Citizen Housing (202214667)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214667

Citizen Housing

14 February 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 handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. Request to move property.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy on a 2-bedroom flat in a residential block owned by the housing association landlord. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. For the purpose of this report, the flat above the resident’s flat will be referred to as flat X. The resident of flat X will be referred to as resident X.
4. On 27 May 2021, the landlord was advised by the police that resident X was connected to gangs and involved in drug activity and firearms, and it advised the landlord not to carry out unannounced visits to Flat X. On 24 June 2021, the police raided flat X and seized knives, cash, and drugs, which it sent for forensic examination. It said the results from the forensic examination could take up to 3 months, and following the result, it would decide whether it press charges against resident X.
5. As the resident lived in the property below flat X, he was instrumental in providing further evidence to the landlord and the police. These were in the form of an almost daily diary, which evidenced alleged drug activity from flat X and of ‘slamming doors and banging items overhead, ‘people coming and going all night’, and suspicious activities in the car park. The resident also reported intimidation and harassment.
6. On 28 July 2021, the landlord told the resident that irrespective of the results from the forensic analysis, it would commence possession proceedings. However, it explained that due to the Coronavirus Act in place at that time, it could not serve notice on resident X before mid-August.
7. The landlord served resident X with a Section 21 eviction notice on 5 October 2021, which was approved by the court on 12 February 2022. Resident X had moved out of flat X before this time, unknown to the landlord. The exact date is unclear, although it was noted that the resident had stopped reporting alleged drug activity several weeks earlier.
8. In January 2022, the resident reported renewed drug activity from the car park. It is unclear which property this allegedly came from. The landlord reported this to the police, who said they had received no information about a renewed activity and would monitor the situation. It advised that the resident should report this directly to the police when suspicious activity occurred.
9. On 16 January 2022 the resident called the landlord and expressed frustration with the level of criminal activity around the property. He articulated his low opinion of some of the landlord’s staff and their ‘unwillingness’ to move him to a different property. He said a letter from his GP outlining why remaining in his current home would be detrimental to him would cost him £40. He was not prepared to do this unless the landlord guaranteed his move.
10. The landlord responded on 11 February 2022 and said:
    1. It was unable to investigate and respond to each report without receiving evidence. It asked the resident to complete diary sheets for two weeks before making further reports, which would assist it in investigating reported activity.
    2. As previously explained to the resident, it was unable to consider requests to move based on the information available, as it did not meet the threshold or the criteria for a transfer. It asked the resident to submit the letter from his GP within 14 days to enable it to consider the request.
    3. It had read some of the messages and emails the resident sent. It said abusive behaviour towards staff and calling names was not acceptable.
11. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 4 August 2022, stating the landlord had not addressed all the complaint points, namely drug dealing at the block, and that he felt unsafe and unsupported by some members of staff.
12. The landlord sent its final response letter on 13 October 2022 and said:
    1. It was understood that in a different email, the resident said he had decided not to send a letter from the GP. It reiterated it could not move the resident without the letter.
    2. It was committed to holding perpetrators accountable, but to do so, it relied heavily on the person reporting antisocial behaviour (ASB) to capture what was happening accurately and in good time and to complete diary sheets.
    3. Regarding video footage from the resident’s doorbell, which the resident had sent concerning an adjacent property, the landlord said it had watched the video and assessed its content. The video footage showed an individual coming out of their flat, rapping the lyrics of a song. It said the resident was not present; his name had not been mentioned, and therefore, it was not deemed evidence of intimidation from the neighbour.
    4. It reminded the resident of a helpline for support that the landlord provided to all its residents free of charge. It said the resident should call the police on 999 if he felt in danger.
13. Meanwhile, new residents had moved to property X. The resident complained that the 2 brothers living in property X had been drinking all day, playing music, and generally causing a nuisance.
14. The resident contacted this service on 10 March 2023. To resolve the complaint, he would like the new resident of property X to be removed via eviction/enforcement. A letter of apology from the landlord, a new housing officer, to be transferred to a different property as the landlord had promised for years and be paid compensation for the distress and trauma.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

15. This report has considered the events that occurred from 27 May 2021 until the landlord’s final response letter on 13 October 2022.
16. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour has occurred or if the resident’s neighbours breached their tenancy agreements, as that is not within the Ombudsman’s remit. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the neighbours in question should be evicted, as only a court can determine whether the criteria for eviction have been met and grant the necessary possession order. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the resident’s reports, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Policies and procedures

17. A landlord can end an assured shorthold tenancy without having a reason or ground for possession by serving a Section 21 notice to the tenant, followed by a court claim for possession. In March 2020, the Government introduced a ban on evictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The standard minimum notice period of Section 21 increased from 2 months to up to 6 months, depending on when it was served.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour 

18. When a landlord receives reports of antisocial behaviour, it is required to investigate those reports. This may include speaking to witnesses, reviewing incident diaries, and liaising with the police or other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case of antisocial behaviour or a tenancy breach can be limited and may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome.
19. Following the initial contact with the police on 27 May 2021, the landlord assisted the police’s investigation into the alleged drug activity out of property X. The landlord provided the police with a daily diary of evidence submitted by the resident. The landlord also requested that the police keep it up to date regarding the progress of the investigation. This was because the landlord also carried out its own investigation alongside the police investigation. This is because a police investigation will not always result in action being taken, and there is action a landlord can take, depending on the evidence available to it, which does not require any police involvement. The landlord acted appropriately here.
20. The landlord also discussed with the police the possibility of a closure order for property X. This would have ensured no access to property X for a minimum of 3 months. The resident pushed for this to take place in a conversation he had with the landlord. As a housing association, the landlord had no power to obtain a closure order, as that power rested with the police or the local authority. The landlord’s records show that it raised the possibility of a closure order with the police, explained what it was doing to the resident, and highlighted to the resident that it was the police, not the landlord, that could potentially obtain a closure order. This was appropriate.
21. The landlord explained to the resident that due to the coronavirus and legislation at the time, the earliest it could serve resident X with an eviction notice was mid-August 2021. And that the police confirmed the case was still under investigation and would advise of the progress of the case when they had further information. The landlord asked the resident to continue reporting the incidents. It said the resident should call 999 if he thought this was necessary. The landlord provided the resident with an action plan that detailed ways he could keep himself safer, and it also signposted the resident to its helpline should he need further support. This was appropriate.
22. Meanwhile, the landlord pursued its own investigation into resident X, and it brought a possession claim in February 2022. The landlord presented the court with comprehensive evidence it had collected to support its possession claim of property X. This was over and above what was required under section 21 notice. It demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s report seriously. It has taken steps to address the ASB in a timely manner. A further delay took place due to the court’s backlog in England in the latter parts of the pandemic as the eviction ban had been lifted. The court approved the order, and the landlord gained possession of property X on 17 February 2022.
23. When the resident reported drug-related antisocial behaviour in January 2022 from a property next door, followed by drunken behaviour from the new resident of property X, the landlord, on both occasions, considered the options available to it. The landlord explained to the resident that before it could act on further reports of ASB, it would need evidence in the form of incident logs completed over a period of 2 weeks. This was a reasonable request.
24. The landlord’s ASB policy says that upon receiving an ASB report, it would contact the resident within five working days; ask for evidence, which may be in the form of incident logs; agree on an action plan; keep the resident informed and offer support and guidance.
25. The Ombudsman recognises that the perceived lack of action by the landlord has caused frustration to the resident. However, in the absence of evidence, the landlord was unable to take action against the resident’s neighbours. The landlord said it needed evidence to act on the ASB report concerning the disruption the resident complained about from the new resident of property X. It asked the resident to complete incident logs for 2 weeks, which would aid in investigating the resident’s concerns. The landlord reiterated its commitment to tackle ASB and it acted according to its ASB policy.
26. It is acknowledged that asking the resident to complete a daily incident log can be distressing and inconvenient. However, these logs are necessary to provide evidence in case the landlord needs to take action against any anti-social behaviour. The landlord’s ASB policy requires residents to complete incident logs or provide other corroborated evidence to enable it to take action. These logs are also needed for this investigation as without them, there is no evidence that the landlord had failed to follow its policy or that it failed to act on evidence.
27. The resident said the landlord was successively careless when choosing tenants for property X, which had caused him distress. This service understands there were issues with the tenant who lived in property X before resident X and the 2 brothers who moved to property X afterwards. According to the evidence available to this service, resident X was housed via a homeless route supported by a charity whose aim is to support homeless young people into housing. The landlord carried out a pre-tenancy interview with resident X. The landlord testified in court that during the pre-tenancy interview, resident X did not disclose any history of antisocial behaviour, and the landlord had no reason to believe that resident X might engage in such behaviour. Based on the evidence available to this service, the landlord was not careless when selecting resident X. This service has seen no evidence regarding the selection of the new residents of property X.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property

28. The resident asked the landlord to move property, and this service understands that the resident asked to move to property X. The landlord empathised with the resident’s living concerns. However, it said that for the resident to be considered for a move, the resident would need a letter from his GP explaining that his current home was detrimental to his health. The resident understood and agreed to get the letter. The resident then changed his mind several times, and evidently, the landlord accommodated this. The landlord advised the resident on 23 March 2022 and said property X was soon returning to the landlord’s possession. It said it would be cleaned up, and at that point, the resident would lose the opportunity to be considered for the property without the GP letter.
29. The landlord’s transfer policy says, “All transfer requests should be progressed through the appropriate choice-based letting scheme unless there is an “emergency situation” where it may not be possible to rehouse within normal arrangements”. This includes medical needs or where there was a serious threat to life. The landlord explained to the resident numerous times that it did not consider that the resident was in imminent danger and therefore, the resident would need a GP letter to explain why he needed to move based on medical needs. The landlord followed its Transfer Policy here and acted appropriately.
30. The resident responded on 24 March 2022 and compared the landlord to various animals, symbolising the feeling of betrayal. It is unclear what the reason for the resident’s feelings was. On 18 July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and said it had tried to call 3 or 4 times and had texted the resident as well. It said: “I understand I may have done something that offended you, but I am still wondering what that was; I do not believe I have said anything that might have betrayed any sort of confidence. I am genuinely sorry if it has harmed the fairly good and honest relationship we have had”.
31. The landlord reiterated its commitment to act on evidence. When the resident asked to move a property, the landlord considered this. However, it explained to the resident that he would need a letter from his GP supporting the move on medical grounds. It chased the resident for the letter, and it gave him a warning that he was running out of time to be considered for property X. There is no evidence that the landlord received the letter from the resident’s GP. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord failed to follow policy, procedure, or good practice.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property.