Clarion Housing Association Limited (202208746)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208746

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 January 2024

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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise from her neighbour above.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds a five-year fixed term tenancy with the landlord, for a one-bedroom flat. She lives in the flat alone and has vulnerabilities.
The resident’s GP wrote to the landlord on 28 September 2021. The GP informed it, of the resident’s extensive health and wellbeing issues, which included a benign brain tumour for which she has had 2 craniotomies and radiotherapy and remains in the care of the Oncology Team. This had led to significant symptoms of anxiety, for which the resident was receiving support from the mental health team. The resident experiences palpitations and fibromyalgia which causes widespread pain and extreme fatigue. The GP advised the landlord that all of her symptoms were being exacerbated by the antisocial behaviour of her direct neighbours, which was affecting her sleep and levels of anxiety, and she had to be prescribed Diazepam to help.
The landlord said its contact centre opened an ASB case on 29 September 2021, following a report from the resident that there was loud music, parties, banging, arguments, and generally inconsiderate behaviour from the neighbours who live in the flat above her. She said this had been occurring since May 2020.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord’s Tenancy Specialist contacted the resident to obtain further information to complete the initial interview and action plan. At this time, the resident advised that she had already been in contact with the Community Safety Team at the council, regarding this issue. The landlord issued incident diary logs. The same day the landlord wrote to the resident with the agreed action plan; the resident was to complete and return diary sheets, and the landlord was to contact the neighbour and the council’s environmental health team, and then analyse the diary sheets on return.
The landlord’s Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO) and the council Community Safety Officer completed a joint visit to the block the following day. This was to identify if anybody else was being impacted by the behaviour and could corroborate the resident’s allegation. A number of residents did confirm that there was a noise issue and subsequently the landlord interviewed the neighbour above, the alleged perpetrator. This action did not abate the situation and so the landlord passed the case to the Environmental Health Team at the District Council.
Environmental Health (EH) installed recording equipment into the resident’s property on 11 October 2021, for a period of one week, to ascertain whether the noise she was experiencing constituted a breach of the Environmental Protection Act. On 7 December 2021, Environmental Health advised the landlord that there were no recordings on the equipment which would constitute a breach of the legislation.
The landlord attempted to call the resident the same day to update her on this information but was unable to reach her. It wrote to formally notify her of the outcome of the recording equipment analysis on 8 December 2021, and recommended that she considered the use of the mediation service.
On 14 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the letter. The landlord said it advised her in the conversation that as there was no evidence from the recording equipment to corroborate the allegations, it was limited in what further action it could take against the neighbour. It said they discussed again the benefits of the Mediation Service in moving these types of disputes forward and the resident agreed for a referral to be made.
On 16 December 2021, the resident reported a further incident from the neighbour playing loud music, banging doors and cupboards, and having loud arguments with her partner.
The landlord contacted Environmental Health who were able to re install the recording equipment on 17 January 2022.
At the resident’s request, the landlord said it contacted her MIND advocacy support worker (date is not clear) to ascertain if there were any other actions required to support her and it informed them of the 11 actions it had taken so far. The landlord said her advocacy worker understood that it had taken the correct steps at the time and agreed to continue supporting the resident.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord received a further report from Environmental Health. Following their analysis of the recording equipment installed in the resident’s home, there was no evidence that proved a statutory noise nuisance was occurring.
The landlord said its Tenancy Specialist called the resident on the same day to explain the outcome of Environmental Health’s investigation, and reported that the resident was unhappy with this and could not understand why it could not move the neighbour. The landlord said it explained to the resident that it could only take legal action where there was evidence to do so and that its policy is not to move either the complainant or perpetrator of ASB, rather to resolve the issue so that the situation/problem is not simply moved elsewhere.
The landlord decided to convene a multi-agency meeting to discuss the resident’s case, to see what other actions could be taken to resolve the issue for her. This meeting was held on 11 February 2022. There were no minutes of this meeting provided, but it was also noted in the council’s community safety officers chronology. The stage two response later that it was agreed that all involved parties would complete a further visit to both the resident and the neighbour. They would also complete further house to house enquires with other neighbours to see if any of the resident’s allegations could be corroborated.
On 21 February 2022, the resident made another report to the landlord regarding loud music through the night. The landlord agreed that Environmental Health would install recording equipment in the resident’s home again and it was installed the same day. The landlord scheduled a joint visit with the Neighbourhood Response Officer and Community Safety Officer, which was carried out on 28 February 2022. At the visit, the landlord said the resident felt it had not been helpful in resolving the issue and was sceptical that mediation would be able to assist, but agreed to continue engaging in the process.
On 1 March 2022, the landlord completed house to house enquiries, managing to speak to four of the neighbours who confirmed that although they still heard noise from the alleged perpetrator, it had improved since the previous summer.
Environmental Health contacted the landlord on 2 March 2022 to report that they had identified an incident that was above the decibel level that constituted a statutory noise nuisance and would issue an abatement notice.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour the same day to advise them of this and warned her that she was in breach of her tenancy conditions and any further complaints would result in legal action being taken against her.
Environmental Health completed its action on 7 March 2022 and the landlord said it issued a final written warning (a copy of a final warning letter has not been seen by this Service).
Notes from EH provided in December 2022, as part of the preparation for the subsequent legal proceedings, stated that breaches in the noise abatement notice can only be evidenced by being “witnessed by an officer attending the property and listening to the noise”. EH cannot use noise equipment to demonstrate breaches. The environmental health team no longer had an out of hours service – as the noise nuisance was occurring out of hours, the breaches of the noise abatement notice could not be progressed as they could not be professionally witnessed.
EH and community safety internally had discussed the possibility of setting up a temporary out of hours service purely for the resident’s case. They installed noise monitoring equipment and decided if there was further significant disturbance, they would put the temporary out of hours service in place. Additional monitoring with noise equipment took place during 21 February 2022 – 28 February 2022, 6 April 2022 – 20 April 2022 and 22 July 2022 – 25 July 2022. No significant noise disturbance was recorded so the temporary out of hours service was not pursued.
On 9 March 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to provide an update on the actions taken. It said the resident was unhappy with this, and requested that the neighbour be removed from her home. The landlord said it explained to the resident that the level of evidence was such that it could not contemplate possession proceedings and that under its policy and procedures all attempts to resolve the situation must be taken first.
On 11 April 2022, Citizens Advice made a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf. In summary, the resident said she had experienced ASB from the resident above since 2020 which had been reported to both the landlord and the environmental health team. Despite an abatement notice being served, the neighbour had breached this, and the terms of her tenancy, on a daily basis. This was spoiling her enjoyment of her home and affecting her mental health, as supported previously by her GP and MIND.
The resident contacted this Service to complain about the way the landlord was handling her case. On 14 April 2022, we asked the landlord to consider the residents complaint and provide a formal response.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord completed its investigation of the complaint and issued its stage 1 response. The complaint was not upheld as it could find no evidence of any service failure. In summary, it said:
1. It noted an ASB case had been opened September 2021 and upon further investigation it transpired previous ASB reports had been made to the council’s community safety team and not the landlord. The community safety team had since provided it with the previous diary sheets and action plans.
2. Since then, investigations determined policy and procedure had been followed, with the appropriate visits to the neighbour. It noted that despite this, the resident’s ASB reports continued.
3. It had asked environmental health to install a “DAT” machine to record noise levels on 2 occasions – October and December 2021. On both occasions, no noise was recorded that was statutory noise nuisance. Records showed the resident was notified on both occasions.
4. The ASB problem had never been in dispute – it just did not have sufficient evidence to support further action, but the team continued to monitor and investigate.
5. On 2 March 2022, the EH team determined there was statutory noise nuisance and both EH and the landlord acted in accordance with their procedures; a noise abatement notice was served as well as a final tenancy warning.
6. It acknowledged that the resident was still reporting ASB, and as a result the landlord and EH continued to work together with other external agencies to control the situation.
7. It was unable to agree to the resident’s desired outcome to have the neighbour removed from her property as there were guidelines and procedures to be adhered to which had not been met.
The landlord referred an earlier suggestion by the resident, to fit a self-closer to the neighbour’s front door to minimise the banging, to its Area Surveyor. Following a visit to the property, the surveyor agreed that a closer would be beneficial. The actual date these events occurred is unclear.
On 5 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour was playing loud music and that shouting and banging could be heard from their property. The landlord responded by sending a letter to the resident that stated that the incident she had reported needed to have occurred over a certain period for it to be able to investigate it.
The landlord said it contacted the resident on 10 May 2022 to review the situation with her. At this time, she expressed her dissatisfaction at the management of the case, in particular, she alleged that the landlord was “taking sides” and not providing adequate support to her.
The following day, the landlord received a report from the resident of a further incident with her neighbour that required police attendance and once the police had left, the resident advised that the neighbour then put her music on at an unacceptable level, which could be heard in her home.
On 12 May 2022, the landlord said it placed a disclosure request with the police to ascertain why they had attended the neighbour’s property.
The landlord completed house to house enquires with neighbours on 25 May 2022, with a number of households corroborating the incidents the resident had notified it about.
The resident reported a further incident of the neighbour’s noise and disruption to the landlord on 24 May 2022. In response, another ‘threshold not met’ letter was sent out to the resident.
As the abatement notice served by environmental health had not had any impact, the landlord took the decision to have an independent review of the resident’s case undertaken by an independent ASB contractor. The landlord uses the ASB contractor as a critical friend, reviewing cases to ensure that it has adhered to its policies and procedures and recommend where it has the burden of proof to start legal proceedings.
The contractor advised the landlord that it had enough evidence to pursue an injunction. The landlord said it updated the resident on 15 June 2022 that this action was to be pursued. On the same day, in preparation for its legal action, the landlord requested the necessary evidence from environmental health.
The following day, the landlord received a further report from the resident in which she said her neighbour’s partner had been “loud and inconsiderate” in the early hours of the morning which had disturbed her. The landlord also took receipt from the resident 64 recordings of noise nuisance from the neighbour in support of its injunction application.
On 26 June 2022, the landlord collected the resident’s diary sheets that logged all incidents of ASB from the neighbour above.
The landlord informed the resident on 28 June 2022 that following a cyber-attack, only emergency repairs were being undertaken, so the self-closer would not be fitted until it was able to start to process non-urgent responsive repairs.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 July 2022 to advise that the recent cyber-attack would prevent the landlord being able to pursue any legal action. It advised that it was unable to collate the data from its electronic customer management system to prepare a witness statement and was also unable to produce a copy of the tenancy agreement, which was required to make the application. In light of this, it said it was not in a position to be able to make the injunction application to the court.
On 21 July 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 peer review response. In summary, it said:
1. An ASB case had been opened in response to the resident’s report of ASB on 29 September 2021. The landlord had contacted the resident within the timescale set out and devised an action plan to respond.
2. This action plan included the resident keeping diary sheets, the landlord visiting other residents in the block with the community safety officer (to corroborate the allegations) and contacting the perpetrator. It also liaised with partners in environmental health who installed recording equipment. In October 2021 and again in January 2022, but there were no recordings which constituted statutory noise nuisance. Without substantial evidence, it said it was unable to take any further formal action, but suggested mediation.
3. The case remained open and the landlord continued to monitor and investigate reports. Noise recording equipment was re-installed in March 2022 and a statutory noise nuisance was detected. The appropriate action was taken as environmental health issued a noise abatement notice and it sent the relevant tenancy warnings to the resident.
4. It acknowledged in response to reports of ASB from the resident on 5 May 2022 and 24 May 2022 that auto-generated “threshold not met” letters were sent out to her in error. On investigation, it was evident that the call handler had not checked to see if there was an existing case open; they created a new case, which led to the letter being generated. It acknowledged this service failing, apologised for the error and any confusion it may have caused the resident and offered £100 compensation.
5. As the action taken had not resolved the ASB, it arranged an independent review of the resident’s case with an external ASB contractor. That contractor determined in June 2022 that there was sufficient evidence to take enforcement action against the neighbour.
6. In response, the landlord had started proceedings to apply for an injunction against the neighbour. On 13 July 2022, it was determined that following a recent cyber-attack on its data systems, it was unable to produce the necessary documents to successfully apply to the courts for an injunction at that time. It apologised and acknowledged how frustrating this must be for the resident, but explained that this was something outside of its control.
7. It agreed to continue to monitor the situation if the resident would continue to keep diary sheets, would approach the neighbour about her behaviour and offered again to arrange mediation.

Post complaint process

On 7 November 2022, an application was made, and the resident’s case met the criteria for a community trigger. A multi-agency community trigger meeting took place. The minutes noted that:
1. Through the landlord’s and community safety officer’s, door to door enquiries, it had been determined other residents witnessed noise nuisance.
2. Since the legal application had been abandoned because of the cyber-attack, the local PCSO from the police and the Community Safety Officer had responded to reports and visited the neighbour, who admitted she had played her music too loudly.
3. A new officer for the landlord had recently started and suggested the neighbour be asked to sign an antisocial behaviour contract (ABC). Three appointments had been arranged for signing, and the neighbour had not turned up. If she failed to attend the next appointment, it would be assumed that the neighbour was not willing to sign. Either way, if nuisance continued the landlord would prepare papers for the legal team.
4. The landlord’s officer would keep in regular contact with the resident.
5. The police agreed to check if there was an open case for harassment.
6. A further progress meeting was arranged for 13 December 2022.
A court date was set for the landlord’s application for an injunction against the neighbour on 3 March 2023; the court case was adjourned whilst the neighbour obtained representation.
The landlord has confirmed that a further hearing took place on 26 July 2023 and an undertaking was agreed. The undertaking is in place until 26 July 2024. It requires that the neighbour is not to:
1. Engage in conduct or likely to cause a nuisance to any person who resides, works, or visits, in the vicinity of her property.
2. Engage in conduct causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress towards any person in the internal or external communal areas.
3. Contact directly or indirectly the resident or any of her family members, visitors or any persons residing at the resident’s property.
4. Play amplified music or make other noises to a volume that can be heard outside of her property.
5. Use threatening, foul, or abusive language, including body language or aggressive gestures to persons set out above.

Assessment and findings

Landlord legal and policy context

The landlord has an ASB policy which commits it to:
1. Log all reports of ASB and any referrals to statutory bodies, and monitor the outcomes.
2. Investigate noise cases within 5 working days if its threshold is met; no threshold will apply if the complainant is considered particularly vulnerable and the landlord has a duty of care.
3. Initially it encourages residents to resolve issues between themselves. It will try to work with the local environmental health service that has statutory powers to tackle noise nuisance and serve abatement notices on those responsible for the noise.
4. Ensure it considers a range of interventions (e.g. ABC’s, tenancy support, warning letters – this list is not exhaustive) to deter or prevent ASB and, where appropriate, take legal action by way of injunctions and/or possession proceedings, using mandatory grounds where applicable.
5. Develop robust local partnerships and multi-agency working to address ASB. This may include joint working with the Police, local authority services, and participation in local Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences and co-option to Community Trigger procedures where appropriate to do so, as well as a range of other statutory agencies and other agencies.
The tenancy agreement requires that residents, their family and friends, or anyone living with or visiting them (including children and pets) must not:
1. Do anything which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to other persons in or around the building or estate where they live, its neighbourhood or any other of the landlord’s housing estates.
2. Behave in a manner that may be considered as anti-social, intimidating, threatening, abusive or harassment to any of its tenants, leaseholders, employees, or contractors, whether in person, by phone, letter or electronic means including social media.
3. Cause any noise so loud or persistent that it causes a disturbance to other residents.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure:
1. A complaint is defined as dissatisfaction expressed by a customer regarding a service, action, or lack of action by the landlord or one of its contractors.
2. Complaint (stage 1) – If an initial attempt to resolve the query is not achieved, a formal complaint will be recorded and will be investigated. It aims to resolve complaints at this stage within 10 working days.
3. Peer Review (stage 2) – At the conclusion of the complaint, a customer may request a review or an escalation of their case. They will need to be clear on what they wish to be considered as their desired outcome and what specifically they are not accepting. It aims to resolve complaints at this stage within 20 working days.
4. If it is unable to resolve a complaint within the specified time, it will:
  1. Aim to keep the resident informed.
  2. Explain the reasons as to why it is unable to resolve the complaint.
  3. Provide timescales of what is involved to resolve the complaint and approximately how long the complaint will take.
The community trigger is a process whereby victims and communities have the right to request a review of their ASB case where a local threshold is met. Its aim is to give victims a voice where they are concerned about how their case has been handled and to bring agencies together to take a joined up, problem-solving approach to find a solution for the victim. Relevant bodies and responsible authorities include councils, police, integrated care boards and registered providers of social housing who are co-opted into the group.
Victims of anti-social behaviour, or another person acting on their behalf e.g. carer, family member, MP, Cllr or other professional, can invoke the community trigger. The guidance recommends that relevant bodies also consider utilising the community trigger automatically to undertake reviews when the threshold has been met, even where the victim has not requested one.

Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour and noise

In accordance with its antisocial behaviour policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of ASB and respond appropriately. When the resident had reported incidents of noise nuisance from her neighbour, which took the form of late-night parties, shouting, banging and constant slamming of doors which constitutes ASB, as set out in the landlord’s ASB policy, it appropriately opened an ASB case for her.
When considering the response to a complaint of anti-social behaviour, the statutory guidance for frontline professionals requires that agencies must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the lives of those subject to it. The harm, or the potential for harm to be caused to the victim, is an important consideration for the landlord in determining its approach, as the more vulnerable can be less resilient to anti-social behaviour. The guidance promotes the use of risk assessments in cases of ASB as, whilst they cannot provide a definitive assessment of someone’s needs, they can assist in determining an appropriate response.
The resident declared significant health and wellbeing issues, which included a benign brain tumour, a chronic debilitating illness which caused her significant pain and fatigue as well as mental health issues, for which she was receiving support from the mental health team and MIND. This information was available to the landlord following a letter from her GP at the time her ASB case was opened (29 September 2021). In accordance with its current vulnerable residents policy, all of the resident’s health and well-being issues meet the landlord’s factors that define vulnerability. The opinion of medical professionals at the time was that the ASB was exacerbating symptoms of her illnesses and negatively impacting her mental health. With this knowledge and information, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment as the guidance suggests, but it did not do so; neither was this a requirement of its ASB policy which is not appropriate.
It was evident that the landlord did respond to the ASB reports, making contact with the resident within its 5-day timescale and providing an action plan in accordance with its policy. However, it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about anti-social behaviour. This should be the starting point of a case-management approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour complaints. There was no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment at the start or throughout the case, and its ASB policy does not require that one be completed which is not reasonable. Without one, the landlord could not have adequately assessed the effect the behaviour of the neighbour was having on the resident, as guidance requires. Neither could it assess whether the response or actions decided upon were appropriate and timely enough or whether any further support or referral to other agencies for the resident was required.
At some point, it was noted that the landlord did contact the resident’s support worker at MIND. However it is not clear when, which signifies a level of poor record keeping on the landlord’s part; but this contact was requested by the resident. It was not an action that the landlord undertook voluntarily or as part of its process to deal with ASB for a vulnerable resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to take an informal approach to the initial reports of ASB from the resident. A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts have not successfully resolved the issues, as is set out in the landlord’s ASB policy. Despite several attempts to collate evidence of noise nuisance with the assistance of environmental health, the level of noise recorded did not meet statutory noise nuisance levels. There was evidence the landlord had explained this to the resident and the limitations this presented it with, in taking further action.
It is not uncommon for those experiencing ASB to have an expectation that their landlords have the authority to take possession of a neighbour’s property where there is evidence to support the reports of ASB. This was an outcome the resident was seeking. In practice, a social landlord does not have the authority to take possession of a property, unless granted this right through a court of law. For a landlord to successfully take any formal action for noise or ASB, such as an injunction or eviction proceedings, it would be required to provide extensive evidence proving the alleged noise and behaviour of the neighbour. The landlord did not initially have the sufficient level of independent, corroborating evidence required. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not progress matters formally at an earlier stage and instead continued to monitor the case, gather evidence, and manage the resident’s expectations.
There was clear evidence that the landlord had taken a number of informal actions to try and resolve the issue. These included asking the resident to complete an ASB diary, interviewing the perpetrator, sending warning letters, talking to other residents, arranging for the recording equipment, and offering a mediation service. All of these steps were reasonable and in accordance with its policy.
In February 2022, when informal actions were having little effect on the neighbour’s behaviour, the landlord said that it arranged a multi-agency meeting. This was to consider with partners whether anything else could be done. This action was appropriate and was in accordance with its ASB policy which aims to take a collaborative approach with ASB. However, with no notes of what was discussed and no obvious follow-on action, it is not clear to this Service whether anything was achieved from the meeting.
The landlord had adequately demonstrated by continuing to accept the resident’s ASB reports, its readiness to keep her case open, engaging partners from environmental health, community safety and the police, that the ASB she was experiencing was not in question and it remained willing to take actions in response.
The landlord did also consider the practical measure of fitting a self-closer, suggested by the resident to reduce door banging noise from above. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to pursue her suggestion, when ASB relates to noise, our expectation would be for the landlord to consider any practical measures to assist in the mitigation of noise transference as part of its process to address the issue. Internal notes referenced discussions about the neighbour’s flooring. The landlord did not know if the neighbour had floor covering and not having any carpet would likely have exacerbated any noise transference directly below. It would have been appropriate to check to see if carpets were present, or whether there were any other sound proofing measures that it might have been able to implement. There was no evidence of this, or that the question over carpeting was followed through.
It was not clear either if the landlord ever fitted the door closer to the neighbour’s door. At the time of the landlord’s final stage response the job had been put on hold following the cyber-attack. As a result of this, only the highest priority repairs were being carried out and the door-closer did not fall into this category. It is acknowledged that the cyber-attack will inevitably have caused a delay with the door closer, but it is of concern that this does not appear to have been followed up since its repairs service resumed in full.
Two of the resident’s reports of ASB, submitted to the landlord, were not processed properly as the staff involved had not checked whether an ASB case was open for the resident. This resulted in two letters being generated that advised the resident that the landlord did not intend to investigate her ASB as this did not meet the threshold to be considered further. This was not appropriate, and would have been very confusing for the resident. This error was picked up in the stage 2 peer review as the landlord accepted this was a service failing on its part, apologised and offered the resident discretionary compensation of £50 for each letter sent in error, in accordance with its compensation policy. It also acknowledged further training of front-line staff was necessary when receiving ASB reports to ensure this did not happen in the future.
The landlord’s use of an independent ASB contractor as a “critical friend” for ASB cases (which were exhausting the informal actions available) was reasonable and an example of good practice. It ensured process and procedure had been followed, enabled further options to be put forward and acted as an assessment for proportionality in moving forward with any litigation. In this instance in June 2022, the contractor determined that the landlord had enough evidence to pursue an injunction against the neighbour. The landlord commenced preparations immediately on receipt of this information which was reasonable.
Within 3 weeks however, the landlord advised the resident that the recent cyber-attack meant it could no longer pursue the application for an injunction against the neighbour as promised. This was because it could not access the data from its customer management system to prepare a witness statement, and could not produce a copy of the tenancy agreement. It apologised and explained this was outside of its control.
At this point in time, it was effectively outside of the landlord’s ASB and Housing Management teams’ control to progress the legal proceedings, but it was not reasonable for the landlord to absolve itself of all responsibility. The landlord could not take the formal action that it had agreed was necessary or fit the self-closer to the neighbour’s door and the detriment to this already vulnerable resident, as a result of the cyber-attack, was significant. It would have been appropriate under the circumstances for the landlord to have done more than offer to repeat actions (such as speaking with the neighbour) that it had previously undertaken, when it had already been decided formal enforcement action was required. This must have been extremely distressing for the resident as it appeared at this point that she was just going to have to live with the noise and nuisance, which was not reasonable.
The landlord should have looked at other options which were proportionate to the problem. It could have considered the use of an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement which, whilst not legally binding, the neighbour’s response to it would either have resolved the ASB or provided further evidence to support enforcement action down the line. The landlord told the resident its policy was not to move people (victims of perpetrators) in cases of ASB (albeit this was not written in the ASB policy document). It would not be considered unreasonable for the landlord to take an initial stance to address cases of ASB rather than just move the problem elsewhere. In this instance however, it was unable to take the appropriate action. Bearing in mind the resident’s vulnerabilities and the detriment she was experiencing; it would have been reasonable to have a more flexible approach. The landlord could have considered offering the resident the option to transfer to alternative accommodation, but it did not. As a result, the resident remained in her property, with poor health, and the ongoing ASB, for a further year before the landlord was able to take any formal action against the neighbour, which was not reasonable.
In November 2022, after the internal complaints process had completed, it was noted that the community trigger was initiated and approved, as the resident’s case met the local threshold for a review. Statutory guidance encourages ‘relevant bodies’ involved in the community trigger process to consider automatically undertaking this type of review when thresholds have been met, even without the resident requesting one. It was noted that the response to the resident’s ASB case started to move at pace once the community trigger was invoked and the multi-agency group met.
It was evident the landlord actively worked with partners throughout the resident’s case, but it is our view that the community trigger multi-agency review would have been beneficial much earlier on. The threshold had been met sometime beforehand; the landlord could have considered initiating this review at the time the litigation had to be abandoned. This might have led to alternative actions being contemplated collaboratively and given the resident some reassurance that the ongoing ASB, and the impact it was having on her, was still of importance to the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise from her neighbour above.

Reasons

It was evident that the landlord did provide a response to the resident’s reports of ASB, initiating a number of informal actions available in its policy. However, despite being made aware of the resident’s considerable health and well-being issues, it failed to carry out a risk assessment as recommended in the code of guidance. It also failed to implement its “no threshold” approach available for vulnerable residents as per its ASB policy.
As a result, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had placed enough significance on the resident’s vulnerabilities or that it had applied a considered and tailored approach in addressing her ASB. This became particularly apparent when it had to abandon the formal action that it had agreed was necessary as a result of its cyber-attack. The landlord put little else in place for the resident, when it could have, such as more support measures, earlier community trigger, pro-active on door closer and other practical measures. As a result it did not show it fully recognise the detriment caused to her.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within four weeks of the date of this report, apologises to the resident for its failings.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within four weeks of the date of this report, pays the resident the sum of £800 (in addition to the compensation already offered) for the failings identified in its handling of ASB and noise reports and the distress and inconvenience this caused her.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, reviews its ASB policy against the Home Office’s statutory and non-statutory guidance (Anti-social behaviour powers: statutory guidance for frontline professionals), being particularly mindful of its recommendations on a victim focused and risk– based approach to tackling ASB.
The landlord should reply to this Service within the timescales outlined above to evidence its compliance with these orders.