Incommunities Limited (202233186)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233186

Incommunities Limited

3 July 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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.

Background

2. The resident and her adult son are both assured tenants of the landlord, living in a 2-bedroom house.
3. Following an incident with her neighbour on 23 November 2022, the resident made a report of ASB to the landlord. The issues raised included the neighbour’s use of abusive language, concerns over their dogs charging at the garden fence and the smoking of cannabis in and around their property. The landlord investigated these reports and conveyed its findings to the resident on 12 December 2022.
4. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports on 14 December 2022. She reported she felt the landlord’s investigation was limited and did not accept its assessment that the neighbour’s fence was sturdy enough to withstand their dogs charging at it. She also said that the neighbour continued to use cannabis.
5. The landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 16 January 2023, stated that it had heard some abusive language in parts of an audio recording the resident had provided. However, based on its interview of the neighbour and communications with the police, there was insufficient evidence that the words used were directed at the resident’s son. Nevertheless, it had verbally warned the neighbour that the language was extremely offensive and could cause significant distress to others. It acknowledged her ongoing concerns about the neighbour’s fence and proposed a joint inspection by the housing officer and a maintenance manager to ensure it had been erected to a good standard. Finally, it stated that several unannounced visits had been made to the neighbour’s property but no proof of drug use was found and it could not take action without further evidence from the resident.
6. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 19 January 2023 as the resident reported that issues with her neighbour were ongoing. She requested the landlord’s ASB policy and a victim case review. She also raised concerns about the housing officer’s conduct at the initial ASB meeting.
7. The stage 2 response was sent on 16 February 2023. The landlord explained that:
   1. The housing officer asked, and the resident gave, her permission before taking a personal call. It apologised for this as she felt this was unprofessional, but said it had been assured that this was a one-off incident, so it would not take any further action on this occasion.
   2. Its further inspection of the fence had found that it had been installed to a good standard.
   3. In light of the police’s position, it saw no benefit in re-visiting the recording she had provided.
   4. It acknowledged the difficulty for her to provide evidence to prove her neighbour’s continued drug use and said this issue had not been concluded at this stage.
8. The resident asked this Service to look into her complaint on 21 February 2023, stating she felt there were “numerous things that have been overlooked, fabricated and totally wrong.” For example, she has said that the visits made by the landlord to her neighbour were not unannounced but pre-arranged meetings. She believes the landlord has dealt with her reports of ASB in a biased manner.

Assessment and findings

9. It is not for this Service to decide if the resident has been subject to ASB by her neighbour. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether or not the landlord dealt with her reports reasonably in all the circumstances.
10. It was appropriate for the landlord to deal with the resident’s reports under its ASB policy, which provides a wide definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ and extends to the types of issues she was raising.
11. The resident’s report of ASB, made on 23 November 2022, was acknowledged by the landlord on 25 November 2022. Although this was outside the 24-hour timeframe specified in the landlord’s ASB policy, it was followed up within the 5 working days stated for contacting the resident to take further details. Therefore, the slight delay in acknowledging the report had no detrimental impact on the resident or its initial handling of the report.
12. Following an initial meeting with the resident, the landlord agreed an action plan requiring the resident to log any further incidents and the landlord would interview the neighbour. It also agreed to provide her with details of the noise app. Based on the information the resident had provided, the actions proposed were reasonable and helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
13. Records show that the landlord completed a risk assessment matrix (RAM) for the resident, although the date this was done is not clear. It is recommended that the landlord ensure all RAMs are dated in line with good recordkeeping practice. The RAM was an opportunity for the landlord to establish the risk posed to the resident and put in place any appropriate support. It placed the resident in the high-risk category and recorded the police’s involvement as the resident had reported matters. In the circumstances, it acted reasonably in offering to signpost the resident to other sources of help and support.
14. The landlord interviewed the neighbour as per the agreed action plan. The outcome of its investigations was shared with the resident in a timely manner and she was updated that the neighbour had been warned about their behaviour and use of cannabis. It explained that it had spoken to the police and, as the incidents did not meet the threshold for a criminal investigation, it offered her mediation. This was reasonable and proportionate action to take and encouraged a positive neighbour relationship at the earliest opportunity.
15. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in a timely manner. It addressed her concerns about its handling of her ASB reports, explaining the steps it had taken to deal with matters. The evidence shows that the landlord interviewed the neighbour and contacted the police, which were appropriate actions in the circumstances. However, the evidence provided to this Service does not include records of the unannounced visits made by the landlord to the neighbour. The resident repeatedly reported her concerns about the neighbour’s daily use of cannabis, which was clearly causing her distress. In the circumstances, the lack of evidence of the landlord’s unannounced visits to the neighbour means this Service cannot be satisfied that it properly investigated this aspect of her ASB reports.
16. Following the stage 1 response, the landlord provided the resident with further advice about the threshold for an ASB investigation, particularly where there was limited evidence to support her allegations. This was reasonable and helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
17. The resident has told this Service that, in its stage 1 response, the landlord failed to address a complaint she had raised on 16 December 2022 about the housing officer’s unprofessional conduct during the ASB interview on 30 November 2022. She said the housing officer took a personal call and transferred money to their daughter during the meeting, which she felt was inappropriate and “showed they did not care”. Although the complaint itself has not been provided to this Service, the housing officer provided their version of events in an internal email to the complaint handler on 20 January 2023. There is no evidence that this complaint was raised as early as December 2022, as the resident asserts, and whether it should have been addressed as part of the stage 1 response. The failure to retain or provide the original complaint is a further omission by the landlord in terms of providing evidence to this Service.
18. That being said, the resident has confirmed to this Service that the housing officer sought her permission before answering their phone. In the circumstances, the landlord has demonstrated that it carried out a balanced and fair investigation into this aspect of her complaint and it was subsequently addressed appropriately in its stage 2 response.
19. The resident continued to report issues with the neighbour – their continued use of cannabis, their dogs jumping at the fence, and noise from puppies crying – to which the landlord responded in a timely manner, providing appropriate advice in line with its ASB policy. Its communication with the resident was consistent and clear.
20. The landlord’s stage 2 response was comprehensive. It addressed the various ASB reports made by the resident, explaining the actions it had taken and why it could take no further action against the neighbour. However, it has not been able to satisfactorily demonstrate to this Service, with reference to evidence, all of the actions it said it took to deal with matters. It is not clear if the lack of evidence is due to inadequate recordkeeping or a failure to provide relevant evidence to this Service.
21. Specifically, the landlord has not provided evidence of the joiner’s inspection of the neighbour’s fence or, as referenced above, its unannounced visits to the neighbour, which the resident disputes. Whilst these would have been appropriate actions to take in the circumstances, in the absence of supporting evidence, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord has, in fact, taken reasonable steps to address these aspects of the resident’s ASB reports. Therefore, it is appropriate to find service failure in this regard.
22. The landlord could also have been clearer with the resident about the limitations of its investigation into her allegations of the neighbour’s use of cannabis. Its response to the ASB reports dated 12 December 2023 noted that it could serve a formal tenancy warning if it continued to receive reports and supporting evidence of cannabis use at the property. It did not make it clear that it required supporting third party evidence. Therefore, it mismanaged her expectations where she produced further logs recording dates/times of cannabis use. However, in its covering email attaching the stage 2 response, the landlord directed the resident to report drug-related issues to the police. In the circumstances, it appropriately signposted her.
23. There is no evidence of bias in the landlord’s handling of matters. Its communications with both the resident and the neighbour demonstrate that it has dealt with the parties’ multiple reports of ASB against each other in a fair, consistent and even-handed manner.
24. As part of its response to both the reports of ASB and the resident’s complaint, the landlord has offered mediation as a means of trying to resolve matters between the resident and the neighbour. This was reasonable given the nature and number of issues between the parties, albeit it was declined by the neighbour. The landlord also recognised the impact of the situation on the resident and offered to assist her to access any additional support she might need. These were appropriate options for the landlord to consider in trying to support the resident where it could not take any further action against the neighbour.
25. It is noted that, as a resolution to the ongoing dispute with her neighbour, the resident asked to be moved by the landlord, while also raising concerns about the suitability of her property for her mobility needs. Records show that the landlord reiterated that it had dealt with the issues between both parties and explained her move options – specifically, that she needed to approach the local authority – which was appropriate advice in the circumstances.
26. Overall, the landlord has largely responded to the resident’s reports of ASB as it should have done – in a timely manner and in line with its ASB policy. It put in place an action plan following the initial report and explained to the resident at each stage what it had done to address her concerns. However, it has been unable to evidence all of the actions it said it took to address the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s fence and drug use, which clearly caused her worry and distress. This amounts to a service failure by the landlord.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by her neighbour.

Orders

28. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the worry and distress caused to her as a result of its service failure. This should be paid directly to the resident and not off-set against any arrears.
    2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, carry out a management review of its recordkeeping in this case in order to:
       1. Identify any omissions and/or staff training needs to ensure that full and accurate records are kept and maintained of all of its actions in future ASB cases.
       2. Ensure all risk assessment matrix are dated in line with good recordkeeping practice.
       3. Provide a report to this Service setting out its findings and improvements identified.
    3. Carry out a self-assessment of its wider recordkeeping practices in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/reports/spotlight-on-knowledge-and-information-management/.