Aster Group Limited (202224551)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224551

Aster Group Limited

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and hate crime.
2. The resident’s concerns about reasonable adjustments.
3. The associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about reasonable adjustments.
Paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”. The resident’s concerns about reasonable adjustments were considered by this Service in its determination of 31 August 2022 (case reference 202015934). The resident may wish to consider taking legal advice on this matter if she wishes to pursue it further.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a property owned by the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat located on the ground floor in a block of 4 flats. The block is on a small estate consisting of 36 flats. The resident’s tenancy commenced on 4 February 2002.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions state:
1. “You must behave reasonably and not do anything in or around your home or the estate that is illegal, a nuisance, or an annoyance to other people”.
2. “You and/or members of your household or visitors will not commit any form of harassment or intimidation on the grounds of colour, race, religion or ethnic origin, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age or disability, which may interfere with the peace and comfort or cause offence to any other tenant…”
3. “You are responsible for the behaviour and actions of others living in or visiting your home…We expect you therefore, to take reasonable steps to ensure they do not harass or cause a nuisance to anybody in the area”.
The resident has several conditions that affect her sensory experience. These include, but are not limited to, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Sensory Processing Disorder and Specific Learning Disabilities.
The resident made various reports that her neighbour in the flat above her property was responsible for ASB. The resident’s neighbour is referred to in the remainder of this report as ‘the neighbour’.

Summary of events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 April 2021 to report an incident involving her neighbour on 22 April 2021. She stated that the neighbour had been swearing and shouting at her and had shown aggressive non-verbal behaviour when the resident approached her about carrying out DIY in the evening. The resident added that there had been a strong smell of drugs from the neighbour’s flat.
During May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions to report that she had been disturbed by noise from her neighbour. The dates on which she wrote included 19 May 2021.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord attended a virtual meeting with the resident and her representative. The main points from the meeting were:
1. The resident said she had experienced noise nuisance and that the smell of cannabis from the neighbour’s flat had triggered a migraine. She also said the neighbour had drilled and hammered late at night.
2. The landlord agreed that its initial plan would be to speak to the neighbour about the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
3. The resident provided the landlord with a list of incidents that had occurred following her first conversation with the neighbour. The resident confirmed that she intended to keep a diary of incidents.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 May 2021 to confirm it had logged a new ASB case in relation to the resident’s reports. The landlord’s records state that it carried out a risk assessment on 17 May 2021 regarding the resident’s reports of ASB. The form noted that the resident had reported banging, cigarette smoke and cannabis. The landlord had scored the overall risk as 14.
On 18 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and the council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to report noise nuisance and ASB from the neighbour in the flat above her property. The resident explained that she had neurological disabilities, including Autism and had been experiencing noise nuisance and ASB since the neighbour moved into the property at the beginning of April 2021. The resident also mentioned that the neighbour had told her on 9 April 2021 that the resident was being moved to a more suitable property. Finally, the resident said she had been “verbally assaulted” by the neighbour on 22 April 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 May 2021 to confirm it had spoken to the neighbour that day and the neighbour assured the landlord she would keep as quiet as she could. The landlord attached information about the Noise App and said that it would share any recordings with the council’s EHO.
The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 1 June 2021 regarding the resident’s reports of noise.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 June 2021 and attached noise log sheets covering the period 17 May to 5 June 2021. The resident stated that the neighbour had caused noise nuisance virtually everyday during the period.
The landlord replied to the resident on 10 June 2021 and advised her to report incidents as soon as possible after they occurred. It also asked her to record the noise on the Noise App.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the neighbour regarding the noise on 21 June 2021. The neighbour explained that she worked shifts and therefore had to do housework sometimes after 9pm.
The landlord wrote to the council’s EHO on 21 June 2021 to ask whether the council could install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property.
The resident wrote to the landlord and the council on various dates during July 2021 to submit noise log sheets. She said the neighbour had caused noise problems which had affected her sleep patterns and her health. The dates she submitted the noise logs included 21, 23, 27 June and8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 July 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 July 2021 and confirmed that the council had installed noise monitoring equipment in her property on 2 July 2021 and the equipment would remain in place for 14 days.
The EHO wrote to the resident on 27 July 2021 to apologise that he had not explained to the resident that she should not unplug the noise monitoring equipment. The EHO explained that because she had unplugged and moved it, the recordings were deleted. He offered to re-install the equipment.
The landlord’s ASB records dated 9 August 2021 show that although the resident had difficulty using the Noise App, the landlord contacted the Noise App company and 172 recordings came through to the landlord. These were shared by the landlord with the council’s EHO. The landlord stated that regular contact had been maintained with the resident and the neighbour. The landlord had contacted the police and they confirmed they were investigating 4 reports of hate crimes from the resident regarding the neighbour.
The EHO wrote to the resident and the landlord on 26 August 2021 and confirmed that it had listened to the Noise App recordings. His conclusion was that the noise was “normal living noise” to be expected in flats. The EHO said the noise consisted of talking, moving around and some home improvement work. He therefore did not consider the noise to be a nuisance and therefore was not prepared to put further resources into the matter. The EHO had therefore closed the case.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 September 2021 and stated that she had been awoken by loud thudding from the flat above on 3 September 2021. She also wrote to the landlord on 20 and 28 September 2021 to report “vibrational noise nuisance” coming from her neighbour’s flat. She referred to the lack of soundproofing and questioned why the neighbour had been allocated the property as it had been advertised as a ‘sensitive let’. The resident also reported cannabis smells coming from the neighbour’s flat.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 September 2021 and reported the smell of cannabis in the communal area of the building. The landlord replied on the same day and advised her to report the smell of cannabis to the police as this was a criminal matter. It also advised her to report any new noise complaints to the local authority. The landlord stated that it could then consider tenancy actions based on the action taken by the police or local authority.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 October 2021 to report regular smells of cannabis coming from her neighbour’s flat.
On 10 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to offer mediation with her neighbour. The resident’s representative replied on 26 October 2021 and said they would provide an answer in 2 weeks’ time.
The council’s EHO wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2021 and confirmed that the landlord had shared a considerable number of recordings from the Noise App with him. The EHO had assessed the recordings and concluded that the noise was normal living noise and not a statutory nuisance. The EHO therefore closed their case and had not subsequently been approached by the resident.
The landlord met with the police on 10 November 2021 to consider the resident’s reports of ASB. The notes stated that the police had visited the neighbour following reports of cannabis use, however, they had not found any evidence that the neighbour had been using cannabis. The notes also stated that after agreeing to contact the landlord in 2 weeks regarding the offer of mediation, she had not done so.
On 25 November 2021, the resident’s representative advised the landlord that the resident would take part in mediation if it was facilitated by an independent organisation. The landlord advised the representative that the police were still investigating the case and therefore any arrangements for mediation would need to wait until after the investigations had been concluded.
The police advised the landlord on 7 December 2021 that they had met with the resident and her representative on that day. The police had confirmed to the resident that they had filed all 8 of her reports of hate crime due to insufficient evidence.
The landlord attended a meeting with the police to discuss the case on 12 January 2022. The notes of the meeting stated that the resident had refused the EHO’s offer to reinstall the sound recording equipment in her property. The notes also stated:
1. That the police had investigated the case against the neighbour and decided to take no further action due to a lack of evidence.
2. The resident had refused mediation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 January 2022 to check the current situation regarding her neighbour and whether there had been any issues with ASB. The landlord’s notes stated that it had spoken to the police and confirmed that it had not had any contact from the resident or her representatives since 22 December 2021.
On 24 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that her neighbour and her visitors had continued to cause ASB and use cannabis.
On 1 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and her representative to request a meeting at her home to discuss the various reports of noise. The representative replied on 2 March 2022 and stated that she did not wish to have a meeting at her home. She suggested a virtual meeting instead.
The resident wrote to the landlord and the police on 17 March 2022 to report noise from her neighbour on 12 March 2022. She submitted noise logs and incident logs. The landlord replied on the same day and confirmed that it had spoken to the neighbour. The landlord said the neighbour had made counter-allegations that the resident had been verbally abusive and had been banging on the walls.
A ‘professionals meeting’ was held on 18 April 2022 regarding the resident’s reports of ASB and was attended by the police, the landlord and the resident’s representative. The main conclusions were:
1. The landlord confirmed it had not received any further reports of ASB since the reported incident on 12 March 2022.
2. The landlord confirmed it had no actionable ASB reports from the resident as there was no proof of noise nuisance and no proof of the neighbour smoking cannabis.
3. The landlord said it was aware the resident had approached the council’s Housing Options Team about moving but that the landlord had never spoken to or written to the resident about moving.
4. The police stated that the resident had refused to have the council’s noise recording equipment reinstalled.
5. The police and landlord advised that the idea of restorative justice, which had been suggested by the resident, would not be appropriate because the neighbour would have to admit wrongdoing.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s representative on 12 May 2022 and confirmed that it had read the noise reports submitted by the resident and had concluded that it would not be appropriate to take tenancy enforcement action.
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 20 May 2022 and confirmed that the resident had refused the suggestion of mediation.
During June 2022, the landlord and the police exchanged emails regarding the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord suggested the police put an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) in place, however, the police did not believe this was appropriate. The resident’s representative had been advised by the police that they had spoken to the neighbour in June 2022 and given “words of advice”.
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 16 June 2022 to ask whether it had carried out a risk assessment in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord replied on 22 June 2022 and explained that it had not been able to carry out risk assessments during most of the case because the resident needed to lip-read and therefore phone calls were not appropriate. The landlord said it had recommenced home visits on 24 January 2022 following the Covid lockdowns, after which the resident had refused to engage with the landlord except via a third-party.
The resident’s representative and the landlord exchanged further emails during July 2022 regarding the possibility of arranging mediation. The landlord confirmed that both parties would need to agree to mediation and currently there was no such agreement. The landlord also clarified to the representative that it was not pressuring the resident to move out of her home.
On 8 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s representative to ask whether it could visit the resident at home to complete a risk assessment. The resident’s representative replied on 13 July 2022 and said that the resident was not comfortable about the landlord visiting her at home to carry out the risk assessment. She asked if it could be done by phone.
The police wrote to the landlord and the resident’s representative on 9 August 2022 to advise that the resident had reported her neighbour was smoking cannabis. The landlord replied on the same day and said it had not received any reports about cannabis smells from partner agencies that had visited the block. The landlord also confirmed it had spoken to 2 other residents in the block and neither of them had reported smelling cannabis at any time.
The landlord wrote to the police on 19 August 2022 and advised that it had not received any recent reports of ASB from either the resident or her representative.
On 22 August 2022, the resident applied to the police for an ASB case review (known as the ‘community trigger’).
The landlord’s records state that it attempted to speak to the resident on 26 August 2022 to review the risk assessment, however, according to the notes, she refused to speak to the landlord or allow the landlord to visit her property.
The landlord’s records show that it sent fortnightly emails to the resident’s representative in September to December 2022 to check whether there had been any ASB incidents.
The landlord’s records show that a community trigger meeting was held on 6 September 2022 and was attended by the resident’s representative, the council, the police and the landlord. Some of the points made at the meeting were:
1. The police confirmed that there was no evidence to support allegations that the neighbour was using cannabis.
2. The landlord reported that the neighbour had made counter-allegations against the resident.
3. The council’s EHO confirmed that all 172 noise app recordings had been listened to and any noise was deemed to be “everyday living noise”. There was no statutory noise nuisance.
4. The chair of the meeting suggested offering mediation. The landlord stated that this had previously been refused by the resident.
On 17 October 2022, the resident’s representative wrote to the police to say that the resident was dissatisfied with how the community trigger meeting had been conducted and with the outcome.
The resident submitted a complaint dated 17 October 2022 to the landlord regarding her neighbour (the landlord has advised this Service that although the complaint letter was dated 17 October 2022, it was received some time after this date and logged on its system on the 7 November 2022).
The resident said the neighbour had been responsible for ASB and hate-based behaviour since moving to the property in March 2021. The resident stated that the neighbour had encouraged other family members and visitors to intimidate and threaten her, including making verbal and physical threats. The resident added that the neighbour had encouraged her visitors to play loud music and stamp on the ceiling. The resident included the following in her complaint:
1. The resident said she had submitted over 86 emails, over 21 noise logs and 172 noise recordings from the noise app since 2021 regarding the neighbour. The resident said she understood the noise recordings to have been “lost”.
2. The resident said that the landlord had not carried out an ASB risk assessment.
3. The resident said that the landlord and other partner agencies had encouraged her to leave her home.
4. The resident said she had experienced anxiety, stress, depression, sleep disturbance and loss of appetite due to the reported disturbances.
The resident sent an additional letter to the landlord on 30 October 2022 to report several incidents of ASB and noise from her neighbour on 27 October 2022. Also, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 3 November 2022 to advise that the resident had reported new ASB incidents, which he said had occurred on 26 October 2022. The resident had reported that the neighbour was stamping on the floor and this had caused the resident to have anxiety and panic attacks.
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2022 to advise that the issues were still ongoing but the resident had not reported the issues because she had “lost faith in all authority”. The landlord replied to the representative on the same day and asked that the resident report issues to the police on 101.
On 21 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it would need an extension of time until 5 December 2022 to reply to the resident’s stage one complaint.
The police wrote to the landlord and other stakeholders on 22 November 2022 and advised it was approaching the 3-month community trigger review of the case. The police requested stakeholders to provide any updates.
The resident’s representative advised the landlord on 12 December 2022 that he had not received any major reports of noise from the resident.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 December 2022 with its stage one reply in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that the estate on which the resident’s property was located had never been designated as a sheltered scheme and therefore had not been decommissioned or converted into a general needs estate.
2. The resident had report ASB regarding the neighbour on 25 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged the report and held a virtual meeting with the resident on 14 May 2021. The landlord then spoke to the neighbour on 19 May 2021 about the reported noise.
3. The landlord said it had worked with the local authority about the reports of noise and with the police about the reports of ASB and hate crime. The landlord confirmed it had not seen evidence that it had “colluded” with the police to move the resident from her home.
4. The landlord confirmed it had received over 100 noise app submissions from the resident between 11 June and 12 July 2021. It had spoken to the Noise App company to check how the recordings might have been lost. The landlord said it had not been able to recover the recordings and therefore apologised for this.
5. The local authority had previously installed noise monitoring equipment and had now offered to re-install it.
6. The police would lead on reports of criminal behaviour and hate crime and had not identified or taken any action. The landlord had therefore not identified any breach of tenancy.
7. The landlord said it did not consider it reasonable to escalate actions to remove the neighbour.
8. The landlord partly upheld the resident’s complaint as it had not carried out an impact assessment at the start of the resident’s case.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2023 in response to its stage one reply. She stated she was dissatisfied with the response because:
1. She stated that the landlord had failed to conduct a time-sensitive impact assessment (risk assessment) in relation to her reports of ASB, had failed to communicate with her and had lost evidence supporting her case. She said that the loss of evidence related to over 100 noise app recordings she had submitted in less than a month.
2. She stated that the landlord had not conducted a fit-for-purpose pre-allocation assessment when letting the neighbour’s flat as she said it had not considered the impact of the letting on the existing residents. She also stated that the landlord had failed to correctly use a ‘sensitive let’ advert and had misused her personal information.
3. She stated that the landlord had “decommissioned” the estate from accommodation that she said had previously been ring-fenced for vulnerable disabled and retired tenants. She provided photos showing equipment such as pull-cords and warden alert control boards that had previously been used.
4. The resident stated that the neighbour and her household members had been responsible for ASB, including noise nuisance, physical assault and threatening behaviour. She stated that some of the incidents had been reported to the police.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 27 January 2023. It then wrote to her on 2 February 2023 and stated that it might take longer to send a response because of the level of detail in the resident’s complaint.
On 14 March 2023 the resident and her representative wrote to the landlord with further comments she wanted the landlord to consider as part of her stage 2 complaint, including:
1. The resident stated that the landlord’s stage one reply had not investigated her neighbour’s ASB, which was at the heart of her complaint.
2. She stated that although the neighbour’s “targeted bullying and hate behaviour” had stopped, she still found it difficult to leave and return home.
3. The resident stated that the neighbour’s flat had been let without conducting an adequate risk assessment at any stage.
4. The resident outlined her disabilities and the impact that the ASB had had on her health and her studies.
5. The resident said she believed the landlord was intent on evicting her.
6. The resident stated that the properties in the scheme should not have been let to general needs residents.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 6 April 2023 and included the following:
1. The landlord had accepted at stage one that it had not completed a risk assessment with the resident at the initial meeting on 14 May 2021. However, the landlord had investigated this further and found that a risk assessment had been completed during the meeting and a risk score of 14 had been recorded. The landlord accepted, however, that it had not carried out the risk assessment in conversation with the resident and therefore the landlord apologised and upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
2. The landlord had reviewed the correspondence it had sent to the resident and believed it had been clear and concise. It also believed it had kept the resident updated in relation to the reported ASB and had worked with partner agencies.
3. The landlord listed the interventions it had made in relation to the ASB, which had included speaking with the neighbour about the allegations and had offered to fund mediation between the resident and her neighbour.
4. The landlord confirmed it had not shared any information about the resident’s disabilities with the neighbour.
5. The landlord had advised the resident of the reasons it had not agreed to all the resident’s formal requests for reasonable adjustments.
6. The landlord said it had made numerous attempts to recover the Noise App recordings submitted by the resident in June 2021 and July 2021 and it had managed to obtain access to the recordings. The landlord had confirmed to the resident on 29 July 2021 that both the landlord and the council were investigating the recordings.
7. The landlord noted that the resident believed the neighbouring property was unsuitable for the occupants. However, it stated that the council’s environmental health department had advised that the Noise App recordings showed that the noise was “normal living noise”.
8. The landlord advised the resident that she should report any hate-related bullying or threats to the police. The landlord said it was aware that the resident’s reports had been escalated to the community trigger and the resident had received a response.
9. The landlord confirmed it was aware of the resident’s disability and had considered this when communicating with her.
10. The landlord again apologised that it had not asked the risk assessment questions in a structured way but did not believe this would have affected the management of the case or the outcomes.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The landlord wrote to the resident’s representative on 5 May 2023 to advise that it intended to close the ASB case as the last report of noise in relation to the neighbour had been on 12 December 2022.
On 7 December 2023, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord to report a smell of cannabis coming from the neighbour’s flat. The landlord’s records state that during December 2023 and January 2024, the police carried out spot checks to the neighbour’s property and reported that they did not smell cannabis from the neighbour’s flat.
On 5 and 7 February 2024, the resident reported an incident involving the neighbour to the police and the landlord respectively. The resident said the incident had occurred on 3 February 2024. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 13 February 2024. The landlord replied on the same day and said it would arrange to speak to the neighbour.
The landlord’s records state that it visited the neighbour with the police on 29 February 2024 and discussed an incident that had been captured on CCTV. Also, the 2 youths shown in the CCTV had been given a warning by the police and told not to repeat the behaviour. They discussed the terms of the tenancy agreement with the neighbour and followed this up in writing. The police had also investigated the matter and confirmed on 1 March 2024 that they would be hand delivering ASB warning letters to the youths and their parents that day.
On 25 March 2024, the landlord sent a survey regarding ASB to all residents on the estate. It stated that the results would be used to implement measures to reduce ASB.
The resident wrote to this Service on 4 May 2024 and stated that due to the impacts on her mental and physical health she had now signed a new tenancy agreement to move to a property owned by an alternative landlord. The property was currently undergoing adaptations funded by the local authority.
The resident wrote to this Service on 18 June 2024 to advise that the friends and family of the neighbour had moved out of the neighbour’s flat. As a result, there had not been any further incidents, however, the resident said she still felt anxious. The resident also said she had identified a potential new home but it needed some structural repairs. The resident sent a further email to this Service on 21 July 2024 to say that she was anxious the reported problems with the neighbour might resume once the Ombudsman’s investigations had been completed.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 24 July 2024 to advise that it had not received any information to indicate the resident had been offered alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised concerns about the actions of partner agencies including the police and local authority. Whilst this Service can consider how the landlord communicated with and worked in partnership with third parties, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions or omissions of other agencies. The Ombudsman’s investigation can only consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports.
The resident raised concerns about the process the landlord had followed in designating the neighbour’s flat as a ‘sensitive let’. This matter has not been included in this investigation as it was previously investigated by the Ombudsman as part of case reference 202015934. Similarly, the resident’s concerns that the landlord had redesignated the estate from supported housing to general needs housing have not been investigated as this matter was also considered as part of the previous investigation.
The resident advised the landlord in her stage one complaint that she had experienced anxiety, stress, depression, sleep disturbance and loss of appetite due to the reported ASB. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported happened or not. The role of this Service is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and hate crime

The landlord’s ASB Policy which was in use in 2021 stated:
1. “The police, local authorities and other statutory agencies may be best placed to lead on an investigation, for example if the reported behaviour is criminal as well as anti-social; or a statutory nuisance (as defined by the environmental protection act 1990), e.g. noise nuisance, would be the local authority’s responsibility to investigate”.
2. “We will use the following principles…Assessing impact on all new reports of ASB…[and]…Action planning with the complainant to try to resolve the problem…agreeing a communication strategy with the complainant”.
3. The policy stated that the landlord would consider a range of options for tackling ASB, including:
  1. Use of mediation;
  2. Use of the Noise App for evidence gathering;
  3. Referral to the local authority for action/support (inc. noise monitoring equipment);
  4. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts;
  5. Use of the community trigger;
  6. Multi-agency meetings, case conferences, other problem-solving groups.
The landlord’s ASB Procedure states: “Action plans usually include speaking to other residents/neighbours and the other party”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2021 to report that the neighbour had been swearing and shouting and there had been a strong smell of drugs coming from the neighbour’s flat. The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident (and her representative), which took place on 14 May 2021. It was appropriate that the landlord had arranged the initial meeting with the resident as this was in line with its policy. The meeting would enable the resident to provide details of the reported ASB in her own words.
The landlord agreed at the meeting that its initial action plan would be to speak to the neighbour. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB Procedure and was therefore appropriate as part of the landlord’s evidence gathering. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 19 May 2021 and therefore it had taken the agreed action in a timely manner.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 May 2021 to confirm it had registered a new ASB case on its system, which was appropriate and in line with its ASB Procedure. The landlord’s records show that it completed an impact assessment on 17 May 2023 and had calculated an impact score of 14 (the landlord’s ASB procedure states that scores above 11 are considered as Priority 1 cases and an action plan will be agreed with the resident).
It was appropriate that the landlord had produced an impact assessment (also referred to as a risk assessment) using its prescribed form as this was in line with its ASB Policy. However, the landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply on 6 April 2023 that it had not completed the risk assessment in conversation with the resident during the meeting on 14 May 2021. The landlord accepted this had been a failing on its part and therefore apologised and upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman agrees that this was a failing on the landlord’s part as risk assessments should be completed in a structured way in conversation with the victim to ensure that it accurately reflects the effect that the reported ASB is having on the victim. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord later attempted to meet with the resident to discuss and complete a new risk assessment. For example, the landlord wrote to the resident’s representative on 8 July 2022 to ask whether it could visit the resident at home to complete a risk assessment. The representative replied that the resident was not comfortable with a home visit. The landlord also attempted to speak to the resident on 26 August 2022 to review the risk assessment but, according to the landlord’s notes, she refused to speak to the landlord or allow the landlord to visit her at home.
Although the landlord had initially failed to carry out the risk assessment in conversation with the resident, the landlord had carried out a brief impact assessment shortly after the resident had reported ASB. It had also attempted to produce a more detailed risk assessment later on and had apologised for not initially going through the risk assessment with the resident. Although these were reasonable steps by the landlord to put things right, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was unreasonable that the landlord had not acted sooner to meet with the resident to complete a new risk assessment. For example, the evidence shows that it contacted the resident in July 2022 to complete the new risk assessment.
The resident had written to the landlord on 18 May 2021 and explained the impact the reported ASB was having on her due to her neurological disabilities. Therefore, it was important for the landlord to have assessed the specific risks posed to the resident through a structured risk assessment produced in conversation with her. The resident’s emails sent during May 2021 indicate that she was anxious the landlord had not fully considered the impact of the reported ASB on her.
In terms of the action taken by the landlord to gather evidence, the landlord had written to the resident on 19 May 2021 to provide information about the Noise App. This was reasonable as the resident had reported problems regarding noise and the use of the Noise App was one of the options listed in the landlord’s ASB Policy.
On 21 June 2021, the landlord contacted the council’s EHO to ask for the installation of noise monitoring equipment. This was reasonable as the resident had submitted various noise log sheets reporting that the neighbour was continuing to cause noise. It was also in line with its ASB Policy, which stated that the landlord could consider a referral to the local authority. The installation of the monitoring equipment would help the EHO establish whether the neighbour was causing a statutory noise nuisance.
During June to August 2021, the landlord and the EHO corresponded and the EHO confirmed that he had listened to the Noise App recordings and concluded that the noise was “normal living noise”. It was reasonable that the landlord had shared information, such as the Noise App recordings, with the EHO. Having shared the information, the landlord was entitled to rely on the EHO’s expertise in relation to noise issues.
The landlord had also contacted the police during this period, which was again reasonable and in line with its policy as the resident had reported that the neighbour was using cannabis. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 September 2021 and advised her to report the smell of cannabis to the police. This was appropriate as the use or handling of drugs are criminal matters and would therefore fall within the jurisdiction of the police.
The police subsequently advised the landlord on various occasions, for example during a meeting on 10 November 2021, that they had visited the neighbour’s flat and had not found any evidence that the neighbour was using cannabis. The landlord was therefore entitled to rely on the information it had received from the police regarding the resident’s reports that the neighbour was using cannabis.
The police had also advised the landlord on 8 December 2021 that they had met with the resident and told her that they would not be taking action in relation to her reports of hate crime due to insufficient evidence. As hate crime is a criminal matter, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the findings of the police in relation to the resident’s reports of hate crime.
The evidence shows that the landlord suggested the use of mediation to improve the situation between the resident and her neighbour. However, this did not materialise as mediation requires the agreement of both parties to participate and this agreement had not been given. For example, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 20 May 2022 and advised that the resident had refused the offer of mediation. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 10 October 2022 to offer mediation and was advised that the resident would decide in 2 weeks whether to participate. However, the landlord later stated that the resident did not provide a decision.
It was reasonable that the landlord had offered mediation as this was in line with its ASB Policy. It was also appropriate because the landlord had not received any evidence to show that the neighbour was causing unreasonable levels of noise or was using cannabis. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider mediation as a viable option to resolve the reported issues.
Following an application by the resident for an ASB case review (community trigger), the landlord took part in the community trigger meeting on 6 September 2022. This was appropriate as Sections 104 and 105 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 lists social landlords, the police and local authorities as relevant bodies in relation to participating in ASB case reviews. It was confirmed at the meeting by the police that there was no evidence the neighbour had been using cannabis. It was also confirmed by the EHO that it was satisfied there was no statutory noise nuisance and the noise was normal living noise. The landlord was therefore entitled to rely on the information from the partner agencies at the ASB review meeting.
One of the areas of dissatisfaction outlined in the resident’s stage one complaint was that the landlord had “lost” the various recordings submitted by the resident through the Noise App. However, the evidence seen shows that although initially there had been a problem with the landlord receiving the recordings, it had worked closely with the Noise App company to resolve the problems. As a result, the landlord was able to access the recordings and share them with the council’s EHO. The EHO confirmed at the community trigger meeting on 6 September 2022 that he had listened to 172 recordings from the Noise App. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by working with the Noise App company to investigate the initial problems and resolve them. The landlord then acted appropriately by sharing them with the council, as agreed by the resident.
One of the other areas of dissatisfaction included by the resident in her stage one complaint was that the landlord and other partner agencies had encouraged her to leave her home. At the ‘professionals meeting’ on 18 April 2022, the landlord advised the resident’s representative and the police that it was aware the resident had approached the council’s Housing Options Team about moving but the landlord said it had never spoken to or written to the resident about moving. The landlord reiterated this in its stage one reply dated 16 December 2022 and said it had found no evidence of collusion with other agencies to persuade the resident to move.
Having reviewed the evidence available, the Ombudsman can confirm it has not seen any evidence that the landlord was seeking to persuade the resident to transfer to another property.
The landlord’s ASB Procedure states that it will regularly contact the victim of ASB and this will be at least once every 2 weeks unless agreed otherwise with the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident and her representatives, for example the landlord’s ASB system shows that fortnightly emails were sent to the resident or her representatives during 2021-2023 to request and/or provide updates on the case. The level of contact with the resident was therefore appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s ASB Procedure states that it will work with other agencies to resolve ASB. In this case, there were several examples showing where the landlord had worked closely with the police and the council’s Environmental Health Department. Examples included:
1. The landlord wrote to the EHO on 21 June 2021 to request the installation of noise monitoring equipment.
2. The landlord shared Noise App recordings with the EHO.
3. The landlord had maintained regular contact with the police in July and August 2021 while they were investigating the resident’s reports of hate crime.
4. The landlord met with the police on 12 January 2022 to discuss the case.
5. The landlord attended a ‘professionals meeting’ with the police and the resident’s representative on 18 April 2022 to discuss the case.
6. In June 2022, the landlord had requested the police to put an ABC in place.
7. On 6 September 2022, the landlord took part in the community trigger meeting with the police and the council.
8. During December 2023 and January 2024, the landlord had been in contact with the police while it carried out spot checks to see if the neighbour was using cannabis.
Overall, apart from the landlord’s failure to complete the risk assessment in conversation with the resident at the initial meeting, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB Policy by:
1. Recording the case on its ASB system and keeping proper records of action taken.
2. Investigating the resident’s reports of ASB using tools such as the Noise App and by interviewing the neighbour;
3. Maintaining regular contact with the resident;
4. Offering solutions such as mediation; and
5. Working with partner agencies to seek a resolution.
In relation to the risk assessment, the landlord had carried out a brief impact assessment on 17 May 2021 and it attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident and attempting to meet with the resident to review the risk assessment in 2022. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord did not do enough to put things right given the importance of carrying out an initial risk assessment. Therefore, this Service has found there was a service failure in relation to the risk assessment. In making this finding, the Ombudsman has taken not account the landlord’s apology for the failing and its subsequent attempts to produce the risk assessment.
This Service has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation, which is within the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy which was in operation at the time of the resident’s complaints stated that the complaints process consisted of 2 stages. The policy stated that the landlord would reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy added that if the timescales could not be met, the landlord would provide the resident with an explanation and a new timeframe for the response. However, it stated that any extension of time should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint in October 2022. The complaint was dated 17 October 2022 but the landlord advised this Service that it received the complaint some time after this date and logged it on 7 November 2022. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman is unable to determine the date the landlord received the complaint. However, the landlord sent its stage one reply on 16 December 2022 and therefore, even if the complaint had been received by the landlord on 7 November 2022, it took longer to reply than its prescribed 10 working day timescale.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 November to say it would need an extension of time due to ongoing investigations. Therefore, as the landlord was unable to meet its target timescale for replying to the stage one complaint, it was appropriate that it had written to the resident to advise that it needed an extension of time.
The landlord’s records show that during the period in question, the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident by writing to her or her representative to request updates. The landlord also liaised with the police who were carrying out the 3-month review of the community trigger decisions. Therefore, based on the evidence seen, the landlord had responded to the resident’s stage one complaint within a reasonable timescale as it had advised the resident there would be a delay in replying, had maintained contact with her and had been working with the police as part of its further investigations.
The resident wrote to the landlord with her stage 2 complaint on 20 January 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 6 April 2023, which was 54 working days after the resident had submitted the stage 2 complaint. This was considerably longer than the landlord’s prescribed timescale of 20 working days. However, the landlord had written to the resident on 2 February 2023 to advise her that it would need additional time due to the level of detail in her complaint. As the landlord was unable to respond within the prescribed timescale, it was appropriate that it had written to the resident to advise her it would need additional time to respond.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2023 with detailed additional information that she requested the landlord consider as part of her stage 2 complaint. As the resident had submitted additional information for consideration, it was reasonable that the landlord had agreed to include the additional points as part of the complaint and it was also reasonable that the landlord needed additional time to consider the information. Therefore, as the landlord had advised the resident that it needed an extension of time and the resident had submitted additional detailed information, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint within a reasonable timescale.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and hate crime.
In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about reasonable adjustments is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord failed to produce a risk assessment in conversation with the resident at the initial meeting with her. However, in all other respects, the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB Policy by maintaining appropriate case records, investigating the reports of ASB, maintaining regular contact with the resident, offering solutions such as mediation and working closely with partner agencies.
The resident’s concerns about reasonable adjustments were considered by this Service in its determination of 31 August 2022 (case reference 202015934).
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one and 2 complaints within reasonable timescales given that it wrote to the resident advising it would need more time, there were ongoing investigations and, at stage 2 of the process, the resident submitted additional information for the landlord to consider.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident £100 for failing to produce a risk assessment with the resident.