The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Nehemiah United Churches Housing Association Limited (202222439)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222439

Nehemiah United Churches Housing Association Limited

13 September 2023


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

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

Background

  1. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The property has a stairway entrance shared with the neighbouring property.
  2. The resident has stated she suffers from anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 14 March 2022 and informed it that she had been subjected to abuse from her neighbour since 9 March 2022. The resident stated that her neighbour regularly opened their door to the communal entrance and shouted verbal abuse at her. She told the landlord she had reported this to the police. The landlord responded by referring the neighbour to support services whilst it investigated the reported ASB. The reports of ASB continued daily.
  4. The landlord wrote to both parties on 22 March 2022, arranging a meeting with the neighbour and providing an action plan to the resident. The landlord visited the neighbour on 28 March 2022 and 31 March 2022 to give verbal warnings that their behaviour was unacceptable and a breach of the tenancy conditions. Meanwhile, the resident continued to report ASB. The landlord issued a written warning letter to the neighbour on 19 April 2022 and visited them to explain its implications. The police advised the landlord on 15 June 2022 that it would not proceed with any criminal proceedings as the recently reported incidents did not meet the threshold for the police to pursue action. The resident continued to report ASB to the landlord until she made a formal complaint.
  5. The resident formally complained to the landlord on 30 August 2022. She said that the landlord had not done enough to consider the detrimental effect the neighbour’s behaviour had on her and felt fobbed off by the council. She believed that the landlord should have taken action to evict her neighbour and that its policies and procedures did not adequately support residents. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 September 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It stated that it had regularly kept the resident updated and provided her with offers of support. It stated it had fairly followed up all reports by the resident, and there was no requirement for further action since it believed the ASB had stopped.
  6. The resident rejected the landlord’s stage 1 response on the day it was issued. She said the landlord had failed to issue warnings in good time, resulting in further incidents of ASB. The resident believed that the landlord failed to properly understand the nature of the ASB in stating that there was no continuing nuisance. She also said the landlord did not provide her with its procedures, and that the landlord should have improved the security of the property to protect her.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 October 2022. It apologised to the resident for not providing the ASB process leaflet when the incident was raised, or for pursuing mediation earlier. It also said it would be reviewing the entire history of the case with a new tenancy service offer. It reiterated that it considered it had properly responded to the reports of ASB.
  8. The resident wrote to this service on 20 December 2022. She said the landlord did not take the issue seriously. She also said there had been no change in the ASB. She stated the neighbour’s behaviour was an attempt to control her. She also said the procedures and policies had failed, and the landlord should have moved for an injunction against the resident. In an e-mail to this service, the resident confirmed that her neighbour has left the property, but she still wanted to pursue the complaint as she was dissatisfied with how the landlord handled her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. In cases concerning noise nuisance and ASB, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s issues and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. The 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.
  2. The resident continued to make reports of ASB to the landlord until the neighbour moved out. As these weren’t considered as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process, these have not been considered as part of this complaint.

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

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy has several steps.
    1. It first offers the complainant an interview, visiting them within either 1 or 5 working days.
    2. Following this, it completes a vulnerability assessment of the complainant.
    3. It then interviews the resident, filling out a complaint interview record, and agreeing on an action plan.
    4. After this, it interviews the alleged perpetrator to discuss their actions.
    5. It then writes to both parties outlining the nature of the complaint and the next steps it will be taking.
    6. If the ASB reports continue, the landlord then begins non-legal action. This includes warning letters, mediation, and ASB contracts.
    7. If these do not resolve the issue, the landlord will move to legal action such as injunctions, demotions of tenancy, and possession proceedings.
  2. The landlord failed to follow its ASB procedure. It has not provided any record of a vulnerability assessment or a complaint interview record. These are integral parts of the ASB process for determining the potential risk to a resident. Had it completed these, the landlord may have been able to make reasonable adjustments to appropriately support the resident.
  3. The landlord also failed to offer mediation until after the resident had raised a complaint. Its procedure says that this is one of the non-legal actions it can take. The landlord did not offer this to the resident until 7 months after the reports of ASB had begun. By this time, the resident’s relationship with her neighbour had reached a stage where she felt unable to undertake mediation. By not offering mediation earlier, the landlord missed an opportunity to help manage the relationship between the parties. The landlord acknowledged this failure in service in its stage 2 complaint response.
  4. The resident has said she feels the landlord did not act quickly enough to resolve the ASB. The landlord delayed providing the warning letter to her neighbour on 2 occasions. Firstly, on 4 April 2022, at the request of external support workers helping the neighbour. Secondly, at the request of the resident, who did not want this served whilst she was away from the property. This service considers the landlord’s actions were appropriate in this situation.
  5. The landlord has stated that the neighbour’s actions after 16 April 2022 did not constitute ASB. It based this opinion on the advice of the police. The resident stated that the ongoing contact from her neighbour following this date represented harassment and an attempt to control her. For the landlord to continue its ASB procedures, it would have to be satisfied that the neighbour had breached her warning letter. Given this, it was reasonable in this situation for the landlord to rely on the advice of the police.
  6. The resident stated she would have liked the landlord to move toward an injunction. The landlord did not proceed with this, following advice from the police. The landlord also continued to work with the neighbour continually reminding them of the behaviour expected. It also emphasised what actions would breach the terms of the tenancy. This was an appropriate course of action from the landlord.
  7. The landlord has also demonstrated that it worked with the available local support services to help the neighbour and work towards resolving the ASB. The landlord also offered on 2 occasions to refer the resident to appropriate support services to enable her to receive additional support. It communicated with both parties regularly throughout the reported ASB, providing the level of support its policies say it will.
  8. The landlord provided the neighbour with 2 verbal warnings before giving a formal written warning. Whilst these were reasonable actions, the landlord’s policy does not specify the warnings it will provide. This service recommends it review its policy to clarify what steps it will take at each stage of its policy.
  9. Whilst the landlord broadly handled the reports of ASB fairly, there was still maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour. It failed to follow its internal policies and processes. It also failed to assess the resident’s vulnerabilities. These failures led to distress and inconvenience for the resident. She stated she felt that the landlord had not accounted for her circumstances.
  10. The landlord should pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s failures caused. This amount is in line with this service’s remedies guidance.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will answer complaints at stage 1 in 10 working days, and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. At stage 1 the landlord provided its response within 8 working days. This was in-line with the landlord’s policy.
  3. At stage 2 the landlord provided its response within 23 working days. Although this was slightly outside of the landlord’s policy timelines, this does not equate to service failure from the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s responses to the resident were thorough, detailed and attempted to fully answer the resident’s complaint. Both were fair in both content and tone.
  5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £200 for its failings to properly follow its own procedures and policies when dealing with the reports of ASB.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord ensure that the staff involved with dealing with reports of ASB receive refresher training to ensure they follow the policy, with particular attention given to risk assessments and mediation.
  2. It is recommended the landlord review its ASB policy to clarify what steps it will take at each stage of its policy. For example, defining how many warnings it will be providing to perpetrators of ASB before it escalates the complaint to its next stage of action.