A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202005971)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005971

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 June 2021

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 residents reports of:
   1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and drug use at the property.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request an independent internal review of the decision and it aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
4. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that ASB is any conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any persons including using accommodation for an unlawful purpose. Its website notes that noise from walking around your own home and listening to music during reasonable hours is not considered ASB. The policy highlights that possible remedies for ASB include warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts and working with other agencies such as the police.
5. The landlord has provided this Service with evidence related to neighbours of the resident – this contains information that is personal to the neighbours so cannot be shared within this report but it has been used to provide context.

Summary of events

6. The resident reported ongoing ASB in regard to noise and nuisance and cannabis smoking from a neighbour at the property. The landlord opened an ASB case file in April 2019. It wrote to the alleged perpetrator, and noise monitoring equipment was deployed. In May 2019, the landlord met with the alleged perpetrator and issued a warning letter. In June and July 2019, the resident advised that the situation had improved, and the landlord agreed to monitor for a further few weeks. In September 2019, the resident was informed that the ASB did not constitute statutory nuisance and it was agreed that the ASB case would be closed.
7. On 14 October 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding ASB from the neighbour and reports of cannabis use. The landlord opened a new ASB case file and there is evidence that the landlord took the following actions based on its internal records and notes:
   1. Maintained contact with the resident through a combination of home visits, telephone calls and letters from October 2019 to June 2020.
   2. On 22 October 2019, it requested a police report and arranged a surveyor to attend the property to address second-hand smoke / cannabis smoke.
   3. In November and December 2019, it informed the resident that due to lack of evidence on the drug use report it was unable to progress and advised the resident to report the drug use to the police.
   4. It provided the resident with noise monitoring application in February 2020 after reports of noise and nuisance and issued the alleged perpetrator with a warning letter. 
   5. It arranged for the alleged perpetrator to sign an acceptable behaviour contract.
   6. It investigated allegations from the alleged perpetrator that the cannabis is coming from another apartment, on 20 February 2020.
   7. On 4 March 2020, the landlord met with a neighbour to try and corroborate the resident’s complaints. There were no reports of loud music but dragging of furniture could be heard.
8. The landlord has made a record, and provided evidence, of multi-agency work with third parties including:
   1. It performed a joint visit to the neighbour with police on 30 October 2019 and a warning for cannabis use was issued.
   2. In February 2020, it informed police that the cannabis smell could be coming from another apartment.
   3. It informed Environmental Health that a noise app would be in use in February 2020.
   4. On 17 March 2020, it organised for the police to visit the alleged perpetrator of the ASB. 
9. On 26 February 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord and raised the following issues:
   1. That there had been ongoing loud music coming from a neighbouring property ‘several times a day for the last 18 months’.
   2. That the landlord had not addressed the issues or provided assistance, and that he would like an explanation from the landlord.
10. On 4 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update on his ASB and drug use case.
11. On 16 April 2020, the landlord contacted the resident by phone and said that the ASB case would be closed as it was unable to identify a failure. It advised that it would provide a written response by 20 April 2020. It advised the resident that he needed to continue to record any evidence of noise as well as report issues regarding cannabis to the police.
12. On 17 April 2020, the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbours to see if they were experiencing the same ASB issues, no significant issues were reported.
13. On 21 April 2020, the resident complained that he had not received a response by the landlord as promised and asked for the matter to be escalated to stage two of the landlord complaints process. The landlord responded the same day and apologised for the delay and explained that the caseworker had been unwell, it advised that the case had been escalated to stage two. It informed the resident that a final response will be provided by 3 June 2020.
14. On 3 June 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two final response and detailed the following:
    1. That the resident’s original ASB complaint from 2019 was closed in line with its ASB policy. It investigated the matter, and it was determined that there had been an improvement and it closed the matter after a meeting with the resident in September 2019.
    2. It opened a new ASB case in October 2019 following reports of ASB by the resident. The matter was jointly investigated by both the Police and itself but insufficient evidence of breach of tenancy or criminal activity was found and therefore no further action could be taken.
    3. It acknowledged its failure in not providing the resident with a written response from a conversation on 16 April 2020. It advised that the caseworker was unwell and did not have the opportunity to issue the response as the matter was escalated to stage two of the complaints process. It offered an apology and advised that it will learn from the mistake and offered the resident £30 for the delay experienced.
15. On 16 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and informed him that it had been in further contact with environmental health and asked him to report the noise directly to the service.

Assessment and findings

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and drug use at the property.

16. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
17. It is not disputed that the resident began to raise concerns about ASB and drug use at the property in April 2019. The landlord demonstrated that within a week it had opened an ASB case file, wrote to the alleged perpetrator and provided the resident with noise monitoring equipment in line with its ASB policy. Once more information was available it met with the alleged perpetrator and issued a written warning. The landlord appropriately kept in contact with the resident over the coming months and when it was determined that the ASB was no longer an issue it closed the case in agreeance with the resident. These were all appropriate actions and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
18. The resident made further reports of ASB and drug use at the property on 14 October 2019. The landlord immediately opened a new ASB case file and undertook an investigation of the matter. It organised for a surveyor to attend the property to address the issues of smoke and set up a meeting with the alleged perpetrator of the ASB. The landlord coordinated with police to attend the alleged perpetrator’s home but due to lack of evidence it appropriately advised that it was unable to progress the issue. Similar allegations were made by the alleged perpetrator that another apartment was smoking cannabis and the landlord took a balanced approach and investigated the claims. These were appropriate actions for the landlord to take to investigate reports of anti-social behaviour and were in line with its ASB policy.
19. It is evident and not disputed that the ASB issues at the property had an acknowledged impact and caused the resident significant distress. The landlord acted appropriately and took reasonable steps to investigate the reports and acted where approprate. The landlord had a number of informal actions available to it which are set out in its policies and procedures, namely warning letters, interviews with neighbours involved in the dispute, acceptable behaviour contracts and tenancy cautions. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord interviewed the alleged perpetrator on several occasions and worked with external agencies including police to investigate the matter. It appropriately issued the resident with a number of written warnings and spoke with neighbouring properties in order to corroborate the resident’s complaint. It installed noise monitoring equipment in the property but it was determined that the noise did not constitute statutory ASB.  The landlord prepared an acceptable behaviour contract for the alleged perpetrator to sign but it was unclear from the evidence if it was executed. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligations in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB and drug use at the property.
20. In summary, the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s allegations of ASB were appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures. They also reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector. It collected and retained reports of ASB, it worked with external agencies and took several informal actions and addressed the concerns with the alleged perpetrator. Overall, the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable given the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

21. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should provide a response within 10 working days. The documentation provided shows that this did not occur, the landlord became aware of the formal complaint on 26 February 2020 and did not provide a stage one response until 16 April 2020, this represents a 27 working day delay. The landlord however provided an explanation that the officer in charge of the matter was unwell and stated that it would learn from its mistake. It offered an apology and £30 in recognition of its failure which was approprate and acceptable to compensate for the delay in this situation.
22. The resident asked for the issue to be escalated to stage two of the landlord complaints procedure on 21 April 2020. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and informed the resident that it would provide a final response by 3 June 2020. The landlord appropriately issued its response on 3 June 2020 inline with its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and drug use at the property.
24. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its acknowledged failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

25. The range of actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s ASB reports were appropriate and in accordance with its obligations and policies. It has evidenced that it took proportionate steps to investigate and address ASB while offering support to the resident.
26. The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with a timely and efficient complaints procedure at stage one of the complaints process. The landlord however offered an apology and advised that it will learn from the mistake and offered the resident £30 for the delay experienced which was proportionate to adequately compensate for the delay.

Recommendation

The landlord repeat its offer of compensation to the resident of £30.