Aster Group Limited (202113626)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113626

Aster Group Limited

28 January 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

The complaint concerns:
1. How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as “engaging in, or threatening to engage in, conduct causing, or likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance to persons engaged in lawful activities”.
Upon receiving an ASB report, the landlord’s policy states that it will send an acknowledgement and then undertake a risk assessment in order to identify the seriousness of the complaint and what support can be offered. When the risk assessment identifies a complaint as priority 1, an ASB case will be immediately opened, and an action plan will be sent to the resident.
The landlord will then start an investigation and look to gather evidence. The policy also states that it will work with partnership agencies and keep in regular contact with the complainant to update them on the progress of the case.
When taking action against a perpetrator which may involve legal action, the landlord will first undertake a proportionality assessment. The policy also notes that “a problem-solving approach will be adopted [by the landlord] and non-legal remedies considered before legal remedies”.
When a case is closed, the policy states that the landlord will write to the complainant to explain its reasons for closing the case and will notify them that a new case would be opened if further incidents of ASB occur.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 26 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about noise nuisance she had experienced from a neighbour in the building. The resident described domestic disturbances from the neighbour’s property which had involved visits from the police, that she did need feel safe in her home, and that she had reported the incidents to her housing officer, but no action had been taken.
An ASB case was opened by the landlord on 1 September 2020. It then called the resident on 4 September 2020 to discuss the incidents raised in more detail.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 September 2020 to confirm that a case had been opened and was being investigated by a case officer. It requested that the resident inform it if any further incidents occurred and advised her to contact the police if she witnessed any violence or threats of violence.
The landlord called the resident on 10 September 2020 to discuss the case. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it discussed with the resident using the noise app in order to gather evidence, advised the resident to call the police if she witnessed any serious incidents and/or drug use, that that it would liaise with the police over the matter; it agreed to contact the resident every two weeks with an update on the ASB case.
On 11 September 2020 the landlord liaised with the police to discuss their involvement in the case.
The landlord called the resident on 1 October 2020. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it was informed by the resident that she had downloaded the noise app but had not had the time to set it up and that since their last telephone conversation she had called 101 to report drug use.
On 30 October 2020 the landlord was informed by the local authority about an incident involving the neighbour on 27 October 2020, which resulted in an arrest. The local authority informed the landlord on what action the police had taken and what referral to support agencies had taken place.
The landlord next called the resident on 25 November 2021. The landlord notes of the call stated that it was informed by the resident that she had called the police as the neighbour was having a late-night party on 12 November 2021 which had disturbed her children and that she was unhappy that no action had been taken against the neighbour despite breaching their tenancy agreement.
The landlord sent ASB surveys to all tenants in the resident’s building on 26 November 2020.
The landlord called the resident on 15 December 2020. The notes of the call state that the landlord informed the resident that it had spoken with the neighbour and issued a verbal warning, and that the resident informed the landlord that there had been no incidents since the previous telephone call.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord spoke with the neighbour’s social worker about the ASB and related issues. It then called the resident on 13 January 2021. The resident stated that there had been no incidents since the last call and the landlord informed the resident that it was considering closing the case.
The landlord called the neighbour on 20 January 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it suggested mediation as a method to resolve the issues between the neighbour and the resident, which the neighbour agreed to.
A meeting including the landlord and other involved agencies took place on 20 January 2021 to discuss the incidents involving the neighbour.
The landlord called the resident to discuss the possibility of mediation. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident said she would think about accepting the mediation offer, but that she was not sure that it would help as they already avoided each other and there had been no further issues.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 March 2021 and informed her that it had closed the ASB case. It explained the reason for closing the case was that there had been no further issues reported to it since November 2020.
On 3 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and reported a further incident of ASB from the neighbour which involved the police. The landlord called the resident back on the same day. It’s notes of the call state that:
1. The resident described the incident, which resulted in the police being called and an arrest being made.
2. The resident went on to describe the effect on her mental health caused by the ongoing ASB she had experienced; she also said that her children were unable to play outside as a result of the ASB.
3. The landlord confirmed that it had opened a new ASB case and that it would contact the police regarding the latest incident.
The landlord and police discussed the incident on 9 June 2021. The police informed the landlord that the attending officer would contact it to provide further detail.
On 14 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. She expressed her dissatisfaction with how it had handled her reports of ASB. She noted that there had been numerous tenancy breaches by the neighbour, but no action had been taken. The resident requested a management move on the grounds of safety as a resolution to the complaint.
The landlord called the resident on 15 June 2021 to discuss the ASB case. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it informed the resident that she would be contacted separately about her complaint, the resident provided further detail about the 28 May 2021 incident and said that the police had visited all tenants in the building following a further incident involving the neighbour. The resident also described incidents of noise nuisance that had occurred earlier that day.
The landlord wrote to the police on 15 June 2021, it passed on the resident’s descriptions of the incidents that had occurred on 28 May 2021 and 6 June 2021, and the concerns the resident had for her safety. It enquired as to what action the police were taking. The police replied on 17 June 2021 and explained their involvement and what action it had taken.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2021 to state her dissatisfaction that a formal complaint had yet to be opened. She went on to describe the affect the ASB had on her and her family during the previous year and said that she did not believe she had received proper support from the landlord and the police.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 June 2021 to inform her that a multi-agency meeting had been arranged for 6 July 2021 to discuss the ASB case. It wrote again on 24 June 2021 to apologise for the delay in responding to her complaint request. It confirmed that a formal complaint had been opened and that it aimed to provide a response by 8 July 2021.
The landlord called the resident on 25 June 2021 to discuss the complaint and then sent a stage one complaint response on 2 July 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. The first ASB case was open from 1 September 2020 to 10 March 2021, during which the case officer worked with the resident to gather evidence, remained in contact with partnership agencies and visited the neighbour.
2. There had been an improvement in the neighbour’s behaviour during this period as a result of the interventions of different parties, which resulted in the landlord deciding to close the case.
3. Following further incidents in May and June 2021, a new ASB case had been opened, which was ongoing.
4. The resident requested a management move on 15 June 2021. This was declined as the evidence it had received from the police did not support the resident’s view that she was at serious risk of harm.
5. It was satisfied that it had properly followed its ASB policies and procedures, and therefore there was no evidence of service failure,
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 July 2021 to confirm that the meeting went ahead, and all agencies involved in the case were present.
The landlord called the resident to discuss the ASB case on 27 July 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it was informed by the resident that she had been spending time away from her property as she did not feel safe there. The landlord then confirmed that an appointment had been arranged for window locks to be fitted on 3 August 2021 and that it would also provide her with a Ring doorbell. The doorbell was sent to the resident on 29 July 2021.
The landlord next called the resident to discuss the case on 18 August 2021. The resident informed the landlord that Victim Support had been in touch and although she had spoken with the police on the telephone, they had yet to meet in person. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it then discussed the resident’s banding status with the local authority.
The landlord called the resident on 10 September 2021. The resident informed the landlord that she had a harassment case open with the police due to numerous nuisance telephone calls made by the neighbour to her. The resident also described recent incidents of noise nuisance from the neighbour. The landlord then wrote to the police to ask for an update on recent incidents involving the neighbour.
The resident called this Service on 1 October 2021 to state her dissatisfaction that the landlord had yet to provide a stage two response to the complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord and passed on the resident’s concerns.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 October 2021. It informed her that it could find no record of her requesting an escalation of the complaint and also enquired what outstanding issues she had from the stage one complaint response.
The resident replied and explained that she had requested an escalation of the complaint during a telephone call with the landlord, but was unable to provide the exact date. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 11 October 2021 and described the grounds for requesting an escalation as:
1. Her circumstances had not changed since the ASB cases had been opened as the incidents of ASB had continued and no action had been taken by the landlord against the neighbour.
2. She did not believe that her concerns for her safety had been properly responded to by the landlord, despite her informing it that she had been staying away from her home since August 2021.
3. She disputed the landlord’s decision to decline a management transfer and believed that she was eligible to be offered a property under the criteria listed in the management transfer policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 October 2021 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated and that it aimed to provide a response by 11 November 2021. The stage two complaint response was then sent on 22 October 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. It stood by its position as set out in the stage one response that it was satisfied that it had properly followed its ASB policy and that there was no evidence of service failure in how it had responded to the resident’s reports.
2. It advised the resident to continue to report any further incidents she experienced and noted that she had not made any reports of actionable ASB for “several months”.
3. It explained that when it receives a management transfer application, it liaises with the police and other agencies to determine whether the applicant was at risk of serious harm or had been a victim of a serious crime. No evidence had been provided which suggested that the resident’s application had met this criteria.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident she had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised her on the steps to take to bring the complaint to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB

The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB and noise nuisance reported by the resident was occurring or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
In line with the tenancy agreement and its ASB policy, the landlord had an obligation to investigate the ASB which the resident had reported. The landlord would be expected to investigate by interviewing the alleged perpetrators and gathering further evidence by asking the resident to provide incident logs and recordings etc. The landlord would also be expected to liaise with other organisations such as the police and local authority as appropriate to address any allegations of criminal activity. The landlord could only take formal action against alleged perpetrators if there was extensive evidence to support the allegations.
There was a delay in interviewing the neighbour due to the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdowns. However, the landlord did contact the neighbour via letter and the telephone prior to a face-to-face meeting being arranged. It was also in contact with police officers and support workers who had visited the neighbour’s home.
Overall, the landlord has followed its ASB policy during this case. It identified the reports made to by the resident as ASB, contacted her within its timescales and sent an action plan. The landlord also recognised the seriousness of the ASB, by contacting and working with the local authority, police and other agencies. The landlord arranged meetings and acted on the advice given to it by the local neighbourhood police team and also warned the neighbour regarding their behaviour. Following a period of three months where no incidents of ASB occurred, the landlord wrote to the resident to close the case, this was in line with its policy.
When the resident made further reports of ASB in June 2021, the landlord opened a new ASB case and advised the resident to inform the police of any criminal activity. A harassment case was opened by the police and the landlord has corresponded with the officers involved as the case has progressed. This case was ongoing at the point that the case completed the landlord’s complaints process, therefore it was appropriate that the landlord had yet to take any action against the neighbour. For a landlord to take formal action against an alleged perpetrator it requires sufficient supporting evidence to justify such an approach.
In summary, it is evident that the landlord responded to the reports of ASB made by the resident in line with its obligations, acknowledging her reports and undertaking an investigation. The landlord liaised with the police, wrote to all residents in the building, collected video and other evidence made by the resident; it raised the resident’s case with the local authority, and arranged a multi-agency meeting. It also warned the neighbour about their behaviour and has remained in contact with the police while they have progressed a harassment case. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a management transfer

The landlord’s management transfer policy describes the circumstances when it will consider offering a like-for-like transfer to a new property. This states that an offer will be made if the applicant has been a victim of “a serious crime, serious sexual assault, domestic abuse, severe harassment or serious nuisance. This will need to be evidenced through a current ASB case and supporting information from external partners”.
In its stage two response, the landlord informed the resident that the evidence gathered in the two ASB cases and the information provided by the police had not met the criteria for a property to be offered under this policy.
Management transfers are not considered as part of a landlord’s normal transfer and/or allocations procedure. As management transfers are deemed to be initiated by the landlord, they are not covered by allocations rules in the Housing Act 1996.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s transfer request as the landlord is under no obligation to agree to a management transfer. The decision to agree to or to decline the application is made solely at the landlord’s discretion. This decision is independent from any banding and/or bidding scheme operated by the landlord itself, or on behalf of a local authority. The Ombudsman can however look at whether the landlord has used its discretion fairly taking into account the individual circumstances in each case. In this case, there is no evidence to show that the landlord has treated the resident unfairly and it has acted in line with its policy as, during the time period of the complaint, the criteria set out in the policy had not been met.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. How it responded to the resident’s reports of ASB
2. It’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Reasons

The landlord took appropriate action in line with its ASB policy when investigating the resident’s reports. It was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action against the neighbour given the lack of supporting evidence and that police investigations had yet to be concluded.
The offer of a property via a management transfer is a discretionary process. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to offer a property to the resident. However, the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request was made in line with the criteria set out in its policy.