Your Housing Group Limited (202308167)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308167

Your Housing Limited

24 January 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. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Communal door entry repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association, between October 2015 and June 2023. The property was a 1 bedroom, first floor flat in a block. The resident told the landlord that her son stayed with her on the weekends.
On 27 January 2023, the resident reported that a group of young people had broken the communal front door on more than 1 occasion. They were using the communal areas, causing a nuisance, and had been aggressive and verbally abusive to her when approached about their behaviour. The landlord opened an ASB case, completed a risk assessment and created an action plan. This said it had referred the case to its tenancy management officer.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 March 2023. She said she had made a number of reports about a group of young people coming in to the building and causing a nuisance. This included racial abuse and breaking the communal front door, which left the building unsecure. She had reported this to the landlord but it had failed to keep a record of her reports. She was pregnant and this issue was negatively affecting her mental health. She asked for a management move because of the seriousness of the issues.
In April 2023, the resident made 3 reports about the communal front door not being secure and the group of young people causing a nuisance. This included throwing eggs at her window and causing damage to the communal front door. The landlord raised 2 repairs for the communal front door that month and said it attended on 25 April and 2 May 2023 to complete repairs.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 4 May 2023, it said it would apply for a management move for the resident and increase the security of the block, as soon as possible. The complaint was closed because it had addressed her concerns. Six days later, the resident replied that she did not want the complaint to be closed as nothing had been done to provide safety for her or her children. The landlord had disregarded the racial abuse and the impact the situation was having on her mental health.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 18 May 2023. It spoke to the resident and completed a risk assessment and management move request the same day. On 1 June 2023, the resident reported the communal front door was unsecure again. The landlord said it attended the next day to repair this. Later that month, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of a house and moved in a few weeks later.
On 14 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said there had been failures in its handling of the ASB and associated management move. It apologised, identified learning, and offered £800 compensation. Three days later, the resident contacted the Ombudsman, saying she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and she felt the compensation offered did not accurately reflect the distress and inconvenience she had suffered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told the landlord that this matter negatively affected her mental health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she believes her health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). We have considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident has also advised that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her move in June 2023, as it only gave her 2 weeks to move. However, this Service has seen no evidence that this concern was raised with the landlord via its formal complaints procedure, or that a response has been provided. Therefore, this issue is outside the scope of our investigation, as it has not been formally addressed by the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in the first instance (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme).

Handling of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy at the time confirmed that aggressive and threatening behaviour, Hate behaviour and misuse of communal areas were examples of ASB. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord treated the resident’s reports as ASB and dealt with them in line with its ASB policy and procedure.
When the resident reported ASB in January 2023 the landlord logged a case and completed a risk assessment and action plan the same day. This was in line with its ASB procedure, which said it would complete these actions within 2 working days of the report being made. The procedure said the landlord would assess vulnerability and establish whether any additional support was required. In this case, the completed risk assessment noted that the resident had a social worker and no additional support was required. This shows that the landlord considered whether any further support was required and therefore acted in line with its procedure.
While the landlord noted no support was required, it did encourage the resident to report her concerns to the Police; particularly where she felt at risk. This action was sensible and showed that it was taking further steps to manage any risk.
After the initial actions completed in January 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident regarding the ASB case; or took any further action in respect of this issue. This was not in line with its ASB policy and procedure, which said it would take prompt action to address issues and keep in regular contact with the victim. The lack of contact and action left the resident feeling ignored, and that the landlord did not care about the issues affecting her.
The resident made 2 further ASB reports on 14 and 20 April 2023. However, the landlord did not take action until a month later, on 18 May 2023. This was not in line with its ASB procedure, which said it would contact the victim within 2 working days of the report to carry out a risk assessment and complete an action plan. The delay left the resident feeling that the landlord had disregarded the safety of her and her children. This was particularly upsetting for her as she had told the landlord that her son could not come and stay with her at the weekends due to the ASB issues.
When the landlord did ultimately complete the risk assessment on 18 May 2023, this indicated a high risk. Considering the landlord noted the resident was pregnant, no longer had any professional support, and only a few friends and family to support her, it should have considered whether any signposting or support referrals were required. This was particularly important as the resident had reported Hate incidents as part of the ASB she was experiencing.
The purpose of completing a risk assessment in ASB cases is to allow the landlord to identify risk and manage this. It is not enough that the landlord simply completes a risk assessment. It must act where the assessment identifies a high risk and/or a lack of support. Failure to do this makes the completion of the risk assessment a tick box exercise only, with no benefit or positive outcome for the resident. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord considered extra support options for the resident in May 2023and this left her feeling unsupported.
The resident has said she made a number of other reports to the landlord about this issue, but it had failed to record them. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments, but in the absence of any evidence to support her submissions about additional reports being made, we cannot comment further in that regard.
The landlord told the resident that it met with the Police regarding the ASB issues in the area. This was sensible considering the nature of the ASB reported. This was also in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which said it would work with partner agencies to resolve issues of ASB.
The landlord said it had been unable to identify the young people involved in the ASB. This would have presented challenges for the landlord, as it could not take any targeted action against the individuals. In light of this, it was sensible that the landlord agreed to improve the security of the building as a way to prevent and deter the behaviour.
On 3 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would increase the security of the communal front door and install CCTV in the block as soon as possible. The following month, the landlord said it made changes to the communal front door handle and added an extra magnetic lock to reinforce the door. In addition, the landlord told the resident it would replace the doors with more secure ones. The works completed to improve the security of the communal front door were positive. However, the landlord took no action to install CCTV or replace the doors, despite saying that it would.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the security upgrades had not been included in the 2022/23 programme of works due to a limited budget. Considering this, it is not clear why the landlord told the resident this work would be completed as soon as possible, in May 2023. This unreasonably raised her expectations. Landlords have limited budgets for upgrade works, so it is reasonable that they are planned as part of larger, annual programmes. Before committing to carry out any security upgrades, the landlord should have made internal checks to confirm what works it could progress. Its failure to do so in May 2023 resulted in it disappointing the resident when it did not go ahead with the committed works. This caused further upset when security upgrades were completed in neighbouring blocks and not the resident’s, making her feel she was being treated unfairly.
The landlord’s ASB procedure said that an incident diary could be offered to the victim to record evidence. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord offered this at any stage during the 6 months that it was managing the ASB cases. Considering the nature of the ASB reported, it would have been sensible for the landlord to offer this so the resident could keep a record of incidents. This may have enabled the landlord to identify a pattern in the behaviour with a view to sharing this with the Police for proactive patrols of the area.
The landlord agreed a management move for the resident because of the ASB. Within the management move request form, completed on 18 May 2023, the landlord noted that the resident was 8 months pregnant and experiencing severe ASB. This included racial abuse which she said was negatively impacting her mental health. Considering these circumstances, and that the landlord was limited in the actions it could take to address the ASB due to not knowing the identity of those involved, its decision to agree the management move was sensible.
The resident’s reply to the stage 1 response dated 10 May 2023 said the landlord had failed to take in to account the racial abuse she was experiencing and the impact of this situation on her mental health. However, the management move form shows that the landlord had considered these issues and taken action based on them. While positive that it did this, there is no evidence that it told the resident this or provided reassurance that it had considered all the issues. This left her feeling that the landlord was still not taking the matter seriously.
From the evidence provided, it is not clear when the management move was approved. There is also no evidence of contact to the resident to explain the process or estimated timescales for the move. This was disappointing for her and left her uncertain on what was happening.
The landlord’s ASB procedure said that an ASB case would be closed when a successful outcome had been achieved for the victim. This would only take place with agreement from the victim. In this case, the landlord noted it spoke to the resident on 22 June 2023 and agreed case closure. This was in line with its ASB procedure and a reasonable action to propose as she had moved away from the area.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
As part of the stage 2 complaint, the landlord identified failures in its handling of the ASB and associated management move. It apologised, offered £800 compensation and identified learning. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
When the resident raised her complaint with this Service, she said she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered. This was because the landlord had offered £100 of the compensation for distress and inconvenience, and she did not feel this was reflective of what she had suffered. It is acknowledged that the resident told the landlord and this Service that this matter had a significant impact on her mental health. However, as stated above, we cannot make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. Therefore, we cannot order payment of compensation in that regard.
Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance; the £800 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the ASB. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £800 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Handling of communal door entry repairs

The landlord was responsible for communal repairs in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This included the communal doors and door entry system. On at least 3 occasions between April and June 2023the resident reported that the communal front door was broken and insecure. On each occasion, the landlord raised jobs with a 24 hour priority. This was the committed timescale for emergency repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time said emergency repairs were needed when there was a serious risk to residents or their home. As the block was insecure, and considering the ASB issues reported by the resident, it was sensible of the landlord to raise the repairs in this way.
In this case, the landlord noted it attended the 3 repairs as follows:
1. On 2 May 2023 for the repair raised on 13 April 2023, which was 20 days later.
2. On 25 April 2023 for the repair raised on 20 April 2023, which was 6 days later.
3. On 2 June 2023 for the repair raised on 1 June 2023, which was 1 day later.
The landlord did not attend within the 24 hour timescale for the first 2 repairs and this amounts to maladministration. This meant the block was left insecure during the periods of delay, which was distressing for the resident.
In mid-June 2023, the resident reported that the group of young people were accessing the block using the trade button. The landlord agreed to deactivate the trade button, which was sensible. The landlord should have treated this as an urgent repair, which its repairs policy said it would attend within 5 working days.
The landlord raised this repair on 16 June 2023 and noted it completed the job 20 days later, on 5 July 2023. This was over the 5 working day timescale for urgent repairs and amounts to maladministration. The landlord’s failure to prioritise this repair meant the trade button was in use for around 2 weeks longer than it should have been and allowed easy access to the block during this time.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the communal door entry repairs. The landlord’s stage 2 response assessed this issue and said there had been no service failure. This is a concern as the landlord’s records show that the 3 repairs for the communal front door were raised under a 24 hour priority, whereas the landlord’s complaint response said these were classed as routine repairs.
It is not clear if this contradiction was an error or a deliberate attempt by the landlord to cover up its failings. Either way, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to acknowledge its failures and put things right for the resident sooner. Orders have been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of communal door entry repairs and pay her £150 compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 18 April 2023. This was 13 working days after the complaint was received and over the 5 working day committed timescale for stage 1 complaint acknowledgements, set out in its complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided 24 working days after the complaint was received. This was, again, over the 10 working day committed timescale for stage 1 responses, set out in its complaints policy. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
The resident said she was not happy with the stage 1 response on 10 May 2023. She did not expressly ask to escalate the complaint but she did say that she did not want the complaint closed. Therefore, the landlord should have treated this as an escalation request. The landlord did not do so and, despite the resident making contact on at least 3 more occasions in May and June 2023, it still did not escalate the complaint. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
On 6 June 2023, the resident raised her complaint to the Ombudsman and we made contact with the landlord. After this, it did escalate the complaint on 14 June 2023. By this time, a month had passed since the resident’s initial escalation request. This delay left her feeling let down by the landlord. The landlord’s stage 2 response was ultimately provided 47 working days after the resident’s initial escalation request, on 10 May 2023. This was more than double the 20 working day committed timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy, and amounts to maladministration.
In the stage 2 response the landlord told the resident that the compensation would be added to her rent account. This was in line with its compensation policy at the time, which said the landlord would normally offset any compensation against any arrears owed by the resident. The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with this decision and asked for the money to be paid directly to her. This Service acknowledges that the resident was disappointed with the landlord’s decision not to pay her the compensation directly, but it acted in line with its compensation policy. Therefore, there was no fault by the landlord in respect of this decision.
The resident asked the landlord to pay her the compensation directly on at least 3 occasions between August and October 2023. The landlord’s compensation policy said that, in exceptional circumstances, payments could be made directly to the resident. There was internal contact between landlord staff in August and October 2023 about this issue, which shows that it was considering the resident’s request. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident what it was doing, which left her feeling ignored.
In June 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that she had received the £800 compensation as a direct payment from the landlord. From the evidence provided, it is not clear exactly when this happened. Ultimately, it is the landlord’s decision on whether to pay the resident directly as its compensation policy allows it to exercise discretion in respect of this. Therefore, there was no fault in the landlord’s actions in respect of its decision. However, there was fault in the landlord’s communication regarding this issue and the length of time taken for it to consider the resident’s request.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Despite acknowledging periods of delay where the resident had not received contact, it failed to acknowledge the failures in its complaint handling within its final, stage 2 response. This was disappointing for the resident. Orders have been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her a further £200 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Communal door entry repairs.
2. The formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence to this Service that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for its handling of the communal door entry repairs and the formal complaint.
2. Paid the resident £350 compensation (£150 for its handling of the communal door entry repairs and £200 for complaint handling).

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £800 compensation offered for its handling of the ASB, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. An update to be provided to this Service, in respect of this recommendation, within 4 weeks.