Guinness Housing Association Limited (202012379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012379

Guinness Housing Association Limited

8 November 2021

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 refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, the property is a bungalow. The resident’s neighbour lives in the property next door.
The resident has said that she initially reported ASB from the neighbour’s property in 2018. This investigation has considered the period from December 2020 (when the resident reported recent incidents of ASB) and 20 May 2021, when the landlord issued its final response to the complaint. This is because there are limits to how far back our investigations can go as the Ombudsman expects formal complaints to be raised with a landlord within a reasonable period, which is usually within six months of the issue occurring.
Historically, the resident and her neighbour had agreed to mediation following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB. The landlord wrote to the neighbour regarding the allegations and gave a verbal warning regarding the allegation of cannabis usage. The resident later advised that the situation had improved and agreed for the ASB case to be closed in mid-2020.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 9 December 2020 and she reported that the historical ASB issues with her neighbour were ongoing. She said that she had avoided using her back garden due to noise nuisance and intimidation from her neighbour and their family. The resident wanted the landlord to take formal action against her neighbour. The resident was offered mediation at this stage but refused as she preferred to avoid contact with the neighbour. The resident agreed to complete diary sheets to document the ASB and also queried whether the height of the dividing fence between her and her neighbour’s property could be made taller. The landlord said it would arrange a visit to the property as it would not be able to legally allow the fence to stand at over 6ft. the evidence suggests that the landlord called the resident on 17 December 2020 and the resident reported that matters had quietened down and no further action was needed.
The landlord called the resident on 29 January 2021. The resident raised concern about the number of people currently residing in the neighbour’s property. The landlord confirmed that it was aware of the issues with her neighbour but could not disclose whether it would be taking any action against them. The resident wanted the neighbour to be moved to another area and the landlord explained that there were policies it would need to follow. Around this time, the resident asked for permission to install CCTV cameras at her property. This was later approved by the landlord.
The resident called the landlord on 19 February 2021 to report that she was being harassed by her neighbour’s family members. She said that she was shouted at by her neighbour’s daughter and partner on a daily basis and they often called her names or took photos of her. She said that she had gone outside that day and was shouted at again when she came back inside. She had called the police and provided a crime reference number to the landlord. The resident did not feel that mediation would be suitable as it had not worked in the past. The landlord advised that it would speak to the neighbour and ask them not to engage with her. It also said it would send diary sheets to the resident and review these after seven days.
The records suggest that the landlord called the neighbour that day. The neighbour raised a counter complaint that the resident had been verbally abusive towards them. Both parties had signed an informal agreement with the police and had agreed not to engage with each other at this stage.
Following internal communication regarding the issues, on 2 March 2021 the landlord concluded that the issues were tenancy management issues and it would not be pursuing tenancy enforcement action. At this stage, the resident raised concern that the neighbour’s security light was on throughout the night which was causing her disturbance.
The resident confirmed that the CCTV cameras had been installed on 15 March 2021. The landlord visited the property on 17 March 2021 to check the positioning of the CCTV and check the neighbour’s lighting. It found that the lighting used was a standard wattage bulb and was not considered to be an issue.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 7 March 2021 and detailed the ASB she was experiencing from her neighbour and their family. She felt that completing diary sheets was not worth her time as she had completed these historically but no action had been taken. She said that the issues were affecting her health and she had not been able to use her back garden regularly in the time her neighbour had been living at the property due to the noise and ASB.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 March 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB within ten working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 March 2021 and explained that due to the impact of Covid-19 it may take slightly longer to provide a response. It said that it would aim to response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2021 and asked for a call-back. She reported that the neighbour was shouting in their garden and expressed concern that the neighbour was not currently residing at the property and had allowed their daughter and partner to reside there. She was concerned that they were encouraging their son to make noise in the garden on purpose. She was concerned that her neighbour was breaking the rules of the agreement that they had signed and asked the landlord to find a resolution as she said the issues were affecting her mental and physical health.
Following contact from the resident, who said that she had not received a response, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 14 April 2021 and asked it to provide an update or response letter within five days. The landlord emailed the resident on 15 April 2021 and apologised for the delay in addressing her complaint. It asked the resident to respond to its email, detailing the outcome she was hoping for. It said it would be in touch once it had an update. The landlord’s internal records showed that the resident had been granted permission to install higher fencing at this stage in an attempt to resolve the ASB.
Following this, the resident continued to report noise nuisance from the neighbouring property which involved the neighbour’s grandson making noise in the garden. The resident admitted to shouting at her neighbour and was advised not to do this as both had signed an informal agreement. The landlord advised that it would not intervene since both parties had signed this agreement and there was no evident beach of tenancy. The resident raised concern that the neighbour was breaching Covid-19 lockdown restrictions and was advised to contact the police regarding her concerns about the restrictions being breached.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 April 2021 to confirm the details of the complaint. the landlord was asked to provide its complaint response no later than 28 April 2021.
The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 21 April 2021 to discuss her complaint. She advised that she was unhappy with its handling of her reports of ASB and would like to be transferred to an alternative property. She expressed dissatisfaction that she would need to bid for available properties and wanted the landlord’s assistance to help her move.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 6 May 2021 and explained the following:
1. Its tenancy enforcement team had dealt with the resident’s most recent ASB case against her neighbour. It had asked the resident to complete diary sheets and explained that diary sheets helped it to build evidence against the neighbour and helped it to understand the frequency and impact the ASB was having. It noted that it had not received diary sheets and the resident preferred to call weekly to report issues. It encouraged the resident to complete diary sheets moving forward so it could take appropriate action.
2. It had received a counter-complaint from her neighbour alleging that the resident had been verbally abusive towards them. It had been informed by the police that the resident and the neighbour had signed an informal agreement agreeing not to engage with each other. In view of this, no further action was required at this time. It said that it had been in frequent contact with the resident and it had responded to each issue that she had reported. It had asked the resident to reconsider mediation but this had been refused.
3. It noted that the resident had asked for a call-back from its tenancy enforcement team on 22 March 2021 which was not returned. It apologised for this. It said it was aware of the resident’s concerns regarding the number of people residing at the neighbouring property and said appropriate action was being taken. It was unable to provide the details of its actions due to data protection regulations. It said that it would not be able to take action in regard to the neighbour’s grandchildren playing football or making noise in the garden throughout the day as this would not be considered unreasonable noise.
4. It confirmed that it had checked the neighbour’s security light following the resident’s report that this was causing disturbance. It found that there were no issues with the lighting and the standard bulb was being used. It confirmed that it advertised all available properties on its website and the resident could bid for suitable alternative properties. It said that if the resident was unable to use this service, one of its teams could bid for properties on her behalf. It said that it did not currently have an active transfer application for the resident and said that she could speak to its application team for further advice.
5. It was satisfied that it had actioned the resident’s reports of ASB and encouraged her to reconsider mediation and record incidents on diary sheets. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and explained that the member of staff who had been assigned the resident’s case initially had taken an unexpected leave. To acknowledge a missed call back and delay in responding to the complaint, the landlord offered £30 as a gesture of goodwill. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident called the landlord on 12 May 2021 and explained that she remained dissatisfied with its response. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had only looked at the most recent case of ASB and felt that £30 did not adequately resolve the matter. The complaint was escalated to stage two on 13 May 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 20 May 2021 and explained the following:
1. It said that it was satisfied with the way the resident’s complaint was handled at stage one and agreed with its previous findings considering the lack of evidence provided and the intervention from the police which resolved the issues she was experiencing.
2. It confirmed that it had spoken to the resident on the phone and she advised that she had not experienced any further issues with her neighbour since the agreement was signed. She added that there had been some minor issues but nothing that she wanted to report. It said that it would contact the neighbour about their children kicking the resident’s wall.
3. It further explained that it would not be able to make the neighbour move property if they did not wish to. It added that the resident did not meet the criteria for a priority move. It confirmed that it had offered mediation between the resident and her neighbour but the resident had declined this. It said that the offer remained open if the resident wanted to reconsider. It noted that the resident had also declined its offer of £30.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She had installed a new fence in her garden to prevent the ASB but wanted the neighbour to be moved from the property. She expressed concern that her neighbour had been allowed to live in the area as the other neighbours were all 70+ years of age. She added that her neighbour allowed their grandson to and friends to make noise in the garden and that she needed to close her door in nice weather due to the noise disturbances. She added that the neighbour’s eldest son smoked cannabis and the smell would regularly enter her home. She said that she had installed a new fence in her garden in an attempt to block any ASB from the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy sets out the approach the landlord will take to investigating reports of ASB. This confirms that on receipt of the initial ASB report, the landlord would contact the victim within two working days depending on the nature of the ASB report. The landlord would complete a risk assessment to assess the impact of the ASB and encourage the victim to keep an ASB diary. In many cases a non-legal remedy will be suitable, which may include interviewing the alleged perpetrator, sending warning letters, offering mediation or working alongside relevant third-parties such as the police.
A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts have not successfully resolved the issues. For a landlord to take formal action regarding noise, such as written warnings, injunctions or eviction proceedings etc, the landlord would require extensive evidence of the alleged noise and behaviour. Landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise; however, if a noise is confirmed as constituting statutory noise nuisance, then both the landlord and the local authority’s Environmental Health service may be able to warn and take formal action against the perpetrator.
In this case, the resident had accused her neighbour of harassment and noise nuisance, which would fall under the heading of ASB. The landlord made reasonable efforts to gain evidence of the alleged ASB by asking the resident to complete diary entries of the incidents she experienced in line with its policy. It is noted that these were not returned to the landlord. As such, there were limited steps the landlord could take to resolve the issue as there was a lack of evidence to support the resident’s claims. A landlord can only be expected to act in relation to ASB if it is aware that the ASB is ongoing. The landlord would be unable to take formal action against the neighbours without evidence of the current circumstances. Despite this, the landlord took reasonable steps to discuss the resident’s concerns with the neighbour who made a counter complaint of verbal abuse from the resident. Where counter complaints are made, the landlord would require extensive evidence from both parties to determine the action it could take.
The landlord acted reasonably by assessing the risk to the resident and considered the ASB experienced to be ‘low level’ as there was no risk to life and the issues reported appeared to be a general neighbour dispute. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation to resolve the continued conflict between the resident and her neighbour. Mediation is not compulsory, and the resident would be entitled to refuse to participate. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as an option as it can help to resolve neighbour disputes in some cases.
Given the resident’s claim of harassment by her neighbour, it was reasonable for the landlord to work alongside the police. The police had implemented an informal agreement with the resident and her neighbour agreeing not to engage with one another. The police had maintained contact with the resident and noted that an ASB contract may be suitable if the issues persisted. Reported breaches of lockdown restrictions would also be a police matter and it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to contact the police.
Given that the neighbour and the resident had signed an informal agreement with the police, it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action at this stage as it had not been provided with any further supporting evidence of the ASB. The landlord would not be expected to take action against the neighbour for noise being made in the garden of the property during day-time hours as this would be considered general noise and would not be considered a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord aced fairly by granting the resident permission to erect a taller fence in the garden and install CCTV cameras.
In her communication with this Service, the resident has raised concern that she could smell cannabis which originated form the neighbour’s property. Whilst the resident appeared to have raised this concern in August 2020, there is no further evidence to suggest that this issue had been brought to the landlord’s attention more recently. The resident would be advised to raise her new concerns with the landlord for it to take appropriate action in regard to her allegations.
This Service cannot comment on the actions the landlord has taken in relation to the resident’s concerns about the number of people residing at the neighbour’s property or her concerns about why the neighbour was offered the property as this would involve requesting information about another person’s personal circumstances. Due to data protection regulations, the landlord would not be obliged to share this information with the resident.
The landlord took reasonable steps to manage the resident’s expectations and offered information in relation to her request to move properties. The landlord would not be obliged to transfer the resident due to the but offered its support to her in bidding for suitable alternative properties. The resident has asked for a property transfer due to the ASB issues she was facing. The landlord would not be obliged to move the resident due to the neighbour dispute and noise disturbances she was facing but it was appropriate for it to refer her to its housing team for further advice.
In summary, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour. Overall the landlord acted appropriately in line with best practice and the decision not to pursue formal action against the neighbour was reasonable. The landlord took appropriate action by asking the resident to complete diary entries of the issues she was experiencing but had not received this information. It also took reasonable steps to offer mediation and engage with the police, who were also involved in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy sates that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, a response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, a response should be provided within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should contact the resident to explain the delay and offer a new timescale for response.
In this case, it is unclear as to whether the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement on 21 March 2021. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord somewhat managed the resident’s expectations by advising that a response may take 20 working days due to the impact of Covid-19. However, following this there was a delay and the stage one complaint response was not issued until 5 May 2021, which was ten working days outside of the 20-working day timescale it had proposed. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response in line with its timescales following the resident’s escalation.
The landlord apologised for this delay in its stage one complaint response and offered £30 as a goodwill gesture for both the delay and a missed call back. This amount is considered proportionate to remedy the impact these failings had on the resident given that it had previously attempted to manage her expectations of the potential delays due to the impact of Covid-19 and had otherwise been in regular communication with the resident. As such, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the associated complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the associated complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Overall, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. It has asked the resident to complete diary sheets, raised the allegations with the neighbour, it has offered mediation, and it has worked alongside the police who implemented an informal agreement with the resident and her neighbour. At the time of the complaint completing the landlord’s complaints procedure, the landlord had not obtained any corroborating evidence in support of the resident’s reports. Therefore, it was reasonable for it not to proceed with more formal action against the neighbour at this stage.
There was a delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage one which the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for. The landlord somewhat managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that there could be a delay due to the impact of Covid-19 but failed to keep the resident adequately updated. The landlord has offered £30 compensation which is proportionate to redress the complaint handling failures and failure to respond to the resident’s call-back request.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £30 as previously agreed if it has not already done so as the finding of redress was found on this basis.
It is recommended that the landlord considers the resident’s more recent concerns about drug-usage at her neighbour’s property and responds accordingly.