The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202212729)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212729

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 January 2024

 

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’s reports of antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) and noise from her neighbours.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a terraced house.
  2. The resident says she has experienced ASB for over 6 years, and from the information provided, she made reports between 2019 and 2021 about issues that included noise, child safety, and drug use, while there were counter allegations against her. The evidence shows that the landlord opened ASB cases; spoke to the resident and her neighbour; liaised with external agencies such as the local authority and police; and arranged mediation. The local authority installed a noise machine on at least one occasion, and informed the landlord that there was not enough evidence to progress the case.
  3. Between March and September 2022, the resident made further reports about her neighbour, that included her neighbour’s visitors’ cars blocking access; their visitors verbally abusing the resident when she raised this; noise in the early hours; dogs barking; cannabis use; and overhearing a member of her neighbour’s household threatening to kill a police officer. The evidence shows that the landlord telephoned and visited the resident about her concerns; spoke to the neighbour; and updated the resident. It noted that the police had not notified it of any instructions, and noted that the neighbour said that parties who had smoked cannabis now did this away from the property. The landlord discussed the issues internally, noting that both neighbours felt the other was harassing them, and both had mitigating circumstances. It noted that mediation had previously been explored and the neighbour did not want this again.
  4. The resident subsequently complained that the landlord had not done enough to investigate and resolve the issues. She detailed how the issues were adding unwanted stress to existing issues, had impacted her mental and physical health, and caused her to miscarriage. She said that she wanted her neighbour to be evicted, or for her or her neighbour to be moved.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that the resident said that the issues had been ongoing for 6 years, but it explained that it was only considering events over the past 6 months in line with policy. It noted recent contacts it had received from the resident and the action it had taken, such as speaking to the resident, her neighbour and the police about the issues raised, and updating the resident. It concluded that appropriate action had been taken for reports over the past 6 months and no failings could be identified.
  6. The landlord explained how it handles ASB reports and explained how different teams handled issues depending on the type of allegations and report frequency. It explained that ASB cases rarely had straightforward solutions and it can be difficult to achieve outcomes if there is no evidence or clear breaches of tenancy.
  7. The landlord noted that the resident was seeking to be moved, or her neighbour to be moved or evicted. It noted that the reports were sporadic and the evidence did not meet the criteria to apply for eviction. It explained that eviction had a high threshold, and as it would need to demonstrate it had done all it could, it was appropriate to exhaust non-legal remedies before taking any legal action. It also noted that the neighbour would need supporting evidence to have priority for a move, and as the resident owned her home, it would be unable to provide any support with moving until she found a buyer.
  8. The landlord detailed how to report noise, ASB and emergency/illegal activities. It confirmed that if reports changed in their frequency or intensity, it would review the management of the case and ensure it was handled by the most appropriate team.
  9. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had not been contacted outside the complaint; complained that the landlord had not escalated its response despite issues continuing; and indicated that she was unable to use a noise app as the landlord had not authorised her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident states that ASB has been ongoing for 6 years, and she was informed that we may not consider events so far back. It is also noted that ASB issues have been reported after the landlord’s October 2022 final complaint response. We also may not consider issues and events that post date a landlord’s final response to a complaint, as we investigate issues that a landlord has had the opportunity to respond to under its complaints procedure. This investigation therefore focuses on events from March 2022, 6 months before the resident complained around September 2022, up until its October 2022 final complaint response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise from her neighbours

  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 is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies, such as assess risks; 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. 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 her neighbour; liaised with police; reviewed matters; and provided explanation to the resident to try to manage her expectations. It is evident that some of its actions were effective, as reports about some issues like the parking did not recur.
  4. The landlord was reasonable to consider that there was limited evidence to take further action such as evict the resident’s neighbour. In order for a landlord to take action against a tenant for ASB, a landlord has to be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. In order to evict a tenant, a landlord also has to be satisfied that it has the necessary evidence to convince a court that it is reasonable to do this. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord or parties such as the police considered that the information available warranted further action than was taken. It is recognised that the resident was distressed by the issues she reported, but it is not evident that there was frequent and persistent ASB that may satisfy a court, or evident that all non-legal attempts to minimise ASB had been exhausted, as a court would expect. The landlord provided signposting about reporting noise, ASB and criminal behaviour which, if evidenced to be sufficiently frequent or severe, could result in further action.
  5. The landlord was reasonable to say that it could not move the resident, as this investigation sees no obligation for the landlord to consider doing this for a leaseholder. It seems accurate that the resident is responsible for progressing any move from the property. It is unclear whether the resident’s neighbour wished to move, but the landlord was also reasonable to say that they would need supporting evidence to have a priority for a move. However, the landlord does have discretion to move a tenant to another property by way of a management move, which it is unclear it considered. It has scope to move a tenant in exceptional circumstances, where there is a significant and insurmountable problem associated with a tenant’s occupation of their current home. The evidence suggests this may not be applicable, however a recommendation is made to review if there is any current basis to explore moving the resident’s neighbour. This is something that would be between the landlord and the neighbour.
  6. The resident said that she was awaiting approval to use the noise app, however it is not evident that this issue was raised in the timeframe of the complaint. The landlord was in receipt of reports that the resident could not download the noise app, and a noise app guidance document supplied to the resident seemed to address this aspect, however a recommendation is made for the landlord to ensure the resident has relevant approval for the app.
  7. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands how difficult events must be for the resident, and understands how she is affected, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in the timeframe of the complaint was reasonable. It responded to the reports, investigated the issues, took reasonable action on the evidence available, liaised with other agencies, and provided reasonable position and explanation on matters. It clearly sought to balance the needs it recognised that the resident had, against the needs of her neighbour who it also has obligations to treat fairly. It provided guidance about reporting further issues, and provided suitable reassurance about how it would investigate further reports and review its approach where necessary. The resident has the option to continue to liaise with the landlord and other parties to build an ongoing record of ASB and noise she experiences, in order for the landlord to review its approach and consider appropriate action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise from her neighbours.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review if there may be any current basis to explore moving the resident’s neighbour under its policy that it may move a tenant in exceptional circumstances, where there is a significant and insurmountable problem associated with a tenant’s occupation of their current home.
  2. The landlord to contact the resident and review any support it can provide, such as ensuring she has relevant approval for the noise app.