Bromford Housing Group Limited (202201378)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201378

Bromford Housing Group Limited

22 December 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 response to the resident about:
    1. its handling of her ASB reports.
    2. its decision to extend the introductory tenancy.

Background

  1. The resident, who has vulnerabilities, is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in April 2021. The property is a terraced house.

ASB reports

  1. From April 2021, the resident made reports about multiple neighbours that included her being stared at and looked at over a fence; noise such as banging, music and shouting; drug use; domestic and communal arguments; suspected domestic violence; her child being slapped by a neighbour’s child; plastic being thrown near her property; her son being shouted at when he retrieved a ball from a neighbour’s garden; her gate being kicked at night; her car being damaged; and someone trying to run her over.
  2. The landlord was in regular contact with the resident and in response to the reports, it took action such as discussed issues with her, a representative and her neighbours; discussed issues with the police and the local authority; encouraged her to complete diary sheets and send new information; advised her to report certain issues to the police; discussed support in place for her and offered to refer her for additional support; encouraged her to sign a good behaviour agreement; and carried out regular reviews.
  3. The landlord offered the resident mediation, following which the landlord said in some correspondence that the resident had declined mediation, which the resident was unhappy with. The landlord subsequently acknowledged this could have been worded better; said mediation was still open; and said it had noted the resident was open to mediation at a later date.
  4. The resident submitted a community trigger for her reports of ASB, after which it was noted that the local authority were satisfied adequate action had been taken after reading case notes, and would not be doing a case review.
  5. The landlord discussed later concerns from the resident that it was not supporting her, with her and her representative. It explained that previous concerns were investigated with the police and no further action was taken due to a lack of evidence, and it explained that it had reopened the case after further incidents. It noted the resident said she had difficulty obtaining responses from the local authority noise team, and said it would provide details of a contact it had. The resident later confirmed she was in contact with the local authority and they would likely install sound equipment. The landlord noted that it discussed counter-allegations against the resident, and emphasised to her that this did not mean it was making accusations, but was in line with its obligations to deal with all ASB reports.
  6. The resident complained about the handling of reports about her neighbours involving ASB such as swearing, verbal abuse, drugs and alcohol. She was unhappy her issues were not being taken seriously and being treated as neighbour disputes. She referred to having supplied diary sheets, videos and crime numbers, and queried what evidence for breach of tenancy was required. She was unhappy being described as having refused mediation, which she felt was pointless. She was unhappy at being offered to sign an acceptable behaviour contract, which she felt an alleged perpetrator should be asked to sign. She said she had agreed to use a noise app, but submitted recordings still awaited review. She noted the landlord said police would take no action, but she queried its approach given police assessed criminality. She said the issues had impacted her mental health and her child was being woken up in the early hours.
  7. In its complaint responses, the landlord said its staff had acted line with its ASB policies and it noted that the resident had been informed about required evidence and diary sheets had been completed. It noted that submitted evidence appeared to be household noise, and recordings submitted via a noise app did not meet thresholds for it to take further. It noted the police said it was taking no further action which left it with limited action. It asked the resident to continue reporting incidents, and said it would continue to review reports and evidence. It noted the resident said there were incidents that had made her feel unsafe in her home, and said it was important the police were called first for these, who it would liaise with for any investigations. It also said that noise at unsocial hours could be reported to the police. It noted the resident had said that she was not in the right headspace when previously offered mediation, and noted this had since been re-offered along with ‘shuttle’ mediation, which she had felt was not appropriate for her at that time. It noted that it understood staff were arranging another meeting to discuss details of ASB with her, in the hope to resolve issues she had, and were awaiting her availability. It noted that she felt enforcement action should be taken against her neighbour, and noted that staff had informed her that they were unable to discuss what action they were taking due to data protection.

The introductory tenancy

  1. The resident commenced a starter tenancy in April 2021. The landlord later noted concern about the resident’s behaviour in voicemails and calls when raising dissatisfaction with its handling of ASB reports; her blocking its number multiple times; and her saying she did not want to work with staff. The landlord informed the resident and a representative that she needed to engage with it, and later said that it had decided to extend the starter tenancy for a 6 month period, to October 2022, to enable the resident and staff including a manager to help build a relationship to support the tenancy. The resident subsequently complained about her starter tenancy being extended, when she understood the tenancy of an ASB perpetrator had not been. She queried if it was a tenancy requirement to engage with the landlord; raised dissatisfaction with staff; and said she felt she was being forced to engage with staff who had not shown any understanding of her ASB concerns.
  2. In its complaint responses, the landlord restated its decision to extend the starter tenancy and explained this was to ensure the resident engaged with a staff member, whose role it was to ensure she maintained her tenancy and thrived in her home, and who it noted had been blocked for periods of time. It highlighted parts of the tenancy relevant to staff engagement being part of the tenancy conditions, and explained it was not possible to allocate different staff due to how patches were covered. It explained that it would complete a review after 3 months, and if it was satisfied conditions were being met, a fixed term 5 year tenancy would be offered then. It said it was keen to help build professional rapport and offered the resident another meeting with staff and a manager. It noted that she felt that her neighbour’s granting of a secure tenancy was unfair, and noted that staff had informed her that they were unable to discuss what tenancy her neighbour had due to data protection.

Post complaint

  1. The resident provides information that an injunction she took out against a neighbour was granted by court until 2024. The landlord provided information in April 2023 that indicates the same neighbour was since evicted. The landlord subsequently served the resident with a Section 21 notice for possession of her property, which it is understood she is in the course of appealing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have affected and caused distress to her. We also understand how distressing it must be to have been issued a notice for possession. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by our Scheme, which says that we may not investigate complaints which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. This means that, while we understand there have been later developments, our investigation focuses on events up until April 2022, when the landlord sent its final response to the complaint which exhausted its procedure.
  2. In cases relating to ASB, it is also not the Ombudsman’s role to determine if ASB occurred, who is responsible, and if enforcement action should be taken. We can assess how a landlord has dealt with matters in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether it followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances – which this assessment goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident about its handling of her ASB reports

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. Following ASB reports, it was necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies, such as discuss cases with those involved; use available tools to encourage parties against ASB; discuss and monitor the situation with other agencies; consider vulnerability; and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner, considering its obligation as landlord to treat allegations from all of its customers in a consistent and evidence-led way.
  3. The landlord reviewed noise reports and noise recordings, and found noise to be everyday noise or one-off issues, not tenancy breaches. It said residents were encouraged to resolve issues between themselves, and if noise was persistent and unsociable it could look at how it could help, but on a number of occasions it noted that it would speak to neighbours about incidents. It noted that it had evidence one incident of noise had occurred when a neighbour allegedly causing the noise was away.
  4. The landlord reviewed reports of domestic and communal arguments, and while it said it encouraged speaking to neighbours in the first instance, on some occasions it said it would discuss incidents with neighbours. It reviewed a video of one such incident and noted that it could not hear anything. For a report of domestic violence involving a neighbour whose identity the resident did not wish to disclose, the landlord asked her to encourage her neighbour to contact it, so it could try to help.
  5. The landlord reviewed reports of drug activity, and said it would discuss this with individuals concerned and monitor the situation, but it also advised reporting such issues to the police who it would then liaise with. The landlord also reviewed other reports such as plastic being thrown near the resident’s front door, and a neighbour shouting at the resident’s son when he retrieved ball from their garden, and provided feedback on these.
  6. The landlord reviewed reports of a more serious incident around July 2021, and noted that it advised the resident to report car damage to the police; that it would request further information from the police; and that it carried out a risk assessment. It noted safeguarding concerns and offered to refer the resident to a support organisation. It later noted that the resident said a neighbour issue had been addressed by the police, and did not want a visit from it to go ahead.
  7. In this case, before and after the formal complaint, it is evident that the landlord fulfilled its obligations to consider and respond to ASB reports. It discussed issues with the resident and others; it reviewed evidence; liaised with police and the local authority; and reviewed and confirmed a position on matters at appropriate times, with accompanying explanation.
  8. We understand the resident feels that the landlord did not do enough about her ASB reports, and was unhappy its approach seemed guided by the police. The landlord should consider action it can take and available intervention tools where police are not getting involved, but it is not evident that it failed to do so. The landlord considered the resident’s ASB reports and responded, such as set out its position or confirmed any action it was taking such as speaking to neighbours. The landlord took into account the resident’s wishes by refraining from further investigation at points, and suggested that she participate in mediation, which was in line with good practice to explore different intervention tools.
  9. The evidence overall shows that the landlord’s actions sought to be proportionate to the issues and evidence available, in the timeframe of the complaint. It clearly sought to balance the needs it recognised that the resident had, against the needs of its other tenants it had an obligation to treat fairly, and considered the evidence and available options before taking any action. The landlord’s actions for noise, for example, seems reasonable given its conclusions about the noise, and given around 6 incident diaries seem to have been supplied for the timeframe of the complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord or the police considered that the information available warranted further action than was taken or offered, in the timeframe of the complaint. This means that the landlord acted and made decisions in ways that this Service would expect to see.
  10. We understand that the resident feels that the landlord did not support her enough. The information provided shows that the landlord was mindful of the resident’s circumstances, understood her move was a big change for her,  and sought to be supportive by considering all her ASB reports; speaking to neighbours; providing advice about how to record ASB for it to review; regularly communicating with her and trying to adapt how it communicated; offering to make referrals for support; and trying to understand how else it could support her. The evidence overall shows that the landlord provided a reasonably proportionate level of support for the issues raised by the resident, and given its housing remit.
  11. It is understood that events progressed and the resident obtained an injunction against a neighbour, however in the Ombudsman’s view this does not automatically mean that there was fault in the landlord’s approach in the timeframe of the complaint. Where a landlord does not consider they have enough evidence to take formal action themselves, a resident always has the option to pursue matters separately if they wish.
  12. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands how difficult events must have been for the resident, and understands how she was affected, the evidence shows that the landlord balanced her accounts against all the evidence and was proportionate. It took into account her circumstances and sought to take a sensitive and collaborative approach in its handling of the case. It clearly took steps to try to work with the resident and her advocate. This means that the landlord handled matters and made decisions in ways that we would expect to see in respect to her ASB reports.

The landlord’s response to the resident about its decision to extend the introductory tenancy

  1. The starter tenancy agreed between the resident and the landlord says that the landlord was due to review the tenancy before April 2022 (the anniversary of when the resident moved into the property in April 2021), to decide whether to grant a fixed term tenancy; extend the starter tenancy for 6 months; or to end the tenancy. Under the starter tenancy, the resident agreed to work with landlord staff; to provide access when asked by the landlord, including for tenancy reviews; and to maintain contact with the landlord when it needed to contact her. The information provided advises that, in this case, the landlord experienced issues with communication and access in respect to discussing general tenancy issues.
  2. It is understood that these may have partly arose due to the resident feeling unsupported and misunderstood by certain staff. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and considered whether the staff had acted in line with ASB policy, and seemed to consider and address these concerns in an appropriate and reassuring way. This included offering a period where a manager accompanied the staff to visits.
  3. The resident also raised concern that her starter tenancy was extended while an alleged perpetrator’s was not. We understand the resident’s concern at being treated differently, however the landlord also seemed to address this concern in a reasonable way, as it would not have been appropriate to discuss the tenancy the neighbour had. The landlord is expected to treats its residents consistently, which it may reasonably do by assessing their behaviour against policies such as tenancy agreements.
  4. It is evident that if a tenant’s behaviour goes against the expectations of the terms in the starter tenancy, the landlord can consider and exercise its rights to extend the starter tenancy or to end the tenancy. In this case, the landlord’s decision to extend the starter tenancy for 6 months seems reasonable. The landlord did not extend the starter tenancy without basis, or without trying to explain the expectations under the tenancy, and the extension was in line with the agreement between the resident and the landlord in the tenancy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about its handling of her ASB reports.
    2. no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about its decision to extend the introductory tenancy.