Twenty11 Homes Ltd (202226645)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226645

Twenty11 Homes Ltd

27 March 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:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of the 2-bedroom semi-detached bungalow, owned by the landlord, where she lives with her children. The tenancy started in December 2020.
3. In February 2021, the resident made a report to her landlord of ASB in respect of one of her neighbours. By March 2021 the resident had reported the neighbour to the police for harassment and she continued to report incidents to the landlord as well from that point onwards. These reports were irregular in nature and the situation would calm down for extended periods from time to time. 
4. On 25 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the way it was handling her reports. Specifically, she referred to the landlord’s handling of a telephone conversation she had had with its staff member; a visit to her home which she considered amounted to forced entry; and the landlord’s refusal to allow and fund CCTV for her protection, a security light, and a driveway in her back garden. 
5. The landlord was concerned that the system was filming beyond the resident’s boundary, thus was not legally complaint. It had asked for its position to be altered, and later required it to be removed after permission was granted.
6. The resident wanted to have a driveway installed to the rear of her property to avoid coming into contact with the neighbour and to avoid parking issues. The landlord had acknowledged that this was practical but was not willing to fund all of the cost of this change which it considered to be an improvement rather than a repair.
7. The landlord’s final complaint response of 13 April 2023 stated that it had not “forced” a meeting on the resident. It maintained that the resident’s use of the security light and CCTV had been a breach of her tenancy agreement. It was willing to consider the rear drive, but the resident would have to obtain confirmation of the planning position and fund most of the work. The landlord accepted that in could have been clearer on whose responsibility it was to contact witnesses to incidents had not adequately explained a 5- point deduction made to the resident’s ‘tenancy score’. However, overall, it was satisfied that its actions had been fair, reasonable, and appropriate.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this Service for consideration. By way of remedy, she wants action to be taken against the neighbour. She also wants to be rehoused and reimbursed for the cost of the CCTV system.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ASB

9. The landlord operates an Antisocial Behaviour Policy which sets out its approach to handling such reports from its tenants.  It states that tenants are expected to avoid causing a nuisance or disturbance or behaving in a way that can be categorised as antisocial. The resident’s tenancy agreement then echoes that expectation.
10. The Policy further states that the landlord’s response to such behaviour will be proportionate and reflect the available evidence in the case. It expects tenants to “work with us to resolve disputes/issues, for example by keeping diary sheets, providing witness statements, attending court”. It goes on to say that tenants must be prepared to “take responsibility for minor personal disputes with their neighbours and to try to resolve any such problems themselves in a reasonable manner, for example via mediation”. Finally, the policy provides that any criminal acts or threats of violence should be reported to the police. The landlord then commits to adopting a multi-agency approach, liaising with them and other agencies such as social services, and education and youth services.
11. As set out above, the landlord’s records in this case demonstrate that reports were being made by the resident against a neighbour starting in February 2021 and from time to time the situation calmed down. The behaviour complained of consisted of the neighbour making derogatory remarks; accusing the resident of breaching lock down rules; forcefully moving the resident’s bin lid; talking about the resident loudly enough for her to hear, but not to her face; criticising her choice of music on the radio; referring to cat faeces “flying” when the resident had experienced finding 2 bags of faeces in her garden; blowing cigarette smoke in her direction and parking or encouraging others to park inconsiderately.
12. Additionally, the landlord’s records show that it received reports of ASB on the resident’s part. Allegations were made that she was shining a bright security light into her neighbour’s property; running a business from home without permission, allowing her customers to slam the garden gate late at night as they left; and making false allegations against her neighbour so that the latter had to film anytime she saw the resident to protect herself from such accusations.
13. The records show the landlord’s approach was initially consistent in dealing with these reports. Upon receipt it would contact the resident to discuss the situation. It then sent the alleged perpetrator an ASB awareness letter stating that no conclusions had yet been made on the report but letting the recipient know what ASB was defined as. The landlord advised the resident to keep diary sheets; recommended mediation (which it offered to fund); liaised with police; and internally considered whether any other residents had had problems in that residential area and/or whether they should be contacted. These actions were consistent with the landlord’s policy. 
14. However, as each report went through this procedure, the landlord determined that there was not enough evidence of ASB taking place and concluded that it was unable to take any further action – for example for breach of tenancy against the neighbour or for a court order for eviction. It concluded this was essentially a neighbour dispute and this assessment was shared by the police. The landlord’s records suggest that as time went on it was less inclined to invoke its full ASB procedure although it did continue to respond to the resident’s reports. 
15. Overall, therefore, the landlord’s assessment of the behaviour was fair and reasonable. The nature and timing of the reports does suggest a neighbour dispute. Taking legal action to evict a tenant for bad behaviour is an action of last resort and the courts expect landlords to take other steps first to resolve the issue. The landlord’s initial handling of the reports was appropriate to its policy and as time went by and it became apparent that the behaviour was not ASB, it was no longer obliged to fully apply its policy. Having reviewed the records in this case, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports can be seen to be fair, reasonable, and appropriate.
16. Turning to the individual issues raised by the resident in connection with this situation, it is noted as follows. The resident has complained that in a telephone conversation with the landlord’s staff member her request to know who should contact potential witnesses was not responded to by the landlord and the call was wrongly terminated.
17. According to the records, the only potential conversation this complaint might relate to, took place on 16 January 2023. The landlord had reviewed “15 – 17 videos” of ASB but had concluded that they did not actually evidence that taking place – they did demonstrate poor relations between neighbours. A discussion took place about witnesses with the landlord noted that if the latter were that concerned, they would have contacted the landlord themselves anyway. The record notes that the resident was unhappy with this comment and that she terminated the call. There is no evidence that the landlord acted unfairly, unreasonably, or unprofessionally on this point, as had been stated by the resident.
18. With regard to a meeting which was scheduled to take place on 24 January 2023, it is noted that the landlord has the facility to send “portal messages” to its tenants and it did so, stating that it was aiming to visit the resident on that day. An urgent situation had arisen where the landlord was concerned that the resident’s CCTV was not legally compliant. It was recording outside the boundaries of the property.
19. The resident wanted more notice so that she could invite a representative from the Local Authority to attend but the landlord was unclear as to why. The resident complained that the landlord “forced entry” to her home. However, the documents provided to this Service have shown no evidence of that taking place. The portal messages show the landlord offered to send a letter instead. This Service finds that it acted fairly and reasonably in this regard. The notice offered was acceptable given that the issue that needed to be addressed was urgent.
20. As also set out above, the resident wanted to take measures to make the property more secure – installing a light, CCTV and wanting a rear entrance driveway. In her complaint she stated that the landlord’s approach was having no effect and was unprofessional. Furthermore, she had felt compelled to install CCTV cameras and that incidents had decreased as a result. The light and CCTV were attached to the property without permission being gained first. The landlord acted reasonably in pointing this out to the resident and asking that she seek its approval. Further the resident was in the earlier stages of her tenancy, and it did not generally approve changes until a positive track record had been established. Ultimately, it funded lighting to the door area so that the security light was not required and that was a reasonable response to that issue.
21. On the question of the CCTV, the landlord does have a responsibility to ensure any systems attached to its properties are legally compliant. Initially it was clear that the system exceeded the boundary of the property and the landlord raised this with the resident. When she adjusted the camera, approval was given. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it was open to accommodating the resident’s desire to have the system in place. However, when she then sent in some videos for the landlord to review, it became apparent the camera was capturing a larger field again. The landlord acted reasonably in therefore asking her to remove it.
22. With regard to the rear drive, the landlord’s records show that it saw the sense of having a rear entrance to the property thus minimising contact between the neighbour and the resident. It offered to make some changes to the fencing to accommodate a driveway being installed and this was at its own expense. However, it required the resident to make enquiries about planning permission and to agree to pay for the hardstanding installation itself. The resident considers that this was unreasonable in the circumstances of her situation. The driveway was not built. 
23. The resident’s tenancy agreement provides that she should not make any alterations, additions, or improvements to her home without the landlord’s prior permission. It does also state that it is for her to find out whether planning or other permission is required. The landlord’s requirements in this regard were, therefore, appropriate.
24. In terms of the cost of the driveway (and the CCTV) it is necessary to take account of 2 points. Firstly, the landlord is not responsible for the personal behaviour of its tenants. There is no suggestion that the neighbour was acting on its direction or with its encouragement. The landlord’s role in such a situation is to help the resident to deal with the situation.
25. Secondly, the behaviour complained of was never classified as ASB. That is not to say that it did not happen or that it was not concerning, irritating, or annoying to the resident. However, the definition requires something more than what was taking place here. Given the behaviour was not found to be sufficiently grave, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to fund potential actions to deal with it.
26. In conclusion, whilst the landlord has accepted that it could have provided some information in a clearer way, no maladministration has been identified in the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports and no remedy will therefore be ordered. It follows from this that no order will be made for the landlord to rehouse the resident. In any event, such an order would not routinely be made by this Service. The landlord’s housing stock is undoubtedly limited, and it may not be able to comply with such a requirement.

The resident’s complaint

27. The landlord operates a “Feedback Policy” which sets out its approach to handling complaints from tenants. It operates a 2- stage procedure. Stage 1 involves it acknowledging a complaint within 2 working days and providing a formal response within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can “appeal” to the second stage of the process. In that case the landlord again commits to acknowledging such a request in 2 working days and providing a formal response within 10 working days.
28. In this case the resident complained on 25 January 2023, however the landlord did not acknowledge that until 9 February 2023 – which was 9 working days late. The stage 1 response was, however, provided within the 10 working days timescale from the acknowledgement.
29. The resident sent the landlord a detailed email on 28 February 2023 setting out that she was not happy with the response and why this was the case. The landlord might reasonably have taken that to be an appeal request. However, nothing further was done, and this Service contacted the landlord on 14 March 2023 pointing out it needed to contact the resident about the complaint.
30. The landlord still did not acknowledge the escalation until 29 March 2023 although it can be seen that it was making attempts to speak to the resident to clarify her outstanding areas of concern. This was, however, 9 working days late. A stage 2 response should have been given by 28 March 2023, that being 10 working days after the appeal request, but was not given until 13 April 2023, 12 working days late.
31. Thus, there were delays in the complaints process and it is reasonable to conclude the case may not have progressed to stage 2 had this Service not intervened. These delays were inappropriate and represented a service failing on the landlord’s part which it should have acknowledged in its complaint responses.
32. In terms of the responses themselves, the landlord’s letters were comprehensive and aimed to deal with all of the issues raised by the resident. In this regard the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable.
33. However, as a result of the delays the resident was left unclear as to the outcome of the process. A complaint which might reasonably have been progressed through both stages by the end of February 2023 took more than a further month to conclude. An order for compensation of £50 has been made below in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The delay was not long lived, and no permanent affect will be experienced by the resident but it is important that the landlord acknowledge the impact upon her. Its Compensation Policy does enable it to make awards although it does not specify a relevant figure. This Service’s Remedies Guidance provides for an amount in the region of £50 – £100 for situations such as this one.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 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).
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

36. The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £50 in respect of its complaint handling failings. 
37. It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.