Orbit Housing Association Limited (202111421)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111421

Orbit Housing Association Limited

14 March 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and his request for a management transfer.

Background and summary of events

The resident became a tenant of the landlord on 7 December 2020 via a mutual exchange. The resident has advised that he has a mental health condition and dyslexia, which the landlord is aware of. The resident has raised concerns about various neighbours and their visitors within the flat block.
On 21 January 2021, the resident reported that he had been having issues with his neighbours and a neighbour had called him names. The landlord explained that it needed to know further details about what was said to investigate. The resident advised that he did not wish to share this information or for the landlord to intervene at this stage. The resident said that he was looking for another mutual exchange to move out of the area. He also discussed his mental health condition and the impact the issues were having. He agreed to register with a doctor and for the landlord to refer him for external support.
The resident reported that he had experienced further issues with neighbours on 4 February 2021. He said that a neighbour had been looking at him in an intimidating manner and muttered things about him under their breath. He advised that he did not know the address of the neighbour but believed the neighbour’s behaviour was intimidation. He said he would report issues to the police moving forward. He said he wanted to be moved due to the issues he was experiencing. The landlord advised that there was no current evidence to support the resident’s allegations so it would not be able to facilitate a move.
On 16 February 2021, the resident called to advise that he had experienced racial abuse but did not provide any further details or examples. He advised that he wished to move to London where he had previously lived and did not feel that the property was suitable. The landlord advised the resident to contact his doctor for mental health support and said that the doctor may be able to provide him with a letter to support his housing application. The landlord enquired further regarding the allegations made by the resident, however, the evidence shows that the resident did not wish to discuss this further.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 April 2021 following a conversation where he had requested a management move to another property and provided a crime reference number for an incident he had reported to the police. It asked for any supporting information from his doctor or mental health support agency to support his request for a management move. It also asked the resident to ensure he was registered for a mutual exchange and registered with the local authority in the area he wished to move to. It confirmed it would contact the police to see if any action was being taken in response to the resident’s reports. On the same day, the landlord, with the resident’s permission, completed a referral form to the local authority’s early help service so that the resident could seek additional support.
The landlord liaised with the police around this time to gain further information regarding the allegations made by the resident. It asked for further information about the resident’s reports of threatening behaviour. It confirmed that it had carried out door knocks around the resident’s property to understand any ASB related issues but there was no evidence to support the resident’s allegations and no other concerns were raised. It asked whether any police action had been taken in response to the resident’s allegations that his neighbour had threatened him. The police confirmed that the reference provided by the resident did not relate to the resident’s concerns about threatening behaviour from neighbours but to the resident’s concerns that he was being followed when in public; no further action was taken due to a lack of evidence.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 May 2021, it noted that the resident had called and that it had attempted to call back on a number of occasions. It explained that the resident’s request for a management move had been refused due to the resident not meeting the criteria required. It advised the resident to continue to find alternative housing through a mutual exchange or by registering with the local authority in the areas he wished to move.
The landlord made further enquiries with the police in May 2021 following the resident’s reports that his neighbour had threatened him with a knife. The resident had advised that he felt unsafe in the property due to the ongoing issues and the landlord asked the police whether there was any risk to the resident’s safety from their perspective. The police later confirmed that there were no witnesses or suspects identified and there was no additional CCTV footage to support the resident’s allegations. The landlord enquired further as the resident had advised that the police had told him he was at high-risk in the property. The police advised that the resident said he wished to pursue a management move, but confirmed that they had found no evidence to support the resident’s allegations and there were no other threats or concerns post-investigation.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 June 2021. It explained that the police had advised that they had not been able to investigate the resident’s allegations further as he had not been able to identify the perpetrator. The resident advised that this was incorrect and that he had provided details to the police, but he could not remember who he spoke to. The landlord advised that without police evidence of there being a high-risk to the resident’s safety, it could not support him with a management move. The resident said he would speak to the police again to see if the case could be re-opened. He advised that he wished to move to London but had not attended a meeting with the relevant local authority and would re-book this.
The records show that the resident had reported another incident around 23 June 2021 which involved a neighbour filming him with their mobile. The resident did not report this to the police. The landlord had asked if the resident wished for it to speak to his neighbour and the resident advised that he did not want this to happen due to potential repercussions.
A multi-agency meeting took place on 29 June 2021 regarding the resident’s request to be moved and his concerns about his safety. The records note that the landlord, the resident, his victim support worker, and the police were present. Following the meeting, the landlord wrote to the resident and summarised the discussion:
1. The resident had advised that he felt it had been a mistake to move to the current area via mutual exchange and wanted to move to London.
2. It had discussed the incident where the resident had alleged that a neighbour had mumbled “I am going to kill you” under their breath. The police completed a risk assessment and found that the risk was “standard”; the case had been closed due to no witnesses or evidence to support the allegations.
3. The landlord had discussed the allegation with the neighbour who had denied it. It had also completed a door-knock to see if other residents had witnessed or experienced ASB. No issues were identified.
4. The resident’s victim support worker offered to assist the resident in finding suitable alternative housing and completing the enrolment forms for the recovery college his doctor had suggested to support him with his mental health condition. The resident accepted the offer of support.
5. The resident also mentioned experiencing noise issues from the neighbour above him. He said that he had reported the issues to the local authority environmental health department (EH) who advised him to download an app on his phone which he had not done. The landlord advised the resident to follow the instructions provided by EH as this would help it to understand whether there was a statutory noise nuisance.
6. Since the meeting, the landlord and victim support had received calls and messages from the resident who said that the meeting was nonsense and maintained that his safety was at a high-risk. He had also rejected any further support from victim support.
7. The landlord advised the resident to report any further ASB incidents along with relevant details to the relevant agency and to the landlord. It encouraged the resident to reconsider the support offered to him and to use the correct process when contacting the landlord moving forward.
The resident raised a complaint via a phone call on 5 July 2021 regarding the landlord’s decision to refuse his management move request. The records indicate that the resident had raised concern that the matters discussed in the meeting on 30 June 2021 were untruthful.
The evidence shows that there was an altercation between the resident and his neighbour on 15 July 2021. The police attended as the resident had reportedly positioned cameras facing a neighbour’s property. The police asked him to remove these which he did. The resident later called the police to advise that his neighbour had threatened to kill him with a knife. The case was closed without further action as there were no witnesses to the altercation and no evidence of a knife was found by the police during their investigation.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 12 August 2021. It noted that the alleged threats of harm were investigated by the police, who interviewed the resident’s neighbour. Due to a lack of witnesses or evidence, the case was closed. It confirmed that its policy was to only move residents who were in an immediate or high risk situation, and the application needed to be supported by a high-ranking police officer. As the threats to the resident were unsubstantiated, it could not authorise the management move application. It maintained its position that the resident should pursue a mutual exchange or register with local council housing authorities in the areas he wished to be housed if he wished to move.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2021 following a number of calls from the resident related to his wish to move from his current property as a priority. Due to the amount of contact it had received, the landlord explained that it was necessary to put a communication plan in place. It said that the conditions of the communication plans were:
1. The resident must not call the landlord in relation to a management move as this would not be facilitated. It advised the resident to contact the relevant local authority or seek a mutual exchange if he wished to move.
2. The resident must not use abusive or threatening language or behaviour towards any of the landlord’s staff. This included in person, by phone or email.
3. If the resident experienced verbal abuse, threats/threatening behaviour, intimidation or was a witness to or victim of crime, he needed to contact the police.
4. If the resident experienced noise nuisance, this needed to be reported to EH. The landlord would not take further action in relation to noise complaints unless there was enough evidence to do so, or EH informed it that there was a statutory noise nuisance from one of its customers.
5. If the resident needed to report a repair or other health and safety issue, he should report this through its customer services team.
6. It further explained that if the resident failed to follow the communication plan, it may start tenancy enforcement action against the resident to prevent him from making non–tenancy related calls to the landlord.
On 5 November 2021, there was an altercation between the resident and his neighbour which led to the resident being arrested by the police. He was then released with no charges.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 November 2021 following a phone conversation on 8 November 2021 to discuss the allegations of ASB made against him. It noted the following:
1. On 5 November 2021, the resident had accused his neighbour’s partner of spying on him from their window. A verbal altercation broke out and both the resident and his neighbour were shouting at each other from their windows. The resident goaded the neighbour to “come and face him” downstairs. The resident was alleged to have called his neighbour’s partner a “paedophile” and to have said “why don’t you go back to your own country”. He had also allegedly used further derogatory language and made threats to kill his neighbour’s partner and child. He was then arrested by the police.
2. The landlord noted that the resident had denied the allegations and said he was wrongfully arrested by the police. When discussing the altercation with the landlord, the resident became upset and started shouting and swearing. The landlord asked him to refrain from using such language and due to the resident’s behaviour and tone of voice, the call was terminated by the landlord.
3. The landlord advised that the allegations made against the resident would be a breach of his tenancy agreement. It had contacted the police who confirmed that there was an ongoing investigation. It arranged a meeting with the resident on 23 November 2021 alongside the police at his home and asked the resident to ensure he was available to discuss the incident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 November 2021 following the meeting that week alongside the police to discuss allegations of ASB and his housing options. it explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had accused his neighbour of lying and said that the incident on 5 November 2021 did not happen. He said that his neighbours antagonised him and claimed that they had kicked through the communal door and began banging and kicking at his front door for no reason. He also said that he had called the police because he was frightened.
2. The resident maintained that he wished to move from the property due to the impact the issues had on his health. The landlord advised him to contact his GP for a letter to support him in finding suitable accommodation on welfare grounds.
3. The landlord discussed the communication plan which it had previously sent to the resident and the written warning issued in relation to the resident’s behaviour towards staff. The resident advised that he found it difficult to control outbursts and was advised to contact his GP for support regarding this.
4. The resident was advised to ensure he did not commit any further tenancy breaches as this could affect his housing options. The resident agreed to a list of tenancy conditions within a tenancy management plan on the same day.
5. It advised that since its discussion with the resident, new evidence in the form of a video recording had been received. The footage showed the resident leaning out of his window and his neighbour in the communal area shouting abuse at each other. The resident had goaded his neighbour to come to his front door and “sort it out”. He then continued to shout racist and threatening comments directed at his neighbour when they had left the scene. The landlord said this counteracted the record of events provided by the resident.
6. It confirmed that it would liaise with the police regarding the video footage to determine whether further action would be taken. It strongly advised the resident to ensure he did not act in that manner again or communicate with his neighbour in any way. It confirmed it would be monitoring the situation and explained the potential consequences of breaching the tenancy management plan.
The resident asked the landlord to review his complaint on 1 March 2022. He explained on 4 March 2022 that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to reject his request for a management move and wanted the landlord to take action in relation to his reports that his neighbour had threatened him with a knife as he did not feel this had been taken seriously.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 9 March 2022. It maintained its position that the resident did not meet the criteria to be considered for a management move as there was no evidence to suggest that he was in a high-risk situation within his current property. It noted that it had managed the resident’s reports of ASB correctly. A lack of evidence to support the resident’s allegations meant that no further action could be taken in response to his reports. Following the incident on 5 November 2021, both the resident and his neighbour had been visited by the landlord and police, and both were advised not to communicate with each other. Since then it had received no further reports of ASB. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and further advised the resident to pursue a move through mutual exchange or by registering with local authorities in the areas he wished to move to.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. He believed that it had been provided with enough evidence of incidents by himself and the police. He felt that the landlord should have taken stronger action against his neighbours and should have assisted in rehousing him through a management move.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and his request for a management transfer.

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident and it is noted that he has advised that the alleged ASB had impacted his health conditions. It should be noted that it is not within the remit of this Service to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not, or whether there was a direct impact on the resident’s medical conditions. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the resident’s medical conditions.
In accordance with the landlord’s ASB Policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of ASB and respond appropriately. When the landlord receives reports of ASB it should seek to gain evidence of the reported allegation and consider appropriate actions it could take. When considering what action to take in response to reports of ASB, the landlord should consider the available evidence, action taken by other organisations such as the police, support needs of all parties, engagement with support services and the risk to any party involved.
It should advise the complainant of the relevant agency to contact in the first instance; for example, the police for criminal matters or the local authority’s environmental health department (EH) for noise related issues. It should also advise the complainant to make a record of any further incidents and consider the support needs of the individuals involved. As a matter of routine, it would offer to make a referral to Victim Support.
The policy lists actions that could be taken, including monitoring for a defined period, verbal and written warnings, tenancy management plans, mediation, referrals for external support or to the tenancy sustainment team and joint action with the local authority or police. The policy further states that it expects allegations to be factual and detailed enough for it to take action if necessary. It may refuse to accept an allegation if it is not given sufficient information. Failure to provide sufficient information may mean that the landlord is limited in its ability to act.
The landlord’s management move policy states that a management move may be considered where a customer is believed to be at real and proven risk of harm or violence and this is supported by the community safety team and partner agencies involved in managing that situation e.g. the Local Authority, GP or Police. Where the Police are supporting a move, confirmation of this needs to be given by the rank of Inspector or above and a copy of a risk assessment provided.
In this case, the resident said that he believes that the landlord should have taken stronger action against his neighbour and that there was enough evidence provided by both himself and the police to support stronger action. It should be noted that for a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, a landlord requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour. The landlord cannot take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB such as an injunction or eviction without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. The landlord would also be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally such as through mediation or tenancy warnings before taking legal action.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported name-calling, threatening language and racial abuse from neighbours and their visitors in January and February 2021. The landlord dealt with these reports appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss the allegations. The resident did not initially want to provide details or examples of any incidents and the landlord acted appropriately by explaining that it would not be able to take action to attempt to resolve the circumstances unless it was provided with details. This was reasonable in order to manage the resident’s expectations as a landlord would require details of reported ASB to support it in taking informal or formal action.
The landlord also acted appropriately in line with its ASB policy by enquiring further in relation to the resident’s support needs and encouraging him to register with a GP and seek additional support in relation to his mental health condition. It was reasonable that no further action was taken by the landlord at this stage as the resident had advised that he did not want the landlord to intervene and did not provide further details of any incidents. It is noted that the resident was advised to report his concerns about threats or intimidation to the police in the first instance if he felt his safety was at risk which was appropriate in the circumstances and threats of violence would be a police matter.
The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to gain evidence of the alleged ASB by completing a door-knock around the resident’s property in April 2021 to establish whether other residents had witnessed or experienced ASB. It found no other evidence to support the resident’s claims of ASB and received no other reports of ASB from other neighbours. As such, it was appropriate that it did not pursue any further action.
It may have also been appropriate for the landlord to have offered ASB diary sheets to the resident from the outset to record the alleged behaviour as a means to gain evidence. It is noted that the resident was otherwise in regular communication with the landlord and the police to report his concerns and his reports were investigated on each occasion. As such, the lack of diary sheets may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint. However, diary sheets can be useful in supporting the landlord in acting in some cases as they can demonstrate the frequency and impact the alleged ASB is having on the resident. As such, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to consider this in future.
The landlord has demonstrated that it had attempted to support the resident and gain further information regarding his circumstances by communicating with the police following his reports of threatening behaviour from neighbours. The police initially advised in April 2021 that the resident had not reported any threatening behaviour from his neighbours but had instead reported that he believed he was being followed when in public. Due to the lack of evidence to support the resident’s claims at this stage, it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action but to monitor the situation which it has demonstrated it did.
The landlord took appropriate steps to further discuss the resident’s claims of threats from a neighbour, concerns about his safety within the property and request to be moved with the police between May and July 2021. It reasonably managed the resident’s expectations by confirming that it was for the police to lead on investigations into threatening behaviour and acted appropriately in line with its policies by ensuring the resident had access to support services during this time. Ultimately, the police had advised that there were no ongoing safety concerns and the resident was deemed to be at a standard risk.
The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a multi-agency meeting on 29 June 2021 so that the resident could discuss his concerns with the landlord, the police and his victim support worker. The landlord clearly explained its position to the resident during this meeting and the police also confirmed that they did not believe the resident to be at a high-risk of harm in the property. While it is noted that the resident disagreed with this position, the landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinions of qualified individuals such as the police when determining what action would be proportionate. The landlord acted reasonably by confirming its position to the resident to manage his expectations moving forward.
The evidence shows that there was another reported altercation between the resident and one of his neighbours on 15 July 2021. The resident had initially been asked to take down a camera which was facing his neighbours property by the police. Following this, the resident had reported that his neighbour had threatened him with a knife. The evidence shows that the police had investigated the matter by questioning the neighbour, searching them for a knife and determining whether there were witnesses to the incident but, despite the investigation, no evidence was found. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s claims, both the police and the landlord would rely on evidence of the alleged behaviour to support them in taking further action.
It should be noted that it can be reasonable for a landlord to rely on a police investigation into reported ASB when determining what action to take against a perpetrator of ASB. It would be for the police to lead on allegations of threatening behaviour and, due to a lack of witnesses or other evidence to support the resident’s claims, it was reasonable that no further action was taken in respect of this incident. The landlord would not be able to intervene with the police investigation in any way but is able to take informal action such as tenancy warnings where there is enough evidence to support it in doing so. In this case, despite the investigations undertaken by the landlord, it obtained limited evidence to corroborate the resident’s allegations and the neighbour had denied the allegations. It was reasonable that no action was taken against the resident’s neighbour because it would not be proportionate to issue a warning or take further action against someone where there is no evidence of the behaviour and no evidence of a tenancy breach.
Following an altercation between the resident and his neighbour on 5 November 2021 which led to the resident being arrested, the landlord acted appropriately by liaising with the police, meeting with both the resident and his neighbour and reviewing the available evidence. Whilst it is noted that the resident’s record of events differed from his neighbours, the landlord recorded that there was video footage of the altercation which showed both the resident and his neighbour shouting abuse at one another, the resident “goading” his neighbour, and using derogatory language and threats towards them. The Ombudsman has not viewed this, however, given the available evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to warn the resident that these actions would be a breach of his tenancy agreement and to advise him to ensure that this behaviour did not continue.
It is noted that, at the time, both the resident and his neighbour were visited by the landlord and police and a tenancy management plan was signed by the resident. Both parties were advised not to communicate with each other in any way. This was reasonable in response to the evidence that both the resident and his neighbour had been shouting abuse at one another and demonstrates fairness by the landlord as the resident’s neighbour was also warned. It may have also been appropriate for the landlord to have offered mediation to both the resident and his neighbour to resolve the ongoing neighbour dispute as this can be helpful in some circumstances. However, it is noted that this may not have been appropriate at the time whilst there was an ongoing police investigation.
The landlord advised within its final complaint response on 9 March 2022 that it had not received any further reports of ASB since the incident on 5 November 2021 which suggests that the actions it had taken in response to the incident were proportionate and successful in resolving the issues reported. As such, there is no further evidence to support the landlord in taking additional action against the resident or his neighbour at this stage.
In his communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident has advised that he wished to move from the property and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to refuse his request to be moved from his property via a management move. The landlord has explained that it had not received any documentation from the police, the resident’s doctor or mental health support team to support his application for a management move and that this would be required in line with its policy.
The landlord’s decision in this case was therefore in line with its management move policy detailed above. There is no evidence to suggest that the police had supported the resident’s claim that there was an immediate or high risk to his safety in the property. There is also no further evidence provided to suggest that either the resident’s doctor or other support services had recommended that the resident was moved from his current address due to the reported impact this was having on his health. As such, there is no evidence of any failure on the part of the landlord in its decision.
The evidence shows that the landlord clearly explained its position at each stage and effectively managed the resident’s expectations by confirming that a management move would not be facilitated due to the resident not meeting its criteria. The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident of his housing options on a number of occasions and explaining that he could seek a mutual exchange or register with the local authority in the area of his choice in order to pursue a move. The evidence also shows that the resident was offered support in finding alternative housing through his victim support worker. It is noted that the resident declined this offer of support and it remains unclear as to whether the resident has since accepted this offer.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and his request for a management transfer.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of threatening behaviour from his neighbours and seek corroborative evidence of his claims alongside the police. On a number of occasions, the resident did not wish for any action to be taken in response to his reports and did not wish to share information which limited the actions the landlord was able to take. There was a lack of evidence or witnesses to support the resident’s claims that his neighbour had threatened him. As such, it was reasonable that no formal action was taken against the alleged perpetrator.
While it is understood that the resident wished to move from the property, the landlord acted in line with its management move policy when declining the resident’s request for a management move and it acted appropriately by informing him of his housing options should he wish to move from the property in the future.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers offering diary sheets to a resident who has reported ASB in the first instance as a means to obtain evidence of the alleged behaviours and support it in taking further action if necessary.
It is recommended that the landlord considers offering mediation to the resident and his neighbours in an attempt to resolve any ongoing neighbour disputes should further issues arise in the future.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regards to the above recommendations.