Vivid Housing Limited (202013379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013379

Vivid Housing Limited

21 March 2022

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:
   1. Handling of the residents’ reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including noise nuisance.
   2. Handling of the residents’ request for a management move.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of a 1-bedroom flat in a block of four flats.
3. The landlord has provided anti-social behaviour logs and telephone notes between itself and the resident regarding the resident’s reports.
4. The Ombudsman notes that there have been historic reports from the resident, however as the formal complaint was not made until June 2020, the Ombudsman has considered matters 6 months prior to this. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
5. The landlord’s ASB policy notes it encourages customers to keep a track of what is happening and how the issues are affecting them. It will assess each case and contact the people involved and use early interventions such as warning letters, meetings, partnership visits, Acceptable Behaviour Agreements, Good Neighbour Agreements. It will support complainants by offering a variety of methods to report ASB and stay in contact with it, contact complainants weekly, unless it agreed something different with them, be honest about what it can and can’t do and assess any support or vulnerabilities, and refer to support services where needed.
6. The landlord’s Management Move policy notes a resident may need to move urgently where there is an evidenced medical need an immediate move is necessary, or is experiencing anti-social behaviour and a move to alternative accommodation is believed to be the only solution. In all cases the council should be approached first for them to consider putting the resident back on to the waiting list in accordance with their Allocation Policy. The resident also needs to explore other options that may be available such as a mutual exchange or private rent. The resident will need to provide the necessary documentation to support their application. Ultimately, it’s the resident’s responsibility to provide supporting evidence. Examples of supporting evidence are medical reports or police evidence.

Summary of events

7. On 11 February 2020 the landlord contacted the resident about the support he needed regarding ASB from his neighbour, he responded that he did not require support at the moment. The landlord closed the case.
8. On 12 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about his request for a management move and advised his health was affected. The landlord stated it could create an ASB case, but the resident insisted he had enough evidence for a move.
9. On 13 May 2020 the landlord discussed a management move with the resident. The landlord advised how the police could assist in a move and the evidence required from them. The landlord requested that the environmental health team contact the resident to prioritise the ASB.
10. On 8 June 2020 the resident requested a call back from the landlord to discuss the ASB from the neighbours. He asserted that they displayed discrimination against him because he was disabled. In addition, noise nuisance (loud music and slammed windows) was also reported to the landlord and to the environmental health team.
11. On 9 June 2020 the tenancy support referral team, following discussions, stated the resident was suffering with his mental health due to the ASB and the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. It was stated further support would be ideal. 
12. On the same day the landlord spoke to the resident about how feeling isolated and vulnerable, impacted his mental health. A tenancy support referral was made for him. As part of investigating the issues, the landlord spoke to the neighbour about ASB that had been reported. The neighbour admitted to loud music and acknowledged this needed to be reduced going forward. The neighbour noted that in relation to noise from the windows, this was in need of repair as he struggled to close them and therefore needed to slam them shut. The landlord noted the windows would be inspected when possible and informed the neighbour of the environmental health case.
13. On 10 June 2020 the landlord contacted the resident, and it was suggested that the complaints procedure be used. The resident stated he had used the complaints procedure on multiple occasions; however, the results were not favourable. It was discussed that supporting evidence was required for a management move and that the landlord would liaise with the environmental health team.
14. On 15 June 2020 the landlord stated there was insufficient evidence for a management move to take place, following which the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s decision, noting he had not been shown empathy or compassion.
15. On 25 June 2020 it was noted that the landlord’s environmental health team had closed the resident’s complaint because it had not heard from him nor were diary sheets submitted. The resident had also confirmed to the landlord that the situation had much improved, with no loud music or discriminatory remarks.
16. On 26 June 2020 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. It noted as follows:  
    1. It had sought to work with the environmental health team but upon contact it was advised that the ASB case was closed because diary sheets had not been submitted. It noted it would therefore be unable to liaise with it further. The resident was advised to contact Environmental Health if this was incorrect.
    2. The resident had stated that all windows were being slammed as such it advised it would investigate the block for defects regarding the windows. 
    3. It noted the resident had queried why he had to provide information from his GP to support his request for a management move. It explained that it had attempted to contact his GP, but it would not share any details, as such the resident needed to request any relevant supporting information and provide it to the landlord.
    4. It noted he had  previously declined support and reiterated that its tenancy support team could offer further assistance.
    5. It acknowledged the improvement in the ASB issues but noted he could report further issues if necessary and staff would continue trying to help and support him.
17. In July 2020, the resident displayed his dissatisfaction regarding the above response, noting whilst there was currently no ASB issues, he was tense that this would resume. He explained that he still needed a move based on his disability and illness and the landlord was discriminating against him and he would consider taking action against it. The landlord explained that he would need to provide the GP with consent for it to discuss his medical information in order to consider a move based on his health condition.
18. On 7 September 2020 the resident reported further incidents of ASB and noise nuisance as the neighbour was playing loud music until 6am. A management move was again requested. The resident asked to raise a formal complaint about the management move, noting the current situation had affected his mental health and disability. The landlord again offered tenancy support.
19. On 14 September 2020, the landlord explored housing options including Homeswapper and bidding for properties (via the local authority). The resident was not keen but understood these were his options. The landlord noted it would send further diary sheets for him to complete and would continue to support him. The resident noted he was happy with the current position.
20. On 30 September 2020 the resident explained that the local authority would not accept him on the housing list, via the disability panel, as he was currently housed with suitable adaptions in place. The resident enquired about the management move and the landlord reiterated the information it required. Homeswapper was suggested again as an alternative option and assistance was offered to use the platform, which the resident declined.
21. In October 2020, assistance was again offered, and the resident advised he was focusing on his health as opposed to looking to move.
22. In November 2020 the resident echoed his experience of ASB and moving properties. He said he was being abused by a different neighbour through the windows. The landlord suggested continuing with diary sheets to evidence it was persistent, and how it was impacting him, but the resident was dissatisfied by this suggestion. The landlord noted it could contact environmental health but would need to provide it with evidence of ASB. The resident declined completing diary sheets as he noted this had previously been done.
23. On 1 December 2020 a further stage one complaint was acknowledged by the landlord. This was regarding the member of staff who had handled the resident’s case and his belief the landlord was not helping him, following his reports of abuse from the neighbours. The resident felt he should not be living at the property due to vulnerabilities arising from his disability.
24. On 8 December 2020 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. The main points were as follows: 

1. The complaint was about ASB, the decision made about the management move and a member of staff.
2. The member of staff was not avoiding the resident, they were unavailable to answer the call and it was advised if it was an urgent matter, then the resident should speak to the Neighbourhood Officer or the Team Leader which the resident refused. The complaint was then raised about the member of staff; however, it was later identified the complaint was about the landlord’s handling of ASB and its decision about the management move.  
3. The ASB had been investigated but due to lack of evidence about the neighbours, action could not be taken against them, apart from an informal warning, which the landlord had given. The landlord found this had been beneficial for a short period of time. 
4. The resident was recognised as a low priority by the local authority because it had found him to be sufficiently housed. The management move policy was reviewed and it was agreed the correct decision was previously provided as the resident did not meet the criteria.
5. It reiterated that utilising Homeswapper was the resident’s best option, and it could assist. It noted its wellbeing officer had previously supported him and offered details of other support groups available , but he declined this. It confirmed it was happy to again provide this support.

25. On the same day, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response and stated that he would seek legal advice as his complaint had not been handled sufficiently. The resident felt his disability and current situation were not investigated properly. A stage 2 escalation request was made and logged by the landlord.
26. On 9 December 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint. A final response would be due no later than 11 January 2021.
27. On 31 December 2020 the landlord issued its final response to the complaint following discussion with the resident. It noted that: 

1. The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the complaint including the landlord not taking into consideration the resident’s disability.  The resident suffered from a long illness which affected his hearing and caused nausea and dizziness. This further exacerbated the matter when leaving the property, therefore, he stayed mostly indoors. There had been on going issues with the neighbours, but particularly more so with one. The resident felt the block was no longer suitable for his wellbeing. The resident had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions to report anti-social behaviour and although the landlord had responded to his reports, he did not feel it had offered the right support, kept promises and had not approved a management move even given the impact on his health.
2. It had reviewed the records and was satisfied it had responded and followed its procedures. It required the resident to provide it with evidence of the issues, but he had failed to return diary sheets, he was not prepared to provide evidence from his GP and wanted it to take his word, but it needed this information to make a complete assessment and would cover any GP costs. It noted moving was not always the solution and the root cause of ASB needed to be tackled by using mediation, agreements or taking enforcement action, if necessary, but due to the lack of evidence it was unable to approve a move.
3. Its staff had responded to the resident appropriately and liaised with environmental health, offered support to move matters forward and again requested information to assist its consideration of a move, but he had failed to engage with it.
4. He had confirmed incidents happened roughly once a month and as such these were not particularly regular, but again without details and how it impacted the resident, it was limited in the action it could take.
5. Following the local authority declining registering him on its bidding system, it had offered to assist registering on Homeswapper, but he had declined this. It reoffered this.
6. He could continue reporting incidents and if he did so by email setting out key details it could effectively use those as diary sheets, however there was no further action it could take.

Assessment and findings

28. In considering the complaint the Ombudsman has not made a judgement on whether the ASB complained of exists or not. Rather the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and whether this was reasonable or not.
29. It is clear that the resident has made clear that the situation has had an impact on him. When considering instances of ASB, the landlord needs to consider evidence relating to the matter, and discuss the issues with both the complainant and alleged perpetrator. In this situation it is clear that the landlord was in constant communication with the resident and also environmental health. Whilst the resident complained of the situation it has been noted that neither the landlord nor environmental health received diary sheets back, in order to further assess the situation. As such the landlord was limited in the action it could take.
30. The landlord did, however, discuss the reports with the alleged perpetrator and as a result the situation improved. It also noted that it would investigate whether there were any defects with the windows. Whilst the Ombudsman has not seen action taken following this, the Ombudsman appreciates that the Covid-19 lockdown was in place at the time and therefore repairs were put on hold.
31. Whilst the resident continued to report issues the landlord correctly advised what evidence was required from the resident in order for it to take further action. In aiding the resident, the landlord correctly offered support both internally and externally, and the resident was entitled to decide whether he engaged with this. As such the landlord’s response and actions relating to the ASB was in line with its policy and reasonable in the circumstances.
32. In considering the management move, the landlord had to take into consideration the evidence on file. Given that the ASB evidence was limited, the landlord correctly advised the resident that in order to consider the move based on his disability/illness, it would need supporting evidence. This was in line with its policy and reasonable.
33. Whilst the resident initially requested that the landlord seek this information itself, the landlord made the resident aware that it was unable to without his consent. It appropriate requested that the resident collates the information firm his GP and offered to pay any associated costs. This was reasonable and made clear that the landlord was taking the resident’s request seriously.
34. The Ombudsman is unsure why the resident then declined to provide this supporting information, however again it was his right to do so, but this resulted in the landlord not being able to carry out an appropriate assessment of the situation and as such unable to offer a management move. Given the landlord’s limitations, its response was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Handling of the resident’s management move request

Reasons

36. The landlord considered the resident’s reports and requested evidence in order to assess the action it could take; this was not forth coming and therefore it was limited in the actions it could take.
37. The landlord appropriately followed its management move policy and the onus was on the resident to provide supporting evince bit he declined to do so.