Flagship Housing Group Limited (202233885)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233885

Victory Housing Trust

30 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since September 2021. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The resident’s property is a house. During the period of the complaint, the house opposite the resident’s was occupied by her neighbour.
  3. In or around December 2021, the resident reported that the neighbour was frequently shouting in the street. She also reported that the neighbour parked opposite her driveway, which made it difficult for her to manoeuvre her car in an out.
  4. The landlord discussed the resident’s concerns with her in January and February 2022. At this time, the landlord arranged for the neighbour to sign a good behaviour agreement (GBA) with conditions against abusive behaviour. As part of its evidence gathering, the landlord also provided the resident with a video doorbell.
  5. It is evident that the neighbour made counter allegations against the resident around this time. The landlord therefore sought for the resident to also sign a GBA; however, she declined.
  6. The resident continued to make reports about similar behaviour from her neighbour, including laughing at her, filming her, and making abusive comments. The landlord therefore opened a formal complaint in September 2022.
  7. The landlord provided a stage one response on 3 October 2022. The response noted that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB and its lack of communication. The landlord advised that it had arranged for a further discussion about the case on 31 October 2022, where it hoped to find a resolution to the ASB.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s action, and so it provided a stage two response on 14 February 2023, which included the following:
    1. The landlord noted that the resident wanted the neighbour’s GBA to include a provision that they could not park opposite her driveway. The landlord advised that it did not have the ability to prevent the neighbour from parking in a public street outside their house. However, it advised that it had informed the neighbour that this was inconvenient for the resident. It was also in discussions with the neighbour about alternative parking arrangements.
    2. It noted that the resident had reported the abusive behaviour to the police and encouraged her to continue to do so.
    3. It noted the resident’s concerns about the positioning of the neighbour’s CCTV. It advised that it had reviewed the positioning and had no concerns. However, it noted that the resident could escalate this to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if she remained concerned.
  9. It is evident that the resident continued to liaise with the police and with the local authority’s parking team; however, no further action was taken.
  10. In July 2023, the landlord noted the resident’s desire for tenancy enforcement action; however, it reiterated that its approach was to “start at a low level and move upwards through behavioural agreements” before considering enforcement action.
  11. In August 2023, the landlord noted that there had been no recent reports, and so it was closing its case. However, in September 2023, the resident reported that the issues had started again.
  12. Around this time, the resident reported that the neighbour had shone a torch into her property. She also reported this to the police. The police spoke with the neighbour, who admitted to shining the torch; however, the police chose not to take further action.
  13. On the basis of the ongoing reports and this admission, the landlord sought for the neighbour to sign a further GBA; however, the neighbour declined to do so. The landlord nevertheless gave the neighbour a warning about their behaviour and threatened further action.
  14. As of August 2024, the resident has advised this service that the neighbour has now moved away from the area but continues to return on a regular basis.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of her discussions with this service, the resident has expressed her dissatisfaction with the actions of the police throughout the period of the complaint. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction only allows for investigation of members of the Scheme, namely providers of social housing. The Ombudsman is, therefore, unable to comment on the actions of the police. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice if this remains a concern.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that ASB includes behaviour which can cause intimidation or harassment. It also notes that the landlord will work in partnership with the police when investigating ASB.
  2. The policy also notes that any action will be proportionate to the circumstances of the case, and it may use warning letters and GBAs to deal with ASB.

ASB

  1. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case do not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome, and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, a landlord must follow its ASB procedures and ensure it has systems in place to maintain accurate records of its actions and decision making. This is so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps, even if this does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
  2. In this case, following the resident’s reports, the landlord spoke with the parties about the behaviour. The landlord has also provided evidence that it sought corroborating evidence from other neighbours in the street, but that it did not receive any other reports. It also provided the resident with a video camera doorbell at no cost to assist in gathering evidence. These were appropriate and proportionate steps, in line with its policy.
  3. Given that the reports were of potential criminal behaviour and harassment, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to report this to the police. As noted in the landlord’s policy, it will work with the police when addressing ASB. The Ombudsman understands that a landlord is not able to determine if behaviour is criminal in nature, and so it is reasonable for it to be guided by the police. Additionally, police action is often a strong piece of evidence to support any tenancy enforcement action through the court. It was therefore reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to make reports to the police. The landlord has also provided evidence that it regularly discussed this case with the police liaison officer to keep updated about any action.
  4. Given that the police chose not to take further action, it was reasonable for the landlord to continue to seek to deal with the ASB without formal enforcement action. While the resident was disappointed with the police’s decision, this was beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord has also noted that the police provided the resident with advice about how to make a complaint and how to raise a community trigger, which was appropriate.
  5. The resident expressed her frustration at the inconvenience caused by the neighbour’s parking, which she considered was deliberately done to cause her inconvenience. While the Ombudsman does not dispute this, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it was unable to enforce that the neighbour did not park there, given that it was a public road without parking restrictions. It was also reasonable that the landlord kept the neighbour aware that this was causing disruption for the resident and to work with them to make alternative parking arrangements. It was also reasonable that the landlord did not divulge the exact nature of these discussions to the resident given that they included personal information of the neighbour.
  6. As noted above, the landlord’s ASB policy requires that the landlord seek to manage ASB initially through warning letters and GBAs. The landlord has provided evidence of the warning letters sent to the neighbour, which appropriately detail the reported behaviour and explain the consequences of continued behaviour. It also appropriately sought to manage the behaviour through several GBAs, and on the instance that the neighbour refused to sign one, it nevertheless explained that the neighbour was expected to refrain from the activities described in the GBA. It was also appropriate that it measured the resident’s expectations that this was its approach.
  7. In her formal complaint, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the level of communication the landlord had had with her regarding the ASB. While it is evident the landlord took some action in line with its policy, its formal response was an opportunity to document what action it had taken and when. While it appropriately noted the arrangements for further discussions, it failed to set out a clear history of the complaint, which was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it had done all it could have. It was appropriate, therefore, that it provided further details about the actions it was taking in its stage two response.
  8. Regarding the use of CCTV, the landlord has provided this service with evidence that it did inspect the neighbour’s cameras and found them to be acceptable, and it was appropriate that it advised this to the resident. Given that the resident remained dissatisfied, it was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to the ICO, who are the appropriate body to investigate the misuse of CCTV.
  9. In summary, the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s reports, and it is clear that the resident has been negatively impacted by her experiences. However, the Ombudsman also understands that for a court to take action and remove someone from their home, a high level of evidence is required. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to initially seek to manage the behaviour with warning letters and GBAs and to work alongside the police. While this did not resolve the ASB, this was nevertheless reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy. Additionally, while the landlord could have provided greater detail in its stage one response, this did not fall below the threshold for service failure. In the circumstances, a finding of no maladministration had been made.
  10. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reports that the neighbour is continuing to return to the area and causing ASB. Should the neighbour remain a tenant of the landlord, it may still be able to take relevant action, or it may otherwise have relevant advice for the resident about what action can be taken. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to contact the resident and provide its position on the ongoing ASB.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning ASB from her neighbour.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to contact the resident to discuss the ongoing ASB and provide its position on any action that can be taken.