Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202120726)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120726

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

24 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:
1. The landlord’s response to allegations of anti-social behaviour (ASB) made about the resident by her neighbour.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of harassment and racial abuse made by the resident about her neighbour.
3. The landlord’s alleged breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of discrimination against her by its staff.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42(g) and 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has concluded that the following aspects of the resident’s complaints are outside of its jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s alleged breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of discrimination against her by its staff.
The resident submitted a stage two complaint on 2 April 2021, in which she stated that the landlord had breached data protection laws by disclosing personal information about the resident to her neighbour. The resident also stated in the same letter that the landlord had failed to inform her that it had given the neighbour permission to use a noise app and therefore had not complied with its legal requirements under RIPA.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations and to uphold information rights. It is therefore in a position to assess whether or not the landlord was in breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
In relation to the resident’s report of discrimination by the landlord’s staff, the resident stated in her stage two complaint that the landlord had shown discrimination and bias by not providing the same level of support to the resident as it had to her neighbour. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to a court to decide. Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. However, the Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s reports of harassment and racial abuse by her neighbour. This is covered in part (b) of the resident’s complaint.
The resident has the option of seeking advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission or the Equality Advisory & Support Service regarding her complaint of discrimination.

Background and summary of events

The property is a three bedroom, mid-terrace house. The tenant had a secure tenancy, which began on 6 November 2017. However, the resident advised this Service that she was transferred to an alternative property by the landlord in May 2022.
On 26 April 2019, the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident for alleged noise nuisance.
On 10 July 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her that it had authorised her neighbour to use the noise app to record reported noise from the property.
On 30 July 2019, the landlord served a Community Protection Warning (CPW) letter on the resident for various alleged ASB. The letter stated that if the resident failed to comply with the warning not to cause ASB, then the landlord would consider serving a Community Protection Notice (CPN).
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 September 2019 and said that, as it had received further reports of ASB, it was now serving a CPN and a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP). Both the CPN and NOSP were enclosed with the letter. The CPN was re-served on 12 September 2019 as the original version contained an error.
On 27 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her of the following:
1. The landlord said it had received noise recordings from a neighbour who had captured “significant noise nuisance” using the noise app;
2. The landlord stated that the resident had been playing loud music, which contained “foul and/or abusive lyrics” and therefore could be construed by a Judge as “threatening messages directed at [her] neighbours”;
3. The landlord enclosed a copy of the CPN and NOSP that had previously been served, and reminded the resident of the contents. The landlord stated that it could now seek to prosecute the resident for a breach of the CPN and reserved the right to do so;
4. The landlord noted that the resident had reported that the neighbour was also playing loud music in the garden and therefore the landlord agreed to investigate this;
5. The landlord asked the resident to provide noise recordings using the noise app in the event of future incidents (instructions for using the noise app were enclosed with the letter);
6. The landlord confirmed that under RIPA, it would have to advise the neighbour that any noise they cause may be monitored by the resident. Similarly, the landlord advised the resident it had authorised her neighbour that he could continue using the noise app to monitor noise;
7. The landlord said it would contact the police to discuss the outcome of their joint visit to the resident’s home on 23 April 2020.
On 27 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the Police Community Support Team to advise them of the reports of loud music.
On 4 May 2020, the resident wrote to three of her local councillors and sent a copy of the letter to the landlord. The letter stated that the resident’s neighbour had verbally abused and threatened her and had been constantly monitoring and filming her household (including filming her children). The resident said that the landlord had not made her aware of the earlier complaints until it had received approximately 100 complaints from the neighbour. The resident also said she had agreed to mediation but the neighbour had refused.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 4 May 2020, which stated:
1. The resident’s neighbour had made her feel unwelcome and had caused her anxiety by making “false allegations”;
2. She did not recognise the songs the landlord had listed in its letter of 27 April 2020 as being abusive;
3. The neighbour had recently been using a ‘punch bag’ in his garden, which could be interpreted as threatening;
4. The landlord had not previously advised the resident that the neighbour would be using the noise app;
5. The resident requested the landlord to revise its records regarding the complaints made about her;
6. The resident said she no longer felt supported and therefore wanted her future point of contact to be a manager.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 May 2020 and stated the following:
1. She requested the number of complaints made about her by the neighbour;
2. She had been verbally abused and threatened by the neighbour;
3. The neighbour had continued to film her children and visitors;
4. The resident said she wanted to be rehoused due to the ongoing problems with her neighbour.
The landlord replied to the resident on 1 June 2020 and said it was satisfied that it had responded objectively to the complaints made.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 June 2020 and again stated that her neighbour’s behaviour had caused her anxiety. The landlord replied on 15 June 2020 and stated the following:
1. It had become aware of the complaints of ASB on 8 July 2019 when the police referred the case to the landlord and provided earlier complaint logs;
2. The landlord had “weighed up” all of the information and evidence available when it prepared the NOSP. However, it did not feel there was currently sufficient evidence to seek possession;
3. The landlord did not have the legal powers to force the neighbour to share his video footage with the landlord;
4. The landlord explained that an online application would have to be made in order to seek additional priority for rehousing; however, the application would need to show that the resident had not caused any ASB;
5. The landlord agreed to refer the resident to the ‘Senior Officers Panel’ (to request a priority transfer) if there were no complaints of ASB about the resident for three months.
The landlord’s ASB log indicates that the resident had made a report to the police about an incident on 25 June 2020 (the report was made on 30 June 2020). The resident had reported that the incident involved the neighbour using racially abusive language towards her. (The landlord’s ASB log suggests that the resident had not made the landlord aware of the incident at this point).
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 July 2020, in which it stated the following:
1. The resident’s case had been reviewed by a senior manager and the landlord was satisfied that the enforcement action taken against the resident had been in accordance with its policies and procedures and had been supported by the evidence in its possession;
2. With the exception of film relating to knife throwing in the resident’s garden, the neighbour had not shared any pictures of the resident or her household with the landlord since August 2019;
3. The landlord did not consider it appropriate to move the resident as she was “adequately housed” and she had been served with a CPN and NOSP.
On 20 July 2020, one of the local councillors wrote to the landlord to report that the neighbour had been racially abusive towards the resident. On the same date, the landlord phoned the police to request an update on their investigations into the reported racial abuse. The police stated that a prosecution was unlikely as there had not been any witnesses to the incident. According to the landlord’s ASB log, the landlord asked the police to carry out further investigations by interviewing the neighbour. The log also indicates that the resident had not reported the incident to the landlord.
On 29 July 2020, the landlord sent a report to the council’s Exceptional Circumstances Panel (ECP) for it to consider rehousing the resident. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 11 August 2020 to say that, as there had been no further complaints about the resident for three months, the council’s ECP had assessed her request for rehousing. The ECP had refused her application due to insufficient evidence to substantiate the resident’s reports of harassment.
On 27 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and the police to ask how she could appeal the decision of the ECP as she had previously been subjected to racially abusive language. The landlord has advised this Service that it did not respond to this email because it did not receive a copy (the landlord’s ASB log confirms that an incorrect email address had been used).
On 27 August 2020, following an exchange of emails between the landlord and the police, the police emailed the landlord to confirm that it had decided not to take further action in relation to the incident of reported racial abuse due to a lack of evidence.
On 6 December 2020, the resident submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the council requesting all audio, video, photos and other data held by the landlord about her. The resident said she would be contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and had also raised a formal complaint with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
On 12 January 2021, the resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord, in which she stated the following:
1. The resident’s neighbour had subjected her household members to harassment, intimidation and discrimination because of the volume and content of complaints submitted;
2. The landlord had accepted the neighbour’s complaints and issued a CPN;
3. The landlord had failed to provide her with support and guidance or to take her concerns seriously;
4. The CPN had been served because of voice recordings, which the resident said had breached the RIPA because she had not been notified that the neighbour was recording her for the purposes of an investigation into ASB;
5. The resident stated that the landlord had failed to manage her case fairly and had discriminated against her;
6. The neighbour’s complaints had been accepted by the landlord as evidence even though much of the information was largely unsubstantiated;
7. The caseworker chose not to speak to the witnesses whose details had been provided by the resident;
8. The landlord issued a CPN without any prior warning;
9. The songs that had been played in the garden were a series of random songs chosen by a virtual assistant and the resident did not understand how they could be construed as ‘threatening’;
10. The resident’s household had been the subject of “video surveillance” through the neighbour’s CCTV and monitoring via the noise app;
11. The neighbour had subjected the resident to “a campaign of race hate” by using racially abusive language and discrimination due to her religion;
12. The resident had restricted her young children from playing in the front and back gardens because of the problems with the neighbour and this had impacted on the children’s mental health and wellbeing. The resident said that the situation had also led to the breakdown of her relation with her partner.
On 22 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it was closing the ASB case as there had been no further complaints of ASB.
On 16 February 2021, the landlord sent its reply to the stage one complaint, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had opened the ASB case in 2019 after it had been approached by the police regarding ASB, including cannabis use and shouting;
2. After liaising with the police, the landlord had carried out a joint visit with the police and they had advised both the resident and the neighbour about the noise app;
3. At the joint meeting with the police and the landlord, the resident had stated that she did not smoke cannabis and did not allow its use in her property;
4. The landlord continued to receive reports of cannabis use in the property and this was accompanied by video evidence, which was shared with the resident;
5. Further complaints followed and, as a result, the CPN and NOSP were served;
6. Having reviewed the case notes, the landlord concluded that the ASB complaints had not been brought to the resident’s attention prior to serving the CPN and NOSP, and therefore the landlord upheld this part of the resident’s complaint;
7. The landlord believed it had, however, been justified in taking the action based on the evidence;
8. After the service of the CPN and NOSP, the landlord had liaised with the police and visited the resident in 2019. However, the landlord upheld the resident’s point that there was a lack of contact from the landlord in October and November 2019;
9. There were allegations and counter-allegations from the resident and neighbour and the landlord conceded that neither the resident nor the neighbour were contacted in relation to the reports until April 2020;
10. On 27 April 2020, the landlord received a complaint about loud music at the property. This was highlighted to the resident, who accepted that she had been playing loud music but said she was not aware it was a breach of the tenancy agreement;
11. The resident said that the neighbour also played loud music, and therefore the landlord had also spoken to the neighbour about playing loud music;
12. The landlord confirmed it had not received pictures or videos of the resident’s children from the neighbour and confirmed it would take “appropriate” action if it did;
13. The landlord confirmed it had no powers to access the neighbour’s photos or video footage;
14. The landlord referred to the incident on 25 June 2020 involving the reported use of racist language by the neighbour and confirmed that the police had decided not to take further action due to a lack of evidence;
15. The landlord agreed to look into the support that had been provided to the resident and said it would ensure the resident received the correct support.
On 25 February 2021, the landlord met with the resident to agree an action plan regarding the resident’s reports of harassment by her neighbour.
On 16 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to thank the landlord for: allocating the case to a new caseworker, meeting with the resident, agreeing to provide a camera doorbell and providing the noise app. The resident said she had submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the council and would be submitting an additional SAR for further information.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 24 March 2021 to confirm she had called the police to report that the neighbour had been filming her and her daughter. The resident advised the landlord that the neighbour had engaged in ASB, including throwing rubbish into her garden and blocking the access path. The resident said she needed a camera doorbell to be set up by a technician as soon as possible.
The landlord replied to the resident on 25 March 2021 and said that it was unable to take further action regarding her allegations due to a lack of evidence.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 March 2021 and said it would arrange a joint visit with the police to interview the resident, the neighbour and other residents who may have witnessed ASB or harassment. The landlord also confirmed it would not be able to share any third party correspondence with the resident. Finally, the landlord confirmed it had met with the resident and agreed the following action plan:
1. The case would be reassigned to a new caseworker in order to recognize the resident’s “lack of faith” in the existing caseworker and to ensure there is a “progressive relationship” in order to resolve the resident’s concerns;
2. A new case would be prepared for the ECP to rehouse the resident;
3. The landlord would support the resident in reporting claims of harassment about the neighbour to the police;
4. The landlord would supply and fit a camera doorbell.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 April 2021 confirming that the report requesting higher priority for the resident to be rehoused had been sent to the ECP. The landlord also provided a telephone number for the resident to ring to arrange for the camera doorbell to be fitted.
On 2 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two for the following reasons:
1. The information received by the resident in response to her SAR showed, in her view, that there had been discrimination and bias in the handling of her case;
2. The resident said the landlord had not made any allowance for the resident’s dyslexia;
3. The resident stated that her neighbour had restarted his campaign of harassment by making allegations about her;
4. The resident said the landlord had breached data protection laws by informing her neighbour about the action it intended to take in relation to the resident;
5. The resident stated that the landlord had discriminated against her and shown bias in the way it had supported the neighbour, compared to the support she had received when she made complaints about her neighbour. The resident said the landlord had given the neighbour permission to use the noise app without notifying her that she was being recorded;
6. The landlord had not, in the resident’s view, addressed any of the issues raised in her stage one complaint, including the reasons the landlord had:
  1. Failed to persuade the neighbour to agree to mediation;
  2. Failed to provide a camera doorbell at the outset;
  3. Encouraged the police to take action regarding an incident involving knife throwing in the resident’s garden.
7. The resident stated that the landlord had infringed on her human rights by lacking empathy, refusing to investigate her complaints and advising her to change her behaviour and religious rituals.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord and the police visited the resident and the neighbour. The landlord advised the resident that it had not seen any evidence that the neighbour had been filming the resident. Also during the visit, the landlord confirmed that it had not received any ASB complaints from the neighbour since December 2020 and agreed with the resident that the focus would now be on the resident’s rehousing application.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord installed a camera doorbell at the property.
The landlord sent its stage two reply on 5 May 2021, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord was satisfied that the complaints of ASB had been investigated and considered appropriately, and there was no evidence to support the complaints being persistent and vexatious;
2. The landlord said it was common practice to discuss enforcement options with a complainant; however, the landlord denied giving the complainant details of timescales for enforcing the CPN or NOSP;
3. The landlord stated it had responded to complaints of ASB where appropriate;
4. The landlord could not recall receiving a request from the resident for further support in using the noise app, but apologised if this had been the case;
5. The landlord had been justified in including cannabis use in the CPN as it had received “sufficient evidence”;
6. The landlord was satisfied that the enforcement action taken in relation to the resident was in line with its policies and procedures;
7. The landlord had written to the resident on 10 July 2019 to say that the neighbour had been authorised to use the noise app, and therefore there had not, in its view, been a breach of RIPA;
8. The landlord refuted the resident’s view that she had been treated differently for any reason;
9. The landlord had provided an initial reply to the stage one complaint on 16 February 2021, followed by a meeting on 25 February 2021 and then an email on 31 March 2021 summarising the agreed actions;
10. The landlord accepted there had been a delay between the meeting and the follow-on response and therefore this point was upheld;
11. There had been “numerous efforts” to encourage mediation;
12. The landlord had no evidence to indicate that it had discriminated against the resident in its handling of the case.
On 26 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the police had checked whether the neighbour had fitted CCTV and had confirmed that the neighbour had not done so.
During May and June 2021, the resident requested further information from the council via a SAR and the council provided the additional information.
In June 2021, the council agreed the resident’s request to be given higher priority for a transfer (band A priority) due to a breakdown in the relationship with her neighbour.
The resident sent a further SAR to the council on 6 December 2021, in which she acknowledged that some information had been provided, but there was still information outstanding. The resident requested access to all of the information relating to the ASB incidents. The resident confirmed she had written to the IOPC because she understood the landlord had shared information with the police, and she would also be contacting the ICO. The resident stated that the landlord had breached GDPR and also had not complied with RIPA.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The service of the Community Protection Warning (CPW) letter, the Community Protection Notice (CPN) and the Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) in 2019 have been considered by the Ombudsman as part of the overall context and background of the resident’s complaint. However, the decisions to serve these notices and other events that occurred during 2019 have not been investigated by the Ombudsman as they were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within six months. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”.
In this case, the resident submitted a formal complaint on 12 January 2021, which was approximately 17 months after the service of the CPW and 16 months after the CPN and NOSP were served.

The landlord’s response to allegations of ASB made about the resident by her neighbour

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its ASB policy. This sets out the landlord’s approach to managing ASB and explains that:
1. The landlord will seek to take incremental, but proportionate action based on factors such as the seriousness; persistency; harm caused to the victim or community; vulnerability; whether the perpetrator is co-operating; and the effectiveness of previous action, if any;
2. Where the landlord has to intervene, the options it will consider include: verbal warnings, warning letters, meetings, Acceptable Behaviour Agreements, support referrals, mediation and Community Protection Notice Warnings;
3. Cases will be closed where there is no evidence to progress it and/or no further action can be reasonably taken;
4. The landlord will work in partnership with a variety of agencies including statutory, non-statutory and voluntary sector organisations. This involves the exchange of information between key community partners, such as the police.
The landlord sent a warning letter to the resident on 27 April 2020 after receiving reports of loud music being played at the property. The letter mentioned that it had received evidence of the loud music in the form of noise app recordings and had discussed the allegations with the resident prior to sending the warning letter. The landlord’s ASB log also shows that it had received diary sheets from the neighbour.
Following reports of inappropriate neighbour activity, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to investigate any allegations made by gathering evidence, before taking proportionate and suitable action. In this case, the landlord had gathered evidence in the form of the noise app recordings and diary sheets, and had discussed the allegations with the resident (and the neighbour) prior to sending the warning letter. The warning letter reminded the resident of her tenancy conditions and outlined the consequences should the landlord decide to take legal action. The view of this Service is that, having satisfied itself that ASB had occurred in the form of loud music, the landlord’s warning letter was a proportionate response. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s objection regarding the landlord’s conclusion that a Judge might interpret the song lyrics as “threatening messages”. However, the wording of the warning letter makes it clear that the warning was being given because the resident had been playing music that was loud and contained “foul and/or abusive lyrics”.
The resident wrote to the landlord in May and June 2020 and expressed her dissatisfaction regarding the action taken by the landlord. In response, the landlord took the following action:
1. The landlord arranged for the case to be reviewed by a senior manager, who wrote to the resident on 1 July 2020 and confirmed that the enforcement action had been in accordance with its policies and procedures;
2. On 29 July 2020, at the resident’s request, the landlord sent a report to the council’s ECP for it to consider rehousing the resident due to the breakdown in relationship with her neighbour.
These actions were reasonable because the landlord reviewed the case to check that it had acted in line with its policies, and, by referring the resident to the council for rehousing, the landlord showed it recognised there had been a breakdown in relationship between the resident and her neighbour and was seeking a practical resolution.
When dealing with complaints of ASB, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to:
1. Follow its ASB policy and process correctly;
2. Communicate clearly with the affected residents;
3. Liaise with other agencies, such as the police, where appropriate;
4. Investigate by gathering appropriate evidence;
5. Offer residents support and/or signposting to relevant services.
In this case, the landlord took the following action in relation to the reports of ASB about the resident:
1. The landlord offered mediation (the landlord’s stage two reply stated that there had been “numerous efforts” to encourage mediation and in her letter dated 4 May 2020, the resident stated that she had accepted mediation, but her neighbour had refused);
2. The landlord carried out joint home visits with the police to investigate the complaints of ASB; for example, the landlord’s letter of 27 April 2020 refers to a joint meeting with the police at the resident’s home on 23 April 2020;
3. The landlord’s ASB log shows that the landlord regularly shared information with the Police Community Support Team (and vice versa);
4. The landlord used evidence in the form of noise app recordings and diary sheets as part of its investigations.
The actions taken by the landlord were reasonable and proportionate in responding to the reports of ASB about the resident during the period covered by this investigation because the landlord offered mediation as a means to resolve the dispute, worked with other organisations such as the police, investigated the complaints of ASB in line with its ASB policy (including carrying out home visits and considering evidence in the form of noise app recordings and diary sheets).

The landlord’s handling of reports of harassment and racial abuse made by the resident about her neighbour

The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 June 2020 to say that the neighbour’s actions, including making allegations about the resident and filming the resident’s family, amounted to “hate and race crime”. The resident indicated that she was in contact with the police Community Support Team. The landlord responded to the resident on 15 June 2020 and explained the reasons for the enforcement action it had taken in 2019. It also stated that it had no evidence that the neighbour had been filming the resident. The landlord followed this up with a further letter on 1 July 2020 to confirm that the case had been reviewed by a senior manager and that the action taken had been supported by the evidence available. Given that the resident had expressed serious concerns about the behaviour of her neighbour, it was reasonable for the landlord to review the actions it had taken in response to the neighbour’s reports of ASB.
On 20 July 2020, the landlord became aware (via a ward councillor) of an incident that had taken place on 25 June 2020, during which the neighbour is reported to have used racially abusive language towards the resident. The matter had been reported to the police by the resident on 30 June 2020, but the evidence indicates that it had not been reported to the landlord. The landlord contacted the police (the date is unknown) and the police advised the landlord that they would speak to the neighbour. The police later confirmed that due to a lack of witnesses, they would not be taking any further action in relation to the incident. As the resident had not reported the incident directly to the landlord, it could not have been expected to respond at the time of the event. The landlord’s ASB log shows that when the landlord became aware of the incident, it liaised with the police and encouraged them to carry out further investigations. Therefore, the action taken by the landlord after it became aware of the incident was reasonable.
In relation to supporting victims of ASB and hate crime, the landlord’s ASB policy states: “Where we identify safety concerns we will work with partners to provide additional security measures such as visits from officers, additional locks or security lighting and personal alarms.” The landlord took various measures to support the resident and to investigate her reports of harassment from the neighbour, including:
1. The landlord liaised with the police about the incident on 25 June 2020 and asked the police to carry out further investigations into the matter;
2. At the resident’s request, the landlord allocated the case to a new caseworker in order to improve the relationship between the landlord and resident to allay the resident’s concerns;
3. The landlord arranged for a camera doorbell to be fitted at the property in order to provide security;
4. The landlord provided the resident with access to the noise app to allow her to record any incidents involving the neighbour;
5. The landlord carried out a joint visit to the resident’s property on 9 April 2021 to discuss her concerns;
6. The landlord offered mediation on different occasions, but the neighbour had refused to take part;
7. The landlord met with the resident on 25 February 2021 and agreed an action plan with the resident. One of the actions agreed was that the landlord would support the resident in reporting claims of harassment about the neighbour to the police;
8. The landlord submitted reports to the council’s ECP in order to rehouse the resident, and the Panel agreed to award the resident band ‘A’ priority;
9. The landlord’s ASB log shows that the landlord worked closely with the police to resolve the dispute between the resident and her neighbour.
The above actions taken by the landlord were in line with its policy and were appropriate because the landlord offered support to the resident, worked with the police to investigate the reports and sought to resolve the dispute by supporting the resident’s request for rehousing.
The resident expressed concerns in her stage two complaint that the landlord had failed to persuade the neighbour to agree to mediation. However, the landlord had offered mediation on various occasions and could not reasonably control whether the neighbour accepted the offer. In order for mediation to work, it is important that all parties agree to take part.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The landlord aims to respond to stage one and stage two complaints within ten working days. However, the policy says that for more complex cases, the timescales may be extended by up to a further ten working days. In such cases, the policy states that the landlord will contact the complainant to let them know the reasons for the extension and the new timescale for responding.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 12 January 2021, in which she stated that she had been subjected to intimidation and harassment by her neighbour. She stated that, in her view, the landlord had failed to support her.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 January 2021 and replied to the resident on 16 February 2021, which was 25 working days after it received the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s response stated that due to the number of points raised by the resident, it was difficult to respond to each point and therefore the landlord said it would arrange a meeting to discuss the points in more detail. The landlord also said it would follow up the meeting with a written record of the points agreed.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that the timescale for replying to a complaint can be extended by up to ten working days for complex complaints. In this case, the resident’s stage one complaint was 13 pages in length and contained several points. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to require an extension of time due to the complexity of the complaint. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord notified the resident beforehand that it would require an extension of time and therefore this was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord. The landlord’s subsequent actions (i.e. arranging the meeting on 25 February 2021 and writing to the resident on 31 March 2021), did, however, indicate a willingness on the part of the landlord to properly investigate the complaint and to address the resident’s concerns.
On 2 April 2021, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the process on the basis that the landlord had not adequately addressed the points within her stage one complaint. The landlord replied on 5 May, which was 21 working days after receiving the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. However, the stage two reply indicated that the landlord had notified the resident that it would require an extension of ten days due to the number of points raised by the resident. As the resident’s stage two complaint again raised several points, it was reasonable for the landlord to notify the resident that it would need additional time to respond, as per its complaints policy. The overall time taken for the landlord to reply to the stage two complaint was, in the view of this Service, reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to allegations of anti-social behaviour (ASB) made about the resident by her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of harassment and racial abuse made by the resident about her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable and proportionate action in dealing with the reports of ASB. It offered mediation, gathered evidence through noise app recordings, diary sheets and interviews, and worked closely with the police to share intelligence.
The landlord worked closely with the police regarding the resident’s reports of harassment (including carrying out joint visits) and provided support to the resident by fitting a camera doorbell, giving the resident access to the noise app, offering mediation, agreeing an action plan and submitting reports for the resident to be rehoused.
Although the landlord exceeded the ten working day target at both stages of the complaints process, it met with the resident after the stage one reply to go through the points in more detail and followed this up in writing to outline the agreed action plan. At stage two of the process, the landlord had contacted the resident beforehand to advise her that it would need an extension of time.