Clarion Housing Association Limited (202119820)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119820

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Allegations of ASB made against the resident.
3. The resident’s related complaint.
4. A request for the resident to remove his camera doorbell.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to exhausting the member’s complaints procedure. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable time.
The resident said he has raised a complaint with the landlord around July 2023 about its request for him to remove his camera doorbell. He said he considers this request to be unfair. He said he has not yet received a response to this complaint. In line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This service is currently in contact with the resident to assist him in obtaining a complaint response from the landlord. The resident may approach this service again, once he has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, should he remain unhappy with its response to this issue.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat within an apartment building.
The resident’s lease with the landlord states:
1. No musical instruments, televisions, radios, loudspeakers or other noisemaking machine/instrument can be used which causes annoyance to other occupiers of the premises.
The landlord’s ASB policy acknowledges that ASB takes many forms, including noise nuisance, verbal abuse and criminality. The landlord states it will take ASB seriously and that it will work with internal and external partners to tackle it.
The ASB policy goes on to say the landlord:
1. is committed to taking effective action and using powers available where it considers these can provide an effective remedy.
2. expects residents to report criminal behaviour to the police, and for the police and other statutory agencies to take action where there is sufficient evidence.
3. will work with the police and local authorities. It states it will use evidence these agencies provide, along with evidence the landlord obtains, to take enforcement action where appropriate.
The ASB policy sets out that harassment includes behaviours such as threats, verbal abuse, written abuse causing, or intended to cause alarm or distress. It says the landlord will take tenancy enforcement action against the perpetrator as a result of evidence obtained by the police or upon conviction.
The landlord’s ASB policy categorises reports of ASB as follows:
1. Category 1 – crime (including harassment) – It says it will work with the police on collaborative basis and will take action to enforce tenancy conditions. It says it will not generally lead on resolving these incidents.
2. Category 2 and 3 – noise and other ASB.
The landlord sets out that it will investigate category 2 and 3 ASB incidents when these meet one of the landlord’s thresholds, including:
1. serious one-off events where the incident has been investigated by the police or local authority.
2. at a time of the landlord’s choosing, based on local intelligence.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that:
1. It will contact a resident within 5 working days if the report is of a crime that is not categorised urgent.
2. Where ASB has been categorised as a crime, the landlord will request a crime reference number (CRN) to ensure the matter is reported to the police first.
3. With ASB such as social media harassment or verbal abuse it should start its investigation within 5 days of receiving a CRN.
4. On receiving a report of category 1 ASB the tenancy specialist (TS) for the landlord should arrange for the resident to be interviewed. It says that some cases may be closed if the resident does not want action to be taken or if the police are dealing with the incident.
5. A resident should be kept informed throughout the investigation.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure says the landlord will ensure it considers a range of interventions, such as acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs), tenancy support, warning letters and mediation. It says, where appropriate, it will take legal action.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it should respond to reports by adopting a victim-centred approach.
The landlord states on its website that residents do not require the its permission to install CCTV or camera doorbells. It says this is except when the landlord is not the freeholder or where equipment is being hard–wired. It goes on to say that camera doorbells should be positioned on or as close as possible to a resident’s front door. It says the landlord reserves the right to ask that CCTV/camera doorbells are re-positioned or removed.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It says it will provide a complaint response at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out a range of awards to recognise the impact of a failing:
1. £50 to £250 – When there has been service failure resulting in some impact on the resident.
2. £250 – £700 – When there has been considerable failure but no permanent impact on the resident.
3. Over £700 – To recognise failings that have had a severe long-term impact on the resident. An example given is mishandling in an ASB case leading to an exacerbation of tenant relations.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show ASB reports about the resident from May 2020 onwards, including about noise nuisance.
On 16 December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that his neighbour was bullying him on a messaging platform. He said he had also received direct messages. He provided the first name of the alleged perpetrator and an address. He said he had blocked the alleged perpetrator but she had started to send him letters instead. The landlord noted at this time that no-one with the name provided by the resident was registered at the address specified in the report. It noted it had raised the matter against a different property.
On 26 December 2020 the resident made a further report to the landlord. He said:
1. His neighbour (Ms G– a leaseholder of the landlord) had complained he was making too much noise and had called for the police.
2. The police had left after hearing no noise from his flat.
3. Ms G had also sent personal information about him on a messaging platform.
4. He was now also getting threatening messages from Ms G on the messaging platform.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord recorded contact with the resident about his report. It told the resident it was a matter for the police to investigate. It noted the case would be closed and that an action plan was not required.
The resident told this service he contacted the landlord on 13 April 2021 to report ASB by Ms G, and he provided a reference number. The landlord’s records note this reference number as being for a case where the resident was recorded as the alleged perpetrator. However, records do not detail a report from the resident of 13 April 2021.
On 21 May 2021 the local authority issued the resident with a community protection warning in respect of noise nuisance. It is unclear what transpired immediately following this.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 11 August 2021. He said:
1. He had reported bullying by his neighbour on 13 April 2021.
2. He had chased the landlord for a response on 7 and 22 June 2021.
3. Each time he made contact he was told a TS would return his call.
4. A notice had been put up by a lift at his building and that he had reported the matter to the police on 5 August 2021. The resident attached a copy of the notice. It was addressed to “the dog owner”. Amongst other things this:
  1. Referred to an alleged physical assault and the local authority issuing the individual with a community protection notice.
  2. Made disparaging comments about housing association tenants.
On 8 September 2021 the resident requested that a complaint he had made to the landlord about a data breach to be escalated. At this time, he raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. He said he had reported bullying by his neighbour. He said he was getting emails and phone calls from different estate agents every day and had reported the matter to the police.
On 21 and 24 September 2021 the landlord sent internally details of a visit it had made to the resident on 17 September 2021 about a noise complaint made about him. At this time, the landlord recorded the resident alleged harassment from Ms G. It noted the resident felt no-one was listening to him.
On 24 September 2021 the TS working on the noise complaint about the resident was passed evidence of counter allegation of ASB the resident had provided. This included:
1. Messages sent to the resident on a messaging platform.
2. The notice the resident previously sent the landlord on 11 August 2021.
3. Noise nuisance diary records that refer to the resident’s address.
4. Letters sent to the resident by unidentified individuals. These letters were signed off with just a first name, or first names and an initial.
The TS requested internally on 28 September 2021 that a case be raised in respect of the resident’s counter allegations.
The landlord responded to the resident about his concerns about a data breach on 9 October 2021. At this time, it:
1. noted the resident had reported malicious messages in February 2021.
2. said it did not have any ASB cases open for the resident. It said it just had noise complaint against resident.
3. noted the resident had called to speak to the TS on 21 July 2021 but it had failed to return his call.
4. said it would arrange for the resident to be contacted about ASB incidents he was reporting.
On 23 October 2021 the resident reported an ASB issue about his neighbour. He said he was getting emails from estate agents about selling his flat. He said this had been ongoing for 10 months and he needed some “feedback”.
The landlord responded to the resident on 26 October 2021, requesting further information. In response, on 28 October 2021, the resident attached a screenshot of emails he had received from estate agents.
The resident has since told this service that on 7 December 2021 he contacted the landlord to query what was happening with his case but heard nothing back.
On 24 February 2022 this service raised the resident’s complaint with the landlord about:
1. The handling of his reports of ASB from his neighbour.
2. The lack of response from the landlord to his correspondence.
3. The handling of his neighbour’s reports about him.
This service also set out that the resident had said:
1. He had provided officers from the landlord with evidence of ASB from his neighbours and had been told a case would be raised, but he felt this had been ignored.
2. He did not feel it was appropriate for the landlord to visit him about noise reports without any evidence, while ignoring his own concerns.
On 11 March 2022 the police sent an email to the landlord. It stated there had been an incident between the resident and (Ms G) and that the police were considering a community resolution against the resident.
On 18 March 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident. It noted he said:
1. He believed (Ms G) had recorded a video of his door and had posted it to a messaging platform group for residents of the building.
2. He had received messages from Ms G’s mobile number.
3. He had received messages from an unknown mobile number.
4. He believed Ms G was creating accounts with estate agents using his details. He said he was trying to identify who had created these accounts.
5. There had been no direct incidents between himself and Ms G.
The landlord noted the resident had reported the matter to the police. It:
1. took details of the crime number and the investigating officer.
2. requested that the resident provide the communication history with the 2 mobile numbers he had referred to.
3. said it would contact the police to request disclosure and would open an ASB counter claim for the resident.
The landlord noted it asked the resident if he wanted it to approach Ms G. He said he did not as he wanted to hear back from the police first about the action it was taking and whether the unknown mobile number could be traced.
Later on 18 March 2022 the landlord made a disclosure request to the police.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord said:
1. It was aware of the resident’s involvement in ASB case but as the perpetrator rather than as the complainant. It said this was why the resident had not been contacted about issues he reported.
2. It had now opened a counter complaint in the resident’s name, and this was under investigation. It said it would schedule regular contact with the resident.
The landlord noted that the resident said he first raised issues in March 2021 as well as in October 2021. The landlord said it had been dealing with staffing issues during this time. It said these had now been resolved so cases were being dealt with and managed.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been a failing as the resident had no response to his ASB reports. The landlord acknowledged a further failing in that it logged the resident’s concern about being signed up to multiple estate agents as a general enquiry, rather than an ASB incident. It said this was a mistake. It offered the resident £300 compensation as well as an additional £25 for the delay in responding to his complaint at stage 1.
On 6 April 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident. It said it was in contact with the police to obtain further information. It asked if he had experienced any further incidents with Ms G. The resident said he had not but that he was still receiving emails from estate agents.
On 10 April 2022 the resident requested that his complaint be escalated. He said he:
1. remained concerned that the landlord had not met with him despite the issue being ongoing for over a year.
2. had not had a response from the landlord to his calls and emails.
3. wanted a meeting with a senior member of staff.
4. wanted to know what action the landlord would take about his ASB reports.
The local authority issued a further community protection warning to the resident on 26 April 2022 in respect of noise nuisance.
On 31 May 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident. It noted:
1. It told the resident it had seen a recording of him making an offensive gesture at his neighbour’s camera doorbell. It asked that he refrain from this behaviour.
2. The resident said he had raised a complaint about his neighbour’s doorbell camera as he felt it was an invasion of his privacy. He said the gesture he made towards the camera resulted in a community resolution against him.
3. It told the resident it was chasing the police for information about its investigation of the resident’s allegation that his neighbour was using his identity.
4. The resident was unhappy the case had been ongoing for a year. The landlord told the resident that severe delays were due to the previous TS resigning and the post being vacant for a year.
Also on 31 May 2022 the landlord:
1. provided the resident with incident sheets so he could record further ASB incidents.
2. wrote to the resident about the ASB case. It said:
  1. it had requested police disclosure.
  2. noted it would not approach Ms G in line with the resident’s request.
  3. noted it had viewed video footage of the resident making offensive gestures towards his neighbour’s camera doorbell. It asked the resident ensure there was no repetition of this behaviour.
On 1 June 2022 the landlord received police disclosure. Later that date it spoke to the police, who said:
1. It had advised the resident to raise concerns that his identity is being used with Fraud Action.
2. The police stated it had advised the resident to leave the messaging platform group where he was receiving offensive messages.
3. It had warned the resident and Ms G not to engage in any contact with each other and the case had been closed.
On 7 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that the police had closed its investigation of allegations he had made about his neighbour. He asked for details of the officers the landlord had been in contact with.
On 17 June 2022 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response to his complaint. The landlord said that in response to the resident’s request, a senior member of staff had met with him on 8 June 2022 to discuss his concerns. It said:
1. It had noted the resident had concerns about its communication with him and that he wanted a single point of contact.
2. It should have agreed a communication plan with the resident when it spoke to him in March 2022, to ensure he received regular updates, but that had not happened.
3. It would arrange for his emails to be responded to by a single point of contact within its TS team.
The landlord noted the resident’s concern that he had been signed up to estate agents’ mailing lists remained unresolved. It:
1. noted the resident had also reported his concerns to Fraud Action who had declined to investigate his concerns.
2. asked that the resident notify it if an investigation by the police or Fraud Action started.
3. said it would consider reasonable and proportionate tenancy enforcement action if criminal charges were brought against an individual connected to the building.
The landlord noted:
1. The resident had shared, during the meeting of 8 June 2022, a number of letters from different unknown people that he had received between 12 January 2021 and 5 August 2021.
2. The letters were offensive in nature and made derogatory comments about the resident’s social housing status.
3. The resident said he had not received similar letters since March 2021 but told him to notify it if any further similar letters were received.
4. The police had told the resident that it was not investigating the resident’s harassment allegations against his neighbour.
5. The resident had confirmed he had received notice of noise nuisance allegations and community protection notice warning from the local authority between March 2021 and April 2022.
6. The resident had said he and his partner had entered into a community resolution with the police following an incident involving a neighbour.
7. It told the resident it was likely it would send a warning letter to the resident following the interventions of the police and the local authority.
The landlord noted the resident said during the meeting of June 2022 that he had concerns about a neighbour’s camera doorbell. The landlord noted it explained to the resident that it did not require residents to obtain permission to install video doorbells unless this may cause damage to the property. It said if a resident installed such doorbells, it was their own responsibility to comply with legal obligations under data protection laws. It directed the resident to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he considered his neighbour was not fulfilling legal obligations.
The landlord said:
1. It was in no doubt that the resident had been a victim of ASB. It said letters he had received were offensive and had clearly caused the resident and his partner distress.
2. Recent police and local authority interventions against the resident had led it to reiterate warnings to him.
3. It was satisfied that the TS had kept the resident sufficiently updated about its investigation of the counter allegations he had made.
4. It was adopting a partnership approach and had consulted with the police and the local authority to establish a wider evidence basis and the investigation.
5. It was satisfied these allegations had been appropriately investigated in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure.
The landlord noted the award of £300 made during its investigation at stage 1 of the complaints process. It said it considered this fairly reflected the failings identified at this time. However, it awarded a further:
1. £100 to recognise the impact the ASB had on the resident’s household, which was an aggravating feature against the failure previously identified.
2. £50 for the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord set out that had awarded total compensation of £475. It noted that a payment of £325 had been paid to the resident during its handling of his complaint at stage 1. It stated that a further £175 was therefore due.
In June 2022 the landlord experienced a cyber attack of its computer system which affected access to records.
On 25 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report further issues with his neighbour. He said he had received a messages on a messaging platform that were abusive. The landlord noted it sent a message to the resident that day requesting a crime reference number.
On 27 November 2022 the landlord recorded it had reviewed the resident’s ASB case. It noted:
1. Prior to the cyber attack, the police had closed its investigation having given advice to both the resident and Ms G.
2. There had been one further report from the resident in October 2022 and that it had not received a CRN from the resident.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord recorded that it tried to call the resident but that there had been no answer.
On 14 January 2023 the resident sent the landlord copies of messages he had received from an unknown mobile number, which he considered to be harassing and bullying. The resident said messages referred to him bringing a dog into the lift and had recorded a video of his front door with music playing in the background. The resident asked whether the landlord could verify the number.
The landlord’s TS team wrote to the resident on 24 January 2023. It referred to its telephone conversation with him that day. It said it would not be taking further action about his ASB reports. It said that malicious communications were a crime that should be managed by the police.
On 30 April 2023 the resident called the landlord to report that he was again receiving messages from an unknown number, but that the message said it was from someone that owned a flat in the building. The landlord noted the resident said this was a repeat of an issue he had previously reported to the police and the landlord. The landlord noted internally that there was no proof the messages had come from a neighbour.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord’s TS team wrote to the resident. It said the malicious communications the resident had received needed to be referred to the police. It said it had no means to determine the source of messages the resident had received.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports and the issues he has raised. He has told this service that he does not think the compensation offered by the landlord was enough. He said he felt his neighbour was monitoring him with her camera doorbell and he did not feel comfortable living in his flat. He said the issues he had experienced with abusive letters and messages had got too much for him and his partner and they were “mentally depressed”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This report has included reference to a complaint made by the resident that his data had been breached. We previously issued a decision informing the resident that this complaint fell outside of our jurisdiction. Reference has been made to the issue within the report for the purpose of providing context.

The resident’s reports of ASB.

Despite the resident’s repeated reports of ASB from December 2020, the landlord failed to open a case in respect of his counter allegations until March 2022.
The first record of a report from the resident was on 16 December 2020. In line with its ASB procedure, the landlord should have contacted the resident within 5 working days to ensure he had first approached the police to obtain a CRN. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any significant action about this report other than note the name provided did not match the address specified. Even if that were the case it still would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to inform him of the steps he should first take. There is no evidence the landlord did this and that was a failing. The landlord also did not tell the resident that it could not confirm the identity of the alleged perpetrator. It should have done this to manage his expectations.
Despite the resident’s further contact on 26 December 2020, reporting threatening behaviour from Ms G, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident about this until 2 February 2021. That is far outside the timescales outlined in its ASB procedure.
The landlord’s records do not detail the reports the resident said he made in April 2021. However, it is clear it received his email August 2021 chasing progress. Despite the resident providing evidence, and informing the landlord he had contacted the police, the landlord did nothing.
The landlord continued to fail to act on the resident’s reports even after visiting him on 17 September 2021. At this time he provided further evidence of the ASB – letters and messages he had received. While it is apparent the TS requested that a new case be set up to look at the resident’s counter allegations, this did not happen. Further, it told him when responding to his complaint about a data breach in October 2021, that it would contact him about his ASB allegations. But, again, nothing was done. In addition nothing was done to address the resident’s report in October 2021 that he had been signed up to multiple estate agents. The landlord therefore did not meet its responsibility to take effective action in response to reports of ASB.
The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in addressing the resident’s reports of ASB as it had him listed as the alleged perpetrator. It also acknowledged its failing to address his report in October 2021 because it incorrectly recorded his contact as an enquiry. However, the landlord made no acknowledgement of its failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports received in December 2020. While the landlord explained the staffing issues it experienced, this was not an excuse for failing to deal with the resident’s ASB reports. It took until March 2022 for an ASB case to be opened. That was over a year after the resident had made his initial report, during which time he made several more. It demonstrated a disregard of its responsibilities under its ASB policy. It contributed to the resident’s sense of inaction and perception that no-one was listening to him.
The resident’s reports since December 2020 had been of the harassing messages and letters from neighbours within the building. In line with its ASB policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the issue to the police in the first instance. But it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it was appropriate to take actions that were within its powers. That the landlord did not do so was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The resident had provided letters and messages he had received which he considered to be bullying and to be from neighbours in the building. But the landlord took only limited steps to attempt to identify whether these were from residents within the building. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider checking its own records for the building to see if numbers or names matched with any residents. While it is acknowledged that it is likely to have been difficult to do so for some of the names within the letters, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore this option. Landlords operate to a different standard of proof to the police. The landlord still had a responsibility to investigate the abuse reported and consider whether there had been any breaches of tenancy, in accordance with its ASB policy. It had a range of options to address ASB.
The landlord could also have considered whether there were any underlying issues that could be addressed to prevent the escalation of the dispute, such as noise within the block. Many of the messages, letters and notices referred to alleged issues with noise and the behaviour of the resident and his dog. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider reminding any residents within the building of ways in which ASB concerns could be appropriately raised. The noise dispute was evidently linked to messages, letters and the notices against the resident.
It is clear the landlord took steps to liaise with the police about its investigation. But again there is no evidence the landlord considered at this time whether there were actions that were within its power to take. Its ASB policy states the landlord does not generally lead on harassment cases. However it also states the landlord will use evidence from the police, as well as evidence it has obtained itself, to consider enforcement action. That there is no indication the landlord considered doing so is a failing.
The police told the landlord it had warned both the resident and Ms G not to engage in contact with each other. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that it would schedule regular meetings with him. But there is no evidence it spoke to him to discuss the next steps after being notified the police investigation had closed. It is clear the resident was awaiting the outcome of the police investigation – he had asked the landlord not to speak to Ms G pending this. Having received the outcome of the police investigation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss whether the resident now wanted it to intervene.
It is clear the landlord had seen evidence of messages the resident had received from Ms G. It is also clear the landlord from June 2022 was aware the police had warned Ms G and the resident about contact with each other. Given that it had now seen evidence of messages to the resident It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether any intervention that was within its powers to take was appropriate. Its ASB policy and procedure outlines interventions the landlord could have considered, such as an ABC, mediation or a warning letter. The landlord failed to consider any of these.
The landlord was also not proactive in seeking to resolve the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s doorbell camera. While it is for the ICO to determine whether any neighbour breached data protection obligations, the landlord can still advise residents of their obligations in the interest of preventing disputes.
It is acknowledged that the landlord experienced a cyber attack in June 2022, which may have affected its ability to access the case. But it reviewed the case in November 2022 and its records indicate that it was aware of the history of the case. Even then it failed to communicate with the resident to discuss what action it could take. That was despite the resident having reported he had received a further similar abusive messages.
The landlord did respond to the resident’s report of October 2022 by requesting a CRN. But it was evident the report was a continuation of the issues the resident had previously raised. Directing the resident to the police, about this and further similar reports in January and May 2023, failed to address his ongoing concern about ASB. Given the landlord ought to have been aware he had already previously reported the issue to the police, it was unreasonable that the landlord to failed to consider whether it should take steps to investigate.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will take a victim-centred approach to reports of ASB. By passing the responsibility to the police without considering actions within its own powers, the landlord failed to take a victim-centred approach when handling the resident’s reports. There is also no evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment after opening the ASB case in March 2022. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so given the resident’s comments about how the matter was affecting both his and his partner’s mental health. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
The landlord awarded the resident a total amount of £400 to recognise its failings in the handling of his ASB reports. That amount insufficiently recognised the impact of the failing over more than 2 years. The resident described how the issues with ASB had mentally depressed him and his partner. There is no doubt that the failure of the landlord to appropriately deal with his reports would have exacerbated the distress the resident and his partner experienced. He said he thought he was being ignored, which would have felt like an injustice given the landlord were investigating allegations that had been made about him.
The resident should not had had to wait so long, or expend so much time and trouble, before the landlord finally opened an ASB case. This was then compounded by the landlord’s failure to use tools and powers available to fully investigate the ASB reports, and in considering appropriate interventions. With consideration to the landlord’s own compensation guidance, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case, an additional award has been ordered.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concern that he had been maliciously signed up with estate agents. While it is acknowledged that the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about this was delayed, its consideration of what action it could take about this was reasonable. The landlord could not investigate this issue itself. Its advice to the resident to keep it updated about the progress of any investigation was reasonable. However, it would have been more appropriate had the landlord not advised the resident it would consider enforcement action if criminal charges were brought. It was possible and reasonable for the landlord to consider enforcement action, if a culprit was identified, even without criminal charges.

Allegations of ASB made against the resident

The landlord had received reports of noise nuisance from the resident. In line with the resident’s lease and its ASB policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider what action to take about these reports. It is acknowledged that the resident did not consider the landlord had evidence of noise nuisance when its officers attended in September 2021. However, it is clear that by this time a community protection warning had been issued to the resident. Given that it was aware that a warning had been served, This service considers the landlord took appropriate steps by visiting the resident to remind him of his tenancy responsibilities and to prevent escalation of the dispute.
It is noted that the landlord also wrote to the resident to advise him against making offensive gestures towards his neighbour’s camera doorbell. That action was also appropriate and in line with its ASB policy, given the police’s community resolution against the resident in respect of this. The landlord’s explanation to the resident in its stage 2 response was reasonable. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of allegations of ASB against the resident.

The resident’s related complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was delayed at both stages. The stage 1 response by more than 2 weeks, and the stage 2 response by more than 4 weeks. The landlord acknowledged this delay and awarded a total of £75. The resident had already waited a long time for his ASB concerns to be addressed, and this delay would have added to his frustration and concern about the way the matter was being handled by the landlord. It is acknowledged, however, that the landlord took reasonable steps such as arranging for a senior member of staff to meet with the resident during this time. Overall, this service considers the award already made to the resident for delayed complaint handling to be appropriate and proportionate to the delay.
However, as outlined earlier, the steps the landlord took to investigate the resident’s ASB concerns were inadequate. Despite this the landlord reached a flawed conclusion, in its stage 2 response, that the resident’s allegations of ASB had been investigated appropriately. As outlined above, there was more the landlord should have considered. The landlord’s failure to identify this during its handling of the complaint meant it missed an early opportunity to rectify this. That was a detrimental impact to the resident, as he had to wait longer, and complain further for appropriate action to be taken. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a further award has been ordered to remedy the impact of this complaint handling failure on the resident.
It is also noted that the landlord’s incorrectly stated that a further payment of £175 was due, as opposed to £150, to the resident following its stage 2 complaint. It is appropriate for the landlord to check that it has detailed awards of compensation accurately in its complaint responses to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s related complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s request for him to remove his camera doorbell is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Reasons

The landlord delayed taking action to open an ASB case in respect of repeated reports made by the resident. It then failed to consider actions it could take to investigate, and interventions it could make, in respect of the reported ASB.
The landlord acted in accordance with the resident’s lease and its ASB policy and procedure in its handling of ASB allegations against the resident.
While the landlord appropriately acknowledged and addressed the delay in its complaint handling, it failed to identify that there was more that could have been done to investigate and intervene in the ASB the resident was reporting. The landlord should have addressed and taken steps to rectify this failing during its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this investigation in its handling of ASB reports and the resident’s complaint.
2. Make a total payment to the resident of £1,175, comprised of:
  1. £800 in respect of the adverse effect of the failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. This includes the amount of £400 previously awarded.
  2. £375 in respect of the adverse effect of the failings identified in its complaint handling. This includes the amount of £75 previously awarded by the landlord.
  3. The sum of £475 previously awarded by the landlord should be deducted from the total if it has already been paid to the resident.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Make arrangement to meet with the resident in order to undertake a full case review of the resident’s reports of ASB. This should:
  1. Be undertaken with the aim of identifying actions and interventions it would be appropriate to now take.
  2. Take into account the failings identified during this investigation.
2. Review training and guidance to staff dealing with ASB reports specifically around taking a victim-centred approach to ASB reports, with the aim of ensuring the failings identified in this report are not repeated.
3. Review processes it has in place for recording and monitoring reports of ASB with the aim of ensuring the failings identified in this report are not repeated.

Recommendations

Contact the resident to discuss any current concerns he has about the position of his neighbour’s camera doorbell.