Clarion Housing Association Limited (202012797)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012797

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and his request for a management transfer.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat and the tenancy commenced on 17 January 2019.
On 27 February 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that he received an abusive letter from his neighbour in the flat above. On the same day the resident’s neighbour spoke to the landlord and acknowledged that she had written a letter to the resident which was ‘‘half rude and the other half was asking the resident to leave her family alone’’. The neighbour alleged that later that day the resident had confronted her, following which her partner came running down the stairs and there was a scuffle between her partner and the resident. The neighbour confirmed that the Police had been called and provided a crime reference number.
On 4 March 2020, the landlord called the resident following the counter allegations made by his neighbour. During the call the resident also provided the landlord with a crime reference number.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord visited both the resident and his neighbour to carry out an ASB interview. The landlord noted had both agreed to leave the other alone.
On 3 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that on this occasion no further action would be taken and the case closed. The landlord confirmed that the neighbour had been spoken to regarding the incident and there had been no further incidents reported.
On 5 August 2020, the landlord received a report of ASB from the resident’s neighbour regarding an incident with the resident that day. Later the same day, the resident also reported the incident alleging that he was attacked by his neighbour and her partner and that there were witnesses including three contractors who were working on his block at the time and saw what happened. The resident said that he wanted a management move, as he had been attacked by the couple multiple times and no longer felt safe. The resident alleged that his neighbour and her partner try to intimidate every day and that every time they go past his door they kick it.
On 5 August 2020, the police emailed the landlord to confirm that they were called to the incident that day involving the resident, his neighbour and his neighbour’s partner. The police advised that there were three witnesses all of whom had given the same account that the resident was the aggressor.
On 6 August 2020, the resident’s community mental health officer (CMHO) called the landlord to advise that the resident was vulnerable and suffering from mental issues, and could not go back to his flat as he would be risking a new attack. The CMHO said that it was treating the case as a safeguarding issue and would like the landlord to do the same.
The landlord spoke to the CMHO the following day and confirmed that it would continue with its enquiries into the reported incident. The landlord also spoke to the resident on 7 August 2020, advising him that the Police were investigating the incident and it would take action against anyone convicted of an offence. The resident said that he had no plans to return to his property until his neighbour had moved and that they had told him they were moving soon.
On 12 August 2020, the resident advised the landlord that the local authority were seeking information regarding the provision of temporary accommodation. The landlord spoke to the local authority on 14 August 2020. The landlord explained that the incident and counter allegations were still being investigated but that due to possible vulnerability issues it would support the resident being offered temporary accommodation.
On 17 August 2020, the resident advised that the local authority had refused him temporary accommodation as he had a suitable property to go back to. The resident repeated his concerns regarding his safety were he to return to the property. The same day the landlord referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment team asking that it assess the resident’s need for additional support or ways to deal with the current situation.
On 21 August 2020, the landlord emailed the police to ask if they had anything they were able to share about the incidence as it had become difficult to establish who was the perpetrator and who was the victim for the purpose of taking any tenancy or ASB action. The police responded on 24 August 2020 advising that the investigation was still ongoing and that they had an appointment booked with the resident the following day to discuss the case.
On 26 August 2020, the landlord called the resident. The landlord noted that the resident did not want to return to his property despite the police not agreeing to support a move to alternative accommodation on the basis of high risk. The landlord advised the resident that for it to recommend a management move this must be supported by the police.
On 18 September 2020, the landlord noted that the resident’s neighbour was moving out and as no further incidents had been reported, the case was to be closed. On 21 September 2020, the police emailed the landlord to confirm that, whilst they understood the resident’s concerns, it would be safe for him to return home as there was no evidence to suggest that he would be in immediate danger were he to do so.
On 24 September 2020 the landlord contacted the resident. The landlord noted that the resident declined its offer of window and door alarms and advised that he had no intention of returning to the property due to fears for his safety.
On 26 October 2020, police contacted the landlord to confirm that the case of the resident being the victim had been closed as there were four independent witnesses that all said that the resident was the aggressor and that there was no evidence that it was unsafe for the resident to return home.
On 28 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that he had moved back into his property and to request that the landlord further its offer of a door alarm, door braces, window alarms and a personal alarm.
On 11 November 2020, the resident reported that that afternoon his neighbour and her partner, who had by this time moved to another property, had been talking to their old neighbours outside his flat window and then moved to stand directly outside his front door. The resident referred to the incidents of 27 February and 5 August 2020 and that he was now scared to leave his home in case they were carrying weapons.
On 13 November 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident who advised that he had contacted the Police who were taking no further action.
The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that his report of ASB was being considered under its ASB policy and procedure. The landlord noted that it had agreed with the resident that he would complete incident diary sheets and continue to report incidents of crime to the police.
The landlord reviewed the case on 17 December 2020, noting that there was no evidence of ASB, the resident had been uncooperative with evidence gathering process, there was no police involvement as there no evidence of a crime and that it was not justifiable to interview the alleged perpetrator as there was no evidence that they had behaved unreasonably. The case was closed the same day.
On 17 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm his acceptance, and receipt of, security equipment on 1 December 2020. The landlord advised that as there was insufficient evidence for further action the case had been closed.
On 28 January 2021, following contact from the resident, this service wrote to the landlord asking it to contact the resident regarding his complaint about how it had responded to his reports of ASB and his request to be moved to another property.
The landlord issued its Stage One response on 18 February 2021. The landlord acknowledged that the resident did not feel safe living at his property, that he felt under threat by his neighbour and that he was seeking a management transfer to assist with his situation. The landlord:
1. Noted that in 2019 its tenancy sustainment team had assisted the resident to apply for alternative accommodation from the local authority but this had been unsuccessful, and that in March 2020 it had again assisted the resident with his application and advised what evidence he would need to support this.
2. Confirmed that it had been contacted by the police in October 2020 to advise that they did not have concerns for the resident’s safety should he return to his property and as such the resident would not have been considered for a management transfer.
The resident escalated his complaint the same day.
On 23 February 2021, the resident reported that he had received an intimidating text message from a third party, which he said was related to his previous reports of ASB by his ex-neighbour and her partner.
On 16 March 2021, the landlord issued its final response. The landlord confirmed that the resident had reported incidents of ASB by his neighbour in the past year and that these were discussed with both the resident, his neighbour and the police, who decided to take no further action against his neighbour. It had provided the resident with security equipment on 1 December 2020. It could find no evidence against his neighbour, there were no further incidents and so it closed the cases. The neighbour had since moved.
With regards to the resident’s report of 23 February 2021, the landlord noted that the resident felt the text was intimidation as his ex-neighbour and her partner were due to appear as witnesses in a hearing where they would be stating that the resident assaulted them. The landlord confirmed that it could find no evidence to confirm that his ex-neighbours sent the message, they were no longer its tenants and so it had decided to close the case.
With regards to the resident’s request for a management transfer, the landlord confirmed that it agreed with the position given in its stage one response. The landlord explained that this was because the other party involved in the assault allegations had moved and were no longer living in his block, the police had stated that they did not consider the resident to be at risk and that the police believed him to be safe at his current address. The landlord advised the resident that he should seek to be rehoused through ‘‘the usual route’’ and that it was happy to offer the resident a referral to its tenancy sustainment service who would be able to support and provide guidance and advice on moving.
The resident’s complaint was referred to this service by his MP on 23 March 2021.

Assessment and findings

Relevant legislation, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
1. Harassment can include a range of behaviours such as threats, verbal abuse, written abuse including via social media, violent behaviour and behaviour causing or intended to cause alarm or distress. These are generally criminal offences and are the responsibility of the police. The landlord will request a crime reference number, to ensure that the problem is reported to the Police before it will investigate.
2. For urgent crime cases, such as those that involve violence or the threat of violence, once it has received a crime reference the landlord will start its investigation within 24 working hours. For non-urgent crimes, such as social media harassment or verbal abuse, the landlord will contact the complainant within 5 working days of receiving a crime reference number.
3. Urgent and non-urgent crime cases can be closed after the initial interview and initial actions (e.g. checking what the Police have done/are doing) have been carried out and the Police have decided there is insufficient evidence.
4. The landlord can offer security measures such as window locks, door bolts, chains, spyholes and personal alarms, subject to an assessment of the cost and level of threat.

Assessment

Whilst this is a clearly an upsetting situation for the resident, it is the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports rather than to establish who was responsible for any anti-social behaviour. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration, this report has considered what the landlord was committed to do under its ASB and Management transfer policy and whether it behaved in a manner that was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
During the period covered by this report, the resident reported incidents of ASB on four occasions, 27 February 2020, 5 August 2020, 11 November 2020 and 23 February 2021. As the incidents included alleged written abuse, threats and violent behaviour, and had caused the resident alarm and distress, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider each of these reports under its ASB procedure.
Following the resident’s report on 27 February 2020, that he had received an abusive letter from his neighbour that he found distressing, it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the report under its ASB procedure. Following the neighbours report, the same day, of a scuffle between her partner and the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord call the resident to advise him of the counter allegations made, which it did on 4 March 2020, four working days later, in accordance with its ASB policy and service standards. The landlord also arranged to interview both parties to discuss the incident, which took place on 13 March 2020.
Having spoken to both parties, who the landlord noted had both agreed to leave the other alone, and as there were no further incidents nor any evidence of any action being taken by the Police, it was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s policies and procedures for the landlord to close the case. The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm this on 3 June 2020.
Two months later, on 5 August 2020, there were further reports of ASB made by both parties. On this occasion the resident alleged that he had been physically assaulted by his neighbour and her partner, and had required hospital treatment.
Prior to the resident’s report, the landlord had also received a report from the resident’s neighbour regarding the incident. The landlord spoke to the Police whilst they were still on site. There is no evidence of what was said during that call, however, later the same day the landlord was contacted by the Police who confirmed that they had attended the incident that day and that they had three witnesses all of whom said that the resident was the aggressor.
Given the concerns raised by both the resident and his CMHO, the landlord promptly contacted the police again to advise of the resident’s counter allegations and of the concerns about him returning to the property.
As it had not had a response from the Police, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact them again to request an update on their investigation which it did on 21 August 2020, two weeks later. The Police responded on 24 August 2020 to advise that due to the counter allegations made by the resident they had arranged an appointment to discuss the matter with the resident the following day.
On 21 September 2020, the Police advised the landlord that it was safe for the resident to return home as there was no evidence to suggest that he would be in immediate danger were he to do so. The Police confirmed their position on 26 October 2020, and also confirmed that the case of the resident being the victim had been closed as there were four independent witnesses that all said that the resident was the aggressor.
As there were no further incidents and as the Police had confirmed that it would be taking no further action in relation to the resident’s allegations, it was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s policies and procedures for the landlord to close the case.
On 11 November 2020, the resident reported that his neighbour and her partner, who had by this time moved out of the block, had returned to visit friends. The resident reported that he was caused distress by them standing outside his window and then moving to stand outside his front door. The landlord discussed the resident’s concerns with him and established that the Police were not taking any further action. The landlord offered the resident diary sheets to complete to report any further incidents. The landlord reviewed the case on 17 December 2020. As there was no evidence that the alleged perpetrators had behaved unreasonably, having received no further evidence from the resident, there being no police involvement and as the alleged perpetrators no longer lived in the resident’s block it was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s policies and procedures for the landlord to close the case.
On 23 February 2021, the resident reported that he had received an intimidating text message from a third party, which he said was related to his previous reports of ASB by his ex-neighbour and her partner. As the landlord was unable to find any evidence to confirm that his ex-neighbours had sent the message, and as they said that they were no longer its tenants, it was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s policies and procedures for it to close the case.
With regards to the resident’s request for a management transfer. The landlord’s management transfer policy states that management transfers should only be considered if the Police confirm in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to the tenant or their family that means it is no longer safe for the tenant to continue living at the property.
It was therefore reasonable and in accordance with its policy for the landlord to rely on the available evidence from the Police, to decide whether the resident’s situation met its criteria for a management move.
On both 21 September 2020 and on 26 October 2020, the police advised the landlord that they believed it to be safe for the resident to return home as there was no evidence to suggest that he would be in immediate danger were he to do so. Given that that was the case it was appropriate and in accordance with its management transfer policy for the landlord to refuse the resident’s request.
As well as investigating the ASB itself, the Ombudsman expects landlord to consider whether there may be any appropriate support it might offer the resident.
Between February 2020 and February 2021, the landlord took a number of actions to support the resident. These included:
1. Liaising with the resident’s community mental health coordinator (CMHO)
2. Having been advised by the resident on 12 August 2020, that the local authority was seeking information regarding the provision of temporary accommodation, the landlord spoke to the local authority on 14 August 2020 and, due to possible vulnerability issues, confirmed that it would support the resident being offered temporary accommodation.
3. On the same day as the resident informed the landlord that the local authority had declined his request for the provision of temporary accommodation, the landlord referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment team asking that it assess the resident’s need for additional support or ways to deal with the current situation.
4. The landlord offered the resident additional security measures in order to reassure him of his safety whilst within his home.
Whilst it did not offer a management transfer to the resident, the landlord did offer the resident a referral to its tenancy sustainment service who would be able to provide support with regards to alternative routes by which the resident might be able to move.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and his request for a management transfer.

Reasons

Following each of the resident’s four reports of ASB, on 27 February 2020, 5 August 2020, 11 November 2020 and 23 February 2021, the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure, taking steps to investigate each report, liaising with the police and interviewing both parties where appropriate. Having found no evidence to support it taking any further action, and as the by the time of the resident’s report of 11 November 2020 the neighbour had moved out of the resident’s block, it was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s policies and procedures for the landlord to close the cases.
In deciding whether the resident’s situation met its criteria for a management move it was reasonable and in accordance with its policy for the landlord to rely on the available evidence from the Police. Having received confirmation from the Police that they believed it would be safe for the resident to return to his home, it was appropriate for the landlord to refuse his request for a management transfer.
The landlord took steps to alleviate some of the resident’s anxiety including advice and support around housing options, the provision of safety equipment, and advising it would continue to work with the resident to support his tenancy.