Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202114683)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114683

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

13 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
This investigation also considers the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord by mutual exchange in June 2017. The property is a 4-bedroom, mid-terraced house and the resident lives there with her husband and two children.
When this service asked the landlord whether it had any record that the resident or her household had any vulnerabilities, the landlord stated that it has noted on its system that the resident “has mental health issues”. The resident has stated that her 2 children both have autism and that her youngest child is non-verbal and is extremely sensitive to noise. This Service notes that the resident referred to her children’s disabilities regularly in her communications with the landlord.
The landlord acknowledges that the resident has been reporting ASB from her next-door neighbours since she moved into the property in 2017. She describes intimidation, harassment and noise nuisance.
The properties of the resident and her neighbour share a double width driveway, this is not separated by a fence. The neighbour’s property is also a 4-bed house and the landlord states that 2 adults and 7 children live in the property.
The resident made a formal complaint in October 2021 regarding the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports.

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
In this case, whilst the resident had been reporting ASB to the landlord regularly since 2017, she did not make a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the ASB until October 2021.
Whilst the events prior to 2021 will not be determined upon in this report, they will be referred to as they have clear and significant relevance to and impact on the resident and on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports from 2021 onwards.

ASB policy

The landlord defines ASB using the definition from the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014:
1. “Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
The landlord states that it will take a preventative approach to ASB which includes the use of mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC’s), multi-agency meetings, and tenancy support services for those who have difficulty maintaining a tenancy.
The landlord’s ASB policy describes behaviours which it does and does not consider to be ASB. The landlord specifies that it considers “persistent and or serious neighbour noise” to be ASB but stresses that not all noise is ASB and that some is more appropriately dealt with in accordance with its “maintaining and improving neighbourhoods policy”. The landlord’s maintaining and improving neighbourhoods policy does not specify how it may deal with noise nuisance.
The ASB policy states that on receiving an ASB report it will carry out a risk assessment and determine whether further investigation and/or enforcement is necessary. The landlord will decide what action is required based on what is proportionate considering the facts of the case.
The landlord points out in its ASB policy that perpetrators of ASB may also require support and it will take a multi-agency approach to work with such individuals.

Complaint policy and compensation

In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) the landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made” about a landlord’s services or actions.
The complaint policy states that the landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it may not accept a complaint for investigation “if it is regarding Nuisance or Anti-social Behaviour, this will be managed in accordance [with] our Anti-social behaviour policy and procedure”. It states however that if “the complaint is about the management of the case, this will be investigated as a complaint”.

Events prior to the period of investigation

The resident has provided information that demonstrate that she first reported ASB from her neighbour to the landlord in June 2017. In November 2017, the resident also reported the issue to the local authority environmental health team. She described amplified music; loud parties; shouting, swearing and intimidation; alleged drug use; and “the antisocial behaviour of the children”. The resident gathered signatures and letters from several residents and sent this to the landlord along with a petition regarding her neighbour’s behaviour.
Between June 2017 and January 2021 the resident regularly reported ASB from her neighbours to the landlord. The landlord has provided information showing that the resident submitted a number of noise recordings via a mobile phone recording application called the NoiseApp between 2017 and 2018. The landlord stated that the recordings evidenced noise from a baby crying, children shouting and screaming, and loud music. The recordings were made at various times during the day and night.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on four occasions between November 2017 and July 2019 to advise that it had received reports of ASB relating to their property and reminding them of the terms of their tenancy.
In August 2018, the resident contacted her local MP for support regarding the ASB. The MP had regular contact with the resident and with the landlord from August 2018 to November 2019.
In September 2018, the resident and her neighbour attended mediation organised by the landlord. The resident stated that the female neighbour became threatening and was asked to leave the meeting.
In July 2019, the landlord requested disclosure from the local police. The police stated that in June 2019 the resident reported noise issues and “intimidation” from her neighbour. No other reports had been received in the previous 12 months.

Summary of events during the complaint period

On 9 February 2021 and 15 February 2021 the resident reported loud music from her neighbour’s car which was parked on the joint driveway. She said that her daughter asked them to turn it down which they did before immediately turning it back on again.
The landlord tried to telephone the resident’s neighbour on 15 February 2021 to discuss the reports but they did not answer. It emailed the neighbour and stated that it had received reports of very loud music and asked them to keep the music to a “more acceptable level”. The email stated that this was “a polite notice” but that if the landlord received further evidence, it may be forced to take further action.
Also on 15 February 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbours were burning rubbish in their garden which was causing a bad smell which had caused her children headaches. The landlord responded that residents were allowed to burn garden waste but that it would contact the neighbour if they were burning household waste. The resident responded that it was household waste. On the same date the resident reported that her neighbour’s son was flying a drone outside her house. She stated that people could not use a drone without a licence and that the drone was being used to spy into her property.
On 22 May 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour’s children were playing football on their joint driveway and she was concerned that they were going to damage her car as they had done so before. The resident asked the landlord if it would consider installing a fence between the shared driveways to try and “maintain some peace”. The resident attached doorbell camera footage.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 June 2021 to report her neighbour’s children playing around her car. The resident attached doorbell camera footage of this.
On 11 June 2021, the resident sent video footage to the landlord and reported that her neighbour had stood in his front doorway looking at her whilst making barking noises in order to make the resident’s dog bark. The resident requested a call back from the investigating officer.
On 16 June 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord to report “intimidation” from her neighbours and issues with their children playing. This Service has not seen detail of what the intimidating behaviour consisted of.
On 24 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that she had contacted them 4 times “in as many weeks” but had not had a response. The landlord responded on the same day and stated that “It would be advisable to report any instances of threatening or illegal behaviour to the police as [the landlord] are unable to act in a formal capacity unless this has been done”.
On 18 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and provided a list of issues she was experiencing with her neighbours:
1. The male was making barking noises to make the resident’s dog bark.
2. The male was staring at her from his driveway and front door.
3. The son had been flying a drone outside her bedroom window.
4. The family were not following government Covid guidelines.
5. The children and their friends were playing on the resident’s side of the shared driveway.
6. The children and their mother had been following her daughter to school.
7. The parents were encouraging the children to make as much noise in the garden as possible. They were screaming and shouting, banging shovels and bits of metal pipe.
8. They had placed their barbecue by the joint fence so the smoke was blowing into the resident’s garden and bedrooms.
Between 18 July 2021 and 16 August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions to report that her neighbour’s barbecue was causing a nuisance.
On 9 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that, if the landlord did not act against her neighbours within 30 days, she would commence legal action against the landlord for breach of the tenancy agreement. She said that she had reported “Drunkenness, loud parties, spitting, abuse (both verbal and racial), yelling, barbecue fires close to the wooden fence and other disturbance such as litter” to the landlord but that no action had been taken.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 August 2021 and asked that she record any incidents of noise nuisance on the NoiseApp, report the incidents to environmental health, and complete diary sheets to evidence the behaviour. It also offered to refer the case for professional mediation. The resident telephoned the landlord on the same date and stated that she would not complete diary sheets and asked to speak to the investigating officer.
The investigating officer telephoned the resident back on 16 August 2021 and the resident said that she had sent a pre-legal letter to the landlord and requested that all future communication be made in writing.
On 17 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour and advised that it had received reports that their barbecue was causing a nuisance. The landlord asked the neighbour to use the barbecue as far away from the boundary fence as possible.
On 20 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that her neighbour had placed her barbecue too close to the joint fence despite having been told by the landlord two years ago that she should not place it there. She stated that she would not be completing further incident diaries or using the NoiseApp as she had done this in the past and had provided “more than enough evidence in [her] bundle for [the landlord] to take action”. The resident stated that she had a disabled child and did not have time to complete diary sheets which she felt were “a complete waste of time”. She stated that she did not want to attend further mediation as during the previous session the female neighbour had been “aggressive and agitated” towards her and had to be asked to leave.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021 and reported that her neighbour had lit their barbecue “yet again next to the fence”
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 September 2021 and reported that her neighbour was on the shared driveway talking loudly to a visitor and that this was “not normal” and that they should not have visitors during Covid.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident. It said:
1. The landlord took reports of ASB seriously and was reliant on the judgement of experienced housing officers to decide “what the proportionate or appropriate action is, or, indeed, whether the alleged behaviour is such that any response is called for”.
2. Investigations must be carried out impartially and the landlord may request substantiating evidence from third parties such as other neighbours, the police, and environmental health officers.
3. It is important that complainants cooperate with the landlord and use the tools provided such as the NoiseApp.
4. The resident had suggested that the landlord was in breach of the tenancy agreement due to perceived ASB by the resident’s neighbour. The terms the resident referred to applied to the neighbour, not the landlord. The landlord “cannot be held liable for the nuisance actions of its tenants”.
5. The resident suggested that the landlord must take legal action when the resident reported a breach in the neighbour’s tenancy. This was not correct.
6. There was an “acute shortage of available suitable housing for families with two adults and eight children”. The landlord “would not normally consider legal action proportionate where a family has outgrown their house…they will not make eight children homeless lightly”.
7. Due to the size of the family, it was likely that they would make more noise than a smaller family through “ordinary use of the property”.
8. The landlord had considered the evidence provided by the resident but did not agree that it met the “threshold for legal action” and objectively it did not “support the intensity of the allegations” made by the resident.
9. Whilst the landlord recognised that the female neighbour had been upset during the informal mediation session previously conducted, it had been “successful”. The landlord offered the resident professional third-party mediation. The neighbours had stated they were willing to attend.
10. The landlord had contacted the police and environmental health department who “revealed no concerns being reported that have been substantiated”.
11. The landlord had not received any reports from any other neighbours about the alleged perpetrator within the previous 12 months and had received no allegations from the resident between February 2021 and July 2021.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 1 October 2021 in response to communications from the landlord that it was currently investigating the resident’s ASB reports and that the resident had not raised a formal complaint. This Service advised the landlord that if it was unable to raise a formal complaint due to an ongoing ASB investigation, it should provide the resident (and this Service) a written response outlining why it was unable to raise a complaint.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord responded to this Service and said:
1. The customer had not raised a formal complaint but had issued the landlord with a “pre legal letter” asking it to act in relation to her reports of ASB.
2. The resident had recently reported ASB which was being investigated.
3. The ASB case was “in its infancy” and the landlord could not give a timeframe for how long the case would take to resolve.
4. The resident was “refusing to provide diary sheets and use noise app” to support the landlord’s investigation.
5. The landlord would “find it difficult to investigate a complaint without the ASB process having first concluded”.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 13 October 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident via its formal complaint procedure.
The resident received an email from the police on 16 October 2021 providing an incident number and confirming that the local neighbourhood policing team were aware of “ongoing issues” and were monitoring the situation.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord’s complaint team noted that it had been contacted by this Service but that there was “no record of complaint by customer logged. Customer has not responded to request to outline what complaint is”. The landlord emailed the resident and stated that it had logged a stage 1 complaint and would be in contact with her to discuss the complaint within 5 working days “to agree next steps”.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 25 October 2021 to discuss her complaint. The landlord advised that it had emailed the resident on 7 October 2021 and asked her to clarify what her complaint was about but that she did not reply. The resident stated that she had not received this email. The landlord emailed the resident following the telephone call and asked that she confirm the details of her complaint. The landlord emailed the resident again on 27 October 2021 as it had not received a response to its previous email.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 November 2021. She stated that her complaint was about the way the landlord had dealt with her reports of ASB. She said that her family had been “subjected to abuse, harassment, intimidation and noise nuisance” from her neighbours for years and that she had reported this to the landlord since 2017. The resident stated that the landlord had taken no action. She said that she had:
1. Completed diary sheets
2. Provided details of witnesses
3. Collected letters from individual witnesses
4. Made Noise App recordings
5. Made recordings on her phone and CCTV doorbell
6. Attended mediation
7. Reported the incidents to the Police and provided crime reference numbers
8. Reported the ASB to the local authority environmental health team
9. Provided evidence from professionals about the impact of the ASB on her family.
The resident went on to state that her mental health had been impacted and she was suffering from depression, anxiety and sleep problems and had experienced suicidal thoughts. She felt “constantly overwhelmed” and her physical health had declined. The resident said that her youngest daughter was having to leave for school an hour early as she was had been harassed on her way to school. She also reported that her son, who was autistic, was being upset by the ASB and that her neighbours had made abusive comments about his health issues.
On 15 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and stated:
1. It had discussed the case with its solicitors who had written to the resident on receipt of her “letter before claim”. The solicitors had not received a response from the resident.
2. The landlord would “not be pursuing any enforcement action via the courts” but wished to re-assure the resident that it took reports of ASB seriously and had “taken the most appropriate and proportionate action to date”.
3. It understood that mediation carried out previously had “helped to support some improvement with your neighbour”. The offer of further mediation remained open to the resident, her neighbour was willing to engage,
4. It had encouraged the resident to use the NoiseApp to record noise nuisance but the resident had declined to do this as previous recordings that she had made had been removed. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns but could not identify any faults with the NoiseApp.
5. The landlord was unaware of any reports of harassment of the resident’s daughter and asked for further information.
6. The resident’s MP was no longer involved as he felt the landlord had acted appropriately.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 November 2021 and requested that her complaint be escalated because:
1. The landlord had not provided “a clear proposed resolution or summary of investigations into…reports of the abuse myself and my family have suffered and continue to suffer”.
2. The landlord had clearly failed to understand that the resident had attended mediation but had been “subjected to verbal abuse, shouting and false accusations from the adult female neighbour”. She therefore felt that the landlord’s recent suggestion that she attend mediation again was unreasonable.
3. The resident acknowledged that she had refused to continue using the NoiseApp. She stated that this was because her recordings were being deleted by the landlord.
4. Most of the evidence she had recently gathered was on her front doorbell CCTV camera. She was unable to upload this evidence to the NoiseApp.
5. In July 2021, the resident had provided the landlord with the police crime reference number relating to her daughter being harassed on her way to school via email and in a physical paper “bundle of evidence”. She could therefore not understand how the landlord could say it was unaware of the incident.
6. She had spoken with her MP’s secretary who stated that her case was still open with the MP and they were “extremely concerned about why this statement has been made” by the landlord. She requested a copy of any correspondence from her MP that made such statements.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord stated that it was satisfied that the investigation into the stage 1 complaint was thorough and fair and that the resident’s ASB complaint was “addressed and appropriately managed”. The landlord stated that it could “only reiterate what was outlined in our Stage 1 and that there is no means of further investigation”.
Also on 19 November 2021 at approximately 8.30pm the resident contacted the landlord to report that her neighbour’s children were “continually bouncing, kicking and now throwing…balls against the upstairs window with added shouting”. She stated that this was keeping her son awake. The resident attached video footage to the email.

Events after the final complaint response

The resident emailed the landlord on 27 November 2021 stating that her neighbour’s son was “wheeling” his bike by her car on the shared driveway.
The landlord’s investigating officer emailed the resident on 1 December 2021, they apologised for the delay in responding as they had been on leave. The officer asked the resident to confirm the date, time and duration of the incident involving children kicking and throwing balls against her window. The officer also noted that doorbell cameras should only cover the resident’s private property and not cover her neighbour’s property without their permission. The officer asked the resident to read the ICO’s CCTV guidance to ensure she was compliant with this.
On 3 December 2021, the resident responded to the landlord and stated that the video footage she had provided was time stamped and that the incident on 19 November 2021 had continued until 9pm.
Between 12 December and 17 December 2021 the resident sent a number of videos taken from her ring doorbell camera to the landlord by email. Following this email the landlord emailed the resident and stated that it had reviewed the footage and asked if the resident had seen the female neighbour since the recordings were taken. The landlord stated that it could not provide full details regarding its next steps but would be taking “the most appropriate and proportionate action based on this evidence”. It advised the resident to continue to report any further incidents to the landlord and to call the police if she felt unsafe.
On 20 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour and stated that it had received “evidenced reports” which showed one of the neighbour’s household members causing a “serious nuisance”. The letter detailed the behaviour of the household member which included shouting, swearing, using offensive language, trying to climb over the fence, asking someone to bring her “weed”, and kicking the gate. The landlord stated that this was a serious breach of tenancy.
On 1 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord with footage from her ring doorbell and stated that two individuals had been living in her neighbour’s property since 5 December 2021 when her neighbours had left. On 7 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that her neighbours had left the property on 5 December 2021 and had not returned.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 January 2022 and stated that it had reviewed the footage provided by the resident. The landlord described what could be seen in each of the 5 video recordings provided by the resident between 23 December 2021 and 1 January 2022 and stated that no ASB could be identified.
The landlord received a telephone message from the resident’s neighbour on 18 January 2022. They stated they had been out of the country. On 19 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour and advised that any further ASB could impact their tenancy.
The landlord has stated to this Service that it has investigated all reports of ASB from the resident and has offered to move the resident and her family to another property but this offer was not accepted.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

It is acknowledged that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of ASB. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
Definitions of ASB, including that within the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 which the landlord employs, are subjective and whether a behaviour is considered to be antisocial or not depends on the impact that it has on others.
This Service has not been provided with any risk assessments completed by the landlord during the ASB investigation. Risk assessments are considered a fundamental tool that allow landlords to understand the risks posed to an ASB victim and respond appropriately. It is therefore of concern, and a breach of the landlord’s own ASB procedure, that no evidence has been seen of a formal assessment having taken place.
The resident in this case describes a variety of alleged behaviours, some of which are certainly considered ASB (such as intimidation, verbal and racial abuse), some may be ASB depending on the circumstances (such as loud music, shouting, and litter) and others generally are not considered ASB (such as babies crying, children playing, staring, and smoke from barbecues). The behaviours described by the resident clearly caused her a nuisance and annoyance and the resident has described feeling harassed, alarmed and distressed. Therefore, if the resident employed the ASB definition from the landlord’s policy, it was reasonable for her to describe these behaviours as ASB.
This Service has seen evidence of reports from the resident of noise nuisance and other incidents of ASB. Whilst this Service has seen evidence that the resident refers to intimidation, harassment, and abuse, we have not seen evidence that the resident reported specific incidents of such behaviour within the period of investigation. This is not to say that such incidents did not occur, only that this Service has not seen evidence of this.
Whilst the landlord should have had regard for the impact of the reported behaviours on the resident, it does not necessarily follow that it is able to take enforcement action in all cases where a behaviour has a negative impact. It is therefore important that landlords effectively manage the expectations of those reporting ASB to avoid giving them false expectations of what can be achieved.
This Service would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset of a case, what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Just as importantly, the landlord should manage a resident’s expectations as to what action it can take, as the actions available to it may fail to meet a resident’s preferred resolution. No evidence has been seen that the landlord drew up and followed an action plan in managing the resident’s ASB complaint. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations more effectively. This caused the resident unnecessary distress.
In her November 2021 email to the landlord, the resident pointed out that she had at the request of the landlord: completed diary sheets; gathered witness details and letters from witnesses; made Noise App audio recordings; provided video recordings; attended mediation; and reported the ASB to the police and environmental health. Given that the resident had carried out such actions as had been requested, it was reasonable that she assumed that the landlord would consider taking further action.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord clearly stated to the resident prior to the letter from its solicitor in September 2021 that it did not feel that the behaviour reported was ASB. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord made clear prior to this that no enforcement action would be taken. This was a serious failing and prolonged the unnecessary distress felt by the resident.
This Service considers that the reasoning within the letter sent by the landlord’s solicitors was sound. It is reasonable to consider that a large family would make more noise during the “ordinary use of the property” than a small family. It was also reasonable for it to state that the evidence submitted by the resident did not meet the threshold for legal action and did not support the “intensity” of the resident’s allegations. This reasoning however was communicated to the resident in September 2021, more than 4 years after she first began reporting the ASB. Such a delayed explanation was unreasonable and led to the resident having had unreasonably high expectations of the landlord’s actions for this period.
The landlord has stated, in communications with the resident and with this Service, that it has taken appropriate and proportionate action in response to the resident’s reports. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord may have been unable to take legal action, it does not follow that no other proportionate actions were available.
It is acknowledged that the landlord offered to refer the resident and her neighbours for mediation. Whilst mediation is often an effective means of resolving ASB, it is not always appropriate. The landlord has acknowledged that when mediation was first carried out in 2018, the resident’s female neighbour was asked to leave the session when she became aggressive towards the resident. Given this history, it is understandable that the resident may not wish to engage in further mediation as she may be fearful. The landlord has failed to consider and respond to the impact of the previous mediation on the resident and this is a failing.
Over a 20-month period between November 2017 and July 2019 the landlord received an extremely high number of reports from the resident. However, the only actions that the landlord has evidenced taking were reading the reports from the resident and other witnesses, writing to the alleged perpetrator 4 times, and arranging mediation.
It is acknowledged that 2 further letters were sent to the resident’s neighbour in February 2021 and August 2021 regarding allegations of noise and nuisance from their barbecue. In December 2021 further letters were sent following more serious reports of ASB. This Service has not however seen evidence that the landlord considered other actions such as installing noise monitoring equipment, carrying out home visits, or referring either family for support services. This was a missed opportunity.
The resident requested in May 2021 that the landlord install a fence between the shared driveways. This Service considers that, given the longstanding issue and the frequent nature of the resident’s reports, it would have been reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to install the fencing. In cases such as this, where enforcement action may not be appropriate, it is important that the landlord consider other options. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider installing a fence.
Overall, the landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations of what action it would take in response to her reports of ASB. The landlord failed to agree with the resident what behaviours amounted to ASB and what behaviours did not, and therefore were a matter of differing lifestyles and would require tolerance. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s ASB handling.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It is noted that the landlord advised this Service in October 2021 that the resident’s ASB case was “in its infancy”. At that time, the ASB case had been ongoing for over 4 years so certainly would not be considered ‘new’. This statement was therefore not factually correct.
It is also noted with concern that the landlord advised this Service that it would “find it difficult to investigate a complaint without the ASB process having first concluded”. The ASB investigation process (the substantive issue of complaint) was separate to the complaint investigation and therefore both could and should have taken place independently of each other. The complaint process was the landlord’s opportunity to assess whether its handling of the resident’s reports and subsequent investigations and actions up to the point of the complaint were satisfactory.
The Ombudsman’ Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that, in its response to each stage of the complaints process, the landlord should “write to the resident advising them of the following:
1. the complaint stage
2. the outcome of the complaint
3. the reasons for any decisions made
4. the details of any remedy offered to put things right
5. details of any outstanding actions
6. details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to clearly identify itself as a formal response, or to provide any details of the content of ASB reports made by the resident and actions carried out by the landlord in investigating the reports.
The stage 1 response stated that it had taken “the most appropriate and proportionate action to date” but did not state what this action was. Had the landlord provided an explanation of the investigations it had carried out and actions it had taken, the resident may have been assured that the landlord had thoroughly considered her reports. As it was, no detail was provided and it was reasonable that the resident did not consider that her concerns had been taken seriously.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also stated that it would “not be pursuing any enforcement action by the courts”. It did not however provide an explanation for this decision. The landlord should have explained to the resident that, in order to take legal action, it had to be reasonably confident that it would be successful at court. It should also have explained why it did not believe that the evidence provided by the resident reached the threshold for burden of proof in a civil case.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response provided no detail and consisted of a two-paragraph statement that the stage one complaint investigation had been thorough and fair and that the ASB investigation had been appropriately managed. This was unacceptable and gave the resident the impression that her complaint review was being summarily rejected without proper consideration.
Whilst the landlord’s conclusion may have been correct, it is not possible to determine this based on the limited evidence put forward by the landlord in its complaint responses to the resident. Had the landlord outlined within its responses what investigations it had carried out and what evidence it had based its assessment on, the resident, and this Service, may have had more insight into the decision. This was a serious failing.
The landlord’s complaint responses failed to provide sufficient information to support its decision not to uphold the complaint and therefore failed to resolve the resident’s concerns or provide any redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations of what action it would take in response to her reports of ASB. It failed make clear what behaviours amounted to ASB and what behaviours did not.
The landlord failed to provide sufficient explanation of its decision not to uphold the resident’s complaint. It failed to resolve the dispute or provide redress to the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 which comprises:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience in failing to effectively manage the resident’s ASB reports.
2. £300 for time and trouble in failing to provide a reasonable response to the resident’s formal complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to carry out training of all staff involved in the management of ASB to ensure:
1. Risk assessments and action plans are completed in all cases.
2. The expectations of residents are appropriately managed.
3. All non-legal options are considered where enforcement action is not appropriate.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides guidance to complaint team staff to ensure that complaint responses address each part of a resident’s complaint in sufficient detail.

Recommendations

The landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to contact the resident and her neighbour, to arrange to install a suitable fence between the properties on the shared driveway. If the landlord is unable to install a fence, it should inform the resident and this Service of its reasoning for this.