Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Origin Housing Limited (202220930)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220930

Origin Housing Limited

30 October 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the guidance and support offered in relation to him being a witness in an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case it was bringing against his neighbour.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to the resident on 9 June 2008. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat.
  2. The resident has experienced ongoing issues of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour since 2008 which resulted in court proceedings. The landlord served a notice seeking possession in 2019 on the resident’s neighbour, but the application and court proceedings were stayed during the pandemic. Due to the ongoing ASB and related court case, the resident submitted an application for a management transfer on 23 November 2021, which was approved on 9 February 2022.

Scope

  1. In his communication with this service, the resident raised concerns about how the landlord had supported him dating back to 2008. However, paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not made within a reasonable period after the events arising, which would ordinarily be within six months. In light of this, this investigation will focus on the concerns raised by the resident in his complaint made on 8 September 2022 and the landlord’s response to those specific concerns.
  2. A determination about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB and his transfer application was issued by this service on 22 May 2023. (Ombudsman case reference 202202499) The final response from the landlord for this complaint was dated 7 March 2022 (Landlord’s complaint reference C-4651-VYMX).
  3. A determination about how the landlord handled the resident’s management transfer was issued by this service on 16 January 2023. (Ombudsman case reference 202205416)  The final response from the landlord for this complaint was dated on 25 July 2022 (Landlord’s complaint reference C-05031-2W2I).
  4. In accordance with Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon, the matters considered in the above determinations will not be considered further in this report.
  5. On 31 October 2022, the landlord issued a final response to a separate complaint made by the resident which included the anxiety the situation and the landlord’s delay in providing answers to his questions about the court date had caused him. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to this complaint on 29 September 2022 and the resident escalated the complaint on 3 October 2022.
  6. In its final response to that complaint (Landlord’s complaint reference C-05329-16H8), of 31 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged that:
    1. It should not have taken it as long as it did to obtain the information from officers and its solicitors.
    2. The situation was causing the resident anxiety and its delay in responding to the questions he had asked about the court date added to this.
  7. The landlord offered it ‘‘sincerest apologies for this, and for the additional stress and inconvenience this has caused’’ and offered the resident £250 compensation. The landlord said that it recognised that until the resident had found a new home, things would remain unsettled for him and in the interim it  needed to ensure that it communicated better with him and supported him as much as it could.
  8. The resident advised this service on 5 January 2023, that he did not wish this service to consider that complaint.
  9. It is acknowledged that the resident has raised concerns that his mental health has become increasingly worse as a direct result of the landlord’s actions/inactions. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health and that of his family. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord.

Summary of events

  1. On 8 September 2022, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about a call he had received the previous day from the solicitor involved in the ASB court case, which was scheduled for 20 October 2022. In his complaint the resident said that the landlord had not provided prompt guidance and support even though he was the main witness, his safety was endangered and that he had not been adequately prepared for what lay ahead. The resident also said that during the call from the landlord’s solicitor a number of things had been bought to his attention for the first time:
    1. That the landlord might proceed with the hearing on 20 October 2022 irrespective of the dangers to his welfare and safety. The resident said that  he had requested that the hearing be postponed until he had moved out of his home as per the management agreement.
    2. That should he complete a witness statement prior to the deadline, it would be sent to the neighbour (the defendant). The resident said that this should have been communicated with him very early in the process.
    3. He did not have the right to know whether he was the sole witness in the case.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 September 2022, in which it confirmed that the court case had been postponed for a minimum of 3 months and shared a letter from its solicitor to the local authority housing department which stated that: “This (was) an anti-social behaviour case against a neighbour for which (the resident) is a main witness and a neighbour who lives in close proximity to the Defendant”. The landlord confirmed that this was also confirmed in its response to the resident’s separate complaint (landlord’s complaint reference C-05329-16H8). The landlord went on to say that at that time, this was the only information it was able to share with the resident in terms of whether he was or was not the only witness in the ASB case. If there were other witnesses, and who they were, was information the landlord said it was unable to share with the resident due to confidentiality.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 30 September 2022. In his escalation request the resident said that the landlord had not addressed or taken into consideration his concerns about the support and guidance he had been given, that as the main witness his safety was endangered and that he had not been adequately prepared for what lay ahead. The resident said that the court case being postponed did not negate the failure by the landlord, and that there was no evidence of any guidance and support in terms of the court hearing.
  4. The landlord’s issued its final response on 31 October 2022. In its response the landlord noted that there was some cross over of issues with a separate complaint made by the resident (landlord’s complaint reference C-05329-16H8). The landlord when on to say that:
    1. In its response to complaint reference C-05329-16HB, it had stated that:
      1. ‘’Originally a court case was scheduled for 22 October 2022. However, we have considered your concerns about providing a witness statement whilst you remain in your current home. We have reached out to our Solicitor, who has contacted the courts and we have now postponed the court case for a minimum of 3 months. We do not have any further details of a confirmed, future court date at this time. This is in part so that we can help support you with a home move and then reassess your desire to provide a witness statement and be a witness at court once you have moved addresses.”
      2. It had also confirmed that it was doing all it could to secure the resident a move via the management transfer process.
    2. If the resident felt that there was anything further that could be done it would be more than happy to support him in any way possible.
    3. It was sorry that the resident did not feel that he had been prepared adequately, noting that there had been communication between itself and the resident, and that the resident had both spoken with and exchanged email communication with its solicitors directly about the case. The landlord went on to say that the file notes showed that there had been in-depth conversations regarding the case and the court hearing and in its final response to its complaint reference C-05329-16HB it had offered the resident £250 by way of apology for the impact of its case handling had on him.
    4. It was partially upholding this complaint as it did think that more regular communication could have been provided throughout the last year by its Neighbourhood Manager, and that it was very sorry for this.
    5. Acknowledged that this was a very distressing process for anyone to have to go through, and that it was very sorry to hear of how this had affected his mental health. The landlord advised that it had in-house support workers who offer help and support to residents across a wide range of concerns and that if this was something the resident would like to be contacted about, to let it know.
  5. In his referral to this service on 5 December 2022 the resident said that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to its complaint reference C-05402-PTNA as:
    1. The landlord had not accepted full accountability for their failing to meet their own policy as far as: “support and guidance where a complainant, victim or witness agrees to provide evidence when going through a court process.”
    2. No compensation offer had been made and there was no cross over issues between C-05402-PTNA and C-05329-16H8 which necessitate a merged compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that residents are not generally expected to go to court as a witness, as most cases of anti-social behaviour are resolved without legal action. However, where necessary, it will work with residents to help them build up an understanding of the legal process, ensure they have any information they need and help develop the confidence and strength of purpose to act as a witness in court.
  2. It is evident from previous complaints made by the resident that there have historically been some issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident. However, as these have already been considered and determinations issued by this service, no further comment about the landlord’s historical approach will be made here.
  3. With regards to the concerns raised about the timing of the court case it is evident that the landlord took these seriously. It contacted its solicitor, who in turn contacted the courts and postponed the court case for a minimum of 3 months.
  4. The landlord also confirmed that it would continue to assist the resident with a home move and that whether or not he wished to be a witness could be reassessed once he had moved. The landlord also provided the resident with a reasonable explanation as to whether he had the right to know whether he was the sole witness in the case, invited the resident to let it know if there was any further support it could provide and, in recognition of the resident’s concerns about the impact the situation was having on him mental health, advised that its in-house support workers may be able to offer further help and support. With regards to the resident’s concerns about any witness statement he may make being shared with his neighbour, again the landlord’s response both recognised and showed empathy for the resident’s concerns.
  5. It is noted that in this complaint the resident raised concerns that the landlord had not offered him any compensation. However, given that there is no evidence of any service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident in his complaint of 8 September 2022, it was reasonable for the landlord not to do so.
  6. With regards to the resident’s concerns about not being adequately prepared for what lay ahead, it was also reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its response to the separate complaint, for which it had issued its final response on the same day as its final response in this case. This is because in that response the landlord acknowledged that the resident did not feel that he had been adequately prepared, that it should not have taken it as long as it did to obtain the information from officers and its solicitors, and recognised that it needed to ensure that it communicated better with him and supported him as much as it could. The landlord had also offered the resident £250 by way of apology for the impact of its case handling had on him. Given that the landlord had already acknowledged these failures and paid compensation for those failures, it would not be reasonable to expect it to pay further compensation in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the guidance and support offered in relation to him being a witness in an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case it was bringing against his neighbour.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s provided a reasonable response to the concerns raised by the resident in his complaint of 8 September 2022 . The landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously by postponing the court case, reassuring the resident that it would continue to assist him in moving property and signposting him to its in-house support workers who may be able to offer further help and support.