Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (202126746)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126746

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

23 May 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 reports from the resident of anti-social behaviour.

Scope of Investigation

The landlord has provided details of events following the date of its final complaint response (in April 2021). Paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that this Service will usually not consider complaints about events that have not been through the landlord’s complaints service. Therefore, whilst the post-April 2021 events include useful information, the landlord’s actions during this timeframe have not been assessed through this investigation but are included in this report to give context.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a three-bedroom terraced house owned by the landlord. The five-year fixed term tenancy began in 2019.
The landlord has confirmed that there are no known vulnerabilities or disabilities for the resident, but it has reference to the resident’s daughter having some medical issues, although no specific details are given.
The landlord and tenant obligations are set out within the tenancy agreement. Expectations on the landlord and tenant are outlined in relation to anti-social behaviour and harassment. This refers to the resident or anyone living at the property and requires that they do not cause nuisance or annoyance to anyone in the locality or have been convicted of using the home for illegal or immoral purposes or a serious criminal offence. There are other standard conditions that apply to protect the resident and community. In relation to this fixed term tenancy, paragraph 4.6 states:
1. If the resident reports ASB, including noise nuisance, to the landlord, it will provide advice and assistance to help the situation. It will do all that it can to help and support the resident, including recording and investigating all reports of serious ASB. It will visit the resident to update on any action it agrees to take.
2. It will act straight away to deal with any incidents of harassment and will always help and support the resident. In cases of harassment, including racial harassment and hate crime, an officer will contact the resident to arrange a visit.
Responsibilities on the resident (and their family, friends and relatives) are outlined in the tenancy agreement (paragraph 5.35), requiring them not to:
1. Do anything which causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance to anyone in the local area;
2. Do anything which interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living in the local area;
3. Harass or threaten to harass or threaten violence towards staff, agents or contractors or any tenant representative;
4. Use or threaten violence towards anyone living in the property;
5. Use record players, radios, TVs, CD players, amplifiers, loudspeakers or musical instruments of any kind in a way that will annoy people, or so they can be heard outside the property;
6. Use any domestic machinery or DIY equipment in such a way or at such times (e.g., at night or early in the morning) that it causes nuisance or annoyance to other people.
The landlord has an anti-social behaviour policy (October 2021) that gives its commitment to ensure all residents of the community enjoy their right to peace, quiet and security in and around their home and that it will not tolerate anti-social behaviour from residents, their visitors and those seeking to be customers of the landlord. It was developed in line with the ASB Act 2003, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as amended, and the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 as amended, to ensure that ASB is dealt with consistently and robustly and that prompt, proportionate and justified action is always taken using a victim centred approach.
The landlord delivers the housing management function on behalf of the council and is commissioned by the council and community safety partnership to deliver an ASB service to residents across the community, regardless of their housing tenure.
The landlord has a complaints policy that has a two-stage approach and it aims to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints (independent review) within 15 working days.

Summary of Events

On 13 November 2020, the landlord’s records show that diary records and a noise leaflet was sent to the resident. Notes refer to the resident moving in and there being no issues at the start of the tenancy but a problem arose then when the neighbour moved in and knocked on the door. There was an argument over a parking space, and it then escalated but the police were not informed as the resident said she wanted to keep the peace. The resident commented that she felt vulnerable as she lived in the end house and a lot of the property was exposed. She made a request to the landlord for fencing to be considered.
During December 2020, various concerns were raised about the resident’s CCTV camera and parking. The landlord spoke to the resident and neighbour to clarify its position in relation to permission for the CCTV camera and the parking of the cars.
On 20 January 2021, the landlord’s records show that it liaised with the police and made contact with the resident about an incident on 16 January 2021 when it was alleged that the father of her children was at the car getting something out of the boot and the son of the next-door neighbour was in his car and reversed it into her ex-partner. As a result, he said that he was very sore and found it difficult to walk but nothing was broken. The resident advised the landlord that she believed the son’s mum was egging him on as she had always done that but that he did go away and then returned later shouting that he wanted to fight her ex-partner. The police were called but the neighbour’s son disappeared again.
In relation to the contact on 20 January 2021, the resident said that the police had mentioned mediation, but she felt that it had gone too far for this. The resident confirmed that there had been a number of incidents over the last two and a half years of verbal abuse and comments, loud music being played, arguments about the parking, threats about the CCTV camera and nothing had been reported to the police previously as they had always tried to sort it out themselves. The landlord advised the resident that it would make contact with the police, send out diary sheets and it discussed how to report noise nuisance if she did decide to make a complaint.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident following up on a previous telephone conversation and attaching its action plan letter, diary sheets, guidance for completing them and its nuisance leaflet. It confirmed that once it had spoken to the police it would contact the resident again. The resident confirmed receipt of these the same day.
On 22 January 2021, the police community safety officer confirmed that he had arranged a visit to both parties on 28 January 2021. The landlord confirmed these arrangements with the resident.
The landlord has provided evidence of its discussions with the resident during February 2021, as well as the neighbour and police, to gain evidence of incidents. This included discussions on the contents of video evidence. It shows the resident expressed dissatisfaction with how the case was being handled and her request for information in relation to the appeals process on 22 February 2021.
On 3 March 2021, the landlord made a telephone call to the resident to discuss her complaint about the landlord’s officers dealing with the case as she had raised concern that they were minimising the ASB she was experiencing. The officer explained that ASB is a broad term, and the officers were looking to identify sufficient evidence to support legal action. It was agreed that the officer would review the handling of the case and would also meet with the police to agree whether there was further action required. The resident referred to an incident in relation to her neighbour making a threat against her partner and the landlord told the resident it was important that this was reported to the police.
On 5 March 2021, the landlord booked a ASB case review meeting for 11 March 2021.
The same day as the review meeting, the landlord sent a letter to the resident with the outcome of its review. It confirmed that it was satisfied that officers had followed procedures correctly and at that point, there was not enough evidence to support legal sanctions in relation to ASB. It confirmed that it intended to meet with the police the following week to discuss the matter further.
On 12 March 2021, the landlord received a councillor enquiry about the case and the landlord responded the same day, advising that a significant amount of time had been spent investigating the case that began as a parking issue and developed into harassment, intimidation and ASB. It confirmed that it had met with the police and head of community safety partnership from the council to review all the evidence. It confirmed that both parties in the dispute were impacted negatively and had engaged in behaviour that was hostile.
On the same day, the landlord confirmed to the councillor that it did not have enough evidence to meet the threshold for civil action under ASB legislation and the police continued to deal with the criminal matter. It also confirmed that it would be contacting both parties shortly to sign a good neighbour agreement and would offer independent mediation. It confirmed that it would also ask the resident to remove notices about her CCTV surveillance of her neighbour and ensure the camera did not capture images of her neighbour and their property. It would ask both parties to desist from behaviour that could be an incitement to violent or malicious behaviour.
Further correspondence was received from the resident on 18 March 2021 when she requested a complaint about how officers had conducted the investigation.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord sent its stage one complaint to the resident. It confirmed that:
1. It had investigated allegations of ASB and had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant civil action against the neighbour.
2. A lot of the evidence was considered to be normal behaviour and not behaviour that met the legal threshold for causing harassment, alarm or distress.
3. Concerns had been investigated fully by the officers’ manager and it was compliant with the service standards and its published ASB policy.
4. It would adopt a multi-agency approach to the issues, and it had contacted the community safety partnership and a case review had taken place which provided some external and independent scrutiny to the case. The conclusion was that the evidence did not support a case for civil action or tenancy action. It noted that the review did not explore criminal evidence.
5. It asked the resident to report any further evidence of harassment, alarm or distress but not to report behaviour such as her neighbour looking briefly at the camera or delivering a parcel or moving their car, as this did not support a case for ASB.
6. It asked the resident to consider signing an acceptable behaviour agreement and to take part in independent mediation.
7. It asked the resident not to carry out any audio or video surveillance of the neighbour as it was illegal, and it asked for signage to be removed. It confirmed that the resident did have the right to install CCTV, but it must comply with the regulations around data protection. It attached information with a link to the Information Commissioners (ICO) website.
8. It confirmed its very best intentions to help improve the situation and explained that a good neighbour agreement and mediation can be very effective in helping to resolve issues such as the ones being experienced.
9. It confirmed that it did not uphold the complaint.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord received CCTV footage from the resident of an incident on 8 November 2020. This was reviewed and there was no evidence of ASB identified.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord has provided records that the resident continued to make serious allegations regarding the neighbour. It confirmed that it may have to consider alternative civil action depending on the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord sent a stage two complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it had reviewed all the information, including discussing the information with key officers, and it had reviewed video footage and photographs, including records from the partner agency meeting, and considered the guidance in the ASB policy. It noted the following:
1. The case was opened on 20 January 2021 and an action plan was agreed which detailed what the landlord expected the resident to do and what it would do to try to resolve the issues.
2. A lot of the footage and photographs were centred around problems with parking on a public highway and it confirmed the position that anyone can park on a public highway as long as they were not breaking any law in accordance with the highway code and the cars were taxed and insured.
3. Some recordings showed episodes of sporadic and not persistent loud music and shouting. It could not verify when or where they were recorded and there had not been any recent reports on the diary sheets. It would consider installing noise nuisance equipment if there was persistent or extreme noise.
4. It understood that the posters at the front of the neighbour’s property had now been removed.
5. The incident with the reversing of the car was still being investigated by the police and it was awaiting the outcome.
6. It had offered mediation to both parties, and it confirmed that the resident was not happy to take part in this. It asked the resident to reconsider.
7. It confirmed that if the resident was not willing to take part in mediation or refused to sign the good neighbourhood agreement, it would close the case as it felt this was the most appropriate action.
8. It would ask both parties to behave in a civil and courteous manner to one another.
9. It specifically requested another officer be appointed to the case.

Summary of Events after landlord’s complaints process

On 6 May 2021, the landlord’s records show that it allocated the case to another officer.
The landlord has provided its ASB action plan dated 17 May 2021. It gave a summary of the ASB from January 2021 and confirmed these were ongoing in relation to a parking dispute, verbal abuse, assault, threats and noise (music and banging).
On 14 July 2021, the landlord issued its community trigger request outcome letter to the resident. It confirmed that the landlord had considered every contact, viewed all video evidence, advised that the CCTV camera should operate in accordance with ICO guidelines, issued a warning, asked the neighbour to park thoughtfully, offered mediation and commenced the process for a good neighbour agreement.
The community trigger outcome confirmed that it was satisfied that all reports of harassment and verbal abuse had been recorded appropriately and actioned in accordance with the ASB policy. It confirmed that it would continue to:

a. Address recent concerns and monitor new behaviours.

b. Explore the option of a good neighbour agreement.

c. Install noise monitoring equipment.

Various incidents continued to be reported of a similar nature and the landlord responded, including visiting both parties. This included the installation of noise monitoring equipment in August 2021 when the landlord confirmed to the resident that the noise detected did not constitute a statutory noise nuisance.
On 12 January 2022, the landlord completed a request to transfer properties, on behalf of the resident, due to exceptional circumstances. It gave a summary of the case in support of a move and notes show a management move was approved and the resident was awarded Band B ‘special need’ under the Housing Allocation Scheme. A direct offer was made to the resident, but this was refused as it was unsuitable to her daughter’s needs.
On 28 February 2022, the landlord sent the resident a letter about the ongoing investigation of ASB. It confirmed its disappointment that the resident was still engaging in ASB, and it referred to an incident on 6 February 2022 where the behaviour of her and partner was of a very serious nature. It said it was considering formal legal action and preparing for an injunction under part one of the ASB crime and policing Act 2014. It gave details of how the resident could make representation. It confirmed that the landlord had made every effort to informally resolve the issues and outlined its offer of the following which had either been refused or failed:
1. Mediation;
2. Good neighbour agreement;
3. Permanent alternative accommodation;
4. Installation of noise monitoring equipment;
5. Permission to alter the front garden to create a hardstanding for off road parking (subject to council highway permission for a dropped kerb);
6. Contact with the mental health advice and support worker;
7. Referral to support agencies.
On 7 March 2022 and 17 March 2022, the resident contacted this Service to express dissatisfaction with the landlord, believing that they had had a lack of duty of care as she felt there was harassment, intimidation and threats from her neighbour.
On 18 March 2022, the landlord sent a further letter to the resident advising that the dispute had been ongoing for a considerable time and despite efforts from the landlord, it appeared that it had escalated. It confirmed that following an altercation on 6 February 2022, it had held a meeting with its legal team and the police, and the outcome was to proceed with seeking an injunction against both parties to prevent any further ASB and reduce the level of harm posed. It confirmed that:
1. In January 2021, both parties were warned by the police to desist from contact with one another.
2. In April 2021, following investigation of the complaint, the resident was advised in a letter that if the situation became worse, the landlord would consider legal remedies.
3. The resident had been warned to remove signage from the property which would have incited tensions; to park respectfully; to stop surveillance of neighbour’s property; to stop sending video footage and evidence to the landlord of behaviour that was not anti-social.
4. It reminded the resident of her responsibilities for actions of anyone who visited the property and referred to a serious incident involving the ex-partner who threatened the neighbour (where the matter was reported to the police and the ex-partner was arrested but not charged).
Due to the time elapsed, this Service gave both parties the opportunity to provide any relevant information. On 16 May 2023, the landlord confirmed that the neighbour had moved home. The alleged perpetrator was cleared of harassment charges against the resident on 8 July 2022 (which related to the parking issues).

Assessment and findings

From an early point in 2021, when reports of ASB were received by the landlord, it has demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its ASB policy by recording comprehensive records, discussing the resident’s concerns with her and sending diary sheets and its action plan letter.
The landlord’s ASB policy came into effect in October 2021 and, although this was after the complaint was received, it is applicable during most of the complaint, and it is reasonable to assume that a similar ASB policy was in place prior to this. This policy references classification of incidents dependent on the type of ASB and it gives its timescales for responding within its service standards. The landlord responded appropriately within one day of the report in January 2021. This is in line with its framework for responding to very serious incidents that says that it should make contact within 24 hours. Follow up was then made by a visit within seven days. The landlord therefore acted within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord has evidenced that it contacted the resident on various occasions to discuss the case and specific incidents and kept comprehensive records of the discussions. This demonstrated that it retained appropriate records that allowed it to later review its handling of the ASB.
When a formal complaint was requested on 18 March 2021, the landlord responded shortly after on 22 March 2021. It had already taken reasonable action by arranging an ASB case review for 11 March 2021 when it became aware that the resident was dissatisfied with how it was handling her reports. This demonstrated that the landlord was willing to assess how it had handled the ASB but led to it confirming that there was insufficient evidence to progress to enforcement. On the same day as the review meeting, it followed this up with a letter to the resident to relay the outcome which showed that it took appropriate efforts to communicate promptly with her.
Further, because the resident believed that the case was not handled effectively by the landlord’s officers, it proactively assigned another officer to the case as it recognised quickly that the relationship had broken down. This was a reasonable and resolution-focused approach to take.
One of the key principles within the landlord’s ASB policy is for it to take a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB. The landlord has evidenced that it did this at an early point by liaising with the police and local authority colleagues.
The landlord swiftly moved the case on, following its complaints procedure in March 2021, firstly at stage one and then at stage two on 29 April 2021. It gave a detailed outline of the actions on the case to the resident and explained that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with civil legal action.
The landlord demonstrated transparency by setting clear expectations of what it could and could not action and advised the resident of what constituted ASB in accordance with its ASB policy. It gave examples of this in its letter to the resident that it did not consider delivering a parcel or moving a car to be ASB.This was particularly important to manage expectations on how the case would develop and what action it could reasonably take against the neighbour.
The landlord made the decision that an acceptable behaviour agreement and mediation were the most appropriate remedies. It also requested specific actions such as the resident removing the signage regarding the CCTV and warnings to both parties about their behaviour. When assessing ASB reports, the landlord has to demonstrate that the action it takes is reasonable and proportionate to the case evidence. In this investigation, the landlord has demonstrated that it acted appropriately when responding to each report. This included visiting both parties promptly, issuing appropriate warnings, providing an action plan and setting out very clearly what the resident and landlord were responsible for in aiming to resolve the matter.
The landlord has also demonstrated that it carefully considered all of its appropriate tools to resolving the dispute, including a transfer to another property. It provided support to the resident in an attempt to make this happen and it awarded an appropriate management move in accordance with its lettings policy. Therefore, the Ombudsman can find no evidence to suggest that this action was not appropriate for the incidents reported and the evidence it has obtained.
Whilst the Ombudsman accepts that reports of ASB can be interpreted differently by individuals and that experiencing neighbour confrontation can be an extremely difficult and distressing experience, this Service has to consider whether the landlord has acted appropriately and proportionately to the reports of incidents received by the landlord.
In summary, the Ombudsman can find no fault with the way the landlord handled the case of the resident’s reports of ASB. It has demonstrated a fair, transparent, proportionate and supportive approach to both parties in resolving the dispute.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports from the resident of anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

The landlord has demonstrated that it acted reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with its ASB policy in response to the reports of ASB by the resident.