Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202004688)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004688

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

26 April 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 resident complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti social behaviour (“ASB”) by a neighbour and its approach to his use of CCTV.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a one bedroom flat for which the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident states that he has experienced significant and distressing ASB from a neighbour over an extended period which the landlord has failed to resolve. He feels that the landlord has not taken adequate steps against the neighbour and has unfairly treated him in comparison. The resident’s position is that the landlord’s approach to his use of CCTV is unfair and demonstrates that he is being “victimised”.
  3. The landlord states that it has investigated the neighbour’s activities. It has obtained a Suspended Possession Order against the neighbour and has taken a number of steps to seek to resolve the situation. It had concerns about the resident’s use of CCTV complying with relevant guidance and provided him with support to resolve this.

Assessment and findings

Anti Social Behaviour

  1. The resident states that an individual neighbour has been engaged in ASB towards him over a period of years which the landlord has failed to resolve. He states that the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to investigate the matter, has not communicated with him effectively and has failed to follow its policies, procedures and legislation. He states that he feels “victimised”. He states that the landlord acted inappropriately with respect to court proceedings against his neighbour, including failing to tell him with enough notice that he would not be required at court and failing to enforce breaches of the court order. He also states that the landlord has treated him differently to his neighbour regarding permission attaching items to external walls and other external alterations/additions to the property.
  2. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  3. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns he has reported have affected him and caused distress. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord secured a Suspended Possession Order against the resident’s neighbour in October 2019. The Ombudsman clarifies that it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to comment on the order itself given it was issued by a judicial body.
  5. The Ombudsman starts from the position that it would expect the landlord to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner when the resident raised his particular concerns and communicated with the resident in a reasonable manner.
  6. The evidence indicates that the landlord reviewed the CCTV evidence that the resident submitted about noise nuisance and concluded that the noise was “sporadic” and caused by DIY. The Ombudsman is satisfied that it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action on this particular complaint and it communicated with the resident by email.
  7. The Ombudsman notes that the resident states that he has made a number of subsequent noise complaints that the landlord ignored. The Ombudsman has been provided with copies of a number of emails, which appear to be focussed around September/October/November 2021. The Ombudsman is only able to consider issues that the landlord has been able to respond to via its complaint procedures first. The landlord issued the Final Response Letter in the case being considered by the Ombudsman on 19 April 2021. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises that the further issues raised by the resident relate to what could be considered to be a pattern of ASB behaviour, nonetheless the Ombudsman considers that these further issues occurred outside the period of the case that is currently being considered. The Ombudsman can therefore not make a finding on these specific incidents.
  8. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence indicates that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports about verbal abuse and property damage. The landlord gave the neighbour a written warning regarding verbal abuse. It found no evidence of property damage. These were reasonable responses from the landlord. The resident has complained that the landlord did not give him a copy or details of this warning, however the landlord does not have an obligation to provide such information to the resident, and it would not be appropriate to do so, taking into consideration data protection requirements.
  9. The resident has also complained that the landlord has not taken further action when, according to his submissions, there have been further breaches of the tenancy agreement by the neighbour which would have entitled the landlord to take further action under the Suspended Possession Order. The Ombudsman notes that obtaining the order in itself was a significant step for the landlord to take and indicates that it was prepared to take significant steps went it considered it appropriate. There are a number of different options which it may be reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to take if the neighbour engages in further breaches, which may not include seeking to enforce a court order. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence provided by the landlord indicates that it has taken a number of steps to address the ASB by the neighbour, which have been reasonable and proportionate and reflected the complexity and the vulnerabilities of the particular situation.
  10. The landlord decided not to offer mediation due to the nature of the relationship between the resident and his neighbour. This was reasonable. The landlord also referred the resident to its Anti-social Behaviour Volunteer Service which was also a reasonable mechanism of offering the resident support. The Ombudsman notes the resident has raised concerns that confidential information he disclosed whilst using this service has been disclosed internally by individual representatives of the landlord. It appears that the only information which has been disclosed is that the landlord offered the services to the resident and he used them for a period before then declining to continue to use them. There is no indication that the contents of the resident’s use of the service has been disclosed. The Ombudsman considers that it was not unreasonable for the resident’s use of the service when offered by the landlord, in itself, to have been disclosed by one organisational area of the landlord to another.
  11. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord met with the resident in person to explain why he had not been requested to attend court. Whilst this was after the court hearing occurred, it is reasonable to expect that the lead up to a court hearing can be a complex process where a number of decisions regarding the way in which a case is to be presented to the court need to made within a short timeframe.
  12. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns that the landlord has treated him differently to his neighbour regarding permission for attaching items to external walls and other external alterations/additions to the property. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s treatment of the resident’s attachment of a lean-to to his property was reasonable and in line with its approach to alterations of this type. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord also applied a consistent approach to neighbouring properties. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord attended the neighbour’s property after the resident’s complaint that the neighbour had attached items to his external wall but it did not identify any problems. There is no evidence that the landlord has been inconsistent and unreasonable in applying its policies and procedures.
  13. The Ombudsman understands that this has been a distressing experience for the resident over an extended period of time, however in summary, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has responded in a reasonable and proportionate manner to the ASB concerns raised by the resident. The Ombudsman is also satisfied that the landlord has communicated in a reasonable manner with the resident.

CCTV

  1. The resident’s position is that the landlord gave him permission to install CCTV in around August 2007 but the landlord has subsequently investigated his use of it. The resident’s concern is that he has been able to record ASB by his neighbour using the CCTV and would no longer be able to obtain such evidence if the CCTV was removed.
  2. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord was reasonable to identify some concerns about the position, installation and use of the resident’s CCTV and that it therefore may not comply with the conditions of the original permission granted by the landlord. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord is entitled to apply conditions to the use and manner of installation of the CCTV, including compliance with relevant Government Guidelines. The Ombudsman is further satisfied that the landlord was entitled to take steps when it considered that the use of the CCTV may not fall within Government Guidelines. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has applied the same standards and approach as it does with the use of CCTV by other residents. The landlord visited the resident to provide advice and support on how the CCTV could be used within guidelines.
  3. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted reasonably with respect to the resident’s installation and use of CCTV, including requiring compliance with reasonable conditions. The Ombudsman does not consider that the evidence indicates that the landlord unreasonably “singled out” the resident. The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s view is that the landlord was seeking to “intimidate” him. However, the Ombudsman finds that they cannot reasonably conclude this on the basis of the evidence submitted.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and its approach to his use of CCTV.