Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202211185)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211185

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

6 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy says, amongst other things, that it:
1. seeks to tackle the causes of ASB and prevent incidents from arising and escalating.
2. takes the necessary management intervention and legal action to deal with perpetrators of ASB.
3. works in partnership with other specialist agencies where appropriate.
4. will stay in contact with victims keeping them informed of progress
5. uses its own professional judgement as to whether reports of ASB can be realistically investigated and resolved.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it cannot consider a complaint that is excluded, its excluded list includes a cause of complaint that occurred over six months ago. The complaints policy details the landlord’s 2 stage complaint handling process as:
1. Stage 1- where a response will be provided within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2- where a response will be provided within 20 working days and explains that it will agree a new response time if it can not meet this timeframe.

Summary of events

Between 2016 and 2021 a number of ASB reports were made to the landlord. These included reports made by the resident about the neighbour. The neighbour also made allegations about the resident but the full detail of these have been omitted as they are not relevant to the Service’s investigation. The ASB reports and some, not all, of the landlord’s actions are summarised below as:
1. In January 2017, the neighbour allegedly smeared dog faeces on the resident’s front door. The neighbour made counter allegations at that time.
2. In March 2017 the resident refused to sign a behavioural agreement and the landlord closed the ASB case. Here the landlord agreed to provide support.
3. In March 2017 the landlord asked the resident to confirm when she had removed cats from the property.
4. In April 2017 the landlord wrote to the resident about an allegation of threatening a neighbour with a knife. It said the allegation could not be substantiated by it nor the police.
5. In June 2017 allegations were made about the positioning of the neighbour’s cameras. The landlord offered mediation around this time.
6. Throughout July 2017 the police reported further incidents between the resident and neighbour. The landlord completed a risk assessment, worked with the police and victim support at that time. The landlord closed ASB cases and stated it would reopen then if there was new information.
7. Allegations about the neighbour and counter allegations continued. The landlord made further attempts with mediation in December 2017.
8. In April 2018 the resident’s MP told the landlord that the resident had said the neighbour put “hot pepper” on the drive to cause harm to pets. The MP also said that the resident was told by a third party that the neighbour said she would stab the resident. In its response from May 2018 the landlord told the MP that the issues related to events from 2017. It said there were no new incidents and it would not open a new case.
9. In May 2018 the resident reported finding a dead cat and it is noted that this was “suspected” as something to do with the neighbour. The resident was advised to report this to the police. Also in May 2018 allegations were made about the neighbour installing a listening device.
10. In July 2018 the resident made reports about the behaviour of other neighbours. The landlord completed a risk assessment at that time and agreed an ASB action plan with the resident. It reported what it had done in August 2018.
11. In June 2019 the resident made reports of being harassed and being stalked by the neighbour to the police.
12. The landlord closed ASB issues in August 2019 as it said they related to incidents from 2017 and said both it and the police had closed matters due to lack of evidence. It said there were no further incidents and no grounds for it to open the ASB case.
13. In December 2019 the resident made reports about the neighbour’s aerials.
14. In April 2020 the resident’s friend raised reports about an incident with jet washing by the neighbour. Here the landlord spoke with the resident and asked if she was receiving support.
15. In December 2020 the resident reported further concerns about the neighbour’s fencing which the landlord dealt with.
16. In April 2021 the resident reported that the neighbour had taken pictures of her property.
Following the above, in September 2021 the resident told the landlord that she was being harassed by the neighbour and repeated allegations initially made in 2017, that her neighbour had smeared dog faeces on her door. At that time the landlord said it would not treat the matter as an ASB issue as it happened more than 6 months ago and it had already been dealt with.
In December 2021 the resident told the landlord that she took the neighbour to county court. The Service has not seen evidence of court proceedings.
Following the above report the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 and told it about the resident’s reports of harassment from the neighbour. The MP asked the landlord to look into the case and attached an email from the resident which said:
1. The neighbour had breached her tenancy and mediation agreements.
2. The resident wanted a letter stating that the neighbour was harassing her, made false allegation about a knife threat and smeared dog faeces on her door.
3. The resident wanted an apology from the landlord for the way it treated her and said it should compensate her for all the stress.
4. The landlord should tell the neighbour to stop telling others that the judge found the resident was harassing the neighbour. The resident said the neighbour was guilty of harassment.
Between 17 and 18 May 2022 the landlord’s internal emails discussed the resident’s contact and noted that it received no reports of incidents since 2019. It felt it was appropriate to conduct a welfare check on the resident.
On 23 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that when she went to court the judge said the neighbour had breached a mediation agreement. She told it to request the court transcript. She repeated how she felt the neighbour was telling others the wrong information and how she felt the landlord never believed she was innocent. The landlord responded the same day and said it had responded to her MP about her concerns.
The resident raised her complaint on 7 August 2022. Here she told the landlord that the ASB issues started in 2016 and said:
1. The neighbour smeared dog feaces on her front door and signed a behavioural contract following this.
2. The neighbour would use a hose to water flowers and hose into the resident’s property when a window was open.
3. The neighbour alleged the resident had threatened her with a knife and the landlord told the resident it had seen footage of this and the police would arrest her. She said she went to the police who had nothing on their system. When she told the landlord this it said she had to wait 2 weeks while it considered the evidence. The resident explained how this was a difficult time for her and said she was constantly crying.
4. There were issues with the treatment of her cats and the landlord told her to “get rid” of 2 of her 4 cats.
5. The landlord’s staff told her at least 4 times that she would be evicted and said she was causing the problems.
6. She told it about taking the neighbour to county court where the judge said the neighbour was harassing her. She repeated how the neighbour was telling something different to other neighbours. She told the landlord that it could get the transcript from the court.
7. She said the neighbour had breached her tenancy agreement.
On 9 August 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 10 August 2022 the resident repeated her previous concerns about the neighbour smearing “dog mess on her front door”, how the landlord handled the neighbour’s report of the resident’s threat with a knife and how the neighbour had posted on social media about adding “chilli powder” to her drive to cause harm to other pets.
The landlord’s system notes from the same day, show that the reports made to it in January 2021 were logged as welfare concerns where it made referrals. It said the ASB concerns were closed due to insufficient evidence. The landlord’s notes indicate it was to make a further welfare check following the repetition of previous reports. The landlord attempted to make a welfare check on 12 August 2022.
On 16 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised for its delayed response and for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It said:
1. It was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint as it found all reports of dispute between the resident and the neighbour had been dealt with at the relevant times and no further issues were reported to it.
2. It said it had addressed the issues within its policies and no further action was warranted.
3. It attempted to conduct a welfare check on 12 August 2022 but no one was in at that time. It said it would make a further attempt to visit that week.
On 22 August 2022 the landlord sent the resident a first warning letter about her contact. It said that it had made it “explicitly clear” that it would not be able to investigate ongoing “unsubstantiated allegations” unless evidence was provided. It said:
1. It was necessary for it to be clear about what it will and will not be able to investigate as the resident’s and the neighbour’s wellbeing was important to it.
2. It was a formal warning to the resident that it would not accept any further communication or complaints on the same matter either directly, or to its complaints team.
3. It said the time devoted to its “repeatedly” investigating the allegations since 2018 impacted its wider work.
4. It apologised that it was unable to satisfy the resident’s expectations about how it would progress the allegations about the neighbour.
5. Failure to observe the warning may result in it restricting contact with her.
6. It would still provide housing management service and provided the contact details for the main point of contact and a contact number.
7. It would undertake another welfare check.
On 25 August 2022 the Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord’s internal notes from the following day show it escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
On 30 August 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. It said it would respond by 27 September 2022 and contact the resident if it could not meet this timeframe.
On 31 August 2022 the landlord attempted to complete a welfare check but there was no answer.
On 6 September 2022 the landlord noted a call from the resident about a court hearing with the neighbour. The landlord noted it completed a welfare check at this time but again there was no answer by the resident.
On 8 September 2022 the resident told the landlord that she did not ask it to reinvestigate something it previously failed to investigate. She said her contact was to let it know that she won a court case against the neighbour and wanted it recorded on her file. She told the landlord that it could get a copy of the judgement as she was not prepared to pay over £500 for it. She told it she was unhappy with the tone and abruptness of all the “contradictory” letters and said the landlord blamed her for the complaint. She said she would no longer tolerate the landlord’s “bullying” behaviour towards her.
On 4 October 2022 the resident contacted the Service due to the landlord’s lack of response to her complaint. The Service issued the landlord with a second request for action.
On 18 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay in providing a response.
1. It explained that it had considered all information provided to it and in response to the resident’s ASB complaint it said it was appropriate for it to not take further action.
2. It said there had been no further matters to address or evidence of a service failure.
3. It accepted it had not complied with its own service level agreements when handling the resident’s complaint and said its correspondence should have been more frequent.
4. It said it was reviewing the working practices and structure to its complaints team and aiming to ensure it delivered more effective service for its customers.
On 21 October 2022 the Service provided a copy of the landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident.
On 23 October 2022 the resident told the Service that she was unhappy with the stage 2 response. She said that the landlord was not taking accountability that its lack of action escalated the issue and how she took the neighbour to court without any support from it. She said this caused her “great stress and anxiety”. She said she wanted an apology and wanted the landlord to confirm that the dispute and harassment was caused by the neighbour and not her. She said the judge also said the neighbour was harassing the resident. She told it how it got it wrong when it said the resident threatened the neighbour with a knife, she said it believed the neighbour’s word for it and never checked.
On 10 May 2023 the landlord contacted the Service and repeated its stage 2 response and said it offered an apology to redress any inconvenience caused. However it said it should have offered more redress and offered £50 to recognise poor complaint handling at stage 2 of its process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) sets out the rules the Ombudsman must consider when a complaint is brought to the Service. This is because there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Parts of the resident’s complaint relates to events that occurred between 2016 and 2022. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”
While the resident reported ASB concerns to the landlord between 2016 and 2022 these were not raised as a formal complaint prior to 7 August 2022. As such when considering a reasonable period, in these circumstances, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s complaint up to a year before she raised her official complaint.
This means that a number of the resident’s reports of ASB about her neighbour prior to August 2021 have not been considered. However the Ombudsman will consider what the landlord did with any new reports following this date and its responses.

Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour

Between September 2021 and May 2022 the resident repeated historic ASB issues to the landlord about the neighbour. Here it was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident it would not treat the matter as new ASB issues as they happened more than 6 months ago and had already been dealt with. It is noted that the landlord had welfare concerns about the resident and as such it was reasonable for it to conduct welfare checks at that time.
Within the resident’s complaint from 7 August 2022 she repeated historic ASB issues which included: the neighbour smearing animal feaces on her door, the neighbour spraying a hose pipe into the resident’s open window, the landlord’s handling of a knife threat allegation, the neighbour attempting to talk to the resident and the landlord’s handling of the number of cats the resident had.
It is noted that following this the landlord attempted to conduct another welfare check for the resident. This was reasonable especially as it was attempting to establish the trigger for the repeated concerns.
Within its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord appropriately explained that the disputes between the resident and neighbour had been dealt with at the relevant times and no further action would be appropriate or warranted. This was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with its policy. It is noted that the landlord continued to attempt to conduct welfare checks on 31 August and 6 September 2022. This was reasonable especially as the landlord had welfare concerns about the resident.
It is clear from the evidence that the relationship between the resident and neighbour had been difficult and challenging. This was due to a number of ASB reports made by both sides and it is accepted that this would have been difficult for the landlord to manage and for the resident to experience.
It is accepted that this would have been a particularly difficult time for the resident as the relationship with the neighbour had an impact on her life for several years. However I am unable to agree that the landlord’s handling of matters from August 2021 onwards was not appropriate, it was reasonable for the landlord to adopt the approach it did at that time, especially considering the information available to it. As such there was no maladministration.
It is noted that the resident is seeking confirmation from the landlord that the issues were caused by the neighbour and not her. It is clear the resident feels strongly about the events, however as she says the matter has gone to court, she would be aware of the court’s decision from those proceedings. It is understood the resident has asked the landlord to obtain the court transcript however despite the lack of transcript she would, on balance, have the courts findings had an order been made and if not she may wish to seek independent legal advice. The Service has not seen been provided with evidence relating to the court proceedings or evidence to show what the proceedings related to.
It is noted that the resident has reported new events to the Service, while these do not fall part of this investigation, when handling these new issues the landlord may decide to consider ways in which it can possibly bring the resident, neighbour and landlord together to resolve the repetition of issues in line with its policies.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint on 7 August 2022, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint and provided its stage 1 response within 9 working days on 16 August 2022.
Following contact from the Service on 25 August 2022 the landlord noted the resident has escalated her complaint and wrote to acknowledge it on 30 August 2022. At that time the landlord said it would respond by 27 September 2022. The landlord failed to meet this timeframe and did not tell the resident of a revised timeframe at that time. This was not appropriate.
On 4 October 2022 the Service asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident’s complaint and following this it issued its stage 2 response on 18 October 2022. This timeframe was not appropriate.
The landlord took almost 2 months to issue its stage 2 response, it exceeded the timeframe set within its complaints policy and the timeframe the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, applicable at that time, told it not to exceed. The landlord’s complaint handling failings amount to a service failure.
It is acknowledged that after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process it reflected on its lack of compensation offer for its accepted complaint handling failings and made a compensation offer of £50 on 10 May 2023, 7 months after its stage 2 response. While the landlord’s reflection and decision to offer compensation are recognised, it is important for this to have formed part of its internal complaints process.
When considering the landlord’s complaint handling failings it is accepted that there was a short delay which did not affect the overall outcome for the resident as ultimately its position remained the same. However it did not fully put things right within its delayed stage 2 response and as such the Ombudsman has recommended further compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of historic ASB complaints was appropriate in the circumstances as it explained it had investigated and closed those reports at that time. It acted reasonably in conducting welfare checks to ensure the resident was receiving appropriate support.
The landlord took almost 2 months to issue its stage 2 response, it exceeded the timeframe set within its complaints policy and did not provide the resident with an extended timeframe. This meant the resident had to involve the Service to assist.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling failings. This amount is to include the £50 it previously offered if it has not paid this already. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers an approach to help end the continued nature of the ASB reports in this case. It may want to review any learning from its previous handling of ASB and this report and, if it decides appropriate, consider an agreed way forward with the resident.