Places for People Homes Limited (202103709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103709

Places for People Homes Limited

27 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant and the property is described as a one-bedroom flat located on the first floor in a block.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord not to interfere or interrupt the tenants right to peacefully occupy the property and that the resident should not engage in any activity likely to cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to any other person.
The information on the landlord’s website defines anti-social behaviour (ASB) as behaviour that causes harm to an individual. It will investigate the reports it receives, take the appropriate action to resolve the nuisance by working in partnership with other agencies such as the police and the local authorities environmental health department (EHD).
The landlord’s affordable housing support for witnesses and victims policy sets out the actions it will take to support witnesses. The key points are that it will:
provide a point of contact, complete a risk assessment for all victims of ASB and inform other agencies of the situation
explain the process of each stage of legal action
1. take action to protect witnesses if they are at risk of harm
2. assess the need for additional support including temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s letting policy states that in the first instance it will signpost residents to the local authority if they require alternative accommodation and that a management transfer is appropriate in exceptional circumstances once all other ways of resolving the situation have been considered.
The landlord’s Homes Plus Management Transfer Policy explains that it is applicable when the situation cannot be resolved using its tenancy management function and that it m ay be used to resolve serious complaints of anti-social behaviour. It will take into account evidence and information provided from the police.

In addition, if a management transfer is not agreed, residents are to be given advice on alternative rehousing options such as mutual exchange and referral to the Local Authority.

The landlord’s affordable housing complaints policy states that complaints at the first stage will be answered within 10 working days and within 20 working days at the final stage of the complaints procedure.
The landlord’s affordable housing compensation policy sets out the circumstances in which it considers compensation for service failures, recognising that sometimes errors occur and there is a need to put things right.
The resident’s complaint concerns a neighbour (Tenant A), who is also a tenant of the landlord and is the alleged perpetuator of the ASB. The landlord’s records show that Tenant A held a similar tenancy to the resident with the same terms and conditions.

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that she has been complaining about noise transference since at least June 2019. However, there is no evidence that any formal complaints raised by the resident has either exhausted the landlord’s complaint process or that any such complaint was referred to the Ombudsman during that time.
The Ombudsman understands that this complaint was registered in December 2020. This investigation will therefore consider events from June 2020 onwards based on what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence. It should be noted that all the evidence provided by both parties have been considered.

Summary of events

The resident complained to the landlord about the noise disturbance from Tenant A and that Tenant A had dogs living at the property which was not allowed under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
In July 2020 the landlord received four reports about Tenant A of noise disturbance regarding loud music, the action of the visitors and confrontation with her neighbour. In response it informed Tenant A that she was required to rehome the dog and that if it received further reports about noise disturbance or ASB it would consider making an application for an injunction.
The landlord sent a general letter on 4 August 2020 to all residents of the building reminding them to be considerate of their neighbours when playing music, confirmed that pets were not permitted within the block and provided extracts of the tenancy agreement.
On 15 September 2020, Tenant B complained to the landlord about noise disturbance from Tenant A and on 19 September 2020, Tenant B sent an ASB incident diary to the landlord. In response the landlord informed Tenant A that it considered that the playing of loud music was a breach of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 September 2020 when it received a report of ASB regarding Tenant A and advised that diary sheets were to be returned after 9 October 2020.
The EHD received a report of noise disturbance from Tenant A and contacted the landlord on 5 October 2020. The EHD and the landlord continued to communicate between 6 October 2020 to 7 October 2020 with the landlord advising the EHD that it had issued a warning letter to Tenant A. The EHD advised that it intended to write to Tenant A about the reported noise disturbance and then assess whether it constituted noise nuisance.
On 8 October 2020, the EHD and the landlord wrote to Tenant A regarding the report of loud music, inconsiderate visitors and the singing of karaoke from her address on 5 October 2020. The landlord confirmed to Tenant A, that its communication constituted a formal warning and that the EHD had been asked to investigate the noise disturbance.
In response, Tenant A contacted the landlord the same day (8 October 2020) disputing that the noise disturbance came from her address.
The landlord wrote to Tenant A on the following day, 9 October 2020, advising that it had previously written to her in August 2020 regarding the rehoming of her dog. In addition, it had conducted visits on 1 October 2020 and 7 October 2020 and it was satisfied that there was a dog present at the property. It reminded Tenant A that having a pet in the property was not permitted.
The landlord’s records show that it received a complaint on 19 October 2020 from the resident that it had let the situation regarding Tenant A escalate. The complaint was allocated to an investigation officer on 15 November 2020.
The landlord’s records show that between 22 October 2020 to 27 October 2020 it discussed what further action it should take regarding the dog at Tenant A property. It decided that serving a notice to end the tenancy on the basis of having a dog was too harsh, therefore, it would send another letter including a draft injunction to Tenant A. If there was no compliance, it would obtain an injunction for nuisance and annoyance including the rehoming of the dog.
The landlord’s records show that on 10 November 2020 it had received a report of noise disturbance by Tenant A, and that there was an altercation between Tenant A and the resident which lead to the police being called. It was alleged that the resident hit the partner of Tenant A.
The same day (10 November 2020), the landlord wrote to Tenant A regarding the noise disturbance and the rehoming of the dog. It informed Tenant A that it was considering issuing an injunction, it expected the dog to be rehomed by 13 November 2020 and that it should not receive any further reports of noise disturbance from herself, family or visitors.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 November 2020 to report noise disturbance – banging on the walls and the playing of loud music from Tenant A. She advised that she had attempted suicide as the police and other agencies had not provided adequate assistance to resolve the noise disturbance. The landlord’s notes record that during the telephone conversation it offered to call the emergency services but the tenant declined the offer.
The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident the following day 16 November 2020 who advised of her upset from the noise disturbance from Tenant A and the dog being resident at the property. The resident agreed to sign the witness statement, advised that she has video recording she could share with the landlord, requested a transfer from the property and for the landlord to carry out a visit.
The landlord’s spoke with the resident on 18 November 2020 to confirm the visit to her parents property for her signature on the witness statement.
The landlord’s records show that on 18 November 2020, its staff discussed the appropriateness of carrying out the visit as intended. It was noted that the resident was unhappy with a member of the landlord’s staff because of the actions of Tenant A, felt that her messages were ignored and the landlord’s staff advised that she was not comfortable carrying out the visit arranged for the following day and requested that the witness statement be sent by post.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 19 November 2020, that it spoke to the resident. It acknowledged that her father was due to be present at the meeting to sign the witness statement, that she was unhappy that the visit was cancelled and it apologised for this. In addition, it had posted the witness statement to the resident for her to sign and it was in the process of completing the injunction application.
Furthermore, the landlord’s records show that it internally discussed that the resident’s address was not easily accessible to visit as it was at least 150 miles from where the manager was located, so it would be difficult to find time to carry out the visit, that the resident was at her property during the day and staying at her parents overnight as she was too scared to sleep in the property because of the loud music from Tenant A
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 November 2020 that:
1. a member of the landlord’s staff had agreed to visit her address for her to sign a witness statement to enable the landlord to evict Tenant A
2. by signing the witness statement, she would be left vulnerable and her safety compromised
3. she had been threatened by Tenant A and her partner in front of the police and Tenant B
4. if the eviction was successful, she would be left in the position of being attacked again
5. the landlord’s failure to act since June 2020 had caused the situation to escalate.
The landlord’s records show on 20 November 2020 that the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she wanted Tenant A evicted within four weeks as she could not continue staying at her parent’s property and later that day, (20 November 2020) the resident advised the landlord that she had returned to her property. The landlord advised that depending on the information contained within the police disclosure, it would consider a transfer. It went on to explain that it would be on a “like for like” basis and that if the management transfer was approved, it could not confirm the location of the property. In response, the resident explained that she needed to be near her family.
On 23 November 2020, the resident sent the landlord a WhatsApp message thanking the landlord for helping with the move.
The resident provided a witness statement on 25 November 2020 advising that the nuisance started in February 2020 and that she had to leave the property in November 2020 as a result of the nuisance. She stated that she was scared to return to the property and wanted to live in peace and safety at the property.
The landlord produced a number of documents on 25 November 2020 to the Court. These were:
1. Proportionality assessment against Tenant A setting out formal and informal action it had taken. It concluded that legal action was the appropriate action to take as the behaviour of Tenant A had not changed
2. Witness statement provided by the landlord regarding complaints of loud music since June 2020.
3. Witness statement provided by Tenant B
4. Witness bundle of communication between the landlord and Tenant A and ASB incident diaries that it had received
5. Communication from the EHD to Tenant A regarding Environmental Protection Act Section 79 (1) and Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Police Act 2014 dated 8 October 2020
6. Police disclosure from 4 July 2020 to 22 November 2020 regarding noise reports from Tenant A address.
The landlord updated the resident by WhatsApp on 26 November 2020 that the injunction against Tenant A had been submitted and on 27 November 2020, it advised the resident to make contact regarding a transfer.
The landlord’s records show that it checked on 30 November 2020 whether it had an available property in the resident’s preferred area of choice.
The resident contacted the landlord by WhatsApp on 1 December 2020 to advise that she could not remain at her parents address and described the situation as stressing her out as she was a “victim of abuse and suffering”.
The landlord’s records show that at an inspection it noted that the resident’s front door had been damaged.
The landlord’s internal records show on 7 December 2020 that it informed the resident:
1. that the police disclosure was not sufficient to support a management transfer
2. that it would advise what other options were available to her
It is recorded that it did not have properties available in the resident’s preferred area.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 December 2020, to confirm the content of its conversation that day. The key points were:
it was aware that the resident was not happy with its management of the ASB and its handling of her request to be moved.
the police disclosure it had received did not support her request for a management transfer and it had looked for alternative options.
1. it had limited stock and was unable to assist with alternative housing.
2. it would pursue the injunction against Tenant A and her visitors and will confirm the court hearing date once it was received.
The resident informed the landlord on 10 December 2020 that she would contact the council for alternative housing but could not give up her tenancy. She explained that the landlord had a duty of care to her and that she was scared to return to her tenancy following the actions of Tenant A.
The resident complained to the landlord on 10 December 2020. Her key concerns were that:
1. her housing officer has failed to communicate or respond to her contact
2. she had physical and mental disabilities that affected her
3. the police had evidence of the reported attacks that she had experienced
4. it explain why she was asked to sign the witness statement when the other residents in the block were not required to do so
5. she was scared of reprisals if she returned to the area
6. she had to suddenly leave her home on the 16 November 2020 at 3.30am to stay with her parents otherwise she would have been seriously hurt by Tenant A
7. she believed that Tenant A was out of control as a result of drink and drugs and that Tenant A had a dog on the premises
8. she did not feel supported by the landlord and it had an obligation for her welfare
9. her parents were both unwell, that she was sleeping on the floor at their property and she was risking the lockdown restrictions by staying there
10. she was not returning to the property as she considered that her life was in danger.
The landlord’s records show that it applied for an injunction against Tenant A on 11 December 2020.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 December 2020 and advised that it would send its response by 6 January 2021.
It is recorded that the landlord received a notice of hearing from the court on 23 December 2020 regarding the injunction for Tenant A and that a telephone hearing would take place on 6 January 2021 due to the COVID restrictions.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 6 January 2021. It acknowledged the situation concerning her family and confirmed that it was taking legal action. It concluded that:
1. it had reviewed her contacts with its staff and could only find one contact that it had not responded to and offered its apologies for that
2. it acknowledged her concerns regarding the signing of the witness statement, that the application for an injunction was made before Christmas and they were waiting for a hearing date
3. apologised that the resident was not called on 19 November 2020 before the visit was cancelled, however the witness statement had already been posted.
4. it agreed to keep her informed and acknowledged the importance of witnesses being kept up to date
5. A compensation award of £25 was appropriate for its failure to communicate with her.
The landlord’s records show that it received confirmation of service from the court on 5 February 2021; the possession hearing was rearranged for 29 March 2021.
The resident escalated the complaint on 15 February 2021. She explained that the situation remained unchanged though the playing of the loud music had stopped. She stated that:
1. though she had previously complained about ASB in June 2019 the landlord had delayed in acting.
2. her health had been affected and she was suffering from a number of health conditions
3. that Tenant A still owned the dog, that she was living in fear and that she had overheard Tenant’s A boyfriend saying that ‘he would be back for me’ and she was concerned that she would be attacked again.
4. she didn’t want to move from the property and did not have the financial resources to move
5. she had reported the noise disturbance to the landlord as she was concerned about her safety
6. the landlord had not kept her informed regarding her concerns about Tenant A
7. she refused the offer of compensation and believed the landlord should have acted sooner.
The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 17 February 2021.
The resident informed the landlord on 26 February 2021 of an argument that occurred at Tenant A property the previous night. She advised that she had called the police but was unsure whether the police attended.
The landlord’s records show that on that day (26 February 2021) it recorded that it had informed the resident that it had an ASB injunction hearing scheduled for 29 March 2021 for Tenant A and possession proceedings for rent arrears and ASB to follow .
The resident communicated via WhatApp message with the landlord on 1 March 2021 that Tenant A and her partner had been arrested and she was nervous as they were being released and on 18 March 2021 the resident informed the landlord of the arrest of Tenant A and the removal of the dog by the police.
The resident chased the complaint response on 19 March 2021 and the landlord’s records show that it carried out several attempts before it spoke with her on the same day (19 March 2021) to explain that its complaint response would be delayed due to the unavailability of the investigating manager. It noted that the resident was dissatisfied as she considered the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously.
The resident called the landlord on 22 March 2021 to add to her complaint that Tenant A had returned to her tenancy, that she had two dogs and that she had nearly been attacked by the dog.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 25 March 2021 and apologised for the delay in providing its response. It advised that its stage one response had informed the resident that it was taking legal action against Tenant A with a court hearing on 29 March 2021 to obtain an injunction and a further hearing on 6 April 2021 for possession action. It thanked the resident for her assistance and evidence that she had provided and it’s key findings were that:

a. the court action had been delayed by the pandemic – however it was satisfied that it had not delayed in making its application to court

b. the reported additional incidents from the resident would be included in the application to court on 29 March 2021

c. it had kept her updated about the action it was taking and provided the name of the point of contact who would keep her updated in the future

d. accepted that the conduct of Tenant A had a significant and detrimental impact on the resident

e. it had not identified any service failures including avoidable delays in the handling of the application to court

f. it considered a compensation award of £75 was appropriate: £25 offered at the initial stage and £50 for the delay in providing its final complaint response.

After the complaint process was exhausted, an injunction was obtained on 29 March 2021 against Tenant A. A power of arrest was added on 30 June 2021. The resident was provided with emergency accommodation on 1 July 2021, the eviction of Tenant A was carried out on 15 July 2021 and the landlord approved an out of area management transfer for the resident on 15 July 2021.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the communication from the landlord and its lack of action.

Assessment and findings

It is not disputed that the incidents reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for her. Nevertheless, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide on the credibility of the resident’s reports but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The resident complained to the landlord about the noise disturbance and ASB from Tenant A. The reports were of loud music, the actions of her visitors and the ownership of the dog. It was appropriate that the landlord dealt with these reports under its ASB policy.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded in an appropriate manner to the reports it had received regarding the noise disturbance by Tenant A. In the first instance it undertook nonlegal sanctions by writing to Tenant A, to advise that her behaviour was unacceptable and that she was required to rehome her dog. It followed this up with sending a general letter to all residents requesting the reduction of the noise levels and when there was no improvement, it confirmed to Tenant A in September 2020 that it considered her behaviour to constitute a breach of tenancy.
The landlord communicated with the EHD in October 2020 and then issued a formal warning to Tenant A advising that her tenancy was at risk if the situation did not improve and in November 2020, it informed Tenant A that it was considering making an application to Court for an injunction. These actions were in accordance with its affordable housing support for witnesses and victims policy to engage and work with its partners, agree the next steps that it would take to resolve the reported noise disturbance and provide Tenant A the opportunity to change her behaviour to negate the need for formal action.
The landlord assessed that the resident did not qualify for a management transfer in November 2020. As part of the assessment, the landlord stated that it considered information provided by the police in accordance with its Homes Plus Management Transfer Policy. This Service requested the police disclosure that it relied on however, this was not provided. However, a management transfer is agreed once all avenues have been explored and the landlord was commencing legal action. Notwithstanding, once the landlord decided that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer, it checked to see whether it had available properties in the resident’s preferred area to transfer to, advised her of the alternative housing options, including applying to the local authority for housing assistance and continued with the legal action against Tenant A.
Once the landlord assessed that the situation was not improving and legal action was necessary it applied to court for an injunction for Tenant A in December 2020. The resident has complained that the landlord should have taken stronger action earlier, however legal action is taken as a large resort. In addition, to apply to Court, the landlord would need to evidence that it had tried to resolve the reported noise nuisance complained about and needed to provide sufficient evidence to support its application for an injunction and for possession of the property.
The resident complained that the landlord’s staff failed to respond to her contact. This was considered during the complaint process and the landlord’s review found one occasion that it did not respond to her contact and it offered an award of £25 compensation for this which the resident did not accept. In assessing the issue of compensation for service failures, a range of factors is considered to assess whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The landlord’s offer of £25 compensation for its service failure is below that considered as sufficient by the Ombudsman which recommends a range between £50 to £250 where there has been a service failure which has impacted the resident for a short time and did not have a significant impact. Therefore, the compensation offer is not considered reasonable redress for the service failure.
The landlord decided not to attend a pre-arranged visit in November 2020 to sign the witness statement which the resident’s father had arranged to attend. The landlord has apologised for its failure to carry out the visit which was cancelled at short notice. This was a short coming in its service provision which caused inconvenience to the resident and her father who had planned for the visit regarding the signing of the witness statement. However, having said that, it was clear that the member of the landlord’s staff had genuine concerns about attending that visit and the manager could not easily attend with her, due to the distance from the resident’s property.
Overall, the landlord’s records show that it responded to the reports of noise disturbance and ASB within a reasonable time frame and has provided evidence of engagement with its partners such as the police and EHD. It recognised that there had been service failure in its communication with the resident and its offer of compensation did not provide adequate compensation for this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in resident’s reports of noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Reasons

The landlord’s overall handling of this matter was reasonable as it took progressive action to remedy the reported noise disturbance including legal action. The landlord’s own review found that it had failed to communicate with the resident, and its award of compensation did not sufficiently address this.

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for its communication failure identified in its review of the complaint.
The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this report provide evidence of payment to this service.