Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Aster Group Limited (202111598)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111598

Aster Group Limited

25 November 2021

 

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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a first floor flat within a block of flats.
  2. On 16 June 2020 an antisocial behaviour officer sent a letter to the resident confirming issues they had discussed about an ASB report the resident had made. The letter explained the landlord had logged the report for investigation. The letter did not explain the nature of the ASB or give any specific details. None of the records provided for this investigation refer to any previous ASB reports from the resident.
  3. On 25 and 29 June 2020 the resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord. The doctor explained the resident had been having difficulties with her neighbour which was negatively impacting her health, and she was seeking to move.
  4. On 1 July 2020 a community advocate wrote a letter of support for the resident, detailing ongoing issues with the neighbour. The advocate repeated the resident’s desire to move.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 August 2020 after a phone call with her that day. It noted the first report of ASB was 16 June 2020 regarding an issue with the neighbour over bins. It detailed its actions taken to resolve the issue: it had spoken to the neighbour and liaised with the police. It advised that as the resident confirmed there had been no recent incidents the case would be closed, but if any further issues occurred, she should contact it and it would open a new case.
  6. On 1 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident again, acknowledging that she had made a new ASB report, which it had logged and would investigate. As before, the letter did not provide any actual details about the ASB, but it asked the resident to provide appropriate details (such as time and place, location and impact) in any future reports she made.
  7. The resident’s doctor wrote to her on 12 October 2020, after the landlord raised concerns with him about the resident’s stress levels due to the difficulties with her neighbour. He asked the resident to make an appointment if she wished to discuss anything.
  8. On 7 December 2020 an outreach advisor wrote to the landlord explaining the issues the resident had been experiencing with her rubbish bins. She said the neighbour had prevented her from using her bin, and removed her bin number and the padlock she had put on it. This meant the resident had to dispose of rubbish elsewhere. She also explained that the resident had been the subject of rumours spread by neighbours. The advisor said that these matters had caused the resident “a great deal of stress”, and that she did not believe her housing officer had listened to or believed her. The resident had said she had been told by the landlord to “stop bickering about each other.” The resident provided the house numbers of the neighbours causing problems, and the advisor asked for the landlord to assist in resolving the issues.
  9. An internal email between staff on 12 January 2021 states that the landlord’s officers had discussed the resident’s concerns with her, the bin issues had been resolved, and the resident had a new bin but “has now chosen not to use it.” Discussions had been had with other tenants in the block, and it was noted that the resident had an “ongoing conflict” with one other tenant, which the landlord’s ASB team was involved with. Since the discussion with the resident no new issues had been raised and “everything has been quiet since then.”
  10. The resident raised a formal complaint on 5 March 2021. She explained:
    1. She had spoken to the ASB and housing officer several times about the issues, however nothing changed. She stated she was disappointed with how her complaint was being handled and felt she was not being listened to or taken seriously.
    2. The ASB impacted her physically and mentally, she explained she suffered from depression and anxiety, which had intensified other health issues.
    3. She wanted the neighbour to be “seriously spoken to”, and if the matter remained unresolved for either her or the neighbour to be moved to an alternative property.
  11. On 22 March 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. The landlord advised:
    1. It had reviewed the two ASB cases and spoken with the ASB officer and housing officer regarding the issues reported. It noted that it had spoken with the neighbour about the reports of nuisance and rubbish bins not being used correctly.
    2. The case was closed, as the ASB officer confirmed with the resident on 25 August 2020, as there were no further ASB reports, but noted the situation would be monitored accordingly. The officers had also liaised with the resident’s advocates and updated them.
    3. It would only become involved in matters where its intervention was appropriate. It said it would not deal with matters which were a “difference in lifestyle and/or entrenched neighbour dispute.”
    4. It acknowledged the resident’s request for it to speak with the neighbour, but said that given there had been no recent ASB reports or other relevant issues with the bins, it would not be appropriate or proportionate to do so.
    5. It noted the resident’s explanations about her health, and recommended she talk with her doctor about support.
  12. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 26 March 2021. She said she had been bullied, and disagreed with the landlord’s contention that her complaint was a “difference in lifestyle or entrenched neighbour dispute”. She said it was untrue that she had not made any reports since August 2020, she said she had called the ASB team “as recently as February 2021” about problems with her neighbour. She asked that the landlord speak with the ASB team again about the complaint raised after 25 August, and create a plan of action that would stop the bullying. The landlord acknowledged her request on 31 March and said it would provide a response by 28 April.
  13. On 6 April 2021the resident left the landlord a voicemail notifying it that there was an incident between her and the neighbour which resulted in his arrest, she did not detail what occurred but advised the ASB had not been resolved.
  14. Internal emails between staff on 6 April 2021 showed the landlord obtained an update from the police who confirmed the incident started over “a dispute over air freshener in the communal hall”. However, as there was no evidence to support the allegations, no further action was taken. The email notes that there had been previous disputes between the neighbour and resident which had not reached the ASB threshold, an officer was seeking to obtain for the resident a peephole camera with which to obtain evidence of any future issues.
  15. On 8 April 2021 the landlord called the resident to discuss the incident on 6 April. The resident stated the neighbour kicked her door, she did not see him do this but saw him running away, so she “knocked on his door and asked why” he then threatened to kill her son. The resident explained she had an angina attack and used her care alarm which alerted the police. The neighbour was arrested and questioned. The landlord advised the resident not to confront the neighbour as she could put herself in danger. It updated her about the police report and explained because it was one person’s word against another, the police were unable to act against the neighbour. The landlord explained it had received contradictory information about information the resident had previously provided, and without evidence (of ASB), it was unable to act, which is why it would try to obtain a camera for the resident to capture evidence.
  16. On 9 April 2021 internal correspondence between staff showed it had a conversation with the resident in which she stated it was “a hate crime and bullying” and she was using the back door to avoid the neighbour, but he “constantly kicks and bangs on the door”. She said that the landlord’s recommendation she see a doctor suggested it thought she was “crazy”. She explained again the effects the matter was having on her health.
  17. The landlord rang the resident on 9 April 2021. It explained it had concluded it was unable to supply a peephole camera due to data protection rules. It noted that a “smart doorbell camera” was an option, but it required the use of the internet (which the resident did not have access to). The landlord reiterated the importance of evidence of the neighbours’ actions if any action was to be taken. The resident said the neighbour’s actions were a hate crime and she was being bullied, she advised she would purchase a bodycam. The landlord advised the resident not to approach the neighbour, and if she was scared for her safety, to call the police.
  18. The landlord issued its final complaint response in mid-April 2021 (the exact date is not known. Its letter is dated 12 April, but internal emails dated 14 April state the letter was still being amended). In its response the landlord explained it had reviewed her ASB cases and concluded they had been handled in line with its policies and procedures. It noted that it had explored camera options with the resident, although they had proven unsuitable. It was looking into the possibility of CCTV, and had offered the use of a dummy camera in the interim. It explained how such tools had proven to be a useful deterrent in other ASB cases. It explained that it had received counter-allegations in relation to the resident’s ASB reports, and acknowledged that a long term resolution needed to be found. It noted that mediation had been offered, which both parties had declined. It said that option remained open. It said it had no record of the resident’s ASB report in February 2021. It concluded by explaining how the resident could bring her complaint this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines the key principles expected to apply when handling ASB. It advises it will only become involved in matters where it is satisfied its intervention is appropriate and will resolve the issue. It further states it would not get involved with matters considered to be a difference in lifestyle; entrenched personal disputes; unintentional behaviour of children; one-off, low-key risk incidents; or reports that are not supported by evidence.
  2. The landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure, which sets out its principles to resolve complaints and to provide a quality service. It states it will: ensure everyone is treated fairly and without discrimination; promote a positive; no blame complaint handling culture; listen and discuss complaint with residents to understand where its service has not met expectations; give residents a fair opportunity to comment on any adverse findings before a final decision is made; and maintain a consistent approach providing positive, accountable, and transparent.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a timescale of ten working days from the logging and allocation of the complaint to provide a decision, and if not possible an explanation and date by when the stage one response would be given. It advised 20 working days from the request to escalate to provide its stage two response.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The resident explained in her complaints that the issues with her neighbour have affected her medical conditions. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack of action by the landlord. Some parts of the resident’s, and her advocates’ correspondence with the landlord have involved her wish to move homes due to her health and the apparent unsuitability of her current home. However, the resident’s formal complaints to the landlord centred on its handling of her ASB reports, and so this investigation focusses on that issue. Any reference to the home move is for context only.
  2. Until the point the resident made her complaint in March 2021, there is evidence of two reports by her to the landlord about ASB. The resident raised a formal complaint about ASB on 5 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 March 2021, issued its stage one response on 22 March and final response on 12 April, its complaint responses were in line with its complaint procedure.
  3. From the evidence we have, it shows the resident reported ASB on two occasions, we do not have the specifics of the reports, but we do have the landlord’s response to them. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken formal action against the neighbour for ASB. The evidence shows the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously. It spoke with the resident and neighbour, referred the complaint to the ASB officer and liaised with the police and the resident’s doctor. It explored using a camera as a preventative measure to deter harassment and or capture any evidence of ASB. The landlord also offered mediation. The resident was within her right to refuse mediation, but it was reasonable for the landlord to offer as it may have reduced tensions, and possibly allowed an amicable resolution.
  4. The resident provided to this Service handwritten notes of ASB incidents in late 2020. However, nothing in the evidence indicates whether these incidents were reported to the landlord, or if the notes were made at the time of the incident or after them. Because of that we cannot know if they were reported to the landlord, but its inability to find any record of reports apart from the two noted above indicates they were not.
  5. The landlord decided not to pursue action against the neighbour due to lack of evidence to support the allegations made. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, for the landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB it would require corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour. Where there are counter allegations made the landlord would require extensive evidence of the neighbour’s behaviour to support the allegations.
  6. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a decision whether ASB is, or is not occurring. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to reports of ASB against its policies and procedures and good practice. In this case the landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s reports, investigated them by interviewing the relevant parties, liaised with the police, explored options for capturing evidence, and clearly explained its findings. Its handling of the ASB reports was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behavior.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted appropriately investigating the issues of ASB between the resident and neighbour and advised the resident accordingly. It offered mediation and appropriately liaised with authorities (doctors, police, ASB officers) for resolution and updates regarding the issues raised. The landlord explored means to capture evidence if any further issues occurred and as a preventative measure to deter any future incidents.