Your Housing Limited (202114217)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114217

Your Housing Limited

04 August 2023


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

a. Reports of antisocial behaviour.

b. Subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and the lease commenced on 21 May 2018. The property is a 7th floor flat.
  2. The landlord has provided its complaints policy which says that a stage one complaint will be responded to within ten working days and a stage two complaint will be responded to within 15 working days.
  3. The landlord has provided a copy of its ‘incident level guidance’ which includes a section on antisocial behaviour (ASB). The levels of incidents are divided into three categories including minor, moderate and major. Minor and moderate incidents are to be ‘reviewed and managed’ in two working days and major incidents are to be investigated within three working days.

Summary of events

  1. On 15 July 2021, the resident reported an incident to his landlord which took place around 13 July 2021 – this related to a confrontation with a neighbour where it was alleged a threat to kill had been made. The resident said that he had previous issues with his neighbours due to their dog barking continuously.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 July 2021 as it had decided to close the case because there were no third party witnesses. The landlord said it had spoken to both the resident and the neighbour and had decided not to proceed with any formal action. The landlord said that the resident should report any further instances and provided contact details.
  3. The landlord’s notes from 20 July 2021 show that the perpetrator had been interviewed and they gave a different version of events and said that the resident had been banging on his ceiling and they had not threatened anyone.
  4. On 27 July 2021, the resident called to provided details of a witness and requested the landlord secure CCTV footage. The resident also called on 28 July 2021, requesting the CCTV was looked into. The landlord’s notes show that the landlord did not contact the witness because it did not consider she would be a reliable witness as she had fallen out with the with the alleged perpetrator.
  5. The resident sent a letter on 3 August 2021. The landlord was unable to trace the letter but the resident later provided a copy. The letter stated that the resident had not heard from the landlord since 20 July 2021 and that there had been no attempts to check the CCTV footage and the resident said he was aware it only stayed on the system for 28 days.
  6. The landlord requested CCTV footage on 4 August 2021 – a data protection CCTV request form was completed by housing management on this date. It received the governance response to the CCTV request on 12 August 2021, which said that the footage could no longer be provided as 28 days had passed.
  7. On 20 August 2021, the resident sent the landlord an email saying that all his communications since 20 July 2021 had been ignored and that it had been five weeks since the incident had occurred. The resident requested a formal complaint be raised at stage one. The complaint also mentioned that his neighbour’s dog kept barking and that this was causing a nuisance.
  8. The resident sent another letter to the landlord on 6 September 2021 and asked for the case to be re-opened so that the landlord could investigate the incident properly. The letter also mentioned several other issues, some of which were historic. On 5 October 2021, the landlord sent the resident an email acknowledging receipt of his complaint.
  9. The landlord provided its stage one response on 19 October 2021 and said that the resident had requested a formal complaint on 5 October 2021. The landlord said that it had fully investigated the ASB report and said that it was handled in line with its policy. It added that CCTV had not initially been obtained as the camera was located in the lift but the incident occurred in a landing area and that it would take enforcement action if the police charged the neighbour.
  10. On 28 October 2021, the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two.
  11. On 21 November 2021, the landlord sent its stage two response which said the following:
    1. It contacted the resident on 19 July 2021 which was delayed. It said that it should have contacted him on 16 July 2021 due to the report being a threat of violence.
    2. It started its investigation on 20 July 2021 and concluded it the same day with no action taken against either party. A letter was sent to the resident on 20 July 2021, which stated that both parties had different views of what happened, and, as there were no third party witnesses other than partners, it could not take any formal action.
    3. It conceded that it did not investigate his ASB report of in line with its ASB and hate crime procedure and service standards. It accepted that there was more it could have done, including taking witness statements, approaching other neighbours, seeking CCTV footage, putting direct allegations to the alleged perpetrator, considering tenancy conditions and liaising with the police.
    4. It requested CCTV footage on 4 August 2021 but it did not update the resident. The landlord said it should have acknowledged receipt of the resident’s letter of 26 July 2021, provided a full update and logged the resident’s complaint and carried out a full review.
    5. It said that the resident sent an email dated 20 August 2021, but it did not respond. It said it should have logged, acknowledged and assigned the complaint to be investigated. The resident wrote a letter on 6 September 2021 which the landlord received but it did not log the complaint or conduct a review of the ASB investigation.
    6. It accepted that it should have approached the witness and taken a statement. On 12 August 2021, it was confirmed by the governance administration that the CCTV footage could not be retrieved because more than 28 days had passed. The landlord accepted that it should have requested the CCTV on 20 July 2021.
    7. It said that it missed a vital opportunity to gather evidence, review tenancy conditions, outline any breach and take action. The landlord accepted that it did not follow its complaints procedure.
    8. To ensure this situation did not recur, the landlord said it had brought in changes to how it deals with ASB, including a new Community Safe Manager, increasing the number of ASB and legal officers and tenancy support key workers (to work with customers) and implementing an ASB quality assessment which focused on supporting victims and keeping them from harm.
    9. It offered £100 compensation for the service failure and £100 for the delay in resolving the resident’s complaint.
  12. When the resident corresponded with this Service in January 2022, he raised continued dissatisfaction with the quality of the landlord’s ASB investigation, advised that he had not been provided with details of the landlord’s governance, reported continued nuisance from dog parking and said he sought reprimands of staff and the landlord to warn the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

  1. The landlord received a report of the incident on 15 July 2021 and started investigating around 19 July 2021. As the incident would be regarded as serious, given that the resident alleged his neighbour had threatened violence, the landlord conceded that it should have contacted the resident by 16 July 2021. The landlord has therefore acknowledged that it did not follow its own policy.
  2. The landlord has accepted it in its final complaint response that it did not follow its correct policy and procedure when investigating the allegation of serious threats by a neighbour. It accepted that there was more it could have done to investigate, raise the issue with the neighbour and liaise with other agencies. It is not disputed that the landlord’s actions in this regard were inappropriate and this failing meant that it lost an opportunity to gather evidence and consider enforcement action.
  3. The landlord said it should have acknowledged receipt of the resident’s letter in late July 2021, provided a full update, logged his concerns and carried out a full review. The landlord also accepts that it should have approached the identified witness and taken a statement, but it did not do this. The notes show that the landlord did not think the witness was credible because they had fallen out with some neighbours. However, it should have investigated this properly, spoken to the witness and sought evidence from third parties – its decision to disregard the potential witness was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord requested CCTV footage on 4 August 2021 but it did not update the resident. The landlord has provided evidence to show that it was confirmed by the governance administration that the CCTV footage could not be retrieved because more than 28 days had passed. The landlord has demonstrated that it did eventually request the CCTV footage within the 28-day period but it has accepted that it should have done this much sooner and within a couple of days of the incident being reported.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged that it missed out on obtaining crucial evidence which may have caused it to take action. It also did not communicate to the resident that it was trying to obtain the CCTV footage, leaving the resident to feel that the landlord was not taking the allegations seriously.
  6. The landlord said that it missed a vital opportunity to gather evidence, review tenancy conditions, outline any breach and take action. The resident wrote a letter on 6 September 2021, asking the landlord to re-open the case. However, the landlord failed to conduct a review of the ASB case or answer the resident’s request. It is clear that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it failed to respond to all of his letters and emails.
  7. Whilst the resident would like the landlord to re-investigate the incident that he reported on 15 July 2021, the landlord has potentially now lost the opportunity to conduct a meaningful investigation that will lead to the outcome the resident is seeking. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to fully put right its failings by not undertaking some of the actions it inappropriately overlooked, including completing a risk assessment. There is also no confirmation that it liaised further with the police to see what evidence they had collected and whether this would allow enforcement action.
  8. The resident also mentioned in his complaint that his neighbour’s dog kept barking and this had been a nuisance for him. The landlord does not appear to have investigated this part of the resident’s complaint which again shows the poor service it has provided to the resident.
  9. The landlord offered £100 compensation for its ASB service failure in its final complaint response. Whilst the landlord has accepted that it did not follow its policy and has offered compensation to the resident, the amount does not provide reasonable redress in the circumstances. An award within this range would be appropriate for a short-term failing that had a minimal impact on the resident. Given the potentially significant impact of its delays in this case, the lost opportunity it represented and the time and trouble the resident went to over a few months to chase an outcome, this level of compensation was insufficient.
  10. The landlord has implemented changes with how it deals with reports of antisocial behaviour which it set out in the stage two response. It was reasonable for the landlord to implement these changes and show that it had learnt from the poor service it provided to the resident. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to learn from outcomes of complaints. The resident has asked for reprimands against the landlord staff involved but it is not within the remit of this Service to order disciplinary action to be taken against staff.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 August 2021, but did not receive a stage one response until 19 October 2021. Therefore, the landlord has not complied with its complaints policy which requires it to respond within ten working days. The resident also chased his complaint on 6 September 2021, but this was seemingly ignored by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s stage one response was not a comprehensive response to the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, it said that the landlord followed its ASB policy correctly which it then acknowledged in the final complaint response a month later that was not the case and listed a variety of ways that the policy had not been followed. This indicated the initial complaint investigation was inadequate. The lack of a thorough investigation and the delay in the complaint response will have caused additional inconvenience and uncertainty to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s final complaint response was issued within the appropriate timeframe and it offered £100 compensation for its earlier poor complaint handling. Given the delay was over a period of almost two months and the landlord did not evidence that it had conducted a thorough review of its ASB case handling until November 2021 (three months after the complaint), this level of compensation was not proportionate.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord accepted that it did not follow its procedure correctly and could have done more to investigate the threat of violence that the resident reported. The landlord does not appear to have investigated the issues regarding the neighbour’s dog barking. Although it identified lessons to be learned and made a compensation award, it did not fully put right its failings and the compensation award was insufficient.
  2. The stage one complaint investigation was not thorough and the response was unreasonably delayed. The compensation awarded by the landlord was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to:
    1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
    2. offer to conduct an up to date risk assessment;
    3. update him on what information it obtained from the police about the July 2021 incident;
    4. clearly explain how he can report future incidents of antisocial behaviour and how it will seek to obtain witness statements in future.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation (including the £200 it previously offered) within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
    1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failings in its handling of the reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failure in its handling of his complaint.
  3. The landlord is ordered to consider the other issues mentioned in the complaint, including the ongoing nuisance caused by the neighbour’s dog barking, and write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intended actions.
  4. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.