Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Raven Housing Trust Limited (202103966)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103966

Raven Housing Trust Limited

4 March 2022


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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident had been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 28 April 2004. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. Since referring this complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident passed away in or around October 2021.
  2. The landlord operates a complaints policy. The policy notes that the landlord will issue a formal response for complaints, and that residents can request an appeal of this response in certain circumstances, namely if there was a material error of fact, there was additional evidence, or the complaint was not conducted in accordance with the landlord’s policy. Failing these grounds for appeal, the resident may refer the complaint directly to this service.
  3. The landlord operates an ASB policy. Examples of ASB include noise nuisance, intimidation and harassment, and threatening language or behaviour. The landlord will investigate all instances of ASB where possible. It will discuss an action plan with the victim, and also offer support to perpetrators to help them change their behaviour. The landlord will also encourage the use of coaching and mediation to resolve incidents. As part of its evidence gathering, the landlord will request that resident’s record incidents, and it can also use CCTV. The policy also notes the landlord will liaise with other organisations such as the police.

Summary of events

  1. On or around 3 December 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that he was receiving multiple telephone calls from his neighbour which he considered to be harassment. The landlord acknowledged this on 4 December 2020 and advised the resident it would send a warning letter to the neighbour and also make a safeguarding referral for them, as it was understood he suffered from mental health issues. The landlord has advised this service that the letter was sent to the neighbour, however, this service has not been provided with a copy. The landlord also provided the resident with incident diary sheets for him to record any further incidents which it could refer to if it chose to pursue further action. The landlord also suggested that the resident block the neighbour’s telephone number, which the resident confirmed he had.
  2. On 6 December 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour had behaved in a threatening manner towards him by throwing tea bags at his property and that he had reported it to the police. On 7 December 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour had sent him a threatening letter, which he had passed on to the police. On 9 December 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour had attempted to enter his property. It is not evident if the landlord acknowledged the reports made on 6 and 7 December 2020, however, following the report of attempted entry, the landlord sought to contact the neighbour on 10 December 2020.
  3. On 10 December 2020, prior to the landlord’s contact, the police advised that the neighbour had been sectioned and taken to hospital, where he remained for treatment. The police advised the landlord at this time that they were not pursuing any prosecution due to the neighbour’s mental health concerns.
  4. Based on the landlord’s formal response, on or around 30 December 2020, the resident spoke on the telephone with the landlord and expressed his concerns that the neighbour should not be allowed to return to the property. The landlord advised that it was working with a mental health team to provide assistance to the neighbour, but it would not be proportionate to remove him from his home, should he return. The landlord also provided the resident with a referral for an independent service to provide him with emotional support. This service has not been provided with any call logs or telephone notes for this conversation.
  5. On 1 March 2021, the resident made a formal complaint that the landlord was not taking further action against the neighbour. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 3 March 2021.
  6. The landlord provided its stage one response on 12 March 2021. The landlord detailed the events noted above and acknowledged the resident wished for an injunction against the neighbour. The landlord accepted that there had been instances of ASB, but that the neighbour was unwell and was now receiving treatment, so it would not be proportionate to seek to remove them from their home.  It additionally advised the resident he could seek an injunction himself through the courts. The landlord advised that should the neighbour return to the property and continue to cause ASB, it would consider further action.
  7. The stage one response noted the resident could request an appeal of its decision on the grounds noted above. The response also noted the resident could refer his complaint to this service directly. It is not evident that the resident specifically sought an appeal of this decision.
  8. On 16 March 2021, following a further discussion regarding the issue on the telephone, the landlord agreed to provide permission for the resident to erect a fence with a locked gate between his property and the neighbour’s property. The landlord also agreed to install two security cameras. On 17 March 2021, the landlord noted the resident had indicated he was happy with this resolution and so it would close its ASB case.
  9. It is evident that in April 2021 the neighbour returned to their property and that in May 2021, the resident reported ongoing concerns to this service and to his local MP, who on 28 May 2021 requested that the landlord revisit the ASB case.
  10. On 1 June 2021, the landlord noted that it had received a number of incident diary sheets from the resident dated in April 2021. It is not evident if it had only just received these incident diary sheets, or whether it had received them when they were dated, however, it noted that some only referred to ‘April 2021’ indicating it was unaware of when the incident took place. The incidents included a dead pigeon on the resident’s doorstep, which he suspected had been placed there by the neighbour, that the neighbour had been shouting the resident’s name, and that the resident had received a telephone call from the RSPCA about the welfare of his dog, which he suspected had been maliciously reported by the neighbour. The landlord acknowledged these incidents were distressing for the resident, but advised that based on the evidence, it was unable to prove these incidents had been carried out by the neighbour, and that the isolated incident of shouting was not considered ASB. It also noted that the security cameras were not yet active, but once they were, should they capture any incidents, they could consider further action. The landlord also reiterated any criminal behaviour should be reported to the police.

Assessment and findings

  1. Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
  2. Additionally, matters where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB policy ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues being raised, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that following a report of ASB, it will discuss an action plan with the resident. The resident reported ASB to the landlord on 3 December 2020, to which the landlord acknowledged the report on 4 December 2020. The landlord’s policy does not specifically state a timeframe for the landlord to acknowledge reports of ASB, however, this timeframe was entirely reasonable.
  4. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord appropriately advised the resident of the steps it would take to address the ASB, namely that it would send a warning letter to the neighbour and that it would raise a safeguarding referral for them. It also gave appropriate advice to the resident, this being to block the neighbour from being able to contact him on the telephone and also provided him with incident diary sheets to assist with recording any further incidents.
  5. Between 6 – 9 December 2020, the resident made further reports of ASB. The landlord acknowledged these on 9 December 2020 which, given that the initial reports were not reports of violence, was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. Following the report that the neighbour had attempted to enter the property, the landlord appropriately sought to contact the neighbour the next day, which was again a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances.
  6. Following the neighbour being sectioned, the landlord appropriately liaised with the police about further steps to be taken, in line with its ASB policy.
  7. As noted above, the steps available to a landlord to address ASB may not always extend to a resident’s preferred outcome. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that to seek an eviction of a person from their home requires a high evidential threshold. It was reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to have measured the resident’s expectation during the parties’ call on 30 December 2020 that it would not seek an eviction at this time as it was not proportionate. It was also appropriate that the landlord advised of the steps it was taking, namely working with the mental health team, and also that it made a referral for the resident to an organisation that could provide him with support.
  8. Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and provided its stage one response within a reasonable timeframe. The stage one response provided a suitably detailed timeline of events and provided a reasonable update that the neighbour was now receiving treatment. It also reasonably reiterated that it was not proportionate to seek an eviction at this time, and appropriately advised the resident he was able to seek his own legal measures should he wish. It also appropriately confirmed it would still consider action should further incidents occur.
  9. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it was also appropriate that the landlord provided permission for a dividing fence to be installed at the request of the resident, and that it agreed to install CCTV in the area. Given that at this time there were no further incidents, and it was unclear whether the neighbour would be returning to the property at all, it was reasonable for the landlord to close its ASB case.
  10. Following the return of the neighbour, the resident referred his complaint to both this service and to his local MP. It is not evident whether he requested an escalation to the landlord’s appeal stage of its complaints process. Given that the MP subsequently forwarded the resident’s concerns to the landlord, it would have been appropriate for it to have sought confirmation directly from the resident as to whether he wished to appeal, which it did not do.
  11. In June 2021 the landlord noted it had received a number of incident diary sheets referring to incidents occurring in April 2021. It is not evident when these were received. From the context of the landlord’s reply on 1 June 2021, it does not appear they were received on the dates they were recorded, but instead immediately before the landlord’s correspondence. The landlord appropriately addressed each concern reported and gave reasonable positions on why there was either insufficient evidence to take action against the neighbour, or why it did not consider the behaviour reported to be ASB. It was also appropriate that it advised it would continue to monitor the situation using the CCTV cameras once installed, however, it would have been helpful had it advised a date this was to occur, which it did not do.
  12. The landlord’s complaints procedure provides an appeals stage, but only in certain circumstances, as noted above. These circumstances essentially amount to correcting errors that may have occurred in reaching the stage one decision. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code notes that a two stage complaints procedure “ensures that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process.”
  13. Additionally, the code notes that a review stage gives the opportunity for senior members of the landlord to be involved with a complaint response. While the landlord’s complaints procedure allows for the appeal to correct errors, it does not allow the resident to raise general concerns about how the landlord responded at stage one. This also prevents the resident from having their concerns heard by a senior member of the landlord outside of a specific error having been made. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to consider whether a more open approach to allowing residents to request an escalation of the complaint may help achieve the objectives of the complaint handling code.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning ASB from his neighbour.

Reasons

  1. The landlord correctly followed its ASB policy and set out the steps it would take to initially address the ASB. Following the resident’s request that the neighbour be evicted, the landlord appropriately measured his expectations and agreed to alternative steps, such as the installation of the fence and CCTV. Following the resident’s further reports, the landlord also provided clear explanations for why it was unable to take further action, and it also appropriately advised it would continue to monitor the situation.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to consider the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (available here The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and review its approach to the limited circumstances in which an appeal may be requested by a resident to ensure that these reflect the guidance as set out in the code.