Hyde Housing Association Limited (202007370)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007370

Hyde Housing Association Limited

24 February 2023

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
2. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom following leaks.
3. The subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a one bedroom flat in a maisonette and holds an assured tenancy. The landlord’s file notes that the resident suffers from physical and mental health issues following a traffic accident.
The complaint concerns the handling of reports of ASB made by the resident about the behaviour of his upstairs neighbour, who is referred to below as ‘the perpetrator’. The perpetrator is also a tenant of the landlord. The resident has said that the perpetrator’s behaviour is aggressive, verbally abusive and has caused him distress. The behaviour includes leaving the main front door to the house open, moving the communal bins to the wrong location, spraying the resident with air freshener, as well as allegations that the perpetrator left her bathroom water running deliberately for fifteen hours which caused flooding and water damage to the resident’s flat, especially his bathroom ceiling. The resident has also reported that the perpetrator sublet part of her home to a lodger against the terms of her tenancy and illegally evicted the lodger during the Coronavirus lockdown period.
The resident made a previous and separate complaint to the landlord in August 2020 following an incident where the resident says he was locked out by the perpetrator after moving the communal bins in the communal front garden back to their correct location. This issue was responded to by the landlord separately and the focus of this report is therefore on events following this from January 2021 until September 2021 when the landlord’s internal complaints process was exhausted although relevant events after this point have also been considered.

Summary of Events

On 13 January 2021, the resident completed an ASB form on the landlord’s website. The perpetrator had placed an air freshener in the communal area which she said was due to the smell of the resident’s dog. The resident says the freshener kept spraying his head when he left home and it was situated dangerously close to eye height. An altercation occurred between the resident and the perpetrator about this issue during which the resident says that the perpetrator kicked his front door. The resident reported the matter to the police and provided the landlord with a crime reference number on 18 January 2021.
Later in January 2021, the resident contacted his local MP about the ASB problems. On 21 January, the resident told the landlord that the perpetrator was breaching the terms of her tenancy agreement by renting one of her rooms. He also said she kept leaving the front door open for hours at a time which was a security risk. The resident said the situation was affecting his health and wellbeing. The resident also reported being disturbed by loud banging on the perpetrators door late at night on 22 January 2021.
Following these reports, the landlord contacted the resident by phone on 27 January and arranged a meeting for 3 February. On 3 February, the landlord met with both the resident and the perpetrator to discuss their concerns. The perpetrator explained that the door was left open and the air freshener was placed in the communal area due to the smell of dog.
The landlord sent a letter to the perpetrator asking her to contact the landlord directly if there were smells in the communal areas rather than communicate with the resident. The landlord proposed that the perpetrator and the resident sign an acceptable behaviour agreement and provisionally scheduled a signing of this agreement for 4 March 2021.
On the 4 February 2021, the resident says that the lodger who had been staying with the perpetrator was evicted in an illegal and threatening manner with several visitors attending the house to assist the perpetrator and the police being called as a result. The resident says that due to the nature of the eviction, he agreed to look after some belongings of the person letting the room on a temporary basis.
The landlord carried out an ASB case review on 4 February 2021 summarising the issues reported by the resident and the actions taken. The landlord noted the report of an unauthorised lodger by the resident and said this had been passed to the Local Authority to investigate further. There are indications that the perpetrator may be in some form of temporary accommodation authorised by the Local Authority. With regard to the reports about the air freshener, the resident was advised that both tenants had responsibility for cleaning and maintaining the communal hallway area and said that it had written to the perpetrator.
The resident agreed in principle to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement provided he was able to read it first. A further ASB case review was scheduled for a month later. The resident was provided with an online link to diary sheets so that he could keep a record of any further incidents to report to the landlord.
The landlord contacted the resident by phone again on 15 February 2021. The resident advised that the air freshener had been removed. The landlord said that the illegal eviction was not an ASB issue they would investigate. However, the landlord said that the other matters raised by the resident relating to the communal areas could hopefully be addressed by the acceptable behaviour contract.
The landlord said it would contact the neighbourhood ‘tenancy team’ regarding maintenance of the front garden which the resident said was affecting him due to the long grass and pollen affecting his breathing. The resident said he had maintained the garden at his own expense for four years and it was now the turn of the perpetrator to assist since it was a communal area and not his sole responsibility.
On 1 March 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he had not yet been contacted by the tenancy team regarding the front garden. The resident said the acceptable behaviour agreement had made him feel as though he had done something wrong even though he was the victim of the ASB. The next day the resident reported that the front door had been deliberately left open again.
The landlord carried out a monthly ASB case review on 5 March 2021 and said there were no further ASB issues apart from the front door. The landlord raised a repair to stop the door being wedged open, although the resident reported the door open again on 9 March and said his flat was losing heat and causing him extra expense as a result.
The resident was contacted regarding maintenance of the front garden on 17 March 2021 when the landlord said it was the responsibility of both tenants to maintain as it was a communal area. The resident asked for this advice in writing and for this information to be sent to the perpetrator by recorded delivery. The landlord did send advisory letters to both parties.
On 26 March 2021, the resident was advised by the landlord that his neighbour had refused to sign the acceptable behaviour agreement.
A plumber attended the resident’s property on 27 March following a leak in to his wet room from the upstairs flat belonging to the perpetrator. On 29 March 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that he had water ‘pouring through’ his bathroom ceiling. The resident says that following this leak he turned off the water supply to the perpetrator’s flat who told him that he ‘had no right’ to turn off her water. The resident said it was an emergency and damage was being caused and hence why he had used the stopcock in the communal area.
On 31 March 2021, the resident said that the perpetrator was banging on his door with a hammer causing criminal damage telling him his TV was making too much noise. This was reported to the police but the police said there was not enough evidence to make an arrest.
On 6 April 2021, the resident report water pouring though his ceiling again and provided video footage of what was happening to the landlord. The resident said that the perpetrator was not providing access to the contractors assigned to carry out remedial works to fix the leak.
On 8 April 2021, the perpetrator contacted police regarding a smell of cannabis from the resident’s flat. The landlord was notified of this by police and informed the resident that he would be sent a tenancy breach warning letter. The resident said that he used cannabis for pain relief and medical reasons and that he would provide evidence of this to the landlord. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that he was being issued with a tenancy breach warning letter and yet his neighbour had not received a similar letter despite all the reports of ASB he had made about the perpetrator which now included allegations of criminal damage, an illegal eviction and deliberately flooding his property. The resident also said that the landlord had the right to enter his neighbour’s property to carry out emergency repairs and should have done so instead of allowing the perpetrator to refuse access to contractors. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and said it would reply by 23 April although a formal complaint was not yet recorded.
On the 30 April, the resident was sent an email by the ASB team of the landlord. This email stated that each of the residents’ current concerns were being handled by another department. The three issues were the resident’s requests for telephone transcripts of his out of hours calls with the repairs team, access of contractors to the perpetrator’s flat for repairs, and communal maintenance of the front garden. The landlord’s ASB team said none of these issues were ASB and would therefore be dealt with by other appropriate teams.
On 4 May 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. The complaint said that the landlord had not responded properly to the resident’s report of a water leak. The resident said that the plumber had been refused access by the perpetrator who said she was self-isolating due to coronavirus. The resident said he was “left for 48 hours with water pouring through his bathroom, hallway and bedroom.” The resident also said he was left in the dark for 90 minutes when the electricity cut out and it was 10 hours before an electrician arrived. The resident also repeated his previous concerns about the landlord’s lack of response to his reports of ASB and the unfairness in his view of issuing him with a tenancy breach warning letter for cannabis use in the circumstances.
On the 10 May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and said that the complaints team had been alerted to the resident’s email which had evidently been sent to a different team.
Another monthly ASB case review took place on 25 May 2021 in which no further incidents of ASB were reported. The next case review was scheduled for the following month.
The resident requested a reference number for his complaint and made a further report of loud music and aggressive behaviour by the perpetrator when she warned him not to speak to her ex-boyfriend. There is some evidence that mediation was offered or suggested in June but the resident felt mediation was not appropriate in the circumstances.
In June 2021, the resident informed the landlord he would be installing CCTV cameras for extra security and the landlord sent advice from the Information Commissioners Office about the legality of installing CCTV for domestic use.
On 15 June 2021, having been advised that the tenancy team were responsible for maintenance of communal areas such as the front garden, the resident asked for clarification about who was now dealing with his case.
On 23 June 2021, a monthly ASB case review said that the perpetrator had been contacted about the loud music and aggressive behaviour earlier in the month and the team was awaiting her response. This review was sent to the resident who said he did not agree with the outcome of it saying that the maintenance of the front garden had still not been resolved.
Both the resident and the perpetrator hired solicitors in July 2021. The resident also said the perpetrator had removed or tampered with his CCTV.
On 30 July, an incident occurred where the resident says he was deliberately sprayed with cleaning spray. The landlord said there was insufficient evidence this had been a deliberate act. On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident by phone and carried out its monthly ASB case review. The landlord said it would be contacting the perpetrator and would issue a warning letter to the perpetrator for breach of tenancy. The landlord said it was investigating CCTV rules and would update the resident.
In July 2021, the resident was contacted by the Landlord’s tenancy sustainment officer who provided information and signposting towards mental health and support services. The resident advised he knew where to get additional support if needed and was signposted to various organisation such as MIND and Citizens Advice.
On 8 August 2021, the landlord’s complaints team sent a holding response to the resident regarding his complaint saying that it required additional time to gather information from different teams about his complaint. The investigator said it would be possible to amend the maintenance arrangements for the front garden to give the residents the option for the landlord to maintain it but this would require permission from both tenants and a change to their tenancy agreements.
On 20 August 2021, the resident told his MP that the tenancy team were difficult to contact and said he had only three conversations with that team in 13 months despite them being informed of several problems such as the front garden maintenance and bin placement. A second holding response was sent again on 31 August 2021 by the landlord’s complaints team. The resident commented that the cost to him of the garden maintenance over the four previous years was £300.
At the end of August 2021, the police gave ‘firm words of advice’ to the perpetrator asking her to remove the CCTV she had installed.
On 7 September 2021, a surveyor acting on behalf of the landlord inspected the resident’s bathroom which is a wet room. The landlord said that following works, the leak from upstairs had been fixed. However, it decided to carry out an asbestos test before continuing with additional repairs to the ceiling. The resident was told this would mean the repair taking longer than usual.
On 9 September 2021, the resident received a resolution letter ‘stage 1’ response from the landlord. The landlord described the complaint as being about “Anti-Social Behaviour, Tenancy Issues have not been resolved, the poor service, cleaning and gardening and 3 major leaks with no investigation since 2019.” In its response, the landlord said
1. It agreed that overall it had not provided a response quickly enough to the resident.
2. It offered a total of £150 compensation to the resident which was comprised of £50 for the resident’s time and trouble and £100 for the acknowledged delay in complaint handling and delay in repairs.
3. It would continue to liaise with the resident about his ASB case as it had done over the past few months.
4. A surveyor would be inspecting his bathroom and any remaining repairs would be carried out following this.
5. The tenancy team could be contacted regarding any further issues with the communal areas and front garden.
6. Contact details were supplied for all the above teams.
7. The landlord acknowledged there had been a delay dealing with bathroom repairs but no further explanation was provided.
8. The landlord said that the placement of the bins in the front garden was “down to you and your neighbour to agree.”
The response on the bins contradicted the previous advice given by the Anti-Social Behaviour Team that the resident should not approach his neighbour directly, as well as the Acceptable Behaviour Agreement that the resident had signed in March. When this issue was raised by the resident, the ASB team said it would discuss the matter with the other team and tell them it was not appropriate advice in the circumstances. The resident said that the proper location for the bins had been established as the pathway in a meeting in 2020 following his previous complaint. The resident escalated his complaint to stage two the following day but said he would accept the compensation.
On 22 September 2021, the resident made a final report of ASB saying that he had found a bag of dog excrement in the back garden and suspected his neighbour had thrown it from her neighbour.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord responded to the resident about his complaint escalation request and said that it had reviewed the findings of the stage one response and decided not to amend the compensation offer or the conclusions reached in the response. However, the landlord confirmed it was aware of the involvement of the ASB team and had therefore asked the Property Manager to contact the resident and his neighbour about the bin location. The resident objected to this saying that he had concerns about the manager due to his previous complaint about the bins. The landlord confirmed that its internal complaints process had been exhausted following this letter.
On 29 September 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter regarding CCTV and his recent ASB report about litter in the garden. The landlord said it would be taking no further action on the bag found in his garden since the resident acknowledged he had no proof it was thrown by his neighbour. The letter told the resident to remove his CCTV and said it was a breach of his tenancy citing clauses relating to ASB and permissions needed for improvements. The resident complied with the request but was angry that he had spent time requesting permission from the landlord and researching the legality of the cameras before being asked to remove them.
A final monthly ASB case review was carried out on 10 November 2021 and an ASB case closure letter was sent to the resident. This gave the reasons for closure of the case that there had been ‘no further reports of ASB since 22 September.’ The letter said that the tenancy team was dealing with remaining ‘communal and tenancy issues’ and would contact the resident. (such as the breach of tenancy for letting out the perpetrators flat)
In November 2021, the resident followed up on his request for repairs to his bathroom ceiling. The resident approached this service shortly before Christmas 2021 saying that he had given up on his landlord taking action on his complaints and asking this service for assistance.
The resident advised this service in 2023 that in the period between Christmas 2021 and this report, the repairs have now been completed but the ASB has continued at similar levels to those previously reported and he remains distressed about the situation at his home and says his landlord have not done enough to look at the evidence he has presented (which includes video and photographic evidence) or respond to the ASB reports he has made about the perpetrator.

Assessment and findings

ASB Report Handling

The Neighbourhood and Community Standard is one of the four consumer standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. It sets three required outcomes for registered providers of social housing. These are to keep the neighbourhood and communal areas clean and safe, co-operate with relevant partners to promote wellbeing in the local area and work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB in the local area. The landlord therefore has a duty to tackle ASB effectively and try and prevent any further instances of ASB. It also has a duty to ensure communal areas such as the resident’s front garden are appropriately maintained.
According to the landlord’s ASB procedure published April 2019, the landlord will take the following actions when a report of ASB is made:
1. Deal with the initial report, provide guidance and sign-posting advice and complete a risk-assessment.
2. Define the ASB as category A or category B (category A is serious ASB where there is ‘a risk of further damage, abuse or violence’.
3. Interview victims and witnesses
4. Decide whether immediate resolution is possible and determine an action plan and case review date.
5. Gather evidence including witness statements, diary sheets and hearsay evidence.
6. Work with partners such as police or social services where appropriate
7. Decide what form of action is appropriate legal or non-legal eg: mediation, warning letter, acceptable behaviour contract, injunction.
There is evidence that the landlord carried out regular monthly ASB case reviews and provided these to the resident with updates. Communication with the resident about the ASB he reported was generally effective although problems arose when issues raised where not considered to be ASB which frequently left the resident waiting for a response for several weeks.
Interviews with both parties took places as per the landlords procedure and a site visit was carried out to investigate for example the counter-allegations of the dog hairs in the communal hallway and the dog smell. The landlord’s initial response to propose an acceptable behaviour agreement was fair and proportionate in the circumstances.
The landlord took a consistent approach to the ASB over the period considered in this investigation, asking the resident to continue to report matters as they arose, taking action as and when reported. There is evidence that in addition to this, the landlord offered mediation, arranged an acceptable behaviour contract and contacted the resident about his support needs during the period. These actions were all appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The landlord’s decision to treat the resident’s report of an illegal lodger as a matter for the Local Authority was reasonable on the basis that the accommodation was a form of temporary accommodation. The landlord’s decision to allow police to lead investigation in to allegations of a subsequent illegal eviction was also reasonable since police were on site on the night of the incident. The landlord did take some proportionate enforcement action by issuing the perpetrator with at least one tenancy breach warning letter and informed the resident it was doing so.
The landlord’s decision to issue the resident with a tenancy breach warning letter for the use of cannabis was reasonable given its policy on the use of illegal drugs. This was later overturned following medical information being presented by the resident. While the warning letter may have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord showed appropriate flexibility in considering the review and ultimately accepting the resident’s medical evidence.
Similarly, the landlord’s actions regarding CCTV were not unreasonable. The resident has expressed frustration that the landlord told the resident to research the rules and regulations around CCTV around May 2021 but then appeared to change its mind a few months later and insist additional cameras were removed. However, it was right for the landlord to signpost the resident to relevant Information Commissioner advice and later the landlord was entitled to enforce CCTV restrictions as it saw fit according to circumstances, including if complaints were made by other residents.
Overall, the landlord’s ASB response was fair, proportionate and in line with its policy and procedures. When looking at the complaint in the round, much of the resident’s legitimate concerns and frustration stem from delays and communication with him about issues which were not defined as ASB such as maintenance of the front garden. Issues which were ASB were consistently tackled with monthly monitoring, interviews and warning letters, and other appropriate measures such as the acceptable behaviour agreement.

Repairs

The resident has complained that his home was repeatedly flooded and that the landlord did not respond adequately. In particular, the resident has said that the landlord and its contractors should have been more forceful in demanding access to the perpetrator’s home to carry out emergency repairs to prevent damage to his bathroom.
The resident contacted the out of hours service early in May 2021 regarding a water leak from the perpetrator’s flat. The resident described the water ‘pouring through’ his ceiling. The impact on the resident was severe as he reports that he was without electricity for 90 minutes and says he waited 10 hours for an electrician.
According to the landlord’s website, the landlord commits to providing an emergency repairs response within 24 hours. Therefore, the landlord did meet its commitment by attending within 24 hours on 4 May 2021. However, it did not give the resident an accurate estimate of how long it would be before help arrived. The landlord has not disputed that it initially told the resident help would arrive sooner, within four hours rather than ten.
On the basis that the resident’s neighbour holds a similar tenancy agreement to his own, the resident makes a valid point regarding access problems. The tenancy agreement states in clause 3.2 that residents “on being 24 hours notice, must allow people sent by the Association to enter your home and inspect and carry out necessary works. In cases of emergency no notice will be necessary and immediate access will be required.”
Even during the Coronavirus pandemic, the landlord should have been able to demonstrate a clear procedure to allow its contractors to gain emergency access if needed. The landlord should have been notified by contractors that emergency access was required and the landlord could have assisted in facilitating access if needed.
However, there is insufficient evidence available to this service to conclude that a failure to gain emergency access to the perpetrator’s flat delayed the repair or caused additional damage to the residents flat. It is noted for example, that following one leak, the resident was able to turn the water supply off via a stopcock in the communal area.
The main evidence of service failure is the subsequent delay in carrying out the bathroom (wet room) ceiling repair. Although the leak itself was made safe relatively quickly, the period of delay in repair to the damaged ceiling was from May 2021 when the first leak occurred until December 2021. The landlord has acknowledged there was a delay with this and said in its stage one response that ‘it is clear there has been a delay in getting repairs completed….due to a communication issue with our contractors.’
Following this response at the beginning of September 2021, a surveyor carried out an inspection and found that although the leak had been fixed there was still damage to the ceiling. An asbestos survey was deemed necessary and this caused a further extension of the repair for at least another three months. While it was reasonable to carry out an asbestos survey for safety reasons, given the extended period of the repair, redress for the distress and inconvenience caused is warranted.
The landlord has acknowledged repair delays but has not provided financial redress specifically for this failure and instead incorporated it in to the £150 offered for ‘delays’ in its final response. Given the acknowledged repair delays from May until December 2021 and the significant distress and inconvenience to the resident over the period, it has been ordered below to make an offer of compensation of £250 for delayed repairs.

Complaints Handling

The time taken by the complaints team to formulate its response due to input required from different teams was too long. The initial complaint came in May 2021 with the landlord’s first stage response being on 3 September, some five months later. The landlord sent two holding letters during this time and did have various telephone conversations with the resident, but there was far too long a gap between the complaint and the response.
The landlords complaints policy from the time indicates that it aims to respond to stage one complaints in ‘not more than twenty working days.’ Clearly, there was a service failure in meeting this target. It is noted that this timeframe was also not compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and has since been changed.
The resident was unclear about who was dealing with his complaint for a period of several weeks around June 2021. No formal acknowledgement was sent to the resident and something clearly went wrong with how the complaint was received, acknowledged and assigned initially.
Overall, resolution to the situation would have been greatly aided by better co-ordination between the landlord’s different teams that were involved and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident was significantly increased due to the difficulty the complaints team had in gathering information and assistance from the various teams involved.
The landlord has accepted complaint handling delays and offered £100 for this in its final response as well as £50 for time and trouble. Taken together and assuming an additional separate payment in recognition of repair delays, this is reasonable and in line with Housing Ombudsman guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of repairs needed following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for the acknowledged delays in its handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

Overall, the landlord demonstrated a consistent and proportionate approach to handling the reports of ASB by the resident. It carried out monthly ASB case reviews, issued warning letters where appropriate and tried to negotiate an acceptable behaviour contract to improve the situation. Some of the issues raised by the resident were tenancy matters rather than ASB.
Although the landlord responded within 24 hours to emergency leaks, there were delays in carrying out the repairs needed afterwards which had a considerable impact on the resident. The landlord should have provided additional compensation for this failure in addition to the amount it offered for delays in complaint handling.
There were delays in providing a complaint response to the resident and overall the landlord failed to deliver a co-ordinated response to the situation.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident a total of £400 compensation minus any compensation already paid within four weeks. This comprises £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its acknowledged delays in repairs and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in complaints handling.