Home Group Limited (202215876)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215876

Home Group Limited

28 February 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handing of his reports of Anti Social Behaviour (“ASB”) and his complaint.

Background and summary of events

The property is a three bedroom terraced house. The resident lives there with his partner and two children, one of whom moved out during this period. The resident entered into an Assured Tenancy on 7 December 2015. The resident and family members have a number of vulnerabilities.
The landlord sent an ASB Closure Letter to the resident on 25 October 2022. It set out that the landlord had spoken to a police officer on 21 October 2022, who had advised that there were no recorded incidents with the neighbour. They visited the property but found no evidence of the neighbour dealing drugs. The neighbour had made a complaint of noise nuisance against the resident. The landlord stated that it understood that the resident had requested that it not visit, call or send a letter to the neighbour because of fear of repercussions. However, to investigate further it would need his permission to contact the neighbour. It concluded that as there was no information to proceed with the investigation it would close the case down with no further action.
The landlord received a complaint letter dated 25 October 2022 from the resident on 27 October 2022. The resident was unhappy with:
1. The level of communication with the landlord;
2. The closure letter of his ASB case – he disputed the landlord’s version of the information given by the police to it. He stated that he had reported ASB on more than 48 occasions and was concerned that someone will be harmed if nothing is done. He said that there were several crime reference numbers.
3. He was upset that his personal information was shared with neighbours.
The landlord formally acknowledged the complaint on 1 November 2022.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 9 November 2022. It acknowledged that the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the wording of the closure letter and he believed it was inaccurate. He felt let down by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a breakdown in communication and it had not contacted the resident as actively as it should have. It explained that there were low staffing levels and there was no designated Housing Manager for the resident’s area. However, a new one had just been appointed who would reach out to him. It confirmed that a Housing Manager had contacted him and the relevant police officerto discuss his concerns.
The landlord also acknowledged the concerns which the resident had about the neighbour’s behaviour and referred to calls with the resident where his concerns were discussed. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the landlord and/or the police were sharing the resident’s confidential information with the neighbour and confirmed that this was not the case. It noted that the resident had told the landlord that he did not want the landlord to approach the neighbour because of concerns of repercussions. It explained the resident that for the landlord to take action, it would require evidence of tenancy breaches. This required full reports of ASB. It explained to the resident the importance of always reporting incidents and updating diary logs. It told the resident that he could also use the noise app. It explained that it would need to visit the neighbour to investigate the allegations made by the resident. It explained that once it had diary logs it could work with the police and other statutory agencies. It also advise the resident to report any serious incidents or criminal activities to the police.
The landlord further acknowledged that the resident wanted to move to a new property.However, it advised that it could not move the resident “on these grounds” and advised the resident to seek a mutual exchange or rent privately. It reassured the resident that it was taking the matter seriously but it was difficult for the landlord or the police to take action if incidents were not reported at the time. It referred the resident to a mediation service. It acknowledged the impact the matter was having on the resident’s mental health and urged him to seek support from his GP and other wellbeing service available.
The resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two on 21 November 2022. The resident told the landlord that he had not been contacted by the new Housing Manager as promised. Several external agencies had tried to contact the landlord and been unable, including agencies involved in the community trigger. The resident complained that poor communication had been going on for a substantial period of time. He disputed the landlord’s statement that there had been no recent incidents that had been recorded to the police. The resident advised that the case had been reopened by the police and police had recently attended the property.
With respect to the landlord’s comments that it could not rehouse the resident without further investigation and taking other action to investigate ASB, the resident responded that the landlord was aware of the issues at the time he moved in. He disagreed with the landlord’s statement that it was satisfied with the way the Housing Manager was dealing with ASB. He stated that the Housing Manager had told him at the time that they were arranging meetings with the police. He reiterated the impact that the situation was having on him and his family. He stated that a lot of the problem stemmed from poor communication. He noted that he had to receive the stage one complaint response via this Service and was not provided with it by the landlord.
The landlord sent an update to the resident on 4 December 2022 which acknowledged that there had been a lack of continuity in the people looking after the matter and reassured the resident that the report were being taken seriously.
On 19 December 2022 there was a meeting to produce a Community Trigger Action Plan.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2022 with a “further update” on its “stage one complaint closure letter”. It noted that the resident was not happy with the closure of the case following its 9 November 2023 letter and wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two. It acknowledged that in its stage one response it had told the resident that a new Housing Manager would be in contact to introduce herself and work to resolve matters however this had not yet happened. It told the resident that the new Housing Manager was now in post but was still in training and would be in contact after this. It acknowledged that there has been resourcing and staff issues which had impacted on its timing to respond to customers. It also said that it would not investigate incidents if they were not reported. With respect to the resident’s submissions to it about the impact the matter was having on the mental health of him and his family, it urged him to seek medical help It said that this was the conclusion of it stage one process and it had now arranged for it to be reviewed at stage two and the resident would be contacted within ten weeks
The Anti Social Behaviour Action Plan was agreed by relevant agencies on 5 January 2023. The outcomes were explained to the resident. This included a communications channel for the resident to the landlord, the landlord working with the police and the council, the landlord to issue a warning to the neighbour and consider issuing an Acceptable Behaviour Contract. The landlord, the police and the council would work together to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to undertake enforcement action. The landlord also referred the resident to an emotional support service for victims of ASB and urged the resident to consider mediation. It noted that a barrier that was identified in the review was a lack of recent incidents reported to the police, council and the landlord. It advised the resident that it was essential he report each and every incident on the day it occurs. This will help agencies respond appropriately but also provide evidence for enforcement action.
Internal notes from 30 December 2022 regarding the escalation to stage two record that the resident was unhappy and wants more action taken “although no new incidents have occurred as it is all pre-historic”.
On 17 January 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the noiseapp did not work on his phone. He also raised concerns about the neighbour being told that it was him who was complaining and if he was to use the noiseapp.
On 18 January 2023 the landlord gave Acceptable Behaviour Contracts to the neighbour and the resident, who both signed them. The landlord met with the neighbour to discuss her behaviour.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging that weekly contact had previously been agreed. However, as he was keeping it updated on everything there was no need for a weekly catch up. It reiterated that to progress anything, it needed to be able to contact the neighbour who the resident was complaining about. It confirmed that the resident had told the landlord that he did not want it to do that because things had recently been calm. It confirmed that it would record the issues raised on the case and note that the resident did not want it to make contact at that time.
This Service instructed the landlord on 2 February 2023 to provide a stage two complaint response to the resident within five working days, no later than 9 February 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 7 February 2023. It apologised for the delay in its acknowledgement. It appears that the resident did not receive this. Internal notes indicate that it had not taken any actions to progress the stage two complaint until this date.
This service wrote to the landlord on 14 February 2023 noting that it had not provided a stage two complaint response to the resident. It observed that the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that a landlord has 20 working days to respond to a stage two request and it had been 59 workings days to date. This Service required that the landlord provide a stage two response no later than 21 February 2023.
On 20 February 2023 a Community Trigger outcome letter was sent to all relevant parties which stated that all the actions had been undertaken and so the trigger was closed. It noted that there was insufficient evidence to meet the threshold for enforcement action.
The landlord and the resident had a telephone call on 21 February 2023. It is unclear what written communication the landlord sent to the resident following this call. It appears that the landlord sent a letter that day to the resident confirming that he had talked with the Head of Service today and she was going to review the case and contact him on 2 March 2023. On one version of the letter it states that the stage two complaint would remain open with the resident’s agreement. In another version the landlord tells the resident that it is the end of the 20 day investigation timeframe and this was its second stage response. In another version the landlord stated that it needed to discuss the case with other internal colleagues. It had made progress on the complaint, however there were remaining actions. It would contact the resident on 2 March 2023. It confirmed that the resident had agreed to allow it additional time to complete the review and provided a final response. It acknowledged that that this was the end of the 20 day investigation timeframe and was its “formal stage 2 response”.
Another version appears to have been intended to be the stage two response, but it was not sent. In the letter the landlord acknowledged that the resident felt let down by the Acceptable Behaviour Agreements and the way the process was handled. It observed the resident felt that he continued to be subject to ASB. The resident felt that the Community Trigger was necessary, but he felt that it wasn’t progressing anything. The outcome which the resident was not to move but for the neighbour to stop her activities. It referred to the Community Trigger Action Plan. It noted that the resident had provided diary sheets during December and January but felt there was little point continuing. It noted that the resident hadn’t contacted the police to pursue the mediation option. It again offered to facilitate mediation. It concluded that the author of the letter was meeting with another colleague who had been involved with the Community Trigger Plan and would call the resident on 2 March 2023 to talk through the steps.
Another version of the stage two complaint response has been provided which is dated 3 March 2023. It noted that it had emailed the resident on the landlord on 22 December setting out the following outcomes of the Community Triger, which included that it had offered the resident mediation; provided advice on how to keep diary notes and the operation of it noise app; confirmed it had made a safeguarding referral; offered a single point of contact and made arrangements for a joint meeting. It noted that ABAs had been signed by both the resident and the neighbour. It confirmed that it received a letter on 20 February 2023 confirming that all actions for the Community Trigger had been completed and the trigger would be closed. It acknowledged that the resident was frustrated and he was continuing to experience what he considered to be ASB. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration at the time taken to respond to communications by his assigned single point of contact. It pointed out that the resident had complained that it had been three weeks for a reply but it was in fact only just over a week. However, it apologised that the resident had to chase for a response. It summarised a discussion with the resident on 2 March 2023, including that the agreed outcome from the call that the resident would continue to have a single point of contact and that the resident would email that contact every Monday with updates, diary sheets or other information. The landlord committed to responding within three working days. The landlord also agreed that it would maintain contact with the police to follow up on all reports, would contact Environmental Health again and it would undertake a follow up review in one month. It would let the resident know the outcome of that monthly review. It acknowledged the resident’s frustrations and noted that following the Community Trigger it had been in regular contact with all agencies. It told the resident that at the next case meeting it would decide if there was sufficient evidence to take legal action and would tell the resident what its decision was.
It appears that the definitive stage two complaint response letter was sent to the resident on 8 March 2023, although it was dated 3 March 2023. This referred to a call between the resident and the landlord the day before. The landlord notes that the resident had told it he was disappointed it had not taken action given the evidence he had given it. He had also raised concerns that his request to remain anonymous had not been listened to. It noted that his desired outcome was to stay in the property without being impacted by ASB. He was frustrated the Community Trigger actions had not achieved the desired outcome. It noted that the resident felt that the landlord should now remove the neighbours from their property and it had discussed the process for possession – which included the need for evidence. It set out that in the call it had been agreed:
1. a named person would remain the point of contact. The resident would email the point of contact every Monday with an update and the named contact would respond within 3 working days. This arrangement would be reviewed in one month;
2. the named person would maintain contact with the police to follow up reports;
3. the named person would contact environmental health;
4. the landlord would undertake a follow up review in one month.
The landlord apologised that the resident had felt that the landlord had not responded well. It acknowledged that at points it had not worked well with other agencies to tackle ASB. It said that it had been in regular contact with other agencies after the Community Trigger and would continue to do so. It said that it would make a decision whether there was sufficient evidence to take legal action at the next case meeting.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it had received an email from the police about a noise incident, but the resident did not want the police to attend. It said that it could look into this and asked if he had sent it through to environmental health. It explained to him that noise recordings on the noise app would make it easier to record evidence and progress the matter.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord about barking dogs and loud arguing on 6, 8 and 13 March 2023. The landlord sent a letter to all residents which included references to dogs barking. The landlord told the resident it would contact the neighbour if he was happy for it to.
On 27 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that it could not take action regarding the resident’s reports of drug use due to lack of evidence. It told the resident to continue to report any incidents. The landlord asked the resident how he would like the landlord to proceed as he was not happy for the landlord to discuss his concerns with the neighbour.
Throughout April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord a number of times with complaints about ASB by the neighbour.
The council advised the resident on 17 April 2023 that it was chasing the landlord. It confirmed that the resident should continue to report noise issues to it and ASB to the police.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord communicated internally asking if a point of contact had not already been arranged if it could be.
The landlord emailed the police on 17 April 2023 to discuss the resident’s complaints. It noted that it was not sure how to respond as the resident was inconsistent and “didn’t make much sense”. It noted that it had told him multiple times that evidence was needed but he still did not want to use the noise app.
On 24 April 2023 the police emailed the landlord noting that the Community Trigger had not worked “due to [the resident] not engaging”. The police advised the landlord that it took the view that all options had been exhausted and there was nothing further for it to advise on. It advised that there had been no other complaints made about the neighbour.
On 27 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that he has not been getting the monthly update and the three day response times that the landlord said he would in its stage two complaint response.
On 30 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that he had added himself to Homeswapper and would now like to use the noiseapp.
On 15 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord complaining of noise from the neighbours.
On 12 June 2023 the council advised the resident that it had chased a number of people at the landlord but had not received a response. It also noted that it had contacted the police who were investigating recent reports and they would be in contact with the resident. The police had told him that they had also been trying to contact the landlord.
On 12 June 2023 the resident and the landlord agreed that the landlord would look into a managed move.
On 13 June 2023 the police sent an email to the agencies involved in the community trigger. It noted that the resident continued to be unhappy with the neighbour’s behaviour. The resident was now using the noise app. It noted that a lot of work had already been undertaken by the police and the landlord to resolve the issue but there had still not been a positive outcome. The police concluded that “without further intervention” it believed that the issues would continue.
The resident advised the landlord on 16 June 2023 that he had sent a copy of an attached noise diary to Environmental Health.
On 19 June 2023 the agencies involved in the community trigger met and recorded that the resident was now happy for the neighbour to be spoken to, but he required advance notice “in case there is retaliation”. The resident had agreed for a managed move to be looked at.
The resident emailed the landlord with a view of what he considered to be ASB on 4 July 2023. The landlord responded on 14 July 2023 asking if the resident was happy for it to talk to the neighbour.
The resident’s child’s school wrote a “to whom it may concern” letter on 12 July 2023 which advised that the situation with the neighbour was having a significant detrimental impact on the child.
On 10 July 2023 the resident set up the noise app with Environmental Protection.
On 12 July 2023 Environmental Protection wrote to the resident about the noise nuisance from the neighbour. It noted that “a lot of nuisance is emitted” from the neighbour.
On 21 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that the management transfer application was declined as it did not meet the policy criteria for a move.
Environmental Health messaged the resident on 24 July 2024 advising that no more diary notes were needed as there was sufficient. It asked him to continue to use the noise app. It noted that the source of the noise was other tenants of the landlord and the landlord “should be dealing with the [ASB] and serve a warning letter of enforcement against the tenancy.” It noted that it had contacted the landlord on 12 July but had not yet received a response. They wanted to know what the landlord was planning to do and noted that there must be conditions in the tenancy agreement about “being a considerate neighbour”.
On 25 July 2023 Environmental Protection wrote to the resident noting that it had contacted the landlord again after already contacting it on 12 July 2023. It observed that the landlord “should ensure that tenants are behaving correctly”. On 31 July 2023 it updated the resident that it had not heard back from the landlord.
On 26 July 2023 the resident’s MP wrote to the resident advising him that they had sent a letter to the landlord on 15 June 2023 which had been acknowledged. As the landlord had not provided a detailed response it was being chased with the landlord.
[p108] On 31 July 2023 a Community Protection Notice was issued against the neighbour. It noted that a large number of complaints had been received by the council and the police about the neighbours behaviour. It noted that a number of sound recordings had been made which supported the notice.
Also on 31 July 2023 a person from the Family Support Programme wrote to the residents, other parts of the council and the landlord urgently requesting information to support the resident’s appeal. They also noted that they were “perplexed as they why the application was not considered, as it was clear and agreed by all of the professionals in the meeting held before the managed move was submitted that there is a safeguarding element to the application, ie. significant impact on the vulnerable child’s mental health and wellbeing.”
On 1 August 2023 Environmental Health advised the resident that a Community Protection Notice had been served. It noted that “I hope that [the landlord] is going to take action to resolve this matter”. It advised the resident that it was unable to establish Statutory Nuisance.
On 4 August 2023 an NHS psychiatrist wrote a “to whom it may concern” letter to the resident setting out that the resident was suffering from a serious health condition. The Psychiatrist said that they were “very much worried” about the detrimental impact of the situation with the neighbours on the resident and his family. It said that they would be grateful for all possible support for an accommodation move.
On 7 August 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had refused his request for a managed move.
On 7 August 2023 the council advised the resident again that based on noise recording sheets he had provided it had service a Community Protection Noise Warning on the neighbour on 31 July 2023. It noted that the recording showed “unreasonable behaviour – slamming door, scratching the walls, shouting, using offensive language”.
On 16 August 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to appeal the managed move application rejection. The resident set out safeguarding concerns.
The landlord wrote to a family support worker at the landlord on 18 August 2023 noting that it was considering a management transfer and asking if there were welfare concerns with the family.
A third party support agency wrote a “to whom it may concern” letter on 21 August 2023 that stated that the situation was having a “clear negative impact on the family”. This was emailed to the landlord.
On 21 August 2023 a Family Support Coordinator from the council wrote to the landlord setting out their view that the situation was having a “clear negative impact on the family”. They noted that the threshold for level 2 social intervention had not been met, however targeted support from level 3 was needed. The coordinator set out their view that they were “concerned that there has been no improvement of behaviour from the neighbour following several agencies involvement” and they were concerned for the family if there were no positive changes.
A first stage warning letter was sent to the neighbour on 1 September 2023.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 6 September 2023 to discuss the CPN and a letter it had sent for the tenancy warning.
The landlord issued a first stage warning for a tenancy breach to the neighbour on 21 December 2023. It noted that nuisance and annoyance to neighbours had continued despite the 31 July 2023 Community Protection Warning. It noted that the letter was the first stage in further action that could ultimately lead to eviction.
This Service has been advised that the resident is currently in the process of moving properties, following the landlord agreeing a management transfer.

Assessment and findings

There are three key elements to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports:
1. The landlord’s communicated poorly with the resident;
2. The landlord’s failed to take adequate and timely action against the neighbour;
3. The landlord mishandled his request for a managed transfer.

Communication with the resident

In its stage one complaint response, the landlord acknowledges that there had been a breakdown in communication and it should have been more proactive at contacting the resident. The landlord explained that this was due to low staffing levels and that it had just appointed a new Housing Manager for the resident’s area. On 4 December 2022 the landlord also acknowledged to the resident that there had been a lack of continuity in people looking after the matter.
The Ombudsman understands that there will sometimes be unavoidable resourcing challenges for a landlord due to staffing issues. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to prioritise resolving resourcing issues and providing appropriate communication levels through other channels when there are resourcing challenges.
The landlord told the resident in the 9 November 2022 stage one complaint response that the newly appointed Housing Manager would be in touch with him soon. However, the new Housing Manager had still not contacted the resident when it sent the resident a complaint “update” on 20 December 2022. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that the new manager required training, it was unreasonable that the new manager had still not contacted the resident by this time.
The resident continued to be unhappy with the level of communication and in its stage two response of 8 March 2023 the landlord committed to a named person as a point of contact, who the resident would email once a month and the contact would respond within three days. However, internal communications on 18 April 2023 record that it was not clear that a named contact had been appointed. On 27 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that he was not getting the promised monthly update with a three day reply turnaround time. The Ombudsman acknowledges that a three week reply turn around that the resident referred to for a January email was in fact one week – however, nonetheless this was outside the promised three day reply period. The Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the communication issues with the resident.
There is also evidence from external agencies involved in the Community Trigger that they attempted to contact the landlord on different occasions and did not receive replies. The landlord also does not appear to have responded to a query from the resident’s MP in a timely manner.
Whilst acknowledging the landlord’s resourcing challenges, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord failed to take adequate steps to communicate with the resident and other involved agencies. This understandably exacerbated the resident’s distress with the situation.

Action taken against the neighbour

The Ombudsman acknowledges the significant impact the matter has had on the resident and his family.
ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
It is important to clarify that in cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord initially closed the ASB case in October 2022. It required the neighbour to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract in January 2023. An ACB can be a helpful behavioural intervention, but is not relevant to the landlord seeking to enforce its rights under the tenancy. The landlord did not issue a first stage warning for a tenancy breach to the neighbour until 21 December 2023.
The landlord’s actions can be contrasted with the action taken by the environmental protection agency. The resident sent evidence of noise nuisance to the agency in June 2023. Based on the evidence, environmental protection concluded that there was a notable noise nuisance and issued the neighbour with a Community Protection Notice on 31 July 2023. The Ombudsman notes that it found that it was not able to reach the statutory threshold for a statutory nuisance.
On the face of it, this would appear to indicate that the landlord failed to undertake reasonable interventions earlier stage. However, the Ombudsman has taken into account other factors that were relevant to the landlord taking action that were not relevant to the environmental protection agency.
The landlord clearly explained to the resident in the 25 October 2022 closure letter that it needed to evidence to support taking any further action. This is a reasonable position for the landlord to take. There is a high evidentiary threshold for the landlord to take further steps regarding breaches of the tenancy agreement by the neighbour, including to ultimately seek eviction.
Emails between the police and the landlord in April 2023 indicate that both were unable to take further action at that time because the reports from the resident weren’t frequent and, at that time, he was “not using digital recording devices as advised”. The landlord noted that it had advised the resident that it could not action without further evidence and the resident declined using the noise app at that time. On 24 April 2023 the police concluded that the community trigger “has not worked due to [the resident] not engaging, we [the police] have exhausted all our options and there is nothing further we can advise on”. The police noted that there had not been complaints about the neighbour from other parties.
An email from the police to the landlord on 10 May 2023 noted that it had received noise complaints from the resident on 6 March 2023 and 14 April 2023. It noted that initially the resident had been very regular in reporting, however this had stopped towards the end of January 2023 and the resident told the police that he did not want to report further incident as he “didn’t see the benefit”. It referred back to the April discussions with the landlord where both where “stuck as to what we can now actually do for [the resident] without his engagement”. It noted that it had told the resident there as nothing further it could do and all measures had been taken. If there were still issues it had advised him to report these to the police and it would look to re-open and consider further measures. It confirmed that it had encouraged him to keep reporting.
The residentacknowledges that he did not use the noiseapp suggested by the landlord. The Ombudsman notes that the resident says that this was due to technical issues, however the evidence does not show that the landlord failed to respond to reasonable requests to resolve technical issues.
The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to take the view that it did not have sufficient evidence to take further action initially. Whilst noting that there were some communications failings with other agencies, the landlord engaged substantively with the Community Trigger process.
The landlord also explained in the October 2022 closure letter that to investigate further it would need to contact the neighbour. However, the neighbour told the landlord that he did not want it to tell the neighbour about his complaints.
The Ombudsman understands and is sympathetic to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour being told it was him who was complaining. Whilst the landlord issued a general warning to the neighbour and the neighbour signed an Acceptable Behaviour Contract, there were limited further steps it could take if the resident was unwilling for the landlord to disclose the specific nature of the complaints against the neighbour. It was not until June 2023 that the resident indicated to the landlord that he would consider allowing it to disclose the nature of the complaints to the neighbour and at this point he still expressed concerns about the landlord doing this. This inevitably restricted the landlord’s ability to intervene effectively. Notes record that the landlord then did not talk to the neighbour at that stage in June 2023 as the resident was exploring the managed move option. On 17 July 2023 the landlord did not refer to the resident’s allegations when it had a discussion with the neighbour.
Whilst the resident’s concerns to remain anonymous are understandable, there are limits to the actions which the landlord could take because of this.
The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord offered the resident other options to address the situation. The landlord offered the resident which he declined. The resident was offered free emotional support for victims of ASB but declined this. The landlord referred the resident to Environmental Protection and consistently encouraged him to report any incidents to the police. These were all reasonable and appropriate steps for the landlord to take in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustrations. However, the Ombudsman does not find that there were steps that the landlord could have taken earlier which it failed to take. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to deal with the matter, taking into account the available evidence and the resident’s concerns about anonymity.

Handling of managed transfer

The landlord started the application for a managed move on 12 June 2023. The landlord has finite resources and managed moves should be carefully considered. It is reasonable for the landlord to seek to use other interventions before considering a managed move. In this case, as set out above, it became apparent that there was limited scope in the circumstances for effective steps to resolve the situation so that the resident was comfortable remaining in the property. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustrations that a move was not considered earlier, however it was reasonable for the landlord to explore other options to address the situation before considered a move application.
The landlord originally declined the application on the grounds that it did not fall within its policy conditions for a transfer. It’s criteria includes “severe harassment where there is a risk to a person’s safety” and “safeguarding concerns”.
The landlord acknowledged that it had seen correspondence from health and educational professionals regarding the impact on the resident’s son. The landlord explained to the resident that, while there were some logs of ASB, there was not enough evidence to take “any legal tenancy action”. It also noted that whilst environmental protection had issued a notice, it had also concluded that there was not enough evidence for formal action. It noted that there had not been a safeguarding referral.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident and his family were very distressed by the situation at the time. However, on the basis of the limited evidence that was provided to support the application, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord was unreasonable to decline the application. A subsequent appeal was supported by more extensive evidence and was upheld.
However, whilst the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord should not have declined the transfer move initially, they note that there was scope for better communication about and administration of the application. It appears that the resident did not fill in the application but the named contact at the landlord did. The resident was frustrated that he did not get to put his position fully across. Whilst it is unlikely that this would have changed the landlord’s position – as much of the evidence that supported the appeal came from after the initial application – the Ombudsman understands why this caused the resident further distress.
The Ombudsman understands that the move is still being finalised. Whilst the Ombudsman understands that the resident is finding the time taken to be frustrating, it is reasonable for a management transfer to take some time due to the practical operational requirements for such a move.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has found the situation to be very distressing. As set out above, there were communications failings by the landlord about the managed transfer application. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord otherwise took reasonable steps in the circumstances to deal with the ASB, taking into account the evidence that was provided of the neighbour’s ASB and its ability to engage with the neighbour.
In summary, whilst the Ombudsman finds that there have not been substantive failings with the landlord’s handling of the matter, there were a number of communications failings. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there has been a service failure with the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaints handling

The resident is also unhappy with the way in which the landlord has handled his complaint.
The resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two on 21 November 2022. However, the landlord did not provide a further substantive response to the complaint until 20 December 2022. It referred to this response as a “further update” on its “stage one complaint closure letter”. This letter itself did not substantially progress the matter or substantively deal with the resident’s complaint grounds. The landlord said that the letter was the conclusion of stage one and it would contact the resident in ten weeks with respect to its stage two review. There was a clear failure by the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two and to undertake the stage two review within a reasonable timeframe – which the Ombudsman would typically expect to be 20 days. There is nothing in this case which would make that standard timeframe unreasonable.
There were also failings regarding the stage two complaint response that was sent. This service instructed the landlord on 2 February 2023 to provide a stage two complaint response within 5 working days. There is evidence that the landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 7 February 2023, but not a substantive stage two complaint response. It is possible that the resident did not receive this.
The internal notes show the landlord’s chaotic handling of the matter, where several different drafts were prepared. Internal communications show that the landlord was aware of its obligations and need to adhere to the HOS Complaints Handling Code. The landlord observed internally that there was “a high risk of a maladministration finding because of this”.
Ultimately the landlord sent the resident a stage two response on 8 March 2023. This was clearly an unreasonable timeframe. It also appears that the landlord may not have sent this directly and the resident only received a copy of it via this service. The Ombudsman also notes that the stage two response letter was largely a summary of the conversation of the previous day and did not substantively engage with the issues raised or clearly set out the landlord’s position on whether it found that there had or had not been failings.
The resident has stated that he is also unhappy that the stage one and stage two complaint responses were contradictory with respect to his request for a management move. He submits that the stage one complaint response said that they were ineligible but the stage two response said that they had refused a move when they had not been offered one.
In the stage one complaint response the landlord stated that the resident would like it to move him to a new property but it was not able to move him “on these grounds”. In the stage two complaint response the landlord recounted that in a telephone call to discuss the matter the resident had “confirmed that [he] didn’t want to move as had previously been discussed”.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s position before the stage two complaint response was that the ideal outcome was that he did not have to move from the property because the issue with the neighbour was resolved. However, as the issues were ongoing, he did want to be considered for a move. It appears that there was a misunderstanding between the parties of the resident’s position on a move. The Ombudsman is not persuaded that this can entirely be contributed to failings by the landlord and it may have been difficult to establish the resident’s wishes. However, it does indicate that there was scope for the communication between the landlord and the resident to have been better.
Taking into account that there were multiple failings, including significant failings to comply with reasonable timeframes, the Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Redress

In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
In considering an appropriate remedy, it is important to distinguish between the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident due to the neighbour’s behaviour and that caused by the landlord’s failings. As set out above, the Ombudsman has not found that there was significant scope for the landlord to have taken earlier or alternative action with respect to the neighbours behaviour. The distress and inconvenience the landlord should pay compensation for is for poor communication and poor timescales for its complaint response.
The Ombudsman has referred to this service’s Remedies Guidance. This sets out that awards between £250 and £750 may be appropriate where there has been “considerable” failings by the landlord but no permanent impact on the resident. Taking into account that there were multiple failings over a significant period of time, the Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident £750 directly within four weeks of the date of this Determination.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been a service failure by the landlord with respect to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Whilst acknowledging the landlord’s resourcing challenges, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord failed to take adequate steps to communicate with the resident and other involved agencies. There were also communications failings with respect to the managed transfer. The Ombudsman finds these communications failings to be a service failure.
The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustrations. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord otherwise took reasonable steps to deal with the matter, taking into account the available evidence, the resident’s concerns about anonymity and its limited resources for managed moves.
The landlord failed to provide complaint responses within a reasonable timeframe. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord’s complaint handling was chaotic. The complaint responses did not address the complaint issues substantively or effectively.
The Ombudsman has not found that there was significant scope for the landlord to have taken earlier or alternative action with respect to the neighbours behaviour. The distress and inconvenience the landlord should pay compensation for is for poor communication and poor timescales for its complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident £750 directly within four weeks of the date of this Determination
The Ombudsman requires that the landlord undertake a review of its operational functions supporting its complaints handling process to ensure that these support the landlord’s complaint handling obligations, including its obligations to meet response timeframes. The landlord must provide a copy of this review to the Ombudsman within eight weeks of the date of this Determination.
The Ombudsman requires that the landlord undertake a review of its operational functions supporting its ASB process to ensure that appropriate resourcing is maintained to ensure a reasonable level of communication with residents reporting ASB. The landlord must provide a copy of this review to the Ombudsman within eight weeks of the date of this Determination.