Home Group Limited (202100663)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100663

Home Group

24 February 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about how the landlord handled reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will acknowledge reports of ASB within one working day and contact the complainant in cases concerning noise nuisance within three working days.
4. When taking action against an alleged preparator, the policy states that the landlord will first attempt to resolve the issue without taking enforcement action, noting that “the intervention we use varies according to the type of anti-social behaviour and is decided on a case-by-case basis. This may include using warnings and Acceptable Behaviour Agreements”.
5. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within ten to 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
6. The policy goes on to state that in exceptional cases it may take longer than its timescales to provide the responses, and in these cases, it will keep the complainant updated on the progress of the complaint.

Summary of events

7. The resident has experienced ongoing issues of ASB including noise nuisance, fly-tipping, verbal abuse and threatening behaviour. An ASB case was opened, and a complaint raised into these matters in 2019.
8. On 27 February 2021 the resident wrote a new letter of complaint to the landlord. The resident described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. He had experienced noise nuisance from a neighbour playing loud music at unsociable hours.
   2. He had previously informed the landlord in January 2021 of rubbish being left in the estate which had attracted vermin. Although this was acknowledged by the landlord, issues with rubbish and fly-tipping remained.
   3. He suspected that the neighbour in the property responsible for the noise nuisance was illegally subletting and it was these tenants who were the cause of the loud music.
9. On 14 March 2021 the resident wrote to this Service to state his dissatisfaction that he had not received a response from the landlord to his letter. Following a telephone conversation on 9 April 2021, this Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord.
10. The landlord replied on 9 April 2021. It informed this Service that it had not received the resident’s letter and requested a copy.
11. A formal complaint was opened by the landlord on 9 April 2021. On 13 April 2021 the landlord sent a letter to all residents regarding rubbish and fly-tipping. It also spoke to the neighbour about the reports of noise nuisance.
12. The landlord’s notes of its call stated that the neighbour accepted that they had played loud music and agreed to stop. The landlord gave them a verbal warning.
13. The landlord also called the resident on 13 April 2021 to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it informed the resident of the action it had taken and that it would investigate the issue of subletting.
14. A note was added to the landlord’s system on 14 April 2021 stating that it had spoken with the caretaker of the estate who had informed it that the neighbour was resident in the property and that there was no evidence of subletting.
15. The resident called the landlord on 17 April 2021 to inform it that the bins had been filled to overflowing and rubbish was blowing over the roads. The landlord called the resident back on 21 April 2021 to inform him that the area had been cleared of rubbish.
16. The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 27 April 2021. The landlord informed him that:
    1. It had written to all residents of the estate giving guidance on fly-tipping and the correct disposal of rubbish. A consultation would also take place on its refuse service to consider whether it should be increased.
    2. It had spoken to the neighbour and the caretaker of the estate about subletting and had found no evidence that it was occurring.
    3. It had also spoken to the neighbour about the playing of loud music. The neighbour agreed to stop and was issued a verbal warning by the landlord.
17. On 8 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint. He described the grounds for requesting the escalation as he had experienced further noise nuisance from the neighbour on 7 June 2021 and had observed several people entering and exiting the property. The resident also provided a photograph.
18. The resident called this Service on 3 August 2021 and stated that he had not received a response to his escalation request. This Service passed on the resident’s request to the landlord, who wrote to the resident to confirm that the complaint had been escalated to stage two on 6 August 2021.
19. The landlord called the resident on 11 and 31 August 2021 to discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint, it then sent the stage two complaint response on 6 September 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
    1. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and explained that it had not received his letter dated 21 June 2021.
    2. It was satisfied how his allegations of noise nuisance and fly-tipping were handled at stage one and the resolution it offered. When it had called the resident to discuss the complaint, it had also provided information on how to report any further incidents of noise nuisance or fly-tipping.
    3. During their conversations about the complaint, the resident had stated that the neighbour was no longer living in the property and that it was being illegally sublet. The landlord informed him that it had investigated this matter and while it was restricted in what information it could give him, that it was satisfied there was no evidence of subletting.
20. The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that he had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised him on the steps to take to bring the complaint to this service should he remain dissatisfied.
21. During a telephone conversation with this Service on 18 November 2021, the resident stated that his outstanding issues to the complaint were that he was not satisfied with how the landlord handled its investigations into his allegations of noise nuisance, fly-tipping and illegal subletting. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

22. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
23. On receipt of reports from the resident of noise nuisance, fly-tipping and suspected illegal subletting; the landlord spoke to the perpetrator of the noise nuisance and issued a verbal warning: arranged for the estate to be cleaned and started a consultation to determine if it should increase its refuse service: and investigated the subletting allegation by interviewing the relevant parties and on-site staff members.
24. During the telephone conversation with this Service on 18 November 2021, the resident confirmed that the loud music had ceased. They did state that unspecified ‘noise nuisance’ had continued. Landlords can only act on the information they receive. The landlord had advised the resident how to submit any reports of ASB in the stage 1 complaint. This is important as the ASB investigation process is different to the complaint process, however they were conflated in this case. The resident’s complaints about the neighbours and the landlord, alongside the landlord’s explanation of its responses to the ASB and the formal complaint, were handled within one process.
25. Over the course of the complaint the landlord received two reports of noise nuisance, both contained within the formal complaints. The first report resulted in the verbal warning. The second report of continuing noise in June was not then responded to until August due to the post receipt issues.
26. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the second report of continuing noise nuisance. Instead, the second formal response concluded the noise nuisance had been handled appropriately at stage one. It did not explain how the further report of noise nuisance would be handled. It is understandable that the landlord’s response would have been affected by the delayed post and by how the formal complaint and ASB complaint had been mixed together. Plus, the resident had not reported incidents of noise nuisance to the customer contact centre as the landlord had requested. Regardless, the landlord’s policy sets out that it will respond to reports of noise nuisance and it did not do so in August or September 2021 once it had been forwarded the June 2021 complaint. This was a failure of the landlord’s ASB process.
27. An internal landlord email stated that it had introduced weekly visits to the scheme by its maintenance contractor to remove all fly-tipping and ensure the area was clear of rubbish. The landlord also provided logs of its conversations with the neighbour and stated why it was satisfied that there was no evidence of illegal subletting and that the neighbour was resident in the property.
28. The Ombudsman is unable to share detailed information about the landlord’s conversations with the neighbour as we cannot share other residents’ personal information without their consent. However, based on the information we have seen, we are satisfied that the landlord’s position that there is no evidence of subletting by the neighbour is reasonable in the circumstances.
29. Ultimately, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the service provided by the landlord to the complainant. A neighbour sub-letting is an issue for the landlord but does not in and of itself cause any adverse effect to the complainant. Therefore, the focus of the complaint would be on any issues that did affect the resident, such as noise nuisance.
30. There was a delay in progressing the complaint as the landlord did not receive the resident’s letters requesting to open a formal complaint, and then also the letter requesting to escalate the complaint to stage two. It is not clear if reasons for the non-receipt of the letters by the landlord were as a result of the address they were sent, if it was a temporary issue due to the Covid-19 pandemic, or something else.
31. It would be appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident to confirm what addresses his correspondence should be sent to in the future to ensure that all his letters are received given this unusual issue happened twice.
32. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be rehoused in a smaller property closer to his family. A property transfer was not raised by the resident as part of the formal complaint and there is no evidence that rehousing options were discussed during the period of the complaint.
33. Furthermore, transfers are arranged by the resident making an application to the landlord or local choice-based lettings scheme. Therefore, it would be for the resident to seek advice about whether this was an option given their current housing situation. Landlords can normally only move residents directly (through a management transfer) where there is an immediate threat of harm, and this would not apply in this case.
34. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident, if it has not done so already, to advise him what property transfer options are available to him directly from the landlord, what other organisation (such as a local authority) can offer property transfers, and what other schemes (such as a mutual exchange) he could register for.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled reports of ASB from the resident.

Orders

36. As a result of the determination above, the landlord has been ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £100 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to show how it acknowledged or investigated the June 2021 report of continued noise nuisance.

Recommendations

37. It is recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord write to the resident and:
    1. Confirm what addresses the resident should use when sending its letters to ensure his correspondence is received.
    2. Confirm whether there is any ongoing noise nuisance, and if so, ensure the resident is clear on how to report any incidents.
    3. Advise what options are available to the resident about property transfers.