Vivid Housing Limited (202207186)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207186

Vivid Housing Limited

13 April 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and the subsequent amount of compensation it offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, holding a joint tenancy with his wife. The property is a three bedroomed mid-terrace house.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord has an antisocial behaviour policy which states it will often use a range of early interventions and can use legal tools if it is appropriate and there is sufficient evidence. It says that when considering legal action it will review the proportionality of the action, the needs of the victim, perpetrator and wider community.
The antisocial behaviour policy sets out that the landlord will support complainants of antisocial behaviour by contacting them weekly, agreeing an action plan with them and referring them to support services if required.
The landlord states in the policy that it realises that some customers who behave antisocially will need support to help them change behaviours and sustain their tenancy and where appropriate will work with support services to provide this.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that, should the complaint investigator identify any service failures, compensation can be considered in line with its compensation policy and guidance framework.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to make discretionary payments in acknowledgement of service failure where practical actions alone are unable to restore a resident to their position prior to the service failure.
The compensation guidance framework states that each service failure should be considered separately for the impact on the resident and effort expended by them. It gives a payment banding for failures causing high impact and high effort of £151 to £400.

Summary of events

On 24 August 2021, the resident’s wife contacted the landlord to report issues with her neighbour, who was also a tenant of the landlord. She stated that she was hearing shouting and swearing from the neighbour’s property throughout the day and night. She reported concerns that this was the neighbour shouting at their children and advised she had reported this to social services and the police and was keeping a diary of incidents. The landlord opened an antisocial behaviour case.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour advising it had received reports of noise disturbances. It said it would monitor the situation and be in touch if things did not improve.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss noise issues which were still ongoing and now included the washing machine being used late at night. It offered mediation which the neighbour indicated they were “open to”. The landlord updated the resident’s wife following this visit. The resident’s wife advised the landlord that she had been reporting the noise to the local authority environmental health team. She stated that she did not see mediation as an option due to the neighbour’s attitude.
On 2 December 2021, the resident’s wife contacted the landlord. She expressed dissatisfaction that the noise issues were still ongoing and said she felt that nothing was being done to improve the situation. The landlord advised her that it was attempting to arrange a multi-agency meeting about the case and asked her to continue reporting the problems. It agreed to contact her weekly going forwards.
On 3 December 2021, the landlord received five emails from the resident’s wife reporting noise disturbances from sex noises, a dog barking and a dishwasher being used. She provided audio recordings of the dog barking and sex noises occurring late at night and said that her and the resident had been forced to sleep on their sofa due to the noise.
The landlord contacted the neighbour the same day. The neighbour admitted to the noises and agreed practical steps with the landlord to prevent the issues continuing.
The resident’s wife made further reports of noise nuisance on 7 December 2021, 15 December 2021, 20 December 2021, 2 January 2022 and 3 January 2022. As well as the shouting and swearing, she said that the neighbour had swapped bedrooms with her children. Since this had happened, she and the resident were being regularly woken up by the children banging, shouting, crying and arguing next door.
On 7 January 2022, the resident’s wife reported a smell of cannabis from the neighbour’s property and males coming and going from the address acting suspiciously. She reported cannabis smells again on 10 January 2022.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident’s wife. It advised that social services were arranging a multi-agency meeting about her neighbour’s household. The landlord said it would be attending this meeting to voice the impact the neighbour’s activity was having on the resident’s wife and her family but would not be able to disclose any information from the meeting to her. The landlord said it would send a cannabis warning letter to the neighbour, but that men visiting the property was not a breach of tenancy it could follow up on. It reassured her that her reports were being acted upon and that things were “going on in the background which cannot be disclosed”.
The resident’s wife made further reports to the landlord on 13 January 2022, 14 January 2022, 17 January 2022 and 25 January 2022 of noise, cannabis smells and suspicious behaviour from males in and around the property.
On 19 January 2022, the landlord sent a warning letter about cannabis use to all of its properties on the resident’s street.
On 31 January 2022, the police executed a search warrant at the neighbour’s property.
On 1 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident’s wife. It advised that it could not give details of the police activity but, as a result of this, it had recategorised the case as high level. It asked the resident’s wife if she needed any support and thanked her for continuing to report issues, as it recognised the impact this would have had on her.
On 17 February 2022, the resident’s wife asked the landlord for an update as to what action it was taking next and expressed frustration that the neighbour was still living in the property. The landlord said that it could not disclose any further information. However, it stated that the anti-social behaviour case had originally been opened due to noise nuisance and cannabis use and these issues were no longer being reported.
The landlord emailed the resident’s wife on 24 February 2022 to assure her that multi-agency work was ongoing. It said that it could not say much due to confidentiality but that it was hopeful of a solution being reached soon.
On 3 March 2022, the resident’s wife sent the landlord evidence of the neighbour having a profile on an adult website. The landlord acknowledged receipt of this and that it would pass it on to partner agencies. However, it stated this was not evidence of any activity going on within the property, which would be in breach of its tenancy agreement.
On 10 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. He expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of resolution to the situation despite continued reporting by his wife. He said that the landlord had not taken any action other than speaking to the neighbour and that it had repeatedly failed to respond to emails or return phone calls.
On 18 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to express frustration at the lack of action taken against the neighbour. He also stated he had been told the landlord would arrange for the insulation of the wall between the two properties to be checked and this had not happened.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It advised that the antisocial behaviour case had originally been logged for noise nuisance and cannabis smells, and that as these issues were now resolved, it would be closing the case. It informed him that the recent reports of men coming and going from the property did not show a tenancy breach it could pursue.
On 20 April 2022, the resident provided the landlord with audio recordings of further sex noise from the neighbour’s property and the landlord reopened the antisocial behaviour case.
On 26 April 2022, the landlord visited the neighbour and warned her about the further noise complaints.
On 28 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It stated that the evidence he had provided was not enough to establish a tenancy breach it could pursue, however it had visited the neighbour and taken appropriate action to address the reports he had made. It said that it would monitor the case for a further month before closing it. The landlord signposted the resident to environmental health for any further noise issues and reminded him that the offers of mediation and referrals to support services remained open. The landlord stated that it had taken appropriate and proportionate action on the case to address the past issues.
On 3 May 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said that he felt “let down” by the landlord’s handling of the case and accused it of having “backtracked” on what it said it would do. He said the landlord had failed to take account of what his family had been through and that he wished to be paid compensation for their distress.
On 6 May 2022, the landlord sent a formal warning letter to the resident’s neighbour.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 19 May 2022. It acknowledged there had been service failures in its communication, support and case management throughout the antisocial behaviour case and offered compensation of £400 for each of these elements, totalling £1,200. The landlord stated that, as a result of learning from the service failures in the resident’s case, it had now introduced a single point of contact for antisocial behaviour cases, reminded staff about scheduling contact with complainants (including increasing home visits) and referring them to support services, and given relevant staff additional guidance and training around antisocial behaviour.
On 26 May 2022, the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. He expressed dissatisfaction with the level of compensation offered and lack of resolution to the situation with his neighbour.
On 15 June 2022, the neighbour moved from their property by mutual exchange.
On 19 June 2022, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. It advised the resident that the neighbour had now moved which it hoped would provide him and his family some relief. It confirmed its previous offer of £1,200 compensation and stated that this offer had taken into account the impact of events on the resident and his family. The landlord also advised it was making enquiries about an inspection of the insulation of the cavity wall between the two properties.
On 8 September 2022, the landlord advised this Service that it had informed the resident of the steps required to have sound proofing implemented in the property. This involved contacting the environmental health department who would determine if there was a statutory noise nuisance and instruct the landlord if there was any action it must take.

Assessment and findings

Although the resident has stated that issues with the neighbour began in July 2021, this Service has not seen any evidence that these were reported to the landlord prior to 24 August 2021, when the antisocial behaviour case was opened.
The landlord failed to provide evidence that it completed an action plan for the case, as outlined in its antisocial behaviour policy. This would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations of landlord action and given them clearer guidance as to how the case would be progressed. An action plan could also have been used to establish a framework for contact and case reviews which were lacking throughout the case.
The landlord’s records contain significant gaps over the period between the opening of the case on 24 August 2021 and December 2021, when regular entries to the case began being made. Although it is possible some information was recorded elsewhere, the fact that a letter notifying the neighbour of noise complaints was not sent until 20 September 2021, nearly a month after the case was opened, indicates that there was a lack of action taken during this time.
In this period, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to use early interventions, such as mediation, which could have been effective. By the time the landlord did offer mediation, in November 2021, the case had escalated to a point where the resident’s wife felt that this was no longer a viable option.
The landlord’s case management showed a lack of progression in interventions. During the entire period the case was ongoing, it recorded just two warning letters being sent to the neighbour and discussion of an acceptable behaviour contract being signed. The landlord admitted in its stage one complaint response that it failed in this regard and that more effective use of an “escalation process” may have improved the situation.
Evidence provided by the landlord shows that it worked appropriately with other agencies throughout the case, sharing information and passing on the resident and his wife’s reports. Information it received from partner agencies was appropriately considered in the landlord’s management of the case and its decision making, particularly following the police action in January 2022.
Although it admitted failures in case management, the landlord’s stage one complaint response stated that, after review, it did not believe the ongoing nuisance would have been sufficient for it to successfully pursue legal action against the neighbour. Therefore, although better handling of the case may have improved the resident’s experience, it appears unlikely the eventual outcome would have been affected.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response also acknowledged communication failures where phone calls agreed with the resident were not made and emails not responded to. The landlord did not agree a ‘schedule of contact’ with the resident’s wife until 2 December 2021 and this was then not stuck to. This was inappropriate and left the resident and his wife repeatedly chasing updates, sending emails without response, and expressing the feeling that their reports were not being acted upon.
Delays in email correspondence were caused, at least in part, by the landlord’s process whereby its emails were sent and received from a group mailbox. This resulted in emails from the resident and his wife sometimes taking several days to reach staff managing the case and batches of emails, that had collected over time, all being forwarded on at once. Although it is understandable for the landlord to wish for incoming email contact to arrive via a controlled central point, contact regarding antisocial behaviour cases is often of a sensitive nature and requires timely responses and action.
The resident and his wife expressed the impact events were having on them and their children numerous times throughout the span of the case. Despite this, the landlord took until 1 February 2022 to offer them any support and this offer was then not explained or followed up on.
A more timely and detailed offer of support could have assisted the resident and his wife in managing the distress and inconvenience of the situation and offered reassurance that the landlord recognised the severity of the effect on their daily lives.
The resident and his wife raised concerns about a lack of soundproofing of the dividing wall between their property and the neighbour’s contributing to the noise nuisance they were experiencing. This would have been a reasonable line of enquiry for the landlord to explore and may have enabled it to carry out improvement works to help remedy the situation.
However, it failed to look into this matter until stage two of its complaints process, and following this, directed the resident to the local authority’s environmental health team to assess whether any action was required. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct its own surveys in relation to this matter, considering the time and trouble the resident and his wife had already taken in pursuing their complaint, and the fact that environmental health had already been involved in the case at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s complaint response at stage one was candid, thorough and acknowledged the service failures detailed above. The landlord categorised these failures into three separate areas and offered the maximum amount available under its compensation framework for each of these. This recognised the high impact on the resident and his family as well as the effort they had taken in recording and reporting incidents over many months.
The total compensation offer of £1,200 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have had a seriously detrimental and long term impact on the resident. This was therefore a proportionate offer on the part of the landlord.
The landlord also showed learning from the case in delivering additional training and guidance to staff and making changes to how it monitors and manages antisocial behaviour cases. This is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord’s complaint responses recognised its failings in handling the case. It apologised to the resident and his family, used learning from the case to make improvements and made a reasonable offer of compensation in line with its framework.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Makes payment of the £1,200 compensation previously offered to the resident, if it has not done so already.
2. Arranges a survey of the dividing wall between the properties to see if improvements in soundproofing are required.
3. Reviews the way it manages communication via email with residents involved in antisocial behaviour cases.
The landlord should inform this Service within four weeks of the dates of this report how it intends to comply with these recommendations.