London & Quadrant H T (201909582)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909582

London & Quadrant H T

21 December 2020

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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) from her neighbour.

Background and summary of events

Background

1. The resident is the landlord’s tenant and occupies a two-bedroomed, ground-floor flat.

2. The landlord’s ASB policy provides examples of ASB types which it will record. These include: “noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted”; “harassment or intimidation, including threats, stalking, bullying, malicious communications”; “vandalism, property damage”; and “rubbish… on [its] property or by [its] residents”.
3. The landlord’s ASB policy specifies that residents are expected not to commit ASB but also “must acknowledge that day to day activities, such as noise or minor disturbances cannot be avoided, and accept that sometimes, while the behaviour of another family is frustrating it is not reasonable to place restrictions on their usual enjoyment of their home”.
4. As examples of what the landlord will not consider to be ASB, its policy lists: “noise caused by people going about their daily lives”; “minor personal differences or fall outs between neighbours”; and “disputes between neighbours (e.g. boundary issues or shared driveways)”.
5. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints process. No specific timescales are provided for a response at either stage unless “If matters cannot be resolved immediately an action plan may be needed.” In this case, this should be “agreed with the customer as soon as possible and no later than 10 working days”.

Summary of events

6. The resident had made reports of ASB committed by her neighbour since February 2018. Her incident diaries recorded allegations of ASB committed by her neighbour which included: noise at unsociable hours, the neighbour hosting parties, rubbish left in her garden, obstructive parking, damage to her shed which was reported as criminal damage, and threatening looks.

7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 August 2018 about her “ongoing neighbour dispute”. It noted that she had declined to attend a joint meeting with itself and the police to discuss the issues. After visiting the neighbour on 31 July 2018, it was agreed between the landlord and the police that the resident and her neighbour should have no further contact with each other and “learn to ignore each other”.
8. The landlord confirmed that it had visited the resident and her neighbour separately in May 2018 and, after carrying out a “sound check”, determined that the noise reported by the resident was “day to day noise”. It advised that it permitted residents to have parties so long as they were “responsible and mindful towards their neighbours”. The landlord noted that the most recent party reported by the resident finished at 8pm.
9. To prevent further conflict between the resident and her neighbour, the landlord advised that it would be rebuilding a wall outside the property to prevent either party from parking there. It also proposed to reposition an entrance gate to the garden to reduce the need for either party to come into contact with each other. The landlord confirmed that the ASB case was now closed.
10. The landlord later confirmed to the resident’s MP, sometime after 22 August 2018, that she had refused to enter into mediation and a sound check had found that the noise she had reported was “day to day noise”. It reported that she had described the “intimidating” behaviour performed by the neighbour to be “the way [the neighbour] looks at her”. The landlord confirmed that this was not considered ASB.
11. The landlord proposed to carry out works to the shared areas of the properties to reduce the likelihood of the resident and her neighbour coming into contact with each other. It stated that, as mediation had been refused and there were “allegations and counter allegations from both parties”, it felt there was little else it could do to resolve the issue, noting that police involvement had not improved the situation.
12. The police visited the resident on 23 June 2019 to respond to her report of the neighbour throwing water from their kitchen above onto her garden. She contended that she had sustained damage to her plants and furniture as a result and felt that the neighbour should be “given [a] harassment order”. They explained to her that there was insufficient evidence to take further action. This incident was relayed to the landlord.
13. In response to CCTV footage from the resident showing the neighbour throwing water from their kitchen window onto her garden, the landlord wrote to the neighbour on 24 June 2019 to insist that she cease this immediately. It relayed this to the resident on 11 July 2019, stating that the police’s safer neighbourhood team had confirmed it would not be taking any further action and had advised her to “try and live amicably”. The landlord spoke to the resident on 8 August 2019 when she confirmed that there had been no further incidents.
14. The resident’s records on 25 October 2019 show that she emailed the landlord that day and three weeks previously and received no response.
15. On 11 April 2020, the resident’s records show that she sent “diary sheets… for the last few months”. These recorded noise and parking issues she attributed to the neighbour.
16. On 3 June 2020 the resident contacted her MP about her neighbour who she said was continuing to perpetrate ASB despite the warning the landlord issued to them the previous year. She enclosed diary sheets spanning the last two years. The MP relayed this to the landlord the same day.
17. The landlord replied to the MP on 23 June 2020 to clarify that it had recorded the resident’s historical issues regarding noise, parking disputes and alleged damage to her grass. It stated that the main issue of contention appeared to be the use of a communal area for parking that was not designated as a parking space, which it said it would consider blocking off if parking disputes between the two parties persisted.
18. The landlord confirmed that it had previously investigated the resident’s report of noise and deemed this to be “everyday living noise”. It could also find no evidence of her allegations that the neighbour was “poisoning the grass”. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had made a complaint about her neighbour’s use of CCTV. This had been checked by the police, who confirmed that the camera was being used correctly.
19. The landlord stated that the last contact from the resident was in July 2019 about water being expelled from the neighbour’s window. It relayed that, when it subsequently contacted her about this, she confirmed that there had been no further incidents after it had issued a letter to the neighbour. It asserted that it was satisfied that there were “no further landlord actions to be taken”.
20. After the resident’s contact with this Service on 17 July 2020, we contacted the landlord on 25 July 2020 to request that it raise a formal complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB.
21. The landlord attempted, unsuccessfully, to call the resident on 27 July 2020 and then issued a stage one complaint response later that day. In this response, it asserted that it had “actively progressed” all reports of ASB and had met with her and the police to discuss these. It confirmed that the outcome was that there was “no evidence to support [her] accusations”.
22. The landlord noted that the resident’s neighbour had recently fitted a parking post to prevent her from parking. It relayed that it had investigated this and it had asked the neighbour to remove the post. The landlord stated that it was satisfied that all of the resident’s reports of ASB had been investigated and responded to.
23. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 July 2020 to escalate her complaint. She acknowledged that it had responded to her but she was “living in fear in what is going to happen next”. The resident listed incidents of ASB which included the historical issues of “killing [the] grass”, throwing water out of the windows into her garden, hosting parties and damage to her shed. She stated that she was still experiencing noise issues from the neighbour “stomping” on the floor and doing laundry late at night, and rubbish being discarded on her property.
24. The resident asserted that the neighbour was carrying out a vendetta against her which included intimidating behaviour such as staring, threatening language which she had overheard, and vehicle nuisance. She stated that she “wasn’t sure if [the landlord had her] diary sheets”.
25. The landlord issued a final stage complaint response on 3 August 2020 in which it reiterated that it had investigated her reports of ASB but there had been no evidence to support further action being taken. It emphasized that it was “imperative diary sheets are maintained” and for any witnesses to come forward. The landlord confirmed that it had nothing further to add and this was its final response.

Assessment and findings

26. It is important to clarify the role of the Ombudsman is not ascertain whether ASB occurred or not, but to determine whether the landlord responded to reports of ASB and took reasonable and proportionate action in accordance with its policies and procedures.

27. The landlord’s communication on 9 August 2018 showed that it responded by investigating the resident’s reports of her neighbour’s intimidating behavior, discarding rubbish on her property, noise and obstructive parking, as these actions were consistent with the definition of ASB, as per its ASB policy above at point 2. It is noted that it liaised with the police, visited the neighbour and carried out a “sound check”. These were all reasonable responses by the landlord to the resident’s reports.
28. As it was found that there was insufficient evidence to take any further action, and that, as reported to the resident’s MP in 2018, the resident had not engaged in mediation, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest the resident “learn to ignore” the neighbour. This is in accordance with its ASB policy above at point 4 where it states that it did not regard “fall outs” and “disputes between neighbours” as ASB.
29. It was also reasonable for the landlord to take no further action in respect of the noise reported by the resident as this was identified in May 2018 as “day to day noise”. This was in accordance with its ASB policy above at point 4 which confirms that it would not regard noise created by “people going about their daily lives” as ASB.
30. In response to the resident’s report in June 2019 of the neighbour throwing water from the window above into the resident’s garden, the landlord acted reasonably and proportionately by writing to the neighbour on 24 June 2019 to ask them to cease. This was in accordance with its ASB policy above at point 2 which defines leaving rubbish on its property as ASB.
31. After June 2019 it is unclear if ASB was reported by the resident to the landlord. While her records show that she emailed it twice in October 2019 and that she sent ASB diaries to it on 11 April 2020, there is no contemporaneous evidence of these being submitted, nor evidence of it receiving these. The landlord can only be expected to act on reports of ASB made to it, and the Ombudsman can only confirm reports have been made where records are available from the time.
32. Therefore, the landlord’s response in its stage one complaint response on 27 July 2020 and its final stage response on 3 August 2020 were reasonable in asserting that it had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB and there is no evidence of any failings in its response to her ASB reports.
33. However, in the resident’s final stage complaint escalation on 30 July 2020, she expressed uncertainty about whether or not she provided the landlord with ASB diaries. Its final stage response does not acknowledge receipt of these ASB diaries, and it missed an opportunity at this point to confirm which reports of ASB these related to. Therefore, a recommendation regarding this has been made below.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour.

Reasons

35. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate actions in the response to the resident’s reports of ASB, in accordance with its ASB policy.

Recommendation

36. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to obtain the ASB diaries she referred to in her complaint escalation request on 30 July 2020, to determine if a new ASB investigation should be undertaken in respect of any new incidents.
37. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.