Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202016531)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016531

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

14 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

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She lives in a close. Her reports of ASB predominantly concern her neighbour’s children who play in the close.
  2. In November 2020 the resident reported that children were being left unsupervised in the evening, and playing ball games outside her home. The landlord said this was not ASB, and that it could not take action. It said it would write to the parents to say they needed to supervise their children. It also advised her to contact social services as it said the issues were down to poor parenting. 
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in March 2021 about the children as she said the nuisance had persisted. She also said her neighbour’s trampoline was too close to her hedge, and that the landlord had revealed her identity as being the complainant regarding the ASB reports.
  4. In its final response to the resident, the landlord explained that it, and the police did not consider her reports as ASB. It said the neighbour had agreed to move the trampoline. It also said it had not revealed her identity, but that there was always a possibility the alleged perpetrators could assume who the complainant was, which it said it had previously advised the resident. It suggested mediation as a means to resolve the issues between the resident and her neighbours.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she explained that the ASB was ongoing. She was dissatisfied the landlord had not taken action against the children’s parents. She also referred to a new issue relating to bins.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained to this Service that a new issue has arisen concerning her bins. The evidence provided for this investigation shows this did not form part of the original complaint, and that it occurred after the landlord completed its complaints procedure in June 2021. As such, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this matter will not be considered in this investigation. This is because the landlord needs an opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns before the Ombudsman becomes involved. The resident should raise matters with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated them, she can bring them to this Service if necessary.

Handling of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB procedure explains that it will be clear from the outset if the complaint is not ASB and that it will work collaboratively with the police and local authority. The procedure also states that it will not reveal the identity of a complainant to an alleged perpetrator but will advise residents that sometimes the perpetrator may figure it out. It will carry out an investigation and source evidence before concluding whether there is ASB and that it does not generally consider ball games, or children playing as ASB. In these situations, the landlord will encourage residents to be more tolerant of their neighbours, or make referrals for mediation. It will encourage residents to discuss any issues with their neighbours in the first instance.
  2. The resident raised concerns with children playing outside her home. The landlord responded to say that the noise from the children was not a breach of their parent’s tenancy agreement. The evidence provided for this investigation shows it had already advised the resident of this towards the end of 2020. It said it would not take any tenancy enforcement action against the parents as it did not consider the matter to be ASB. It said the issue was of parental responsibility, and that it could not take any action. It suggested mediation, or that she raise her concerns with the parents, if appropriate.
  3. It is understandable that the disturbances would have been distressing and frustrating for the resident. However, as explained by the landlord, it had not identified ASB. It wrote to the parents asking them to supervise their children, and arranged for the police to carry out regular visits. It took a multi-agency approach (liaising with the police, and local authority), and managed her expectations. Its actions were in accordance with its ASB procedure (as explained above), and proportionate to the issues being reported Therefore, given that the landlord had not identified ASB, there were limited steps it could be expected to take to resolve the resident’s concerns. In the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord’s actions and responses were reasonable.
  4. In the resident’s stage one complaint she said the landlord had revealed her identity as the complainant of ASB. The landlord acknowledged her concerns but reassured her that it had kept her anonymity. It explained that in certain cases neighbours may assume the identity of the complainant, as occurred in this instance. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable as it is in line with its ASB procedure. It was also reasonable because it is understandable that in certain situations, especially when there are limited residents in an area, or when there is a specific issue which only impacts one individual, it is likely that people may be able to figure out who is making complaints.
  5. The resident was also dissatisfied with the positioning of her neighbour’s trampoline. The landlord said it had spoken to the neighbour, asked them to move it, and they had agreed. The landlord therefore took reasonable, and proportionate steps to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  6. The Ombudsman has identified no maladministration on this case, based upon the evidence indicating that it has progressed down an appropriate ASB management process. However, whilst the landlord’s position that the actions of the neighbour’s children do not amount to ASB presents as reasonable, it should be mindful of the resident’s reports that some of the actions of these children were apparently targeted specifically at her.
  7. The landlord has a role in ensuring that tenants (including their household members) do not act in such a way as to cause harassment other residents. It is not clear to what extent the landlord has investigated this aspects of the resident’s reports, but, given these reports, as well as her reports that she has been identified as the complainant by these neighbours, it is recommended that the landlord monitor this situation for a reasonable period to ensure that no further escalation takes place.
  8. To this end, it is noted that an action plan was agreed in October 2021. In the circumstances, it would be both reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident providing her with an update on this ASB case, including confirmation as to whether the case remains open.
  9. The landlord offered mediation to the resident as a potential resolution option. Whilst the resident’s reluctance to consider this option is understandable given the history she has described, mediation can prove a highly effective tool for improving the lives of those affected by low level issues such as those in place here. Mediation can enable one party to see events from the perspective of the other party and thus be more amenable to moderate their own behaviour and actions. The Ombudsman expects mediation to be considered in such cases and it is to the landlord’s credit that it did so in this instance. In the circumstances, it is recommended that it now re-offer this option to the resident, as her views on this may have changed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident, providing her with an update on the ASB case it opened towards the end of 2021. This written update to confirm whether the case remains open, its actions against the action plan it agreed with her in October 2021 and clarification as to whether the option of mediation is still available.