Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited (202122377)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122377

Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited

31 May 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of animal cruelty by a neighbour.
2. The landlord’s decision not to open an antisocial behaviour case regarding the resident’s neighbour.
3. The landlord’s handling of allegations of staff misconduct.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

Reports of animal cruelty

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, it must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 4 of the Scheme says that all social landlords, other than local housing authorities, must be members of the Scheme in respect of their housing activities. Paragraph 34 of the Scheme says that to fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction a complaint must, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have adversely affected the person bringing the complaint in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property. This means that for the Ombudsman to be able to look into a complaint about a housing association, the complaint must be about one of its housing activities – it must be related to an application for, or occupation of, property.
Actions related to the occupation of property are landlord responsibilities which arise from a landlord and tenant relationship, for example carrying out repairs.
This part of the resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s decision to signpost the resident to the RSPCA rather than investigating and taking action with regard to allegations of animal cruelty by a neighbour.
The landlord does not have the power to investigate and take action on allegations of animal cruelty. It is also not one of the landlord’s housing activities.
While the Ombudsman appreciates how strongly the resident feels about the treatment of the cats in question, this part of the complaint is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, so the Ombudsman cannot investigate this part of the resident’s complaint.
The resident may wish to report any ongoing concerns regarding the welfare of animals to the RSPCA, who have the power to investigate those concerns.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 3 July 2020. The property is a two-bed bungalow. The resident has various vulnerabilities the landlord is aware of, including physical and mental health issues. The resident lives at the property with her son, who is also vulnerable.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy says that when antisocial behaviour is reported, the landlord will record all of the information provided, and will act swiftly to deal with antisocial behaviour as soon as it is reported. The policy gives examples of antisocial behaviour, including harassment or pet-related incidents. The policy says not every allegation reported will be accepted as antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s website sets out what it considers to be antisocial behaviour. With regard to pets or animals, it gives the example of dogs barking or dangerous dogs. The website says the landlord would not consider name-calling to be antisocial behaviour.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. A stage one response must be given within ten working days and a stage two response must be given within 20 working days of the escalation request. The policy says there are instances where the issue raised will not be treated as a complaint, and where this is the case, the landlord will give reasons.

Summary of events

The landlord’s contact notes show that on 7 January 2022, the resident contacted it to discuss a cat in the vicinity of the property. She said she was concerned her neighbour was deliberately trapping the cat in a shed, and that it was animal cruelty. She told the landlord the situation was affecting her mental health. The landlord told the resident that the allegation of animal cruelty was not something it could help with, and asked the resident if she had a support worker who could help her.
On the same day, the resident made a complaint that the landlord was negligent for not taking action regarding the welfare of the cat. She also said she felt the housing officer was picking on her for her mental health issues.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it did not have the resources or powers to investigate animal cruelty and had previously told the resident to refer any concerns about animal welfare to the RSPCA. It refused the complaint as it said this was a matter for the RSPCA, not the landlord. It said it apologised if the resident thought any comments about her mental health were dismissive, and its intention was to offer support, as it had done previously.
On 14 and 24 January 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said the landlord refused to accept her complaint as it said the issue raised was not a housing matter.
On 1 February 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the way she was treated by the housing officer and area manager.
On 2 and 4 February 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said:
1. The housing officer had spoken to her horribly and she wanted the Ombudsman to look into it.
2. She had started looking after a cat in the area around two years before the complaint. Her neighbour then began feeding cats and locking them in a shed. She tried to talk to the neighbour about it, but the neighbour became aggressive and swore at her.
3. The stress of the situation was making her ill and the neighbour’s attitude made her feel unsafe.
On 7 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and raised the following complaints:
1. She was dissatisfied with the way the housing officer spoke to her that day as a harsh tone was used.
2. Her neighbour told her that the area manager had spoken to them and said the resident was calling him too often.
The landlord told the resident that the housing officer would have been trying to help and asked if the resident wanted to speak to her. The resident declined. She said the trust had broken down and she wanted to go to the Ombudsman.
On 8 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report antisocial behaviour by her neighbour. She said the neighbour had sent someone to knock on her door and ring the bell at 3am. She said the neighbour had also sworn at her. She said the neighbour started locking up the cat the resident had been feeding in the shed, that the landlord’s staff had not treated her appropriately, and the situation was not fair. She said she believed the neighbour lied when approached about the issues raised.
On 9 February 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said she believed the neighbour was abusing the cat because of the resident’s complaint. The resident contacted the Ombudsman again the next day and said she was giving up her property because the neighbour’s behaviour was impacting her mental health.
On 10 February 2022, the landlord issued a stage one response to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct. It said it was satisfied neither staff member intended to treat the resident badly, and that contemporaneous notes supported that the area manager did not criticise the resident when visiting the neighbour at her request. It also sent a separate letter explaining it would not accept the resident’s complaint regarding antisocial behaviour. It gave the following reasons:
1. No reports of antisocial behaviour had been made at the point the resident made a complaint to the Ombudsman. The dispute over the cats was not something that would be considered antisocial behaviour.
2. The first report of antisocial behaviour was made on 8 February 2022, so the landlord had not been given the opportunity to investigate any antisocial behaviour before the resident contacted the Ombudsman.
3. The landlord had since assessed the report made on 8 February 2022 and determined there was not enough evidence to support opening an antisocial behaviour case.
On 23 February 2022, the Ombudsman received a letter from the resident explaining her various vulnerabilities. She said the landlord was making her mental health worse because of the way it was treating her.
On 15 March 2022, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint about staff behaviour to stage two of the complaints process. The landlord confirmed it would do so and indicated it had not received any request to escalate the complaint previously.
On 23 March 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint about staff conduct. It said:
1. The area manager had explained that issues with the cat were not a landlord issue. He had tried to visit the neighbour as a goodwill gesture to try and help and had passed on that the RSPCA had visited and confirmed they found no evidence of abuse or mistreatment.
2. The area manager had cause to speak to the resident regarding outbursts of anger and shouting. The resident had said this was a result of her medical conditions, which she had acknowledged and apologised for. The landlord said behaviour of that kind is not tolerated and that was passed on in a calm, caring and understanding manner.
3. The resident had complained that the housing officer was uncaring and rude. The landlord said the housing officer had asked about support workers to speak to in case they could offer help regarding the cat, but the resident took offence at her mental health being mentioned after she brought it up.
4. There was no recording of the call in question as it was made from a mobile phone and only incoming calls through the contact centre were recorded.
5. The complaint was not upheld as there was no evidence the housing officer or area manager acted inappropriately.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord told the Ombudsman that the stage two response had been issued and the complaint would remain open for 28 days, after which referral rights to the Ombudsman would be given. The Ombudsman explained that a stage two complaint response should include referral rights in the letter itself. The landlord therefore issued a new stage two response letter on 5 April 2022 which included referral rights to the Ombudsman.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so has referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised a number of further concerns since her initial complaint, including subsequent antisocial behaviour which was reported to the landlord after the complaint, and recent conduct by the landlord’s staff. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such, this investigation will only consider events up to the point each complaint was made to the landlord. Any further events that the resident is dissatisfied with would be new complaints which would need to go through the landlord’s internal complaints process before the Ombudsman could investigate those issues.

Reports of antisocial behaviour

On 4 February 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman that her neighbour was aggressive towards her and had sworn at her. The resident said the neighbour was making her feel unsafe in the neighbourhood and the landlord had refused to intervene. The Ombudsman referred her complaints to the landlord.
The landlord said the dispute over cats was not antisocial behaviour, and it had not been given the opportunity to consider the reports that the neighbour had sworn at the resident at the time the complaint was sent to the landlord on 4 February 2022. The landlord’s records show the resident reported the neighbour’s behaviour – aggression, swearing, and arranging for someone to knock on her door during unsociable hours – to the landlord on 8 February 2022. The landlord rejected the complaint on 10 February 2022.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy says that not every allegation reported will be accepted as antisocial behaviour. The examples of animal-related antisocial behaviour under the policy are dangerous dogs or dogs persistently barking. The neighbour’s reported treatment of cats would not fall under the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy. This is because the allegations were of animal cruelty, not of antisocial behaviour. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the RSPCA rather than opening an antisocial behaviour case regarding the allegations of animal cruelty.
The landlord was first made aware of behaviour which could fall under its antisocial behaviour policy at the time the complaint was made. The landlord’s obligations regarding antisocial behaviour take effect when it is made aware of potential antisocial behaviour. At the time of the complaint, no antisocial behaviour had previously been reported to the landlord. As such, the landlord had not acted unreasonably by not opening an antisocial behaviour case.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord chose not to open an antisocial behaviour case after reviewing the reports of 4 and 8 February 2022 due to a lack of evidence. The Ombudsman also understands that the resident has made further reports of antisocial behaviour, and has asked the landlord not to take any further action in response to the more recent reports as she does not believe the landlord would resolve the issues. The Ombudsman can only consider what happened up to the point the resident made her complaint. Any events after that date would need to proceed through the landlord’s internal complaints process before the Ombudsman could consider them.

Staff conduct

The resident is dissatisfied with the conduct of the housing officer and area manager for her property. She said the housing officer picked on her because of her mental health during a phone call and used a harsh tone, while the area manager criticised her when speaking to her neighbour.
The landlord investigated the concerns raised and responded to the resident with its findings in the stage one and stage two response letters. It said it was satisfied from its investigation that neither staff member intended to treat the resident badly, and that the contemporaneous notes support that the area manager did not criticise the resident when speaking to the neighbour at her request. It said there was no recording of the call with the housing officer as the call was from a mobile phone, but that she asked about support workers because the resident stated her mental health was being impacted by the situation with her neighbour. It said there was no evidence which showed the staff members had acted unfairly, and therefore it did not uphold the complaint.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the behaviour complained of took place in the way the resident stated, or whether the landlord took appropriate action in response to the outcome of its investigation, as that would be a personnel issue outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord appropriately investigated the concerns raised.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and reviewed contemporaneous notes of the conversations in question. It then explained the outcome of its investigation to the resident. The Ombudsman has seen no indication in the various landlord notes to suggest that it did not properly investigate the resident’s concerns based on the evidence available. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident may have been distressed by her discussions with the housing officer, the landlord has shown it acted appropriately in investigating those concerns.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not accept the resident’s complaints about its handling of animal cruelty allegations or its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. The resident is dissatisfied with these decisions.
The landlord’s complaints policy allows it to decline a complaint. When it does so, it must give reasons. The landlord declined the complaint about its handling of allegations of animal cruelty because investigations into animal cruelty were not within its power and referred the resident to the RSPCA. It also declined the resident’s complaint about antisocial behaviour on the basis that a dispute over a cat is not antisocial behaviour, and no allegations of antisocial behaviour were made before the complaint was made.
The resident’s complaint about animal cruelty did not relate to the landlord’s housing activities, and the behaviour which could amount to antisocial behaviour under the landlord’s policy was reported at the same time the complaint was made, so the landlord had not been able to investigate the allegations of antisocial behaviour at that stage. It was therefore reasonable and in line with its complaints policy for the landlord to decline each of those complaints.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints about staff behaviour in the timescales set out within its policy. However, it also did not include referral rights to the Ombudsman in its stage two response, which it was required to do. The landlord advised that it always allowed 28 days after its stage two response before sending a closure letter with referral rights for the Ombudsman. After the Ombudsman explained that this was not in line with its complaints policy, as referral rights should be included in the stage two response, the landlord issued an amended stage two response with referral rights to the resident and confirmed it had amended its processes so that all stage two responses would include referral rights in the future.
The amended stage two response with details for the Ombudsman was sent to the resident within the original 20 working day deadline the landlord had to issue a response to the complaint, and the landlord has changed its process moving forward so that all stage two responses will include details for the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any distress or inconvenience this caused the resident, who was in regular contact with the Ombudsman at that stage. In issuing an amended stage two response letter and changing its process, the landlord has therefore offered reasonable redress with regard to its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with regard to its decision not to open an antisocial behaviour case at the time the complaint was made.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of allegations of staff misconduct.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves that complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Allegations of animal cruelty would not fall under the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy, and it had not been notified of antisocial behaviour at the time of the complaint.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct and explained the outcome of that investigation to the resident. The outcome of that investigation is a personnel issue which is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to consider.
The landlord did not provide relevant referral rights in its stage two response. It has since remedied this by providing the resident with an updated stage two response within the original 20 working day deadline for a response and has changed its processes moving forward.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord arrange staff training on the changes it has made to its complaints process.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.