Portsmouth City Council (202216271)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216271

Portsmouth City Council

16 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports made by the resident about his neighbour.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and Summary of Events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The tenancy commenced on 10 September 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor level access flat that has been adapted with a wet room, as the resident is an amputee and wheelchair user.

Scope

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
It is evident that the situation with their neighbour has been very distressing for the resident and his wife, the resident having reported concerns about the impact this had had on his and his wife’s physical and mental health. However this Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health. This is because an assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that the Ombudsman is unable to provide. Whilst we cannot consider these matters, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his or his wife’s mental and/or physical health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In his contact with this Service, the resident referred to concerns about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB against his more recent neighbour. It is understood that the landlord registered a new Stage 1 complaint reference CORP03034/23 about its response to the resident’s reports about this new neighbour. However, as this complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process it has not been considered in this investigation. This is because this Service can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. Nevertheless, as the resident has expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to that complaint a recommendation has been made for the landlord to discuss his concerns with him and then, if appropriate to issue a final response.
The resident has also expressed his concerns to this Service that the landlord has reversed its approval for a priority management transfer, which was agreed in April 2023. Again, this is not a matter that has been considered in this investigation as this post-dates the landlord’s final response in this case, and there is no evidence that a formal complaint has been made nor exhausted the landlord complaints process. It has therefore been recommended that the landlord discuss the resident’s concerns with him about this matter and then provide a response through its formal complaints process, if appropriate.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
During the period covered by this report, much of the investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB by his neighbour was carried out by the local borough council’s Noise Team (Environmental Health) and the Council’s Antisocial Behaviour Unit (ASBU). The resident also approached the Council’s Housing Needs and Advice Service (HNAS) on 18 October 2021 to request he be added to the Council’s Priority Housing Register. The resident’s request was reviewed by HNAS and rejected in January 2022.
Whilst reference has been made to these agencies in this report, this is to provide a context against which to assess the actions of the landlord, the actions of the agencies themselves have not been assessed. This is because the service provided by these agencies relate to the local authority’s statutory obligations and not to its housing activities, in so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing. As such, these matters fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and are outside of the jurisdiction of this service to consider.
With regards to the Mediation and Assessment service used by the landlord, as this is an organisation that is independent of both the Council and the landlord, if the resident has concerns about the standard of service provided by them, he would need to approach them directly to make a complaint through their own complaints process.
This Service acknowledges that the resident provided photographs and video recordings as part of his submission of evidence. However, this Service is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions. However, it is not disputed that multiple reports of ASB were made by the resident and it is the landlord’s response to these that will be considered.
It is also acknowledged that as a resolution to his complaint the resident suggested that certain members of the landlord’s staff be sacked. Whilst this Service has a wide range of discretion to suggest remedies, there are some remedies we would not provide. This includes telling the landlord that it should take disciplinary actions against a member of staff or terminate their employment. This report will nevertheless consider whether or not the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the concerns raised by the resident about its staff members and whether or not it took appropriate action based on the evidence available.

Summary of events

A new neighbour moved into the flat above the resident on 26 August 2021. An ASB report was made by the new neighbour, to the landlord, on 1 September 2021. The neighbour said that the resident had made him feel “intimidated”. The landlord referred the case to the independent Mediation and Assessment Service who interviewed the neighbour on 2 September and the resident on 8 September 2021. The resident said he had spoken to his neighbour around his concerns and indicated that he believed the situation would be “alright”.
Between 9 September and 18 October 2021, both the resident and his neighbour made allegations and counter allegations of ASB by the other to the independent Mediation and Assessment Service. This included reports from the resident of noise nuisance, including children running round, and the lack of carpets meaning that the noise was ‘‘horrendous’’. The neighbour also raised concerns about the resident’s dogs fouling in the garden, which he said prevented him from playing outside with his children, and that the resident was also using his rotary washing line.
On 18 October 2021 the independent Mediation and Assessment Service called the resident to explain that whilst the issue of the use of the garden would remain with them, the case had been closed with them with regards to the noise nuisance, as this had been escalated to Environmental Health. The independent Mediation and Assessment Service also notified the landlord of the concerns raised.
On 22 October 2021, the landlord visited the neighbour’s property. The landlord noted that the neighbour said that he did not have funds for carpets, which it acknowledged may be helpful, and that there was currently no funding available for this.
On 25 October 2021, the resident’s housing officer advised the independent Mediation and Assessment Service that they were receiving a high number of daily calls from the resident regarding noise nuisance by his neighbour. The housing officer advised that they would reconfirm to the resident the need for him to engage with Environmental Health and that they had visited the neighbour’s property on 22 October 2021.
Internal landlord emails between 28 October 2021 and 1 November 2021 show that the landlord was in contact with other agencies around the resident’s concerns about the welfare of the children in the neighbouring property. Those agencies confirmed that they were working with the family and were made aware of noise complaints.
On 12 November 2021 the landlord received a letter from the resident’s GP stating that the ASB the resident and his wife were experiencing was having a detrimental effect on the resident’s wife health. The landlord noted that this had been scanned over to the Council’s Housing Needs and Advice Service (HNAS).
On 15 November 2021 the independent Mediation and Assessment Service emailed the resident’s housing officer to confirm that they had closed the ASB case and returned it to the landlord. The reason given for this was that the landlord was handling the issue of the gardens and the resident had confirmed that he would be engaging with Environmental Health.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord received an email from Environmental Health who confirmed that noise recording equipment would be installed in the resident’s property on 30 November 2021. They said that the neighbour would not be made aware of this but that they had recently written to them and advised that they would be monitoring the situation for the next six months.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 December 2021 and said that once the noise recording equipment was removed, the noise started again. The resident reported his neighbour to the police on 18 December 2021 due to “a bad argument” with his ex-partner. The resident also said he believed the neighbour had been drink driving. The resident reported further noise nuisance from his neighbour on 20 December 2021 and said there had been several recent incidents, since the noise recording equipment was removed. He also repeated his concerns around the welfare of the neighbours children and said he had reported these to Social Services.
The landlord responded on 23 December 2021 and directed the resident to Environmental Health with regards to his noise complaint and advised him to continue recording any incidents of noise. It also said he should report any welfare concerns to Social Services or the police, and if he suspected his neighbour of driving under the influence of drugs this should also be reported to the Police.
Environmental Health emailed the landlord on 11 January 2022 and said they had received further reports of noise nuisance from the resident. They said they would again install noise recording equipment but could not act unless they found evidence of a statutory nuisance.
The landlord visited the property on 15 January 2022 following the resident’s more recent noise reports. The resident emailed later that day and said “after you left all hell broke loose”. He said that there was further noise and incidents of drug use and requested that the landlord take action to remove the neighbour.
Internal landlord emails on 17 and 18 January 2022 show discussions around the resident’s request for rehousing, which had been rejected by the Council, and the ASB he reported. The emails explained that sound recording equipment had previously been installed in the resident’s property but “there wasn’t enough for it to be considered a statutory nuisance”. The landlord also made a request to the police for information relating to the more recent disputes between the resident and his neighbour.
The landlord issued a warning to the neighbour on 19 January 2022 regarding the number of dogs in his property. It acknowledged that he was currently keeping 2 of them at his property for his brother, until 11 February 2022, and asked that, after that date, he ensure that he only had one dog at the property, in accordance with his tenancy.
The resident had a meeting with the landlord on 20 January 2022. The main concerns were the noise, name calling and the behaviour of the occupants of the neighbour’s flat. The resident’s expectations around responses to his communications was discussed and the landlord noted that he agreed that he did not expect a response to each one. It also discussed the resident’s request to move but noted that the resident said they did not actually wish to move, they just wanted “the noise to stop”.
Environmental Health contacted the landlord on 1 February 2022 following its most recent review of the recording equipment. It said that “although there was noise coming from the neighbour which was likely annoying for the resident”, they did not feel that any of the recordings are at a level, time, or length to constitute a statutory noise nuisance.
Following a report of a further dispute between the resident and his neighbour’s daughter on 7 February 2022, the neighbour was asked to attend a meeting with the landlord. The landlord outlined the complaints that had been raised around noise and behaviour of people at his property. The neighbour was told that the situation would be monitored and that action may be required if there was evidence of nuisance. A similar discussion took place with the resident around the reports he had raised. The landlord explained how further instances should be reported and what kind of evidence the resident could provide.
Throughout February 2022, the landlord remained in contact with the resident, his neighbour, the police and Social Services. The landlord also issued letters to neighbouring properties about how to raise complaints and remained in contact with the resident, responding to regular emails from him.
The evidence provided by the landlord confirms that a Community Trigger meeting took place on 10 March 2022. This Service has seen no evidence of what was discussed at the meeting.
The resident called the landlord’s out of hours team on 7 April 2022 reporting the neighbour and his girlfriend arguing and using drugs. The landlord contacted the police the next day to see if any further reports had been made in the last few weeks, as there had not been reports made to the landlord “for weeks”.
The landlord met with the neighbour on 25 April 2022 to discuss the number of dogs still living at the property. The neighbour made assurances that 2 of them would be going to his brother within a few days. The landlord also advised of further noise nuisance reports and warned him of further action if it continued. The landlord met with the resident’s wife on the same day and advised her of the evidence it required for noise complaints, that whilst noise monitoring equipment had been installed twice previously no statutory noise nuisance was evidenced, and directed her to Social Services over child welfare concerns. The landlord also advised the resident that the independent Mediation and Assessment Service would be in touch to discuss the issue of the dogs and the use of the outside space.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 April 2022 to confirm that ‘‘mediation had been agreed’’ over the issue of dogs at the property and it would look into the installation of a fence to separate the garden and form a “defined boundary”. An interview was conducted with the resident’s partner on the same day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 May 2022 and requested copies of the recordings from the noise monitoring equipment. The landlord replied the next day and said that he would need to seek this from the Environmental Health team who installed it.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 14 May 2022 and reported that the neighbours dogs had chewed through the internet cable to his property. The resident said the provider had advised that further damage would incur a charge for the repair and requested that the landlord fit a cage around the new cabling to prevent it from happening again. The landlord replied and advised that this was not work that it would be responsible for carrying out.
The resident emailed the landlord to report a further noise incident on 22 May 2022. The landlord called the resident’s partner the following day who provided further details around the noise. The landlord also received contact from the police, as the resident had reported it to them. The police acknowledged that the community trigger had recently been closed and said that the resident had indicated that he would contact the landlord.
The landlord invited the resident to a meeting on 10 June 2022 to discuss the ongoing issues. The resident attended and his neighbour leaving dog poo bags in the communal garden was discussed. The resident confirmed that there were now only 2 dogs at the neighbour’s property. The landlord discussed the resident’s use of CCTV and recording equipment during the meeting, to ensure it met the relevant guidelines.
The landlord contacted the neighbour on 14 June 2022 and advised him that he should not be leaving dog poo bags outside of the bins. It also made him aware of a recording made by the resident of him and his daughter shouting at the children. It advised that this had been directed to the Environmental Health team.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 July 2022 and said that noise issues continued and that the neighbour had left belongings and “rubbish” in the garden area. He also raised further concerns that he felt the tenancy only allowed his neighbour to have 1 dog. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 11 July 2022 and advised that it had witnessed the dog poo bags left on a shelf in the communal area. It said that they should be placed straight into the bin.
On 15 July 2022, the police emailed the landlord and the Council’s ASBU caseworker regarding an incident the resident had contacted them about. The police included the resident’s report which referred to asking the neighbour’s son to turn their music down and the son had making threats of violence towards them. The report also referred to the neighbour’s son using discriminatory language against the resident in relation to his disability. The police advised that an update would be provided once it had attended.
On 19 July 2022, the police emailed the landlord asking for an update following the community trigger meeting, which took place on 10 March 2022. The police said that the report was released ‘‘to the victim after it was completed’’ but that it was their understanding that the problem persisted. Having seen no evidence of this meeting, it is unclear to this Service who the ‘victim’ was that the police were referring to. The resident has been asked by this Service if he has a copy of the report but advised that he had not been sent one.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2022 to advise that he had contacted the police again regarding offensive name calling by the neighbours daughter. On the same day, the landlord received an email from the police regarding the incident. In their email the police confirmed that they would be attending a meeting with the Housing Officer and ASBU caseworker at the property that day and that there was no CCTV or independent witnesses at that time.
A further noise complaint was raised by the resident on 30 July 2022, the police having attended the night before. The resident reported ‘‘very loud’’ music coming from the neighbour’s flat and the neighbour’s daughter shouting at him when he went into his flat, using foul language to say that she did not care.
The resident’s wife reported a loud dispute between the neighbour and his daughter on 31 July 2022. She said she believed there may be footage on another neighbour’s video doorbell. On 1 August 2022, the Council’s ASBU caseworker emailed the police to ask if they attended the resident’s property on 30 July 2022. The ASB records note that the police attended and warned the resident’s daughter to turn down her music.
The Housing Officer responded to the police’s email of 19 July 2022, asking for an update following a community trigger meeting, on 2 August 2022. In their response the housing officer:
1. Explained that they had continued to receive reports from the resident and his wife and had received counter allegations of harassment from the neighbour, who they referred to as ‘the accused’. The resident had also made a report of verbal abuse by the resident, daughter and his son, which was reported as a hate crime and was currently under investigation by the police.
2. Said that the neighbour had concerns about the resident’s CCTV and what this may be capturing, and had made a report to the police about harassment by the resident. The neighbour had also said that he was aware that the resident and his wife had been canvassing the street with a petition against him. The housing officer said that they had not had sight of the petition as it had not yet been presented to them or the housing service.
The housing officer went on to address the actions following the community trigger which included:
1. For the landlord to consider a referral back to the Council’s independent mediation and assessment service to work with all parties to consider a restorative meeting or mediation to try and repair relationships (if both parties agreed.)
  1. The housing officer said that mediation had been considered and offered, however this was refused.
2. For the landlord to place a boundary fence in the front garden to ensure that all parties use/play in their own section and there are no further disputes (if both parties agree.)
  1. The housing officer said that:

(1) A boundary chain link fence with gate has been installed for the neighbour’s proportion of the garden.

(2) They had visited the resident, with a building surveyor on 12 May 2022 to look at the potential of doing the same with their garden. The resident’s wife met them on site and advised that they did not wish to have their garden fenced off.

(3) This was visited again when he met with the resident and his wife on 29 July 2022, and their stance was the same

(4) The landlord had also arranged for additional washing line facilities to be made available in the communal garden to reduce conflict around this.

For all involved agencies will continue to investigate any ASB reports made by the resident, or other neighbours, and take appropriate actions for any specific incidents that are evidenced.
1. The housing officer said that:

(1) All contacts from the resident had been logged and investigated, and relevant actions taken if appropriate.

(2) If evidence of breaches of tenancy were found, then appropriate legal action would be considered by the landlord.

(3) Any potential tenancy breaches had been investigated where appropriate and were appropriately addressed.

(4) Legal action was always the last option for the landlord and it would always work with all parties to ensure a resolution was reached.

For the landlord to discuss the use of CCTV with the resident.
1. The housing officer said:

(1) The resident’s cameras continued to be a concern.

(2) The resident had been given information relating to the correct use of CCTV as per the IOC guidelines.

(3) The resident did not have permission from the landlord to have CCTV attached to the property.

(4) The resident had been asked to write in to ask for retrospective permission to have the cameras, which he said he would not do as he felt he already had permission, which he did not.

The landlord called the resident’s wife on 3 August 2022. The resident’s wife explained that she had heard the neighbour calling her offensive names the day before and detailed the dispute between the neighbour and his daughter that “spilled out onto the street”. The landlord advised that it would await further information from the police and update her once it had received it. Internal landlord emails show that the landlord liaised with the police and the out of hours team to obtain details of the most recent complaints. The landlord identified that the neighbour had been asked to attend a voluntary interview with the police on 3 August 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 occasions between 6 August 2022 and 9 August 2022 about a swimming pool and other items being left in the communal area. Internal landlord emails show that it sought information on this matter with other departments and contacted the neighbour on 9 August 2022 to tell him that the items must be moved.
On 11 August 2022, the resident reported that his neighbour had 3 dogs at the property again. He also reported that his neighbour had not been cleaning up dog poo and it was leading to flies and maggots. The landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour the following day regarding these issues.
The neighbour contacted the Council’s Anti-social Behaviour Unit (ASBU) on 17 August 2022 and said that the resident’s dog had entered his property and “went for’’ him. He expressed concerns around this due to his children living in the property. He asked that the resident be asked to keep his door shut to avoid this happening again and asked when the landlord would be putting up the fence to separate the garden areas. The Council’s Anti-social Behaviour Unit (ASBU) sent a warning letter to the resident on 19 August 2022 around controlling his dogs in the communal area, following a visit to the property by the resident’s Estate Manager and a Council surveyor the previous day. The resident responded and disputed the ASBU’s version of events, as he said the dogs were locked in the property and did not impede or effect the landlord’s access to the property.
The landlord attended the property on 25 August 2022 to discuss installing a storage box for the neighbour to use, given the disputes around items being left in the communal area. The resident met with the landlord and said he did not wish for this to be installed. The resident emailed the landlord the next day and reiterated his position.
The resident’s neighbour emailed the landlord on 3 occasions between 28 August 2022 and 11 September 2022 about the resident’s dogs being loose in the communal area. He said that the resident’s dog had got into his property on 2 of those occasions.
The council’s ASBU officer and a police officer visited the area on 31 August 2022 and spoke to neighbours that had signed a petition by the resident about his neighbour. It was noted that around half of those spoken to said they had witnessed loud music or unreasonable behaviour from the neighbour. Some of the other neighbours said that they had signed the petition but indicated that they had no reason to but “felt sorry” for the resident when he told them of his situation with his neighbour.
The resident raised 2 noise complaints on 30 August 2022 and 5 September 2022. There were 2 unannounced visits to the property to investigate the noise concerns on 5 September 2022, at two different times during the day, but no loud music coming from the property was witnessed. Environmental Health contacted the landlord on 6 September 2022 and said it had offered to install noise monitoring equipment but the resident had not decided whether to go ahead with it or not.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 14 September 2022, which he followed up in further emails on 17 and 18 September 2022. The resident said that his complaint concerned:
1. Him and his wife having experienced ASB by their neighbour since September 2021, including noise, swearing, hate crime towards him and his wife, the smell of illegal drugs being smoked, being called foul names. The resident said that the landlord had done nothing, they were being accused of lying and the police had said that if they keep harassing their neighbour they would be ‘‘done’’.
2. That he had had 2 lots of noise equipment installed which he was told recorded no noise, which he said was ‘‘rubbish’’. The resident said he was told he was lying again and that it was just him who was complaining. The resident also said that he had been told that everything he had complained about was not a landlord matter.
3. The neighbour had 3 dogs in his flat, that were in a cage that banged on the concrete floor and yet his housing manager had told him that if the neighbour had to get rid of his dogs, the resident would have to get rid of his 2 dogs too. The resident also referred to being told by the landlord that he was in breach of his tenancy because his dogs were unsupervised, which he denied, and that he was called a liar when he said the neighbour’s dog had damaged his internet cable.
4. The impression he got from his housing officer and estate manager, was that they were not interested and did not want to know. The resident also suggested that they were both friends with the neighbour and, despite the neighbour having breached numerous parts of his tenancy agreement, had done nothing and were covering for him.
The resident contacted the landlord at least 14 times between 16 September 2022 and 21 September 2022 around noise, alleged drug use, name calling and the behaviour of his neighbours. The landlord attended site and noted that it did not witness any loud music or smell of cannabis.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2022 and wrote to him on 30 September 2022, inviting him to its office to discuss allegations made against him as well as the reports he had made about his neighbour. The meeting was scheduled for 10 October 2022.
On 3 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident advising that it would not be issuing its stage 1 response until 17 October 2022, and apologising for any inconvenience caused.
The resident’s wife attended the meeting on 10 October 2022 and denied that their dogs had been left unsupervised since the warning letter on 19 August 2022. The landlord offered to show video evidence of their dogs in the neighbours property on 2 occasions following the previous warning letter but she declined the landlord’s offer. The resident’s wife maintained that the neighbours caused noise nuisance, nobody had taken it seriously and that she would chase this up with Environmental Health.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 17 October 2022. The Area Housing Manager that provided the response confirmed that he had met with the resident to discuss his complaint. They also said that they had spoken to the resident’s housing officer and estate manager, as well as the council’s ASBU caseworker, who had supported his housing officer and estate manager in managing the neighbour complaint. In their response the Area Housing Manager:
1. Set out the actions that had been taken which included:
  1. Referring the case to the council’s specialist ASBU.
  2. Responding to a community trigger, and follow up, meeting.
  3. Liaising with the police, Environmental Health and other agencies to resolve the matter;
  4. Offering the opportunity to meet with an independent mediator.
  5. Offering to investigate whether a fence could be installed around his garden.
2. Said that at the current time there was no further tenancy action that could be taken, though it would continue to work on the case and with other all agencies to try and resolve the issues raised.
3. Said that they had discussed the resident’s concerns about the attitude of his housing officer and estate manager with him and with both of its staff members. Both the housing officer and estate manager had confirmed that at no time did they want to be coming across as having a dismissive attitude. However, many of the complaints related to matters not under their control, as the local authority housing team, and so they had to refer him to other agencies.
4. Said that they had found no evidence to support the resident’s allegations that his housing officer and estate manager were friends with his neighbour, nor did the resident provide any evidence that could substantiate this allegation.
5. Said that an action plan had been agreed with the resident which included:
  1. The resident contacting Environmental Health to discuss the response he was having from them regarding the noise complaints.
  2. The council’s ASBU caseworker meeting with the resident within the next week to discuss the petition he sent them, and the outcome of the visits the ASBU caseworker had made to those who had signed the petition.
  3. That not every element of the approach being taken could be disclosed to the resident as part of this was confidential to his neighbour.
On 24 October 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to request that his complaint be escalated to stage 2. The reasons given by the resident were:
1. Environmental Health had told him verbally that there was no point in them coming out again to investigate the noise and they had refused to listen to the tapes that he had recorded of the noise.
2. The Council’s ASBU team recently held a meeting with him and his wife but had failed to provide him with minutes of that meeting. The petition he presented to them, with 28 signatures supporting his complaint, had been reduced to only 3. The resident said that this was unacceptable
3. That he wanted the noise nuisance to stop and for his neighbour to abide by their tenancy rules.
On 25 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was satisfied that its stage 1 response addressed the points raised and that there would be no merit in it reinvestigating his complaint at that time. The landlord said that the Environmental Health team who had been investigating his reports of noise nuisance came under the local borough council and so he would need to submit a complaint to them. The landlord also noted that the resident was awaiting minutes and clarification from the council’s ASBU caseworker as to why only 3 neighbours from his petition were approached by them. The landlord said that it had copied in the Area Housing Manager who had issued the stage 1 response as he may be able to update the resident as to when these might be received.
The same day the Area Housing Manager emailed the resident to say that it was his understanding that the Council’s ASBU caseworker had called the resident’s wife that day to apologise for the delay and sent her the information that day. The Area Housing Manager also said that a letter had been sent to the resident that day from the ASBU caseworker that addressed the questions raised about the petition.
Following contact from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord on 18 November 2022 to say that we did not consider it fair and reasonable for the landlord to refuse to escalate his complaint and that we required the landlord to provide its final response to him.
The landlord’s stage 2, and final, response was issued on 7 December 2022. The Assistant Director of Housing that provided the resident confirmed that they had discussed the resident’s concerns with him over the phone, and had conversations with both his housing officer and the Head of Local Authority Housing. In their response the Assistant Director of Housing:
1. Confirmed that they were happy for the resident’s CCTV to stay in place, as long as he continued to comply with ICO guidance. However, this would remain under review.
2. Apologised that the resident felt the housing team were not responding to his concerns. They also explained that they had reviewed the records and were satisfied that, as the resident’s landlord, it had “actively managed” his case, were “working with several agencies” and that “action was taken on (the resident’s) behalf to try and resolve the situation”. It was noted that the neighbour had now moved and so this should reduce the likelihood of further incidents.
3. Confirmed that the resident had not received an “ASBO” regarding his dog causing nuisance, explaining that the letter sent to him was to advise him of reported nuisance and to ask that he took steps to avoid further incidents.
4. Confirmed that an agreement for additional fencing had been reached and the landlord would aim to complete the work to install it before 22 December 2022.
5. Addressed the resident feeling that the information he had provided was being ignored. The landlord apologised if this was how the resident felt. However, whilst the resident may not have seen a direct improvement in his neighbour’s behaviour, the housing team were collating the information he provided and taking appropriate action to resolve the situation for him.

Assessment and findings

Handling of ASB reports made by the resident about his neighbour.

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 whether the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
In the 16 month period between the neighbour moving into their property in August 2021 and moving out in December 2022 this Service has seen evidence of the resident making a significant number of reports regarding the behaviour of their neighbours to the landlord. These reports included noise nuisance, including children running round, loud arguments, concerns around the welfare of the neighbours children, drug use and the neighbour of driving under the influence of drugs, the number of dogs in the neighbour’s property and him leaving dog poo bags, and other belongings, in the communal garden, threats of violence and use of foul and discriminatory language.
In the same period, this service has also seen evidence of the neighbour raising a number of counter allegations about the resident. These allegations included the resident’s dogs fouling in the garden, which they said prevented them from playing outside with their children, that the resident was using their rotary washing line and one of the resident’s dogs entering their property which they said ‘went for’ them.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises”. The policy goes on to state that the type of behaviour which can amount to anti-social behaviour includes noise nuisance for example from loud music, vocalised noise such as raised voices and arguments and misuse of communal facilities (including dog fouling).
It is evident that the resident found the actions of his neighbour to be harassing, alarming, threatening and distressing and as such it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to his reports in line with its ASB policy.
The Council’s Housing Department’s (‘the landlord’s’) ASB policy confirms that:
1. If it is not an emergency situation, the landlord will refer the case to the Council’s independent Mediation and Assessment Service who will carry out an assessment of the situation and discuss the issues with both parties in order to find a resolution that both satisfies the complainant and which can be sustained.
2. With complaints where noise is the main issue raised, the landlord will liaise with Environmental Health and the Council’s Antisocial Behaviour Unit (ASBU). The assessment of seriousness of the referral to the ASBU will be made by the ASBU.
The above is confirmed in the Council’s anti-social behaviour guidance for council residents.
Given that the reports made by both parties did not represent an emergency situation, the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy in the first instance by promptly referring the case to the Council’s independent Mediation and Assessment Service following the neighbour’s report of 1 September 2021, shortly after they moved into their property. The resident’s reports of ASB were then referred on to Environmental Health and the council’s ASBU for investigation, again in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The situation regarding the reported ASB, by both parties, was also considered at a Community Trigger meeting on 10 March 2022.A community trigger (also known as an ASB case review) enables a victim of persistent antisocial behaviour to request a case review of their complaints in order to determine what remedial action should be undertaken. Agencies, including local authorities, the police, local health teams and registered providers of social housing have a duty to carry out a case review when someone requests one and their case meets a locally defined threshold.
It is important to note that, as explained in the scoping section of this report, this investigation will not cover the actions of Environmental Health, the council’s ASBU caseworker nor the independent Mediation and Assessment Service. The Community Trigger process itself also falls outside of this Service’s remit.
There is no evidence that any of the agencies involved in the investigation of the resident’s reports advised the landlord that the actions of the neighbour reached the threshold for any formal enforcement action to be taken against them. The landlord obligations with regards to these matters would therefore have been limited.
Whilst the resident’s urgency for the ASB to be resolved is understandable, ASB investigations can take some time to progress as there must be a robust evidence gathering and investigation process, as a landlord would need to demonstrate to a court that it, and any other relevant agencies, had taken all possible reasonable steps to tackle the ASB before initiating formal enforcement action. Nevertheless, the landlord would be expected to respond appropriately to any issues raised by these other agencies, as well as issues raised directly by the resident themselves, that fell within its housing management responsibilities.
With regards to issues raised by the other agencies. The independent Mediation and Assessment Service raised concerns with the landlord about the use of the garden on 18 October 2021. It is also evident that the landlord was made aware, at that time, of the issue of the neighbour’s flat not having carpet and the impact this was having on the level of noise experienced by the resident.
Internal landlord records show that the landlord made enquiries, following the concerns raised by the independent Mediation and Assessment Service on 18 October 2021, as to the layout and ownership of the gardens at the property in order to address the issues raised. However, by the time of the Community Trigger meeting of 10 March 2022, some 5 months later, there is no evidence of any progress having been made with regards to this.
The Community Trigger meeting also raised an action for the landlord to place a boundary fence in the front garden to ensure that all parties use/play in their own section and there are no further disputes (if both parties agree.) This Service has seen limited evidence regarding the landlord’s response to this action. However, in an email to the police on 2 August 2022, the landlord confirmed that a boundary chain link fence with gate had been installed for the neighbour’s proportion of the garden. It also said that it had met with the resident on 12 May and 29 July 2022 to discuss having their garden fenced off, which the landlord said that the resident and his wife refused.
Given that the resident had not agreed to the fence, it was reasonable and in accordance with the Community Trigger action that this was not progressed. However, that the landlord has failed to evidence that it took any steps to progress the fence issue with the resident until 12 May 2022, some 7 months after it was initially advised of this by the independent Mediation and Assessment Service in October 2021, was a failure on its part. This is particularly the case given that in November 2021 the independent mediator said that they had closed the ASB case on the basis that the landlord was handling the issue of the gardens, which they clearly did not do until sometime after that date.
With regards to the issue of the carpet, the landlord promptly visited the neighbour’s property on 22 October 2021 to discuss this. It is acknowledged that the neighbour may not have had funds for the carpet, however the landlord’s position with regards to this issue was somewhat dismissive and lacked a solution focused approach. It is recognised that both it and the neighbour may not have had funding for carpets for new tenants, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether there might be other sources of funding that it could suggest to the neighbour that would enable the installation of a carpet.
Although a lack of statutory noise levels limits landlords’ options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolutions. Given the impact the lack of carpeting was having on the level of noise being experienced by the resident and his wife, and the reported impact this was having on them both, that it did not go far enough in regards to the issue of the carpets was a failure on its part. This is because this service expects landlords to adopt a broader, pragmatic and holistic approach to noise complaints and not be beholden to statutory noise when considering whether they can, or should, act.
It was also recommended by the Community Trigger meeting, in March 2022, that both parties be offered referral back to the Mediation and Assessment service. It is evident that the landlord referred the case back to the Mediation and Assessment service in April 2022, following meetings with both the resident and their neighbour. However, this service has seen no evidence of mediation being offered and refused by the resident, as indicated by the landlord in its response to the police, regarding the Community Trigger outcomes, on 2 August 2022. It is unclear whether this was an error on the part of the landlord, or a failure to provide evidence to support this position. Either way this represents a further shortcoming by the landlord.
In order to seek to resolve the disputes between the resident and his neighbour, the Community Trigger also recommended that the landlord discuss his use of CCTV with him. This it did when it met with the resident on 10 June 2022. In its final response the landlord also confirmed that it was happy for the resident’s CCTV to stay in place, as long as he continued to comply with ICO guidance. It is acknowledged that following the final response to this complaint there were further issues with the CCTV, including a Community Protection Notice Warning being issued by the Police to resident. However, as these post-date the final response in this case, they have not been considered any further here.
The concerns raised directly with the landlord by the resident, which fell outside of the remit of the other agencies involved in this case, included concerns around the welfare of the neighbours children, drug use and the neighbour of driving under the influence of drugs, the number of dogs in the neighbour’s property and them leaving dog poo bags, and other belongings, in the communal garden. As part of his complaint the resident also raised allegations about his housing officer and estate manager.
The landlord visited and met with both the resident and the neighbour on multiple occasions, advised the resident to continue recording any incidents of noise, to report any welfare concerns to Social Services or the police, and if he suspected his neighbour of any illegal activities to report these to the Police. Internal landlord emails between 28 October 2021 and 1 November 2021 show that the landlord was in contact with other agencies around the resident’s concerns about the welfare of the children in the neighbouring property. Those agencies confirmed that they were working with the family and were made aware of noise complaints.
With regards to the issues raised regarding the neighbour’s dogs. As the neighbour had 3 dogs, it was appropriate for the landlord to issue them with a warning letter, which it did on 19 January 2022, about the number of dogs in their property. The number of dogs at the property did not reduce immediately and so it was appropriate for the landlord to revisit the neighbour, which it did on 25 April 2022. By June 2022 the resident confirmed that there were only 2 dogs at the neighbour’s property.
The landlord’s pets policy states that in flats or maisonettes with their own private gardens or yards, and which are the bottom floor accommodation, up to 2 dogs or cats are allowed. In blocks of flats of 4 storeys or below, 1 dog or cat is allowed. As the resident and the neighbour shared a garden in a low level block, the allowance of 2 dogs would not apply to either party, as this would only apply in the case of a ground floor property with a private garden. As the resident also had 2 dogs it was therefore a reasonable compromise for the landlord to allow both parties to keep 2 dogs.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour leaving poo bags and other belongings in the garden area, and the neighbours dogs chewing through the internet cable to his property. The landlord visited both the resident and the neighbour and wrote to the resident about leaving poo bags outside of the bins. Following further reports of issues with poo bags, items being left in the communal area and the neighbour having 3 dogs at the property again, the landlord acted appropriately by writing to the neighbour to again warn him about these more recent issues. The landlord also sought to install a storage box for the neighbour to use but this was declined by the resident. With regards to the damage to the resident’s internet cable. The landlord would not be responsible for taking any action to rectify any damage itself. However, it would be reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to consider what action it might take to prevent this reoccurring. This the landlord did by addressing the neighbour’s management of his dogs with him and with the suggestion of a dividing fence, even if this was somewhat delayed.
As part of his complaint the resident concerns raised regarding their housing officer and estate manager. In such cases, the landlord would be expected to conduct a fair and objective investigation, take appropriate action where necessary, and clearly relay its findings to the resident. This it did by discussing the resident’s concerns with him and then with both the member of staff in question. Whilst it found no evidence to substantiate the resident’s concerns it is clear the landlord took the allegations seriously and took steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and would have liked it to take more robust formal action against his housing officer and estate manager, ultimately as there was a lack of conclusive evidence it was reasonable for the landlord not to take any further action at that time.
This was clearly a complicated situation for both the resident and the landlord to resolve. In general the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by his neighbour were timely and in line with its ASB policy. However, there were some shortcomings in its handling of this case, the combination of which have resulted in an overall finding of maladministration. These included its failure to evidence that it took a resolution focus approach to the issue of there being no carpet in the upstairs flat and the unreasonable delay in it taking action to progress the installation of the fence. It is recognised that both of these failures would have added to the general distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and his wife, as well as their feeling that the landlord was not taking their concerns seriously.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised to the resident that he felt the housing team were not responding to his concerns. However, it is evident that the landlord was in reasonably frequent contact with the resident and in general responded to his concerns in a timely manner. Nevertheless, as set out above there were a couple of matters where the landlord’s response fell short of what it would have been reasonable for the resident to expect from it, which were not identified by the landlord in its complaint responses.
To make this right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident for these failures and to pay him a total of £300 compensation. This figure being in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests compensation of between £100 and £600 in cases where there was maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but where there was no permanent impact on them.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. The complaints policy states that the landlord will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 workings days and provide its response with 15 working days. At stage 2 the landlord will aim to respond within 20 working days of logging the stage 2 complaint.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 14 September 2022, which he followed up in further emails on 17 and 18 September 2022. In accordance with its complaint process the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, which it did, doing so on 20 September 2022.
In accordance with its complaints process, the landlord should aim to provide its stage 1 response within 15 working days, in this case by 5 October 2022. It did not do so, however, it did contact the resident prior to this, on 3 October 2022, to advise that it would not be issuing its response until 17 October 2022 and to apologise for any inconvenience caused. This was in accordance with its complaints policy which states that at both stages the policy states that if the landlord is not able to meet these timescales, it will let the resident know. The landlord then went on to provide its stage 1 response on 17 October 2022, as agreed.
The resident escalated his complaint on 24 October 2022. However, the following day, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was satisfied that its stage 1 response addressed the points raised and that there would be no merit in it reinvestigating his complaint at that time. However, following contact from this Service, on 18 November 2022, in which we advised that we did not consider it fair and reasonable for it to refuse to escalate the complaint, the landlord changed its position and issues its stage 2 response on 7 December 2022.
Given that the resident escalated his complaint on 24 October 2022, the landlord should have provided its final response 20 working days later, on 21 November 2022. However, its unreasonable refusal to escalate the complaint until the intervention of this Service, lead to a delay of 12 working days before its final response was issued. As a result a finding of service failure has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident £50 for the unnecessary inconvenience this delay caused him.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports made by the resident about his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

In its complaint responses the landlord apologised to the resident that he felt the housing team were not responding to his concerns. However, it is evident that the landlord was in reasonably frequent contact with the resident and in general responded to his concerns in a timely manner. Nevertheless, there were a number of matters where the landlord’s response fell short of what it would have been reasonable for the resident to expect from it, which were not identified by the landlord in its complaint responses.
In general the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. However, its refusal to escalate the complaint until the intervention of this Service, lead to an unreasonable delay of 12 working days before its final response was issued.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of this report, the landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report and pay him a total of £350 compensation, made up of:
1. £300 for the failures identified in its handling of the ASB-social behaviour (ASB) reports made by the resident about his neighbour.
2. £50 for its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident regarding his more recent complaint, landlord’s complaint reference CORP03034/23, to discuss his concerns with him and then issue a final response.
It is also recommended that the landlord discuss the resident’s concerns about his priority management transfer with him and then, if he remains dissatisfied, to provide a response to those concerns through its formal complaints process.