Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202117300)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117300

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

20 April 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 handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, in a one-bedroom flat.
3. The resident made several reports of ASB by his neighbour from November 2020 to late November 2021. These included incidents of shouting and swearing, banging on his window, and noise. The landlord supported the resident to complete a rehousing application in February 2021 which it later withdrew due to counter allegations of ASB by the resident. The landlord reinstated the rehousing application for a direct offer in May 2021.
4. In the resident’s formal complaint of 2 June 2021, he asked for the CCTV to be repaired, following an incident at his property, and asked why it had not been working. He said the police had deemed the property unsafe, and he had only been offered hostel accommodation, which he did not think was acceptable. He was unhappy with the support the landlord had provided him throughout the ASB case and said he was suffering with his mental health. He stated that the landlord had told him to film evidence, which he said was against the law.
5. In decision on the complaint, the landlord stated that “all actions taken have been timely and followed procedures”. His neighbour had been issued with multiple warnings, but it had been unable to take legal action due to COVID-19, as the courts were closed. It had advised him to complete diary entries, not provide video evidence. It had awarded the resident priority A for rehousing, and he had chosen to place bids on properties, rather than be given a direct offer, but he had not made any. It added it had offered him temporary accommodation on the day he reported the damage at his property, and on three subsequent occasions, which he had declined. It said that it was not planning to replace the CCTV, but it was left in place as a deterrent, and it advised that the CCTV would not have covered the resident’s property. There was a potential misunderstanding about advice regarding video footage, but it would only accept noise recordings and the resident could not film in communal areas.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, specifically that it took ten days to offer him alternative accommodation following the damage to his windows and door and that he was advised to video his neighbour, which he thought had led to the damage at his property.

Assessment and findings

7. The resident initially reported ASB to the landlord on 16 November 2020, and it opened an ASB case. The landlord advised the resident to complete diary entries to document instances of ASB. The resident provided video evidence of ASB in December 2020, including noise nuisance and his neighbour banging on his window. The landlord completed a tenancy warning interview, with the resident’s neighbour, on 18 December 2020, and she was issued a final warning letter on 15 March 2021. The landlord supported the resident to complete a rehousing application on 15 February 2021, and the resident was awarded band A priority; this was later withdrawn due to counter allegations of ASB about the resident. Following further reports of noise nuisance, the landlord made a request for noise monitoring equipment to be installed at the resident’s property. On 24 May 2021, the police notified the landlord that the resident’s windows had been smashed and his door was damaged. The landlord, consequently, reinstated the rehousing application for a direct offer on 27 May 2021.
8. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will offer help and advice if the resident is a victim of ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord should take appropriate actions, which could include mediation, warning interviews/letters and legal intervention. The landlord was prompt in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB, advising him to complete diary entries to provide evidence of the reported behaviour, and visiting him to discuss video footage he had taken. In light of evidence the resident provided, the landlord acted reasonably by interviewing and issuing a tenancy warning letter to his neighbour. Following further reports, it then awarded him emergency priority for rehousing.
9. As the landlord was provided with substantial evidence to support counter allegations made about the resident, it was reasonable that it withdrew the emergency accommodation offer. This is in accordance with the tenancy agreement which provides that the resident must not harass or use violence to anyone in the local area. Throughout the ASB case, the landlord was in regular contact with the resident and liaised with both Environmental Health and the police, discussing support options for the resident.
10. In his complaint, the resident stated that he was advised to take video footage as evidence, which he said was illegal and he thought it had led to the damage to his property. The landlord visited the resident’s property twice in December 2020 to view video footage that the resident had taken of ASB. While there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord advised the resident to take such footage, it also did not advise the resident to refrain from taking video footage and during the second visit, the landlord advised the resident to retain the video footage on his phone. However, during both visits the landlord advised the resident that he should document further instances of ASB using diary sheets. The landlord also acknowledged in its stage two response that it had identified potential miscommunication regarding obtaining video footage as evidence. While this does not constitute service failure, the landlord should ensure in future ASB cases that it provides clear guidelines to resident’s reporting ASB regarding suitable evidence and advise it cannot accept video evidence upon receiving it.
11. The landlord does not have an explicit policy regarding offering emergency accommodation; however, it would be expected to support the resident when the police deemed the property unsafe due to the damage. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that it offered the resident alternative accommodation the same day that the resident’s door and windows were damaged, but there is no contemporaneous evidence to corroborate this. On the contrary, the resident states that he was not offered alternative accommodation until ten days later. However, in correspondence with the landlord, on 3 June 2021, the resident said he was dissatisfied with the offer of a hostel, indicating that the landlord had already offered alternative accommodation.
12. There was also an internal email on 4 June 2021, in which the landlord discussed alternative housing options as the resident did not want to stay in a hostel. The landlord then made an offer to the resident to stay in a B&B, or a hotel with an evening meal, both of which the resident refused. It then gave him £100 worth of food vouchers. The landlord’s records show that it reinstated the resident’s priority rehousing status on 27 May 2021 and internal emails on 28 May 2021 confirmed that the landlord was aware the resident was living at his girlfriend’s residence, thus had alternative accommodation. Although the evidence is unclear regarding when the resident was initially offered alternative accommodation, it is evident that the landlord discussed rehousing options with the resident, considered his requests, and ensured he had suitable alternative accommodation.
13. Although this Service has been able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendations

15. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record-keeping practices to ensure that it keeps a record of all correspondence with the resident during an ASB case.