Bromford Housing Group Limited (201903619)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201903619

Bromford Housing Group Limited

20 January 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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:

1. antisocial behaviour from neighbours
2. a data breach and a data request
3. complaint handling

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(h) and 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a data breach and a data request

4. Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.’
5. Legal proceedings are generally considered to be ‘issued’ or started when a formal ‘letter of claim’ is sent by either party. The resident’s solicitors issued a ‘letter of claim’ on 5 March 2020. Where a complaint has been the subject of legal proceedings, it will not be considered by the Ombudsman.
6. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.’
7. The Information Commissioner’s Office investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data, and it is not in this Service’s jurisdiction to investigate the resident’s reports about a data breach and a data request.
8. The complaints about antisocial behaviour and complaints handling are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and have been considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

9. The resident is a non shorthold assured tenant of the landlord at a two bedroom semi-detached property. The tenancy commenced in 2000.
10. The landlord’s Tenancy Agreement confirms the requirement for all tenants, their household members and visitors not to cause harassment, nuisance, annoyance, violence and aggression or make threats to any person.
11. The landlord’s ASB Policy sets out its approach to antisocial behaviour. It expects a reasonable level of tolerance between neighbour and expects initial responsibility to resolve disputes to lie with the parties. The landlord does not investigate what amount to normal everyday activities and complaints which are not a breach of the terms of tenancy. The landlord also does not investigate actions which amount to people being unpleasant to each other but not justifying its involvement; and people being inconsiderate or thoughtless where there is no breach of tenancy.
12. In tackling ASB, the landlord aims to prioritise complaints based on seriousness and risk of harm; investigate fairly; maintain confidentiality and act in accordance with Data Protection legislation; consider the most appropriate tools according to available evidence; and use multi agency working.
13. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1, it aims to respond within 7 working days, in writing only at customer request. To escalate to Stage 2, the landlord requires unresolved issues and outcomes sought to be stated. Escalation may not be accepted if the landlord has responded to all the points in the complaint and escalation will not change the decision. Where this is the case the landlord reviews its response and confirms to customers what alternative options there are outside of its internal process. At Stage 2, the landlord aims to respond in 14 days in writing.
14. The Housing Act 1985 sets out the grounds for possession landlords have for ASB, such as conviction of offences or breached injunctions. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 sets out proceedings landlords and the police can take such as injunctions and Criminal Behaviour Orders.
15. The landlord has provided evidence of previous reports of alleged ASB from the resident. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation relates to the substantive issues that have progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure; these separate issues have therefore not been investigated here and any reference to them during this investigation report are included for contextual purposes only. The investigation report has also referenced evidence that has been provided relating to events post dating the complaints procedure, again, this information has been referenced for contextual purposes only.

Summary of events

16. Prior to the current complaint, from December 2018 the resident had an open ASB case which the landlord visited their next door neighbour about several times to discuss. The landlord developed an action plan with the resident to record incidents in diary sheets and to contact the local authority Environmental Health team. On 3 May 2019 the landlord issued the resident a case closure letter, following her request for the landlord to no longer contact her or her neighbour about the issues.
17. On 20 May 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour’s (also a landlord tenant) partner filmed her; put his hand over her fence to extinguish incense in her garden with a substance; and her face was sprayed with the substance as this was being done. The landlord’s contemporaneous records confirm it met with the resident alongside two neighbours and two police community support officers and mediation was agreed.
18. On 5 June 2019 the landlord received a complaint dated 30 May 2019 from the resident, about its handling of ASB. On 14 June 2019 the landlord issued a Stage 1 response to the complaint. It outlined its recent actions, the closure of the previous ASB case and conclusions made. It explained its commitment to tackling ASB and that a reasonable level of tolerance between neighbours is expected. It noted mediation was agreed and steps would be taken to arrange this. It noted it asked the area mental health team to contact the resident given a stated impact on her mental health.
19. On 19 June 2019 the landlord notes it received a call from the resident following its response, which it replied to on 21 June 2019 in writing:

1. It explained what action it and the police took in relation to a claimed assault where no formal action was taken by the police.

2. It addressed other complaints from the resident and that it considered appropriate action had been taken. It noted a complaint about the neighbour not obtaining consent for a fence and stated it was happy for this to remain.
3. It provided a copy of its ASB Policy and another document at the resident’s request.
4. It confirmed mediation was scheduled for 10 July 2019 and a police community support officer would attend this.

20. On 11 July 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that she had experienced verbal abuse from her neighbour’s son. On 9 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident apologising for the delay, due to waiting to speak to the neighbour. It confirmed the neighbour accepted the behaviour was unacceptable and would speak to their son. It noted counter allegations were made by the neighbour who requested modification of language toward them. The landlord decided not to take any further action, as it believed the problems were due to lack of tolerance between the resident and her neighbour.
21. On 19 August 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbours had filmed her and their fan had blown over incense and pots in her garden. On 23 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed it spoke to her neighbours who agreed not to film her or place the fan in the same location. It noted the neighbours requested placement of incense by the fence to cease, as they were unable to enjoy their home and garden due to smoke. It noted the resident refused this request. The landlord decided not to take any further action, as it believed the problems were due to lack of tolerance between the resident and her neighbour, and would continue to monitor both tenancies.
22. On 16 September 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that she had experienced verbal abuse from her neighbour’s partner. On 27 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed it spoke to her and her neighbours and reviewed video she supplied. It noted it was accepted certain things were said, but counter allegations were made. It noted it understood police were called and no further action would be taken. The landlord noted the resident’s desired outcome for her neighbour to be taken to court and evicted. It explained it works with customers to control their lives and a factor to this was customer recognition that initial responsibility to resolve disputes lies with them. The landlord advised that both neighbours were not being very nice to each other and incidents did not justify its involvement. It proposed a referral to Restorative Justice, which gave those affected by ASB to explain how they have been affected to those who caused the harm.
23. On 19 September 2019 the landlord issued a Stage 1 response to letters from the resident dated 17, 18, 25 and 27 August 2019, and 6 and 12 September 2019:

1. It explained how a reported data breach and a data request were being handled.

2. It explained actions taken in response to reports since July 2019, and that decisions to take no further action were in line with its ASB Policy.
3. It stated a recent report was being reviewed in line with the ASB policy.
4. It confirmed complaints about its ASB handling had been responded to on 14 and 21 June 2019. It asked the resident to provide points or evidence to support allegations of poor ASB handling and it would review these.
5. It noted a stated desired outcome was to meet with specific staff to discuss the ASB and conduct of staff. It informed the resident this would not take place but assured her it was aware of her ongoing ASB reports.

24. On 9 October 2019 the landlord held a meeting with the resident at her request. The landlord explained issues raised had been addressed in its responses and matters could be progressed further through the complaint procedure, although this would require new information.
25. On 11 October 2019 the landlord issued a Stage 1 response to two letters dated 14 September 2019 and two letters dated 28 September 2019:

1. It noted majority of points were already addressed in responses on 14 and 21 June 2019 and 19 September 2019.

2. It noted complaint escalation was discussed at the meeting on 9 October 2019 and prior to escalation it asks what points remain unanswered and outcomes sought. It stated having read the resident’s correspondence, all points were answered, and there was no additional evidence to support complaint escalation. It asked the resident to provide evidence to support a request for further investigation.
3. As it believed all points had been responded to, it would not respond to further letters and only to new concerns raised.

26. On 25 October 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that she had experienced verbal abuse from her neighbour’s partner and he put his hand over her fence. On 7 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed it spoke to her and her neighbours who denied the allegation. It noted the resident and her neighbour raised counter allegations including noise that it made both aware of. It provided information to the resident about how to contact the local authority if noise nuisance continued, which it confirmed it also provided to her neighbour. It recommended mediation be attempted again, as the issue could only be resolved by working together.
27. Between 14 and 25 March 2020 the resident reported further incidents to the landlord and on 2 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident.

1. It noted it discussed an incident on 14 March 2020 with her neighbour where they said something in response to her staring at them. It asked the neighbour not to say anything and stated it will not investigate complaints about neighbours staring, or actions which amount to being inconsiderate or thoughtless where there is no breach of tenancy.

2. It noted it discussed an incident on 23 March 2020 with her neighbour where they had said something when they heard the neighbour laughing. It noted counter allegations were made and it had told the neighbour not to use such unacceptable language.
3. It noted it discussed an incident on 25 March 2020 with her neighbour where it was alleged the resident was asked outside to fight. It noted the neighbour admitted during shouting from both sides that they went outside to the front, but did not get into a fight. The landlord understood police were called but had received no update and understood there had been no further incident.
4. It noted the resident reported a smell of weed which it confirmed it would discuss with her neighbour, and was also working to resolve the fence issue she had reported again.
5. It noted the resident stated she felt victimised and was given false information by the landlord. It assured her it had always remained professional but apologised she felt victimised and for any misunderstanding.
6. It stated it believed the problems were due to lack of tolerance between the resident and her neighbour, it would take no further action, and was closing the case.

28. On 17 April 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident in response to reports including on 9 April 2020. It noted she reported injury which the police had not taken any action about. The landlord explained it listens to both parties and reviews information fairly. It explained it had not received any further information from the police, and her neighbour had their own version of events.
29. On 9 April 2020 the landlord issued a Stage 1 response to two complaints submitted on 20 and 21 March. It apologised for the delay responding due to case complexity. It acknowledged it had not followed policies and processes in relation to a complaint made about the neighbour’s fence. It apologised for this and confirmed it would aim to learn lessons from the case. It confirmed it was working with the local authority to take appropriate action concerning the fence.
30. On 22 April 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that dog faeces were thrown into her garden. On 4 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s distress at the incident and confirmed it and the police spoke to her neighbour. It noted the police did not make any arrests and gave her neighbour a warning. It confirmed it consulted with its Community Safety team and had given the neighbour a formal warning. It explained their tenancy would be monitored and if there were further incidents deemed a breach of their tenancy terms and conditions, legal action would begin. It noted the neighbour had asked for incense sticks to be moved away from the fence which it noted the resident had agreed to think about. The landlord apologised the resident felt it had failed her in various ways and assured her it tries to do its utmost to ensure her wellbeing.
31. On 7 May 2020, following request from this Service, the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaints:

1. It noted its previous response on 19 September 2019 comprehensively addressed issues of dissatisfaction and its response on 11 October 2019 explained its approach to escalation. It noted subsequent communication raised issues already responded to.

2. It apologised it had not handled ASB to the resident’s satisfaction. It confirmed it had reviewed correspondence and ASB Policy was followed. It explained it had worked closely with the resident, her neighbours and police and the resident met with multiple agencies. The resident and her neighbour made counter allegations about each other. There was no evidence it or the police had sided with her neighbours.
3. It addressed concern it was equating ASB to intolerance by explaining the context this was used.
4. It noted the local authority was not taking any further action concerning the neighbour’s fence.
5. It confirmed recent ASB was being dealt with in line with its ASB Policy and would not be covered in the Stage 2 investigation, since it does not investigate complaints where there is another process to handle them.

Assessment and findings

ASB

32. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out the type of complaints which the Ombudsman will and may not investigate. This sets out the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern employment or personnel issues. It is noted the resident complains about how specific staff responded to her. Generally this Service considers a landlord and its staff to be the same, so in this case this Service has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s ASB reports and complaint.
33. 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, it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
34. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust 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 often the most challenging for a landlord as in practice, the options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include the resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
35. In this case, it is evident the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s ASB reports, in that it discussed issues with the resident, her neighbour and other neighbours and reviewed evidence. It liaised with police and other agencies. It offered mediation. It met with the resident at her request. After it investigated, it responded in writing and confirmed its position. Such actions were in accordance with the landlord’s ASB Policy and in accordance with what the Ombudsman would expect to see.
36. Having investigated the issues, the landlord clearly did not dispute the behaviour reported, but decided not to investigate them further. As it is a requirement of the policy to treat all tenants fairly, it was reasonable for the landlord to take into account the neighbour’s counter allegations. The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms it can decide not to take further action in cases where it considers actions to amount to people being unpleasant to each other and do not justify its involvement. While not the resident’s preferred outcome, this was in line with the landlord’s ASB Policy.
37. For the resident’s desired outcomes, there is no evidence the landlord or police considered formal warnings or proceedings under the Housing Act 1985 or The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to be appropriate. The landlord’s decision not to consider such action appropriate was in accordance with its ASB Policy that legal action is a last resort.
38. This investigation has not assessed the landlord’s handling of reports received around the time of the landlord’s final complaint response, as these were being handled under the landlord’s ASB procedure and had not yet progressed through its complaints policy. However, the formal warning it gave demonstrates it does change its approach where it considers this necessary, based on evidence and discussion with other agencies.
39. Having decided to not take further action against specific parties, it is evident the landlord sought to encourage the neighbours to resolve issues between them, participate in mediation, and make each aware of the other’s allegations and concerns. This demonstrates the landlord’s resolution focused approach and desire to encourage both neighbours to resolve their disputes themselves by being more mindful and tolerant of each other. This is in accordance with its ASB Policy, and the general aim and objective of ASB processes to help avoid issues between residents rather than taking enforcement action.

Complaints handling

40. The landlord’s ASB and formal complaint responses address specific issues raised by the complainant and overall, the landlord’s responses were appropriate as these clearly explain what it did to investigate issues, the positions taken and why.
41. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s re-raising of issues and escalation requests were also in accordance with its policies These give it no obligation to respond to the same issue or change decision-making, if the only apparent reason is disagreement with the decision. Where it decides not to escalate to Stage 2, such as on 19 September 2019,  the landlord may wish to consider being clearer as to whether a Stage 1 response classes as its final response. It is noted the landlord has since amended its Complaints Policy to reflect this Service’s new Complaint Handling Code, which encourages clear communication in this regard.
42. 24.The landlord’s overall response to this case was in accordance with its ASB and Complaints Policies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:

1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports about antisocial behaviour from neighbours.

2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports about complaint handling.

Reasons

43. The landlord has appropriately handled the reports about antisocial behaviour from neighbours.
44. The landlord responded in line with its policies in its complaint handling.