Places for People Group Limited (202216070)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216070

Places for People Group Limited

29 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Scope of investigation

2. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
3. The Ombudsman notes that the resident had an ASB case closed in September 2021. There was then an interval of five months before the resident contacted the landlord again about matters relating to ASB. This investigation will therefore focus on events from February 2022 onwards; this is six months prior to the resident raising her formal complaint with the landlord. While some historical detail may be included to provide context to the complaint, a determination will only be made on the events from the period of the complaint.

Background

4. At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a house.
5. In response to the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord provided her with diary sheets on 25 June 2021 to record any incidents. The resident recorded incidents of neighbourhood children repeatedly kicking a ball against her property causing noise and vibrations within the property. She reported this had damaged the property and caused her distress.
6. The landlord closed its ASB case on 22 September 2021. It advised that this was because it had given advice to the neighbours involved and matters appeared to have improved. It advised that it was also considering installing signage to deter ball games.
7. In February 202, the resident sought an update on the proposed signage. It is not evident that the landlord responded.
8. In response to further reports of ASB from the resident, the landlord provided her with more incident diary sheets on 11 April 2022. In these, she recorded more incidents similar to those she reported the previous year. The resident relayed that the behaviour had led to her experiencing distress and being “left in tears.”
9. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord through this service on 21 July 2022. The landlord provided its stage one response on 3 August 2022. It advised that it had written to the two families involved to ask them to play responsibly. The landlord said that it did not act against children playing unless this was accompanied by serious ASB. It suggested that the resident contact the police if any reckless or intentional damage occurred and confirmed that it would not employ signage to prohibit ball games.
10. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 August 2022. She noted that conflicting information had been given to her about the signage. She was unhappy that the landlord had not intervened in the ASB which had led to antagonistic behaviour from the children’s parents. The resident said the ASB had caused her sufficient distress to necessitate her moving away from the property.
11. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 1 September 2022. It reiterated that it did not consider children playing ball games to be ASB and that it would not erect signage prohibiting ball games. It noted that the resident had reported the threatening behaviour from her neighbours to the police and said this was the advice it would have given her at the time. It did not consider that a failure had occurred and did not uphold the complaint.

Assessment and findings

12. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “any activity that impacts on other people in a negative way and interferes with a person’s right to live peacefully in his/her home and in the surrounding area.” This policy clarifies that it does not consider domestic noise involving the “noise of children running or playing” to be ASB, unless there is evidence that that “an individual or individuals have acted in an antisocial manner.” This policy also states that it considers ASB to include “noise nuisance” and “damage to property/vandalism.”
13. On the face of it, the resident’s complaint was about children playing ball games, which was not ASB according to the landlord’s policy. However, the by-product of the ball games was noise and vibration for the resident within her property. This merited consideration of the reported behaviour as ASB, as it was an “activity that impacts on other people in a negative way and interferes with a person’s right to live peacefully in his/her home.” However, there was no evidence that the landlord carried out a comprehensive ASB investigation.
14. The Ombudsman is concerned to note that on 13 July 2023, the landlord confirmed to this service that it had not received any reports of ASB from the resident since the closure of the historical ASB case on 22 September 2021. This was contradictory to the evidence, which showed that it provided the resident with ASB diary sheets on 11 April 2022.
15. The resident also informed the landlord on 12 July 2022, that she had experienced a recurrent issue with the children kicking balls against her property.  This caused a “constant thud” which was “annoying and frustrating” to hear. The resident also relayed that she had experienced an altercation with the children’s parents when asking them to stop, and she now felt “dread” when returning home from work and wanted to move away. There was no evidence of any follow up to the ASB diary sheets submitted by the resident, nor any response to her email on 12 July 2022.
16. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and actions taken to investigate ASB, yet the evidence has been inconsistent in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, it was not evidenced that the landlord took appropriate actions in response to the resident’s reports.
17. The landlord failed to engage meaningfully with the resident’s reports of ASB. In line with its ASB policy it should have gathered evidence of the reported ASB, considered the impact on the resident, and taken action proportionate to any ASB identified. The landlord missed two opportunities to engage with the resident’s reports; there was no evidence of any follow-up leading from the resident’s ASB incident diaries from April 2022, nor any response to her contact on 12 July 2022. If a landlord chooses not to follow up on a report of ASB, it should have a good reason for deciding this, and should relay this to the resident.
18. The landlord also failed to communicate meaningfully with the resident about her concerns. Its ASB case closure letter on 22 September 2021, said that it would be considering the use of signage to deter ball games. The resident contacted the landlord about this between 8 and 26 February 2022. There was no meaningful contact about the matter during this time; the landlord’s last contact on 26 February 2022 merely advised that a manager would respond to the resident about the signage, with no clear timeframe for a response.
19. The landlord did not provide a definitive answer to the resident about the signage until its stage one complaint response on 3 August 2022. This was when it confirmed that it did not install ‘no ball games’ signs. This contradicted its letter on 22 September 2022, and it was unreasonable that, despite the resident chasing the matter, the landlord took nearly a year to clarify the matter to the resident. There was a failure by the landlord to inform the resident in a timely manner and manage her expectations, or fully articulate its reasoning for changing its position.
20. In summary, while the outcome of a thorough investigation may have resulted in similar actions, namely warning letters to the neighbours, the landlord was nevertheless required by its policies to carry out a thorough investigation. Based on the failures identified above, the landlord’s actions amounted to maladministration. An order for £300 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

22. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor ASB investigation and communications.
23. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.