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

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202113592)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113592

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

10 June 2022

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
    2. The cleanliness of the resident’s new property when let and the support offered by the landlord regarding this.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He previously held an introductory tenancy at a different property with the same landlord. His former tenancy was terminated by the landlord in October 2020 on the grounds that the resident had been involved in an incident of ASB in September 2019 and received a criminal conviction. The eviction did not go ahead and the resident was instead moved to a different property. The resident has advised that he suffers with OCD and has mental health issues.
  2. At his former property (which was a flat), the resident reported experiencing ASB from his neighbour in the flat above which included them moving his dustbins, parking in front of his flat, slamming doors and thudding noise. He believed that his neighbour was targeting him in an attempt to provoke a reaction. He was also in touch with the local authority’s environmental health team during this period regarding the noise experienced. In addition, he reported several instances of receiving verbal abuse from his neighbour to the police and the landlord and expressed concern that his neighbour had erected a shed in the communal area which was blocking access to his window.
  3. In response to the ASB, the landlord offered to move the resident to a different property. The resident moved into his new property in January 2021 after signing the tenancy agreement in October 2020. He raised concerns during this time about the cleanliness and decoration of the property and said that the issues were having a negative impact on his mental health and OCD for which he was receiving support. He advised that he could not move into the new property until it was adequately cleaned.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord during February 2021, primarily regarding the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and noise nuisance from his former neighbour. He asked for an explanation as to why no formal action was taken against his neighbour. He noted that the alleged ASB had impacted his mental health and believed that the neighbour should have been evicted for breaching their tenancy.  He added that he felt discriminated against and that he had received a lack of communication from the landlord. In addition, he raised concerns that the landlord had not supported him with his OCD and had offered him a property which was not suitable for his needs. He wanted compensation for the discrimination against him and for a deep clean to take place or to be transferred to a new-build property instead.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint in June 2021 the landlord concluded that it had dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB from his former neighbour in line with its policies. It noted that the noise issues reported were minor in nature and it had taken steps to discuss the allegations with his neighbour, who had denied harassing the resident. It added that it had checked the shed placed below the resident’s window and found that it would not prevent escape in case of fire. It explained that would not have been able to take any formal action against the resident’s neighbour for ASB based on the evidence provided. It added that it could not find any evidence to suggest that the resident had been discriminated against and apologised if he felt that staff members had been unprofessional. In relation to the new property, it confirmed that the property had been inspected and cleaned prior to the tenancy beginning. It noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the standard of cleaning in the property and had agreed to replace the toilet seat and carry out a deep clean in certain areas. The landlord had also offered decorating vouchers to the resident. It had also advised operatives to wear full PPE when visiting and had referred the resident to its financial support team in view of his additional concerns.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service in September 2021 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB at his former property and the attitude of some staff members who he felt had discriminated against him. He felt that his former neighbour should have been evicted for breaching their tenancy conditions and had the landlord acted against his former neighbour, the behaviour would not have continued. He added that there was a lack of communication from the landlord and that it had not taken his medical condition into consideration in offering him an unsuitable property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. As part of his complaint, the resident has accused members of the landlord’s staff of being discriminatory. In accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to the corresponding formal complaint.
  2. The resident has said he considers that the issues reported have impacted his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the issues reported and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about his health.
  3. The resident has also raised a separate complaint to the landlord regarding several repair issues in his current property. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect through its complaints procedure. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, he may then contact this Service if he remains dissatisfied.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.

  1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB from his former neighbour. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Rather, our 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 and whether its response was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that on receiving a report of ASB from a resident, the landlord should first decide whether the report meets the definition of ASB. This definition would include drug use, noise nuisance and harassment but would not usually include issues such as parking and general living noise.
  3. Landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise; however, if a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both the landlord and the local authority’s Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator. A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action against a tenant if informal attempts, such as verbal warnings and mediation have not successfully resolved the issues. For a landlord to take formal action regarding noise, such as written warnings, injunctions or eviction proceedings etc, the landlord would require extensive evidence that the the alleged noise and behaviour was severe and persistent and it would need to demonstrate that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally before taking formal action. A landlord would also be expected to work alongside third-party agencies such as the police and support agencies to gather evidence to support any formal action.
  4. In this case, the resident reported that he felt his neighbour was provoking and targeting him as they only made noise when they knew he was in the property. The evidence shows that the landlord had discussed the allegations made by the resident and on several phone calls he indicated that he did not want to open an ASB case. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for not wanting to open an ASB case. However, the landlord could not take any further action such as speaking to the neighbour or issuing a tenancy warning without opening an ASB case.
  5. Following receipt of diary sheets in June 2020, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to contact the neighbour and discuss the allegations. The resident’s neighbour had denied the allegations and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to give the neighbour advice on appropriate behaviour and monitor the situation. It demonstrated that it did so by calling the resident on regular occasions for updates on the reported ASB. The resident reported in July 2020 that the situation had improved and there had been no interactions or targeted involvement but that he could still hear banging and thudding from the neighbour’s property. The landlord also took reasonable steps to explain its position to the resident within its complaint responses. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the shed erected by the resident’s neighbour following his concerns. Ultimately, it found that there was no health and safety risks and agreed for the shed to remain in place.
  6. It is noted that the resident had advised that he was in communication with the local authority’s environmental health department regarding the noise experienced. There is no evidence to suggest that the local authority had established that the noise experienced would constitute a statutory noise nuisance or taken any action against his neighbour. Similarly, the resident said he had reported incidents of verbal abuse to the police. There is no evidence to suggest that the police took any action against the resident’s neighbour which would support the landlord taking formal action such as a written warning or eviction proceedings. Whilst it is clear that the resident felt that his neighbour should be evicted as a result of their behaviour, the landlord has satisfactorily explained that there was a lack of evidence to support this action. It has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns by communicating with both parties. The landlord also offered to move the resident in an effort to resolve the ASB. This offer indicates that the landlord took into account the effect of the ASB and noise on the resident in view of his medical conditions. . It was reasonable for the landlord to close the ASB case as the resident had moved to a new property and was not subject to any ongoing interaction with his former neighbour.
  7. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of several staff members, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident if he felt that its staff had been unprofessional or threatening. The resident has suggested that this was related to the circumstances in which his tenancy at his former tenancy was terminated and that members of staff had brought up his conviction which he did not feel was relevant. In its communication with the resident, the landlord clearly explained the relevance of the resident’s criminal conviction in its reasoning behind terminating his tenancy. Whilst it is noted that the resident was dissatisfied that his tenancy was terminated, the evidence shows that the resident was found guilty of a criminal offence involving another resident. This means that the resident was found guilty of committing an act of ASB and it was reasonable for the landlord to pursue eviction proceedings in these circumstances This is in line with the tenancy agreement which suggests that the landlord may take action against tenants for ASB, including eviction in the most serious cases such as those involving criminal activity. The landlord took reasonable steps to consider the circumstances of the case and decided to offer the resident an alternative property which it would not strictly be obliged to do when seeking to end an introductory tenancy. This was reasonable in view of the resident’s vulnerabilities and demonstrates the landlord’s willingness to offer support to the resident.

The cleanliness of the resident’s new property when let and the support offered by the landlord regarding this.

  1. Prior to letting a property, a landlord is obligated, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that when a tenancy commences it is ‘fit for human habitation’ and free from category one hazards which would include anything that would pose an immediate danger to the health and safety of a resident. Properties should be in a lettable standard at the start of a tenancy, meaning that they are safe for habitation and have basic facilities including for bathing, cooking and sleeping. Due to the extremely high demand for affordable housing, social landlords are expected to let vacant properties as soon as reasonably possible and therefore it is considered acceptable for minor repairs to be carried out after a new tenant moves into the property to allow the property to be let without delay.  The tenancy agreement confirms that the resident would usually be responsible for keeping the property clean and completing any internal decoration.
  2. In this case, the resident did not move into his current property for several months after signing the tenancy agreement due to his concerns about the cleanliness and decoration of the property and the impact of this on his OCD. The evidence confirms that the landlord painted and decorated the property on 3 December 2020 in view of the resident’s concerns. This was above its obligations as the resident had been provided with a decoration voucher and would usually be responsible for internal decoration himself. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete this nonetheless in view of the resident’s circumstances. In addition, the landlord completed a deep clean of the property on 9 December 2020 at the resident’s request in view of his OCD. Properties should usually be let in a clean condition and it was reasonable for the landlord to complete the clean in line with its obligations. The evidence shows that the landlord also completed an inspection of the property on 15 December 2020 following the deep clean to ensure the property was in a suitable condition. 
  3. It is noted that the resident raised further concerns about the cleanliness of the property once he moved in and said this was having a negative affect on his mental health. It is noted that the landlord offered a further deep-clean of the property although the records suggest that the resident had asked for this to be postponed and it is unclear if this went ahead. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on whether the initial clean was to an acceptable standard as this is somewhat subjective and individuals may have different opinions on what would be considered an acceptable standard of cleaning. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to visit the property and offer an additional clean in light of the resident’s concerns. The landlord has demonstrated that it took additional steps to support the resident by offering this despite not strictly being obliged to do so. In addition, it offered to carry out several other actions including changing the silicone around a door and replacing the resident’s toilet seat. The records show that it kept in regular contact with the resident during and following the complaint and also communicated with the resident’s support network in an attempt to assist the resident. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had acted unreasonably in its actions or there had been any unreasonable delay in communication. Overall, the landlord acted above its obligations in the support it offered the resident. It showed that it took his medical conditions into account and offered additional support in view of this.

Determination

  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 behaviour (ASB by a neighbour).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the cleanliness of the resident’s new property when let and the support offered by the landlord regarding this.