Abri Group Limited (202204958)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204958

Abri Group 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

The resident complains about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and the tenancy commenced 27 July 2013.The property is a three-bedroom house. The resident lives with her young child.
The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has not listed that the resident has any vulnerabilities.

Scope of the investigation

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42 (c) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within six months of the matter arising. In the absence of any evidence showing that a formal complaint was raised within six months of the issue being reported, the complaint falls outside of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the following complaint matters will not be included in the scope of this investigation:
1. The resident’s complaint about a management move made in 2017 and 2018.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB complaints between 2017 and 2018.

Summary of events

The resident reports historical issues with anti social behaviour (ASB) from 2017. For context the records show that the resident raised various reports of ASB between 2017 and 2018. This includes complaints about the noise levels from the neighbour and the resident feeling victimised by the neighbour. The evidence shows this was investigated by the landlord and partner agencies such as the police and environmental health. At this time, the evidence seen by this Service shows that the landlord took appropriate steps, in line with its ASB policy and process.
For the purposes of this investigation, this Service will focus on the resident’s ASB complaints from 2020 as this is within our jurisdiction.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 February 2020, to report that the neighbour was making lots of noise by banging. Also, that a poster had been attached to her car which the resident felt was deliberate.
On 25 February 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the pictures relate to parking in a local school. The landlord said the poster was a school poster and asked the resident if she could have driven over it as it had been windy.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord back to say she felt it was a deliberate act by someone to add the poster to her car wheel. The same day the landlord responded to request for further information from the resident. This included the resident providing further details on why she feels it was deliberate.
On 30 March 2020, the resident in an email to the landlord reported that a neighbour was hitting her wall and making banging noises. The resident said she had reported it to the police as she felt the neighbour was trying to intimidate her.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 March 2020, to confirm it had added it to her file. The landlord requested the resident provide it with the crime number and any evidence supplied by the police.
On 16 April 2020, the resident reported that drug use and further loud noises coming from a neighbouring property. The resident said the neighbour was going to jump into her garden, but when the neighbour noticed she was watching they stopped.
On 20 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to say she had not received a response to her email dated 16 April 2020. The resident said the police have also been attendance at her neighbours. The landlord responded the same day to ask the resident to confirm her name and address. Also, which neighbour she was complaining about.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 July 2020, to say she was being intimidated by neighbours. Also, that the neighbouring property had a party which was a breach of Covid-19 guidelines. The resident said her neighbour had jumped off the roof with the intention of landing in her garden.
On 13 July 2020, the landlord requested further information from the resident regarding her allegations. This included for the resident to confirm her full name and address. Also, when this took place.
The resident responded on 22 August 2020, to explain that she was reporting issues with the neighbour’s ASB as the landlord had requested. The resident explained that she had been threatened by a neighbour.
On 25 August 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to request for further information on what threats she had received and for further information. This included what threats she had received and who was threatening the resident. Also, had the resident reported this to the police.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 November 2020, to report that her neighbour was using their motorcycle in the garden. Consequently, the neighbour was making significant noise. The resident also reported that the neighbour said they would ‘slap’ the resident.
On 7 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to request for further information on what had happened. The landlord confirmed it would pass the information to its housing officer to contact the resident within ten working days.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 November 2020, to confirm it would send a letter to the neighbour if the resident agreed. The landlord also advised the resident to report her concerns to the environmental health department.
On 5 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she was continuing to be harassed by neighbours.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 January 2021, to request further information such as the dates and times of the reported incidents.
On 26 July 2021, the resident gave notice to end her tenancy on 15 August 2021.
The tenancy ended on 9 August 2021, when the resident surrendered the tenancy.
On 11 August 2021, the resident raised her complaint with the landlord regarding being harassed by her neighbours. The resident provided details of the neighbours who she was complaining about. The resident said the neighbours had been having parties where drugs were involved. Also, the neighbours called her names and banged on her wall. The resident said this left her and her child feeling terrified. The landlord provided its acknowledgement on 12 August 2021.
On 30 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request for an update on receiving her complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 29 September 2021. The landlord said:
1. It had fully investigated and responded to and dealt with each incident and allegations reported by the resident since 2017 appropriately.
2. It asked the resident to fill in diary sheets and download noise monitoring applications to their phone. However, the resident did not fill in any diary sheets and refused to download noise monitoring applications. Therefore, the landlord did not have any evidence to take it further.
On 29 September 2021, the resident requested the landlord escalate the complaint to stage two in the complaint process. The resident said the landlord did not fully investigate her ASB complaints as the landlord did not follow process.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2021, to acknowledge the residents request for a stage two complaint response. The landlord confirmed it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 2 November 2021. In its response the landlord said:
1. It had reviewed its stage one response and found it was appropriate in its response to the resident’s concerns.
2. It had liaised with the police and other agencies and found it had operated within its set guidelines.
3. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its stage one response.
4. The landlord said it had made service improvements in how it deals with complaint handling. This includes:
5. It has developed a specialist team to deal with complaints.
6. It would contact resident’s when a stage two response is requested to discuss the resident’s concerns.
7. The landlord offered £100 in financial compensation in recognition for the delay in providing its stage one complaint response.

Post complaint

The resident contacted the landlord on 4 November 2021, to request that it review its stage two complaint decision. The landlord emailed back the same day to confirm it had finished its complaint process. The landlord signposted the resident to this Service.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord agreed to have a video call with the resident regarding her concerns.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 December 2021, that it would be happy to explain the decision at stage two but would not change its decision.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and.
3. Learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s obligations

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlies that when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour, agencies must consider the effect that such behaviour has on victims and witnesses. It also states that agencies should recognise and consider the debilitating impact on that persistent or repeated anti-social behaviour can have on victims, more so over a period of time.
The Local Authority is normally responsible for administering statutory duties associated with noise and noise nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, social landlords are also required to meet proscribed standards when tackling noise and ASB.
Adequate sound insulation (from external noise) forms one element of the Decent Homes Standard. Similarly, the Neighbourhood and Community standard (one of four consumer standards set by the Regulator of social housing) requires landlords to have a published ASB policy to tackle and prevent ASB with a focus on prevention.
Section 6 (h) of the Tenancy agreement states that residents must not cause a noise nuisance to other people. This includes but is not limited to playing, or allowing any to play, any radio, television, records, tape recording, musical equipment, sound, or audio equipment so loud that it causes a nuisance or annoys other people in the locality.
Section 7 of the tenancy agreement states that landlords must give help and advice to resident’s who report any nuisance and harassment. The landlord will then look into the complaint and decide what action to take based on the nature of the problem and how serious it is.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour and harassment policy states it will deal with cases of ASB or harassment, it says it will remain sympathetic and sensitive to the needs to the person experiencing ASB. The policy states once a complaint has been raised then the landlord will contact within 1 working day to discuss the complaint. The landlord will then complete an action plan which will be sent to the resident confirming next action. The landlord will also complete a risk assessment. The resident will also be supplied with diary sheets to enable to landlord to gain insight into the ASB.

The landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not result in a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
In cases relating to ASB, it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
In this case, the resident reports that she felt harassed and intimidated by her neighbour, The evidence provided to this Service shows that during 2020 the resident raised six separate complaints about ASB she was experiencing. This included complaints that she felt threatened by neighbours in their actions. Also, that neighbour was making significant noise in their property and their garden.
The records show that the resident made a further complaint regarding ASB at the beginning of January. At this time, the resident said she felt intimidated and harassed by the neighbour.
Following reports of ASB, it is necessary for the landlord to consider and respond to these in accordance with its ASB policies. The landlord’s own ASB policy states that it will acknowledge reported cases in one working day.
From the evidence provided by the landlord this Service can see that the landlord was proactive in acknowledging the resident’s concerns. The records show that the landlord emailed the resident on receipt of each complaint to gather further information. This is in line with the landlord’s own policy to acknowledge ASB complaints within one working day.
In terms of what this Service would expect it is reasonable for the landlord to seek clarification on ASB matters. This includes the resident providing information on dates and times of incidents and who was involved. The evidence provided does not show that the resident provided further detail on each complaint. This led to the landlord closing each matter with no further action required. This is not unreasonable as the landlord would be unable to complete an investigation without knowing key details of who was involved.
This Service would expect the landlord to complete a risk assessment and an action plan in reported ASB complaint. However, it is not unreasonable that this was not completed in the resident’s ASB complaints between the 22 February 2020 and the 22 August 2020. Also, on the resident’s last ASB complaint on 5 January 2021. The records show that the landlord responded to each of the resident’s complaints at this time. The landlord was clear that it needed further information to progress the matter. The landlord advised that once it received the requested information it would progress the resident’s ASB complaints. This is due to the fact that the landlord had not obtained clarity on who was causing ASB. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord sent the resident further emails to obtain the information.
The evidence supplied to this Service shows the resident provided details of the neighbour involved in ASB to the landlord on 5 November 2020. In response to this, the landlord emailed the resident to say it had passed the information to the resident’s housing manager. On 12 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to clarify if she had any other ASB complaints. Also, whether the resident was happy for it to send a letter to the neighbour. The records show that the resident did not respond to the landlord’s course of action.
In terms of what this Service would expect, this Service would have expected the landlord to have completed an action plan at this time. In addition, the landlord should have taken steps to assess the risk to resident. Also, the landlord should have considered if any adjustments were required based upon the resident’s vulnerabilities.
According to the ASB policies and procedures, this would have been a standard approach for the landlord to take. This is not in line with what this Service would expect or reasonable based on policy and procedure.
Although it was not unreasonable for the landlord to not progress the resident’s initial ASB complaints due to lack of information, this case also demonstrates areas where the landlord needs to improve its service. This Service has found that no evidence that the landlord produced various key ASB documents after the raised an ASB complaint on 5 November 2020.
This includes that the landlord did not make a formal risk assessment of the ASB, and no action plan was sent to the resident. This Service notes that there was no evidence that any interviews took place with either the resident or the neighbours.
This Service does, however, recognise that the landlord was limited as the resident needed to provide further information which was not provided. With this in mind, this meant the landlord did not have enough information to progress the reports. However, when the landlord did have information to progress an ASB case the landlord failed to correctly follow its ASB procedures and in its communication methods. This left the resident with an unclear position of what the landlord was able to do to try and remedy the situation. This is a service failure and may have caused the resident additional distress.

The associated complaint.

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 11 August 2021.The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 August 2021. Seven weeks later the landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 29 September 2021. This is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy to respond within ten working days.
On 29 September 2021, the resident requested for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two. The same day, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns.
Just over one month after the resident requested the landlord escalate the complaint to stage two it provided its response on 2 November 2021. This is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy to provide a stage two complaint response within 20 working days.
In the circumstances, there is a failure in the landlord not providing its stage one complaint response in a timely way. Also, there was another short delay in acknowledging the complaint at stage two. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided any mitigation for the small delays.
The landlord has apologised for this in its stagetwo complaint response. The landlord has said it has reflected on the delay and has developed a dedicated team of specialists to focus on complaint investigations in the future. The landlord said this service improvement will allow it to respond more quickly and improve its service delivery. The landlord also offered the resident £100 in compensation due to the delay. Therefore, it’s this Service’s view that the landlord has put things right and the compensation offered is appropriate.
This is in line with Service principles regarding failures in complaint handling. Our principles state that a landlord should put things right. This includes acknowledging when things go wrong, apologising and providing financial remedy. Further to this, effective dispute resolution involves a landlord learning from mistakes and making changes to its service. It is this Service’s view that the landlord’s offer of financial redress is appropriate. Therefore, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by landlord for its handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Following the resident’s ASB complaints raised on 22 February 2020, 22 August 2020 and 5 January 2021, the landlord failed to be proactive in its contact with the resident. This is due to the fact that the landlord did not attempt to contact the resident to follow up on her ASB complaints to obtain clarity. The landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB complaint dated 5 November 2020 was not appropriate. The landlord failed to document key elements of its ASB procedures, including producing a risk assessment or a clear action plan.
There was a significant delay in the landlord issuing its stage one complaint response. There was also a small delay of two working days in the landlord issuing its stage two response. This was not reasonable and not in line with what this Service would expect. Further it is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy. The landlord has appropriately apologised for the delay and offered a total of £100 in compensation which is reasonable redress for this part of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

67. Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord will:

1. Apologise to the resident for failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £200 for:
  1. the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s action in response to the resident’s ASB complaints.
  2. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord take the following action:
1. The landlord should review and update its ASB policy, if it has not already done so, especially with regards to its case review process and procedure. This includes the landlord making risk assessments, having clear action plans, and adhering to service level agreements in how it responds to complaints about ASB.
2. Review its complaints policy to ensure it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.