Hyde Housing Association Limited (202003639)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003639

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 May 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. Anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’).
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced in 2011.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains its approach to ASB and that, except in very serious cases, it aims to provide early intervention to stop cases escalating. It aims to deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner; engage with complainants and alleged perpetrators; provide support and/or take enforcement action; and work with partner agencies such as police and local authorities. It generally considers more significant action such as legal action and eviction if there is sufficient evidence, as a last resort and where other interventions have failed.
The landlord’s website details that on receipt of ASB reports, it aims to assess risk and contacts a complainant in a timeframe based on this. It then aims to agree next steps and a case review timescale with a complainant. It aims to monitor situations and ask a complainant to keep it informed about when problems happen, how these affect the complainant and if there are witnesses. It explains that reports are dealt with in line with a complainant’s views and wishes, although in most cases it contacts the person causing a problem. It advises that if incidents relate to noise, these should be reported to the local authority.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, where it aims to respond at each stage within 20 working days; and it may decline to investigate complaints about matters that occurred over six months before the complaint was made.
There is a history of the resident reporting ASB against her neighbour (also a tenant). On 23 January 2019 the landlord issued a final response to the resident’s complaint about its failure to take action, which was not brought formally to this Service for investigation. On 21 September 2020 the landlord also issued a final response to a separate complaint from the resident concerning her tenancy, which was determined by this Service on 22 February 2021.
The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are limited by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising;” while Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.”
This means that while the resident complains about the landlord’s response to ASB from her neighbour since the start of her tenancy, and the landlord’s handling of events that post-date the complaints procedure, the Ombudsman is unable to consider all the complaints the resident has about her landlord. In this case, investigation is limited to the complaint submitted on 12 May 2020 and the landlord’s final response on 26 October 2020. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure, have not been investigated here and any references to them are included for contextual purposes only.

Summary of events

In May and August 2019, the landlord closed reports from the resident about excessive noise and verbal abuse from her neighbour. The landlord’s records note that the resident did not wish allegations to be discussed with her neighbour for fear of repercussions, however she would report incidents and advise if the position changed. The landlord’s records note that she queried if incidents could be used as part of a pattern, and it explained that if no action was taken/incidents were not discussed with the neighbour, these would be recorded on file and considered historic after three to six months. The landlord advised the resident to report noise to the local authority noise team.
On 11 November 2019, the resident reported to the landlord and police an incident of verbal abuse from her neighbour, after which she says she noticed damage to her plants, scratches to her car and oil on her doorstep. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident and outlined an action plan to discuss the allegations with the alleged perpetrator; to request a police disclosure; to assess any further incidents provided by her; and to review the case the following month. Following this, the landlord contacted the police to request a disclosure; contacted the resident’s neighbour, who denied the allegations; and arranged for the communal area affected by oil to be cleaned to prevent anyone tripping.
Between November 2019 and May 2020, the landlord reviewed and discussed the open case with the resident each month, in line with the action plan it sent in November 2019, and made her aware of updates such as the neighbour’s denial of the allegations. The landlord also contacted the police for the disclosure in November and December 2019, as well as in March 2020 when the resident complained about the landlord not yet receiving this from the police.
In November 2019, the resident expressed a desire for her neighbour to sign a behaviour agreement and to be given permission to install CCTV in order to capture ASB incidents. The landlord informed the resident on how to request permission for CCTV, which she received permission for in December 2019, around which time it was noted she reported that ASB “seems to have settled.”
In January 2020 and March 2020, the resident reported further ASB in the form of loud music and “stomping.” The resident requested installation of sound monitoring equipment and the landlord explained that diary sheets were required to consider installation of this and that there was a waiting list. It was agreed matters would be monitored to establish if the resident should be placed on the waiting list, and she later reported that noise matters became “peaceful.”
The landlord’s records advise that around this time, the resident accepted an offer to transfer to another property, which influenced her desired approach to investigation of the reports of ASB by the landlord and the police. The landlord noted that the resident requested letters not to be sent to her neighbour and she did “not want to indulge” in action in relation to the noise, while correspondence from her advises the police agreed they would not approach her neighbour about the matters she had reported.
Between March and May 2020, the resident raised dissatisfaction to the landlord about historic ASB, which had led to her vacating her property for an eight week period in 2018. She advised that her neighbour was getting away with ASB and that the landlord should have taken action against them historically. The landlord noted it discussed matters with the resident and that she was reluctant to submit further reports due to fear of repercussions. The landlord also noted that the resident reported her neighbour had held barbecues on the roof and was not following social distancing, which it advised to report to the police.
On 4 May 2020, the landlord notes it discussed the case with the resident, who expressed dissatisfaction with how it had dealt with ASB historically. The landlord noted it explained it could not address this, however it could investigate current ASB. The landlord noted that the case would be closed as the resident advised she did not wish current ASB to be investigated. Following this, on 5 May 2020 the landlord sent the resident a case closure letter.
On 12 May 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. She complained that it had not effectively dealt with ASB from her neighbour since the start of her tenancy and she was consequently having to pursue a move away from a home that she loved. She requested to be compensated for the management of the case and the impact on her and her family.
Following this, the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident the same day, where she added dissatisfaction with the landlord’s ASB policies and its lack of installation of CCTV and soundproofing at her property. On 9 June 2020 the landlord issued a holding response in which it apologised for delay and inconvenience, and then on 22 June 2020 it issued its stage one response.
1. It explained that ASB reports were handled on a case by case basis and that in the resident’s case, there was evidence that she did not wish issues to be pursued, which had not allowed opportunity to help resolve reported issues.
2. It explained CCTV was not deemed helpful to the case and it had no obligation to provide additional soundproofing, however it had detailed options to the resident to install these herself.
3. It concluded that the case had been managed in line with the resident’s wishes and so it was not considered that she was entitled to compensation.
On 29 July 2020 the resident requested escalation of the complaint.
1. She complained about the landlord’s handling of ASB reports and counter allegations and raised concern that its systems did not allow for reports from other complainants to be considered, in order to identify patterns in the neighbour’s behaviour.
2. She disputed that not wanting to pursue issues was the reason the report in November 2019 was not followed through. She noted that the delayed response to the landlord’s disclosure request meant that the police potentially slowed down a course of appropriate action.
3. She advised that all reports of ASB against her neighbour had not been addressed, and provided details of an anonymous report from a neighbour that she was aware had not received a reply, made on 29 May 2020.
4. She clarified that her compensation request was for an eight week period in Summer 2018, when she left her home due to her neighbour’s behaviour and continued to pay rent on her property.
On 28 September 2020 the landlord provided delayed acknowledgement of the escalation request, and then on 26 October 2020 it issued its final response.
1. It noted it responded previously to a complaint about ASB handling in January 2019, and explained it did not have the intention to review incidents before this time, including in 2018.
2. It explained it had to treat cases in line with the ASB policy and take complaints from all parties seriously, which did not restrict it to standard responses and allowed consideration of the circumstances in each case. It explained it considered the nature of complaints and best method to gather evidence, and noted the resident had been recommended to contact the local authority which had an out of hours service and could provide independent witnessing. It stated that it considered the resident’s ASB reports had been dealt with appropriately and in line with policy.
3. It explained that the lack of police disclosure did not stop investigations, and allegations were discussed with the resident and her neighbour. It noted the neighbour denied the allegations and no tenancy action was taken, which it considered was correct.
4. It explained that its recordkeeping system allowed review of reports linked from different sources, and it provided information about current ASB reports.
5. It acknowledged there had been a long history of ASB reports against the neighbour and advised that, with the exception of an anonymous report the resident mentioned, these had been investigated.
6. It acknowledged that it needed to investigate reports from all parties and had missed an anonymous communication. It noted this was a service failure which would be addressed with the complainant, however it recognised this may have changed the course of the investigation and may have impacted on how it dealt with reports against the resident’s neighbour.
7. It acknowledged and apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s complaints in a timely manner and recognised this was disruptive and distressing at a difficult time for the resident. It offered compensation of £350 in recognition of the delays, distress and inconvenience and time and trouble that resulted from these service failures.
In correspondence the resident has outlined dissatisfaction with the response.
1. She questioned whether the landlord had taken into account the neighbour’s recurrent pattern of behaviour in making counter allegations against ASB reports, and expressed the opinion that the landlord’s records should flag repetition of issues to make dealing with them swifter.
2. She queried the landlord’s approach given there were multiple complainants that she knew of who had complained about the neighbour over the past ten years.
3. She felt the landlord had not acknowledged previous handling and ASB that had led to leaving her home for eight weeks, and that the compensation did not reflect the landlord not dealing with reoccurring ASB from her neighbour for ten years.
4. She has commented on the actions she believes the landlord should take in relation to her neighbour.
After the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, this Service notes there have been updates in matters in relation to the resident’s transfer and her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have affected and caused distress to her. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
Following the resident’s ASB reports, it was necessary for the landlord to respond to the reports and to take action in accordance with its ASB policies, such as assess the risk; contact the resident and inform her of an action plan; discuss the case with the alleged perpetrator and other agencies; monitor the situation; and deal with the reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner.
In this case, it is evident the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s ASB reports, as it demonstrates that it fulfilled obligations to consider and respond to her ASB reports in a timely and reasonable manner. It discussed the issues with the resident, her neighbour and reviewed evidence; it liaised with police; it monitored the resident’s concerns over a seven month period; and it considered and confirmed a position on matters such as CCTV and sound monitoring at appropriate times. The landlord also took into account the resident’s wishes by refraining from further investigation and from writing to her neighbour about reports of noise. These actions were in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policies and demonstrate the landlord’s attempts to assist the resident in this case.
The landlord was reasonable to explain that in the period of the complaint, and in previous ASB cases, its ability to resolve ASB concerns was limited without investigative actions such as discussion of allegations with the alleged perpetrator or written correspondence to them to make them aware of noise concerns. It is recognised this was because the resident feared repercussions and she wished to focus on an housing transfer. However, this will have limited the landlord’s ability to help achieve desired outcomes, as its policies advise it should explore a range of intervention tools which may involve contact with alleged perpetrators, before considering more extreme action. In order for a landlord to take action against a tenant for acts of ASB, a landlord has to be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord or the police considered that the information available warranted further action than was taken or offered.
This Service notes when the resident reported social distancing not being followed, the landlord advised her to report this to the police because it was against the law. This Service’s guidance on best practice for landlords during Covid-19 advises that it is important for landlords to amend or enhance ASB policies where needed to address Covid-19 specific issues. It advises that it is good practice for a landlord to send Covid-19 specific letters to warn tenants who are disregarding social-distancing rules. If there were further occurrences, it would be helpful for the landlord to consider any action it might take to try to minimise such events.
Overall, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB in the timeframe of the complaint was appropriate, considering all the circumstances of the case. This is because it adequately investigated the issues in accordance with its ASB policy, liaised with other services and explained its position on the matters raised.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about complaint handling

This Service notes the resident’s request to the landlord to compensate for an eight week period in 2018, where she reports she moved out of her home due to ASB issues. The landlord’s response that it would not consider this request was in accordance with its complaints policy, which states it may decline to investigate matters that occurred over six months before the complaint was made. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own Scheme outlined at Paragraph 7 of this report, and therefore this Service is unable to consider this aspect further.
In this case the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s complaint response reasonably addressed the specific issues raised by the resident, within the timeframe and scope of the complaint, and it identified and acknowledged service failures in its management of the case. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This further assessment considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint, the landlord took three months to respond, which exceeded the overall timeframe of its complaints procedure and was not appropriate. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays in its final response and provided compensation of £350.
In its Remedies Guidance the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy provided by the landlord totalling £350 falls in the second highest range, where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration. Accordingly, the financial remedy provided by the landlord was in accordance with the Service’s Remedies Guidance and, considering all of the circumstances of the case, the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to the resident’s reports about complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its policies and monitored the case with the resident over an extensive period of time. It attempted and offered to take appropriate action to try and address and resolve the ASB in line with its policies, which the resident declined, which ultimately limited its ability to resolve matters in the timeframe of the complaint and led to the closure of the ASB case.
While there was an inappropriate delay in the landlord’s final response, the landlord’s response, apologies, and financial remedy provide, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate level of redress in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles and remedies guidance.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to consider future reports of disregard for social distancing in line with this Service’s guidance on best practice for landlords during Covid-19.