Yorkshire Housing Limited (202203578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203578

Yorkshire Housing Limited

03 October 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 decision to send a solicitor’s letter to the resident to warn him about breaching an injunction made against him.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He was served an injunction on 6 August 2020. This ordered the resident not to engage or threaten to engage in conduct capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance to a number of people specified in the injunction. He was also ordered not to threaten or use violence against the parties, nor to use insulting or abusive behaviour against them.
3. On 14 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report one of the parties named in the injunction (Mr A) was being abusive and that he was prepared to use “reasonable force” but not “more force than absolutely necessary” in defence of another resident being attacked by Mr A. On 12 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident, through its solicitors, to warn him that it considered his email to breach the August 2020 injunction.
4. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 May 2021 to question how his email was a breach of his injunction. It responded to him at stage one of its complaint procedure on 9 July 2021 to explain that it had been “alarmed” by the tone of the email and had sought legal advice. The landlord considered that the email constituted a threat and it had sent the letter with a view to halting an escalation of tensions between neighbours where the resident lived.
5. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 16 July 2021. After it discussed the complaint with him on 28 July 2021, it issued its final response to him on 5 August 2021. The landlord noted that the resident disputed breaching his injunction as he had made no direct contact with Mr A.
6. The landlord acknowledged that the wording of the solicitor’s letter was “out of context” and agreed that it could have responded better to his email on 14 October 2020. It agreed that his email did not constitute a breach of his injunction. The landlord apologised for the distress caused to the resident and confirmed it would withdraw the solicitor’s letter from his file. However, it maintained that his email had been inappropriate and could have been viewed as threatening. The landlord, therefore, maintained that there was a “legitimate reason” for issuing a warning as there had been historical disagreements between the resident and his neighbours and it did not want these to escalate.
7. The resident informed this Service on 23 May 2022 that he continued to be dissatisfied as he was unhappy with the landlord’s explanation for sending the warning letter through its solicitors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. This investigation will not consider the appropriateness of the landlord taking an injunction against the resident. This is because this matter was the subject of a complaint previously considered by this Service on 30 November 2021 and was outside of this Service’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaint which “concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings”.
9. Furthermore, this investigation will not consider whether the landlord’s interpretation of the injunction was appropriate as it is outside of this Service’s remit to make such determinations. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this particular matter. This investigation will therefore focus on whether the landlord’s communication about the complaint was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the warning letter

10. As stated above, this investigation will not make a determination on the appropriateness of the injunction made against the resident, nor the landlord’s interpretation of it. This assessment will focus on whether the landlord’s communication about the issue was timely, clear and reasonable.
11. The resident questioned, on 14 May 2021, the landlord’s decision to send the warning letter to him on 12 November 2021. Its stage one complaint response on 9 July 2021 apologised for its delayed response to his query, explaining that, as it was connected to a previous complaint about the landlord’s decision to seek an injunction against him, it did not immediately recognise the issue as a new complaint. Given that there was no evidence that the resident specifically raised this issue as a formal complaint and that there was no evidence of significant detriment to the resident in the intervening time, this was a reasonable response.
12. The landlord’s final stage complaint response was issued to the resident on 8 August 2021, 14 working days after he escalated his complaint on 17 July 2021. This was a reasonable response time, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which states that a final stage complaint response should be provided within 20 working days.
13. The landlord’s final stage complaint acknowledged the resident’s concern that his email on 14 October 2021 did not specifically breach the terms of his injunction. It was reasonable for it to therefore withdraw the warning from his file and uphold his complaint. The landlord maintained, however, that a warning was necessary to prevent potential escalation of antisocial behaviour (ASB) already present in the vicinity. This was a reasonable response as it had a responsibility to tackle ASB committed by its tenants and the issuing of a warning was a proportionate response in such circumstances. Given that the resident had alluded to using force against another tenant, it was reasonable for it contact him to deter him from this course of action.
14. It should also be noted that no further enforcement action was taken by the landlord against the resident, indicating that the landlord’s intervention in warning the resident was reasonable and proportionate. Ultimately, the landlord responded fairly to the complaint by reconsidering its position about the possible injunction breach after speaking to him and withdrawing the letter from his file.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision to send a solicitor’s letter to the resident to warn him about breaching an injunction made against him.