent the landlord an email later on in the day to explain she was actively looking for somewhere else to live as she had “no intention of living in the vicinity of an angry bully”. She informed the landlord that the issue had impacted her mental health.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 14 March 2022 confirming that it had closed the existing ASB case.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 March 2022 asking for the issue with the padlock to be raised as a formal complaint. She stated she had explained about the anxiety the previous lock had provided and following this the landlord had removed it. Now it had reintroduced a lock on the basis of the neighbour’s “concern for the safety of his clothes”. The resident noted that whilst the landlord had said it had spoken to two other parties who had agreed the lock was necessary, she disputed this.
The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgment of the complaint on 24 March 2022. It added that it wanted to speak to the resident about the complaint and it proposed a date for it to call her. The resident exchanged emails with it saying that she wished to speak to a councillor about the matter and also to act as her representative. Given this she proposed a date of 6 April 2022 for the landlord to call her. The resident also reminded the landlord that her original complaint had been from October 2021. The landlord responded that the complaint in October 2021 had been about ASB against the neighbour.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 April 2022. It explained that it had tried to contact the councillor, as had been requested by the resident but it had been unable to speak to them as they were off for two weeks. It enquired as to whether the resident wanted it to speak to someone else or contact her directly. A date of 12 April 2022 was agreed for the landlord to call the resident.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 12 April 2022. It noted from the conversation that:
1. In terms of the padlock the resident had explained that it made her feel like a prisoner and she said she had got rid of a cat as a result. The landlord had replied that her neighbour had said the padlock was because the meters to the property had been tampered with. It had written to all those concerned and provided them with the combination code for access. This had been disputed by the resident who said the reason given by B was not true. She had added that the landlord had previously informed her after removing the previous padlock that it would not be reinstated.
2. The resident had approached the fire brigade to formally categorise the door as a fire exit. It had not done this but had referred to the landlord’s policy on fire safety.
3. The resident had said that B had threatened her in October 2021 if his flat were to be broken into. He had also said he would call the police if this occurred. The landlord explained that B had a right to do this, if this had occurred.
4. The resident was of the view that the landlord had believed B’s “lies” and had “colluded with him” including in the case of giving access in the communal areas of the block. She added she had let in repair men acting on behalf of the landlord for a number of years to gain access and it was not up to the landlord to tell her who she could and could not let into the block. The landlord had said this was a standard approach in shared blocks which resident disagreed with.
5. The landlord had offered mediation which the resident had refused to enter into.
6. In terms of the resident’s complaint of ASB made in October 2021 the landlord was “not bothering to follow this up”. The landlord had confirmed that the reason the case was closed was due to insufficient evidence. It had also confirmed with the resident that there had been no issues in the last month with the exception of the padlock.
7. The landlord had enquired with the resident as to what outcome she had wanted. The resident had responded to say she wanted her neighbour to have a written warning for his behaviour and for there to be no indication this had been the result of a complaint from her. The resident had also wanted no padlock on the gate and for the landlord to pay compensation for the mental distress of fitting the padlock on the gate. The landlord said that there had been no ASB issue so it was unable to give a written warning however it did take the issue of ASB seriously and that the resident should let it know if there were any incidents. It added it “would not seek to re-instate the padlock”. However there was no evidence to support any financial compensation for this matter.
8. Whilst it understood the resident remained unhappy she could appeal and take the matter to either stage 2 or the Ombudsman.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 April 2022 following a further incident with B. She stated that B had sworn at two workmen who had attended and were taking keys from the key safe. The resident explained that B had told them they should not be leaving the front door open. The resident had then spoken to the workmen who were unhappy at being spoken to in that manner. Whilst the resident did not have any hard evidence of the incident as it concerned the landlord’s contractors, she mentioned that it could speak to them about the matter.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 April 2022. It added that it would be in touch within five working days. It sent a further email later on in the day in which it issued the stage 1 response. This response was not in the detail of the conversation which it had held with the resident on the previous day. It instead concentrated on the issue of the padlock. It apologised and accepted that the padlock was not suitable and that it would not be replacing it. It added that the tenancy management officer had, in suggesting this, tried to come up with a solution based on a report that security needed to be improved. It accepted that it should have asked all residents for input before making the decision. It also said that in relation to the resident’s concerns about fire safety it had asked its Health and Safety team over the issue to advise it if this was actually a fire exit.
The landlord’s internal communication on 26 April 2022 show that it enquired about the contractors who had attended the property in April 2022 so that it could ask them about the resident’s comments about the matter.
The landlord attended the building on 29 April 2022 to carry out a fire safety audit. It also looked at the rear communal gate to look into how it could make it secure following concerns raised by B. During the visit to the property both the resident and B had come into contact with the landlord. Whilst it had held a discussion with the resident about the visit, the landlord’s contemporaneous notes recorded that B had come into the resident’s face and started being aggressive. The landlord’s notes set out that it had been forced to intervene and that B had not listened and had continued to shout before leaving to return to his flat although he had returned and continued shouting at the resident. It added it would be issuing him with a warning about this.
The landlord’s notes show that a second warning letter was issued to B on 17 May 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 June 2022 asking for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. This was in response to an email from the landlord which has not been provided to this Service. The resident explained that she had requested an escalation on 10 May 2022 and the landlord had “responded (unofficially) on the 11th and I should have had formal acknowledgment of that within a few days, I didn’t”. She added she had still not received an acknowledgment from the landlord to the current date and said it was not “good enough”. The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgment of the complaint escalation the following day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 June 2022 enclosing some video footage from that morning. The landlord’s internal communication noted that, having viewed the footage, it appeared to be B arguing with some other people in the communal area but it was not clear what the argument was about. The landlord noted that it would contact the resident for further information as well as contacting B, although it explained that it was currently in the process of serving B with a formal housing caution over his behaviour to staff members and contractors. This was also explained to the resident via an email.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email on the same day. She alerted the landlord to another event on the same day when B had been rude to workmen working on behalf of it. She stated the workmen had then refused to carry on with the work as they had felt threatened by B.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 4 July 2022. It explained:
1. It had looked at the issue of the padlock being placed on the gate without agreement, and it had now removed it and would not be replacing it.
2. In terms of the ASB issue, this had been noted by it and the matter was being dealt with under the landlord’s ASB process.
3. A letter about access to the building had been sent to all residents to ensure everyone had been kept safe at home.
The landlord’s internal communication noted that the resident had contacted it on 3 August 2022 concerning the stage 2 response letter. A copy of the resident’s email has not been provided to this Service. The notes recorded that the resident had requested compensation and that the landlord had offered £100 to her but this had been declined by the resident who had requested double this amount plus an extra £10 as a goodwill gesture. The landlord had replied to her stating that the resident’s issues had, with the exception of the workmen’s access to the block, been resolved at stage 1 so it did not consider there to be any service failure.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 2 September 2022 with regards to the ASB complaint. It followed up the call with an email which noted that there had been no further incidents noted. As a result it had closed the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 September 2022 enclosing evidence of an argument between B and another neighbour which had taken place on that day. She said B had approached the neighbour with a baseball bat. In addition threats had been made, although the landlord’s notes do not specify whether these threats had been made by B or against B.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 October 2022. She asked whether she would be kept informed once its enforcement team had made a decision on the incident she had reported. She added that in terms of B “his actions doesn’t imply someone wanting to have a quiet, polite word with a neighbour”. The resident said that despite asking her neighbour to report the matter to the police they had not done so. She set out that she did not believe this was enough reason for the landlord to “not take serious steps to ensure the safety of all other residents in this building”.
The landlord made appointments with both B and the neighbour involved in the dispute to be interviewed on 14 October 2022. It noted that neither neighbour had been available when it had called on either that date or a follow up date of 4 November 2022. A card had been left with both parties on these dates.
The landlord’s internal notes on 31 January 2023 noted that the neighbour involved in the incident on 27 September 2022 with B had now left the property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 February 2023 explaining that both B and the other party involved had not engaged with it and that, whilst it would consider possible legal action against B if appropriate, it was closing the complaint at that time. It did ask the resident to report any further incidents to it.
There have been no further incidents reported to this Service from that date by either party.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a padlock being used on the communal gate.

The resident’s initial contact with it in October 2021 had been noted to be a complaint about ASB against a neighbour (B). However it is clear from the landlord’s contemporaneous notes that it had recorded, in addition to the ASB, the issue of the padlock on the back garden gate. The landlord’s tenancy management officer had attempted to speak to the resident to obtain further information. The landlord’s notes show that it had been unable to speak to the resident on two occasions, on 8 and 9 November 2021 before it finally managed to speak to her. In terms of the timescales taken for the landlord to initially act, it took two weeks from the time the resident had initially raised the matter for it to initially attempt to contact her. This was reasonable for it and its actions in attempting to gain more details from the resident including the impact of the lock being on the back garden gate was appropriate.
Having spoken to the resident, the landlord explained that it would also need to speak to B, who the resident had explained had been the party who had put the lock on the back gate. Again this was reasonable as the landlord needed to understand the reasons behind why the lock had been used in the first instance. The landlord’s notes show that it spoke to B on 19 November 2021 and he had denied placing the lock on the gate. As no party had confirmed at that time that they had been responsible for the padlock, the landlord explained that it would be removing the lock. It raised a works order to get this done and informed the resident about the matter, as well as her concerns about the other issues she had raised on the next working day, following a weekend.
Whilst the landlord acted reasonably in communicating with the resident including how it planned to progress going forward, by removing the padlock, following its conversation with B, it has not provided any explanation why it only spoke to B on 19 November 2021. This was some eight days after it had spoken to the resident. There is no record of it having been unable to speak to B at an earlier time, as was the case with the resident. This delay of a week was not appropriate and it would not be in keeping with the timescales under the landlord’s ASB policy. The delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience, at a time when she was already feeling vulnerable having been, in her opinion, harassed and intimidated by B.
The landlord’s email of 22 November 2021 to the resident explained that it had removed the padlock at that time and it would “not be replacing it”. This was clear and would have managed the resident’s expectation that the matter had been resolved at that time. Given this, it was unclear about the chain of events which had led the landlord to reverse this decision, especially as it had reiterated to the resident on 21 December 2021 that “the padlock is not necessary”.
The landlord has explained that B had set out security concerns with the meters which could be accessed via the communal gate and that these concerns led it to propose installing a new combination lock on the back gate. The landlord has not provided this Service with complete notes of its communication with B so it is not clear what had prompted the issue to be re-raised. Whilst the landlord explained that it was trying to negotiate some sort of compromise by replacing the padlock and it referred to other neighbours being in agreement to it being installed, it has not provided any evidence of communication held with these neighbours.
Whilst the resident had not formally raised a complaint about the padlock until the middle of March 2022, she had responded to the landlord on the same day it had informed her about the padlock being installed asking for the reasons why it had changed its mind from previous communication. Despite emailing it at this time, together with a further email later on the same day, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it responded to the resident over the matter until after she had made a formal complaint.
The landlord did at the time of its stage 1 response apologise for the matter and confirm that it should not have replaced the padlock as it had not consulted with all parties including the resident. However this response was not issued until 13 April 2022, which was over two months after it had informed the resident at the end of January 2022 that it would be installing a new combination padlock.
Whilst the landlord did ultimately apologise for the matter, and it has subsequently made an offer of £100, this was not reasonable given the circumstances. The landlord’s correspondence provided to this Service do not show how it arrived at £100 as both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses did not mention any compensation. The figure mentioned of £100 would appear to have followed on from a telephone discussion between the resident and the landlord following the end of its internal complaints process. Given the change of mind and the assurance that the landlord had previously provided to the resident that the padlock would not be replaced, compensation of £200 is appropriate to reflect the circumstances and resulting distress caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.

Following the resident having initially raised the issue of ASB against B on 25 October 2021, the landlord acknowledged it on the same day. It also informed the resident that it would be raising a case and would be in touch with her. This was reasonable and in keeping with its policy on dealing with ASB.
The landlord explained it attempted to contact the resident on 8 and 9 November 2021 but had been unable to speak to her. It had finally been able to speak to her on 11 November 2021. This was outside the timescales as set out under its policy. It has not provided any explanation as to this delay which amounted to 10 working days.
The landlord explained to the resident that it would be speaking to B. This would have been in regard to the allegations which she had made in keeping with its ASB policy. Whilst the landlord spoke to B on 19 November 2021, its notes only refer to a conversation with B in relation to the issue of the padlock. There was no mention in the landlord’s notes that it had spoken to B concerning the allegation of intimidation and harassment. Instead the landlord informed the resident that, based on the letters which she had sent in to it, it did not consider this amounted to harassment or intimidation but if she felt this was the case it informed her to contact the police. The landlord’s approach was not reasonable. Whilst the landlord was entitled to provide its comment on the written evidence that the resident had provided in the form of letters and signpost her to the police, it should under its policy have still discussed the matter with B. Instead the landlord informed the resident in December 2021 that it had been unable to progress the matter as B had not been willing to discuss the matter with it. It then closed the matter in March 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord had written to B, due to his unwillingness to engage with it.
The landlord’s ASB policy states in the event further incidents were reported it would not close down the complaint but it would investigate the matter at stage 2 of its process. Whilst the resident had informed the landlord when directly asked on 8 March 2022 that “things were quiet at that time” at which point it had closed the original ASB complaint, she had informed the landlord of other incidents, after the initial one in October 2021. This included incidents involving the postman and issues with another neighbour. When asked by the landlord on 21 January 2022 if she had any further recordings of harassment the resident had said no, however she made it aware of further issues which she had not recorded. The landlord’s ASB policy does not state it will only investigate issues if recorded evidence was provided. Therefore it should have investigated the further issues she had raised. It did not do this which was a failing.
The resident had also asked what its policy was if B refused to engage with it, as was the case here. Whilst she had informed the landlord that a letter to B would be satisfactory to close the matter at that time, it was not up to the resident but the landlord as to what, if any action it undertook based on its investigation. The landlord explained it sent B a letter concerning his aggressive behaviour which was within the scope of actions which it could take following an investigation. However it had other options available to it which it did not appear to explore.
Following the landlord having closed the original ASB complaint in March 2022, the resident contacted it again to make it aware of further issues. This involved contractors working on behalf of the landlord in April 2022, after it had issued the stage 1 response. The landlord’s notes show that it identified these contractors and it asked for their testimony on 26 April 2022. It also raised a new ASB case and informed the resident of this. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord undertook a site visit on 29 April 2022 and observed first hand aggressive behaviour from B towards the resident and towards it. Its notes from this site visit set out that it would issue a warning to B for his behaviour and it has said this warning letter was issued on 17 May 2022. This was appropriate.
However the resident also provided recording of further incidents between B and workmen who had refused to work following a conversation with him. Whilst the landlord stated in the stage 2 response that it would be looking at the ASB issue under its ASB process, it has not provided this Service with any evidence that it had contacted these workmen for their account. Instead it had informed the resident on 2 September 2022 that it was closing down the ASB complaint as there had been “no further incidents”.
Within a month of closing down this second ASB complaint the resident had informed the landlord of another incident, which she had witnessed involving B and another neighbour. The resident explained this had involved threats and a baseball bat. The landlord set up a new ASB complaint and attempted to speak to both B and the other neighbour about the matter. It explained it had been unable to do so despite two attempts to contact both of them and leaving a card behind after the first visit. It also noted the neighbour had since moved from the property. Although the landlord issued a further warning letter to B, which it says was a final warning, it then closed down the complaint. This was not reasonable. In line with its ASB policy the reporting of several further incidents all within a reasonably short time of the landlord closing down the previous ASB complaint should have been grounds to re-open the original one and escalate that complaint through the next stages of its process. Instead of this the landlord looked at each incident in isolation and it closed them all down at stage one. This was a failing on its part. The impact on the resident of the landlord doing this was to make her feel that it had not taken her allegations seriously nor was it able to progress the matter with B, due to his unwillingness to engage with it over the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of being informed who she could and could not let into the building.

The landlord explained at stage 2 that it had spoken to its repair manager and team leader regarding the continuous need to ask the resident for entry to the block. It has not provided the copies of the correspondence within its submissions to this Service. However the landlord has explained that the reason for its actions were to ensure that it provided adequate security to all residents of the block. It explained that it has written to all residents setting out the perils of allowing unauthorised access to the building and of people following others who had been invited into the building by means of “tailgating”. The landlord’s approach here was in common with most multi occupied building and blocks in which an intercom system is installed for residents. The purpose of the intercom is to allow access to known visitors and guests of residents but not to allow access to unknown parties.
Whilst the landlord was responsible for a number of repairs to the property and block, including the external structure of the building, blocked toilets, baths and drains and repairs to communal areas, its repair policy sets out that reasonable access to the block/property should be made available to staff and its contractors. This is whilst ensuring “the health and safety of customers, visitors, neighbours and members of the public”. The landlord’s repair policy explained that contractors and agents acting on its behalf would carry photo identification and that it would “arrange access during normal working hours at a time convenient for the customer”. It also added it would provide written notice to gain access of not less than 24 hours to undertake required works.
Whilst the resident has stated she did not wish to be told who she could and who she could not let into the property, the landlord’s actions in alerting residents over the matter was fair and reasonable. The resident has explained that having recently spoken to other tenants she says that they had not been informed to the same degree as she had been of who she could and could not let into the building. She therefore felt that she was being treated in a different manner to the other residents by the landlord. Whilst the resident’s comments have been noted the Ombudsman has not seen details of what information may have been given to other residents. However, taking into account the context of the complaint and the circumstances around it, we are satisfied that its actions were reasonable, on the basis of safety grounds and responding to her queries, and there was no service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of a padlock being used on a communal gate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of being informed who she could and could not let into the building.

Reasons

The landlord on repeated occasions informed the resident that it would remove the padlock and not replace it. This had been based on B informing it that he had not placed the padlock on the communal gate. It had then informed the resident, without a consultation of all residents, that it would be fitting a new combination lock on this communal gate but not on the other communal gates to the block. Whilst it had apologised and confirmed in the stage 1 response that it would remove the padlock; this was more than two months later. The landlord also did not address the resident’s query on this in January 2022, instead only addressing it once she had made a formal complaint on the issue. Although the landlord’s apology was a positive step it was proportionate to the inconvenience experienced by her.
The landlord initially acted reasonably in setting up a new ASB case in October 2021. However the alleged perpetrator refused to engage with it and despite further incidents reported by the resident which included her sending recorded evidence it treated each incident in isolation and did not follow its own ASB process in escalating the matter and re-opening the ASB incidents.
The landlord set out the reasons why it had written to all residents about being careful who they let into the building. This was for the security of all residents. Whilst the resident has stated she feels she was treated differently by the landlord, there was no evidence that the landlord had done this nor that it had asked her to allow its contractors and operatives into the building to carry out any remedial work.

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £350. This replaces the amount previously offered of £100 following its stage 2 response. This amount comprises:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its decision to change its mind on the issue of the padlock on the back communal gate.
  2. £150 for its failure to follow its own ASB process following the resident’s multiple reports of ASB incidents from October 2021 onwards.