Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202112026)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112026

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

23 June 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:
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident as a perpetrator of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
3. an alleged data breach, and;
4. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

5. The resident has lived with her son in a two bedroom, ground floor flat since 16 February 2016. The resident has a fixed term tenancy agreement.
6. This Service has seen evidence of an ongoing ASB complaint and counter complaint between the resident and her neighbour. Both parties consistently provided evidence to the landlord.
7. The landlord and this Service have been provided with evidence of the resident’s medical appointments and assessments to seek diagnosis and resolution of a health condition which results in her screaming out in pain.
8. The resident referred the case to this Service before completing the landlord’s internal complaints system. To progress the dispute this Service advised the landlord to raise a complaint to investigate the resident’s dissatisfaction. This was logged on 13 September 2021, but the landlord closed it as it deemed the resident to be an unreasonable or a vexatious complainant. Following this Service’s intervention, the landlord opened a second stage 1 complaint on 27 October 2021. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
9. The landlord took the resident to court for perpetrating ASB and obtained an interim injunction against her on 22 October 2021. This was agreed as an undertaking on the same terms at a subsequent hearing on 26 November 2021.
10. Early the following morning the landlord received reports of the resident crying, wailing, and shouting. This happened again on 30 November 2021 when the resident was heard shouting “please help me, I don’t wanna die”. The landlord regarded this as a breach of the undertaking. On 29 December 2021, the landlord’s solicitors wrote a ‘letter before action’ advising the resident of this.
11. The resident alleged a data breach by the landlord during a conversation it had with a neighbour unconnected with the dispute.
12. On 26 January 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response, it investigated the data breach, and it was satisfied that no confidential or sensitive information was shared. Regarding the resident’s concern of noise complaints being incorrectly attributed to her, the landlord wished to reassure her that the evidence in ASB cases is continually reviewed for relevance and so the most appropriate action is taken. This is reviewed between peers to ensure consistency and adherence to its ASB policy. The landlord did not uphold the complaint but did apologise for the length of time the investigation took and that the resident was not updated on the progress.
13. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service. As a resolution she would like an apology for the landlord’s treatment of her as an ASB perpetrator and compensation to reflect the level of distress she experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

14. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
15. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
16. Evidence seen by this Service show that on 22 October 2021 the landlord applied to court for an interim injunction against the resident for ASB. Another court hearing was held on 26 November 2021 before which the resident had obtained legal advice regarding the proceedings and the parties agreed an undertaking on the same terms as the interim injunction.
17. After considering all the evidence, it has been determined that the landlord’s handling of the resident as a perpetrator of ASB complaints prior to and including the court hearing is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. The landlord’s handling of the resident as a perpetrator of ASB following the court hearing from 27 November 2021 to the stage 2 final response dated 26 January 2022 does fall within jurisdiction and therefore has been investigated.
18. Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
19. Evidence of a data breach allegation and the subsequent landlord investigation has been provided to this Service. After reviewing all the evidence, it has been determined that this does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate and should be directed to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The landlord’s handling of the resident as a perpetrator of ASB (after the undertaking hearing).

20. The landlord’s ASB policy acknowledges that perpetrators of ASB may need support.
21. In emails seen by this Service the resident acknowledged she has perpetrated some ASB. This Service acknowledges this was a difficult and challenging situation for the landlord and resident.
22. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service that it made any referrals or attempted contact with the resident after receiving reports of her shouting for help and that she did not want to die. It had previously made referrals to safeguard the resident, but there has been no evidence provided to show it updated the support agencies.
23. This Service tried to establish the time frames for responding to reports; however, these are not adequately defined except that the landlord will resolve the query quicky and efficiently. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will endeavour to solve reported ASB as swiftly and efficiently as possible.
24. The landlord took a month to contact the resident to alert her to the breached undertaking, and when it did it was a letter before action through its solicitors. This Service deems the landlord left an excessive amount of time to alert the resident to the threat of further action.
25. In accordance with the Scheme this Service finds there was service failure from the landlord. The landlord has not evidenced it adhered to its ASB policy which resulted in dealing with the resident unreasonably in this matter.
26. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance the resident has experienced distress and a loss of confidence in the landlord by the course of action taken by it.

Landlord’s complaint handling.

27. In the landlord’s complaints policy, prior to deciding whether to refuse to investigate a complaint it will consider and review whether there are any matters which may contribute to the way someone behaves. It will consider appropriate adjustments and/or review if the resident is being adequately supported.
28. On 13 September 2021, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint under the direction of this Service. The landlord then reclassified the resident as an unreasonable or vexatious complainant and refused to investigate further.
29. The landlord has not provided any evidence in relation to how it made this decision. Likewise, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a review or considered if any adjustments or support needs should be addressed. This Service finds it did not comply with its complaints policy in relation to the unreasonable or vexatious complainant classification.
30. Following this decision, the resident made numerous attempts to interact with the landlord and the landlord reported her crying and distressed during phone calls. It took a week for the resident’s calls or emails to be responded to, meaning the resident was not informed why the landlord had classified her as a vexatious or unreasonable complainant. This Service looked to the landlord’s customer service standards which do not give time limits but do state it will resolve queries quickly and efficiently, keeping residents informed and updated every step of the way. This Service finds the landlord did not respond to the resident quickly which added to her distress.
31. Through the landlord’s complaints policy, it commits to responding to the stage 1 complaint within five working days and stage 2 within seven working days. If it is unable to meet these time limits it will let the customer know, explain why, and issue a new timeframe.
32. The landlord did not meet either the stage 1 or stage 2 timeframes. The landlord accepted a second stage 1 complaint on 27 October 2021, it was 31 working days for the resident to receive the response. The stage 2 response was 26 working days after the resident raised it.
33. The delays in both stage 1 and 2 responses were unacceptable and insufficient information provided about why this was and when a response could be expected. Despite acknowledging this service failure in the stage 2 response the landlord chose not to enact any offer of financial redress to the resident. Therefore, this Service finds the landlord did not adhere to its complaint policy.
34. In accordance with the Scheme, this Service finds the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy. It unreasonably delayed responding to the resident and treated the resident heavy-handedly when finding her to be an unreasonable and/or vexatious complainant.
35. In accordance with the remedies guidance this Service finds there has been a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident has lost confidence in the landlord and was distressed by its actions.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident as a perpetrator of ASB.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

38. The landlord to issue a written apology to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
39. The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation.
40. The landlord to offer a meeting with the resident, with the opportunity for third party mediation if desired. The purpose of the meeting is to re-establish the relationship between the landlord and resident. It will be an opportunity to discuss the concerns regarding the handling of the ASB case, any support or signposting which the landlord can offer. The resident is not obliged to attend if she does not wish to.
41. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.