One Vision Housing Limited (202005637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005637

One Vision Housing Limited

26 November 2021

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:
1. The conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff during a phone call on 24 August 2020.
2. The landlord’s communication with the resident about her reports of issues with her neighbours.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that started in 2001. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident has complained about Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour since at least 2016. The resident’s complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB was considered by this Service under complaint reference 201913423 and a determination issued on 19 January 2021. The Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.
The resident has continued to report ASB by her neighbour, including harassment and intimidation. She has also raised concerns with the landlord about the placement of her neighbour’s shed and the lack of carpeting in their property. This investigation will not reconsider matters already investigated by this Service and is limited to the matters set out at paragraph 1 above.

Summary of Events

The resident emailed her Neighbourhood Officer in August 2020 to raise concerns about the positioning of her neighbour’s shed. On 7 August 2020, the resident’s Neighbourhood Officer responded, following consultation with the landlord’s Leasehold Team. He informed the resident that the position of the shed did not breach her neighbour’s lease agreement.
The resident referred her concerns to her Local Councillor, who logged an enquiry with the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The landlord’s Neighbourhood Service’s Team Leader then telephoned the resident on 24 August 2020 to explain that the Council’s planning team had confirmed that her neighbour’s shed was not in breach of any planning laws The landlord’s call notes made at the time record that the resident was advised that an email would be sent to the leasehold team about her request that the shed be repositioned.
The landlord provided a response to the resident’s Local Councillor on 2 September 2020 setting out the action it had taken in response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s shed and her reports that her neighbours watched and recorded her. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s neighbour was not in breach of the terms of their lease by positioning the shed in its current location.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and on 10 September 2020 she asked to raise a formal complaint about the lack of response to her requests and reports of ASB. She also stated that she had been spoken to in a ‘very abrupt unhelpful manner’. The landlord initially rejected this complaint on the basis that it related to the same issues previously raised in the complaint referred to the Ombudsman under reference 201913423. The resident then contacted this Service and asked for our assistance in progressing her complaint with the landlord.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 25 September 2020 and advised it to raise a new complaint regarding the resident’s concerns about the way she had been spoken to by a member of staff and its communication with her about the recent issues reported with her neighbours. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 25 September 2020.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 October 2020. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It outlined its investigation into each aspect of the complaint and responded as follows:
1. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had spoken to the Neighbourhood Services Team Leader on 24 August 2020 about the positioning of her neighbour’s shed. The landlord did not have a recording of this conversation, which had limited its ability to investigate. The landlord had spoken to the member of staff concerned, who stated that the call had ended in an amicable way. The landlord apologised if the resident felt that she was ‘being spoken at’ but stated it was confident that the call had been dealt with in a ‘professional manner’.
2. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s neighbours had been asked about the possibility of moving the shed after the resident complained in August 2020. The resident’s neighbours had confirmed that the shed had been sited in that location as a result of the resident’s concerns about people walking past her windows. The neighbours stated that the current location of the shed shielded them from view and allowed them to sit in their garden without being in view of the resident’s windows.
3. The leasehold team had been informed that a planning officer from the Council had attended and confirmed that the shed was not contravening any planning regulations. The resident had been informed of this by the Neighbourhood Team and an update had been provided to her Local Councillor, who had also raised the issue on her behalf.
4. The leasehold team had spoken to the resident’s neighbour about installing carpets in their property, although the landlord noted that it was not able to enforce this and this would be at the neighbour’s discretion.
5. The resident had sent ‘numerous’ noise complaints to the Neighbourhood Services Officer, who was on annual leave for 2 weeks at the beginning of September 2020, returning on 16 September 2020. The landlord confirmed that the staff member’s ‘out of office’ notification was on during this period.
6. The Neighbourhood Services Officer had contacted the resident on his return and explained that the recordings contained no evidence of noise.
The resident did not receive the landlord’s response at the time that it was sent and, following contact from this Service, the landlord resent the response on 2 November 2020.
On 3 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord, stating that she had not received its complaint response within 10 working days. The resident disputed the landlord’s conclusion that there was no evidence of noise, which she described as ‘deliberate … throwing heavy objects’. She stated that this was clear from the numerous recordings she had provided, noting that many of these had not been acknowledged. The resident stated that a different member of staff had previously listened to the recordings and confirmed that she could hear the noise. The resident requested that the landlord listen to all the recordings made via the noise app and those she had recorded on her phone. The resident reported that her neighbour’s shed was still in place and that she was still being recorded by her neighbour, laughed and pointed at, and mocked. The resident stated that this amounted to intimidation and harassment.
The landlord responded confirming that the stage 1 complaint response had been sent on 7 October 2020, within 10 days, and that the resident’s comments regarding ASB had been forwarded to the Neighbourhood Team.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint in an email to the landlord on 4 November 2020. She stated that:
1. The stage 1 response was not sent to her on 7 October 2020, as the landlord stated. She had received it on 3 November 2020, which was not within the landlord’s 10 working day timeframe.
2. The resident had found the Neighbourhood Services Team Leader’s attitude ‘unempathetic, impatient and more in favour of’ her neighbour. She had been asked ‘did the court say they could not put a shed next to your wall?’ and was told that ‘most people would put a wooden floor down’. The resident did not feel listened to or understood.
3. The landlord’s stage 1 response showed no understanding of the reasons she did not want the shed there and she did not agree that her neighbours should be allowed to keep it there.
4. The landlord had failed to acknowledge the resident’s sound recordings and had been dismissive of them. The landlord had also dismissed the resident’s comments that her neighbours were constantly recording and watching her.
5. The residents stated that the stage 1 response trivialised her complaints about her neighbours and made no mention of the fact that their actions were malicious and vindictive.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 5 November 2020 and stated that it would respond within 10 working days.
The landlord provided a response to the complaint at the review stage on 16 November 2020, although this was not received by the resident until some time later. The landlord upheld the complaint and confirmed it was happy with the stage 1 response, stating the following:
1. The landlord concluded that based on the available evidence, the Neighbourhood Services Team Leader had dealt with the resident in a professional manner.
2. The landlord had investigated the positioning of the shed and it repeated its findings that the shed was not breaching planning regulations or the neighbour’s lease. The landlord confirmed that it was therefore unable to take any enforcement action. This was also the position in relation to the resident’s neighbour’s wood flooring.
3. The landlord repeated that the resident’s Neighbourhood Officer was on annual leave at the time recordings were submitted and apologised if the resident did not receive his ‘out of office’ message. The landlord confirmed that the Neighbourhood Officer had responded on his return, and that he would continue to review and respond on a fortnightly basis to any additional evidence submitted by the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 November 2020 and again on 20 November 2020 to report that she had not yet received a stage 2 response to her complaint. The resident stated that she no longer wanted to deal with the Neighbourhood Services Team Leader, as she found her rude and uninterested. The resident stated that she would like a different member of staff to review her noise recordings.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident stated that she would like to refer the complaint to this Service. She stated that she did not accept that delays in responding to her recordings were due to staff being on annual leave, as it took a long time for the landlord to respond. The resident stated that the landlord was critical of her in its response and that it had refused her request that someone else listen to the recordings. The resident feels that the landlord has sided with her neighbours and does not listen to her. She did not consider that her request to ask the neighbours to install carpet was unreasonable. The resident has stated that she wants the landlord to improve its communication with her by responding in a timely fashion and keeping her updated.

Assessment and findings

Staff conduct during phone call on 24 August 2020

The Ombudsman cannot make findings about the conduct of individual members of the landlord’s staff, as the relationship between the landlord and its employees is governed by their employment contract. In order to investigate complaints about staff conduct, we look at the action the landlord has taken in response to the complaint, including whether it conducted a reasonable and proportionate investigation and provided an appropriate response.
The landlord noted in its stage 1 response that its investigation was limited, as it was unable to listen back to the phone call of 24 August 2020. In order to investigate the complaint it contacted the staff member that the resident had complained about and recorded her comments. This was an appropriate means of investigating the resident’s complaint in the circumstances.
The Neighbourhood Services Team Leader denied that she had been rude or dismissive and, in the absence of the call recording, the landlord could not prefer the account of one party over another. The landlord stated that on the basis of its investigations it was satisfied that the call had been handled professionally. This is reflected in the call notes made on 24 August 2020. The landlord accepted that the resident may have felt that she was ‘being spoken at’ and apologised if that was the case, which was a proportionate response to her complaint.

Communication with the resident about her reports of issues with her neighbours

The resident complains that she was not updated following her conversation with the Neighbourhood Services Team Leader on 24 August 2020. The purpose of that phone call had been to update the resident about the progress of her Councillor Enquiry, During the phone call, the landlord sought to manage her expectations about the action it could take, as her neighbours had not been found to be in breach of their lease or any planning regulations.
The landlord provided a written response to the resident’s Local Councillor on 2 September 2020, which confirmed that it had spoken to the resident’s neighbours who were refusing to reposition the shed. It was reasonable for the landlord to expect that this response would be shared with the resident by her Local Councillor, and that it did not need to provide her with a separate update.
When the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 10 September 2020, it initially refused to address the issues raised through its formal complaints process. The complaint did not refer to the conversation of 24 August 2020, making only general comments that the landlord had been abrupt and unhelpful. When the landlord was asked by this Service to raise a new complaint and the Ombudsman provided further details about the resident’s concerns, the landlord promptly acknowledged the complaint and provided a substantive response within its stage 1 timescale of 10 working days.
The response included a detailed update on the resident’s neighbour’s response and the landlord’s position. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord made sufficient efforts to provide the resident with an update within a reasonable time. The landlord has explained that it is unable to take any further action to compel the resident’s neighbour either to install carpet or to move their shed. The landlord has fulfilled its obligations to the resident by investigating these issues and providing a response.
The resident has also complained that the landlord failed to acknowledge the noise recordings she had submitted. The landlord has explained that this delay was due to her Neighbourhood Officer being on annual leave and it has confirmed that he did respond on his return on 16 September 2020. The landlord has stated that it will review noise recordings submitted by the resident every 2 weeks.
The Ombudsman’s determination in complaint reference 201913423 considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB up until its final complaint response of May 2020, noting that it had responded appropriately by inviting her to continue to submit noise recordings. The Ombudsman also advised the resident to continue providing evidence to the landlord, so that it could assess whether there was any further action it could take.
The resident has been submitting noise recordings over a significant period of time, none of which have been found by the landlord to contain evidence of actionable nuisance or a breach of her neighbour’s lease. It is therefore appropriate for the landlord to continue to review the noise recordings every 2 weeks, as advised. The landlord would not be expected to acknowledge each noise recording as it is submitted, as this would be an unreasonable use of its resources.
The landlord confirmed that an alternative contact was provided on the Neighbourhood Officer’s ‘out of office’ message, which was not utilised by the resident at the time. It was therefore appropriate to await the return of the Neighbourhood Officer to respond.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct during the telephone call of 24 August 2020.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its communication with the resident about the issues with her neighbours.

Reasons

The landlord conducted a reasonable investigation into the resident’s complaint about staff conduct and reached appropriate conclusions on the basis of the information available. The landlord’s response to the complaint was appropriate, as it apologised to the resident if she felt she had not been listened to.
The landlord provided an update to the resident’s Local Councillor on 2 September 2020, following discussions with the resident’s neighbour. It was reasonable to expect that this would be passed on to the resident. The resident’s Neighbourhood Officer responded to the recently submitted recordings following his return from leave, which caused no detriment to the resident. The landlord has appropriately managed the resident’s expectations about how frequently it will acknowledge and respond to her submission of further evidence.