Bolton at Home Limited (202008152)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008152

Bolton at Home Limited

22 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

The complaint is about:
1. The allocation of a neighbouring flat in 2017.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.
3. The related complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.

The allocation of a neighbouring flat in 2017

Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising.
In his formal complaint raised with the landlord in July 2020, the resident complained about the landlord’s decision to allocate the neighbouring property to his neighbour in 2017. He said that the landlord had failed to a properly vet the new neighbour after promising to do so after a bad experience with the previous tenant.
As the resident did not raise this matter as a formal complaint with the landlord prior to July 2020, which is more than three years after the allocation took place this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be considered further.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure resident. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a two-storey block. His neighbour occupied the flat above the resident. This neighbour moved out of the flat at the end of July 2020.
The resident has vulnerabilities which are noted on the landlord’s system.
The resident made ASB reports regarding his neighbour to the landlord during 2017 and 2018, the landlord closed the ASB case in October 2018. This Investigation will not consider the landlord’s handling of the events in 2017 and 2018 as they were not raised as a formal complaint until July 2020 which is more than six months after the events occurred. Any reference to these events is for context only.
This investigation will consider events from 10 May 2020 when the resident contacted the landlord to report further ASB from his neighbour which was later subject to a formal complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 May 2020 to report instances of his neighbour shouting “obscenities” and playing loud music. He said his neighbour was constantly breaking the terms of the tenancy. He requested that the landlord take action to evict the neighbour. He advised that the landlord was aware of his disability and that he had to take medication daily to stay alive. The resident explained that he needed a good sleep pattern which was not possible due to the ASB by the neighbour.
The landlord called the resident to discuss the issues and then opened a new ASB case on 11 May 2020.
The resident reported ASB from his neighbour on further occasions including on 13 and 14 May 2020 when the resident advised his neighbour had threatened violence against him and other residents. The resident reported these threats to the police.
On 15 May 2020 the landlord emailed the resident advising that in line with its ASB procedure, it would issue the resident’s neighbour with a formal warning about his drug use, noise and breaches of Covid rules (this Service has not been provided with this formal warning). The landlord also said the police had confirmed the incident number. It said it had written to other residents asking them to call if they were experiencing issues with the neighbour in question.
The landlord’s internal communications show its Tenancy Enforcement Officer (TEO) contacted the neighbour’s mental health support worker to advise of the issues and query if they were still supporting the neighbour. They replied on the same day confirming they were still involved in providing support from a mental health perspective.
Its TEO then contacted the landlord’s legal team who advised that due to the length of time since the last ASB case regarding this individual was closed, evidence of the current problems would need to be obtained in order to decide on an appropriate course of action. The landlord’s TEO advised the resident of this position on the same day explaining that diary incident sheets would need to be kept in order to build case.
The resident made at least five further reports of ASB from his neighbour in May and again on 4, 17 and 18 June. His reports included allegations that his neighbour was screaming abuse and that people had been banging on his neighbour’s door demanding money on account of his drug use.
On 18 June 2020, the landlord’s TEO advised the resident that it had a multi-agency meeting that week regarding his neighbour and advised that it would provide an update following this. The landlord’s internal communications confirm it attended a multi-agency meeting concerning the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord referenced the ASB reports from the resident and another neighbour in the estate. It referred to the neighbour’s mental health and drug use. It referenced a need to decide on what action to take to address the situation.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 30 June 2020 show it was considering what action was most appropriate to address the ASB however no clear course of action was identified.
On 6 July 2020 the resident reported his neighbour was continuing with ASB “both day and night” and advised the landlord that he could smell the neighbour’s drugs seeping into his flat. He asked the landlord for the update on how it address the issue, as promised on 18 June 2020.
On 7 July 2020, the landlord’s TEO provided a response to the resident’s 6 July email. It advised that the lockdown restrictions were making it more difficult to intervene to stop the ASB. Usually, it would follow its ASB policy which included visiting the perpetrator at home to discuss the allegations and to try to get them to agree actions.
The TEO advised they discussed the case at the multiagency meeting however said that unfortunately due to lockdown restrictions, they were limited options for agencies to assist. The TEO advised they had sent the neighbour a formal warning on 21 May 2020 about his behaviour and requested that he contacted them to discuss the allegations however they had not heard back from the neighbour. They advised however that they had just obtained the neighbour’s new phone number and would ring him that day to discuss his ASB. They advised they had discussed the case with his manager and sought legal advice and reiterated the need to keep incident diary sheets as it would need to show to the court that all non-legal routes had been exhausted prior to taking enforcement action.
The landlord’s call notes of 7 July 2020 indicate it called the resident’s neighbour and that he agreed to cease playing music between certain hours and that he understood if his behaviour did not improve the landlord would take further action. The TEO provided the details of the call to the resident.
On 7 July 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint about ASB, threats of violence against himself from his neighbour. He advised that he suffered from Chronic Fatigue syndrome/ME which meant he was required to have sleep. He complained about the lack of action taken by the landlord despite his multiple reports made over the past three years about his neighbour being a drug user and causing problems all night.
The resident said that the ASB from his neighbour had now escalated to him making death threats against him. The resident requested that the landlord evict the neighbour. He said that he had already provided enough evidence to enable it to do this.
On 7 July 2020, the landlord sent the neighbour a formal warning about his behaviour.
On 14 July 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour had threatened to kill him again. He had called the police.
On 15 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord regarding an incident the previous night whereby a visitor to his neighbour’s flat was violently assaulted and advised that his neighbour was involved in this. In its response of the same date the landlord advised an officer would call him to discuss the incident. The landlord subsequently recorded the resident’s statement about this incident and regarding the neighbour’s ASB more generally. The landlord asked the resident if he would like to be referred to a support service due to the ASB he had experienced. It explained their role was to provide additional support and would advocate on his behalf by contacting the appropriate partners agencies to help with the ASB. There is no evidence of the resident accepting its offer.
On 16 July 2020, the landlord’s internal communications referred to the serious assault that the resident’s neighbour had been a witness of. It referred to the neighbour having been interviewed by the police about this.
The landlord’s internal communications show that on 20 July 2020 its TEO requested a management move for the resident’s neighbour on account of him being a witness to a crime and because of the ASB reports that the resident and other residents had made against him including:
1. Playing loud music from his address;
2. Shouting and arguing with his visitors inside and outside his home;
3. Being verbally abusive to his neighbours and;
4. Threatening violence to his neighbours.
The application stated a move was urgent to protect the wider community from further threats. It referenced taking legal action against the neighbour.
On 29 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident advising it was continuing investigations with regard to his complaint raised and was awaiting a further progress update from the Investigatory Manager. It apologised for the delay and advised it would contact him again about his complaint within 10 working days.
On 3 August 2020, the landlord’s internal communications indicate that its Manager called the resident to discuss his complaint. The notes indicate that it explained that due to the length of time that had elapsed since the last ASB case against his neighbour, a new ASB case was opened again in May 2020 and that it was necessary to start building the case again. It highlighted to the resident that the neighbour had now moved out of his property and therefore this would resolve the issues he had been having. The notes also indicate that the landlord discussed his previous ASB case which was closed in October 2018. As the resident disputed its version of events, the landlord agreed to retrieve the previous case file from its archives and review this evidence. The landlord told the resident it would provide a full complaint response following its review of this evidence.
On 3 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident advising it was closing the ASB case due to his neighbour now having moved out. It advised that in order to give him and other neighbours respite, it would be submitting a sensitive let for management approval in respect of allocating the flat above him to a new tenant.
On 16 August 2020 the resident complained again to the landlord. He said the landlord should have taken action to evict his neighbour during the first 12 months when he had a probation tenancy. He said its failure to do so had allowed the neighbour to “terrorise” him for years.
On 27 August 2020, the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident. Within its response, it confirmed that it had reviewed the archived casefile relating to previous ASB case and reiterated its position on these events, referencing the evidence reviewed. It apologised if the information was not made sufficiently clear to him at the time. It also acknowledged and apologised for him having experienced ASB from his neighbour for a long time.
The landlord set out events since 10 May 2020 when it opened a new ASB case due to him reporting ASB from his neighbour. It said after initial investigations it issued the neighbour a formal warning regarding his behaviour, but it acknowledged that the officer was struggling to engage with him. Also due to lockdown restrictions, it could not utilise all of its usual interventions to try to stop the ASB for example, it was unable to conduct home visits. The case officer advised him of this on 7 July 2020 and of the legal advice received. It confirmed its intention to follow its ASB processes and procedures in order to produce a quality case in the event that it needed to take enforcement action.
The landlord said that following on from this, further interventions and incidents occurred before his neighbour was moved out of the flat above the resident.
The landlord said it accepted that it struggled to exhaust all interventions in line with its procedures due to Covid-19 restrictions. It also accepted that there was a delay in getting back to him with an update. It would therefore like to apologise to him for any inconvenience caused.
The landlord advised it was unable to respond to his questions about why his neighbour was offered the property, due to the restrictions of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). However, it would like to re-assure him that it had requested a sensitive let for the neighbour’s property.
On 3 September 2020, the resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint as it did not answer his questions raised. The resident provided further details about the events in the past and disputed its version of events. He requested a copy of the landlord’s ASB policy.
On 4 September 2020 the landlord acknowledged his escalation request and points that he was dissatisfied with including:
1. He alleged it had not answered his questions.
2. He felt its response was misleading and not a true reflection of events.
3. Regarding his mention of events that occurred in 2018, it could only investigate complaints relating to events that had occurred in the last six months so it would not be able to escalate his part of his response. It had however passed this on to the Senior Manager of the department.
On 15 September 2020 the landlord called the resident to discuss the issues raised in his complaint. The Ombudsman has not been provided with notes of this call.
On 23 September 2020, the landlord provided a stage two response. It advised that generally, it assessed each case on its own facts in conjunction with its in house legal team to assess if legal action is an option. Ultimately it would be its decision to decide an appropriate course of action to follow for example, injunction or possession. Action to possess a property is always a last resort and all non-legal intervention methods needed to be exhausted before this was considered. It said new information that came to light as a case developed would be continually assessed before any decision was taken.
It said that the resident was offered a support service beyond that provided by the case officer however he declined its offer advising he had family support. The landlord provided the resident with a weblink to its ASB policy.
The landlord also explained that as the largest social landlord in that area, it offered accommodation to vulnerable customers with various levels of support needs. In some cases, customers may have an offending history. In these cases it would always endeavour to manage the risk with its partners and to make appropriate allocations. It is also the case that the full extent of the vulnerability and support was not always fully understood at the start of a new tenancy.
It confirmed it sometimes let properties under a “sensitive letting” approach where for example the previous tenancy had caused severe ASB to neighbours. Following this approach, it would make additional checks on the new incoming tenant to try and reduce the risk of a re-occurrence of ASB. However, these checks could not guarantee that any incoming tenant would not present a risk at some point in time. It said this approach was adopted when a new tenant moved into the property above the resident in July 2020 which allowed additional checks to be made.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.

The landlord’s ASB policy in place at the time of the resident’s ASB reports states that it will use appropriate early intervention and prevention strategies for example. polite letters before opening an ASB case and carrying out an investigation. Further, the landlord will deal with the most serious cases of ASB as a matter of urgency, especially where vulnerable people are involved, either as the reporter or the subject.
Its policy also states that the landlord will use all available and appropriate legal powers to address and resolve ASB and tenancy breach and that it will work with partners under the Be Safe partnership including the police, health and safeguarding services.
The serious nature of some of the ASB experienced from his neighbour has meant the resident has been experiencing considerable distress and inconvenience. He has been particularly affected due to his health condition which requires him have a good sleep pattern.
After the resident initially reported this issue to the landlord in early May 2020, within approximately three months, the landlord had arranged for the resident’s neighbour to be moved out of the property via a management move. This brought an end to the ASB being perpetrated at the time.
Having reviewed the landlord’s actions during this timeframe, it is clear the landlord took steps to address the ASB being reported which were in accordance with its ASB policy.
On the resident’s initial report of ASB made on 10 May 2020, it promptly called the resident to discuss the issue and opened an ASB case on 11 May 2020. Following its receipt of further ASB reports from the resident over the next few weeks, the landlord wrote to his neighbour to formally warn him about his behaviour, engaged with agencies including the police and mental health services regarding the neighbour’s actions and behaviour as it was aware that the neighbour in question had vulnerabilities including mental health issues and a drug habit. It also contacted other residents as part of its investigation and sought advice from its inhouse legal team about the most appropriate course of action to follow in order to address the issue. This demonstrates the landlord was taking the issue seriously and that it was following its ASB policy.
It noted that the landlord did not speak to the resident’s neighbour regarding the ASB reports that had been raised against him until 7 July 2020. It told the resident at the time and later in its complaint response that this was because it had been unable to carry out a home visit due to Covid-19 restrictions. Further, it said that the neighbour had not made contact with it after it wrote to him requesting him to do so.
Its ASB policy in place at that time did not specify the early interventions it referred to, however, interviewing or taking a statement from the alleged perpetrator is standard practice when investigating ASB reports as it helps effectively manage the case. However, the landlord’s stated reason for not visiting the perpetrator at his property is understandable. Whilst it may have been helpful if the landlord had called the neighbour after he did not respond to its request, this appears to be because the landlord did not hold a valid phone number for him. It is noted however that the landlord was engaging with other agencies during this time demonstrating it was taking some action.
The landlord did then obtain the perpetrator’s phone number and on 7 July 2020 called him to discuss the ASB reports against him. The landlord’s call notes indicate the resident’s neighbour agreed to cease playing music between certain hours and that he understood if his behaviour did not improve the landlord would take further action. This was appropriate however the call notes did not indicate whether the landlord also put to him the allegations of verbal abuse and threats which had also been reported by that time.
Based on the advice from its legal team, the landlord requested the resident to keep incident diary sheets so it could use this to build a case for potential legal action. As incident diary sheets provide first-hand evidence of incidents as well as the frequency and time of these, this request was reasonable. It also sufficiently explained to the resident why this evidence was important.
The landlord failed to provide an update to the resident within a reasonable timeframe when promised on 18 June following its multiagency meeting; it only provided feedback after the resident contacted it chasing for a response on 6 July 2020. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint response which was reasonable.
In response to the resident reporting further serious ASB from the neighbour, including threats of violence against him, in conjunction with the neighbour’s involvement in a serious assault incident, the landlord promptly requested a management move for the neighbour. The landlord cited in its request that it was considering taking legal action. The landlord also offered the resident details of third party support agency on account of the ASB he had experienced which was appropriate.
The landlord followed through with a management move and the neighbour moved out of the flat above the resident within the next 2 to 3 weeks. The landlord subsequently confirmed to the resident that the neighbour was moving out and advised that in order to give him and other neighbours respite, it would be submitting a sensitive let for management approval in respect of allocating the neighbouring property to a new tenant. Its allocation policy does not refer to this type of let nonetheless in its final response to the resident, the landlord made clear that the purpose of this was to ensure the next occupier was not likely to perpetrate ASB and it carried out extra checks to identify this. In view of the resident having been a victim of ASB from the neighbour, its attempt to secure a sensitive let was reasonable.
Therefore, in the main the landlord acted appropriately and reasonably when responding to the resident’s ASB reports which led to it the neighbour being moved out of the property via a management move. There were some minor shortcomings in the service provided by the landlord whilst handling the resident’s ASB reports, however they were not so serious as to amount to a service failure.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its complaint policy states it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within five working days and provide a stage one response within a further 10 working days. Further, it will acknowledge receipt of a stage two review request within five working days and provide a final response within a further 10 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 July 2020 however it did not provide stage one complaint response until 27 August 2020. On 29 July 2020 the landlord contacted the resident apologising for the delay. It advised that it was awaiting an update from a manager and that it would contact him again within 10 working days. After discussing the complaint with the resident on 3 August 2020, further time to allow the landlord to retrieve and review archived evidence was agreed with the resident although there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with a date of when it would provide its final review response.
Therefore, whilst the agreement for the landlord to review archived evidence caused some delay, after taking this into account, the length of time taken to provide the stage one response still exceeded the timescales in its policy and was unreasonable.
The landlord also provided its final response slightly outside the 10 working day timescale stated in its complaints policy from when the resident requested a review. This is further evidence of the landlord not following its complaints policy, however as it delayed by only a few days, this constitutes a minor failure in the service provided.
Prior to issuing its stage one response, the landlord did apologise to the resident for the delay with providing this response. However, it did not acknowledge this delay or the further delay at the review stage in its complaints responses or offer any redress for the stress and inconvenience caused which would have been appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it asks residents for their feedback within six months of incident occurring to allow it to deal with the matter as soon as possible.
As aspects of the resident’s formal complaint concerned events which had occurred in 2017 and 2018, the landlord was not obliged to consider these aspects of the complaint under its complaints process. However, the landlord agreed to retrieve the archived ASB case and review this evidence which was a reasonable decision to take and demonstrated a willingness to resolve all aspects of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

In response to the resident’s ASB reports regarding his neighbour the landlord took appropriate steps including calling the resident to discuss the issues, opening an ASB case and sending a tenancy warning letter to the neighbour. It also engaged with agencies including mental health services and the police which was appropriate particularly as the ASB perpetrator had vulnerabilities. The landlord took decisive action and arranged for the neighbour to move out of the property via a management move after the ASB got more serious and there was a serious assault outside the property which involved the neighbour. There were minor service shortcomings, for example on one occasion the landlord failed to provide a promised update to the resident within a reasonable timescale. However, overall the service provided whilst dealing with his ASB reports, was reasonable.
There was a delay by the landlord in providing the stage one response which was partly due to agreeing to review an archived ASB case. This showed a willingness to resolve the resident’s complaint. However, the overall delay was outside the timescales in its complaint process which prologued the complaint process. The landlord did not acknowledge or offer redress for this in its complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident £75 for failing to follow the timescale in its complaints policy.
The landlord shall comply with the above order within four weeks.