Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202121250)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121250

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

15 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.
2. Handing of counter allegations made against the resident by the neighbour.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 2017. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a detached house. The resident lives at the property with her two daughters. She had reported to the landlord being vulnerable, and particularly having depression and anxiety. The neighbouring property and the resident’s property have adjoining gardens and parking bays.
The landlord’s ASB policy includes in its definition of ASB, verbal abuse, drugs, harassment, criminal behaviour, hate crime and domestic noise nuisance. However, cooking smells, minor lifestyle differences or noise generated by everyday living are not considered to be ASB.
According to its ASB policy, the landlord will consider intervention on a day-to-day basis. Legal action will only be sought as a last resort where all other interventions have failed. Some of the actions the landlord will take include:
1. Advice and support and signposting where appropriate.
2. Working together with partner agencies where appropriate.
3. Warning letters and acceptable behaviour agreements (ABA).
4. Mediation.
5. Civil Injunction.
6. Fixed penalty notice.
7. Possession.
In its ASB policy, the landlord states that it is committed to:
1. Not move complainants, witnesses or subjects who are tenants of the authority as a means to resolving the ASB. It will deal with the nuisance.
2. Assume that all complaints are genuine unless proven otherwise.
3. Consult residents prior to any action being taken. It will provide residents with a regular update on the progress of their case. This will commence from the point of complaint until resolution.
4. Take the burden of evidence collection. However, where necessary diary sheets should be completed. It will also install necessary equipment and consider using noise and camera resources.
5. Work with police and other agencies for any problems which are more serious or require help.
Statutory nuisance is defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as ‘prejudicial to health or a nuisance’. A statutory noise nuisance is more than where the noise is a mere annoyance but where it is viewed to have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of those affected. The landlord’s ASB policy states that following an investigation, likely to include visits to witness the noise, the use of specialist noise recording equipment and the use of diary sheets, the Officer will determine the existence or likely existence of a statutory nuisance.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out 3 levels of ASB response – standard, priority and urgent. For standard ASB issues, the landlord will contact the resident within 5 working days and agree action plan. It will action within 10 working days. For priority and urgent ASB reports, it will contact the resident within 1 day and agree action plan. For priority cases it will take action within 5 working days and for urgent cases, within 1 working day.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint is a written or verbal dissatisfaction about the landlord’s service that requires a response. The landlord’s process has 2 stages, and at each stage, the landlord will respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Records show that the resident and the neighbour had made some allegations and counter allegations since 2020. These included threatening behaviour, noise nuisance, parking issues and throwing unsolicited items through the fence in each other gardens. Both parties in this neighbour dispute had reported the issues ongoing for over 6 years.
On 17 June 2020, the neighbour made some allegations of verbal abuse and “face shouting”. The following day, the resident raised concerns of the neighbour blocking her driveway and shouting at her. The issues were also reported to the police. The landlord contacted both parties on 22 and 23 June 2020. It conducted a risk and vulnerabilities assessment. As further allegations and counter allegations of harassment were made, the landlord continued communicating with both parties and the police under 2 separate ASB cases. It suggested mediation and queried further information from the police on 17 July 2020.
Both the resident and the neighbour had made further reports of incidents between them which led to the involvement of the police and the landlord’s ASB team on multiple occasions. A Community Protection Warning (CPW) was issued to the resident and an Advisory letter was issued to the neighbour in November 2020, following further incidents between the parties. The landlord’s records confirm that mediation was considered by the parties and the neighbour agreed. The landlord wrote to the neighbour and the resident in November 2020, that if no further incidents were reported it would close the case.
On 10 December 2020, the resident raised concerns that the member of staff who was dealing with the ASB cases was close to the neighbour. The landlord reassured her that it would stay impartial into this neighbours’ dispute. However, the member of staff involved took the resident’s concerns to their manager, but remained in position to deal with the ASB reports of both the neighbour and the resident. In January 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to find out what was the current situation. The resident reported no issues and the landlord said that it would contact her again and it would close the case if there were no further incidents.
On 24 March 2021, the neighbour reported hearing a “loud bang” over the weekend. They also reported the resident had told her that she had been recording everything including texting between the neighbour’s son and the resident’s daughter. The neighbour said the resident called them “fat”. The neighbour said there were other witnesses to the resident’s behaviour. The police were again involved.
On 13 April 2021, the neighbour reported to the landlord:
1. The resident had sent them a solicitors’ letter.
2. The resident had been watching them and kept closing and opening her blinds.
3. The resident had been recording them and they had informed the police of this.
The landlord’s records suggest that the following day, the resident sent an email with crime reference numbers. This Service has not seen the content of this email.
On 12 May 2021, the resident reported an incident on her way back from collecting her daughter from school. The resident reported:
1. More neighbours were gathered at the neighbouring property, and they were all laughing at her.
2. The neighbour’s boyfriend had been out of his van and started “calling her names”. Her 7-year-old daughter had got scared from the threatening behaviour and had thrown a plant she had from school at him.
3. The boyfriend had started coming towards her daughter and the resident had called the police.
4. Additionally, the neighbour’s son had messaged her older daughter during the Covid lockdown and had been intimidating since her daughter responded she did not “fancy” him. There had been bikes revving at her daughter’s window and noise made since the texts.
The landlord interviewed the parties involved and also the neighbours that were gathered. The other neighbours said the resident was the one to start the altercations. One of the other neighbours advised that the resident and her neighbour had been friends in the past but had fallen out over a parking issue.
A further interview with the resident was conducted on 17 May 2021 where the resident explained that the neighbour and her boyfriend usually started the incidents and were provoking her. She stated that this was the case again. The landlord sent diary sheets to the neighbours and the resident and asked the parties to keep track of any incidents. It also reviewed videos sent by the neighbour’s sister of the incident but could not identify who started the argument. It advised both parties in the neighbour dispute not to approach each other and how to report further incidents.
During the conversation with the landlord about the incident from 12 May 2021, the resident advised that she suffered with depression and anxiety. She also said that she was on medication prescribed by her general practitioner (GP). The landlord suggested further support, but the resident reassured it that she was able to live independently and look after her children. The landlord also advised her how to contact victim support if necessary.
On 24 June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the previous day the neighbour had been shouting at her and recording her children. The resident said that the neighbour had threatened her with social services taking her children away. The police also attended this incident. On 29 June 2021, the resident reported further altercations with the neighbour related to shouting and parking. The resident said the police were involved and the landlord asked for the details of the police officer and the diary sheets, at which point the resident ended the call. On 5 July 2021, the resident called the landlord and left a message for the case handler that she had 9 recent police reference numbers.
The landlord’s telephone note shows that on 13 July 2021, the resident reported no recent issues with the neighbour. The resident stated she was engaging with social services for the children. On 27 July 2021, the neighbour also confirmed that it had been quiet since 25 June 2021.
On 23 and 31 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord. However, the caseworker was on annual leave. The resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the way the landlord had handled her complaints and that her neighbour’s harassment had not stopped. She explained that this had a negative impact on her mental health and requested the case to be allocated to another officer. The landlord’s telephone note suggests that safeguarding issues were raised, and it contacted the relevant departments and the police to ensure the resident was safe. It also allocated the case to another officer and acknowledged this with the resident on 1 September 2021.
On 7 September 2021, the neighbour contacted the landlord to chase further action on her reports of noise coming from the residents’ property, which she stated had been ongoing for a few weeks. The neighbour stated that there was a previous case of harassment where the resident was issued with a CPW. The landlord requested that the neighbour refer to current issues rather than historical ones and suggested its out of hours noise monitoring team (OOH). It also acknowledged this with the resident and informed her of the action taken to monitor the situation for 2 weeks.
On 14 and 15 September 2021, the landlord called the resident who reported shouting from the neighbour’s daughter for a few seconds at night and her boyfriend beeping the car horn in the evenings. The resident stated that she had found it disturbing and that it was affecting her mental health due to her anxiety and depression. The landlord advised her of the OHH number and agreed to catch up fortnightly with her. It also asked her to provide diary sheets as the resident had not provided any. It explained the importance of the diary sheets and stated that the recordings the resident had been regularly providing were not useful as there was nothing on them. It advised her to continue engaging with the social worker. With regards to the solicitor’s letter sent to the neighbour by the resident’s solicitor, the landlord explained that any legal tenancy warning should be coming from the landlord, however, it did not have any grounds to issue one.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord received notification that the safeguarding threshold was not met for the resident’s referral. For the period between September and October 2021, the landlord received and reviewed numerous recordings and videos from the resident and the neighbour. In internal correspondence it stated that it could not establish any ASB from the evidence provided and intended to close the case on 12 October 2021. The same day the resident raised concerns about bonfires, revving of engines and horns from cars coming from the neighbour and their visitors. She explained that she reported this as harassment to the police and provided a case reference number. She also raised concerns with the environmental department for an alleged smoke pollution.
In a telephone conversation with the resident, the landlord stated that it would further investigate the bonfire issues and take action after the police spoke to the neighbour. The landlord committed to speak to the neighbour and also to send a warning letter to them. The landlord informed the resident that the environmental team would issue a smoke pollution letter. With regards to the other concerns about the horns from the cars and revving of engines, it referred the resident to report this to the highways and their special team which deals with issues related to modified exhausts. It also advised the resident to continue working with her GP to control her anxiety. On the same day, 12 October 2021, the landlord received an enquiry from the resident’s MP.
On 16 October 2021, the landlord sent to the neighbour an ASB warning letter in relation to the bonfires, noise and allegation of derogatory comments. It also reminded the neighbour of the tenancy conditions. However, the allegation and counter allegations continued. The resident and the neighbour sent further videos and recordings to the landlord. There was further altercation between the resident and the neighbour but the videos the neighbour provided were either without sound or did not include the start and end part of the incident so the landlord could not establish what and who initiated it.
On 20 October 2021, following an enquiry from the local councillor and in internal correspondence, the landlord acknowledged that both the resident and the neighbour had refused mediation when the police had offered it in the past. The landlord wrote to the councillor on 26 October 2021, and said:
1. The issues had been ongoing for many years. The neighbour and the resident had refused mediation in the past.
2. The evidence provided was insufficient and it was difficult to identify who was starting the altercations.
3. The landlord would attempt another mediation if both parties agreed as it realised it had to manage the situation given in the past this had escalated (referring to the events from May 2021).
4. It had asked both the resident and the neighbour, including their visitors to refrain from dialogues.
5. A plan of action would be discussed with both parties in the dispute.
On 26 October 2021, in a conversation with the neighbour, the landlord advised them that both the ASB reports, and the counter allegations were handled by two different new members of the landlord’s team. The landlord explained its evidence based approached and discussed the harassment case of the neighbour and the mediation process. It advised of the importance that the neighbour and their visitors refrain from any contact with the resident. In a further conversation, the neighbour raised concerns of alleged cannabis use by the resident.
Although this Service has seen no clear evidence of this, the new case handlers acknowledged in internal correspondence that the previous ones were in regular contact with the police. The landlord also acknowledged that the current situation could not continue due to the time and resource the ongoing reports of ASB were taking both from the landlord and the police. It contacted the police again to clarify the current situation. It also asked about the alleged use of cannabis by the resident. On 27 October 2021, in a telephone conversation between the police and the landlord, the police said:
1. For the most recent incidents reported by the resident related to her neighbour putting a chocolate on her car, leaving a van running and parking across her drive, the police visited both the resident and the neighbour.
2. None of the recordings shown during the visits were of any substantial evidential purpose.
3. The resident had stated during the visit that if “she was to be blamed… she would kick off at everyone”.
4. The police had visited the resident a few months ago unannounced and there had been a strong smell of cannabis.
5. The police could not find out evidence of any community protection warning (CPW) being issued but intended to issue one at this stage.
On 28 October 2021, a CPW was issued to the resident for her engagement in causing harassment to the neighbour and their family. On 1 November 2021, the landlord issued a tenancy warning letter to the resident related to the harassment issues. On 2 November, the police wrote to the landlord to inform it that following the serving of the CPW, the resident had contacted the police several times to report the neighbour had been throwing bricks. The police agreed that mediation could be the best way to resolve the neighbour dispute.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord discussed internally options to support the resident and planned a joint visit to her property with its ASB team and social workers. It also stated that the resident had not previously met the threshold for other safeguarding services which it had referred her to in the past. There is no evidence to confirm whether this visit took place, however, the records show that there was ongoing mediation during this period.
On 10 November 2021, the resident and the neighbour reached an agreement through mediation services. This was confirmed to the landlord by the mediation officer. This Service has seen the email confirming this but not the actual agreement sent to the parties.
On 30 November 2021, the resident sent further recordings to the landlord. She continued doing so on a daily basis until 14 December 2021. On 14 December 2021, the resident advised that the harassment continued. She raised again the impact this had on her given her anxiety and depression. She also said that the landlord “called her and her kids a liar ….and she wished she was dead and did not have to be called a liar”. The landlord raised immediately safeguarding concerns with the ambulance service. In internal correspondence, it acknowledged that it had arranged a multi-agency meeting due to significant concerns about the resident.
The following day, the landlord called the resident to inform her it had sent an ambulance to her due to the concerns her email had raised. It also informed her that a children’s services referral would also be made. The resident stated that:
1. The landlord’s member of staff was friend to her neighbour.
2. She did not feel protected from the neighbour’s harassment.
3. She was not happy that the mediation officer had suggested she needed a psychiatrist and would raise a complaint.
4. She was recording the conversation.
This Service has seen evidence of the landlord’s involvement in a community trigger meeting of 16 December 2021. It planned to discuss with the resident a mental health assessment and advise her of the OOH noise team. However, there is no evidence to support that this was completed.
For the period from 20 December 2021 until 9 February 2022:
1. The resident sent over 25 video recordings to the landlord.
2. She reported in January 2022 issues with vibration coming from other neighbours, who she believed were targeting her the same way as the neighbour involved in the dispute.
3. The landlord discussed the issues with the neighbour who did not raise any concerns about the resident’s behaviour other than filming them and their family. The neighbour explained that they ignored the resident due to her mental health issues and the landlord confirmed this was a reasonable response.
4. In January 2022, following a multi- agency meeting, the landlord assessed the situation not as ASB but more of as a case requiring intensive housing support need. The landlord confirmed in internal correspondence that the files the resident was sending showed nothing and the OOH team had not confirmed any noise during their visit of 27 December 2021. Additionally, the landlord stated that the police had one call in January 2022 as the resident reported slime put on her door. The landlord contacted the housing support services and the family solutions had closed her case down a few times before.
5. At the end of January 2022, the children services closed her case as there were no further concerns with the resident’s children and assessed that the issues were related to the dispute with the neighbour.
On 9 and 15 February 2022, the landlord discussed internally the importance of informing the resident that the issues she had been reporting did not amount to ASB. It planned a joint visit with the police to explain it in person. This Service has not seen any evidence of this. On 15 February 2022, the resident left a message to the landlord that she would use her resources to start legal action against her neighbour as the landlord did not treat her right.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord tried to arrange a joint visit with the police. The police stated although they had made many visits in the past, they would do again in case something had been missed out.
On 22 February 2022, the resident sent a few further recordings in several emails. The landlord reviewed the videos and concluded that they did not show anything. However, it found the content of the emails concerning as the resident reported death threats and the landlord contacted the resident. The landlord found from the resident that the police had not been involved on this occasion and concluded that the death threats were more likely to be perception rather than direct threats. It planned to close the case and acknowledge it with the resident.
On 24 February 2022, following some counter allegations, the landlord contacted the resident who denied harassing the neighbour’s daughter. The landlord advised the resident that it was receiving too many videos which were not showing anything of relevance. The resident also said that the neighbours were intentionally parking at her driveway to disturb the cameras. The resident further reported noise at night, fires in the neighbour’s garden with smoke coming into her property and vibrations coming from the neighbour’s shed.
For the period from 28 February until 16 March 2022, the resident sent over 15 recordings to the landlord. On 16 March 2022, the resident reported the neighbours harassing her with fires and smoke from their garden. On 21 and 24 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again and said she was unhappy that no one had contacted her although she had logged numerous ASB reports. She was dissatisfied that she was not trusted by the ASB team and her managing officer. She said she would be contacting her MP about the smoke and ASB issues with the neighbours.
On 7 April 2022, the landlord contacted the police and tried to arrange a joint visit. This service has seen no evidence that this was done. On 11 April 2022, the landlord made enquiries to the police about notes it found on the ASB file of mediation attempts. However, there is no evidence of any response. On 12 April 2022, the neighbour reported to the landlord that they had been served with papers from the resident’s solicitors for possible restraining order, the hearing for which was on 4 August 2022. The neighbour explained to the landlord that they had passed this on to their solicitors and also passed the information about the resident’s GP, her “unfounded complaints and continued harassment”.
On 14 April 2022, the landlord conducted an interview with the resident. During the interview:
1. The resident reported the neighbour knocking on their windows when the resident was passing by their property.
2. The landlord asked the resident to consider mediation to which she responded she would not do so and she would like the neighbour evicted.
3. The landlord explained its ASB process and in what cases it could take legal action. It said there were no evidence to take further action, but the resident was not satisfied with this. She stated that she would keep writing to the landlord until the neighbour was evicted. She also stated that the neighbour did not like her, and her children and eviction was the only way forward.
4. The resident reported that her medication dosage for the depression and anxiety was increased by her GP due to the irritation from her neighbour. The landlord advised her to ignore the actions of the neighbour and not to engage with them. It tried to explain further the mediation process, but the resident was not prepared to engage in this discussion.
The same day, the landlord made an assessment of the evidence and the ASB case. It summarised the events from December 2021. It questioned why the multiagency case was not closed in January 2022, but noted the case related to counter allegation reported by the neighbour had been closed in January 2022. It acknowledged the resident was able to look after herself and her children. It noted her increased medication. It also confirmed that upon review of all the recent recordings and evidence it could not substantiate that the incidents reported amounted to ASB. It noted that a risk assessment had been carried out and a few safeguarding referrals were made.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord chased the police for the joint visit arrangement and contacted the resident who was dissatisfied that the police were going to visit her rather than visiting her neighbour who she stated was harassing her. The same day the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s concerns of the handling of her ASB case and the counter allegations by the neighbour. The landlord stated:
1. Its ASB team in conjunction with the police had reviewed all alleged complaints of harassment and intimidating behaviour by her neighbour. The evidence received would not require legal action. Mediation had been offered on a few occasions, but the resident had refused it. It summarised the assessment from 14 April 2022, and explained it would not support a management move at this stage.
2. With regards to the counter allegations, it stated that the case was closed and would remain closed. A CPNW was served to the resident on 1 November 2021 for prohibition of harassment.
3. The housing manager started its role in the area in January 2022 and was unable to locate any logs of ASB prior to March 2022.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord discussed its joint visit further with the resident and noted the information provided by her on her children and their age. The resident reiterated she wanted the neighbour evicted and the landlord responded that the evidence provided by the resident did not substantiate any legal action. She stated the neighbour was calling one of her daughters “the dirty one”. The resident was dissatisfied that the police had been coming to her when they should be visiting her neighbour. The landlord noted that the resident was shouting during the call and that she did not want any police officers visiting again but rather wanted the neighbour evicted. The resident stated that she would contact her solicitors and the Ombudsman. On 26 April 2022, the landlord also submitted a referral to children’s services and informed the resident of this.
On 3 May 2022, the landlord called the resident to inform her about a joint police visit booked for 4 May 2022. The resident said she had paid solicitors £700 for an injunction order. The landlord asked for recent incidents and the resident stated the vibration and throwing things over the fence had been ongoing for years.
On 4 May 2022, the ASB team and the police served a CPNW to the resident about reporting incidents of alleged harassment which were not deemed to be ASB. The resident was warned about her behaviour and said that it was considered harassment and making malicious complaints.
On 30 May 2022, this Service assisted the resident to escalate her complaint and forwarded her request to the landlord. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 12 July 2022. It said:
1. It had issued its stage 2 response following a conversation with the resident from 29 June 2022. The resident confirmed the allegations related to parking, throwing liquid over her cameras, verbal abuse, noise from the neighbour’s garden at night and friends of the neighbour following the resident.
2. Since the resident’s initial complaint of 13 May 2021 reasonable interventions had been taken to try and address any allegations of ASB which the resident had made. It referred to the warning letter issued to the neighbour of 16 October 2021 and the mediation agreement reached in November 2021, which had broken down.
3. The evidence supplied did not meet the required threshold for ASB. And this was communicated to the resident several times. Additionally, the police were not treating the incidents as harassment.
4. The resident had stated she had engaged a solicitor and the landlord asked her to keep it updated.
5. It acknowledged the impact on her health. However, it was unable to substantiate some of the allegations in order to take legal action against her neighbour.
6. It had sent a warning letter to the neighbour as stated in the correspondence to the MP of 12 October 2021.
7. It found no evidence to support the resident’s allegation about its officers’ integrity, and particularly about them being friends with the neighbour.
8. It had explored options to support the resident and offered her its housing support services. It encouraged her to consider this again in addition to the support she was getting from her GP.
9. The resident should report issues that amounted to ASB only. It provided the details of the OOH noise team and explained what could be considered a parking related ASB.
10. Mediation would be the best way to resolve tension between neighbours. As such, it advised the resident to engage again in mediation but this time with some additional support to help her with the process.
11. It would close the case if no substantive evidence was provided within three months and the resident engaged in mediation.

Following the landlord’s end of internal process

The neighbour reported in July and August 2022, noise and loud music coming from the resident’s property and the landlord reopened the noise case. On 4 August 2022, the neighbour’s MP wrote to the landlord and raised the noise issues and the ongoing disturbance caused to the neighbours.
On 7 September 2022, the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident about the loud music. There was further discussion with the police about the issue of a community protection notice (CPN). Further reports were made from the neighbour about loud music and the smell of cannabis from the resident’s property which were not confirmed by the OOH.
On 15 September 2022, the resident raised some concerns about the issue of the CPN. The resident stated that the landlord was acting against her continuously and refused any meeting. She brought the complaint to this Service.
For the next months, the allegations and counter allegation continued, and the issues escalated following the adjourning of the hearing related to the civil legal action the resident had initiated. On a couple of occasions, the resident stated to the landlord that she had been “mistreated” by the landlord as she had not been allowed to complain any longer. There was further evidence suggesting the landlord and the police were corroborating to resolve the dispute. Mediation was again discussed. However, this Service has seen no evidence of the mediation being discussed with the parties in the dispute.
On 8 December 2022, the resident was arrested with a possible charge for aggravated behaviour due to social media threats and racial abuse against the neighbour and their daughter’s boyfriend.
The resident advised this Service recently that she felt no one really had supported her including this Service. She was concerned the landlord had been only trying to evict her and it had discriminated against her due to her mental health issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident raised concerns with this Service that the landlord treated her differently due to her disability. While it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make legally binding findings on discrimination allegations, this Service will consider the overall handling of this neighbours’ dispute.
Due to the nature of the ASB complaints, their frequency over 2 years and the volume of the evidence, this investigation does not intend to provide a full and detailed information on each of the incidents. However, all the evidence including the number of recordings has been considered. With all the evidence considered, this Service will focus on the overall landlord’s handling of the situation and whether its handling of the multiple ASB reports was reasonable and fair.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by the neighbour.

This Service has seen evidence of the resident’s reports of ASB since 17 June 2020, which were raised as a response to the neighbour’s allegations of verbal abuse. The landlord at the time responded in the following days and completed a risk assessment. This was dealt with in a timely manner. Due to the following reports of incidents, and particularly the incident after May 2021, the landlord worked closely with the police and offered mediation to the parties in the dispute. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states that the landlord would explore all the options possible before taking any legal action or moving residents from their property.
Despite the mediation agreement which was sent in November 2021, the reports continued, and the volume of incidents escalated. The landlord was responsive and was in close and often immediate contact with the resident following the resident’s reports. It raised on a few occasions safeguarding issues and made social services referrals. In its conversations with the resident, it considered her mental health and asked regularly whether she had been receiving the necessary support. It participated in a multi- agency meeting as part of the community trigger which included the concerns about the resident’s vulnerability. This was appropriate and evidenced a customer focused approach.
Additionally, the landlord provided the resident with advice on how to report the incidents and its OOH noise service contact. It explained the importance of collecting evidence relevant to the incidents, and particularly the importance of the diary sheets. However, the resident provided no evidence other than recordings to the landlord, most of which did not show anything, as confirmed to the resident. This Service has also seen those recordings and while it is not the usual practice to assess the content of such evidence, this Service finds the landlord’s conclusion that most of the recordings showed nothing to be reasonable.
Due to the nature of the complaints and the lack of evidence to substantiate the reports, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude in January 2022 that the resident’s reports were not ASB but rather housing support issues. This Service has seen the landlord’s internal discussions that the resident’s reports did not amount to ASB. However, there is no evidence that this was communicated in a timely way to the resident. As such, the landlord considerably delayed managing the resident’s expectations as to how it would respond to her reports.
In March 2022, the resident raised her concerns that she had reported a number of ASB incidents and sent numerous recordings, but she had received no response. Despite concluding that those reports did not amount to ASB, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain this clearly to the resident. This was not done until 22 April 2022 when in a telephone conversation the landlord stated that the resident’s evidence was not sufficient. However, further clarity was provided with the issue of a CPN warning from 1 November 2022 about malicious complaints. This was further clarified at its stage 2 response.
The landlord could not demonstrate that it had managed the situation in December 2021 and January 2022 reasonably. As such, it left the resident reporting issues which were not amounting to ASB for a considerable period of time. Given her vulnerability, it would have been reasonable for the landlord at an earlier stage and with additional support to explain the implication of her reports and what could be considered as ASB.
In this case the landlord had followed its ASB policy by conducting risk assessments and exploring various tools to resolve the dispute and support the resident. It had handled a large volume of reports and responded appropriately to the main incidents. However, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations as to the nature of her reports. As such, there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. However, this Service would like to be clear that neither the Ombudsman nor the landlord have the authority to order the neighbour to be evicted. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, compensation of £150 is reasonable for the landlord’s failure to provide clear information for a considerable period of time.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of its handling of counter allegations by her neighbour.

Over the period of time above the landlord received numerous counter allegations by the neighbour in relation to the resident’s actions. When ASB is reported, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner. The landlord must consider its obligation as landlord to treat allegations from all its residents in a consistent and evidence-led way.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord responded and investigated the neighbour’s counter allegations related to numerous incidents in an impartial way. Any action taken, including the warning letters sent to the residents were as a result of a thorough investigation and interview with both parties. The landlord was transparent in its intentions and provided clear information on any follow up action it was undertaking to deal with the neighbour’s reports.
When the resident raised issues with the professionalism and impartiality of the case handlers, the landlord raised those issues with senior staff members and discussed the option of changing the contact. The landlord additionally addressed those concerns of the resident in its stage 2 response after it provided investigation into the action taken by its staff to deal with the neighbours’ dispute.
This Service has seen evidence of the landlord being responsive and respectful to both parties in the dispute and taking seriously all their reports. Given the volume of incidents and the nature of the neighbours’ dispute, the landlord’s response was reasonable. The landlord attempted on a few occasions to assist in mediation and convince both parties that this had proved helpful in the past which would give best results in situations like this. The landlord demonstrated that it treated both parties equally and with respect and where necessary it took the resident’s vulnerabilities into account and offered even further support if eventual mediation as per its final response.
For the above reasons, this Service has found that the landlord acted in a reasonable and fair manner with both parties in its responses to the neighbour’s counter allegations.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy allows the landlord to respond at stage 1 to the resident’s complaint within 20 working days. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) which allows 10 working days for response at stage one. The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case on 21 March 2022. This Service has seen no acknowledgement being sent to the landlord, but the stage1 response was issued on 21 April 2022. This is 9 days outside of the timeframes of the Code’s provisions and 4 days outside of its own complaints policy.
The resident advised this service that she escalated her complaint shortly after stage 1 response. This Service has seen evidence of the resident’s emails where her request for escalation was not entirely clear. This Service assisted her to escalate her complaint and forwarded her request to the landlord on 30 May 2022. However, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 July 2022. This is 11 days after the timeframes set out in its complaint policy.
While the delays in the landlord’s response may not be considerable given the amount of evidence and the nature of the investigation that the landlord had to perform, this service position is that the complaints process should have time limits and the resident should be provided with an opportunity for resolution at the earliest possible stage. The delays were not in line with the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s code and as such there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. This has not overall affected the handling of the substantive issues. As such, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, £50 is considered as reasonable compensation in these circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the neighbour’s counter allegations.
3. Service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

Given the number of reports and incident between the neighbours, the landlord had managed to respond in a timely and reasonable manner. It had considered all the circumstances of the resident and her vulnerabilities and offered reasonable support. However, it could have done more to manage her expectation as to the nature of the issues she had been reporting and explain that they did not amount to ASB at an earlier stage during the period January 2022 and April 2022.
It had demonstrated that it had treated fairly both the resident’s reports and the counter allegations by her neighbour. Its members of staff had responded in line with its obligation as per its ASB policy and treated both parties in the dispute fairly and with the necessary respect and professionalism.
There were slight delays in the complaints responses at both stages which had not affected the overall handling of the ASB issues.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation totalling £200. This is comprised of:
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident by the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports.
2. £50 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its complaint handling failures.
The landlord to evidence compliance with the above order to this Service by the same date.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide further training to its staff with regards to the threshold of ASB issues and how to communicate this to the residents in order to manage their expectations.
The landlord to review its complaint police so that the timeframes for response at stage 1 to respond to the provisions of the Code.