Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202100627)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100627

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

27 October 2021

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 antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

2. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it expects people to be tolerant of other people’s lifestyles and will not generally accept reports of behaviour that are a reasonable part of everyday life. It then gives some examples, such as normal daily living noises and ‘staring or looking at another person unpleasantly’.
3. The ASB policy goes on to say that the landlord’s staff will exercise their professional judgement when assessing reports that they receive and, in situations where it assesses the behaviour not to be ASB, it will provide customers with advice and self-help options where appropriate. The landlord recognised that early intervention could often prevent certain types of ASB from escalating and believed that tenants could sometimes bring about sustainable solutions just by communicating with each other and respecting one another’s point of view.

Background

4. The property is a first floor flat. The resident moved in with her son on 3 October 2016. The resident has a brain injury and mental health problems. The neighbours in question are a couple (hereafter referred to individually as Mr and Mrs) who live in the flat underneath. They are also known to suffer from mental health difficulties.

Summary

5. The records provided by the landlord are not completely clear as different dates are sometimes provided for the same incident. Therefore, the dates stated on this report are sometimes approximate.

2016

6. On 7 December 2016 the resident rang the landlord to say that Mrs had banged on the door at 7.20am to complain about the noise as the resident kept on dropping things. She said that Mrs had knocked on her door twice before, once asking for cigarettes and then she came back again shouting. The landlord advised the resident that, if she felt she was not able to talk calmly to the neighbour she could think about writing them a letter saying sorry for any distress and hoping they could move forward from this without any problems.
7. Following this, the landlord called the neighbours and spoke to Mr. Mr said that Mrs had knocked on the resident’s door as she was making a lot of noise. The landlord then rang the resident and said that, as a new tenant, the resident should consider how the neighbours felt. The landlord nevertheless said it would write to the neighbours. The resident was unhappy with this response and felt that her side of the story was not being listened to.

2017

8. In January 2017 the resident rang the landlord to report that Mr kept going into her garden to remove a bottle of water that she had put down to deter his cat from coming into the garden and that the cat’s food tray was outside her door on a previous morning, which she believed Mr had put there deliberately. The resident said that her bins get full, and the cat was ripping the rubbish bags, however the landlord advised her that that was probably foxes. The resident felt that she could ‘blow a fuse’ with the neighbours and that she was on new medication that needed time to settle in. The landlord advised the resident not the shout at the neighbours as this would make her a perpetrator. The landlord then said that it would speak to the neighbours.
9. In March 2017 the resident’s mother rang the landlord to make them aware that the resident had had an argument with the neighbours about the bins which resulted in both parties raising their voices. As the resident suffers from anxiety, she rang 101 as she felt threatened.
10. Following this, the landlord offered to arrange mediation between the resident and the neighbours, however Mrs did not wish to attend. The landlord explained this to the resident over the phone and said that it was going to write to her and the neighbours to recommend that they have nothing to do with each other. The landlord said that it had told the neighbours not to touch the resident’s bins. The resident said that the neighbours had told the PCSO that the resident was noisy and that she was always slamming the front door. The resident said she did not realise she was doing this and would stop. The resident then said that Mr had threatened to take her to court. The landlord’s response was that Mr said lots of things and that this was his response to stress, which the resident said she understood.
11. In April 2017 the resident reported an incident where the neighbour was on her path even though they had been told not to exit via her garden.
12. On 7 August 2017 the resident reported that she was woken at 3.19am by the neighbour calling her cats to come in. The resident confirmed that this was a one-off incident although the neighbours did regularly call their cats between 11pm and midnight. The landlord explained that this would not be classed as ASB.
13. On 21 August 2017 the resident reported that Mrs had crossed her driveway and damaged a visitor’s car. When Mrs was challenged, she started screaming at the resident. The landlord said it could not do anything about the neighbours walking across her drive as it was very tight access. When asked for more information about the visitor’s car being damaged, the resident said that it was not damaged but that it could have been. The landlord said it would send the resident diary sheets for her to fill in so it could be assessed if this was ASB. The resident said that she wanted the neighbours to stop banging the door, shouting and being loud when getting the cats in. She said that she would be willing to do mediation.
14. During late 2017 and into 2018 there were issues relating to the resident’s garden being untidy and containing rubbish which exacerbated the relationship with the neighbours. The landlord arranged for a skip to be provided and made a tenancy support referral to mental health services to assist the resident.

2018

15. In April 2018 the resident reported that she had hired a window cleaner and that the only way he could access her front window was by standing in the neighbours’ front garden. However, the neighbours asked the window cleaner to given them advance notice in future instead of just entering their garden. The resident was unhappy with this and felt that the neighbours were just being awkward. The landlord advised that the neighbours were within their rights to request advance notice.
16. In September 2018 the resident reported that she was leaving her flat at 7am and Mrs was outside and accused her of making too much noise and they both swore at each other. The resident said she felt that she could not leave the flat because of the neighbour.
17. On 18 November 2018 the resident reported that Mrs confronted her in the front garden, telling her to keep the noise down. The resident had called the police. On 20 November 2018 the landlord told the resident it would get back to her once it had spoken to Mrs. On 26 November 2018 the landlord contacted the resident to say that it had had trouble getting hold of the neighbours, however the resident confirmed there had been no further incidents. On 30 November 2018 the neighbours were spoken to and advised to make contact with the landlord if there were any problems and not to approach the resident directly. The landlord also spoke to the resident to relay information about what it had told the neighbours and saying that the case was being closed.

2019

18. The issue with the untidy garden re-emerged in October 2019 with the neighbours reporting that it was attracting rats. The landlord contacted the resident who agreed to ring pest control.
19. On 28 October 2019 the resident’s mother called the landlord to inform them of a recent incident where Mrs had knocked at the resident’s door at 10pm and said there was someone in the back garden which caused the resident serious anxiety due to having been the victim of domestic violence by her ex-partner. The resident’s mother said that Mrs knew what she was doing and was trying to make the resident’s paranoia worse and that she was fed up with the harassment. The landlord said that the last record it had of alleged ASB was from November 2018. The resident’s mother said that Mr had recently pulled his trousers down to show the resident where he had been bitten by a rat and that was grounds for an injunction against him. However, the landlord explained that there was no evidence to support an injunction.
20. The landlord has a note dated 8 November 2019 where agreed actions were to speak to Mrs about staying away from the resident, suggest mediation again and to look at target hardening. The case was closed on 26 November 2019 after Mrs agreed not to knock on the resident’s door.

2020

21. On 22 May 2020 the resident reported that she was collecting her bins when Mrs tried to talk to her, and insults were exchanged. She said that Mrs has been told not to approach her but that this only lasted a while, after which it started up again. The landlord said that it would ring Mrs to warn her about speaking to the resident. The resident was worried about what the neighbours would do on 28 May 2020 when a skip was due to arrive. However, the landlord rang the resident later that day and was told that there had been no problems.
22. On 13 August 2020 the resident reported that Mrs had been in her own front garden wearing only a vest and knickers and that this was not the first time it had happened.

2021

23. On 11 January 2021 the resident reported that she had been verbally abused by the neighbours again and that this was an ongoing issue that the landlord was aware of. The landlord rang the resident back and discussed that the issues come up every few months as the parties do not get on and that Mrs had been told not to approach the resident. The resident then said that she wanted help with being rehoused. The landlord then made another mediation referral.
24. On 14 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying she felt she was not being listened to, things were not dealt with in a timely manner and that there was a risk between the two households as both had mental health problems and were vulnerable. She said that she thought her complaint should be escalated. The landlord responded by saying that these sorts of cases were difficult to deal with as both households had made counter claims against each other and that the resident had admitted to sometimes retaliating and being verbally abusive towards Mrs. A number of staff had tried to deal with it over the years and there were often months between complaints from either household, but the issue was never fully resolved. The landlord said that it could not compel Mrs to take part in mediation, but it advised the resident to accept mediation anyway as it could provide her with skills to manage the situation with the neighbour. It said that it could also help the resident to register for a house move but that she would have to actively bid for a suitable property to move to.
25. On 28 February 2021, the resident needed to get her internet connection fixed, and the problem was traced to a fault in the cable in the neighbours’ garden. However, the neighbours refused to allow the contractor access. There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident because a particular staff member was on leave. However, the landlord then did contact the neighbours to say that it had given permission for the cabling and that the contractor must be allowed access when he was to revisit on 23 March 2021.
26. On 19 April 2021 the resident reported that Mr had made threats towards her and her son and that she had called the police. She said that there had been issues for years, but this was the first time that threats had been made. The resident said that she had not stayed at the property since the incident happened as she was too scared.
27. On 20 April 2021 the landlord spoke to another nearby tenant who had witnessed the incident. She said that Mr had come out shouting and was very intimidating and aggressive. He made threats to the resident about getting people round to her and how she had better watch her cameras. This caused the resident to become distressed, and she called the police. The tenant also said that she found Mrs to be a very angry person who could turn nasty.
28. In response to this, the landlord made an adult safeguarding referral for the resident as her mental health had deteriorated. On 21 April 2021 the landlord informed the resident that it was waiting to hear back from the director about an exceptional let request. The landlord has a note of the same date stating that Mr was going to be issued a tenancy warning and that it might possibly get him to sign an acceptable behaviour contract.
29. There was some confusion between the resident and the landlord because the resident believed she had made a complaint under the landlord’s complaint process whereas the landlord had been dealing with her concerns under its ASB policy. Following contact from this Service, the landlord logged the complaint and its stage 1 response was made in the form of a phone call to the resident.  The landlord then provided its written stage 2 response on 25 March 2021. It stated that, having looked into the matter, it was not felt that any service failure had occurred but that the resident’s particular concerns had been fed back to the neighbourhood teams. It concluded that the neighbourhood officer had done everything possible to support the resident and her neighbours to find a resolution to the problems, including offering mediation. It said that the neighbourhood officer was now working with the resident to support her application for rehousing.
30. The resident had arrears on her account which complicated the moving process. However, the Ombudsman understands that the exceptional let was approved in June 2021

Assessment and findings

31. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of ASB and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
32. Although the resident says she was continuously telling the landlord about issues with the neighbours and how it was affecting her mental health, the evidence that has been provided does not support this. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident probably did not report every event that occurred. However, as detailed above, there was often months between reported incidents.
33. Whenever the resident reported an incident, the landlord did take action in that it would speak and/or write to the neighbours and then call the resident back to explain what had been agreed.
34. The landlord decided not to class some of the incidents as ASB, such as Mrs calling for her cats. The landlord was entitled to use its professional judgement when looking at incidents on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with its own ASB policy. The landlord was also clear with the resident in explaining to her that certain activities would not be classed as ASB.
35. It would have been wrong for the landlord to take action against the neighbours based purely on what the resident was reporting. Wider circumstantial evidence suggested that there was a breakdown of relations between neighbours who just did not get on, which occasionally blew up into an argument. The resident sometimes reported ASB when in fact the neighbours were acting reasonably, for example when they wanted advance notice for a window cleaner to enter their garden. Furthermore, there were counter allegations being made by the neighbours which the landlord could not ignore.
36. The landlord often suggested strategies that the resident and neighbours could use, such as not speaking to each other and attending mediation. In response to particular events the landlord was more direct in instructing the parties in what they should and should not do, such as telling the neighbours not to touch the resident’s bins and to not knock on the resident’s door. It should be noted that the landlord cannot be expected to resolve issues such as ASB unilaterally (particularly where there are allegations and counter-allegations), or to manage people’s behaviour on a daily basis. Instead, the cooperation of both parties is required to find a mutually agreeable solution which can be effective in the long term.
37. Although the resident was not deemed to meet the criteria for a management move, the landlord did offer the resident appropriate advice about registering and bidding for a new property.
38. The landlord made appropriate referrals to mental health services at times when it identified that the resident was in need of extra support. This demonstrates that the landlord had regard for the resident’s welfare.
39. Before April 2021 there was no independent evidence to support what the resident was reporting. The Ombudsman understands that the resident feels as if she was not believed and it is clear that the situation caused anxiety and a deterioration in her mental health. However, both the landlord and the Ombudsman can only rely on the presenting evidence to reach sound conclusions which are fair to both parties.
40. As soon as the landlord gained independent evidence from another tenant that the resident had been threatened, it took steps to arrange an exceptional let for the resident and to consider more formal action against the neighbours. This shows that the landlord assessed the situation as being serious and was taking steps to prevent the resident from suffering any further ASB.
41. The Ombudsman has considered whether, because the resident and the neighbours all had mental health difficulties, the landlord should have recognised that as a complicating factor worthy of closer investigation. However, because of the infrequency of the reports from the resident and the relatively low–level nature of the behaviour being reported in most instances, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate.

Determination (decision)

42. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

43. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took the resident’s reporting of ASB seriously and that it acted in accordance with its ASB policy to try and find solutions to minimise the situation. As soon as there was independent evidence of the neighbours being threatening towards the resident, the landlord took steps to enable the resident to move.