South Tyneside Council (202210397)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210397

South Tyneside Council

19 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident suffers from mental health problems. The resident says his health and wellbeing has been made worse by the ASB of his neighbour and the actions of his landlord in response.
  2. The first recorded incident of ASB that has been seen by this Service took place in June 2022. The resident reported that since his neighbour had moved in, there had been issues of ASB, including threats, verbal abuse and daily noise such as screaming and shouting.
  3. On 13 June 2022, the landlord sent the resident an ASB action plan letter. The letter said that it would discuss his reports with his neighbour and its safeguarding team to see what action it could take to resolve his concerns.
  4. Between 15 June 2022 and 23 June 2022, the resident reported further incidents of ASB from his neighbour, including shouting, offensive language, and the smashing of items. He said that he had reported the issues with his neighbour to the landlord in person in May 2022 and that he was unhappy with how long it had taken the landlord to deal with the ASB. He was unhappy with the communication from the landlord and said that the situation was having a negative impact on his mental health. The landlord responded to the resident and logged his concerns as a formal complaint.
  5. Towards the end of June, the neighbour was admitted to hospital and so no longer at their property. Following this the landlord advised the resident that the neighbour would not be returning for some time and that it would update him on the situation.
  6. On 29 June 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints process. In summary, the response said:
    1. It discussed with the resident what support he had for his mental health.
    2. A multi-agency approach was being taken to try and resolve or change the situation and that the caseworker had updated him following the meeting.
    3. It had provided an email address for the resident to send in his diary notes along with any recordings, and that it would send out formal diary sheets.
  7. On 22 July 2022 the resident reported that his neighbour was back at their property and was shouting, screaming, and breaking things. The landlord noted that it had not been aware that the neighbouring had returned and said that it could look at a ‘direct let’ for the resident. On 28 July 2022 the landlord sent an ASB warning letter to the neighbour and offered a temporary decant to the resident, which he refused due to concerns about the location of the property.
  8. On 8 August 2022 the resident reported that his neighbour and her friends were up all-night ‘shouting and playing loud music’. The landlord told the resident that it had submitted a ‘direct let’ form for him and that it would begin tenancy enforcement action against his neighbour. The next day the landlord issued a final ASB warning letter to the neighbour. On 17 August 2022 the landlord informed the resident that the ‘direct let’ had been agreed and repeated its offer of an interim decant in the meantime. This was again refused by the resident.
  9. On 30 August 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. He said that his first official complaint was in person in May 2022 and that he had presented ASB evidence at that time. He said that the landlord had not acted quickly enough to resolve the issues and said that the situation had made him feel suicidal.
  10. On 12 September 2022 following further reports from the resident of ASB, the landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a notice of seeking possession.
  11. On 30 September 2022 the landlord issued its final response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. In summary, the response said:
    1. The resident had reported his concerns on 10 June 2022. It opened a case the same day, carried out a risk assessment and sent an action plan to him on 13 June 2022, which was in line with its procedure.
    2. That it had followed its policy by working with support agencies and providing appropriate support to his neighbour to enable them to change their behaviour.
    3. Officers spent the period between mid-June 2022 and early August 2022 trying to ascertain whether there was any impairment of the neighbour’s ability to fully understand the implications of their behaviour.
    4. Following the neighbour’s return to the property it had discussed with the resident the option of a temporary decant to another of its properties which was declined.
    5. It was still waiting for a property to become available for a ‘direct let’.
    6. A final warning was sent to the neighbour on 9 August 2022, followed by a notice of seeking possession on 12 September 2022.
    7. It had followed its own policies and procedures in dealing with the case and had offered to refer the resident for mental health support which was declined.
  12. In October 2022 the resident moved into alternative accommodation provided by the landlord.
  13. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that the landlord did not act quickly enough to resolve the ASB and that he was providing daily updates and was getting passed from agency to agency. As a resolution to his complaint, he said he wanted compensation for the costs of his move and the stress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he raised concerns that the reported ASB had made his mental health worse. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s statement. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of ASB and the resident’s mental health. Often when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord handled the ASB case. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right, and; 

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the resident said that he reported ASB from his neighbour in person in May 2022. The landlord disputed this. It said that the ASB was first reported to it on 10 June 2022. In the absence of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to reconcile the resident’s account. As far as the evidence shows, the issue was brought to the landlord’s attention in June 2022.
  3. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
  4. The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its tenants within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will respond to reports of noise nuisance, verbal, or threatening behaviour within three working days and that it will develop an action plan with the complainant. The landlord’s records showed that it responded to the resident concerns in line with its policy timescales and issued an action plan.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will try and support alleged perpetrators who are vulnerable to sustain their tenancy and that where this cannot be achieved solely by the landlord, ‘a multi-agency meeting will be organised to discuss the case to ensure the right level of support is being offered’. The evidence from the landlord’s records indicated that the resident’s neighbour had complex mental health needs and that it was mindful of the neighbour’s ability to understand the implications of their behaviour. Therefore, following the resident’s reports the landlord contacted adult care services to discuss its concerns about the neighbour’s wellbeing and behaviour. Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord was in regular dialogue with support services regarding the neighbour’s behaviour, and this was in line with its policy. In the circumstances, this Service considers that this was a reasonable and proportionate approach to take.
  6. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will ‘maintain regular contact at periods agreed with victims and witnesses through a designated contact person.’ The landlord’s records showed that the resident was in regular contact with the ASB case officer. Although this contact was often initiated by the resident, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns within reasonable timescales and kept him updated on the actions it was taking.
  7. The landlord’s records showed that between 24 June 2022 to 22 July 2022 the neighbour was not living at the property. At the beginning of July 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the neighbour would not be returning ‘anytime soon’, however, a week later the neighbour returned to the property and the resident reported further ASB. The Ombudsman understands that this would have caused distress and confusion to the resident, however, this was outside of the landlord’s control, and it was unaware they had returned to the property. Following the neighbour’s return to the property the landlord acted reasonably by liaising with support services, canvassing potential witnesses and pursuing enforcement action against the neighbour’s tenancy.
  8. The landlord’s ASB policy states that except in very serious or exceptional circumstances it aims to stop the problem behaviour through informal action – this includes warnings and referrals to support services. Further, the policy states that if informal or preventative measures are not successful then proportionate actions, such as legal action, will be considered. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to involve support services to try and mitigate the neighbour’s behaviour, however, the resident continued to report ASB upon the neighbour’s return to their property. The evidence from the landlord’s records showed that the ASB was continuing and that it was having a serious impact on the resident’s wellbeing. It was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to escalate its actions. It did so by pursuing tenancy enforcement action including warning letters and a notice of seeking possession to his neighbour. Overall, these actions were fair and proportionate, and it showed that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
  9. Within a week of the neighbour returning to the property, the landlord offered the resident a temporary decant to another property and informed him that it was pursuing a permanent move for him under a ‘direct let’. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will conduct and record a risk assessment with victims and that it will ‘offer practical measures where appropriate to ensure the safety of victims and witnesses’. The landlord’s records showed that it carried out two risk assessments on the resident during the period of the complaint, the latter of which identified the risk to be high. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to investigate other measures to ensure his safety. The landlord acted fairly and in line with its policy in this regard by offering the resident a temporary decant and exploring a permanent move.
  10. As part of its handling of the case, the landlord offered to refer the resident to one of its partnership agencies for support as it understood that it was a distressing time for him.  This was appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy which sets out that it will adopt a supportive approach which may include a referral to other agencies where support needs are identified.
  11. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress this situation would have caused to the resident, and it is clear that the ASB had a significant impact on him. However, based on the evidence available to this Service, the landlord has appropriately sought to manage the reported ASB using the tools available to it and ultimately provided the resident with alternative accommodation. Overall, the landlord took reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB, which were proportionate and timely in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.