Home Group Limited (202128240)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128240

Home Group Limited

25 July 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 reports of anti-social behaviour and his concerns of counter allegations by his neighbour.
Handling of the residents’ complaint.

Background

The resident has lived at the property since 2014. In 2017, he became an assured joint tenant with his partner.
Since October 2017, the resident has raised several concerns to the landlord about ASB reports made by his neighbour against him. He felt the neighbour was intrusive and intimidating towards him. Despite mediation offered to both parties, the neighbour continued to complain, and subsequently applied for an injunction against the resident. This disclosed correspondence between the landlord and the neighbour which the resident believed showed bias against his family on the landlord’s part. He stated the landlord had encouraged his neighbour to take out the injunction. The resident challenged the injunction, and, on 24 November 2021, the court found in his favour, with costs awarded against the neighbour.
On 27 November 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the anti-social behaviour complaints made by his neighbour. He asked the landlord to specify the action it would be taking against the neighbour following the outcome of the court case. The resident also requested payment to cover the shortfall in legal fees and compensation for the distress caused to him and his family over the previous four years. On 28 March 2022 the resident complained to this Service about the lack of response by the landlord. Following this Service’s intervention, the landlord sent its stage one response on 11 April 2022. The landlord acknowledged its service failure in respect of a delay in providing a response to the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £55. The landlord reported it was unable to investigate the ASB issues fully as the colleagues involved were no longer in post.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He requested escalation to stage two on 24 April 2022 which was acknowledged on 3 May 2022. On 7 July as no response had been received, he asked this Service to intervene again. A final response was sent by the landlord on 27 July 2022. The landlord offered an additional £55 for further delays in providing the stage two complaint response. It also offered £75 for its service failure in handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
The resident felt the final response did not address his concerns and he subsequently brought his complaint to this Service. The resident sought a review of the landlord’s complaints procedure and improvements in the accuracy of its record keeping, to prevent future recurrence of the issues he had experienced; he also desired that the landlord addressed the conduct of its staff.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service will not consider the resident’s request for reimbursement or refund of legal costs that have been incurred by him. This matter was a subject of court proceedings and was decided by the courts. The Ombudsman is an alternative dispute resolution organisation, separate from the court process, and would not get involved in any legal process. The evidence confirms that cost have been considered as part of the legal process and as such the Ombudsman will not interfere with this aspect of the complaint, in accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
Instead, the Ombudsman will focus upon potential service failures that have been identified through the complaint that was raised by the resident, whether during the landlord’s complaints process or through this Ombudsman investigation. Where service failures are identified, the Ombudsman is able to put in place orders to put these failures right, including the awarding of compensation where appropriate.
Whilst it appears that the issues raised by the resident dated from 2017, and there were allegations and counter allegations of ASB since then, there is a considerable amount of time that has elapsed since. This makes it difficult for this Service to assess all the circumstances due to the gap in time and the associated lack of live evidence. Additionally, the resident had an opportunity to bring those issues to the Ombudsman at an earlier stage, whilst the issues remained ‘live’. It is not disputed that the resident formally complained in both 2018 and 2019 in relation to ASB allegations and counter allegations; it is evident that he then experienced issues progressing these complaints.
Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence such that a reliable and thorough investigation of its response at the time. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe and then progress these issues to the Ombudsman in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are not satisfied with how a landlord responds. In this case, this did not happen, and it has therefore limited the extent to which this Service can now investigate. This is in accordance with paragraphs 42 (a) and 42 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
While this investigation will look into the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns raised following the injunction appeal decision issued in November 2021, it is noted that some of the issues the landlord responded to related to the above historic ASB complaints. And while this Service will not investigate those past events in detail, we will consider whether the landlord’s response to the formal complaint he subsequently raised was fair and reasonable, including any failures it acknowledged in relation to how earlier ASB reports were handled. Historic issues will therefore be referenced here, but only in the context of the formal complaint under investigation here.

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ complaints of anti-social behaviour and counter allegations by his neighbour

The landlord defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person. Its policies and procedures stipulate new cases of ASB must be logged when reported, risk assessments completed, and action plans completed with the complainants. These steps inform the landlord’s plan for tackling the ASB and the timescales involved. The policy states it treats all reports of ASB seriously and will take swift action to protect individuals and communities. It also ensures those who have reported the incident(s) are updated with the progress and any ongoing action or investigations where appropriate. However, there is no clear explanation in the policy of what is and what is not considered ASB and how it would treat petty complaints.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints considered by the landlord to be vexatious or persistent are handled in conjunction with its managing unacceptable behaviour policy.
There is no dispute that there were ongoing allegations and counter allegations of ASB between the resident and his neighbour since 2017. The resident raised concerns to the landlord about the neighbour’s parking of her car outside the resident’s window. The neighbour also complained to the landlord about the resident’s actions in response to her parking. In November 2017 the resident requested metal railings to be installed between the two properties to de-escalate the situation. The landlord refused this on the grounds of costs involved and not being its responsibility.
In 2018, there were multiple reports from the resident and his neighbour to the landlord and a few ASB cases. The issues escalated to an alleged verbal abuse and affected both families. The resident and the neighbour raised formal complaints. The resident raised a formal complaint in 2019 again but there is no evidence those complaints were responded to.
Although the landlord offered mediation on 2 February 2019 to resolve the situation, on 29 March 2019 the resident informed the landlord this had failed. The resident said that mediation could not be successful as the neighbour had continued to complain to the landlord and other agencies and had carried out intimidating and intrusive actions against the resident.
In May 2020, when the neighbour applied for an injunction against the resident, correspondence from the landlord to the neighbour was disclosed to the resident. The resident considered the correspondence to evidence bias, including the landlord encouragement of the neighbour to continue with the injunction process. On 24 November 2021, following the resident’s appeal to the injunction, the court upheld the case and awarded costs against the neighbour.
On 27 November 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the neighbour’s reports of ASB by the resident since 2017 and asked the landlord how it would respond following the court decision. While the landlord acknowledged in its stage one response that the issues were ongoing for four years, it said that if the resident had been dissatisfied with the service provided, a formal complaint must be made within six months of the incidents. It also said that it was unable to fully investigate the complaint due to changes in personnel.
In its final response of 27 July 2022, the landlord said:
1. It acknowledged that it ought to have taken firmer action in its correspondence to the neighbour and explain to her that the content of her persistent reports against the resident did not classify as ASB and that there was no evidence for the landlord to take any action against the resident.
2. It was unable to investigate the resident’s concerns due to no complaints having been raised previously and also due to change of personnel.
3. The landlord apologised if the resident felt the records kept were not reflective of the discussions held and confirmed its stage one response that it was possible former colleagues had not recorded all interactions in previous years. As such it could not address its rejection of the resident’s railing request. However, it agreed to install railing at a later stage and upon the neighbour request as it had considered this reasonable at the time.
4. The landlord reported it was satisfied reports were handled appropriately when raised on an incident-by-incident basis but agreed the situation could have been reviewed on a wider basis.
5. It admitted that it could have taken more robust action following the mediation attempts. It should have supported both the resident and the neighbour to set aside their differences and should have taken tenancy action if either party had continued to raise petty complaints.
The landlord apologised for its failures and record keeping and awarded compensation in relation to its handling of the ASB.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord indeed admitted the situation was ongoing for over four years, but due to personnel change was unable to investigate prior to 2021. However, it did not demonstrate that it had taken any learning from this, or how it would improve its record keeping practices or ASB handling.
The landlord did not demonstrate it had put measures in place to improve the situation. Additionally, the £75 compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the multiple failures identified, and the impact resulting in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in these circumstances. The landlord admitted to a number of failures related to not managing the ASB reports and the resident’s and his neighbour’s expectation in line with its policy. It failed to engage with the parties to assist resolution of the issues raised by both the resident and his neighbour.
As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of its handling of the resident’s ASB and the neighbour’s counter allegations.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 to £600 for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings “and/or made no attempt to put things right.” Given the length of time and the multiple failures of the landlord’s dealing with the ASB reports and the counter allegations by his neighbour, this Service will award at the top end of this scale in this case. This reflects the significant impact on the resident over a protracted period of time, with the landlord’s failures clearly adding to what was a highly distressing time.

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

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or group of residents.” Section 1.3 of the Code states that a resident does not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such.
Given the resident raised their concerns on multiple occasions and these were not properly recorded, the landlord’s responses came across as lacking in customer focus and not sympathetic to the circumstances the resident’s family reportedly faced.
It is of concern that the landlord’s complaints policy does not outline the steps involved in managing complaints, nor does it include timescales for acknowledging and responding to complaints. These are only outlined in the landlord’s complaints handling process which is available externally by request to the policy team and with the agreement of the policy holder. The Code states landlords must make their policy available in a clear and accessible format for all residents. This must detail the number of stages involved, what will happen at each stage and the timescales for responding. Landlords must publish the complaints policy and its processes in leaflets, posters, newsletters, online and as part of regular correspondence with residents.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure which states that for stage one complaints, the response time is ten working days from complaint receipt and 20 working days for stage two from the date of escalation. For both stages, an acknowledgement should be sent within five working days of receipt of the complaint.
Following this Service’s intervention, the landlord issued its stage one response on 11 April 2022, 92 working days after the resident made his complaint of 27 November 2021. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 April 2022 and received an acknowledgement six working days later. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response (following this Service’s intervention) on 27 July 2022, 64 working days which was outside the 20-working day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints handling process. These are serious failings by the landlord which demonstrate a lack of customer focus.
Additionally, the landlord failed to address the issues raised by the resident due to its record keeping and personnel change. Due to the time elapsed from the events to raising this current complaint, it is not unreasonable that the landlord did not have all the evidence for its investigation. However, it is of concern that it did not address any way forward or put things right for him.
The landlord has admitted service failure in respect of its complaints handling at stage one and offered compensation of £55. It offered a further £55 for delay in responding at stage two to a total of £110 altogether for its complaint handling. This offer does not reflect the excessive delays in providing responses at each stage of the complaint’s process, both of which required this Service’s intervention. The compensation offered is also not commensurate with the distress caused to the residents by these delays and the additional failures to address the complaint in its entirety and put things right. It is also noted that the landlord failed to raise the residents’ complaints from 2018 and 2019 and as such it deprived them of the opportunity of earlier resolution.
The landlord’s failure to comply with its complaints process, coupled with its failure to provide information on the steps and timescales involved in managing complaints in its complaints policy, constitutes maladministration. Orders have therefore been made aimed at putting things right and to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future. As per the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, compensation amounting to £300 is considered fair in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £900 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £600 for the landlord’s overall failures in relation to its response to the ASB issues, as acknowledged in its final response.
  2. £300 for the distress/inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  3. Pay the compensation direct to the resident and not use it to offset any arrears of rent or service charge.
  4. The sum detailed to include any amounts already awarded/paid to the resident in relation to this complaint.
3. Amend its complaint policy in line with the Ombudsman Code to include the stages of the complaint and the timescales involved in investigating complaints.
4. Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

Provide complaint handling staff with training on the landlord’s revised complaints policy and procedure including the timescales for responding to complaints, the actions to be taken and the importance of record keeping.
Provide staff with training on the provisions in its ASB policy, the process of recording ASB complaints, the actions to be taken and the importance of record keeping.
Discuss the current situation further with both the resident and the neighbour, providing clear guidance as to its next steps and tenant responsibilities.