Southampton City Council (202100164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100164

Southampton City Council

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Handling of the resident’s request to be moved to a new property.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority landlord. The property is a ground floor bed sit. The landlord is aware that the resident has reading and writing difficulties and experiences mental health issues.
The landlord’s ASB best practice procedure says that:
1. All non-urgent allegations of ASB should be acknowledged within three working days of receipt.
2. All referrals to mediation should be made within 24 hours of agreement with the resident to this course of action.
3. If the case is referred to mediation, a response, from the assessor, should be received within fifteen working days.
The landlord’s website says that ASB does not include normal day to day living such as sounds of children playing during the day or in the street or communal areas.
The landlord’s management transfer best practice procedure says that there is no automatic right to a management transfer and no process for a tenant to apply for one. The procedure also says that management transfers are a tool available to housing staff to remove a tenant from an exceptional and dangerous situation and in order to help such emergency cases quickly it is necessary to keep the number of households with a management transfer priority to a minimum. Management moves are a last resort and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. The procedure also says that the decision whether to recommend a management transfer must involve a consideration of factors set out in homelessness legislation. The Homelessness Code of Guidance specifies a number of factors which should be considered, including violence or threats of violence.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. The response time at both stages is 20 working days, although the response time may be extended for complex matters in agreement with the resident.
Paragraph 5.1 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says that landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
On 18 August 2020 the resident informed the landlord that her neighbour had a visitor staying who had dogs that kept barking and residents were not allowed to keep dogs.
On 25 August 2020 the resident again called the landlord about the neighbour having a visitor staying with dogs. The landlord’s notes of the telephone call say that the resident was very angry and shouting over the phone. The resident said that she was going to take the landlord to court because there was a lot of slamming and banging going in the block and she thought that the landlord was not doing anything to stop it. She also said that her ex-boyfriend was going to beat up the neighbour and she threatened to cut the wires off the door buzzer at the property.
On 9 September 2020 the resident called the landlord to report noise from banging doors in the block and from the dogs in her neighbour’s property. The resident wasn’t sure who was making the banging noises, and the landlord informed her it was unable to take any action if she could not identify the source of the noise.
During September 2020 the landlord was in contact with its dog warden service who was monitoring the block for dog activity.
On 21 October 2020 the resident submitted a feedback form to the landlord and said that the front door to the block was being slammed after 11pm at night and she wanted to move. She asked that the landlord move her and write letters to all the residents in the block telling them to keep the noise down and to explain that the block was being monitored.
On 3 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that:
The matter of the dogs at the block had been addressed and the landlord had been assured by the affected parties that its instructions would be followed.
It had tried unsuccessfully a number of times to speak to the resident.
It understood that the resident was frustrated with the situation and the noise issues from dogs in the block that should not be there. However, her calls to the landlord had on occasions been a breach of her tenancy agreement, specifically when she had told the landlord that she would send her boyfriend to beat up the neighbour and cut wires on the door entry system. This breach of tenancy would not be tolerated and could result in further action being taken.
On 7 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord saying:
1. She thought the landlord hadn’t complied with the tenancy agreement when she complained about noise in the block.
2. She believed that the landlord and her neighbours were trying to evict her because she complained too much.
3. The landlord had incorrectly referred to her ex-boyfriend as her current partner.
4. The backdoor to the shed area was left wide open and this would encourage, people to break into sheds and was a breach of the security rules.
5. The landlord needed to send letters to residents about dogs and other animals in the building.
The resident wrote a further letter to the landlord on 7 December 2020 detailing the following incidents of noise:
1. 11 November 2020: 6 pm :banging in the block.
2. 14 November 2020: 10:08 pm: upstairs flat moving furniture.
3. 16 November 2020 : 7:33 pm: banging from upstairs flat.
4. 5 December 2020: 7:35 pm :loud music in the block.
5. 5 December 2020: 10:30 pm singing in flat upstairs.
6. 5 December 2020 :dog in the block.
On 18 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying:
1. It was unable to install cameras or recording devices within the communal areas as it did not have the resources and, it was unable to record internal areas.
2. Although the noise was unpleasant the landlord was unable to take any enforcement action as the noise was not of an unacceptable nature.
On 29 December 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to report her neighbour calling her a ‘fat cow’ on Christmas Day in front of other people. She wanted the landlord to write to the neighbour. The resident also said that the neighbour often smoked outside of the block less than 2 metres from the door entry where people have to pass, therefore breaking social distancing rules. She said that she didn’t want to refer the issue with the neighbour to mediation, but wanted the landlord to “do its job.” The resident also said that if the landlord didn’t tell the neighbour “to back off” she would beat her up.
The resident telephoned the landlord again on 4 January 2021 saying she was unhappy with the noise in the block. The landlord advised this was an issue for Environmental Health. The resident said that she hadn’t reported the noise to Environmental health as they were “useless”. The resident asked if she could use the mediation service. The landlord said that at the moment that wouldn’t be appropriate.
On 6 January 2021 the resident called the landlord to report loud music coming from two of the flats in the block. The landlord advised her to call the Environmental Health team if it happened again. The resident asked the landlord to write a warning letter to the neighbours in the two flats.
On 25 January 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord to say that her neighbour had been letting people into her front door in breach of Covid 19 lockdown rules. The resident wanted the landlord to send the neighbour a letter and for her to be sent a copy of the letter. She also asked if the issue could be referred to mediation. The same day the landlord referred the resident’s case to mediation and asked her to refer cases of ASB to it and to report noise incidents to Environmental Health.
The resident called the landlord again on 1 February 2021 to report noise from the second floor of the block. The landlord asked the resident if she had called Environmental Health and she said she hadn’t as Environmental Health “don’t do anything”. She repeated that she wanted to move.
On 18 February 2021 the mediation service assessment officer provided feedback to the landlord saying that:
1. It had visited the resident on 10 February 2021.
2. Mediation had not been possible due to the resident demanding no contact with the neighbour.
3. The outcome was therefore “No further action.”
4. If further ASB reports were received the resident could be reoffered mediation.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her of the outcome of her meeting with the mediation assessment officer. The landlord said that the mediation assessment officer had advised the landlord that there was no basis under the tenancy agreement for further action and it would therefore not be taking any action. The landlord also said that the mediation assessment officer had discussed various strategies and options with the resident to help improve the situation and it said that the resident should consider using these. These included avoiding and ignoring the neighbour and removing herself from any situation involving conflict with any neighbours.
On 26 February 2021 the resident sent the landlord a letter from her GP dated 2 February 2021. In the letter the GP said that:
1. The resident had learning difficulties and could not read or write well.
2. He understood that the resident was experiencing significant difficulties at the property and wanted to move.
3. The resident had described many incidents of ASB concerning one of her neighbours involving noise, abuse and breach of Covid 19 rules.
4. The resident felt stressed and told him that she wasn’t sleeping or eating because of what she was going through.
5. The resident admitted that she didn’t always cope with things in the best way but her learning differences had a lot to do with this.
6. He would be grateful if the landlord could help the resident with her request to move.
On 1 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that:
1. It had received the letter from her GP. The resident had no current application to transfer properties and so it was unable to pass the GP’s letter on to the allocating team.
2. The resident need to re-apply to the housing transfer list and then supply any evidence such as this recent letter from your GP to the allocations team.
3. As a single person, she would be deemed adequately housed in the current property.
4. She could look into a mutual exchange as a way to move.
5. As per the recent referral to mediation, there was no current basis for further action and any further reports made by her would only be referred to full mediation as discussed with her by the assessment officer
On 5 March 2021 the landlord logged an incident with the police following a call from the resident during which she said she was going to share the names of members of the landlord’s staff on social media because she was not happy with the landlord’s letter dated 1 March 2021.
On 13 March 2021 the resident telephone the landlord to report loud music coming from her neighbour’s property.
On 15 March 2021 the landlord sent a letter to the resident about her conduct during telephone calls to the landlord which it regarded as malicious and vexatious. The landlord said that it had reported the call on 5 March 2021 to the police.
On 19 March 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord who explained the contents of its letter dated 15 March 2021. The resident then apologised for her behaviour.
On 6 April 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that a group of children were playing football in the area outside the property. The resident asked for a no ball games sign to be put up by the landlord but the landlord declined and explained that such signs were previously removed due to them not being enforceable.
Also on 6 April 2021 the resident again contacted this Service about the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB and her request to move property. She was also concerned about mess in the communal garden and people buzzing her door buzzer. She wanted the landlord to install security cameras, install a no ball games sign and to send all residents in the block a letter advising them to keep the noise down and for the mess behind the shed to be cleared.
On 7 April 2021 this Service sent an email to the landlord advising that the resident wished to raise a complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB and request to be rehoused and asked that the landlord provide a stage one response to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days.
On 9 April 2021 the resident called the landlord and asked it to send a letter to all the residents in the block asking them to keep the shed entrance area locked as people were fly tipping there. She said that the block was untidy and there were children playing ball games outside of the window. The landlord advised her to report any noise issues to environmental health and any ASB to the police, but the resident said that the police were ‘not interested’.
Later on the same day, the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. During the conversation, the landlord told the resident that she was adequately housed, and that she would hear noises living in a block and would not be moved for this reason. The landlord said that the only option was a further referral to mediation. The landlord also said that it was unable to deal with people breaching social distancing rules. The landlord agreed to send a letter to all the residents in the block about the communal doors, rubbish, and fly tipping and to get the warden to check the blocks.
On 9 April 2021 the landlord wrote to all residents in the block and reminded them not to prop open the communal doors, nor the shed entry doors, as this was affecting the security of the block. The landlord also said that the block was cleaned once a month and encouraged residents to dispose of rubbish correctly in the meantime.
On 16 April 2021 the landlord delivered letters to all the residents in the block and placed a copy of the letter on the notice board in the block.
The resident subsequently contacted the landlord again by telephone several times and reiterated her concerns. The landlord repeated its view that she was adequately housed and would hear every day noises in the block. The resident reported ball games across the road.
The resident called the landlord again on 4 May 2021 about noises from ball games across the road and the noise from the use of the front door buzzer. The landlord told her that these were normal living day to day noise and that there was nothing it could do about them. The resident wanted the landlord to write another letter but the landlord told the resident that it could not prevent things happening across the road nor could it prevent damage to other people’s cars (as the resident suggested that the ball games could damage people’s cars). The landlord advised the resident to seek alternative ways to block out the noise as she seemed extra sensitive to it.
On 25 May 2021 this Service asked the landlord to provide its stage one complaint response within five working days.
On 2 June 2021 this Service contacted the landlord about the outstanding complaint response and cited its powers under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code should the landlord fail to respond. It set out a further deadline of 5 working days.
On 7 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one complaint response. In its response the landlord said that:
1. The resident wanted the shed door to be locked to prevent fly tipping and a no ball games sign to be installed to prevent ball games against the outside wall of the block.
2. It partly upheld the complaint and had been able to find a solution to the points she had raised, apart from her concerns about the ball games.
3. It had been in regular contact with the resident and had recently spoken to her about her concerns on 9, 21 and 30 April 2021 and on 4 May 2021.
4. Its warden had checked the block twice in April 2021 and the shed entrance was kept locked. Any rubbish had been removed.
5. Each month it carried out a health and safety check inspection and cleaned the inside of the block and bin areas. It invited the resident to inform it of any specific issues with the condition of the block and it would follow up.
6. No ball games signs were not enforceable and aggravated conflicts.
7. It suggested she report incidents related to ball games to the police by calling 101 so that a police community support officer could visit the resident’s block when on patrol. It acknowledged that the young people who were reportedly playing ball games were unknown and that the police could possibly engage with them.
On 14 June 2021 the police sent the landlord an email saying that they had attended and spoken with residents about children kicking a ball and no crime had been committed.
On 17 June 2021, following contact from the resident, this Service sent an email to the landlord asking it to escalate the complaint.
On 15 July 2021 the landlord sent an internal email saying that as the landlord had a record of the resident having a learning difficulty and struggling to read and write it wondered whether a referral had been made to a support service to assist her in applying for a mutual exchange or accommodation in the private sector. The landlord sent a reply the same day saying that no support had been offered as it had spoken to the resident and she has said that her boyfriend/family members read her post for her.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 20 July 2021. In its stage two complaint response the landlord:
1. Set out the respective rights and responsibilities of the resident and other residents under the tenancy agreement, as well as its internal guidance on supporting vulnerable tenants and guidance on unreasonable behaviour.
2. Considered the resident’s reports of ASB from May 2020 to June 2021.
3. It found that when the resident contacted the landlord about the issues with neighbours it had referred the resident to mediation within its policy timescales.
4. The mediation could not take place as the resident requested no contact and the resident did not wish to consider alternative mediation.
5. Following the resident’s reports of dogs in the block, the landlord emailed its warden service to investigate and the warden also told the resident when the dog had been removed.
6. Whilst the resident had reported noise, she was unable to identify the source of the noise or unable to provide recordings with details of when or where the noise took place.
7. The landlord had attempted to call the resident, but she had declined. The landlord asked for the source of the noise, but the resident could not say where the noise was coming from, so the landlord could not send a warden to assess the noise.
8. The landlord had directed the resident to contact Environmental Health and the resident had accepted on some occasions that she declined to report noises to Environmental Health.
9. The resident had not made any reports of ASB to the police.
10. It was not responsible for enforcing social distancing measures and instead the resident was directed to report incidents to the police.
11. It had explained why it could not carry out the request to install cameras.(ie due to resources and data protection) and informed the resident.
12. It found that the records showed that the resident’s behaviour was challenging and so the landlord was entitled to serve a tenancy breach letter.
13. The resident was adequately housed despite a letter of support from the resident’s GP that she be rehoused. It explained that it had informed the resident of her options to be rehoused and reiterated these (i.e. mutual exchange or private sector).
The landlord’s letter dated 20 July 2021 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process.

Assessment and findings

In reaching decisions about the resident’s complaints, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour’s children amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
In its responses to the resident’s reports of ASB and the formal complaint the landlord:
1. Contacted its dog warden service who monitored dog activity in the block and issued instructions to the relevant party.
2. Informed the resident that it was unable to install cameras or recording devices within the communal areas as it did not have the resources.
3. Advised that although the noise was unpleasant it was unable to take any enforcement action as the noise was not of an unacceptable nature.
4. Advised her to report noise disturbance to Environmental Health.
5. Referred the resident’s case to mediation.
6. Discussed various strategies and options with the resident to help improve the situation, including avoiding and ignoring the neighbour and removing herself from any situation involving conflict with any neighbours.
7. Declined to put up no ball games signs and explained that such signs were previously removed due to them not being enforceable
8. Sent a letter to all residents in the block and reminded them not to prop open the communal doors or the shed entry doors. The landlord also encouraged residents to dispose of rubbish correctly in the meantime.
9. Placed a copy of the letter to all the residents on the notice board in the block.
10. Suggested that she report incidents related to ball games to the police so that a police community support officer could visit the resident’s block when on patrol and the police could possibly engage with the children.
The landlord’s actions set out in the previous paragraph were an appropriate response to the resident’s allegations of ASB, demonstrating that the landlord had taken steps to consider how to resolve the ASB reports in accordance with its policy and procedure in response to the resident’s allegations. The landlord made suggestions as to how to take matters forward, (referring the matter to mediation, advising her to report noise disturbance to Environmental Health and problems with young people playing ball games to the police, and suggesting that she avoid the neighbour).
The landlord also explained why it could not take some of the action requested by the resident (lack of evidence of noise being other than everyday living noise, no ball signs being unenforceable and lack of resources to install cameras). Ultimately though there was a lack of conclusive evidence that the issues reported reached the threshold of ASB for which the landlord would take more formal action, but instead amounted to daily living noise.
The landlord’s ASB best practice procedure says that if a case is referred to mediation a response from the assessor should be received within fifteen working days. The landlord referred the case to mediation on 25 January 2021 and the response was not received until 18 February 2021, 24 working days later and 9 working days outside the 15 working day timescale set out in the procedure. There is no record of the landlord chasing the mediation service to provide its response within the policy timescale, or of it acknowledging, or apologising for, the delay to the resident. This amounts to a minor failure by the landlord and the Ombudsman has made a recommendation below addressing this. However, overall the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was appropriate .

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved to a new property

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved to a new property was reasonable as:
1. It explained to the resident that she would need to open a transfer request and build up points to be able to move within its housing stock, and that having opened the transfer request she could provide evidence such as her GP’s letter.
2. It explained to the resident other options to move, for example by mutual exchange or renting in the private sector.
3. As set out in the landlord’s management transfer best practice procedure, management transfers are a tool available to housing staff to remove a tenant from an exceptional and dangerous situation. Whilst the resident’s situation was causing her distress ultimately there was a lack of conclusive evidence that the noise and behaviour reported reached the threshold of an exceptional and dangerous situation where the landlord would consider a management transfer.
4. It considered whether her recorded vulnerabilities required it to refer her for assistance with apply for a mutual exchange or private rented accommodation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling as:
1. The landlord’s complaints procedure says that its response time at stage one of the complaints process is 20 working days. This is in breach of the provisions of paragraph 5.1 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code that landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord, via this Service on 7 April 2021. The landlord issued its stage one response on 7 June 2021, 41 working days later and 31 working days outside the 10 working day response time set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
3. The landlord only issued stage one complaint response after being chased by this Service on 25 May 2021 and 2 June 2021.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Response to the resident’s request to be moved to a new property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s actions were an appropriate response to the resident’s allegations of ASB.
The landlord was not required to move the resident under its management transfer procedure and it explained to the resident her options for moving.
The landlord delayed in issuing its response to the complaint and the response times set out in its complaints procedure were not compliant with the provisions of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation of £200 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures..
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review its complaints procedure to ensure that it complies with paragraphs 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendation

It is recommended that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord ensures that all staff dealing with mediation referrals are reminded of the timescales set out in its ASB best practice procedure.
It is recommended that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord contact the resident to discuss her options for moving and consider what support she might need in applying for mutual exchange, private rented accommodation or a transfer application.