Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202217489)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217489

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

30 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The resident’s request to be rehoused under a management transfer.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant at a property managed by the landlord.
3. The resident moved to the property in the summer of 2021. She made various reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord in early 2022. 
4. In July 2022, the landlord received further allegations of ASB from the resident involving a physical altercation with a neighbour. The neighbour made counter-allegations about the resident. The landlord investigated and, in September 2022, asked both the resident and the neighbour to sign acceptable behaviour contracts. Shortly afterwards, the resident asked the landlord for a management transfer (MT) to another property because of the ASB, but it refused.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 October 2022, stating that it had not properly investigated her reports of ASB and had failed to progress her request for a MT. The landlord responded on 19 October 2022. It said it had properly investigated the ASB she had reported, and explained that she did not qualify for a MT.  She was not satisfied with this response and asked for the case to be escalated to stage 2 of the internal complaint procedure.
6. The landlord investigated and replied on 22 November 2022. It set out the steps it had taken to deal with the resident’s ASB concerns. It said it had not obstructed her MT request, but she did not meet the criteria. She complained to this Service saying that the landlord had not handled her reports of assault or her MT request appropriately She said she no longer felt safe at her address.

Assessment and findings

Antisocial behaviour

7. The landlord’s ASB policy includes noise nuisance, intimidation and harassment and persistent dog barking as examples of ASB behaviour. The policy says that it will investigate reports of ASB. It will cooperate with the police if appropriate. It will interview the complainant and may interview alleged perpetrators and others to gather further evidence. It will seek to resolve matters at the earliest stage. It may use non-legal interventions such as asking residents to sign acceptable behaviour contracts, where residents agree to behave in an acceptable manner, if appropriate.
8. The resident says she reported dog barking to the landlord on many occasions. The landlord’s ASB case management notes show it received dog barking reports in March 2022 and that, at the time, the resident was staying away from the property. She said the noise disturbed her “24/7”. It asked her to report any further incidents on her return. There is no record of her having done so. On the evidence of the case management notes, it responded to the resident’s reports appropriately and in line with its ASB policy in the circumstances of the resident’s reports.
9. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about ASB was also appropriate as its explanation that it believed it had acted correctly was reasonable.
10. In late July 2022, the resident and one of her neighbours reported to the landlord that they had been involved in a physical altercation. Both parties also reported the incident to the police who investigated over the next 2 months before deciding not to bring any charges. The landlord investigated in collaboration with the police. It sent out a letter to residents asking for eyewitness evidence and took statements from witnesses. Having gathered evidence, the landlord asked both parties to sign acceptable behaviour agreements. On the available evidence, this was a proportionate and reasonable response which was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
11. When the landlord interviewed the resident about the incident, she said that it began when she asked her neighbour to control their barking dogs. The landlord followed up on the resident’s concern by gathering information about the dogs from other tenants and asking the dog owner to reduce barking by putting their dogs out in a different area. These were proportionate and reasonable actions and responses which, again, were in line with its ASB policy, and showed the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. 
12. The resident says that the landlord should have investigated her earlier reports of dog barking and, had it done so, this would have prevented the altercation. Nonetheless, as stated above, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s ASB reports were reasonable and in line with its policies.

Transfer request

13. The landlord operates a MT system which allows it to offer a house move without using its formal housing allocations process. The MT policy says this procedure is only to be used in exceptional circumstances. Circumstances which would justify an MT include extreme physical/medical reasons which mean the resident can no longer access their property. Also included are domestic abuse, extreme victimisation or significant health and safety concerns. The landlord can refuse an MT request. Reasons for refusal include low risk to the applicant or a lack of supporting evidence. The policy says that, when a resident makes a MT request, the landlord will decide whether to submit a formal MT request to the MT Panel.  Residents cannot approach the Panel themselves.
14. The resident requested an MT in October 2022 and said the request was supported by the local police force. The landlord considered the request. It responded within a week. It said it would not make a formal MT request on her behalf as she did not meet the criteria. It explained that while the police had confirmed that she wanted to move, they had not actually supported such a move, or said that they had concerns about her safety., The landlord’s response to both the resident’s request and her complaint about it are supported by the evidence seen in this investigation, and its decision was in line with its policy and the information it had at the time.
15. The landlord also that the resident could ask again if her circumstances changed. This was good practice as it informed the resident that it had not dismissed her request out of hand.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The resident’s request to be rehoused under a management transfer.