Midland Heart Limited (202219803)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219803

Midland Heart Limited

31 October 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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of her housing officer.
This Service has decided to consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 3 bedroom house and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident’s tenancy commenced in 2011. Since the start of the tenancy, the resident has made a number of ASB reports against 2 neighbours.
For the purposes of this report, the neighbours will be referred to as ‘neighbour X’ and ‘neighbour Y’. The resident reported concerns about gangs and feeling threatened by neighbour X. The ASB reports extended to noise nuisance, dog fouling, reports of harassment, and rubbish being thrown in her property from neighbour Y.
Over the years, the landlord opened and closed a number of ASB cases due to its reports of insufficient evidence to take further action.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 July 2022 to report that her fence had been ripped down by neighbour Y. She requested to raise a complaint. The landlord responded on the same day advising it would not be opening a new complaint.
Following this, the resident continued reporting ASB including noise nuisance, rubbish and dog waste being thrown into her garden, and her neighbour ripping her fencing down.
On 12 October 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She felt her concerns were not being listened to and that the landlord was not taking sufficient action to resolve the ASB. She reported feeling threatened by her housing officer and wanted a different officer to handle her case.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident for unreasonable contact with the housing officer. The landlord advised that the resident had made threats, racial comments and used language deemed offensive.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary, it outlined:
1. Although the ASB had been ongoing for years, as per its complaints policy it could only investigate ASB reports within the past 6 months.
2. The landlord responded on each occasion that the resident reported ASB, with its intended actions.
3. The landlord’s responses to the ASB reports were appropriate, the housing officer kept regular contact with the resident and warning letters had been issued.
4. Having completed a review of the housing officer’s contact, it did not find any concerns. There was therefore no reason to change the resident’s housing officer.
On 27 October 2022, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She was dissatisfied with the housing officer’s handling of her ASB reports and felt there was a conflict of interest. She advised she was still working with the police and wanted the neighbour to be charged.
The landlord issued its stage 2 final complaint response on 21 November 2022. It outlined that:
1. The landlord kept regular contact with the resident, requested evidence, and took appropriate action in response to each ASB report made by the resident.
2. The landlord had not found any evidence substantiating claims and was unable to take any further action against neighbours.
3. It confirmed there was no conflict of interest for the housing officer.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 17 May 2023. She remains dissatisfied with how the landlord responded to her ASB reports and feels her complaints have been dismissed. She advised she does not want to converse with her housing officer anymore.
The landlord advised this Service that upon reviewing evidence of the case in 2023, it noticed it had failed to log the resident’s original complaint at stage 1 in July 2022. It therefore offered the resident £100 compensation for its failure to log the complaint at the time.

Assessment and finding

Scope of the investigation

This Service has been provided with correspondence relating to reports of historical incidents of ASB from the resident’s neighbours dating from 2011 to January 2023. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 6 months of the matters arising. The investigation will not consider the events that occurred from 2011 to April 2022 because these did not occur within 6 months of the complaint. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from May 2022 up to the landlord’s final response in November 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbours

It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In this case, the relevant landlord policies are its ASB policy, CCTV guidance, and code of professional conduct.
The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that when ASB is reported, it will gather information about the problem. Each case will be handled based on the individual circumstances of the complaint and will involve evidence gathering by the landlord and complainant to ensure appropriate action is taken.
In line with the policy, actions which the landlord can take to address ASB include interviews, formal warning letters, acceptable behaviour agreements, and immediate legal interventions where appropriate.

Neighbour X

The resident reported concerns surrounding gang activity to this Service from neighbour X’s property. However, records show that no reports of gang activity were reported to the landlord between May 2022 until November 2022.
The resident reported to the landlord in July 2022 that an individual outside neighbour X’s property had sprayed a hose pipe around and questioned the resident’s use of the alleyway. She said that they did not live there and needed to be evicted. In response, the landlord asked the resident to assist her identifying the individual, and stated that it had visited neighbour X’s property on 14 June 2022 and spoken to neighbour X. Following this there were no further reports of ASB from the neighbour, or mention of gang activity to the landlord. The landlord’s response was appropriate given the information available to it.

Neighbour Y

The resident made reports from May 2022 that neighbour Y was making loud banging noises and playing music in the early hours of the morning at the weekend. She also reported them throwing rubbish into the alleyway behind the property and into her garden. In response to these reports, the landlord provided the resident with details of the noise app and asked her to send photo evidence of rubbish which had been thrown into her garden. It advised the resident that having listened to previous recordings, it could not hear any noise. It set the resident’s expectations by advising it would require evidence in order to take any action over the neighbours.
Records show that historically the resident raised similar concerns surrounding noise nuisance and rubbish being thrown by neighbour Y. However, the landlord recorded it had not previously received evidence from the resident to substantiate the claims. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to request further evidence when the reports were made again.
The landlord’s ASB policy describes grounds in which an ASB case will be closed, including:
1. Where the complainant fails to assist in providing evidence and the landlord cannot take any further action without their assistance
2. Where no evidence exists or has been provided to prove that incidents of ASB have occurred.
Following her report in May 2022, the resident did not provide any noise app submissions, or further evidence. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to close the case on 14 June 2022. The resident’s housing officer provided the resident with a letter explaining the reasons why the case had been closed and attempted to visit the resident to discuss it further. However, it recorded that no one was in.
The resident raised noise reports of children playing outside her property throughout the complaints process. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will inform parties whether an issue is considered to be ASB or not. The landlord complied with its ASB policy by advising the resident that complaints received about reasonable domestic noise and children playing would not constitute ASB. It added that the landlord would not have powers to act in relation to these reports. The landlord confirmed to this Service that no noise app recordings were received between May 2022 until November 2022.
The resident reported neighbour Y leaving dog waste in their garden and throwing it into the resident’s property on 21 June 2022 and 2 July 2022. The landlord’s ASB policy states that its investigation will involve evidence gathering by the landlord and complainant to ensure appropriate action is taken. The landlord attended the estate on 16 June 2022 and completed an unannounced visit to neighbour Y on 6 July 2022 to investigate the claims. On both occasions the landlord did not find any evidence of dog fouling and was unable to take action. Further, the resident had not provided any evidence of dog fouling. The landlord investigated the matter in line with its policy and informed the resident of its findings in writing following its investigation.
On 7 July 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her garden fencing had been ripped down by neighbour Y’s partner. In response, the landlord sent an enquiry to the police on 11 July 2022 and visited the neighbour to discuss the allegation on 6 September 2022. The police advised the landlord on 26 September 2022 that the neighbour’s partner had admitted damaging the resident’s fence following CCTV being disclosed to the police. Further, it informed the landlord that the matter was being dealt with as a low-level offence as an out of court caution. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy whereby the landlord will (where possible) work in partnership with partner agencies to facilitate the resolution of ASB. Moreover, the landlord completed enquiries in a timely manner.
A new ASB case was opened in September 2022 once evidence of ASB was obtained.
The landlord noted following a visit to neighbour Y’s property that the resident had installed the fencing herself. It was recorded as being unconventional and hazardous in places due to large, exposed screws. The landlord advised the resident that by not removing the screws, this potentially aggravated neighbour Y. It, however, did not condone neighbour Y’s partner’s actions. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that the landlord will “support, direct and encourage subjects to address behaviour that is putting their tenancy, themselves and others at risk”. The landlord followed its ASB policy by raising safety concerns with the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to request for the resident to remove the exposed screws given the concerns.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update on its findings. It said it would send a warning letter to neighbour Y regarding the damage to her fence. Records show the landlord sent the letter shortly after, on 17 October 2022. In light of the information which the landlord had available to it, the landlord’s response to the report was proportionate.
When liaising with the police, the landlord was informed that the resident’s CCTV footage was overlooking neighbour Y’s garden and was intrusive. The landlord advised the resident that she did not have its permission for her cameras to overlook the boundaries of her property. It therefore asked for the CCTV to be repositioned. This was in line with the landlord’s CCTV policy whereby residents must ensure CCTV is set up in a way that respects other people’s privacy. It was appropriate for the landlord to alert the resident of her obligations when reviewing evidence.
On occasions the resident asked the landlord to take legal action and evict neighbour Y. In order for a landlord to take action against a tenant for ASB, it would have to be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. This is in the interests of all parties including the landlord, the resident, and the neighbour accused of ASB, who the landlord is obligated to treat as fairly as the resident. This Service has not seen evidence which warranted further action than was taken.
As there was a history of long-standing reports of ASB from the resident, including counter allegations from neighbour Y, the landlord frequently opened and closed ASB cases over the years. In cases like this, this Service would expect a landlord to use their full complement of ASB tools in an attempt to resolve the ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines a number of ASB tools available to it such as using acceptable behaviour agreements which may have been appropriate in this case. The landlord offered mediation to the neighbours in 2016. However, it does not appear that this option was revisited. The landlord is therefore recommended to consider re-approaching past options in an attempt to tackle the ASB cycle.
Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports was appropriate, considering all the circumstances of the case. This is because it adequately investigated the issues in accordance with its ASB policy, took reasonable action in response to issues raised, liaised with the police, and communicated well with the resident. Therefore, there was no maladministration identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbours.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of her housing officer.

The resident complained that her housing officer evidenced bias when dealing with her ASB reports. She reported finding them “condescending and wicked” and felt threatened. Further, she was dissatisfied that she had received a warning letter from the landlord and requested a new housing officer.
In response to the claims, a manager completed a review of the housing officer’s communication with the resident and advised that it had not identified any concerning behaviour from the housing officer. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with the opportunity to forward specific communication for it to further investigate. However, the resident did not provide any further evidence.
The landlord’s code of professional conduct highlights the importance of staff maintaining professional relationships with customers. Having reviewed the housing officer’s communication with the resident, the officer handled the reports of ASB in an impartial manner, appropriately communicated, and responded to all the resident’s reports of ASB. This Service has not seen any evidence of unprofessional or inappropriate behaviour from the housing officer. The landlord reassured the resident within its stage 2 response that there was no conflict of interest for the housing officer.
The landlord issued a warning letter on 19 October 2022 to the resident following the resident’s communication with the housing officer on 3 August 2022, 29 September 2022, and 10 October 2022. Having reviewed the correspondence, the resident used challenging language when communicating with the housing officer. In light of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to issue the resident a warning letter in line with its unreasonable persistent complaints policy.
Overall, the landlord acted in line with its policies and no unreasonable conduct was identified from the resident’s housing officer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

The resident contacted the landlord on 7 July 2022 after her neighbour damaged her fence. However, the landlord noted it would not open a complaint, and instead would communicate with the resident about her removing the screws from her fence. It did not inform the resident that her complaint request had been refused. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy whereby the landlord should keep the customer informed and clearly communicate how it will resolve the complaint. The landlord should have logged the complaint, provided acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a formal response within 10 working days.
The landlord did not provide a stage 1 complaint response until after the resident had contacted the landlord again on 12 October 2022 requesting to raise a complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022, over 3 months after she initially raised the complaint.
The landlord advised that feedback had been passed to the relevant team, and the resident was offered £100 compensation to put things right. This Service deems the offer reasonable for the landlord’s failure to log and respond to the resident’s complaint in July 2022.
However, it is worth noting that the landlord offered the £100 compensation for its failure in 2023, a year after the complaint. By revisiting its complaint handling after completing the complaint’s procedure, the subsequent response can be seen to undermine the trust and confidence in fairness and consistency of the landlord’s decision making.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of her housing officer.
In accordance with paragraph 53c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to consider all ASB tools available to it, and revisit past options where appropriate in an attempt to tackle the ongoing ASB in this case.
The landlord is recommended to consider its approach to reopening complaints after a final response has been issued.