Charnwood Borough Council (202215660)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215660

Charnwood Borough Council

10 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decision to terminate his tenancy due to concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and damp and mould at the property.

Background

2. The resident was, until May 2022, the secure tenant of a property owned by the landlord, a local authority (LA).
3. On 23 May 2022, the resident informed the LA by email that he would be moving house on 27 May 2022. He asked the LA to give him a council tax rebate and to tell the landlord that he would be leaving and would pay no rent after that date. The LA sent him a tenancy termination form to complete and send to the landlord. It stated that there would be a four-week notice period from the time the landlord received it. The resident returned the completed form at the landlord’s office on 27 May 2022. On it, he said the effective date of termination was 23 May 2022, the previous Monday. The landlord later decided the effective date of termination was 30 May 2022 the next Monday. It said the end of the notice period, during which rent would be due, would be 27 June 2022.
4. The resident was unhappy with this decision and complained to the landlord on 5 September 2022. He said he had handed in his notice on 16 May 2022. He also said he should not have to pay rent over the four weeks’ notice period as he had had no choice but to leave because of the unacceptable level of ASB in the area around the property.
5. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said there was no evidence the resident had contacted it on 16 May 2022. The evidence showed he had done so on 25 May 2022 and signed the form at its office on 27 May 2022. It did not uphold this part of the complaint. It said its investigation showed that the resident had made only two reports of ASB in the previous two years. The most recent one was in March 2022. An officer visited and the resident told him that he did not want anyone to contact the suspected perpetrators. He said the ASB had occurred some time ago and he would be moving soon. The landlord did not uphold this part of the complaint.
6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 14 September 2022. He repeated that his family had faced unbearable ASB while living at the property. He said he had had no choice but to leave. He repeated that he first notified the landlord of his intention to terminate the tenancy on 16 May 2022. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had investigated further but found no evidence to support either of the resident’s claims. It maintained its decision from stage 1. The resident brought his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident stated, in a request for rehousing made in 2020, that the property was damp and mouldy. He sent his request to the housing allocation department of the LA and not to the landlord. Escalated complaints about Housing allocations are the responsibility of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to consider. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that this Service may not consider matters which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. Therefore, this aspect of his complaint has not been considered in this report. However, the landlord’s response regarding his further report of damp and mould, made to it in 2022, has been considered below.

Landlord’s handling of resident’s decision to end tenancy because of ASB and damp

ASB

8. The landlord’s ASB policy says it adopts an “incremental approach” when dealing with reports of ASB. What action it takes after a report will depend on the circumstances of each case and must be proportionate to the acts reported and the risk they cause to the victim. The tenancy agreement said the landlord would investigate any complaints of ASB.
9. The government has published guidance, Help with Anti-Social Behaviour for Social Housing Tenants, last updated in November 2021. In this guidance, the government says tenants must report ASB to the police, their LA, or their social landlord. If they are unhappy with a response, tenants can ask for a review of actions taken.
10. Therefore, the landlord’s policy, the tenancy agreement, and the government’s guidance, state that the landlord’s duty to act is dependent on reports of ASB by a resident.
11. The resident said, in his complaint to this Service, that he made regular reports of ASB to the LA over the course of his tenancy. However, the available evidence shows he complained only twice; in December 2020, and March 2022. The landlord also considered his ASB file in September 2021 when the resident “indicated he does not wish to report issues due to concern over repercussions.” This shows the landlord considered the relevant factors and did not take the matter further, in accordance with the resident’s wishes.
12. The resident reported ASB on 2 March 2022. An ASB officer visited him later the same day. He showed the officer an anonymous and threatening note which he said was posted through his letterbox. The officer wrote a report of the incident considering what action to take. The officer recorded that there was a ‘moderate’ and ‘medium’ risk to the resident.
13. The ASB report form stated that the resident said he had made numerous reports of ASB problems linked to a property and the area. It said he was unhappy that the LA did not pursue his reports. The form also said the resident had “agreed to log for info only at this stage as the incidents are historic and [the resident] is trying to move away from the location.”
14. This Service has seen no evidence to support the resident’s claim of failures of communication about ASB by the landlord. If there were failures of communication at the LA, they are not within this Service’s jurisdiction to consider. On the available evidence, the landlord considered the risk to the resident in March 22 and decided to take no action. This was in part because the resident, again, said he did not want it to.
15. The resident did not ask for a review of the landlord’s decisions to take no action. In fact, the evidence shows he asked the landlord, both in September 2021 and March 2022 not to act. The landlord explained this in both complaint responses and the resident did not dispute them. This Service, therefore, has no basis on which to consider that the landlord’s assertions were inaccurate.
16. Therefore, on the evidence, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of ASB were adequate and in line with relevant policies and the tenancy agreement.

Damp and Mould

17. The landlord’s repairs policy says that, when it receives a report of damp and mould within a property, it will arrange for an officer or a contractor to visit the property and then decide on action to remedy the problem.
18. As previously stated, this Service cannot investigate any claims made in the rehousing form sent to the LA in 2020. There is no evidence that the resident made any reports of damp or mould to the landlord during the year before he left the property.
19. The resident sent photographs to this Service of a boiler in a cupboard at the property. The records provided by the landlord show that the resident reported that the boiler had broken in March 2022 and that, after he reported it to the landlord, an engineer visited and repaired it. There was no mention of damp or mould made at that time. This report, therefore, finds that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report of a broken boiler.

Notice period

20. The tenancy agreement provides that the resident could end the tenancy at any time “by giving at least 28 days/four weeks’ notice in writing, ending on a Sunday.” (This emphasis was included in the tenancy agreement).
21. The landlord’s housing policy says it will reduce the notice period if the resident is:
    1. Transferring to another of the landlord’s properties, or.
    2. Transferring their tenancy to another registered provider of social housing such as a housing association.
22. The resident says he first contacted the landlord to inform it of his intention to move out on Monday 16 May 2022. This Service has seen no evidence that he did so. On the contrary, the available evidence shows that he first emailed the landlord on Wednesday 25 May and signed the form on 27 May 2022.
23. The LA told the resident, on 24 May 2022, that he would have to notify the landlord of his decision to terminate the tenancy in writing. It also said there would be a four-week notice period which would start when the landlord received written notice of termination.
24. The resident went to the landlord’s offices on 27 May 2022 and handed in a termination notice. On it, he said the effective date of notice was Monday 23 May 2022, the previous Monday. This would mean the notice period would end on Sunday 20 June 2022. The landlord did not agree and stated that the date of notice would be the next Monday, 30 May 2022 so the notice period would end on Sunday 27 June 2022. The wording of the tenancy agreement supports the landlord’s view.
25. The resident later told the landlord he had had no choice but to leave the property because of his concerns about ASB and damp and mould. However, as is stated above, the evidence shows that the resident had not complained about damp or mould and had asked it not to contact the suspected perpetrators of ASB. The landlord would have been limited in any actions it could have taken at the time as the usual initial measure for dealing with ASB reports is for the landlord to contact the alleged perpetrator about the issue.
26. The resident informed this Service that he now lives in a property owned by another social landlord. However, he indicated in his form that he was moving to another local council. Furthermore, in July 2022, his partner informed the landlord that she and the resident had moved into privately rented accommodation. Therefore, the landlord was not aware that the resident was moving to a housing association landlord at the time of its decision not to shorten the notice period.

Conclusion

27. A note of the resident’s concerns, made on 27 July 2022 said he felt “let down by [the landlord] on so many levels and that it is unfair to ask for 4 weeks’ notice as they had no choice but to leave when they found a more suitable private rental”.
28. On the available evidence, the landlord’s decision to require the resident to pay four weeks’ notice commencing on 30 May 2022 was in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policy.
29. The landlord could have used its discretion to reduce the notice period. However, as this was a matter of discretion and not something it had to do, its failure to do so does not warrant a finding of maladministration.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decision to terminate his tenancy due to concerns about ASB and damp.