Wakefield And District Housing Limited (202012806)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012806

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

13 May 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 17 October 2020, the resident sent a letter to the landlord regarding a dispute with his neighbour, following a visit from his son. The resident reported that the neighbour had threatened his son with a “final warning”. The resident said that he felt harassed by his neighbour, who he said was also making excessive noise. He wanted the landlord to manage the issue. The landlord discussed the issue with the resident’s neighbour and was in regular contact with the resident to discuss any further incidents.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 14 February 2021, as he said the ASB was ongoing and he wanted the landlord to find a permanent solution. He also asked for a full review of a previous ASB complaint he had made. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said it would only consider the most recent ASB case, and not historical issues. It said that it had acted in line with its ASB policy and had regular contact with the resident. It also explained that the incidents reported by the resident had not displayed a breach of tenancy, so it could not take legal action against his neighbour.
  4. In his complaint to this Service, the resident said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB. He added that the landlord repeatedly opened and closed ASB cases, regarding the same issue. He has confirmed that his neighbour has since moved out of their property.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will only consider issues that are raised within four months of the event, or within four months of the resident becoming aware of the issue. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord’s complaint response to only focus on the most recent complaint raised by the resident, as it had explained to him that his complaint relating to an event on 28 February 2020 fell outside of its complaint guidelines, and it had already issued a complaint response regarding the issue at the time. Although the resident has provided this Service with information regarding previous complaints, we are unable to assess them within this report, as in accordance with 39 (d), we are unable to consider complaints that “were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the members complaints procedure”. Therefore, this report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the ASB report the resident made on 17 October 2020.
  2. Following his initial report, the resident made two further reports of banging noises during December 2020, and he reported that his neighbour had moved his bin in April 2021. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that when it receives a report of ASB, it will interview the complainant and the alleged perpetrator, and assess the appropriate action to take, which can include acceptable behaviour contracts, mediation and legal action. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord discussed the resident’s report and ascertained the severity and frequency of the reported behaviour, and then interviewed the resident’s neighbour and warned them not to address the resident in a way that may be perceived as threatening. Both parties were advised to contact the landlord if any issues arose, rather than each other, which was appropriate given the history of ASB reports. The landlord also completed a risk assessment and discussed an action plan with the resident. The landlord promptly responded to the resident’s reports and reasonably managed his expectations by outlining that it would contact the resident every two weeks to review the situation.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the situation with his neighbour would have understandably caused significant distress to the resident. However, it is important to be aware that the landlord cannot be held responsible for the neighbour’s actions and that no action by the landlord (with the possible exception of eviction) would be guaranteed to prevent someone from committing ASB. The actions taken by the landlord were proportionate to the severity and frequency of the reports made by the resident, and in line with its ASB policy. The landlord can only take formal tenancy action if there is sufficient evidence that the neighbour has breached the tenancy and in order to take legal action, the landlord would have to demonstrate that the ASB experienced by the resident was severe and persistent. As there was not evidence to support this, it was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action, as requested by the resident, as it would not have been proportionate to the reports it received. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding the action it could take and advised the resident it would not be able to take legal action.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will close a case if it has been successfully resolved without the need for further action; it is reasonable for the landlord to assume that an issue has been resolved if it does not receive any further reports over a prolonged period of time. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord had previously followed this procedure. However, as the resident had explained to the landlord that he was dissatisfied that it would close the ASB case and then have to reopen it regarding the same issue, it was appropriate, in light of the resident’s concerns, that the landlord kept the resident’s ASB case open until he was satisfied the issue was resolved. Following a discussion with the resident, the ASB case was closed when the resident’s neighbour moved out of the property.
  5. Overall, the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s ASB reports, in line with its ASB policy, had regular contact with the resident and reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the action it could take.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of noise and ASB by a neighbour.