Moat Homes Limited (202205388)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205388

Moat Homes Limited

8 January 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) including the parking issue.
2. The resident’s concerns relating to the plans for the parking spaces near the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the resident’s concerns relating to the plans for the parking spaces near the property.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The plan for the parking area happened after the landlord’s final complaint response. We have not seen that they have raised this as a complaint with the landlord. It is open to the resident to raise this as a fresh complaint. This report will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB as well as the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The residents have an assured tenancy with the landlord that started in 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom house on a close with 4 houses and, at the time of the events complained about, 8 unallocated car parking spaces. One of the joint tenants has dyslexia; the landlord has physical disorders noted for them and their child.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, residents agree not to do anything that causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to anyone living in the area; harass or cause ASB or abuse to anyone; or do anything that interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living in the area.
In relation to parking, the tenancy agreement says that residents or visitors to the property must not, among other things park on any land owned by the landlord except where it is designated parking and/or, where parking spaces are allocated, park in any other space other than the one allocated. There is no reference in the tenancy agreement to an allocated parking space.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
This is the definition found within part 1 of the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The policy says that when the landlord receives a report, it assesses the information to see if it meets the definition of ASB. It considers a number of factors, including whether the behaviour is unreasonable. Examples of reasonable behaviour are given including noise generated by everyday living; noise from domestic appliances during reasonable times; and minor personal differences or fall outs between neighbours (including stares and social media fallouts).
The policy says that it is unlikely the landlord will deal with cases that involve neighbour disputes under its ASB policy. It defines neighbour disputes as situations where people do not get on with each other or where a friendship has broken down. Exceptions would be where there is a clear vulnerable victim, or the behaviour of the parties has escalated or is affecting the wider community. The landlord will use early interventions measures such as mediation where appropriate in such cases.
The policy says that the landlord will assign a risk priority for every case based on the type of ASB reported and assess reports using the evidence available, the harm or potential harm to the reporting party, victims and witness, other residents and the local community, and the apparent motivation.
The policy also explains residents have the right to raise a community trigger via the local authority. Any victim of ASB, who has made three or more reports within a six-month period and feels they have not had a satisfactory response, can request this. If the threshold is met, a review will be led by a local multi‑agency panel which has the power to make recommendations to the agencies involved.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider paying a goodwill compensation payment to customers for time and trouble in the case of service failure. The policy says that goodwill compensation may be awarded up to a maximum of £150. We note that the landlord updated its compensation policy recently to reflect payments for distress ad inconvenience where there has been service failure.

Summary of events

In early July 2021, the resident reported the neighbour parking in “their space”. Later that month, the evidence suggests that, following a report of ASB against the resident, there were phone calls between the resident and the landlord where they described feeling “bullied and intimidated”. The landlord arranged to visit the neighbour.
On 12 September 2021 the resident reported verbal abuse from the neighbour. On the next day the landlord told the resident that aggressive behaviour was a matter for the police, and they should get a crime reference number. It said it would escalate this matter to the neighbourhood services manager once it had received this crime reference number. It said it would close the case if it did not hear back from them within 2 days. The case was automatically closed 2 days later.
On 13 September 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and said mediation would be the next step. A referral was made the following month. The mediation service subsequently told the landlord that, due to a heavy workload, it might be some weeks before mediation could start.
On 1 January 2022 the resident reported nuisance from vehicles. The landlord noted that there had been various allegations against the neighbour and an ongoing dispute; a referral had been made for mediation.
On 28 March 2022 the resident reported nuisance from parking saying the neighbour kept parking in their space. They also reported that the neighbour had threatened them and “acted aggressively” towards them. They also reported noise that woke their young child as well as the neighbour watching them.
On the same day the police told the landlord that it had visited the resident and the neighbour due to a parking dispute and it would be helpful for the landlord to explain to both parties if the spaces were allocated or not.
On 29 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that the neighbour was taking photos of them. They also said that the neighbour’s car had been parked in their parking space overnight. The landlord told the resident that parking spaces were unallocated and it would write to residents about the parking situation.
On 30 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that the police had raised a “stalking and harassment” case against the neighbour. They raised concerns about their health saying worried that their partner would have a breakdown “as a result of this parking situation”. The landlord completed a risk assessment and action plan for the resident at this time.
On 5 April 2022 the resident called the landlord asking it to tell the neighbour to move her car. They said that the tenancy agreement did not refer to unallocated car parking spaces. On the same day the landlord sent an email to the police following a conversation noting there were no plans for police involvement in the dispute between the neighbour and resident.
In an email the next day the police told the landlord it had been called to the close on 9 occasions and 8 were call outs from the resident. They police said it would help if the landlord could confirm to the resident if the parking spaces were designated or not; that staring was not a criminal offence; and also clarify that CCTV should only be trained on the owner’s property. The police said they would check the CCTV at the neighbour’s property had been installed appropriately.
On 7 April 2022 the police told the landlord that the neighbour had agreed to move her video doorbell as its range covered part of the resident’s driveway. The landlord confirmed it would check this on the next inspection of the area.
On the same day the resident called the landlord asking it to tell the neighbour to move her car from their parking space. The landlord reminded the resident that there were no allocated parking spaces. It then wrote to all residents in the close to remind them that there was no allocated parking. It added that there had been reports of ASB taking place as a result of the parking issues and reminded residents that this behaviour would be a breach of the tenancy agreement.
On 14 April 2022 the mediation service told the landlord that they had been unable to move forward to a joint mediation meeting between the parties. They said it had offered conflict training to them.
In an email dated 5 May 2022 to their MP, the resident said that the landlord believed the complaint was about parking but “that was the tip of the iceberg” their main issue was “a camera pointed at our front door, filming a 2-year-old playing in the garden and the constant lack of privacy, which [the landlord had] failed to handle”.
On the same day, following communication with the landlord, the MP wrote to the residents saying that it appeared the landlord was engaging positively and was seeking to remedy the situation. It enclosed the email from the landlord which explained it was aware of the dispute which had escalated from a disagreement about parking and have been in close contact with both the resident and the neighbour. It said it had been working closely with the police as matters had escalated on both sides and it had spoken with both parties and arranged independent mediation, but this was not progressing at that time.
The landlord explained to the MP that the situation remained “very fraught” with both sides making claims and counter claims regarding the parking situation and behaviours. It said this had involved intensive work both with the local policing and its neighbourhood teams. It noted, at the core, was the belief that the parking bays were allocated to each property; however, that was not the case, and the bays were for the use of the residents on a first–come, first–served basis. The landlord added that these issues were always contentious, but this matter had now escalated to the point where a community trigger had been raised. It explained that would involve a panel looking at all the actions taken by the various partners involved and would hopefully draw a line under the ongoing dispute. The landlord said it actively encouraged both parties to take up the offer of conflict resolution so that they were able to find a way to live peacefully together.
In early May 2022 the police told the landlord that there had been many reports from the resident about the neighbour but, to date, none of those reports had resulted in any police action being taken. At that time, the landlord noted it planned a visit to the close with the police to see if any other residents were affected by ASB issues.
On 23 May 2022 the resident reported criminal damage to the landlord. They said that their fence and paint had been damaged and this had been reported to the police. The resident said they would provide a crime reference number. The landlord said it would send them diary sheets and advised them to use the noise or ASB app. The landlord told the resident that, once it received photos of the damage, it would contact the neighbour. When it did so after receipt of the photos, the landlord said the neighbour had denied cutting down the clematis and the photographic evidence was inconclusive. It said the police had confirmed it would not take any further action; however, it would add this to their ASB file. It added a new mediation service would be contacting them and the neighbour.
On 9 July 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of their reports of ASB. The landlord acknowledged the complaint three days later.
On 26 July 2022 the landlord told the resident that an ASB case had been opened with regard to vehicle nuisance.
On 27 July 2022 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord following contact from them in which they said they felt discriminated against and harassed and that their concerns were not taken seriously due to the neighbour’s disability. The MP said that mediation had been suggested previously and asked if the landlord could assist with this or any other way forward.
On the same day the police told the landlord that they had recently spoken to the resident and explained that the video doorbell only filmed her property, and not the footpath to the resident’s property. They had also clarified that “staring was not a crime” and the stalking and harassment case would not be re-opened, and they would not be taking action. Two days later the landlord told the resident it said it would be sending them details of the ASB app, as that was the best place to make reports.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord issued the stage 1 response to the resident’s formal complaint. The main points were:
1. When the residents had called it on 2 July 2021 to report issues with the neighbour and parking, it should have raised a parking issue on its system, but this was not done.
2. On 21 July 2022 when the resident said they felt “bullied and intimidated by the situation”, it should have raised an ASB case, but this was also not done. As a result, there was not a clear log on its system of both side of this case as the resident’s reports were logged on the neighbour’s ASB case.
3. While it had investigated ASB on both sides it has been hard to separate the reports due to them all being logged together and that had caused a “slightly one-sided approach”.
4. It apologised that it did not raise an ASB case and for the dissatisfaction this had caused. It had raised this so that it did not happen again in the future.
5. It said an ASB case had now been raised and the resident should continue to make reports; it added that it believed mediation was the way forward.
6. Criminal behaviour should be made to the police. The police had confirmed that they did not have an open police case for stalking and harassment and this matter would not be taken further. The landlord had agreed to the neighbour’s video doorbell and the police had advised that it was “fine”. The police had spoken to the resident on 16 July 2022 to advise that the issues of harassment, stalking and watching a minor would not be taken any further.
7. It offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill for failing to log an ASB case for the resident.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord noted details of a visit to the close to draw up future plans for car parking.
On 11 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that they would collate their reports of ASB by the neighbour over a few days and then report this, as it had requested. They made various reports for the period 4 to 11 August 2022 including various noises coming from the neighbour’s property; stalking by the neighbour; the neighbour’s video doorbell recording them; and the neighbour staring at them.
On 15 August 2022 the landlord sent an email to the residents clarifying some detail of the stage one response. It explained that it appreciated that ASB was distressing for those involved and it was sorry for the impact this had had on them. The landlord said, as these issues were ongoing, they would continue to be dealt with by the neighbourhood services manager. The landlord also said while it would have considered the ASB reports from the resident, it felt that by not raising a separate case, this administrative error was a service failure on its part and the offer of compensation was in recognition of that. The landlord added that there was nothing to suggest that, if the case had been logged correctly, that any outcome would have been different.
On 22 August 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. The main points were that they felt the landlord was not dealing with their reports of ASB fairly and that the landlord was breaking the tenancy agreement as that did not say if the parking was allocated or not. They also said that the compensation offered was not reasonable. The landlord acknowledged this escalation request the following day.
On 7 September 2022 the landlord told the resident that, after careful consideration of the evidence, their reports were not deemed to be ASB. It explained that the noise was from normal living activities and DIY work within reasonable hours, which were not considered ASB. It attached a leaflet which explained what it considered to be ASB. It said the only evidence which would be considered a breach of tenancy was double parking of the white van and it had written to the neighbour to warn her about that as that was a breach of the parking terms of the tenancy.
On the following day the landlord wrote to the resident in response to their concerns that it was dismissing their concerns, in particular, the banging noises. The landlord explained that it was not possible to establish where the noise was coming from and also it appeared to be a one-off incident. It asked the resident to make a short recording of loud noises using the video facility on their phone and send it to it with details of the date, time and length of time.
On 20 September 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident under its formal complaint procedure. The main points were:
1. It had identified a service failure in the stage 1 complaint response relating to the initial logging of the reports of ASB by failing to raise a case on its systems for both parties. From a review of its systems relating to the ASB, it did not appear that this restricted the neighbourhood services manager at the time from investigating the issue. It noted, however, that for clarity, it should have been logged differently.
2. It could see that, more recently, there had been contact with the resident following their further reports of ASB using its ASB app and that the neighbourhood services manager had advised on what action could and could not be taken with regards to that.
3. The landlord was unable to comment further on the provision of a disabled space. It added, following completion of the parking review, it would notify residents of any changes.
4. It considered the £50 compensation offered at stage one to be appropriate because it reflected the service failure in terms of the initial logging of the ASB reports rather than looking to provide compensation for any distress caused due to the ASB itself. It reiterated that this error did not prevent the issues from being investigated.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached us, they said they had been “fobbed off” and discriminated against by the landlord and their complaints were not taken seriously. The residents also said that the compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate. In December 2023 the resident said that the ASB was still ongoing, and this included harassment as well as noise (banging and knocking on walls as well as the neighbour using a disabled lift in the property 30-40 times a night). They said this had led to a decline in the mental health of one of the joint tenants. As an outcome, they would like the landlord to move the neighbour to a more suitable property.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident mentions that their mental health was affected by the matters complained about. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
The resident has said they have experienced discrimination from the landlord. We cannot make findings under the Equalities Act 2001 or otherwise. The allegation is therefore a legal matter that could be considered by a court. The resident should take advice before pursuing such legal action.
This report has considered matters from the resident’s first report of a problem with parking in July 2021 to the date of the final complaint response in September 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours. Accordingly, we cannot tell the landlord to move the neighbour which was an outcome wanted by the resident.
In relation to the parking dispute, the resident believed that the parking space outside their property was allocated to them. Their reports to the landlord included that the neighbour was parking in “their space”. However, the evidence suggests that it was only after the police became involved that a letter was sent to the residents explaining that the parking was not allocated. This appears to be backed up by the tenancy agreement which does not give details of any allocated parking space. However, should the resident wish to challenge the terms of the lease, that would be a matter for a court.
It would have been reasonable for the information about non-allocated parking to have been given to the resident much sooner than the end of March 2022 – some eight months after the parking dispute began. The delay in doing so suggests the resident continued to wrongly believe they had a right to park in a certain space.
In its complaint handling the landlord acknowledged that it had not acted appropriately because it failed to raise a parking dispute or open an ASB case at the end of July 2021 when the resident had expressed feeling bullied following an ASB report against them. It offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience that had caused and later explained that, even if the case had been logged correctly, the outcome would likely have been the same.
It is evident that landlord did take some action in response to the reports of ASB from the resident, despite the case not being logged on its system and we have considered that further, below.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered the resident the sum of £50 for the error in not logging an ASB case on its system. However, there is no evidence it considered the impact on the resident including, by its own acknowledgement, that this had caused a “slightly one-sided approach”. We consider a further £200 to be appropriate on the grounds that it is clear that the initial error has led to the resident feeling discriminated against and believing that their reports about the behaviour of the neighbour were not taken as seriously as the neighbour’s reports about them. This has caused evident frustration and distress for which a higher level of compensation is appropriate. This sum also reflects the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in being clear with them that there was no allocated parking.
Moving on to the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The evidence demonstrates that it acted appropriately by completing a risk assessment and taking the following action:
1. Referring the parties for mediation.
2. Engaging with the police to deal with the resident’s allegations of criminal activity by the neighbour (including stalking, harassment, criminal damage and filming a child).
3. Providing the resident with the noise app and diary sheets to record incidents of ASB.
4. Considering the reports from the resident including noise and damage to property.
5. Visiting the close with the police to see if any other residents were affected by ASB.
The landlord also engaged with the police to ensure that the neighbour’s video doorbell was working within the Office of the Information Commissioner’s rules about domestic CCTV. This resulted in the range of the neighbour’s video doorbell being altered to ensure it was not capturing images outside the boundary of the neighbour’s property. While the allegations of filming a child and stalking were matters for the police, this engagement was a reasonable step to take which resulted in a positive outcome for the resident.
The landlord evaluated the noise recordings provided by the resident and concluded the noise was everyday living noise, rather than ASB. It advised the resident to continue to send in evidence for evaluation. The action taken by the landlord was appropriate and proportionate. It is evident that the residents do not believe that the actions taken by the landlord were adequate; however, we consider they were reasonable actions for it to take to try and resolve the problems the residents were experiencing. We do not dispute that the residents were adversely affected by the everyday noise from the neighbour and that this causes them some inconvenience and/or distress. However, ultimately, there was a lack of evidence that the neighbour was breaching their tenancy or was responsible for a statutory nuisance.

Complaint handling

There was a delay in issuing the stage 1 complaint response, which took 16 working days rather than the 10 days set out in its complaint policy. The time taken was not appropriate because it was not in line with its policy.
Financial compensation of £75 is appropriate for the inconvenience and frustration caused by that delay.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB including the parking issue.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the resident’s concerns relating to the plans for the parking spaces near the property.

Reasons

There was an acknowledged failure by the landlord in filing to log an ASB case. In considering redress for that error, the landlord failed to consider the full impact on the resident. It also unreasonably delayed providing clarity to the resident about the fact parking was unallocated. However, the action the landlord took to address the ASB was appropriate and proportionate.
There was a delay in issuing the stage one complaint response.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within 21 working days of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. Apologise to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £325 made up of:
  1. £250 for the impact on the resident as a result of the delay in confirming the non-allocated parking and its failure to log an ASB case (minus any sum previously paid).
  2. £75 for the impact of the complaint handling failures.

Recommendation

Given the resident’s assertion that the ASB is continuing and their concerns about the level of noise, it is recommended that the landlord ask the local authority’s environmental health team to install noise monitoring equipment so that the noise could be subsequently evaluated by an independent method of capture.