Leeds and Yorkshire Housing Association Limited (202100378)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100378

Leeds and Yorkshire Housing Association Limited

21 January 2022

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

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a house. The neighbour lives in the adjoining property with their partner.
The landlord’s records show that the neighbour’s partner had been found guilty of assault and battery against the resident’s partner on 30 October 2021. Following this, the resident reported various incidents of ASB from the neighbour and their partner throughout November and December 2020. This included:
1. Spraying the front of her property with water when cleaning their car on 27 November 2020. She advised that she was due to leave the house but could not do so until the neighbour’s returned to their property.
2. Using derogatory language about her in front of her property and using rude hand gestures, knowing that the camera in her doorbell would pick up visual and audio recordings, which she would see later when she checked the footage.
3. Regular loud music being played between 26 November 2020 and 2 December 2020. She advised that the neighbour would put music on loud for ten minutes then turn it down for ten minutes repeatedly during the day. She explained that she worked nights and needed to rest during the day, which the neighbour was aware of.
4. On 22 December 2020 the neighbour’s partner had kicked over a plant pot in her garden and broken it. On 23 December 2020 they had thrown a stone at the resident’s front door and sprayed her partner with water from a hosepipe from their garden. She called the police and the neighbour’s partner was arrested. The partner had then been invited to attend a voluntary police interview on 30 December 2020.
5. On 26 December 2020 she had reported that the neighbour had taken pictures through her kitchen window.
During this period, the resident advised that the incidents had been captured on her ring doorbell. She said that the intimidating behaviour was affecting her mental health and asked the landlord to act. She noted that she had contacted the police on multiple occasions and was due to receive a call back. She had also contacted victim support as she was becoming increasingly distressed by the intimidating behaviour.
The landlord’s records show that a victim support officer contacted the landlord on 14 January 2021. The landlord arranged a telephone call with victim support which was due to take place on 20 January 2021. The resident called the landlord on 18 January 2021 wanting to speak to her neighbourhood officer. She called again on 21 January 2021 as she had not received a call back. The member of staff was not available and the resident advised that she would be looking to take the matter further due to the lack of communication from the landlord.
Following this, the resident continued to report loud music being played. She confirmed that she continued to discuss the incidents with the police and noted that the neighbour’s partner had been interviewed by the police on 15 January 2021 but she had not yet received an update.
On 19 January 2021, the resident reported that she had heard, via her doorbell, the neighbour’s partner threaten to punch her. She advised that the loud music continued and the neighbour’s partner had used further derogatory language outside her front door. She expressed concern regarding her safety and stated that the situation was affecting her health. The following day she reported that the police had asked to speak to her partner, as the neighbour’s partner had accused him of assaulting them on 17 January 2021 by throwing a rock over the fence and shouting. The resident explained that this could not have happened as it would have been picked up on her doorbell recording, which activated when there was any movement or sound. She said that she had not retaliated at all to the ASB she was experiencing and had been keeping detailed notes of each incident.
On 26 January 2021, the resident’s partner called the landlord to question whether any warning letters had been sent to the neighbour and their partner. They requested an update on any progress the landlord had made. The resident continued to report similar ASB incidents to the landlord involving loud music, derogatory language and intimidating behaviour in February 2021. The landlord’s records suggest that the landlord discussed the ASB incidents with the resident on 17 March 2021 and issued a verbal warning to the neighbour.
The resident asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 24 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. She was dissatisfied with the way the landlord had handled her reports of ASB from her neighbours. She said that her reports had not been acknowledged or actioned properly and she had not received any support or guidance from her housing officer. She noted that the communication had been poor and there had been a missed telephone appointment on 24 February 2021. She had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions but had not received any meaningful communication.
2. She said that the ASB from her neighbour and their partner was ongoing and the latest incident was on 13 March 2021 which she had reported directly to the landlord. She said that she felt let down by the lack of support offered by the landlord. she felt that if the landlord had dealt with the matter sooner, it would have stopped the ASB from escalating further. She advised that the ASB was impacting her mental health.
Following contact from the resident, who had not received a response, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 7 April 2021 and asked it to provide an update regarding the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s records show that it completed a risk assessment of the ASB the resident was experiencing that day and found that she was at a medium risk.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 April 2021 and explained the following:
1. As part of its investigation it had spoken to the resident’s neighbourhood officer. They had advised that they had previously spoken to the resident regarding her expectations and said that they would speak to the neighbour. A tenancy warning was issued to the neighbour and they were informed that if the behaviour continued the landlord would take further action.
2. The landlord noted that the resident had previously been offered noise proofing in her property but had declined. It said that if the resident wished to reconsider she should let the landlord know know. It also offered mediation as a potential resolution to the ASB issues.
3. It found that the resident’s neighbourhood officer had not provided the support it would expect, namely keeping in contact with the resident and looking to mediate between the resident and her neighbours. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said that it would be taking steps to resolve the ASB by:
  1. Contacting the resident by 18 April 2021 for an initial appointment.
  2. Undertaking an investigation and speaking to the neighbours, liaising with relevant external service partners and updating the resident by 23 April 2021.
  3. Continuing to update the resident on a weekly basis at a pre-agreed time, as well as providing support and assistance.
  4. Providing the resident with incident diaries to record any further incidents and open an ASB case.
Following contact from the resident, who advised that she had experienced difficulty escalating her complaint and contacting her housing officer, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 20 May 2021. The landlord was asked to contact the resident and provide her with an acknowledgement in the next five working days and a complaint response within 20 working days.
During this time, the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord which included motorbikes running for extended periods of time in the early morning. On 7 June 2021, the police contacted the landlord to confirm that it would not be taking any further action against the resident’s neighbour or their partner due to a lack of evidence to support court action. This decision was also explained to the resident.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 25 June 2021 and explained that she had not received a complaint response from the landlord and that the landlord had not carried out agreed actions following a meeting on 27 May 2021. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the same day and asked it to provide a complaint response within five working days.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 July 2021. It noted that it had spoken to the resident regarding the issues she had with her neighbours and understood that she felt neglected as her emails and calls had not been returned. It apologised for any inconvenience caused. It confirmed that the resident had agreed that the action plan was the best way forward and explained that it had enquired as to whether noise monitoring equipment could be installed. It understood that the noise had subsided. It acknowledged that the resident had agreed to participate in mediation with her neighbours and had now received the ASB diary to complete.
The landlord wrote to the Ombudsman on the same day and explained that it had not been aware of the letter on 20 May 2021 for which it apologised. It noted that the previously agreed action plan had not been adhered to. It had discussed this with the resident and confirmed that it would proceed with the action plan moving forward. A copy of this letter was also sent to the resident.
Following contact from the resident, who said that she wanted the complaint progressed, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 12 July 2021 and asked it to respond by 23 July 2021. The resident also explained that the landlord had referred to the Ombudsman’s communication of 20 May 2021 over the phone previously and concluded that it must have received this communication.
The landlord responded on 20 July 2021 and explained that it was due to speak to the resident in person on 29 July 2021. Following this, it would ascertain whether the resident wanted to escalate her complaint. The evidence shows that the resident sent diary sheets detailing ASB incidents in June and July 2021 to the landlord around this time.
The landlord’s records show that the meeting on 29 July 2021 went ahead. The resident expressed some concern about any formal written warnings being sent to her neighbours due to any potential repercussions. The landlord confirmed that it would get in touch with the neighbours and review the diary sheets she had submitted.
The resident and the neighbour took part in mediation on 2 August 2021. The mediators recommended that a further meeting was arranged for 9 August 2021 to reach a more balanced agreement but this had not gone ahead due to resistance from one of the parties. The mediators confirmed that the case would be closed.
On 16 August 2021 the resident reported that she had gone to hospital in an ambulance and the neighbour had said that they would have a party if she was dying. The landlord confirmed that it would discuss the matter internally as it was unsure as to whether this would constitute a breach of tenancy.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 August 2021 and explained that following a meeting on 29 July 2021 she was told that she would receive contact every two weeks but she had needed to follow-up for this. She said that she had participated in mediation but did not feel that this was successful and wanted her complaint to be escalated. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to provide a stage two complaint response within five days.
The landlord called the resident on 17 August 2021 and she confirmed that she had wanted the complaint to be escalated for some time.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 August 2021 and advised that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage two of its internal complaints process and she would receive a response ten working days after the complaint panel hearing. The complaint panel hearing took place on 1 September 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 10 September 2021 and explained the following:
1. The landlord explained that the outcome the resident was seeking (for neighbour’s partner to leave the property or for the landlord to seek an injunction to prevent them from causing further nuisance) was not possible and said that it had considered what further action it could take regarding the ASB.
2. It had reviewed the evidence provided by the resident to support her allegations and found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an injunction against the neighbour’s partner.
3. It proposed the following action plan:
  1. Although mediation had not been successful, it was happy to support the resident if she wished to re-engage in mediation in future.
  2. It added that the resident had been supplied with an ASB diary in order to provide updates regarding the ASB she was experiencing.
  3. It would liaise with the resident’s neighbour in relation to the complaints that had been made and provide the resident with feedback in due course.
  4. It agreed to keep the ASB case open for a further four weeks and then review.
  5. It noted that the resident had provided footage from her ring doorbell camera which also included audio recordings. It recommended that the resident ensured that this camera only captured footage from within the boundary of her property and used the footage responsibly. It noted that the resident had placed a second doorbell in her back garden and said that it would grant retrospective permission so long as no footage was recorded of the neighbour’s property.
  6. It had previously discussed the resident’s housing options and the potential of a priority transfer to another property if she wished. It confirmed that this offer would stay open whilst there was an open ASB case.
  7. It had also partnered with an external support agency to provide customers with support with mental health issues. It acknowledged that the resident had said she had been suffering with her mental health an offered to refer her to the support agency.
4. It noted that the resident had raised concerns about the delay in escalating her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. It said that it had not had the opportunity to investigate this aspect of her complaint as it was not raised during the complaint investigation stage. It acknowledged that the May 2021 correspondence from the Ombudsman notified the landlord of the resident’s request to escalate but this had been misplaced.
5. It apologised for the service failures it had identified and offered £100 compensation.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to address her request to escalate her complaint on 20 May 2021. She felt let down by the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and wanted the neighbour to be moved from their property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour.

It is evident that this situation with her neighbour has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. It is important to be aware that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Rather, our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The tenancy agreement states that a resident must not cause, or allow any visitors to their property to cause, antisocial behaviour. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB Policy, when the landlord receives reports of ASB it should carry out a risk assessment in order to ensure that it provides a timely response and the severity of the ASB is established. The landlord should then issue incident diary sheets to the resident so that further reports of ASB can be documented. Unless the resident only wishes to inform the landlord of the issues without further investigation, the landlord would be expected to open an ASB case for investigation.
Following the completion of a risk assessment, the landlord should contact those at a high-risk within 24 hours, medium risk within five working days and low risk within ten working days. All residents would be contacted and offered a visit by a member of staff to gather further information within the above timescales. In all cases, regardless of the level of risk, an action plan should be created, detailing the actions the landlord and other agencies would take. The member of staff responsible must remain in regular contact with the resident by contacting them every ten days once a case is opened.
Where a clear perpetrator has been identified, the landlord may use several non-legal remedies such as Good Neighbourhood agreements, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, warning letters and visits, mediation and referrals to other support agencies. Eviction and injunctions are legal processes and the landlord would need to go to court to obtain an injunction or to evict a tenant. The landlord would usually be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally such as through mediation or tenancy warnings before taking legal action. The landlord would also require corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour for example diary sheets and evidence from external agencies such as the police to support formal action.
In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord did not offer appropriate support to the resident from the outset by maintaining regular contact or attempting to mediate between the two parties following her initial ASB reports in October 2020. The landlord has supplied limited information regarding any contact it had with the resident prior to the formal complaint raised on 7 April 2021. There is also no evidence to suggest that an ASB case was opened or a risk assessment was completed until 7 April 2021 despite the resident’s continued reports of ASB.
It is noted that there was an ongoing police investigation into the neighbour dispute until 7 June 2021 where the police determined that no further action would be taken. It was reasonable for the landlord not to take legal action until the police investigation had concluded. This is because, the landlord was obliged to ensure that it did not interfere with the ongoing police investigation and seeking an injunction or eviction may interfere with the investigation as it would involve presenting evidence to the court which might also be part of the police’s investigation. Also, if the police took further action against the neighbour following their investigation, then this could be used as evidence to support any request by the landlord for an injunction or eviction. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for this evidence before taking legal action.
Although it could not reasonably take legal action against then neighbour while the police investigation was ongoing, the landlord could pursue informal measures to address the ASB during this time. It is noted that the landlord discussed the ASB with the resident and issued a verbal warning to the neighbour on 17 March 2021. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acted in line with its ASB policy by asking the resident to complete diary sheets in order to gain evidence of the ASB and offering mediation at an early stage in an attempt to improve the neighbour relationship. It could have also considered implementing other forms of informal remedy such as an Acceptable Behaviour contract in line with its ASB policy.
After the proposed action plan was agreed, the landlord has acknowledged that the agreed actions were not carried out. During this time there was a lack of communication or updates from the landlord and the resident needed to follow-up for responses. Whilst the resident has not found mediation helpful in this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the service and keep its offer of future meetings open should she change her mind. This is because mediation can be helpful in resolving ASB in some cases. The landlord also offered the resident a priority transfer to another property as a resolution to the ongoing neighbour dispute. The resident was within her rights to refuse this offer and it is understandable that she did not wish to move, given the disturbance it would cause. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as a means of preventing the resident from experiencing any further ASB from the neighbour and confirm that the offer remained open should the resident want to pursue this option.
The resident has asked the landlord to evict her neighbour or gain an injunction against their partner as a resolution to her complaint. It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to order the landlord to carry out an eviction, this is something that can only be ordered by a court. In this case, given that the police were not taking any further action against the neighbour due to weak evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it did not have sufficient evidence to warrant legal action.
In view of its failure to carry out agreed actions following its stage one complaint response, the landlord offered £100 compensation. The landlord’s offer of £100 was not proportionate to the impact its lack of initial action and its failure to maintain regular contact had on the resident. There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour. In view of this, the landlord should offer the resident additional compensation as detailed below in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that at stage one of its process, it should provide a complaint response within seven working days. If there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should contact the resident and agree a revised response timeframe. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the complaint can be escalated to stage two. At stage two, a complaint panel hearing should be arranged within 20 working days. A written complaint response should be issued within ten working days of the hearing.
The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 24 March 2021 about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. The landlord has since acknowledged that this was mistakenly raised as a service request rather than a complaint. Following contact from this Service on 7 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 15 April 2021. This response did not acknowledge the error in its handling of the resident’s complaint and failed to include information on how the resident could escalate her complaint in this response.
Following this, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the resident had asked the landlord directly for the complaint to be escalated, but she has advised the Ombudsman that she had difficulty contacting the landlord. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 20 May 2021 asking it to provide a stage two complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord has advised that this communication was misplaced. On 25 June 2021, this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within five working days. Further emails were sent on 12 July 2021 and 16 August 2021 as the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the complaint had not progressed. Following this, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 10 September 2021.
There has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its handling of the resident’s initial request for a complaint to be raised. It also failed to provide the resident with information about how her complaint could be escalated following its stage one complaint response. Following this, it failed to escalate the complaint despite being advised on multiple occasions of the resident’s request. Whilst it stated that the resident had not expressly asked for her complaint to be escalated, she had provided clear reasons for her dissatisfaction and the landlord would have had the opportunity to escalate the complaint at an earlier date. The resident needed to contact this Service for support in escalating her complaint which was likely to have caused further inconvenience. In addition, the landlord did not satisfactorily acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its stage two complaint response. In view of this, the landlord should offer additional compensation to the resident as detailed below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour and their partner.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord has somewhat acknowledged its service failures, its offer of £100 was not proportionate to the impact on the resident in view of the significant delay in addressing the resident’s ASB reports from October 2020 and its failure to maintain regular communication once an ASB case was opened.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its handling of the resident’s initial request for a complaint to be raised. It also failed to provide the resident with information about how her complaint could be escalated following its stage one complaint response. Following this, it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint despite intervention from this Service. This is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In addition, the landlord did not satisfactorily acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its stage two complaint response.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £350, comprised of:
  1. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, this includes the previous offer of £100, which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
  2. £ 150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord continues to review reports of ASB from the resident and maintains regular contact with her in line with its policy, if needed.