South Liverpool Homes Limited (202214749)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214749

South Liverpool Homes Limited

23 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived at the property since November 2009. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The landlord’s records showed that the resident has a number of health conditions, one of which is a disability. The landlord acknowledged the need to consider those as part of its investigation into the ASB.
The person who is the subject of the resident’s ASB complaints is a tenant of the landlord and lives in the adjacent property to the resident. For the purpose of clarity, this person will be referred to as ‘the neighbour’ in this report.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says it will not investigate one off incidents, minor arguments between residents, or lifestyles clashes under its ASB policy. The policy describes the landlord’s approach to investigating ASB. It says that:
1. On receipt of ASB reports, the landlord will speak to all parties. It will carry out a risk assessment to assess the complainant’s vulnerability. It will provide residents with regular updates and review the case with them.
2. It will require the assistance and on-going involvement of the complainant during the investigation to gather evidence. It will consider their needs when deciding on the method for gathering evidence to ensure they can engage with the investigation process. It will review all evidence provided.
3. It will consider a range of activities to resolve the ASB as part of its investigation. It will use tenancy warnings, mediation, good neighbour contracts, signposting residents to support services, offering witness support, and taking legal action. It will work in partnerships with other agencies. It will promote the community trigger.
4. It will inform the resident when closing the case and explain the reasons.
The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the resident can request a review and escalate the complaint to stage 2. The request to escalate should be made within 10 working days. The landlord will respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Between June 2011 and October 2020, the landlord investigated 7 ASB cases between the resident and the neighbour. Those reports are not part of this investigation. They do, however, offer some context.
The landlord’s records showed that during that period, the resident had made reports of noise nuisance from the neighbour’s wind chimes. The resident and the neighbour provided medical evidence of their health conditions to the landlord. The landlord considered the evidence as part of its investigation and said both parties had reasonable explanations to support their claims about the wind chimes. The landlord offered mediation, took legal advice, contacted the local authority’s environmental health department (EH), and reminded both parties of their obligations under their tenancy agreement.
In 2017, during a conversation with the landlord, the neighbour agreed to tie up her wind chimes at night. This was an informal agreement.
On 24 August 2020, the landlord’s records showed it had received confirmation from the resident’s GP that the resident suffered from PTSD and depression.
Following ASB reports from the resident, the landlord opened and investigated 5 ASB cases between July 2021 and July 2023. All alleged ASB incidents involved the neighbour or their family members. The resident reported:
1. Noise nuisance caused by the neighbour’s wind chimes, TV, and doorbell.
2. An invasion of privacy caused by the neighbour’s cameras pointing towards his property.
3. Stones, a brick, and a pizza slice being thrown into his garden.
4. Threats of violence.
5. Verbal abuse and name calling.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 30 July 2021, and met the resident to discuss his ASB complaint against the neighbour. The resident reported that the neighbour’s TV was too loud and that the neighbour failed to tie up her wind chimes on one night. The landlord reminded the resident that it had investigated the complaints several times in the past and had been unable to find a resolution. Together they devised an action plan and the resident agreed to use the landlord’s noise app to record the noise and submit diary sheets for 2 weeks.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord reviewed the ASB case with the resident. The resident had provided 10 noise recordings over the 2 weeks. The recordings showed that the neighbour had not tied up the wind chimes as agreed. The landlord reminded the resident that following legal advice they could not take legal actions against the neighbour for this issue.It agreed to speak to the neighbour but reminded the resident that it could not make her remove the windchimes. The conversation between the resident and the landlord was focused on the nuisance from the wind chimes and did not discuss nuisance from the TV.
The records showed that between 12 August 2021 and 14 August 2021, the landlord discussed the issue of the wind chimes with the neighbour. It concluded that the neighbour had forgotten to tie up the wind chimes at night. It also offered mediation, which was refused. The landlord shared its findings with the resident.
On 14 August 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it reviewed the evidence provided and took legal advice. It advised the resident that no reasonable legal action could be taken regarding the wind chimes. It discussed the issue with the neighbour and tried to resolve the situation. The neighbour agreed to put measures in place to remind herself to tie the wind chimes at night. The landlord informed the resident that it was closing the case.
Between 21 September 2021 and 23 September 2021, the landlord liaised with the police. The parties discussed the resident’s report to the police of a hate crime and issues with the neighbour’s CCTV cameras.
The landlord opened another ASB case on 20 October 2021, following further ASB reports from the resident. The resident complained about the neighbour’s TV being too loud, the angle of the neighbour’s CCTV, and an incident with her doorbell. The records showed that the landlord discussed the doorbell incident with the neighbour and reviewed the noise recordings provided.
On 20 October 2021, the landlord informed the resident of its intention to close the case. It said that it had found no evidence to support the reports that the neighbour was causing ASB. The resident said he did not think the noise app was suitable and he would use his own device to record the noise nuisance. The landlord contacted the noise app provider for advice. It found no issue with the noise app or with the resident using the app on his device.
On 25 October 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident and agreed to check the camera angles of the neighbour’s CCTV. During the same conversation, the landlord reiterated that the wind chimes were not an ASB issue. The resident disagreed. On the same day, the resident informed the landlord that the police planned to issue a warning to the neighbour for harassing him. The landlord liaised with the police, who denied saying this to the resident. The police also confirmed that it had told the resident that it could not advice the neighbour to take her CCTV down.
The resident was unhappy with the handling of his ASB reports and raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 25 October 2021. The complaint stated:
1. Staff had been condescending and patronising during a conversation on 25 October 2021. Information provided by staff in a letter on 20 October 2021 was contradictory and he felt his complaints had been dismissed.
2. Staff were biased towards the neighbour.
3. The landlord should not take complaints from members of the public, such as the neighbour’s family members.
4. The landlord should re-open its previous ASB cases instead of opening new cases for similar complaints.
5. The resident said that it had suffered from ASB from the neighbour for 13 years.
The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 11 November 2021. The landlord thanked the resident for agreeing to delay the stage 1 response. It said that:
1. Reviewing its records, listening to telephone calls and speaking to staff, it concluded that:
  1. Staff had not been patronising or condescending towards the resident.
  2. Staff did not have a personal relationship with the neighbour and it found no evidence of bias.
2. The resident’s ASB complaints had not been dismissed and that it had investigated the issues intermittently since 2016. The landlord said the resident and the neighbour had both provided medical evidence to support their case. It explained that the issues had been difficult to investigate and it had been unable to take enforcement action. It explained:
  1. An agreement had been reached and the neighbour had agreed to tie up the wind chimes when they were not using the garden. The neighbour recognised that at times, they had forgotten to do this. It confirmed that the neighbour had put steps in place to prevent them forgetting. The resident had informed the landlord this was no longer an issue.
  2. It found no supporting evidence that the neighbour’s TV was too loud and a breach of tenancy. It explained that the neighbour denied the allegations and it had been unable to secure sound recordings or independent evidence regarding the nuisance. As a result, it closed the case.
  3. It had checked the neighbour’s CCTV cameras and concluded there was no tenancy breach.
3. As per its ASB policy, when cases had been closed for over 12 weeks,the landlord would open a new ASB case if it received further reports. It confirmed that for all cases, it would consider historical complaints to reflect on and identify patterns of behaviour.
4. As stated in its customer feedback policy, it would accept complaints from members of the public including a resident’s family member.
5. The resident explained that the ASB was on going, therefore it agreed to:
  1. continue investigating the issues.
  2. review the ASB investigation with the resident every 2 weeks.
  3. provide the resident with the link to complete the diary sheets.
6. The resident could request an escalation to stage 2 if he remained dissatisfied. It also said that the request had to be made within 10 days of its response.
The landlord re-opened the ASB case on 23 December 2021 and spoke to the resident about the ASB he had experienced. Between December 2021 and May 2022, the resident reported that the neighbour’s TV was too loud, a brick and stones were thrown into his garden, and a pizza slice was also thrown into his garden. The resident advised he was being supported by the British Legion. The landlord discussed other support available to the resident. The records showed that the landlord and resident agreed the following action plan, as well as when the actions were completed:
1. The landlord would refer the resident to its health and wellbeing team. The landlord made the referral on 24 December 2021. The resident declined the service on 7 January 2022.
2. The resident provided verbal consent for the landlord to share his ASB complaints with the neighbour.
3. The resident agreed to submit recordings of the nuisance to the landlord using his own device. He agreed to contact the police if further incidents occurred.
The landlord carried out a risk assessment matrix with the resident on 23 December 2021. The risk assessment was scored after assessing the resident’s responses about the ASB’s history, his vulnerability and the support available to him. The resident scored as high risk. Some of the actions suggested for this level of risk were to inform the police, work in partnership with other agencies, provide witness support, rehousing and notify a manager.
The landlord carried out a review of the issues on 6 January 2022. It reviewed the case and noted that witness support had been completed. It agreed to provide further witness support. It also noted it would advise the resident to complete diary sheets to gather evidence.
On 14 January 2022, the resident submitted 15 WhatsApp recordings of the noise nuisance, which the landlord reviewed and discussed with the resident on 21 January 2022. The landlord discussed the benefits of using its noise app instead of WhatsApp to record noise nuisance. It offered for the resident to submit recordings from both apps for the landlord to compare. The resident confirmed that apart from the TV being loud, no other incident occurred.
The records showed that between 2 February 2022 and 7 February 2022, the landlord discussed the TV being too loud with the neighbour and the resident. On 8 February 2022, the resident reported there had been no further issue with the TV.
On 26 February 2022, the landlord reviewed the case and provided an update on actions taken to the resident.
Between February 2022 and April 2022, the records showed the landlord liaised with the police and local authority on several occasions. The landlord and the police confirmed that the neighbour’s CCTV cameras were not pointing into the resident’s property. At the landlord’s request, EH agreed to install the recording equipment into the resident’s property.
In March 2022, the resident made further complaints about the neighbour’s cameras and the TV being too loud. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and on28 March 2022, EH installed the recording equipment in the resident’s home.
The landlord organised witness support to help the resident gather evidence of the ASB. Between 28 March 2022 and 7 April 2022, the landlord contacted the resident daily to record the nuisance he experienced. The resident reported noise nuisance on the first 3 days with no further nuisance for the rest of the week.
The records showed that between 1 April 2022 and 4 April 2022, the landlord investigated the issue of stones and pizza thrown into the resident’s garden. The landlord found no evidence that the neighbour was responsible.
On 6 April 2022, the resident acknowledged that he had not used the recording equipment installed by EH. The resident said that he believed the neighbour had been informed the equipment had been installed as things had been quiet. The landlord denied informing the neighbour. The recording equipment was removed on that day.
Between 14 April 2022 and 9 May 2022, the landlord made several attempts to invite the resident to meet and review the ASB case. The resident told the landlord on 9 May 2022, that he had experienced no further nuisance from the neighbour.
On 16 May 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident in writing that it was closing the case. The landlord summarised the actions it had taken during the investigation. It explained that there was insufficient evidence to support that ASB had taken place and no further noise nuisance was happening. It informed both residents that prior to discussing further allegations with either resident, it would require supporting evidence. It explained that both parties reported feeling harassed by the other.
The resident remained unhappy about the handling of his ASB reports and raised a further complaint with the landlord on 27 June 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and informed the resident it would respond by 11 July 2022. The complaint was about:
1. Damage to his property.
2. Noise nuisance from the neighbour’s wind chimes.
3. False allegations made by the neighbour against him.
4. Stones and mud thrown into his garden.
5. Threats made by the neighbour’s brother.
6. Staff being related to and having a friendly relationship with the neighbour.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 July 2022, they agreed to postpone the complaint response to the 21 July 2022. The landlord had arranged a meeting with the resident to discuss the complaint on 15 July 2022. It postponed the meeting, which subsequently took place on 20 July 2022. The landlord informed this Service it had verbally agreed a further extension with the resident.
The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 26 July 2022, which included the following:
1. It acknowledged the historical ASB reports the resident referred to in his complaint. It clarified that as per its complaints policy, it would not consider complaints which were over 6 months old.
2. It confirmed it always considered historical reports when new ASB reports were made. It explained that in this case, some of the allegations made were not ASB or tenancy related and did not warrant the landlord’s involvement. It clarified that in such cases, it would expect all parties to find a way to resolve minor issues between themselves.
3. It reiterated to the resident that no staff were related to the neighbour.
4. It summarised some of the actions it had taken over the years to resolve the issues: negotiating solutions, providing advice and offering mediation.
5. It confirmed that following its investigation, it was able to establish that the neighbour’s brother made verbal threats towards him. As a result, it had issued a tenancy warning to the neighbour.
6. It provided information on the next step should the resident remain dissatisfied following its stage 1 response.
Following another ASB report from the resident, the landlord opened a new ASB case on 7 October 2022. Between 7 October 2022 and 10 November 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident several times. The resident reported the neighbour failed to tie up her wind chime on 7 October 2022. He said it affected his sleep. The landlord referred the resident to tenancy support, and health and wellbeing support.
The landlord took legal advice about the wind chimes on 4 November 2022, which noted that no legal action was identified as an option.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord referred the resident to its stage 1 response provided on 26 July 2022. It reiterated its position on the wind chime and shared the legal advised it received. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to investigate the wind chimes as an ASB issue. The resident wanted the landlord to issue a warning to the neighbour for failing to tie up their wind chimes at night. The resident said he had not read the complaint response and requested escalation of his complaint to stage 2. The landlord informed the resident that due to the delay in requesting an escalation, it would need to consider his request. Internal emails showed that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability and accepted the escalation request on 10 November 2022. It explained the process to review a complaint and offered for the resident to attend with a representative.
The landlord shared its stage 2 response with the resident on 6 December 2022. It concluded:
1. The correct procedures had been followed and the Stage 1 investigation had been thorough and appropriate.
2. The landlord had provided high level of support to the resident and responded appropriately to his reports of ASB.
3. It issued an appropriate warning to the neighbour because of their family member’s conduct.
4. The use of the word “petty” was inappropriate and it apologised.
5. That in trying to work and mediate with both parties, it had exceeded its responsibilities. It acknowledged that this may have raised the resident’s expectations in what it was able to enforce.
6. The issue of the wind chimes was not a breach of the tenancy agreement and therefore not enforceable.

Post internal complaint process

The resident made further ASB reports between January 2023 and September 2023. The resident reported an incident of verbal abuse from the neighbour and issues with the wind chimes. The landlord advised the resident to keep logs of any verbal abuse or threats. It also sent the link to the ASB app to help the resident record any ASB experienced.
On 25 July 2023, the landlord liaised with a mental health professional. It confirmed that the resident had been referred for an assessment with the adult social care team and the outcome was pending. The health professional informed the landlord that the resident declined a referral to veteran activities and therapy but agreed to a referral to mental health services.
On 18 August 2023, the resident shared photos with the landlord of the decibel levels in the recordings he said he had made of the wind chimes. The landlord met with the resident to discuss the evidence.
In August 2023, the landlord liaised with the police about the incident of verbal abuse. The police confirmed that although there had been an argument between the neighbours, it found no evidence of threats or abuse. The landlord informed the resident it was closing the case as it found no evidence that ASB had taken place.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 October 2023. It informed the resident it found no evidence that the wind chimes were causing ASB or excessive noise. It advised the resident it had closed the case.
The landlord contacted this Service on 19 October 2023. It said that, although it could not provide an exact date, it had had several conversations with the resident about being rehoused. The landlord said the resident refused to consider a move on each occasion.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It should be noted that all the evidence provided has been considered. While this report may reference some historical events for the purposes of context, the scope of this investigation is limited to consideration of the landlord’s handling of the various ASB reports from July 2021 and until the final complaint response on 6 December 2022.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident continued to report similar issues about the neighbour to the landlord after this complaint had been closed. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord in the first instance through their complaints process.

ASB

It is evident that the situation has been distressing for the resident. The resident has reported that the ongoing issues have impacted on his mental health and wellbeing. It may assist to first explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide whether ASB occurred, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
It is noted that there has been a very significant amount of communication between the resident and the landlord. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matters.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains that incidents between residents due to lifestyles clashes or arguments will not be investigated under its ASB policy. The landlord expects the residents to resolve those issues between themselves. The policy outlines the steps it will take to investigate ASB reports it receives. It says that it will discuss the issues with both parties, keep regular contacts with residents, carry out risk assessments, agree actions plan and review cases with the complainant. The policy also says that the landlord will work with the complainant to gather evidence and work in partnerships with other agencies.
Between July 2021 and December 2022, the resident made several reports of ASB about the neighbour. The evidence shows the landlord responded to all the ASB reports made by the resident in a timely manner. It discussed each ASB report with the resident and the neighbour. The landlord kept in regular contact with the resident throughout its investigations. It agreed actions and reviewed the progress of the investigations with the resident. The landlord’s records showed that it provided the resident with written copies of their conversations, agreements, and outcomes of the actions taken. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident. The landlord’s actions would have reassured the resident that the issues were taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.
The landlord investigated the nuisance from the wind chimes several times over the years. It spoke to both parties, engaged with the resident to gather evidence, and spoke to health professionals. It considered both parties’ circumstances, the level of the noise, its frequency, and the impact. It acknowledged that the wind chimes caused an issue for the resident. However, after reviewing the recordings submitted by the resident, it concluded that there had been no tenancy breach. In addition, EH informed the landlord that it did not consider the wind chimes to be a nuisance. As a result of its investigations, the landlord determined that the noise caused by the wind chimes did not amount to ASB. It informed the resident that it would not investigate the nuisance of the wind chimes under its ASB policy. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
The evidence also shows that it took the reports seriously and supported both the resident and the neighbour to find a resolution together. It negotiated between the parties to come to an informal agreement about the wind chimes. It acknowledged that this may have raised the resident’s expectations about the enforcement actions available. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that it informed the resident several times that it had taken legal advice on the issue. It explained to the resident that its legal team advised it would not be appropriate to take actions against the neighbour for not consistently complying with the agreement made. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its legal team. The resident may want further action to be taken against the neighbour; however, looking at the nature of the reports, the Ombudsman is satisfied from the evidence it has seen that the landlord responded in a reasonable manner in the circumstances.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will carry out a risk assessment to assess a complainant’s vulnerability when it opens an ASB case. The landlord informed this Service on 4 October 2023, that some cases were opened for the purpose of suitably recording the resident’s reports, conversations, and actions taken. It confirmed that it had informed the resident it would not investigate reports about the wind chimes under its ASB policy. As a result of this, it did not carry out risk assessments for those cases. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
In July 2021, the resident reported noise nuisance from the neighbour’s TV. The landlord’s ASB policy says that loud music is investigated under the ASB policy. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to also investigate nuisance from a TV under its ASB policy. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment with the resident when it received the noise nuisance reports. The evidence shows that the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment when it opened the case in July 2021. This was a missed opportunity to assess the impact of the alleged nuisance on the resident and to reassure the resident that all his reports had been considered.
On 19 October 2021, the resident made further reports about the neighbour’s TV and reported an incident with her doorbell. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 23 December 2021. This was appropriate as it investigated both reports under its ASB policy. However, the landlord did not explain the 2 month delay in completing the risk assessment. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out a risk assessment when the resident first reported the issue.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s ASB policy says that the purpose of completing a risk assessment is to assess the complainant’s vulnerability. The outcome of the assessment helps the landlord to ensure the correct measures are in place to support the resident. In this case and as mentioned above, the landlord did not complete a risk assessment for each ASB case in timely or systematic way.
However, the evidence also shows that since July 2021, the landlord had a good understanding of the resident’s vulnerability and had taken action accordingly. For example, it offered a range of support options to the resident such as tenancy support, wellbeing support. It also said it discussed the option of being rehoused with the resident. It liaised with other agencies such as healthcare providers and the police. Those actions show that the landlord did consider the resident’s vulnerability and put suitable measures in place to support him. The landlord treated and supported the resident as if he was high risk. It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s failings to formally carry out an initial risk assessment caused no detriment to the resident or to the outcome of the investigations.
The landlord offered and used a range of media to support the resident to gather evidence. It used the noise app, the resident’s own recordings, CCTV, WhatsApp, paper records, the ASB app, online diaries, and witness support as ways of capturing the evidence. The landlord adapted how the resident could gather evidence based on his needs. It reviewed and discussed the evidence with the resident. Those were appropriate actions from the landlord. It was important to involve the resident in any investigation and to keep the resident informed of the progress and outcomes. This would have helped to make the resident feel that he was being heard and actions were being taken. The landlord showed good practice in its varied and adaptable approach to gathering evidence.
Between July 2021 and December 2022, the landlord worked in partnership with a range of professionals to resolve the issues reported by the resident. It liaised with support services, EH, legal, and the police. The steps taken by the landlord were appropriate and in line with its policy. The evidence shows that in working in partnership with those agencies, the landlord retained ownership of the ASB cases and did not delegate its responsibilities as a landlord.
For example, when the resident reported noise nuisance, it supported the resident to gather evidence of the noise via WhatsApp, witness support, and the noise app. It made every effort to understand the nature of the nuisance before referring the matter to EH. Between March 2022 and April 2022, it attended the resident’s property twice with EH to install and remove the recording equipment. Those were appropriate actions from the landlord and show it remained involved and retained the ownership of the investigation throughout.
The landlord offered mediation several times to the resident and the neighbour. Mediation can be very useful for residents to resolve issues between themselves and can help in developing good neighbours relationships. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer this.
The landlord investigated 4 ASB cases between July 2021 and December 2022. When it closed a case, the landlord informed the resident and explained the reasons for closing the case. This was appropriate from the landlord and in line with its policy. However, when the landlord closed a case on 14 August 2021, the landlord did not provide reasons for closing the case about the TV being too loud. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do this. It would have provided clarity to the resident on the outcome of each of the ASB reports he made.
However, on 12 August 2021, the resident and the landlord reviewed the evidence gathered regarding the noise nuisance. The recordings and the review were about the wind chime noise. There is no evidence the resident recorded any nuisance from the TV or raised the TV as an issue at the case review. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case in relation to the TV and it is not evident this caused any detriment to the resident.
Following a report that the neighbour’s brother had been threatening toward the resident, the landlord carried out an investigation. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and reviewed the CCTV. It concluded that the incident was a breach of tenancy and issued a tenancy warning to the neighbour. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced the community trigger. The community trigger gives victims the right to request a review of their ASB case. Once triggered, a case review brings agencies together to take a joined-up approach to find a solution to the ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will promote the community trigger for ASB which meets the threshold for a review. The Ombudsman notes that in this case, neither the resident nor the landlord discussed the community trigger. Since July 2021, the landlord investigated the issue of the wind chimes 4 times and found no evidence of ASB. It concluded this was a neighbour dispute. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to initiate a community trigger as the issue did not meet the threshold for a review. It was also fair on the part of the landlord not to promote the community trigger with the resident to avoid unrealistically raising his expectations.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the impact the incidents had on the resident’s wellbeing and the distress he has experienced. The Ombudsman considers that overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports have been reasonable. The landlord acted in accordance with its obligations, including its policies and procedures.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord failed to carry out one risk assessment and delayed completing another. The landlord also failed to fully explain its reasons for closing one case. After considering all the evidence and the circumstances of the complaint, the Ombudsman has determined that the failings identified were minor. The failings caused no detriment to the resident and had no impact on the outcome of the ASB investigations. Therefore, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

Staff conduct

The resident informed the landlord of his concerns about staff’s conduct. He said that staff had been patronising towards him. The Ombudsman do not doubt the resident’s experience but cannot comment on the interactions between the parties as it was not present. However, the Ombudsman can assess how the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about how he was treated.
In this case, the landlord investigated the concerns during the complaint process. It checked its records, spoke to staff and listened to recordings of conversations. It found no evidence of staff being patronising towards the resident and shared this with the resident. Those were appropriate actions for the landlord to take when investigating the issues raised by the resident.
The resident also explained to the landlord that he believed staff had a friendly relationship with the neighbour, were related to the neighbour and were bias toward the neighbour. The landlord investigated, it checked its records and spoke to staff. It concluded staff were not related to the neighbour, and it found no evidence of bias towards the neighbour. The landlord took reasonable steps in investigating the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman has seen other residents’ records kept by the landlord. It saw no difference in the way the landlord recorded interactions with residents. After considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff’s conduct.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s customer feedback policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. In this case, the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 25 October 2021. The landlord provided its response 3 days outside of its policy published time frame. The evidence shows that the resident and landlord had agreed to delay the response to allow the landlord to complete its investigation. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident made a second stage one complaint to the landlord on 27 June 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to open a second stage one complaint given the time that had passed since the previous one. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 occasions to delay the stage 1 response. It said this was to facilitate a meeting and discuss the content of the complaint. The evidence shows that the resident agreed to the delays. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 4 days after the meeting. This was reasonable and in line with its customer feedback policy.
On 7 October 2022, the resident requested an escalation of his complaint to stage 2. The resident told the landlord that he had not read the stage 1 response he received on 27 June 2022. The resident indicated that this was because of his disability. The landlord informed the resident that his request was outside its published time frame for an escalation to stage 2. It explained it would need to consider the request. The evidence shows that the landlord considered the resident’s disability and accepted his stage 2 complaint on 10 November 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to use its discretion and accept the escalation request.
The landlord provided the stage 2 response 19 working days later, which was appropriate and within its policy published time frames.
After considering all the evidence provided, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was reasonable and in line with its customer feedback policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has considered all the evidence provided and has concluded that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was reasonable. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord failed to complete one risk assessment and delayed completing another. However, the evidence shows that the landlord recognised and understood the resident’s vulnerability and did act accordingly. Since July 2021, the landlord treated and supported the resident as if he was high risk and their actions reflected this. In addition, the landlord failed to fully explain its reasons for closing one of the ASB case it investigated. The evidence shows that both failings were minor and had caused no detriment to the resident or impacted on the outcome of the ASB investigations.
The evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate and reasonable actions to investigate the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was appropriate and in line with its customer feedback policy.