Raven Housing Trust Limited (202334801)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334801

Raven Housing Trust Limited

23 August 2024

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:
1. Antisocial behaviour prior to October 2023.
2. Antisocial behaviour after October 2023.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder since 20 December 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives with her husband.
The resident first reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord in May 2021. The resident provided diary sheets to the landlord over a period of 3 months from May till July 2021 which highlighted instances of ASB by her neighbour.
On 7 August 2021, the resident reported that her neighbours had thrown a cigarette end into her recycling bin which had caused a fire. The landlord discussed the incident with both the neighbour and the resident. The landlord offered mediation, but the resident declined this.
The resident reported further incidents of ASB by her neighbour throughout September and November. However, the landlord informed the resident on 25 November 2021 that there had been no actionable incidents and therefore the evidence was insufficient to escalate the case to its tenancy enforcement team.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 January 2022 to discuss her ASB case as it was affecting her health. She contacted the landlord again on 30 March 2022 and said she had contacted the landlord several times, but it had not addressed the ongoing issues.
On 30 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to confirm its policy in relation to floor coverings as she believed the neighbour had no carpets and the noise from the children was “unbearable”. Following this, the landlord had carpets put down in the neighbours flat. However, the date of this is unknown.
From the evidence reviewed, the resident did not make any further reports of ASB to the landlord between May 2022 and October 2023.
On 10 October 2023, the resident provided diary sheets to the landlord which recorded ASB by her neighbours. The diary sheets documented instances where the neighbour had blocked the resident’s car with their rubbish and intimidating behaviour and loud screaming from the neighbour’s children.
On 16 October 2023, the resident reported to that landlord that she had overheard the neighbour saying, “she started it, but I’m going to end it”. The resident reported this to the police.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 30 October 2023. During the visit, the landlord completed an ASB risk assessment. It created an action plan which included the following:
1. Monthly contact with the resident
2. No mediation, as this was not suitable at the time.
3. Resident to complete weekly diary sheets.
4. Resident to send any videos or pictures she has and to check her cameras.
5. The resident to use her doorbell camera when leaving and returning for safeguarding.
6. Resident to write an impact statement.
7. The landlord to speak to its solicitor before speaking to the neighbour.
8. The landlord to write to all neighbours requesting any evidence.
9. The landlord to provide information about support coaching, mental health support, the noise app and how to report issues to the police and the council.
10. The landlord to make a referral to its community harm and risk management meetings (CHARMM).
11. The resident to call the police if needed and to report any instances of screaming for long periods to social services.
12. The landlord will liaise with the police.
13. The landlord to provide information on how to make a complaint.
The resident made a formal complaint on 6 November 2023. She said she had reported many incidents of ASB over the years, but the landlord had taken no action.
Following internal discussions, the landlord agreed to reinstate a privacy fence between the resident and her neighbour’s property. It confirmed, on 14 November 2023, that its contractor would not be able to install the fence until March 2023 due to it already having other repair jobs booked in until that point.
The landlord conducted a home visit to the neighbour, on 21 November 2023, to discuss the evidence it had received from the resident. It agreed actions with the neighbour to try to resolve the issues. One of those actions was for the landlord to provide the neighbour with another rubbish bin to help alleviate the issues reported by the resident about the neighbour leaving rubbish at the end of her drive. Furthermore, the landlord asked the neighbour to keep noise to a minimum and to be mindful of the resident.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 27 November 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. The resident’s earlier reports of ASB were in 2021 and therefore it fell outside the 6 month period to log a formal complaint. The landlord said it had reviewed the earlier case though and the landlord handled it in line with its policy.
2. It did not uphold the complaint as the landlord was satisfied that the case manager was taking all the right steps to resolve the matter.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint procedure on 6 December 2023. She said she wanted the landlord to bring the neighbour in line and to stop causing problems. She said the neighbour had previously admitted threatening her husband, he was a compulsive liar and she wanted him to stop making their lives a “misery” with threats and noise.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 4 January 2024. They key points were as follows:
1. The landlord apologised that it had not looked back far enough when considering the complaint at stage 1.
2. It had reviewed all complaints made relating to ASB and confirmed it was clear that it had not always responded on time to the resident meaning she had to chase for updates.
3. It confirmed that it did not always consider its promised actions within expected timescales.
4. It could see that many of its staff had investigated reported issues but not always had access to the history of the ASB on its systems.
5. It acknowledged that it had not considered all aspects of the resident’s complaint at stage 1, and it apologised for that.
6. It confirmed the landlord was currently working with the resident to resolve the current issue and so would not focus on that in its response.
7. It confirmed it had learnt that it should have considered historical events and that it could need see that it offered the resident help, support or counselling when responding to the earlier reports of ASB.
8. It offered compensation of £300 for failing to adequately investigate all the issues at stage 1. It offered £500 for not considering safeguarding concerns through an action plan during the first investigations.
The resident said she was “stunned and appalled” by the landlord’s stage 2 response.
On 12 January 2024, the resident reported that the noise from the neighbour was “worse than ever” and sent in noise recordings via the noise app. In response, the landlord requested to attend the resident’s property undertake a noise comparison check. The landlord contacted the neighbour the same day to remind the neighbour to be mindful and respectful of the resident and requested access to complete the sound comparison check. The landlord booked this for 26 January 2024, however the neighbour then declined to take part.
Internal emails, from 26 January 2024, show the landlord having internal discussions about the possibility of obtaining some acoustic listening equipment to find if underlay could help resolve the issue.
On 5 March 2024, the landlord confirmed as there was no community impact, it had removed the resident’s case from CHARMM. It said it had received no recent updates from the resident with regards to noise, the resident had refused mediation, the neighbour had refused the sound comparison check. It therefore had no further updates at that time.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlords ASB policy says that it will work with communities to develop preventative actions to achieve long terms reductions in ASB. Wherever possible it will use non-legal intervention measures such as mediation and coaching. It says that it will take positive action to resolve and reduce incidents of ASB by:
1. Encouraging the reporting of incidents.
2. Supporting perpetrators to change their behaviour.
3. Discussing and agreeing an action plan with the resident which will ensure residents are updated and supported throughout a case.
4. Taking effective action and using a range of powers available to provide effective remedies.
5. Supporting other agencies in order to reach a resolution.
The landlords encouraged residents to resolve neighbours disputes themselves or to seek help from other sources such as mediation.
It says its tenancy service and enforcement officers will be key points of contact for residents. These teams will ensure customer receive appropriate and timely responses. It says the landlord will liaise with other agencies including the police and local authority to help resolve the ASB.

ASB prior to October 2023

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 a resident reports ASB. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to show the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. 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 decide if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
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 raised by the resident, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The Landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any telephone notes so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps when deciding to close its complaint.
The resident reported many instances of alleged ASB over a period of 3 months from May to July 2021. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show if it took any action in relation to those reports. The landlord needs to ensure it has effective and robust systems in place to hold records of any actions or communication undertaken with residents.
Furthermore, the landlord’s own ASB policy states that it would investigate any reports of ASB yet there is no evidence to show the landlord did this. This is not appropriate and would have frustrated the resident who was living in a situation that she could not resolve herself.
One of the reports made, on 28 June 2021, records that the neighbour was threatening and abusive to the resident’s husband and abusive to the resident. She said she was “upset and “shaken.” Where instances of ASB occur, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to undertake a risk assessment with a resident to assess the risk of the ongoing situation and to create an action plan designed to resolve the issue. The landlord did not dispute that it did not do this in its complaint response; however, not completing one at the time left the resident unsure of the action the landlord was taking, if any, to resolve the reported issues.
Furthermore, the residents report of threatening and abusive behaviour suggests It an escalation of the reported issues. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord approached these reports with the required concern. As per the landlord’s policy, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to liaise with other agencies at this point, including the police, to ascertain if there was further support it could be offering to help manage and resolve the situation. The landlords lack of action highlighted a disregard to the situation the resident found herself in.
On 19 July 2021, despite receiving consistent diary sheets from the resident, the landlord contacted the resident to ask if things had improved as they had not heard from her. This further highlights the landlord’s lack of effective record keeping and showed a disregard to the situation the resident and her husband found themselves in. Landlords need to ensure they keep accurate records to ensure they can track each incident and act upon any escalations, as necessary.
After speaking with the resident, the landlord promptly contacted the neighbour to address the reports of ASB. This action showed the landlord’s renewed commitment to resolving the ongoing issues. The evidence shows that the landlord discussed the potential consequences for the neighbour’s tenancy if the alleged behaviour continued. This approach was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and was appropriate given the circumstances.
On 7 August 2021, the resident reported that a cigarette end thrown by the neighbour had caused a fire in her recycling bins. Given the serious nature of this allegation against the neighbour, it would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to have undertaken a risk assessment with the resident to understand the risk and create an action plan at that time to provide the resident with an idea of what action the landlord was going to take to try and manage the ASB. The landlords own ASB policy says it would discuss and agree an action plan with the resident. This further missed opportunity was not in line with its policy and again highlighted a disregard of the resident’s situation.
Furthermore, the landlord’s responses to the resident at the time were dismissive in tone of the resident’s concerns for her safety and lacked empathy with the situation. In one email provided, the landlord states that as a couple, living below a large young family it could “imagine it must be difficult” for the resident. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take a victim centred approach, yet its communication was not in line with this approach. This tone is of concern to the Ombudsman and caused the resident to feel that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
However, the landlord did meet with the neighbour to discuss the allegations and discussed the neighbour making a written apology to the resident. This is in line with its policy which says that it will work with perpetrators to change their behaviour and encourage neighbours to resolve disputes themselves. While an apology may not have been the outcome the resident was looking for, it was in line with the landlord’s policy and highlighted a commitment to help resolve the ongoing dispute.
On 12 November 2021, the resident reported threatening behaviour by the neighbour to the landlord. She had also reported this to the police as harassment. However, while there is evidence that the landlord was going to open an ASB case for that incident, there is no evidence that it took any action. This further escalation in behaviour was another missed opportunity for the landlord to undertake a risk assessment, complete an action plan with the resident including discussing if she required any other support. Not doing so was not in line with its policy and showed a further disregard to the situation the resident found herself in.
Furthermore, despite the resident saying she had reported the issue to the police, there is no evidence to show that the landlord liaised with the police at the time. Its policy clearly says that it would work with other agencies to build cohesive communities. It would have been appropriate of the landlord to liaise with the police to understand the nature of the harassment and what action, if any, they were taking. This would have enabled the landlord to consider if there was any further action they could have taken at that stage.
In line with its policy, the landlord offered mediation to the resident and the neighbour on several occasions throughout the duration of the issue. The resident refused to take part in this. Where a resident is not willing to take part in mediation and there is not enough evidence of ASB to take any further action, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to clearly explain this to a resident, setting out the reasons why it could take no further action at that point. However, there is no evidence that the landlord did this.
Instead, the landlord’s response, on 25 November 2021, was that the neighbour seemed “very reasonable” when approached by it and that the resident was “unwilling” to meet the neighbour halfway and therefore there was no further action it could take. This response lacked any empathy. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained to the resident, that without evidence to take further action to tackle the ASB, there was limited other options that it could take beyond the mediation.
The resident reported to the landlord in March 2022, that the noise from the children upstairs was unbearable. In response, the landlord appropriately had carpet laid in the neighbours property. This showed a commitment by the landlord to help alleviate some of the issues between the resident and the neighbour.
On 4 May 2022, the evidence shows the landlord contacted the resident to advice that the neighbour was still open to mediation. The resident confirmed she felt they were beyond mediation. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord explored any other options with the resident or discussed if she required any other support. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained why if the resident did not wish to pursue mediation, there may have been no other options it could have explored. Not taking any further action or linking the lack of action to its policy was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB during this period did not meet the Ombudsman’s expected standards. The landlord did not conduct a risk assessment or implement an agreed action plan with the resident. Additionally, it missed opportunities to do so as the resident reported more incidents. However, the landlord did discuss the issues with the neighbour, encouraged them to apologise, and offered mediation to help resolve the issues, in line with its policy. When the resident declined mediation, the landlord’s responses lacked empathy and appeared frustrated with the resident. It also did not clearly explain its reasoning for deciding to close the ASB case.
However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord reviewed its handling of the ASB reports. It acknowledged that the unresolved situation had caused significant distress to the resident. Additionally, it admitted to not considering any safeguarding concerns through an agreed action plan with the resident. The landlord informed the resident that it had updated its processes in 2022, ensuring that it refers all reports of ASB directly to its tenancy enforcement team. Recognising its shortcomings, the landlord offered the resident £500 in compensation.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Ombudsman, that this offer of compensation, along with its apology for its failings in the handling of the residents reports of ASB during that time amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

ASB after October 2023

The resident provided diary sheets highlighting instances of ASB to the landlord on 10 October 2023. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord appropriately contacted the resident on 16 October 2023, within 4 working days, to advise it would allocate her case. The landlord’s policy does not specifically say a timeframe for the landlord to acknowledge reports of ASB, however, this timeframe was entirely reasonable.
The landlord then contacted the resident, on 20 October 2023, to arrange a home visit to discuss the case further. Again, the landlord acted within its policy and this timeframe was entirely reasonable.
The landlord undertook a home visit on 30 October 2023, during which it conducted a ASB risk assessment with the resident. This was in line with its policy and highlighted a commitment by the landlord to safeguard the resident and understand the situation fully.
Furthermore, it set out a clear action plan, setting out the steps it would take to address the ASB. The steps included a referral to its local community harm and risk assessment management team, and a commitment to liaise with the police about the reports made by the resident. Completing an action plan was in line with its policy. Furthermore, it set out clearly for the resident the steps the landlord was going to take, which would have helped to manage her expectations.
It also gave the resident appropriate advice about safeguarding, including ensuring her video doorbell was recording anytime she left or returned to the property, appropriate advice to call the police should any incidents occur and a reminder to continue to record and log any incidents for evidence. This action showed a commitment by the landlord to support the resident while it worked to resolve the issue.
The landlord appropriately managed the expectations of the resident by setting out that contact would be monthly unless it had updates to give. This would have reassured the resident that the landlord would reach out if it had updates but that the landlord would be working towards a long term resolution for the resident in between updates.
Following the meeting with the resident, the landlord contacted its solicitor to explore the possibility of obtaining an injunction against the neighbour. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to explore the use of the range of powers available when working to resolve instances of ASB. This contact with the solicitor highlighted its commitment to resolve the issue and was in line with its policy.
As part of its efforts to resolve the issues, the landlord discussed erecting a privacy fence between the two properties, like one that had been in place previously. The evidence shows that the landlord proactively sought funding for the fence, which it approved on 9 November 2023, just nine days after the home visit. Additionally, since the landlord did not have availability to complete the work until March, it informed the resident to appropriately manage her expectations.
Another issue raised by the resident was the disposal of the neighbour’s waste. The landlord discussed this with the neighbour, encouraging him to dispose of his waste correctly and to place his bin in a different location. As part of its efforts to resolve the ongoing disputes, the landlord proactively sought funding for a new bin, which was in place by the end of November. This effective action was in line with its policy and would have helped to resolve the issues effectively.
There were occasions when the resident informed the landlord that she had not received sufficient updates. However, the evidence shows that throughout the complaint process, the landlord consistently updated the resident in line with its action plan. The Ombudsman understands that landlords have limited resources, making it appropriate for them to manage expectations by providing updates as outlined in the agreed action plan, which the landlord did in this case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will work with perpetrators to change their behaviour. On 23 November 2023, the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss the issues raised by the resident. It created a clear action plan, in line with its policy, for the neighbour, outlining the steps needed to help resolve the issues with the resident.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord held the neighbour accountable for the agreed actions. It discussed each new complaint with the neighbour and clearly explained why the issues with noise and waste were causing distress to the resident. This approach helped the neighbour understand the impact of his behaviour. This highlighted the landlord’s commitment to seeking a resolution that was appropriate for all parties involved.
Following further reports of excessive noise from the neighbour’s children in January 2024, the landlord requested to attend to undertake a sound comparison check in both the resident and neighbour’s property. Undertaking a sound comparison would have enabled the landlord to understand the concerns of the resident further and to find if the noise reports were more than children at play. Given the further reports of noise, this was an appropriate response from the landlord.
However, the neighbour declined to take part in the sound comparison check saying that he felt mediation would be the preferred choice. However, the resident did not wish to take part in mediation. Where a landlord finds that issues are more due to neighbour disputes than ASB it encourages residents to resolves these themselves by seeking help through services such as mediation or coaching. Following this impasse, the evidence shows the landlord, in line with its policy, encouraged the resident to consider coaching to help her look for ways forward.
However, where there is an impasse and the options available may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome, the Ombudsman would expect to see that a landlord is acting fairly and its response to be proportionate and consistent. The evidence shows that the landlord was in consistent in its approach with both the resident and the neighbour, discussing and encouraging them both to take part in mediation and exploring other options such as sound monitoring equipment and appropriate referrals of support for the resident and neighbour.
Where a resident is not willing to take part in mediation and there is not enough evidence of ASB to take any further action with regards to the alleged perpetrator, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to clearly explain this to a resident, setting out the reasons why it could take no further action at that point. On 5 March 2024, the landlord contacted the resident as it had received no further reports of ASB and explained it had no further updates to give. It set out the actions it had taken or had tried to take in line with its action plan. It clearly explained why it had no further updates to give or action to take, which appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports after October 2023 was in line with its policy and met the Ombudsman’s expected standards. It took immediate action by visiting the resident, conducting a risk assessment, and creating a clear action plan. The landlord followed through on all the actions it had set out, including providing the noise app, making referrals for support, discussing the case with the neighbour and other third-party agencies. To help reduce disputes, it installed privacy fencing between the properties and provided a new bin for the neighbour. The landlord also offered necessary referrals for wellbeing support to the resident and encouraged participation in mediation. The evidence shows that the landlord closely followed its ASB policy, and its response was fair and proportionate. Although the outcome did not meet the resident’s expectations, the landlord’s approach was consistent and fair. Furthermore, it is evident that its approach was based on its assessment of the available evidence of the ASB that the resident reported.
Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of ASB after October 2023.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB prior to October 2023.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB after October 2023.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that the landlord offered £500 compensation, the landlord should pay that compensation to the resident if it has not already done so.
The landlord should pay the resident the £300 compensation it offered for failing to adequately investigate all the issues at stage 1 if it has not already done so.