Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust (202113198)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113198

Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust

21 November 2023

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of dirt and fleas in communal areas.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and staff conduct.
3. Formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives alone, and has occupied the property, a first floor two-bedroom flat, on an assured tenancy, since 2012.
The resident submits that she has experienced ASB at the property for 6 years. However, her more recent contact with the landlord on the issue began in June 2020, via an MP enquiry, and this is the period covered by our investigation. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Summary of Events

On 1 June 2020, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord, and referred to having written in the past, but having received no reply. The landlord responded on 5 June 2020, and apologised for not having responded earlier. It said:
1. The resident was concerned about ASB, including a neighbour banging on the floor above her flat. It said she had been encouraged to complete diary sheets so it had a record and could be used by the noise nuisance team, but she had not been keen to. However, she had indicated more recently that she might be. It was concerned about her well-being and could offer to sign-post her to appropriate specialist services.
2. Neither it, nor the police had evidence of damage to a neighbour’s car that had been reported, so could not take any action.
3. It was accepted communal outside areas were not maintained and it would be apologising to residents for that, and making improvements.
4. There were some items in the bin store, but no evidence of fly-tipping.
5. In terms of a flea infestation, it did not carry out pest control in residents’ flats; but could provide details of companies that could help.
6. Photos of communal areas showed the areas to be clean, but it accepted it needed to be viewed. It also accepted there were a small number of items on the communal landing and it said it would mention this in its letter to residents.
7. It was concerned about the resident being unhappy with staff comments, and if there were specific incidents and named staff, it would investigate.
8. It was not sure what police support the resident had, but it would make enquiries with the resident, to see if she wanted to share more information.
9. It apologised for the delay in responding, and to the resident, but said it had been liaising with the residents in the building in the meantime.
10. It recognised it needed to re-focus its attention to the resident’s building and try to resolve issues and improve relations. It could consider mediation, however that had been rejected in the past.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 November 2020, having spoken with her on 29 October 2020. It acknowledged she had reported a neighbour’s television being very loud and an assault. It sent her diary sheets to complete any time there was an issue. It explained this information, along with noise monitoring equipment could be used to take action, if there was an issue with noise. It said it could also refer matters to the Police Community Support Officer.
On 14 and 15 December 2020, the resident reported further issues with 2 neighbours. She repeated her concern over how one neighbour had the television on all the time, and had tried to touch her and that they had also left a mobility scooter in the hall. She said the other was trying to intimidate her. The landlord tried calling the resident on 16 December 2020 and left a voicemail asking her to call back; but, it is not known whether she responded.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 8 March 2021 about having noise monitoring equipment installed. Although it was noted it could potentially proceed with that, it does not seem to have been installed at that time.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s upstairs neighbour on 7 July 2021, following a report from the resident on 2 July 2021 of noise and a concern about potential drug use. It raised concerns about the condition of their property and refuse left in communal areas and advised that an inspection would be carried out on 16 July 2021. It advised that it would be discussing the complaint about noise nuisance and intimidation with them and warned against threatening behaviour towards other residents who may have made complaints.
When the landlord did the home visit at the neighbour’s property, its notes record that the neighbour’s washing machine was spinning loudly, but they said they only used it during the day. They had said they had friends over but were not noisy, and they worked on a push bike during the day so there may be some associated noise with that. However, they could hear the resident shouting at her cat during the night and she banged on the ceiling when they walked around. The landlord noted the neighbour’s flat was carpeted throughout.
The landlord visited the resident on 15 July 2021, having met with the neighbour who lived above her. The note of that meeting says:
1. She heard knocking and tapping from upstairs and she knocked on the ceiling when it got “unbearable”.
2. Another neighbour played music loudly until late with rude lyrics. When she asked them to “shut up”, she was sworn at, so she reported it to the police.
3. It offered to obtain and install noise monitoring equipment, but the resident did not want that.
4. The resident said she wanted to move, but was reluctant to, due to getting her home how she wanted.
5. It noted the resident had recorded times of when issues occurred in a notebook, but the landlord stressed it was important to complete and let it have, diary sheets.
6. It would allocate a point of contact for the resident, to report all future concerns.
7. The resident said she could not use her crafting room due to the noise and her cat was also nervous of the noise.
The landlord says it suggested to the resident that she may wish to consider a transfer or mutual exchange given how unhappy she said she was in the property. However, an application was not made at that time.
Internal emails between landlord staff dated 9 August 2021, refer to the resident calling the landlord every day; sometimes more than once a day. They stated it was becoming very time consuming and someone was allocated to be the resident’s point of contact. They said they would visit her the following day. It was recommended that if the resident continued to call, she be advised to complete diary sheets and to then terminate the call, if necessary.
On 10 September 2021, having been contacted by this Service the day before setting out the issues raised, the landlord wrote to the resident and said the following issues would be considered as a complaint under stage 1, by 22 September:
1. Cleaning of the communal areas of the building.
2. An infestation of fleas.
3. The maintenance of the communal grounds.
4. Reports of ASB regarding an upstairs neighbour, a downstairs neighbour, reports that another neighbour had been smoking cannabis, and regarding children in the communal area.
5. Reports of noise nuisance (music with explicit lyrics) from a neighbouring property.
6. Reports of fires around the communal building.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint. It said:
1. Cleaning of communal areas – the cleaning company attended for 2 hours every 2 weeks. There had been a delay giving it a key to the cleaning cupboard, but that should be resolved that week, but it had asked it for its cleaning schedule, to share with residents. It had also written to residents to advise they should keep the area clean and tidy.
2. Residents needed to deal with any flea infestation in individual properties, as the landlord only covered communal areas.
3. It accepted communal grounds were unkempt and it had asked the landscape team to attend. However, the residents did not pay for regular gardening, and residents in the past had maintained the area. There was no budget for this work, but it was looking to design the area to reduce the need for maintenance. It welcomed suggestions from residents.
4. ASB:
  1. They had spoken with the upstairs neighbour, who did not accept they made excessive noise. All residents would be reminded of their obligations under their tenancy agreements.
  2. Since one of the residents from the downstairs flats passed away, it commented that no issues had been raised.
  3. A resident that brought their children to their flat, had been reminded not to allow the children to cause a nuisance to residents.
  4. Any criminal behaviour should be reported to the police.
5. It had spoken to another neighbour about playing music and climbing on sheds. However, there were a number of young people at the property and playing music was commonplace. She could report any noise concerns to the noise nuisance team in order for the noise levels to be checked. It was unable to take action through the tenancy, for the music lyrics.
6. It was not aware of any fires, but it asked her to provide details if they were in communal areas.
7. Going forward, with ASB reports, it needed her to provide details, dates and times of incidents, in order to take action.
The landlord notified the resident on 15 September 2021, that the complaint had been dealt with at stage 1, and if she wanted a review, to let it know by 28 September 2021.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord wrote to another neighbour of the resident, about a noise complaint. It referred to the council having contacted that neighbour about noise in the past, and they were to keep it to an acceptable level.
The landlord then received a complaint about the resident from one of the neighbours on 29 September 2021, who said they would escalate their concerns with the police and their MP, if no action was taken.
The same day, 29 September 2021, the landlord emailed the police, and explained it had done a home visit with the resident in August 2021. It had also carried out 2 home visits at one of the resident’s neighbours and 2 home visits to another, to discuss noise complaints made. It said the resident had been advised to keep a record of dates and times of the noise nuisance/ASB on the diary sheets provided. She was also told not to call the Customer Advice team and expect the advisers to spend 30 minutes or more engaging them in her issues. Since then, the resident had not been calling. It updated the police on the complaint it had received from the resident.
The landlord met with the resident on 19 October 2021. The focus of the meeting was directed to what issues the resident felt had not been addressed at stage 1. That being:
1. The quality of the cleaning – the landlord asked for time to work with the cleaning company on this, and noted the resident’s concern over a dead pigeon and dirty windows.
2. Children running and playing through the flats, up the stairs and in communal areas. The landlord said it was aware of this issue.
3. Toys being kept in the communal area – the landlord said it would be writing to all residents to remind people nothing should be kept in communal areas or outside, unless by the sheds. The landlord also explained it had prewarned the neighbour about this, that the resident was concerned about.
4. The resident claimed it was in the tenancy agreement, that the neighbour upstairs, had to have carpet in the property. The landlord disagreed with that. The resident also advised she had reported that neighbour to the police over drugs, but was unable to say any more about it.
5. The landlord agreed to:
  1. Visit the neighbour that had children visiting, to explain they were responsible for behaviour of all visitors.
  2. Continue to try and gain access to the neighbour’s flat where she suspected drug use.
  3. Write to all residents regarding communal areas and cleaning update.
  4. Arrange for a window cleaner to attend the scheme to clean all communal windows.
  5. Feedback to the resident afterwards.
The landlord sent a letter to all residents dated “November 2021”, which said:
1. There had been several reports of children creating nuisance by ringing bells and entering the flats without cause to. It reminded everyone that they were responsible for the conduct of all visitors to their flat. They were also asked not to share their flat entry pin number with anyone.
2. Items should not be stored in the communal hallways or landings. This was a legal requirement for health and safety purposes. This included bikes, mobility scooters, children’s toys, gardening equipment etc.
3. Cleaning of the communal areas had not been satisfactory. A schedule would be drawn up and placed on display, which said what was being cleaned and when, and it would be monitored.
4. A window cleaner was going to come and clean both inside and outside of all communal windows.
The landlord received a call from the resident on 1 November 2021. She was reporting a noise nuisance from a neighbouring property and the landlord advised her to contact the noise nuisance team, which could install equipment to measure the noise. It said without evidence, it did not feel it was reasonable to approach the neighbour. The resident advised that she had tried reporting the noise but had been told it was “not noisy enough”. The landlord explained that it would not know about the recent issues, so she should register her new concern.
During the call, it is noted the resident said there was a dead pigeon that needed moving, and the landlord said that would happen when the window cleaner came the following week. It assured her there was no immediate risk to her. She said she had also been offered drugs by a neighbour and had texts to prove it. She was asked to send those to the landlord.
The landlord spoke with one of the resident’s neighbours on 9 November 2021, as they had received a letter from the resident asking them to turn the volume down on the television and games console. The neighbour explained they did not have a console and they demonstrated the volume the television was on and also said they watched television until 11.30pm. The landlord did not deem that unreasonable; but explained that the resident could report the matter to the noise nuisance team.
The resident called the landlord on 15 November 2021 and explained she was unhappy with the ongoing ASB issues. The landlord explained it was dealing with her complaint, and the resident is noted to have said she did not want to move. However, a resident was using a washing machine or tumble drier after 1am and even though a letter had been sent to residents about noise, it was still an issue. She said, her cat had fleas from the garden and the communal cleaning was not done properly, so she was not happy paying a service charge.
As a result of being contacted by this service, on 16 November 2021, the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the complaint. It said:
1. Cleaning communal areas – the housing officer met with the cleaning company on site on 12 October 2021 and the following was agreed:
  1. A comprehensive schedule would be drawn up and put up for all residents to see what cleaning was being done, and when. This would be monitored once a month by the landlord.
  2. The cleaning company’s details would be put up on site.
  3. Resin/glue on the skirting would be cleaned off by the cleaning company.
  4. A window cleaner would clean all communal windows, inside and outside, and remove a pigeon carcass from above the rear door.
2. Fleas – it was not responsible for fleas in communal areas or residents’ homes.
3. Maintenance of communal grounds – there was a £2.14 charge per flat each month for weed spraying and clearance. However, it was going to be seeking input from residents for ideas to improve the area and make it less maintenance.
4. Reports of Antisocial behaviour (ASB):
  1. In terms of noise from an upstairs neighbour, there was no requirement for them to have carpet; so although it could encourage them to get it, it could not take enforcement action.
  2. It noted her concern about the downstairs neighbour late night gaming and it had spoken to them about noise levels. It said she could report the noise nuisance to the noise nuisance team, and it could assist her with that, if needed. It noted she had recently mentioned they had used the washing machine late at night, and it would speak with them about that.
  3. It noted she had reported another neighbour had offered to sell her drugs, and it had asked for copies of the text messages, so it could liaise with the police. It encouraged her to report any other issues to the police and it was continuing to work with the police, but needed to collate evidence.
  4. Letters had been sent to all residents regarding sharing of door entry codes and behaviour of visitors. Where it could identify where codes have been shared, it would arrange for them to be changed, to prevent children getting in to the communal areas.
5. It had no further update in relation to noise nuisance from other flats, or reports of fires at flats.
6. It asked the resident to record, dates, times and details of any issues going forward, as without it, it meant it was hard to prove a breach of tenancy or to take legal action.
7. It acknowledged it needed to do better, but pointed out that living in a communal building could create difficulties; therefore, it offered to explore transferring her to other accommodation. It asked her to get in touch to deal with that.
8. It offered to refer the resident to agencies for support in living in communal areas.
The landlord confirmed on 17 November 2021, that it had dealt with the matter at stage 2.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord wrote to one of the resident’s neighbours to ask them to move toys from the communal area. The neighbour responded the same day, and complained that the resident had been “mouthing off” at her while she was at work.
The landlord wrote to another of the resident’s neighbours on 1 December 2021, asking them to move toys, bikes and a playhouse from the communal area.
On the same day, 1 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained it had visited one of her neighbours, in relation to her noise complaint. It said it had no concerns that the tenancy agreement had been breached but it did see 2 letters she had sent the neighbour. It said it was “concerned about the tone and content of the second letter which could be viewed as threatening and intimidating.” It asked the resident not to contact the neighbour by any means. It said it would not be taking the matter further, and she was to contact the council’s noise nuisance team if she had further issues.
The police contacted the landlord on 8 December 2021, and said the resident had reported another issue with a neighbour, that their children had urinated against a communal gate/front door. There was no evidence of this, and it was noted the police planned to speak with the resident about the number of reports being made, with no evidence.
The landlord visited the resident’s upstairs neighbour on 22 December 2021. It said it was issuing them with a first warning letter over the use of cannabis (sent on 10 January 2022). They reported having had no issues with the resident for several months.
From 22 December 2021 until 11 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there were 3 neighbouring properties causing problems. She had been “accosted” by a neighbour on Christmas day, and asked not take photos of children. However, the police had asked her to. She had been called a rude name and it upset her Christmas, so she stayed at her mother’s. She reiterated her concerns over all 3 neighbours that she had issues with, including the noise levels, drug usage and leaving items in the hallway.
The resident had a meeting with the landlord on 14 January 2022, about the issues she was having. The notes of that meeting say:
1. They discussed the resident’s issues. That although she had not witnessed things firsthand, she was adamant her statements and beliefs were not speculation. It was noted that a lot of what had been said was factually incorrect.
2. The resident was unable to access text messages she had received from her neighbour, offering her drugs. She claimed to be working with the police on issues, but said she could not disclose any details.
3. The resident refused to complete incident diaries claiming that it made no difference in the past.
4. The resident did not want noise monitoring equipment saying the noise would stop once installed.
5. The resident wanted to be moved to somewhere rural on a bus route, but availability of property was an issue. It offered to help her look at the mutual exchange system but under occupancy and rent arrears may be a hinderance.
6. It asked what support the resident had and she said she had had help from an organisation in the past. She said she had no struggles with her mental health.
An undated note, records the police contacting the landlord, asking for an update and whether the resident could be evicted. It was told it was going to arrange help for the resident to find a mutual exchange property and there were no grounds for eviction. The police said it was investigating reports of harassment made by the resident against a neighbour. The allegations went back 6 years and the most recent being a report of mouldy prawns being posted through her letter box. The neighbour was going to be interviewed as it had seen some text messages sent to the resident.
The landlord received a call from the resident on 9 February 2022, to report an incident of shouting between other neighbours and she felt scared. It is noted the resident was advised to not get drawn in to issues and it could not do anything about music being played in normal hours. The resident then sent a text to the landlord, reiterating her concerns over the 3 neighbouring properties, and how their noise and actions were affecting her.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 February 2022. It said at the meeting on 14 January 2022, it asked her to report incidents using incident report forms, and not by sending text messages. Despite that, she had continued to send messages which were “inappropriate”, and contained her thoughts, opinions and speculation. She was told her number had been blocked and it enclosed some incident report forms for her to use in future.
The landlord met with the resident’s upstairs neighbour on 25 February 2022, due to the effect the resident’s complaints were having on them. The neighbour admitted to taking drugs in the past but claimed he had done so with the resident and they did not understand why the resident was criticising their lifestyle.
The landlord received a message on 29 March 2022 from the resident’s neighbour to say they had been arrested on suspicion of harassment of the resident. They had been questioned and released without charge that evening. The landlord noted to consider whether mediation was possible.
On 25 April 2022, a meeting took place with the landlord and other third parties, as part of a partnership meeting. It discussed the “extensive” number of reports made by the resident. It noted there had been issues with neighbours at previous addresses too. The landlord said it would not engage with noise complaints as these needed to be reported to the noise nuisance team, with a view to having noise monitoring equipment installed. It noted points that would be discussed with the resident as well as one of the neighbours with whom there was an issue.
The following day, the resident was invited to a meeting with the landlord and other third parties, which took place on 5 May 2022.
On 9 May 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She explained that:
1. Landlord staff had been rude and dismissive.
2. There were a number of issues with ASB in her building, for example:
  1. Breaches of security, such as key codes being shared.
  2. “Drink and drug fuelled parties” nearby.
  3. Loud music played with explicit lyrics.
  4. Someone stealing a garden ornament.
  5. She was assaulted twice by one of her neighbours.
  6. Another neighbour, who lives upstairs, used drugs and made a lot of noise. They also stalked and intimidated her and had been arrested numerous times. They had vandalised her friend’s car, urinated on her door mat, left dog faeces and litter there, spat at her door and items were thrown at her property. She said she did not feel safe in her property and had locked items away as someone had tried her door handle.
3. Her neighbour should be evicted as this had escalated and she feared for her safety. However, as a resolution, she wanted to move, and had already packed her things, as her doctor said she had stress as a result of the issues.
4. She would not sign the acceptable behaviour agreement as it was “insulting and disgraceful”.
5. She was unhappy at having her contact restricted, as she was told not to contact reception and her number had been blocked.
6. She had had support from other agencies and was using home swapper and home choice, but wanted a quicker solution. However, she wanted a 2 bedroom property in a rural area. She was offered a property but landlord staff would not tell her anything about it and got her hopes up.
7. She was unhappy at paying a £30 a month service charge, when the building was not clean.
On 16 May 2022, the landlord issued a Notice of Seeking Possession on the resident, claiming she was in arrears.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 May 2022, acknowledging she had raised some further issues. It said it would deal with it as a complaint, but if she experienced any criminal damage or activity, then to report it to the police.
A further letter was sent by the landlord on 20 May 2022, explaining to the resident that the complaint was being considered at stage 1, and she should expect a response within 10 working days; by 1 June 2022.
The resident told this Service on 20 May 2022, that the following issues remained:
1. A deep clean of the communal areas was ineffective as there was still dirt.
2. Children’s bikes and toys were being left in the stairwell which are causing an obstruction.
3. People were pressing other peoples’ intercoms and causing a nuisance.
4. There was no maintenance in the backyard which meant things were overgrown.
5. There were still fleas in the backyard, which her cat had brought in to her property, and she had had to spend money on treating them and cleaning.
6. There was a £30 a month service charge which she felt was unreasonable when issues were not dealt with. In addition, there was a further £2.14 a month charge for killing weeds, which she was not given notice of.
7. She spoke with a member of staff who was “condescending and arrogant”. Another staff member was “rude and dismissive”. She is unhappy with staff behaviour, and she has had her number blocked.
8. She could smell cannabis in the hallways.
9. She had to lock her valuables away in case she got burgled.
10. She was offered a move after being assaulted, but that did not end up happening.
11. She lived in fear of being attacked and shouted at and feels intimidated, and it was affecting her health. She feels the landlord has given no consideration of that, so she had contacted a number of agencies and third parties for help.
A letter was sent by the landlord to all residents dated “June 2022”, explaining that some communal cleans had been missed and steps were being taken to address that. Every other Tuesday there would be a clean and the work checked. New cleaning schedules had been placed in each block and a charge would not be made for the next quarter’s cleans by way of an apology to all residents. A telephone number was provided in case of any issues.
A meeting took place between the landlord and resident on 9 June 2022 to discuss her issues. It is noted the landlord also discussed the resident’s complaint about staff and said it was sorry she was upset. However, the team was trying to help and meetings could be difficult. It discussed a property that would be available in about 6-8 weeks, and the resident seemed positive. The landlord said her arrears would need to be cleared, and the resident paid £500 off that day.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 June 2022. It thanked the resident for having met and said:
1. It had been a difficult meeting and it acknowledged she had been asked to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement (something she refused).
2. It had tried to support her to find alternative accommodation. It was sorry if she felt the team was being rude and condescending in the meeting.
3. It had explained a property would be available within the next 6-8 weeks.
4. It would support her in any way it could, with moving.
5. This was its stage 1 response to her complaint.
On 30 June 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident about potentially moving. The resident said she only had 2 weeks before she was going on holiday; so, she did not have enough time. She also commented that the property only had electricity and she had a gas cooker. She also said there was a pub nearby, and had looked online and thought it was on a flood plain; so, would not accept the property. She then cancelled the tenancy termination for the existing property.
On 27 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said:
1. A complaint was made in 2021 which was looked at, at stage 1 and stage 2 and it had been referred to this Service.
2. A further complaint was made in May 2022, and a response was issued on 16 June 2022.
3. She had been offered and declined, a 2 bedroomed bungalow. She then withdrew her termination of the tenancy for her existing property. It said the offer was a management letting within its Allocations Policy, as a response to the impact of her current housing situation which she had described as critical.
4. Having made a suitable offer in line with the resident’s requirements, it was turned down. The policy stated that if a resident was approved for a management let, they would only receive one reasonable offer. Therefore, it would not be making any further management letting offers.
5. Her application registered for a transfer, would remain active. If she got to the top of that list, she would be contacted. However, that was likely to take many years, due to a shortage of accommodation nationally.
6. Any future issues of ASB should be reported in writing or by email. The police should be contacted in the event of danger.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 September 2023 with a suggestion for work to be done to improve the communal garden. It would cost £750 and would be paid for by the money it held from the service charge. It said gardening costs would then appear on the service charge account from 2023.

The landlord’s occupancy agreement, obligations, policies and procedures

Occupancy agreement and resident’s handbook

The resident’s handbook says the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal areas.
The occupancy agreement says:
1. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair, the structure and exterior of the property.
2. The service charge paid by residents, includes the cost of communal gardening.
3. It may charge for services on the basis either of reasonable costs incurred during the previous accounting period or of estimates for the current or next accounting period.”
4. The costs of services will be shared equally between all properties and annual accounts of costs incurred, will be provided.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s leaflet ‘Tell us what you think. Compliments, comments and complaints’, says at stage 1 it will investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days. If the complaint is more complicated, it may need more time to respond but it would provide an update on how things are progressing and respond within a reasonable timescale. At stage 2, a resident can appeal within 10 working days. It will check what remains unsolved and obtain additional information. It will ask what action the resident thinks it should take and make sure a senior member of staff reviews and investigates the complaint. A response should be issued within 15 working days.
Its ‘Feedback (complaints, compliments and comments) Internal Policy’ says a resident can feedback to any member of staff and that can include calling receptions.
The landlord’s guide on ‘Anti-social behaviour, harassment and hate crime’ says, ASB is “behaviour by others that unreasonably interferes with people’s rights to the use and enjoyment of their home and community. This can mean anything from persistent noise nuisance to serious violence or other criminal behaviour that affects your quality of life.” It says it will not tolerate ASB and when a report is made it “will agree a proposed course of support with you”.
It suggests residents try talking to neighbours, collecting evidence by using diary sheets and using external agencies. If needed, report it to the Neighbourhood Services Officer and/or the police. It would consider other options such as mediation, writing to the neighbour, legal action or collecting further evidence.
The landlord’s ASB Policy provides the following examples of ASB it could consider:
1. Persistent loud noise from music, radio, TV, dogs or car engines which distresses others.
2. Excessive and persistent noise, disturbance or abusive behaviour causing distress to others.
3. Violent or challenging behaviour towards staff, contractors or residents.
4. Untidy gardens and rubbish in common areas.
5. Actual violence, intimidation (including verbal abuse) and unruly, offensive behaviour.
6. Aggressive and threatening language, behaviour.
7. Drug dealing.
It says it would only “intervene only in extreme circumstances where a conciliatory approach has failed to settle the matter.” In terms of support offered, it could include:
1. Providing guidance and support about options.
2. Suggesting the incident is reported to the police.
3. Working with other agencies to tackle the problem.
4. Making sure they are alright and updated on progress.
5. Improving security/consider alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of dirt and fleas in communal areas.

The landlord did not accept any responsibility for a flea infestation; something the resident reported because her cat went outside and brought fleas in to her property.
However the landlord simply said it did not carry out pest control in residents’ flats. It failed to give any consideration to whether the fleas could have been brought in as a result of there being an infestation in a communal area. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out an inspection of the communal areas in order to satisfy itself there was no infestation and it was happy with the general cleanliness of the areas. This is particularly the case given that, in response to the resident’s MP’s contact in June 2020, the landlord acknowledged that more needed to be done to clean and maintain the communal areas.
The landlord has provided some evidence of the outside area having been weeded, but it accepts there is still work to do. It wrote to residents in September 2023, detailing proposed work, but for the last 3 years, very little else has been done,. In its recent letter, the landlord has said the cost of the work would be £750 and it has £5,574 available, so there would be no additional charge to the residents. Bearing in mind the landlord has been aware of the work needed, and had the funds to do it, to have taken so little action for this length of time, is unreasonable.
The landlord did take steps to address the cleaning issue, which was appropriate as so much time had passed since it was initially raised. It met with the cleaning company and not only addressed the initial cleanliness issue, but arranged for the building to kept clean in the future. It also reminded residents of their general obligations to keep the communal areas clean and tidy. While the resident is unhappy at paying a service charge in general, the occupancy agreement makes it clear one is payable. It also says the landlord could make charges for services for future work, which it did in this case to cover additional costs. If the resident wanted to query any costs incurred, she can do that by reviewing the landlord’s annual accounts.
There seems to have been no further complaint about the cleanliness of the building/communal areas, until the resident commented on it, in her 9 May 2022 complaint. The landlord then wrote to all residents in June 2022 and took steps to put things right, including reducing the service charge to reflect missed cleans, which was a proportionate and reasonable response to the situation.
The resident has told this Service that a deep clean did take place; however, she feels it was ineffective as there was still dirt and fleas, and the outside communal area is not being maintained. The landlord has evidently got regular cleaning in place, and has said it carries out weeding and spraying of the outside area. It provided the residents with a contact telephone number to call with any issues. Therefore, if there is something specific that the resident feels has been overlooked, she is able to report that.
Overall, there was a shortfall in the landlord’s service, due to a delay of over a year before it acted upon reports of cleanliness issues in communal areas. The time things took for action to be taken, evidently frustrated the resident, but it was then resolved. This has been taken in to account with the order made.

The resident’s reports of ASB and staff conduct.

Staff conduct.

When the landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 5 June 2020, it acknowledged a complaint about staff conduct. It said if information was provided about the staff and specific incidents, it would investigate. No evidence has been provided to show the landlord was provided with additional information; therefore, it was reasonable for no further action to be taken at that time.
No further issues were raised about the conduct of landlord staff until 9 May 2022, when the resident said the landlord’s staff had been rude and dismissive. She provided some examples of why she felt that to be the case. She also reiterated the same, when she contacted this Service on 20 May 2022, when she said a member of staff had been “condescending and arrogant” and had her number blocked.
While it is understandable that the resident may have been upset by the landlord blocking her number, it is important to appreciate that it clearly had a process for reporting issues, that all residents had to follow, and it had previously explained this to her on several occasions. If the staff member was receiving messages that it deemed inappropriate or related to issues that should be reported in another way, it was reasonable for it to take action to address that.
The landlord not only explained the reason for the action it took, but it spoke with the resident on 9 June 2022 about her concerns. The records show it listened to the resident’s complaint about staff behaviour, and apologised for any upset caused. It also apologised to the resident again on 16 June 2022, if people had been rude and condescending to her. The resident was clearly upset by actions of certain landlord staff, and what was said; but there is no evidence of unacceptable behaviour on the part of the landlord. As the landlord considered the resident’s concerns and addressed them, its response was therefore reasonable.

ASB.

The landlord’s response of 5 June 2020 acknowledged the resident was concerned about ASB. It encouraged her to complete diary sheets, offered to sign-post her to specialist services and offered mediation. Without evidence from the resident, the landlord had no leverage to raise issues with her neighbours; therefore, its approach at that time was reasonable.
As detailed above, the resident made many different reports of ASB over the years and the issues reported were in line with those given as examples of ASB in the landlord’s ASB Policy (see paragraph 58 above).
The resident says the ASB has caused her a lot of stress and upset. In accordance with its guide on “Anti-social behaviour, harassment and hate crime” (as detailed above), the landlord took the following steps to address the reports of ASB:
1. It asked her to complete and submit diary sheets so it could consider/act upon reports.
2. It suggested mediation.
3. It tried to manage the resident’s expectations. Explaining that it could not take action against neighbours without evidence.
4. It referred the resident to the noise nuisance team.
5. It proposed the installation of a noise monitoring equipment in her property.
6. It offered to sign-post the resident to specialist support services.
7. It met with the resident to discuss her concerns.
8. It advised to report all criminal behaviour to the police.
9. It checked on the resident’s well-being, and mental health.
10. It sent letters on more than one occasion to all residents addressing a number of issues that had been reported, and reminded them of their obligations under their tenancies, including not to share door codes.
11. It visited the neighbours that the resident reported issues about, and made them aware that their behaviour was causing an issue.
12. It held a partnership meeting with the resident and the police about her concerns, in order to try and improve matters.
13. It spoke to the upstairs neighbour about taking drugs, making noise and intimidation, and made them aware it make take legal action if necessary.
14. It confirmed the upstairs neighbour’s property was fully carpeted.
15. It checked with other neighbours to determine how loud the TV and games consoles were. It established they did not have games consoles, and the TVs, while they were sometimes on late, were not unreasonably loud.
16. It asked for more information about alleged fires in communal areas and a car being vandalised, but nothing was provided.
17. It offered to support her with being re-housed. It found her a new property that met her needs; however, the resident decided to reject the property.
The evidence shows that the landlord took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously, but it was limited in what action it could take, without supporting evidence. Despite that, it acted appropriately by issuing reminders to all neighbours, of their obligations. It was also proactive in its approach in liaising with the neighbours the resident had issues with, in order to make them aware of the resident’s concerns, in the hope it would reduce or eliminate the issues between them.
The landlord took reasonable steps to address all the issues the resident raised. Once the resident confirmed she wanted to move, knowing how important that was, and the effect the ASB was having on her, it found her an alternative property very quickly. The resident had a couple of reservations about moving, so decided against it, but the property evidently met her needs, so the landlord had done all it could to help her.
It is important to appreciate that as well as dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB and her request to move, the landlord was also having to balance that with reports from neighbours about the resident’s own behaviour. It was appropriate therefore, for it to warn the resident about the content of a letter she had sent to a neighbour which could be deemed “threatening and intimidating”.
In addition, it was being contacted a lot, by the resident. While she was entitled to feedback to any member of staff, the evidence shows it was at times, being contacted more than once a day. Bearing in mind the landlord had responsibilities to many tenants and a limited resource, it was entirely reasonable for it to ask the resident to report her concerns in a particular way. As well as this being a proportionate approach to managing the volume of correspondence, it would also ensure important issues were not missed as a result of being raised in different ways.
Overall, it is acknowledged that the resident has found it difficult living at the property; but the landlord has complied with its obligations and acted appropriately upon the reports made. It has also been mindful of the effect the ASB has had on the resident, and not only considered her well-being, but taken steps to offer assistance through other agencies. It has worked with the resident as well as the police to try and improve things for the resident, and it also found her alternative accommodation. Therefore, its service was reasonable.

The resident’s complaint.

There is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint with the landlord prior to her contacting the Ombudsman. Following our contact of 9 September 2021, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 14 September 2021, in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints leaflet (see above). It addressed each of the issues raised by explaining what action it had already taken and what the next steps were.
Although the resident had a right to appeal at stage 2, within 10 working days, she did not escalate her complaint at that time. However, during its meeting with the resident on 19 October 2021, the landlord asked her what issues she felt remained outstanding from her complaint. Therefore, it took a proactive and positive approach, to trying to resolve outstanding matters. The same is true in the way the landlord handled the stage 2 complaint, as it not only addressed the issues promptly, but it offered her additional support.
On 9 May 2022, the resident sent in another complaint. This was rightly treated, due to the time that had passed, as a new stage 1 complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 and 20 May and said the complaint was being addressed under stage 1. However, she should continue to report any criminal matters to the police. It said she should expect a response by 1 June 2022.
The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident on 9 June 2022 to discuss her complaint. Therefore, while it did not respond to the resident within the published 10 working day timeframe, it did try to resolve her concerns, more directly, and she evidently agreed to that. The notes of that meeting record that the complaint was discussed, and the focus was on a property that the landlord had found for the resident to move to. It was noted the resident felt positive as a result of that meeting, which indicates that the landlord’s approach to trying to resolve the complaint, was reasonable.
The landlord did then issue a written response on 16 June 2022. It did not go in to detail on all the issues that the resident had mentioned in her 9 May 2022 complaint; however, it did address some and summarised what was discussed in the complaint meeting, with a focus on re-housing the resident. The letter concluded by saying, “if you feel we have omitted or missed anything regarding this matter or would like to appeal, please contact us by 30th June 2022 and provide further information letting us know what you feel remains unresolved”.
The resident did not escalate or appeal the landlord’s response by 30 June 2022. She did contact the landlord several times on 29 June 2022; but this was in relation to her potential move. Therefore, this indicates she was satisfied the landlord had adequately addressed her complaint.
Overall, the landlord adhered to its process for handling complaints, and only deviated from it once in order to meet with the resident, in the hope of helping resolve her concerns more effectively. The decision to do that, proved appropriate; it showed the landlord was aware of the benefit of talking with the resident directly, so it tailored its approach. It allowed her to express her concerns, instead of just providing a written response, which had not fully resolved matters for the resident, in the past.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of dirt and fleas in communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of report of ASB and staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed by over a year, in responding to reports of issues with the cleanliness of the communal areas.
There was no evidence of staff misconduct, but the landlord apologised in any event, for any offence the staff may have caused to the resident. The landlord acted upon the resident’s reports of ASB and took steps to liaise with her neighbours along with the police, in order to resolve issues. It also found an alternative property for the resident to move to, upon her request.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in response to both complaints, and it also tailored its response by meeting with the resident to discuss her concerns.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of determination, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation, to recognise the frustration caused by the delay in addressing the cleanliness issues in communal areas.