The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

ForHousing Limited (202301617)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301617

ForHousing Limited

1 May 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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman is also considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom terrace house, on an assured non-shorthold tenancy, since June 2019. Shortly after moving in she reported issues with her neighbour and was advised by the landlord to keep a record of any incidents. In February 2020 the resident’s husband became terminally ill and the resident became his carer and found it difficult dealing with the ASB, but she continued to keep a record of incidents as well as using her own CCTV to capture evidence. Her husband passed away in April 2021, and she has continued to live in the property with her adult son.

Summary of events

  1. Upon moving to the property, the resident said she could smell cannabis from a neighbouring property so she started to keep records of their movements and noises/incidents. The landlord visited the resident on 3 July 2019 and wrote to the neighbour on 8 July 2019 summarising the issues discussed at the meeting (loud music being and shouting at a child). The matter was referred to Social Services as well as recorded formally as ASB on 9 July 2019. As the report was similar to one made by another person locally on 28 June 2019, the landlord linked the 2 cases.
  2. The landlord issued warnings to the neighbour and worked with support agencies including Social Services and the police. There was also regular contact with the resident and other neighbours to review their evidence. An action plan was agreed with the resident and a risk assessment carried out on the day it was formally logged. It was noted the resident suffered with a mental illness and the ASB had made matters worse.
  3. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 26 July 2019 regarding the complaint about noise/ASB and arranged to visit to discuss the matter on 31 July 2019. It wrote to the same neighbour again on 1 August 2019 as a result of there being further issues, notably: shouting and screaming at the children; offensive language used; the use of cannabis; entering other people’s properties; and making comments about neighbours. The neighbour was told the landlord may seek an injunction against her if things did not improve.
  4. The resident was referred to Victim Support on 8 August 2019 and letters were sent to all residents on 9 and 12 August 2019 about ASB and noise nuisance, encouraging them to report any experience of, or witness to, ASB. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 15 August 2019 about being in breach of her tenancy due to ASB, and an appointment was made to meet with her on 21 August 2019 to discuss matters. The landlord also wrote to one of the resident’s other neighbours on 26 August 2019 warning them about their child’s behaviour and that the police had also been informed.
  5. The resident continued to keep records of the neighbour shouting at their children and noise, and the landlord visited the resident on 26 September 2019 about the ASB and collected her diary sheets. It informed her that legal action against the neighbour was being considered. Throughout September and October 2019 the resident recorded every time somebody visited the neighbouring property as she was concerned about the number of visitors.
  6. Due to an escalation in behaviour which included an increase in the number of incidents, the landlord’s legal team applied for, and was granted, an interim injunction against the neighbour on 18 November 2019. The terms were that the neighbour was prevented from:
    1. Engaging in, or threatening to engage in, conduct capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance to any person who resides in, visits, or engages in a lawful activity in the neighbourhood.
    2. Using abusive or insulting or threatening behaviour against any person who resides in, visits, or engages in a lawful activity in the neighbourhood.
    3. Having more than two visitors at a time to her property, not to include members of the emergency services, members of the local authority, contractors, or employees of the claimant.
    4. Using illegal drugs in the property or in any communal area or property owned by the landlord.
    5. Using or threatening to use violence towards any person who resides in, visits, or engages in a lawful activity in the neighbourhood.
  7. The resident continued to submit a lot of evidence throughout 2020 to show the level of noise and visitors at the neighbour’s property and, as Covid-19 regulations were in place, matters were referred to the police over that time. The landlord also took a witness statement from the resident in January 2020 and issued a letter to all residents on 20 January 2020 which asked them to store wheelie bins and asked people not to speed when driving in the road.
  8. The injunction was in force until 15 October 2020 when the neighbour then agreed an undertaking with the landlord which was on similar terms to the injunction.
  9. The landlord says the resident sent 355 emails containing CCTV footage and images reporting ASB and breaches of the undertaking, and the evidence provided to this investigation supports that. In October 2020 alone, the resident submitted over 200 videos and of the CCTV footage provided, 123 video clips identified covid breaches relating to visitors attending the neighbour’s property. The resident was advised by the landlord that it could not enforce Covid-19 restrictions and she was told how to report these.
  10. Other videos showed the neighbour shouting at her son. The landlord said it discussed these with the resident and said it would review some of them but not all, due to the number, unless the resident could reference them. She did complete diaries and provided CCTV clips that showed an argument in the street and she reported 4 incidents of the neighbour either staring or making gestures towards her or making comments believed to be aimed at her.
  11. The resident made a noise complaint to the landlord on 7 December 2020 which was acknowledged the same day and the Community Safety Coordinator spoke with her on 10 December 2020. It was investigated as a possible breach of the neighbour’s undertaking. She sent 10 emails to the landlord on 11 January 2021 containing CCTV footage. CCTV footage was reviewed and the neighbour was spoken to in relation to there being a lot of shouting and foul language and she was reminded of the terms of her undertaking.
  12. The resident reported a further issue on 21 January 2021 and the landlord spoke with the neighbour the same day and updated the resident. It spoke with the neighbour again on 25 January 2021. The landlord liaised with a support service on 1 February 2021 and spoke with the resident on 1 March 2021. The case was then closed as there were no further breaches of the undertaking after the neighbour was spoken to.
  13. The resident reported further ASB in April and May 2021, specifically about the neighbour shouting and using abusive language. However, she also recorded issues with several other neighbours. A further ASB case was opened on 17 May 2021, following reports of shouting and abusive language by the neighbour. The report was acknowledged the same day and an interview took place with the neighbour on 24 May 2021 once the landlord had the information about the incident.
  14. The resident completed 35 incident logs/emails which included: cannabis smells coming from the neighbour’s property; gestures or comments being made believed to be aimed towards her; items being thrown into her garden; reports of shouting and the son playing football on the road, playing ‘knock a door run’ and playing with stones from her drive. The resident also reported 2 incidents of being filmed by the neighbour and reported 3 incidents in relation to the bins either being left by her drive or blocking the shared alleyway. On 23 June 2021 she notified the landlord of frequent visitors to the neighbour’s property.
  15. Throughout 2021 and 2022 the resident submitted many incident reports of a similar nature and the landlord had regular telephone calls or face to face meetings with her. In May and June 2021 the landlord carried out a community exercise with the police and Council and the Council issued a Community Protection Warning and a letter was sent to all tenants about supervising their children. The landlord also responded to enquiries from the resident’s MP about her ASB.
  16. The landlord applied to court for possession of the neighbour’s property and the first available date was 9 May 2022. However, the case was subsequently vacated and relisted for 1 July 2022 so more evidence could be submitted.
  17. On 11 May 2022, the landlord discussed with the resident the option of a suspended possession order (SPO). This was agreed by the resident given delays to the case and the fact that the neighbour was pregnant. However, the landlord then explained that the neighbour had not agreed to a SPO so possession proceedings would continue. In June 2022, it was decided to adjourn the proceedings for 3 months based on legal advice, to allow the neighbour to have her baby as there were equality act issues raised in relation to the pregnancy. It was explained that if the ASB started again it could always reinstate proceedings.
  18. On 21 June 2022 the landlord had a face to face welfare meeting with the resident to discuss the issues. The evidence shows that incidents were also reported to the police and an officer attended the neighbour on 12 August 2022 about her behaviour.
  19. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 September 2022 about the time taken to address her reports of ASB.
  20. On 3 October 2022 the landlord updated the resident after a review meeting. It said an appointment had been made with the neighbour to issue a warning in relation to her teenage son throwing items over the fence and to discuss the incidents of shouting. However, it would not be going back to court for possession as the incidents reported would not result in an outright possession order. It did say it would try to find a new home for the neighbour and they had to engage with support services.
  21. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 October 2022. It set out steps it had taken to address the ASB, including having sought a Possession Order against the neighbour, but this was adjourned as the neighbour was pregnant. It recognised the resident could not continue to live next to the neighbour and it was investigating other properties. It had also warned the neighbour about her behaviour and that it may seek an injunction against her if things did not improve. It said if the neighbour refused to move or engage with services and nothing changed it would have to then seek possession. It asked the resident to continue reporting incidents.
  22. On 5 October 2022 the landlord advised the resident it had made a referral for her to another support agency.
  23. The landlord has confirmed CCTV footage and photos were provided by the resident in 2022 and 2023 in relation to items being thrown over the dividing fence between her’s and neighbour’s properties. The neighbour was spoken to about her son’s behaviour and advised to address this, on 17 October 2022 and 19 January 2023. The landlord followed this meeting up with a letter and said it would be monitoring the situation. The neighbour denied that the items were coming from her garden despite recordings showing this. The resident’s CCTV was a system which was not activated by motion and had to be activated by the resident in order to capture evidence to identify where the items were being thrown from. The landlord therefore provided the resident with motion sensor cameras, although it says there has been no subsequent evidence provided.
  24. A complaint panel meeting took place on 25 January 2023, which the resident attended, and the landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 15 March 2023. It recognised there were longstanding ASB issues that were upsetting but it would not be resuming the possession proceedings as there had been an improvement in the neighbour’s behaviour. It noted that more recent reports had been about her son’s behaviour which were not deemed serious enough to take further action at that stage. It also noted the neighbour was engaging with appropriate services in relation to her son’s behaviour. It needed to adopt a reasonable and proportionate approach to any tenancy action and it recognised the neighbour was also trying to find an alternative property that would be suitable for her and her family. It apologised for the late stage 2 response, and offered £50 compensation for this.
  25. On 29 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it had closed her ASB case as the neighbour was working with support agencies, her diary entries related to the neighbour’s child, and the neighbour was seeking alternative accommodation.
  26. The landlord has explained that a management move was agreed with the neighbour and 3 offers of alternative properties were made and refused. The neighbour has been told that no further offers of accommodation will be made and she was advised to seek alternative accommodation via the choice-based lettings system.
  27. The landlord has said that since first reporting ASB, the resident made contact on 21 occasions reporting a cannabis smell, more than 3 visitors attending the address (reports made during lockdown), music, and noise nuisance. She also made 4 reports in relation to the neighbour placing her bins either by her windows or in the adjoining alleyway which was restricting access and blocking a fire escape. The resident was asked to complete incident diaries or logs associated to the complaints. She provided several hundred pieces of information, including diary entries, CCTV recordings, hand-written updates and emails to the Case Officer at the time of the investigation.
  28. The resident told this Service that the ASB continues and it has gone on for 4 years. The landlord has said another ASB case was opened on 27 February 2024 regarding the neighbour throwing items over the fence and comments made. The neighbour was spoken to by the landlord on 1 March 2024 and the investigation is ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The Occupancy Agreement says the landlord will act quickly and firmly against perpetrators and support tenants who are victims of nuisance, ASB or harassment, and that may include legal action such as injunctions. The landlord’s ASB Policy says it will acknowledge and triage a report within 2 working days and arrange to discuss the problem with the complainant. If the problem does not include violence or harassment, it will speak to the complainant within five working days of triaging the report and also interview the alleged perpetrator within five working days of them being identified.
  2. The landlord has sent in extensive records of action taken on all the ASB cases it recorded. It has logged 4 separate cases from the resident (the most recent in February 2024) but an additional 2 as a result of another neighbour raising a similar issue, and the 2 cases were linked.
  3. The initial ASB case was linked with another case that was already open as it related to the same issues and same perpetrator. That was opened on 28 June 2019 and the neighbour was contacted about the issues on 3 July 2019. Therefore, the landlord complied with its obligations under its ASB Policy.
  4. Another case was opened on 7 December 2020 and the landlord ensured the resident was contacted within 5 working days. Although the neighbour was not contacted until 21 January 2021, this was because the landlord waited for the evidence to be sent in support of the allegations. Bearing in mind this was dealing with similar issues to the earlier case, it was not unreasonable that the landlord wanted to ensure there was evidence in support of the claims before confirming with the neighbour that it was going to investigate a new allegation.
  5. The report made on 17 May 2021 was acknowledged the same day and the interview with the resident also carried out at the same time. The interview with the neighbour took place a week later which was within the timescales set out in its ASB Policy, after the landlord had liaised with the police. It therefore complied with its obligations.
  6. It is clear the resident sent in extensive evidence in support of her reports of ASB from 2019 onwards and the landlord received hundreds of pieces of evidence to consider. Its ASB Policy states it will offer support to vulnerable perpetrators on a case by case basis but when all options to resolve a case have been exhausted, where appropriate, reasonable and proportionate legal action will be sought. It says it will though, try to keep evictions to a minimum.
  7. The evidence shows the landlord noted the resident’s vulnerability and acted promptly when issues were reported. It took a proactive approach to dealing with the matter, encouraging the resident to always record any issues she had. It took a number of steps in accordance with its ASB Policy. This includes:
    1. Speaking with both the resident and the neighbour on several occasions.
    2. Carrying out risk assessments.
    3. Taking witness statements.
    4. Visiting the resident at home to discuss her concerns.
    5. Issuing letters to residents about ASB.
    6. Writing directly to the neighbour about their behaviour.
    7. Having meetings with the neighbour about their behaviour.
    8. Referring the resident to various third-party support.
    9. Taking out an injunction against the neighbour.
    10. Entering in to an undertaking with the neighbour in relation to her behaviour.
    11. Advising the resident to keep diary sheets and provide CCTV evidence of ASB and reviewing these.
    12. Supplying the resident with a camera to record ASB.
    13. Involving external agencies such as the Council and police.
    14. Taking steps to evict the neighbour.
    15. Offering the resident the chance to move.
    16. Offering a management move to the neighbour acknowledging the issues they were causing not only to the resident but other neighbours.
  8. The action taken by the landlord was in accordance with the Occupancy Agreement and its ASB Policy. Although the injunction was only in place for about a year, it did then also ensure the neighbour gave an undertaking on similar terms to prevent further issues occurring, rather than just closing the case down.
  9. It was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to the police or relevant authority with any concerns over breaching Covid-19 rule breaking. However, in terms of ASB, once the Covid-19 restrictions were lifted, the landlord did take steps to address the reported breaches by the neighbour, by way of an eviction. This was an appropriate response when it was clear that, despite having given an undertaking, there were still issues with the neighbour’s behaviour.
  10. While the Ombudsman notes the landlord did not progress with the eviction proceedings, this decision was based upon legal opinion. Bearing in mind the neighbour was pregnant and a court may have looked on the landlord poorly for seeking to evict her at that time, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the legal advice it received.
  11. The landlord went on to note there were further issues at the neighbouring property but also acknowledged the neighbour was working with support agencies and was also looking to move. Therefore, legal action was not necessarily sensible or proportionate at that point, and in any event, should be a last resort. It follows that the landlord’s decision to not take legal action further was reasonable.
  12. It is clear from her comments how much the ASB has affected the resident and her family over the years, and that it seems to still be an issue. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the issues and is now rightly investigating further complaints. It hopes it will liaise with the resident in terms of putting together an action plan, so both parties are clear on what steps will be taken to address any ASB identified. While the Ombudsman accepts the resident has been through a difficult time, it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to compensate her for upset caused by the neighbour, when it is satisfied there was no maladministration as the landlord acted reasonably in its attempts to address the ASB.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Redress Policy says it will initially try to agree a remedy within 2 working days. If a full investigation is needed, a stage 1 investigation takes place within 10 working days of escalation. A stage 2 review comprises of an independent review of the complaint carried out by the Customer Feedback & Improvement Team within 5 working days of escalation or within 21 working days of escalation where a Complaints Panel is required.
  2. The landlord’s Discretionary Financial Redress (Compensation) Guidance, says for non-quantifiable financial redress such as distress and inconvenience, it recommends for low impact cases, compensation of £25 to £250. For moderate impact cases £250 to £700 and in high impact cases, compensation of £700 or more. This is not consistent with its Complaints Policy.
  3. It is not known whether the landlord tried to agree a remedy within 2 working days, but it did issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of receipt. Therefore, it met its timeliness obligations and did address the resident’s concern.
  4. The Ombudsman is not aware of when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2, but it took the landlord 35 working days after the panel meeting, to issue its stage 2 response. This is unacceptable as it far exceeds the time frame set out in its Redress Policy. However, the landlord acknowledged that, apologised for the delay, and offered £50 compensation.
  5. The resident is unhappy with the level of compensation offered, but from the information provided, it seems that may be because she is seeking compensation for the impact the ASB has had, rather than as a result of any oversight on the landlord’s part.
  6. There was a delay by the landlord in issuing its stage 2 response, but the resident was present at the panel meeting so was being kept in the loop. There is no evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for its stage 2 response, and the delay overall was short-lived with minimal impact. This was therefore a service failure but the landlord has appropriately considered what a reasonable amount of compensation was in this situation. In circumstances like this, compensation of up to £100 is recommended, so the landlord’s offer of £50 is reasonable as it is proportionate to the moderate poor service identified.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord encouraged the resident to gather evidence and report issues to the police appropriately. On the whole it met its obligations under its ASB Policy and referred the resident to other agencies as well as exhausted numerous options in order to address the ASB, including obtaining legal advice.
  2. There was a short delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response, but this was acknowledged and an appropriate level of compensation offered.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should re-offer to pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered as part of its complaints process.