Bromford Housing Group Limited (202203141)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203141

Bromford Housing Association Limited

28 April 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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise disturbance.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat on the ground floor and in a block that was approximately 10 years old. The resident gave notice to leave her property on 26 August 2022 and moved out on 17 September 2022.
The landlord had recorded vulnerabilities for the resident and stated that the resident was suffering with physical ill health and mental health problems.

Summary of events

The resident reported concerns about ASB to her landlord on 1 October 2019. She said that the behaviour of visitors to her neighbour had been unacceptable and that they had been using her parking space without her permission. She also reported that headlights from their car were shining into her flat. The resident told the landlord that she had been treated disrespectfully and she was left upset and distressed by the situation.
The landlord responded the next day and encouraged the resident to discuss the situation with her neighbour and explain how their behaviour had affected her. It also offered to arrange for mediation, if the resident wanted it. The resident told the landlord that she did not want to discuss it with her neighbour and asked the landlord to pass on her concerns about parking and ASB. The landlord later told the resident that it had spoken to the neighbour about his conduct and use of her parking space. It said her neighbour had confirmed that he would be more vigilant about his visitors using her parking space. The landlord stated that it believed the situation would improve now the neighbour had been spoken to.
The resident told the landlord on 27 March 2020 that she believed she was a victim of hate crime from her neighbours. The landlord encouraged her to report the incident to the police. The resident told it that she did not want to report the incident. The landlord asked the resident to put her specific concerns in an email with dates and times of the incidents, so it could investigate. It is unclear whether the resident did so.
The landlord contacted the resident regularly throughout 2020 to ask about the situation with her neighbours and her concerns about ASB. The resident advised the situation was ongoing, but did not want to progress with the matter. The landlord asked her to put any specific concerns in an email with dates and times of incidents. It is unclear whether the resident did so.
In a series of emails in March 2021 the resident reported concerns about ASB and noise disturbance to her landlord. She attached a recording of a noise disturbance and stated:
1. Her neighbour was often shouting, banging on her door and ringing her doorbell and had been threatening towards her;
2. Her neighbour made a lot of noise in the flat above, often in the early hours of the morning;
3. She had concerns about her neighbour using drugs;
4. She felt vulnerable and that she was an “easy target” for her neighbours. She had referred herself to a hate crime support service, as she felt she had been targeted by her neighbours;
5. She asked the landlord to install CCTV at her property.
The landlord asked the resident to provide recordings of noise disturbance in one email. It asked for a list of dates and times of the incidents, so that it could properly collate the information. It told the resident that it had passed her request for CCTV to its ‘community safety team’ to consider.
The landlord spoke to an advocate for the resident on 24 March 2021 and said that it was still waiting to receive evidence from the resident. It asked for recordings with lists of dates and times of the incidents. The advocate told it that the resident felt she had been targeted because she was not born in the UK and is a woman.
An internal email on 23 March 2021 shows that the landlord considered the resident’s request for CCTV, but said it would not consider CCTV for “individual cases”. It would consider giving the resident permission to install her own CCTV, but it could only cover her own property and not the communal areas. It said that an ASB case should be opened. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of how this decision was communicated to the resident at the time.
The police contacted the landlord on 6 April 2021 to tell it that the resident had reported she had been the victim of a hate crime. The police told the landlord that it was not clear on what the specific allegation was, but it related to the resident’s neighbours. The police advised it had not seen any evidence that a hate crime had been committed.
The landlord met with the resident’s advocate on 30 July 2021 and an action plan was agreed for the ASB case, This detailed that the landlord:
1. Was in the process of giving the resident access to a ‘noise app’ to log incidents of noise disturbance;
2. Was trying to establish if the garden was communal and would ask the resident’s neighbour not to store his bin there if it was not;
3. Had asked the resident to report to the landlord when she could smell cannabis, and it would address the matter with the residents concerned;
4. Said it would investigate the sound insulation at the property, but it advised that the building was built recently, so the sound insulation would likely meet modern regulations.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 11 August 2021 and told him that it was doing an investigation into complaints about ASB and noise disturbance. It told him that it would do noise monitoring, as part of its investigation.
The council wrote to the landlord on 22 September 2021 to tell it that it had received a noise complaint from the resident. The council said that the resident had told it that poor sound insulation was the cause of the issue. The landlord and council exchanged emails in which the landlord provided the council with the certification for the building. The council confirmed to the landlord that it had told the resident that it was satisfied the building was not defective in relation to sound insulation. It advised that it may still investigate the situation as a “noise nuisance complaint” due to the alleged ASB from a neighbour.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2021 and told her that it had closed the ASB case. It stated that it did not have enough evidence to progress the case, as she had not provided any.
In an email on 23 November 2021 the resident told the landlord that she could not use the ‘noise app’ due to her health condition and a concern about electromagnetic fields (EMF).
Following further reports of concerns about ASB and noise disturbance from the resident, the landlord emailed the resident on 22 March 2022 and asked if she would consider using the ‘noise app’. It said it understood that she had concerns about the impact the use of technology had on her health. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 March 2022 asking for assistance installing the ‘noise app’ as she was having technical difficulty. The landlord’s records indicate that it did not respond to this email.
The resident made a complaint through a letter from Citizen’s Advice on 26 April 2022, which sated:
1. She had experienced ASB from her “immediate neighbour” with the support of other neighbours;
2. The ASB took the form of noise disturbance, dumping rubbish in the resident’s garden and obstructing the entrance to her property with his car;
3. The resident asked to be rehoused by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 April 2022 and told the resident it would respond by 6 May 2022. The resident told the landlord that she wanted to withdraw the complaint. She said that she did not want to use sound recording equipment, as she feared “reprisals” from her neighbours. She told the landlord that she could not use the ‘noise app’ due to her medical conditions and it had not offered support or an alternative. The resident told the landlord the only solution to the situation was for it to rehouse her.
Internal landlord communications on 6 June 2022 show that the landlord considered improving the sound insulation at the property, but it would need evidence of a high level of noise disturbance in order to progress. It had received the ‘building control final certificate’ and was satisfied that the property met the “regulations standards”.
Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord reopened the complaint and sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 6 June 2022. It did not uphold her complaint and said:
1. In August 2021 it had set the resident up with the ‘noise app’, there were “no issues with the software” but she had said it was not working and was unable to submit recordings;
2. It had provided the resident with information on mutual exchanges and support services;
3. The resident had declined the landlord’s offer to refer her to support services;
4. The police had taken no further action on reports made by the resident;
5. It had not authorised an internal move for the resident, due to the lack of evidence in support of the reports of ASB. It advised the resident to continue to bid for properties and to consider a mutual exchange.
The resident told the landlord she wanted it to escalate her complaint to a stage two complaint on 21 June 2022. She said that she did not feel safe in her home and it was unreasonable for the landlord to expect her to provide proof of the ASB. The resident told it that she felt vulnerable and isolated by the situation. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 July 2022 and said that the landlord had not provided a response to her complaint and she was “upset” by the ongoing situation and had been unable to sleep.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 29 July 2022 and asked it to provide the resident with a stage two complaint response by 12 August 2022. Following further contact from the resident on 12 August 2022, the Ombudsman wrote another letter to the landlord. It said that the landlord had still not provided its stage two complaint response and must do so by 30 August 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 26 August 2022. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the landlord cited issues with a “cyber incident” in July 2022 and a resulting issue with its systems, as a reason the delay. The stage two complaint response stated:
1. The resident had declined to meet with the officer conducting the complaint, so its response was based on the information it had on file;
2. It was satisfied that it had acted in line with its policies and procedures;
3. The resident was provided with the ‘noise app’ to submit evidence, but did not submit any recordings;
4. It understood the resident had been provided with noise monitoring equipment by the council, but did not share the findings with the landlord;
5. It found no evidence to substantiate the allegations that her neighbours were smoking cannabis;
6. There was not enough evidence to support the need for an internal move, but it understood the resident had successfully bid on a property and had given notice on her tenancy.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 September 2022 and said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two complaint response. She said that she was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with her ASB case and wanted us to investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy states that “as a general rule” victims of ASB will not be rehoused. In the cases where the landlord considers the complainant or perpetrator of ASB to be vulnerable, the landlord will take an empathetic approach. It will look to work with specialist agencies and may coordinate multi agency meetings. It states that it will form an ‘action plan’ with residents that are experiencing ASB.
The landlord’s ASB procedure defines the various stages of an ASB case. It defines stage one interventions as “investigations to prevent escalations in behaviours”. It describes the relevant activities for stage one as:
1. Visits to complainants and perpetrators;
2. Warning letters;
3. Robust conversations;
4. Referral to mediation;
5. Gathering evidence.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states it will use CCTV in ASB cases “where appropriate” and it will “assess the level of risk” in all ASB cases.
The landlord’s complaint procedure states that stage one and two complaints will be acknowledged within five working days. It says it will issue a complaint response within 20 working days of the request to escalate to stage two of the complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance.

It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB and noise disturbance. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
When the resident first raised a concern about the ASB from her neighbour, the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB procedure. Records show that it discussed the situation with the resident and, at her request, had a robust conversation with her neighbour about expected behaviours. It also told the resident about how she could access mediation services to resolve the issue with her neighbour. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances of this case and the correct application of its ASB procedure.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord contacted the resident regularly throughout 2020 to monitor the situation. It advised the resident of what evidence it needed to investigate further. This again was a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances. The landlord did not believe it had enough evidence to progress with an ASB case, but monitored the situation and encouraged the resident to provide any evidence that she had.
When the resident reported ASB again in March 2021, the landlord formulated an ‘action plan’ for how it would address and manage the resident’s concerns. This was in accordance with its ASB policy and it set out what was needed in terms of evidence from the resident to progress with a case. It advised what it would do to help manage the situation. This was in accordance with its ASB procedure and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The resident expressed a concern to the landlord that she had been the victim of a hate crime. The landlord took this concern seriously and encouraged her to report the alleged hate crime to the police. This was appropriate as a hate crime is a criminal matter, and the police would be best placed to investigate the matter and take further action as necessary. It is also noted that the landlord met with the resident’s specialist advocate to form the action plan for her case. This was in accordance with its ASB policy of conducting multi agency meetings with appropriate services. The landlord also discussed the resident’s concern about hate crime with the police, to understand the police’s position on the matter. This is evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concern about alleged hate crime seriously.
The resident asked the landlord to install CCTV at her property due to her concern about ASB. There was no obligation on the landlord to install CCTV at the resident’s request. However, records seen for this investigation show that the landlord gave this request fair consideration and had an internal discussion. It decided that it would not install CCTV. However, it did express that it was open to the resident installing CCTV herself. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord made a decision that CCTV was not warranted in this case, but understood the reassurance having CCTV may give the resident and was supportive of it.
The resident was of the view that poor sound insulation increased the impact of the alleged noise disturbance. There would be no obligation for the landlord to improve the sound insulation at the property, but it investigated this concern and gave it genuine consideration. It decided that it required evidence of the levels of noise disturbance before it would consider improving the sound insulation. This was a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances, as it concluded the property was of a modern construction and met regulations in relation to sound proofing. It was therefore reasonable to decide it would need evidence to support the provision of further insulation. It did not dismiss the resident’s request out of hand and gave it due consideration, which was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
In accordance with the landlord’s ASB procedure, when the landlord receives reports of ASB it should gather evidence. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, it requires evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. In this case, it was evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek evidence in line with its obligations. For example it asked the resident to provide evidence of the noise disturbance she experienced via the ‘noise app’. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances of this case given much of the resident’s concern related to noise disturbance from her neighbour.
The resident raised a concern with the landlord that she was uncomfortable using the ‘noise app’ due to her health conditions. There are also other instances of the resident telling the landlord she had experienced difficulties using the ‘noise app’. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction in her complaint escalation that she was not offered alternatives to provide evidence for the ASB case.
In the evidence seen for this investigation, the landlord did not engage in any meaningful way in offering alternative methods of providing evidence. This was a failing on behalf of the landlord. There are also instances of it not responding to the resident’s concern that she was having difficulty with the ‘noise app’. The landlord did not address this concern in any detail in its stage two complaint response, despite the resident raising it in her escalation request. The landlord placed a lot of reliance on the resident providing audio evidence in support of her case and indeed closed her ASB case for a lack of evidence. It is reasonable to expect it to provide assistance when a resident experiences difficulty in using its suggested method of providing evidence. This was a further failure on the part of the landlord to support the resident in providing evidence for her case.
The resident raised a concern about use of the ‘noise app’ and the lack of alternatives methods for providing evidence. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord would have engaged with the resident in how she was expected to provide evidence, and considered alternatives. The landlord did not display an empathetic approach in how it dealt with the resident’s concern and difficulty with the ‘noise app’. This was not in line with its ASB procedure that states it will have an empathetic approach when a resident is identified as vulnerable. The landlord gave cursory responses stating that she needed to use it to provide evidence in relation to its ASB procedure. The ASB procedure provided for this investigation does not reference the use of the ‘noise app’ or similar, as a requirement for evidence capture by residents.
There are also alternatives to gathering evidence where noise nuisance is concerned, such as asking the resident to keep a noise diary. From the evidence that is available, it is unclear why the landlord did not explore any alternatives given the difficulties and concerns that the resident had with the ‘noise app’. A more empathetic approach, with a greater level of support, may have eased some of the resident’s concerns and difficulties in using the ‘noise app’. This in turn would have supported the resident in providing evidence for her case.
The impact of the landlord’s failure to provide the appropriate support in relation to the ‘noise app’ is mitigated by the fact that sound monitoring equipment appears to have been used in this case. The evidence provided, suggests it was supplied by the council as part of its noise disturbance investigation. It is reasonable to conclude, that if the council had concerns about noise disturbance, it would have contacted the landlord, but it does not appear to have done so.
It is acknowledged that the resident wished to be rehoused as the resolution to her complaint. The landlord’s ASB policy states that “as a general rule complainants/victims of anti-social behaviour will not be re-housed”. As such, the landlord has the discretion to consider whether rehousing a victim of ASB would be proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord explained in both its stage one and two complaint responses that the case had not met the threshold for the resident to be rehoused. Based on the evidence that is available, this was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord showed empathy that it was not the solution that the resident wanted, but clearly explained the reasons for its decision. It also advised the resident of other avenues she could explore to facilitate a move. This was an appropriate approach, as it sought to manage the resident’s expectations and offer her alternative solutions.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment in relation to the ASB case it opened for the resident. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will assess risk in all of its ASB cases. It opened an ASB case, following internal discussions about the matter, in March 2021. In accordance with its ASB policy it should have conducted a risk assessment at that time, particularly as it had identified the resident as vulnerable. This was a failure to apply its own ASB procedure in this case and a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. However, the resident did not suffer any real detriment as a result of this failing. The reports of ASB related mainly to noise disturbance, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that its overall approach to the reports would not have differed, had it completed a risk assessment.
There is evidence of good practice by the landlord in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance. It took a supportive approach in relation to the resident’s concerns about hate crime and appropriately managed her expectations in its requirement for evidence to progress the case. However, the landlord failed to appropriately support the resident in its identified evidence gathering method and did not conduct a risk assessment, as per its procedure. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial stage one complaint three working days after she made the complaint. This was in line with its procedure. The landlord sought to investigate the complaint, but was told by the resident she wanted to withdraw it. The resident then advised the landlord, through the Ombudsman, that she wanted a response to her complaint. The landlord appropriately reopened the complaint and issued its stage one response. The landlord acted reasonably in regard to the stage one complaint, as it followed the resident’s wishes to close and then reopen the complaint. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response within the timescale asked for by this Service.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one complaint response and asked her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the procedure on 21 June 2022. This Service has not been provided with evidence that the stage two complaint was acknowledged by the landlord. This was a failure to correctly apply its own complaints procedure.
The landlord also failed to provide the resident with a stage two complaint response without intervention from this Service. The resident contacted this Service for assistance, and we sent the landlord two letters asking it to provide a stage two complaint response. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response 49 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was well outside of the time set out in its own procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that a “cyber incident” in July 2022 contributed to its delay in progressing with the stage two complaint. This would certainly have had an impact on its complaint handling. However, given the resident had asked for an escalation to a stage two complaint in June 2022, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was aware that she wanted to escalate her complaint. Given there were likely to be delays in its complaint handling, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have communicated this to the resident and managed her expectations. In line with the Code, the landlord should have explained the reason for the delay and when it hoped to respond. This was a failure to comply with the Code and conduct a fair complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s stage two complaint response did not acknowledge or apologise to the resident for its delay in providing the response. The landlord failed to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles in its complaint handling. The resident suffered a detriment due to the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. She suffered time and trouble due to the need to contact this Service to ask for our assistance in getting formal response from the landlord. She suffered distress and inconvenience due to complaint handling delays and described the situation as upsetting for her. The delay in responding to her complaint resulted in the resident being in a situation she found upsetting, without knowing the landlord’s position in relation to the matter and what it planned to do to address her concerns. Its complaint responses did not acknowledge that its complaints process had been lengthy and unfair and it failed to put things right by addressing the unfairness. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to concerns about its ‘noise app’ not working and did not address the resident’s appeal for alternative methods for providing evidence. The landlord failed to take an empathetic approach to the concerns the resident raised about using the ‘noise app’. It should have sought to manage the resident’s expectations on how it expected her to provide evidence to support her case, and explored alternative methods of evidence capture. The landlord failed to do a risk assessment when it opened an ASB case for the resident, which was a failure to apply its own procedure.
The landlord failed to apply its own complaints procedure and the Code in its handling of the resident’s stage two complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay. It failed to put things right for the resident when it did respond to her stage two complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified within it.
2. Pay the resident £350 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance;
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its procedure in relation to ASB and considers including information on how it expects residents to collate and provide evidence in support of an ASB case.