Livv Housing Group (202001516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001516

Livv Housing Group

21 April 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:
1. The landlord’s response to anti-social behaviour (ASB);
2. The landlord response to a repair request to a communal door; and
3. The landlord’s decision not to advise the resident about a change to its lettings policy.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
As part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she made reference to the impact of the ASB on another resident. She also complained about overcrowding in a neighbouring property, as her neighbour lived in a two-bedroom property and two of his adult children then moved in with him.
These matters will not be considered here. This is in accordance with paragraphs 39(l) and 39(q) of the Scheme which state, respectively, that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority” and “concern matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, do not cause significant adverse affect to the complainant”.
If the other resident wishes to make a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the reported ASB, they should contact the landlord directly about this. Paragraph 39(l) would only fail to apply if the resident were bringing a complaint on the other resident’s behalf because they lacked capacity or were deceased, which does not appear to be the case here.
In respect of the overcrowding in her neighbour’s property, there is no evidence to suggest that this significantly impacted the resident, as her reports of ASB concerned her neighbour, rather than his family members living with him.

Background and Summary of Events

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy gives a number of examples of ASB, but says that the final decision relating to what constitutes ASB will be made with its safer communities team. It aims to tackle ASB through early intervention and resolution. However, it will pursue legal action where all other non-legislative options have been tried and failed, or when the situation is so serious that legal action is considered the most appropriate response. The policy also says the landlord attempts to prevent ASB before it occurs by providing support at tenancy sign-up for potentially vulnerable residents via the in-house tenancy sustainability team. The policy says it takes non-legal early-stage actions such as warning letters, formal interviews, acceptable behaviour contracts, good neighbour agreements, joint agency visits, and mediation. However, actions against perpetrators will be proportionate to the situation.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and will respond to non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s sub regional choice-based lettings allocations scheme says the landlord (amongst other local councils) has adopted a common allocation scheme as required by the Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Localism Act 2011. The scheme explains that social housing in the area is allocated fairly and objectively to those most in need, having regard to any law, official guidance and good practice. It also says that the scheme landlords will be required to allocate at least 50% of their lettings through the scheme.

Summary of Events

In March 2019, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about her neighbour’s behaviour, specifically that he was sitting outside the property drinking, and that he left his dog unattended in the communal garden. The landlord asked the resident to complete incident diaries, but said if there were any significant incidents or she had any concerns for her safety, she should call the police.
The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour the same day to discuss the concerns raised. It was arranged that his tenancy sustainability officer would visit him twice a week.
The landlord then arranged for the resident to communicate directly with her neighbour’s tenancy sustainability officer about any problems. It also asked her to record any noise nuisance on a noise app. The landlord also asked both the resident and her neighbour to no longer communicate with each other, unless necessary.
Between March 2019 and June 2019, the resident completed incident diaries and also emailed the landlord about a number of the incidents. Those incidents included playing loud music, dog mess in the communal garden, slamming doors, shouting, drinking alcohol in communal areas, and threatening behaviour towards her. An ASB case was opened by the landlord in June 2019, and it arranged for an ASB officer to contact the resident.
A meeting took place between the landlord and the resident on 19 June 2019 to discuss her concerns. The landlord advised the resident that it had listened to the noise recordings she had provided, but could only hear her neighbour for about 30 seconds. It advised the resident to contact environmental health to see if she could have more sensitive noise monitoring equipment. The landlord also thought the resident and her neighbour could benefit from mediation, and confirmed it would make a referral for this. It also said it would refer the issue concerning dog mess in the garden to housing management. Finally, it said its tenancy sustainability team would continue to work with the resident’s neighbour regarding alcohol and mental health issues. It followed this up in writing with the resident on 25 June 2019.
On 3 July 2019, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour. It then wrote to him on 11 July 2019 to confirm that it had advised him of the complaints received regarding noise and his dog. It confirmed other residents had been given access to a noise app, and it had listened to some of those recordings and could hear him singing late in the evening. It advised the neighbour this was not acceptable. It was agreed that the landlord would monitor the situation and make a referral to mediation.
Independent mediation took place between the resident and her neighbour on 30 July 2019. It was noted that some of the reported problems had been resolved. However, the landlord was looking to transfer the neighbour from the block, due to overcrowding in the property. The mediation found that the situation had improved, and that there was no need for further mediation.
The landlord then arranged for the resident’s neighbour to be visited by a dog warden to discuss the concerns raised about his dog.
Between August and October 2019, the resident continued to report some noise nuisance. The landlord listened to 22 recordings she had made, but was only able to hear some banging on two recordings. The landlord advised the resident that her neighbour was going to move out.
In July 2020, the resident brought a complaint to this Service about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, as well as overcrowding in her neighbour’s property. This Service asked the landlord to provide the resident with a response to the complaint.
The landlord spoke with the resident about her concerns, and then issued its Stage One complaint response on 2 September 2020. It said:
1. The resident had reported ASB issues with her neighbour since March 2019. Since then, it had assigned a tenancy sustainability officer to conduct regular visits with her neighbour; investigated and responded to over 30 emails from the resident; listened to and assessed recordings via the noise app; interviewed her neighbour on a number of occasions and issued a warning about his behaviour; referred all parties to independent mediation; interviewed other residents in the block; signposted the resident to environmental health to gather evidence of noise nuisance; and had completed a housing management transfer to enable her neighbour to move to alternative accommodation.
2. It had been explained to the resident that low-level neighbour disputes can be complex and the threshold for legal action is extremely high in these cases. Any legal action would require it to provide the judge with evidence of significant and unreasonable behaviour before someone would be evicted from their home, and would need to be supported by testimonies from the police and other residents to demonstrate the impact to the community – which it did not have.
3. It did not have legal recourse to end her neighbour’s tenancy due to overcrowding, but her neighbour had since agreed to move to an alternative property and was hopeful to move imminently.
4. Although the resident had previously requested the landlord remove an internal door in the communal area, the door had been inspected recently as part of a fire assessment and the recommendation was that the door remain in place. A repair job was logged for the automatic door closer to be adjusted to resolve the banging issue. This had been booked for 3 September 2020 as it was considered to be a non-urgent job.
5. The resident said that she had been advised when taking out her tenancy agreement that her block was subject to an over 50s lettings agreement, yet her neighbour was under 50. The landlord said that, historically, housing providers in the area were able to designate particular blocks as ‘local lettings’ schemes which included allocations to customers over 50 or 55 in particular blocks. However, those methods were no longer common practice and were not a tenancy requirement. The landlord confirmed that it was part of a choice-based lettings scheme, which enabled a fair approach to housing allocation based on housing need.
6. It advised the resident that if she wanted to escalate her complaint to Stage 2, she should contact it within 21 days.
The resident responded to the landlord on 9 September 2020. She advised that she would be writing back officially within 21 days. However, she noted that there were some vacant flats in the block and said she hoped the landlord had spoken to lettings about her recommendation for somebody more “suitable” for the block so that the (ASB) did not happen again.
The resident followed this up with further points to escalate her complaint to Stage 2. A Stage 2 complaint hearing took place between the landlord and the resident over the phone. During that call, the resident raised the following points:
1. She felt as though her complaint about the ASB had not been taken seriously.
2. She was unhappy with the way the landlord dealt with the issue of overcrowding in the neighbouring property.
3. She wanted to know when her neighbour would be moving, as she had been told this would happen imminently.
4. The internal lobby door was still banging loudly when closing.
5. She thought the landlord had a duty of care to let the property to someone more “fitting” for the block.
On 10 November 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. The neighbour in question no longer lived at the property, and while he did, the landlord took a number of actions (as listed in its Stage One response) to address the reported ASB.
2. The issue of overcrowding was for the resident’s neighbour to raise with the landlord. As the neighbour no longer lived at the property, the issue was closed.
3. It had arranged for a surveyor to visit and assess the communal door the previous day. It advised the resident what to do if the issue arose again.
4. It advised that it does not discriminate against anyone when considering letting one of its properties.

Assessment and Findings

The landlord’s response to the reported ASB

The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of ASB was in line with relevant policies, procedures and good practice.
As soon as the resident raised concerns about her neighbour, the landlord carried out a home visit to her neighbour’s property to discuss the concerns. The landlord also arranged for the neighbour to have support via a tenancy sustainability officer. The landlord put in place arrangements for that officer to visit the neighbour twice a week, to provide necessary support. It also gave the resident permission to contact that officer directly, to report any further concerns she had.
Although the landlord had not opened an ASB case at that time – given the type of concerns raised by the resident, and because the landlord arranged for a home visit and more support from the neighbour’s tenancy sustainability officer – that does not seem unreasonable. The landlord had also given the resident the contact details of her neighbour’s tenancy sustainability officer, which was an appropriate response, as that meant that any issues could be addressed immediately.
Despite those early interventions by the landlord, the resident continued to experience problems with her neighbour. She recorded those in the incident diaries, and also told the landlord about them directly. The landlord therefore opened an ASB case in June 2019 and, given the number of incidents reported over the previous few months, this was an appropriate action.
After the ASB case had been opened, the landlord took appropriate and proportionate action in response to the resident’s concerns, which was in line with its ASB policy. It met with her to find out the issues, it provided her with access to a noise app and then listened to the recordings she made. The landlord also met with her neighbour, and issued him with a warning letter. The landlord then arranged mediation, which initially appeared to have been successful.
Mediation can be a useful tool when there are neighbour disputes, particularly before matters have escalated over a long period of time. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to arrange the mediation when it did.
After the mediation had taken place, the resident continued to report some noise nuisance, and the landlord listened to the recordings she had made. It did not think the noise captured on the recordings would be considered ASB, and advised the resident that it could only hear some banging on two of the recordings. It was appropriate for the landlord to continue to listen to the recordings the resident made, though it would be reasonable to only expect it to take action if noise nuisance could be heard on, and established from, the recordings, which was not the case here.

The landlord’s response to a repair request to a communal door

Following a complaint to this Service in July 2020, the resident spoke with the landlord about her complaint. In that conversation, she advised the landlord that an internal door in the communal area was banging. The landlord told the resident on 2 September 2020 that the repair was not urgent, and had been booked for the following day.
It is not known when the resident spoke with the landlord, other than it was at some point between 23 July and 2 September 2020. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days, and so it either did so, or was just outside this timeframe. Given that the repair was to a communal area, even if it was outside this timeframe, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this would not impact the resident significantly.
The repair took place, however, when the resident escalated her complaint to Stage 2, she said the door was still banging. The landlord therefore arranged for a surveyor to look at the door on 9 November 2020. It also advised the resident what to do if the issue continued. That was an appropriate response in the circumstances.

The landlord’s decision not to advise the resident about a change to its lettings policy

The resident says she was advised when taking out her tenancy that the flats in the block were only let to those over aged 50. At some point since then, the landlord has changed its policy on this, and now belongs to a choice-based lettings scheme which allocates housing based on need. This is set out in more detail at point 25 above.
The resident thinks the landlord ought to have advised her of the change in policy. However, the resident’s tenancy agreement does not say that the landlord was required to let out the properties in that block of flats to people over a particular age. As there was no change to the resident’s tenancy, the landlord was not required to advise the resident of its change in policy in this respect. However the Ombudsman notes that it would have been good practice to advise all residents in the block at the time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to ASB;
2. no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the repair request to a communal door; and
3. no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision not to advise the resident about a change to its lettings policy.

Reasons

The landlord kept full records of ASB incidents reported by the resident, and its responses. It arranged early intervention, which was appropriate at the time. However, when the resident continued to report further issues, the landlord opened an ASB case and took reasonable non-legal action that was proportionate to the issues reported. This was in line with its ASB policy and good practice.
The landlord arranged for a repair to take place to the door after this was reported – it is not known what date this was reported, but it completed the repair at some point within 42 days. This may have been beyond its stated repair timeframe of 28 calendar days, though as the issue was in a communal area rather than the resident’s property, if there was a delay, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this would not have impacted her significantly.
At some point since the resident took out her tenancy agreement, the landlord signed up to a choice-based lettings scheme. As this did not alter the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord was not required to advise the resident of this.