Clarion Housing Association Limited (202010331)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010331

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 July 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

The complaint concerns how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 11 October 2020 the landlord opened an ASB case following a telephone call from the resident. The ASB case notes state that the resident described ongoing issues of noise nuisance from her neighbours. She stated that she had reported the incidents to the police, who had advised her to raise the matter with her landlord. The resident also requested a manager transfer due to the affect this has had on her health.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2020. It informed her that it would be taking no further action and closing the ASB case. It explained it had contacted the police who informed it that it had received many calls from the resident over a four-year period and that they were unable to find any evidence to support her reports.
The landlord then advised the resident that to make so many complaints against an individual without any supporting evidence could be seen as harassment and further action may then be taken. It also advised the resident that if she were to experience any further noise nuisance, to record the incidents using a noise recording app and that the landlord would reassess the case based on the recordings.
The resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord on 30 November 2020. She described the elements of her complaint as:
1. The 12 November 2020 letter sent by the landlord had accused her of being a liar and that she was concerned the letter had labelled her as a ‘bad tenant’ and that this would affect her ability to move to a different property.
2. She had experienced ongoing issues of ASB with her neighbours since 2017 which had included issues with parking, noise nuisance and a bush in the neighbour’s garden which blocked the light into the resident’s property.
3. The reason she had made so many reports to the police as well as to Environmental Health was due to the length of time the ASB had occurred and that she was dissatisfied with the response she had received from the landlord.
4. The landlord seemed to be favouring her neighbours over her as her neighbours were leaseholders.
5. The ongoing situation has had a major impact on her health.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested a written letter of apology from the staff member who wrote the 12 November 2020 letter. The resident also asked the landlord why the 12 November 2020 was not signed and to receive an assurance that this matter would have no effect on her property transfer process with the local authority.
The resident called the landlord on 17 December 2020 and asked for an update on the status of her complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call states that it informed the resident that her complaint was awaiting to be assigned to a complaint-handler and that she would be contacted when this occurred.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 December to inform her that a complaint-handler had been assigned. A telephone call occurred on 30 December 2020 where the landlord and resident discussed the complaint, and a stage one complaint response was then sent on 14 January 2021.
It informed the resident that it had raised the matter of the 12 November 2020 letter internally, but it was unable to give specific details due to data protection regulations. It noted that it was satisfied that while the resident may have been unhappy with the content of the letter, that it was sent in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord explained that its ASB policy states that it reserves the right, even if the threshold is met, not to investigate a case where a complainant is deemed as being unreasonable, vindictive or vexatious.
The landlord then summarised its 30 December 2020 telephone call with the resident where the resident stated that she had previously been told she was unable to raise an ASB complaint against a leaseholder. She had also said she had gathered evidence of noise nuisance from her neighbour but had been unable to present it to the landlord. The landlord then stated that:
1. Its ASB policy applies to its customers of all tenures living in properties it owns and manages, including leaseholders. It was unsure how or why the resident was informed she was unable to make complaints against leaseholders.
2. The resident had made numerous complaints against her neighbour, the last of which was that the neighbour was running a business from her home illegally. This was investigated and no evidence was found to support the allegation. During the investigation, the neighbour informed the landlord that the resident had made numerous complaints about them to both the police and the local authority’s Environmental Health department (“Environmental Health”), all of which had found to be false with no further action taken.
3. The landlord had contacted the police regarding this matter. The police confirmed that they had received numerous complaints and that the resident was known to them as a ‘prolific caller’. The police also advised the landlord to contact the resident and warn her to stop making complaints as this behaviour could be deemed as harassment.
4. As a result of this correspondence, the 12 November 2020 letter was sent to the resident closing the ASB case and informing her that no further action would be taken.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint.
The resident and landlord discussed the grounds for escalating the complaint during a telephone call held on 11 March 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call described the grounds as:
1. The resident felt she had not been given adequate support from the landlord and was being restricted in raising ASB concerns.
2. The landlord had sent mixed messages in saying that it would consider any further reports of ASB from the resident, while also stating that it would take legal action against her.
3. She would like an apology from the landlord for the way she was spoken to during telephone conversations and the tone of the letters it had sent.
4. She felt that she had been labelled a bad tenant and would like the landlord to state in writing that she had not been ‘blacklisted’ to prevent her from moving properties.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 26 March 2021. The landlord said that it was satisfied with its position as set out in the stage one complaint response but wished to provide further clarity and address the points raised during the 11 March 2020 telephone call. It informed the resident that:
1. She was free to raise any further concerns relating to ASB and no restrictions had been placed on her contact. However, if the reports did not meet the threshold to enable the landlord to take action, it would not open a new ASB case.
2. The 12 November 2020 letter was sent to the resident following a pattern of reports made to the landlord from the police and the local authority. The landlord was satisfied that its decision to close the case was correct as the threshold had not been met to keep the case open.
3. It apologised for the disappointment felt by the resident for the tone of the letter and in her subsequent telephone calls. The resident’s comments had been passed on to the appropriate manager.
4. It had no wish to inhibit the resident’s attempts to move home and landlord does not have a ‘blacklist’ of tenants. Rehousing decisions are made purely on the basis of housing need.
5. It noted that the issue of bushes blocking the light into the resident’s property raised in her letter of complaint was not addressed in the stage one response. It informed the resident that it had passed this information on internally to investigate further.
The landlord concluded the response by awarding the resident £50 compensation for not meeting its complaint timescales and apologised for the inconvenience that this caused.

Assessment and findings

Section 5 of the landlord’s ASB policy describes the thresholds that are required to be met for an ASB case to be opened and a full investigation undertaken. For noise nuisance the threshold is three separate incidents reported within seven days, five separate incidents reported within 28 days, or two incidents reported within 28 days from at least two different households.
Section 5.3 of the policy describes the circumstances where an ASB case will not be investigated even if this threshold had been met. This states as follows:

“We reserve the right not to investigate a case, even when the threshold is met, where we have evidence that the complainant is being unreasonable, vindictive or vexatious. In such instances, the complainant will be informed that we will not be taking further action in relation to that specific complaint and why.”

On 2 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the police regarding reports the resident had made to them relating to ASB from her neighbour. The police replied on the same day and informed it of the number of the reports made by the resident, the majority of which were not police matters, and no evidence had been found to support any of the allegations made by the resident.
As a result of this correspondence, the landlord took the decision to close the ASB case and wrote to the resident on 12 November 2020 to explain its reasons. In her letter of complaint, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the tone of the letter. The resident later highlighted the mixed messages the letter seemed to be sending, as she was not sure if the landlord had restricted her ability to report ASB.
It was appropriate for the landlord to take seriously the information provided to it by the police of the nature of the reports made by the resident and then correctly apply its ASB policy by closing the case. However, the landlord would also be expected to respond appropriately to any further reports made by the resident. It was therefore correct for it to inform the resident that it would examine any further reports to establish if they met the threshold as specified in section 5 of the ASB policy, and that if this threshold was met then a new ASB case would be opened. Likewise, it was appropriate to inform the resident that further action may be taken if her reports continued to be considered unreasonable, vindictive or vexatious.
The landlord provided further detail of this approach in its complaint responses. It also recognised the distress caused to the resident by the 12 November 2020 letter and subsequent telephone conversations. The landlord informed the resident that this had been fed back internally and it would look to improve how it provided this information to residents in similar situations in the future.
Overall, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord. It followed its ASB policy in how in opened and closed the ASB case and wrote to the resident to explain the reasons why the case was closed. When this was disputed, the landlord opened a formal complaint and explained in detail how it reached the decision to close the ASB case.
Following an escalation request, the landlord sent a stage two complaint response where it addressed all of the resident’s outstanding issues and also reassured her that the 12 November 2020 letter would have no effect on her property transfer process with the local authority or that it operated any kind of ‘blacklist’ of its tenants.
The landlord also recognised that it had not met its complaint timescales and did not address the issue of overgrown bushes near the property at stage one. The landlord passed on the matter of the bushes to the appropriate team to investigate and apologised to the resident for the delays in providing the complaint responses and awarded £50 compensation. This payment is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) which suggests a payment of £50-£250 in cases of service failure where the impact was of short duration and did not significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports of ASB.