One Vision Housing Limited (202210514)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210514

One Vision Housing Limited

3 August 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

This complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour;
2. the landlord’s decision torestrict contact from the resident.

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 31 May 2021. The property is a three-bed house. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities related to her mental health, and that her son has ADHD and autism. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she recently vacated the property. She said this was as a result of antisocial behaviour by her neighbours.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy says it will investigate all reports that it deems to be antisocial behaviour, and will work with residents to formulate an appropriate response. The policy says that when antisocial behaviour is reported, the landlord will take the following steps:
1. It will respond to reports of antisocial behaviour within one working day, and carry out a detailed interview with the resident reporting the behaviour within five working days.
2. At the initial meeting or interview, the neighbourhood services officer will offer to complete a risk assessment, and will agree an action plan.
3. It will keep those reporting incidents up to date with any actions taken.
4. It will give realistic timescales for resolution, and manage residents’ expectations.
5. It will provide advice on the best ways to avoid further incidents and gather evidence to justify enforcement action. This may include incident diaries, witness statements, noise monitoring, and the use of CCTV. Where appropriate, it will liaise with external agencies.
6. It may take action against tenants for criminal behaviour, but any action taken by the landlord would be in addition to police action, not in place of it.
7. After investigating the allegations, it will take enforcement action where appropriate.
The landlord’s Unacceptable Behaviour policy sets out the measures the landlord can take when a resident’s behaviour causes upset or prevents the landlord’s staff from working effectively. Examples of behaviour which could fall under the policy include:
1. Persistent contact about the same issue when the resident has been informed there is pending action, or action has already been taken.
2. Residents making unreasonable requests of the landlord’s time and resources.
3. Residents refusing to deal with a specific member of staff, even when the staff member is the most appropriate person to respond to the query or complaint.
The actions which could be taken under the policy include limits on the amount of time the landlord will speak to the resident on the telephone, restrictions on the means of communication available, or only communicating through a third party.

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident’s complaint of 19 May 2022 was about how the landlord had handled her reports of antisocial behaviour up to that point. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has made multiple further complaints about the landlord since it issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint of 19 May 2022. However, as those complaints had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time this complaint was referred to the Ombudsman, those further complaints cannot be considered as part of this investigation.
Both the resident and the landlord have provided significant amounts of information related to events in the resident’s street and allegations of antisocial behaviour. While the Ombudsman has reviewed all of the information provided, only information related to the resident’s complaint of 19 May 2022 will be set out in the summary of events below.

Summary of events

The resident said that in September 2021, she reported antisocial behaviour by her neighbours to the landlord. She said the neighbourhood services officer told her that she and her neighbours were adults, and that she should stop reporting the issues she sought to raise with the landlord. She said she reported 14 further incidents to the landlord from October 2021 to March 2022, and that the landlord took no action in response.
On 18 November 2021, the police visited the street the property is located on. The officer spoke to the resident and multiple neighbours. The landlord liaised with the police following the visit to obtain details. The police told the landlord that the resident said she felt targeted by a lot of her neighbours, and that the issues with her neighbours were making her mental health worse. The police said they provided advice to the resident and her neighbours. The police did not indicate to the landlord that any crimes had been committed, or that any further action would be taken.
On 9 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She said the police did not know what was really going on, and that she wanted the landlord to confirm when it would attend with the police so she could have a support worker present. The landlord has provided no evidence of contact prior to the resident’s email, or of any response being provided.
On 8 March 2022, the resident’s support worker wrote to the landlord. They set out details of the resident’s vulnerabilities and said the resident was afraid to leave the house because of the disputes with her neighbours.
On 19 May 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. The landlord showed a lack of empathy, customer care or interest about her ongoing reports.
2. She had logged numerous issues on the landlord’s portal and sent multiple emails, but there had been no response.
3. She was experiencing daily intimidation as neighbours were gathering on the street in front of her property and having parties that her family were not invited to.
4. It was not acceptable for the landlord to ignore antisocial behaviour.
On 1 June 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It said:
1. The resident had submitted three noise recordings on the Noise app portal since mid-May. It could hear noise on the recordings so would refer the recordings to the neighbourhood services officer to respond.
2. It could see the resident had contacted it on ‘numerous occasions’ and its communication in response was not good enough, but it had been in contact recently.
3. It would add the resident’s new reports of antisocial behaviour to the case.
4. It cannot take enforcement action about who is invited to properties or parties, and a gathering is not necessarily a tenancy breach. If a gathering becomes antisocial, the resident should report it.
On 12 June 2022, the resident made a new report of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. The landlord’s logs show that between 12 and 16 June 2022 it opened a new antisocial behaviour case, carried out a risk assessment, sent the resident an action plan and incident sheets to complete, interviewed the alleged perpetrator, told the resident that it had spoken to the alleged perpetrator, and gathered information from police. The logs show the landlord continued to monitor the case.
On 24 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She asked why the previous antisocial behaviour case was closed without action and why the previous neighbourhood services officer did not help her.
On 29 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said:
1. The volume of correspondence from the resident was unmanageable, and significantly impacted on the time of the people who received it.
2. The resident was making repeated contact about the same issues, and sending multiple emails each day risked information being missed or duplicated.
3. From 13 to 28 June 2022, one staff member received 44 emails, two calls, and nine Noise app reports from the resident.
4. While it knew the resident was upset that neighbours were having parties without her, that was a social matter and not something the landlord could help with.
5. It would not proceed with formal action under its Unacceptable Behaviour policy, but would give the resident a chance to change her level of contact.
6. All communication must be sent to a specific staff member by email only, and emails would be read once per week. This excluded repairs or emergencies, which could be reported in the usual way.
7. The landlord would review the situation in one month’s time, and if there was no improvement it would take action under its Unreasonable Behaviour policy.
On 17 August 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said ongoing antisocial behaviour was seriously affecting her mental health and that of her child. She said to put things right she wanted the landlord to respond to her emails and investigate and deal with the antisocial behaviour under its antisocial behaviour policy.
On 29 September 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman again. She said she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the antisocial behaviour reports and its decision to issue a warning under its Unreasonable Behaviour policy, which she said was inappropriate.
On 11 October 2022, the resident sent an escalation request to the landlord. She said it had not acted on reports of antisocial behaviour for a year, and that it was negligent for not doing so. She said its attitude was not helpful or empathetic, and that new reports being actioned did not change the landlord’s inaction for the previous twelve months.
On 13 October 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident about her complaint. Its call notes say the resident told it that financial compensation and an apology for its letter of 29 June 2022 would resolve her complaint. She also raised further issues regarding the recently opened antisocial behaviour case and indicated that her neighbours were still gathering on the road outside her house.
On 20 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that it was difficult to investigate ‘historic’ allegations as evidence was not gathered at the time. It said it had now reviewed the reports made and that most of the incidents reported were not what it would class as antisocial behaviour. It then set out its position on reports made since June 2022, which did not form part of the resident’s complaint.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. It said:
1. It accepted that the neighbourhood services officer should have responded to, and actioned, the resident’s reports sooner. It said this had been addressed internally and it apologised for any upset and delay.
2. It was confident the current antisocial behaviour case was being actioned appropriately.
3. It was appropriate to issue a letter to the resident in light of the volume of communication received from her.
On the same day, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted the Ombudsman to consider negligence, the landlord’s failure to adhere to its policy, and its continued inconsistency as it had offered no compensation and no apology for the trauma she said she experienced. She said it was unreasonable for the landlord to limit her contact when it had not acted on her reports of antisocial behaviour from September 2021 onwards.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether incidents reported by the resident amounted to antisocial behaviour or harassment, or whether the landlord’s handling of the reports amounted to negligence. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the reported behaviour took place as alleged, or at all. The Ombudsman’s role in these types of complaints is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
In accordance with the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of antisocial behaviour and respond appropriately. The policy sets out the steps the landlord should take, which includes acknowledging the report, carrying out a risk assessment, creating an action plan, and seeking to gather evidence. Any further actions to be taken would depend on the nature of the alleged behaviour and the evidence available to the landlord, as the actions a landlord can take in response to reports of antisocial behaviour can be very limited in the absence of sufficient evidence.
The resident said she had repeatedly reported antisocial behaviour by her neighbours to the landlord, and that the landlord did not take any action in response. The landlord has not demonstrated to the Ombudsman that it recorded the resident’s reports at the time they were made. It has not shown that it either explained to the resident at the time that it did not consider the reports to be antisocial behaviour, or that it had taken any of the steps outlined in its antisocial behaviour policy at the time the resident made a complaint on 19 May 2022. It accepted in both its stage one and stage two responses that the resident contacted it on ‘numerous occasions’, and that it did not respond to the resident’s reports appropriately.
The landlord has taken some steps to try to put things right. It has apologised and informed the resident that action has been taken regarding the staff member who did not act on the reports. It has reviewed the resident’s previous reports and explained to the resident that many of the incidents reported would not have been considered as antisocial behaviour under its policy. It has also shown that it has taken more action regarding the reports made after her complaint, which demonstrates it has learned from the complaint.
However, while the landlord has attempted to show that reports made after the resident’s complaint had been handled more appropriately, it has not done enough to put things right regarding the resident’s previous reports. While the landlord has told the resident that many of her reports would not fall under the antisocial behaviour policy, it has not said that none of the reports would have been classified as antisocial behaviour.
The landlord told the resident that it would be difficult to investigate historic reports as it can be difficult to gather evidence. It is much more difficult to gather evidence of antisocial behaviour after a long period of time has passed, but it was the landlord that missed the opportunity to gather evidence at the time of the report and therefore made it more difficult to gather evidence. That missed opportunity, and the lack of action from the landlord, caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as well as the time and trouble taken in chasing responses, and the landlord has offered no compensation to make up for that.
Taking into account the resident’s vulnerability and the length of time the landlord did not act on her reports, together with the landlord’s confirmation that it did not consider most of the resident’s reports would fall under its antisocial behaviour policy, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £400 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, and the time and trouble she took in chasing a response from the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has acknowledged its failings but has not done enough to address the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s decision to limit the resident’s contact

At the time of its stage two response, the landlord had not issued the resident with any formal warnings under its Unreasonable Behaviour policy. Instead, it sent the resident a letter to explain that the volume of correspondence received was unmanageable, and as a result communication had to go through a specific individual by email only. It clarified that this restriction did not apply to emergencies or repair issues, which could be reported in the usual way. The resident disputes that this was reasonable, as she said the landlord had not responded to her reports for a significant length of time.
It is generally appropriate for a landlord to consider whether the volume of contact received from a resident is reasonable, and to take actions in line with its policies if it determines that the level of contact impacts its ability to deliver a service. It is important to note that it is not for the Ombudsman to substitute the landlord’s judgement of whether a resident’s communication is reasonable for its own, provided that the landlord’s judgement was not manifestly unreasonable based on the evidence provided.
The landlord assessed the volume of contact from the resident and concluded that it significantly impacted the time of those receiving it, as well as creating a risk of information being missed or duplicated as a result of multiple emails being sent on the same day, or being sent to multiple staff members. It said that over a 15 day period in June 2022, one member of staff had received 44 emails and two calls from the resident, and that there was repeated contact about the same issues.
Persistent contact about the same issue, or behaviour which prevents the landlord’s staff from working effectively, would fall under the landlord’s Unreasonable Behaviour policy. The landlord chose to limit the resident’s contact as a result, but issued an informal letter rather than a formal warning under the policy to give the resident ‘an opportunity to rectify this behaviour’ without needing to use the Unreasonable Behaviour policy.
Given the landlord’s concerns about the volume of contact, and the risk of missing information or duplicating work as a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to restrict contact to one individual and by email only. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident felt this made her sound like a ‘nuisance’, restricting contact to a specific individual can be a beneficial way to ensure that information is not missed. The landlord explained the reasons for its decision, together with an example, to the resident. It also chose to attempt an informal approach rather than immediately issuing a formal warning under the policy, and did not place any restrictions on the resident’s ability to report urgent issues. This was a reasonable approach which did not cause a significant detriment to the resident.
The Ombudsman understands that the contact restriction has been recently reviewed, and that the resident is dissatisfied with the new restrictions in place. Should the resident wish to pursue a complaint about the recent review of the restrictions in place, that complaint would need to go through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure before the Ombudsman could investigate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with regard to its decision to restrict the resident’s contact.

Reasons

The landlord has not shown that it took any action in response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour prior to her complaint. Since the complaint was made, the landlord has taken steps to attempt to put things right. However, as it has not offered the resident any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, it has not done enough to put things right.
The landlord’s decision to restrict contact with the resident was in line with its Unreasonable Behaviour policy. It explained the reasons for its decision to the resident, took an informal approach rather than issuing a formal warning under its policy, and the restriction in contact did not unreasonably restrict the resident’s ability to report urgent issues.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the way it handled her reports of antisocial behaviour prior to June 2022.
The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.