New Charter Housing (South) Ltd (201911761)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911761

New Charter Housing (South) Ltd

11 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 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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The resident is represented by her partner in relation to this complaint. For the sake of clarity and brevity, both the resident and the representative are referred to jointly in this report as ‘the resident’.

Jurisdiction

Matters after the end of the complaints process

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by 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.
The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB in two letters dated 19 December 2019 and 12 February 2020, and the landlord issued its final complaint response on 20 July 2020. The landlord has, therefore, had the opportunity to consider the issues raised in that correspondence through its complaints process and to provide its response in that regard. As the landlord has been given an adequate opportunity to investigate and resolve those matters internally in the first instance, the Ombudsman can now consider them in this investigation.
However, in her correspondence with the Ombudsman, and in the information provided for this investigation, it is clear that the resident has continued to report ongoing ASB after the end of the complaints process, including allegations of threats of violence which have prompted legal proceedings. Whilst these matters are linked to the issues raised within the formal complaint (from December 2019 to July 2020) they relate to specific incidents and events which have not yet been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint.
As a result, the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to formally review its handling of any ASB reports which have been received since July 2020, address any identified service failings therein, or confirm its position in accordance with its complaints process. As a result, the Ombudsman is not able to consider those issues as part of this investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, which states that this Service will not ‘investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure’.
The landlord has now offered a “managed move” to the resident as a result of the ongoing ASB. Again, whilst this is linked to the earlier issues which have led to a move being necessary, this is a specific offer and series of events which the landlord should have the opportunity to investigate and resolve in the first instance. Whilst the resident has expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the proposed move, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made in that regard and exhausting the landlord’s complaints process. As a result, it is not addressed in this investigation, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.

Matters not progressed through the full complaints process

As stated above, the complaint under investigation here was raised by the resident in December 2019 and exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in July 2020. It is noted that an earlier complaint had been made by the resident, in July 2019, and the landlord responded at that time. However, no escalation request was submitted by the resident and so no steps were taken to progress the complaint through the landlord’s complaints process. As a result, the July 2019 complaint cannot be said to have ‘exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure’.
As a result, the landlord was not given the opportunity to investigate and resolve any ongoing dissatisfaction on the resident’s part, through the operation of its formal complaints process. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to include the matters raised in the earlier complaint as part of this investigation, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.
The Ombudsman accepts that the resident may be disappointed by the limited scope of this investigation, given the history to the complaint and her ongoing concerns. However, whilst the investigation takes note of the surrounding issues as context to the current complaint, we must act within the terms of the Scheme and the jurisdictional limitations. To reiterate, the parameters of the Scheme are intended to ensure that complaints are first raised with the landlord so that it has an opportunity to resolve the issues at a local level prior to the Ombudsman’s intervention.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been reporting ASB to the landlord by a series of neighbours in the adjoining property over a prolonged period. On 4 November 2019, the landlord created a case file following a fresh allegation of ASB from the resident. The landlord’s records show that, on 6 November 2019, it contacted the resident to discuss the situation. It subsequently arranged to install some noise recording equipment in her property.
On 25 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord with an update and stated that she had a recording of noise nuisance from the neighbours from the early hours which she wanted it to consider. She made allegations which amounted to suspicions of domestic violence within the neighbouring property and referred to the neighbour holding “a grudge since I sent police round that morning and the fact you had words with them”.
The landlord’s records show that, on 29 November 2019, it had noted on its case system that noise monitoring equipment had been installed at the resident’s property 14 days previously. In addition, the resident had completed diary sheets detailing what was happening with these neighbours. The landlord had been reviewing the recordings and concluded that, whilst some noise could be heard, it was insufficient for a warning to be sent to the neighbours. The landlord recorded that it had had a lengthy telephone conversation with the resident on that day and had reminded her that its approach must be neutral. It offered to visit the neighbours and discuss the situation with them and to visit the resident at the beginning of the following week to listen to any further recordings which were available.
In the resident’s email of 5 December 2019, she reported that significant noise was coming from the neighbour’s property and that she had overheard them laughing that they were doing it deliberately to annoy her. She asked that no action be taken at that stage as the neighbours would know she had heard it and this would give them satisfaction. She asked that the report be “logged” for information.
On 10 December 2019, the landlord telephoned the neighbour and made arrangements to visit them on 12 December 2019 to discuss the situation. The neighbour advised that they were happy for any complaints to be made direct to them and they would reduce any noise that was causing a nuisance. The landlord declined to disclose who had referred the issue to it but telephoned the resident and made a written record of what was discussed. This stated that it had asked if the resident was content to raise any concerns directly with the neighbours in future (in person or via text message), but she declined to do so. The landlord also noted that it had suggested that much of the noise it was aware of was due to the neighbours having children and that it might help if the resident tried to build “a rapport” so that they could discuss any issues directly. The resident was also unhappy with this suggestion.
The landlord then noted that it had advised the resident that, as the noise captured in the recordings was, in its opinion, general household noise which can be expected from a family, it did not feel it warranted any formal action. The resident stated that, if this was the landlord’s view of the situation, she questioned why it had made arrangements to visit the neighbours. The landlord advised that, if it had not done so, the neighbour would never know their actions were creating an issue for other households. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s approach and indicated that she did not wish to deal with the handling staff member anymore. This staff member agreed to request someone else to contact the resident after they had visited the neighbours as arranged.
The landlord visited the neighbours as arranged on 12 December 2019, when the neighbours denied making noise over and above general household noise and confirmed that there had been no complaints from the neighbours on the other side of them. They again advised that they would be happy to provide a telephone number if the resident wanted to send a text message if there was any noise that was unacceptable, and they would deal with it.
The landlord’s records show that, on 16 December 2019, the resident contacted it and spoke with a different staff member. She expressed concern that sound recording equipment which had been used was not able to pick up on what she felt was significant noise. She restated that, had she known that the original staff member had concluded there was ‘household noise’ only, she would not have wanted the neighbour to be contacted. The landlord confirmed that the intention had been to encourage the neighbour to “change (their) habits”, and agreed to look into further and better-quality sound recording equipment with a view to getting something installed by early in the New Year.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 19 December 2019, regarding the staff member who had been handling her ASB reports and the following issues:
1. The landlord was failing to do background checks on new tenants and, because of this, she had to live next door to a succession of people who had perpetrated ASB;
2. A previous tenant had started a fire which had jeopardised her safety. A promise was then made by the landlord to “vet” the next tenants and when they moved in, in September 2018, all seemed “good and quiet” until shortly before Christmas 2018;
3. There had been numerous incidents of ASB which had been reported to the landlord including allegations of arguing, fighting, drunken behaviour, and child(ren) crying. On one occasion she had telephoned the police as an emergency due to what sounded like a domestic violence incident. She had wavered between trying not to intervene, for fear of retaliation and escalation, and enlisting the help of the landlord (and the police) as she feared for her own safety;
4. When she had supplied noise recordings, the landlord’s staff member had reviewed them and considered they did not demonstrate excessive noise. However, she considered that this was more of a problem with them being recorded on mobile phones and being reviewed on poor quality sound equipment rather than the noise not being present. She felt that proper noise recording equipment had not been installed in the property despite requests for it;
5. The landlord’s staff member had been to see the neighbours to try to resolve the issue and had referred to them afterwards as “a nice couple”. She felt this amounted to the landlord “playing down” the behaviour and the effect it was having on her;
6. A different staff member had agreed to a meeting between themself, the resident and the original staff member to review recordings. Following this, noise recording equipment was installed and she was instructed to keep a diary of events. However, the equipment appeared to be nothing more than a “dictaphone” which did not record the date/time so that if it did catch any incidents, it would not be apparent when they took place. After two weeks the landlord arranged to collect the device and take a copy of the diary entries. When she spoke to the landlord she was told only three incidents had been identified on the recordings although the diary entries showed more than that. She felt that the fact the equipment could not state when incidents happened meant that the diary entries could not be tied up with their respective recordings to prove they had occurred;
7. She had asked for a meeting to take place where the recordings could be listened to but the landlord said that would not be necessary and agreed to review some additional recordings made on her telephone;
8. After the review took place the landlord did agree, on 6 December 2019, that there was sufficient noise to justify them visiting the neighbours. The landlord was then due to contact the neighbour the following Monday. On the Tuesday the resident reported speaking to the landlord and being informed that the neighbour was unhappy that the landlord had been involved in the situation and could not understand why the resident did not go round and ask for any noise to be kept down. It was suggested that a mobile telephone number be taken so that texts could be sent. The resident confirmed that he had tried going round once in early December 2019, but the neighbour had not answered the door;
9. She was unhappy with this suggestion in any event and said she would not go around again. She had since had the impression that the landlord thought she was being “awkward” as a result. The advised that she had been told by the police never to go to a neighbour’s door as it might escalate matters and leave her open to allegations that she was the aggressor;
10. The landlord now suggested that the noise which had been recorded was evidence of normal “every day living” and, if this was the case, why did the staff member visit the neighbour, thus escalating tensions. She considered that a meeting to review the recordings and agree their significance, as she had wanted, would have prevented this from happening;
11. She did not want the particular staff member handling the case moving forward.
Also on 19 December 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to report that, for several days after its visit, everything was quiet but on that day there had been considerable noise. She asked what action had been taken following the visit of 12 December 2019 and questioned whether that visit had made matters worse. Further on that day, the landlord contacted the local authority’s Environmental Health Team (EHT) to see if it could arrange for better sound recording equipment to be installed in the resident’s property.
On 20 December 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour was friendly with a person who had recently been convicted of a serious assault and she wanted it to understand what sort of person the neighbour was. She referred to them as having “anger issues and domestic violence on (their) record” and questioned why the landlord was “pressuring” her to discuss issues with them. Later that day, she emailed the landlord again to report that she had a new recording of an argument that had taken place that morning.
The resident emailed again on 4 January 2020, with a further recording of an argument the day before. She commented that there had been a lack of communication from the landlord over “the last few weeks” and that she did not know who was dealing with the matter now that the original staff member was no longer handling her reports. She said she had made a report to the police. On 6 January 2020, the landlord reviewed the latest recording and concluded that it needed to meet with her.
The resident then met with the landlord on 7 January 2020 and, rather than the complaint being escalated at that point, the landlord agreed to offer a faster response to her contacts and to keep her better informed of what was happening with her reports.
On 8 January 2020, the landlord chased the installation of sound equipment and the EHT advised that, if their equipment was to be used, they would need to advise the neighbours first that they were being recorded. The landlord’s notes record that the resident was concerned this might provoke an unwelcome response. The landlord was therefore looking at obtaining some recording equipment from an alternative source.
The landlord spoke with the neighbour on 9 January 2020 and they again denied any problems and reiterated their request for the resident to text them if any issues arose. Later that evening the resident emailed the landlord to confirm her understanding of the outcome of the meeting of 7 January 2020. She expressed concern that the landlord had now concluded that there was a safeguarding issue within the neighbouring household and that any referrals being made to appropriate agencies might prompt an escalation in the ASB towards her if the neighbours thought they had ‘reported them’.
On 18 January 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and requested an update on the situation. A home visit was arranged for 20 January 2020.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 11 February 2020, to report that he had overheard his neighbours arguing and that a male voice had said “let them make a call and I’ll put them on a curb and stamp on their heads”. The landlord concluded that a multi-agency approach was required. Later that day the resident telephoned again to say there had been a further “domestic violence” incident. She confirmed that she had not referred it to the police or any other agency so the landlord cut the call short so that it could do so. The resident provided the landlord with a recording of the incident.
On 12 February 2020, the resident sent a further letter of complaint to the landlord, indicating that she wanted it to be escalated to the next stage of the complaints process along with her original complaint of 19 December 2019. She raised the following concerns:
1. She complained about the advice she had received from the landlord to contact the neighbour by telephone or in person if she was unhappy with any noise, and reiterated that she had been advised by the police not to approach the neighbour’s property;
2. There had been a lack of communication and response from the landlord and she felt this was because she had complained, and the landlord’s staff did not wish to deal with her. The landlord had accepted, in their meeting of 7 January 2020, that its communication should have been better but the problem had continued;
3. The landlord’s staff member had cut short their telephone conversation the previous day. She felt that the call handler had been so preoccupied with referring the safeguarding issue to other agencies that they had not considered the impact of the threat on the resident.
Upon receipt of this letter of complaint, the landlord spoke to the resident that day by telephone. It treated this letter as a request to investigate the way it had handled the reports of ASB and to send a formal response to “all points of complaint”.
In the landlord’s letter of 17 February 2020, it acknowledged her letter of 12 February 2020 and referred to her letter of 19 December 2019. It referred to the resident’s concern that assurances made by it in a meeting were not being kept to, specifically that there was a lack of communication about her ASB reports. It explained that, under its complaints policy, it aimed to provide a full response within 10 working days. However, the investigating officer was shortly to be on annual leave and a response would not, therefore, be given until 9 March 2020. The landlord then spoke to the resident on 6 March 2020 and extended the response target to 11 March 2020.
On 9 March 2020, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour stating that any breaches of the terms and conditions of their tenancy may result in enforcement action being taken against them.
In the landlord’s complaint response of 11 March 2020, it detailed the full history of the resident’s ASB reports and confirmed that the current ongoing report was received on 4 November 2019, when a case file was opened. It noted that it had installed noise monitoring equipment on 8 November 2019 and agreed that the type used was not ideal but more effective equipment was “booked up” on other cases. It further noted that it had advised the resident, on 29 November 2019, that the recordings had provided insufficient evidence to justify a warning letter being sent to the neighbour.
The landlord confirmed that it had not received any information from the police to the effect that it was unsafe for the resident to approach the neighbour’s property. It accepted that, following its visit to the neighbours on 12 December 2019, it did not update the resident as to the outcome. It also accepted that it had not immediately acknowledged her ASB report of 3 January 2020, but this was because it was due to meet with her on 7 January 2020 and felt that it was not required to discuss the incident before then. At that meeting it was agreed that better quality sound recording equipment would be used and it committed to keeping her updated and responding to contact “in a timely manner”. However, it agreed that, following its contact with the neighbour on 9 January 2020, it had failed to update the resident with the outcome.
The landlord confirmed that it did “vet” new tenants as far as it was able within the bounds of data protection. With regard to the telephone conversation on 11 February 2020, the landlord agreed that it cut the call short to enable a referral to be made to another agency as it was late in the afternoon and office hours were coming to an end. It accepted that the call handler might reasonably have arranged for someone else to call the resident back to discuss her own safety and it apologised for this.
The landlord stated that its approach was to review incidents as they arose and consider whether any action, including enforcement of the tenancy conditions, was warranted. It confirmed that it had done this in this case and was satisfied that its actions had been appropriate given the context at the time. Overall, it agreed that its communications could be improved and committed to responding to contact within 2 working days going forward. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
On 12 March 2020, the landlord received an email from the resident in response to the letter of 12 February 2020, advising that a further incident of ASB had occurred which she felt needed to be prioritised over the outstanding complaint. The landlord passed this to its relevant team for actioning.
During a telephone call with the resident on 19 March 2020, the landlord noted that a meeting scheduled for the previous day had been cancelled and it was agreed that matters would be left in abeyance due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the limitations this was creating. At this point, the resident was concerned that the situation might escalate, and the landlord would not be able to respond due to the ongoing restrictions. She therefore continued to report ongoing issues with ASB by her neighbours.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 8 April 2020, asking it to provide its stage three response, the resident having reported that she had received a stage two response that she was unhappy with and which she had asked to escalate to the next stage of the complaints process. In the landlord’s response of 16 April 2020, it advised that the resident had said the complaint should be put on hold during lockdown and that an escalation request had not been received within the requisite time under its policy, but it would escalate it to the next stage once it was fully operational again.
On 1 July 2020, the resident requested that a Community Trigger take place to review the handling of her reports of ASB. On 14 July 2020, she spoke to the landlord by telephone and again indicated that she wanted her complaint to be escalated. She then emailed a copy of her email of 12 February 2020 in support. Also, on 14 July 2020 a panel met to discuss the Community Trigger, which consisted of representatives from the police, the landlord, and the local authority.
In the landlord’s final complaint response of 20 July 2020, it refused the resident’s request for escalation as it felt that his reasons for escalation had already been responded to. However, it did accept that it needed to respond further to her complaint about its advice to contact the neighbour when events occurred to solve them directly. It stated that, whilst it would never force a resident to contact their neighbour, a telephone number had been offered by the neighbour and it was an option, at that time, to try to solve the situation. It was therefore put forward to the resident for her consideration.
On 24 July 2020, the outcome of the Community Trigger was advised to the resident by the local authority. By August 2020, the landlord was offering to move the resident to alternative accommodation under its Management Move Procedure. A further ASB case was opened on the resident’s behalf on 21 July 2020. On 22 August 2020, the landlord received further reports of ASB from the resident which resulted in the landlord making a court application for an injunction against the neighbour. That application was initially defended by the neighbour, but the court subsequently made an injunction order against them.

Agreements, policies and procedures

ASB Policy

This sets out the landlord’s approach to preventing and tackling ASB. It gives examples of what behaviour might or might not be treated as anti-social. Noise nuisance, threats of violence, and allowing a property to be used for illegal purposes are all classed as anti-social: noise from children playing ball games, people being “generally unpleasant” to each other and “people staring” are not. The policy provides for the landlord’s staff to decide whether behaviour falls within the definition of ASB.
In the event that behaviour is reported which raises the possibility of domestic abuse, the landlord’s staff might share information with other agencies.
Various ways of tackling ASB are set out in the policy, including:
1. Mediation: “Neighbour disputes can sometimes escalate…. Where appropriate we will offer those involved in disputes the opportunity to discuss their issues in a structured way with a trained facilitator”.
2. Warnings/Cautions: “We use warnings/cautions to challenge ASB and to reinforce the message that it will not be tolerated”.
The policy also provides the following:
1. The landlord is committed to working with other agencies (where a multi-agency approach is ‘beneficial’, and to taking “legal action where necessary to protect victims and witnesses and to stop problems escalating”;
2. The landlord takes a “self-help” approach, encouraging complainants of ASB to talk to the person involved to see if the problem can be resolved amicably;
3. A complainant has the legal right to request a case review where they believe no action has been taken to address their complaint. The threshold is set out on the local authority’s website (Community Trigger);
4. The landlord’s service standards for responding to contact regarding ASB are, telephone and electronic communications – within two working days; letters – within 5 working days.

Complaints Policy

The landlord operates a three-stage complaints process which takes the following approach:
1. Stage One: “Put it Right”: The landlord aims to put right what is being complained about without an investigation – “a quick and effective solution” is aimed for;
2. Stage Two: “Investigate It”: At the resident’s request the landlord will carry out an investigation into the complaint. It commits itself to acknowledging the complaint in writing and giving a response within ten working days. Alternatively it commits to letting the resident know if more time is needed and why.
3. Stage Three: “Review It”: The landlord will review the investigation if one of three criteria are met (detailed below). The onus is on the resident to explain how they meet the criteria, and they must provide any evidence they want to rely on and request the review within one month of the investigation decision. The criteria are: the investigation has not covered all the points raised in the complaint; actions agreed as a result of the investigation have not been carried out satisfactorily (or at all); the landlord has failed to respond to the complaint within the agreed (or extended) timescale.
If a request for a review is received by the landlord, it will consider whether that request meets the criteria for the complaint to be escalated to stage three. It gives a commitment to let the resident know of this decision within five working days. If the request is denied, reasons will be given for this decision.

Assessment and Findings

When considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports, it is important that its actions are not looked at with the benefit of hindsight but are based upon what the situation was, and what information was available to it, at the time the action was taken. It is also important to be mindful of the fact that the neighbour was causing the nuisance, rather than the landlord, and it is not for the landlord to manage individual resident’s behaviours on a daily basis. Instead, the landlord’s role is to assist the resident in finding a solution to the problem, by acting in accordance with terms of its relevant policies.
Any landlord would be very limited in what it could do to help with ASB without actually contacting the alleged perpetrator. Simply keeping a record of the report does nothing to tackle the issue. The landlord in this case, was landlord to the neighbour too, albeit there is a question about whether it is in fact the neighbouring tenant’s partner who was causing the problem, rather than the tenant themselves. The landlord must consider both side’s welfare and expressed itself as being “neutral” to the representative, which was a reasonable stance to take.
The landlord’s legal redress against the neighbouring tenant arises from its tenancy agreement with that person. If it is their partner who is creating the issue, it cannot, necessarily, ‘police’ a non-tenant. However, a tenancy agreement will typically make the tenant responsible for the actions of his/her ‘visitors’ and it is this that the landlord is given the option to enforce, legally. The ultimate sanction is to try to evict the neighbour but that is very much a last resort and is only likely to succeed in the most serious cases, with a substantial amount of supporting evidence.
The evidence around the reports complained about here, shows that initially the landlord discussed the situation with the resident and set about trying to obtain evidence of the noise nuisance being experienced by providing recording equipment. There was a history of reports and it was reasonable for the landlord to try to assess the frequency and severity of the problem in order to establish how best to proceed.
By the end of November 2019, the landlord was ready to assess the recordings and the resident had also added one of her own. However, the landlord’s assessment was that the noise was typical household noise, particularly where children are involved. Its policy provides for its staff members to assess whether behaviour is anti-social or not, and this was an appropriate application of that policy. It is not within the role of this Service to review the recordings and determine whether the staff member’s assessment of the situation was correct, but we can say that it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on that assessment in responding to the reports and the formal complaint.
The neighbour was contacted and made suggestions as to how the resident might contact them when noise arose. There is no evidence, in the documents made available to this Service, of the police advising the landlord against this approach at this stage and, as stated above, it must not be looked at in hindsight or in light of later developments. There is also no evidence of the landlord insisting that the resident do this. Given that the suggestion had been put forward, it was reasonable for the landlord to report that to the resident for her response. The ASB Policy does set out its aim to encourage a self-help approach and this was an appropriate application of its policy.
As this solution was not acceptable to the resident, the landlord agreed to try some better-quality sound monitoring equipment. This demonstrates that it was prepared to persevere on the resident’s behalf rather than simply ending its involvement on the basis that no excessive noise had been established.
Following the resident indicating that she wanted to deal with a different staff member, there was a breakdown in communication, which the landlord has accepted and apologised for. Under the circumstances, this was appropriate.
By 11 February 2020 the resident had made another three reports of noise. On this date she reported an incident which raised concerns for the landlord and it suggested that a safeguarding issue had arisen in respect of the neighbour. Its policy sets out that, in such situations, its approach is to involve other agencies, as appropriate. It did so, and this was in accordance with its policy. Unfortunately, in its rush to safeguard the neighbouring household, the landlord accepts that it did not reasonably consider the needs of the resident. It cut short a telephone call without discussing her welfare and it has apologised for this, which was appropriate under the circumstances.
Since its complaints process was exhausted legal proceedings have been taken by the landlord. This demonstrates a commitment to protecting the resident and her partner. Such proceedings carry substantial risk from a financial point of view and the landlord’s resources, as a social landlord, are limited. It was prepared to take serious action once all other avenues had failed and when threats were made. The resident will refer to the original threat complained about in her letter of 12 February 2020 and in respect of which legal proceedings were not launched. The landlord responded that there was no proof that the threat was made against the resident, although the circumstances implied that it was directed at them. The landlord did not take legal action at that point and that was reasonable given the significant evidential burdens it was likely to face.
The resident holds the landlord responsible for the situation as she considers that having a succession of different anti-social neighbours demonstrates that the landlord cannot be “vetting” them properly. The landlord has confirmed that it does “vet” new tenants as far as it is able whilst complying with data protection regulations. This is a reasonable procedure to follow. The landlord would not be expected to disclose the outcome of such enquiries to the resident, again for data protection reasons.
This Service cannot prevent the resident’s neighbours from making noise or arguing. Instead, its remit is to review how the landlord responded and determine whether it complied with its own policies and procedures. The landlord’s actions were in accordance with its ASB policy, save that it did not always respond or keep the resident informed as well as it might have done. It has acknowledged this, apologised for it and committed to improving it.
The landlord has demonstrated that it acted upon the reports by arranging sound recording equipment; trying to find better equipment; trying to secure evidence; and trying to broker a resolution with the neighbour. It also co-operated with the community trigger review. This is the type of situation for which there is no straightforward answer, which will be little comfort to the resident. However, in terms of the landlord’s involvement, this Service is satisfied that it has taken reasonable steps to assist the resident in finding a solution.
Finally, when the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage three of the complaint’s process, the landlord only agreed to review part of the complaint relating to its suggestion that the neighbour be contacted directly. The resident’s escalation request did not demonstrate any of the criteria required under the landlord’s complaints policy to initiate a review. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately in pointing this out to the resident and addressing only the point it had omitted to fully address previously.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

The landlord has acted upon the reports made by the resident in accordance with its ASB policy. It has agreed that its communication could have been better, apologised and committed to improving this in future. It continued to seek evidence despite concluding that the noise experienced was insufficient to constitute ASB. Since the matters complained of occurred, the landlord has cooperated with a Community Trigger and initiated legal proceedings when the situation escalated, demonstrating its commitment to assisting the resident.