Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202108668)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108668

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

11 November 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

  1. One of the stated aims of the landlord’s ASB policy is that it will help ensure a fair recognition of the rights of individuals to a fair hearing and ensure that there is a presumption of innocence until the facts about any complaint of ASB have been established.
  2. The ASB policy lists timescales by which the landlord should respond to certain types of cases. Standard cases – which would include issues such as noise nuisance – should be responded to within five working days.
  3. The policy goes on to say that the landlord will not take action in certain circumstances, one of these being if the complainant is unwilling to give evidence or otherwise cooperate with its investigation.

Background

  1. The property is a one–bedroom flat. The resident’s assured shorthold tenancy began in May 2019.

Summary of events

  1. On 29 January 2021 the resident made a complaint about noise nuisance via the landlord’s online portal.
  2. On 2 and 3 February 2021 the landlord tried to call the resident but there was no answer and no facility to leave a voicemail. The case was closed on 8 February 2021 as the landlord had been unable to make contact with the resident by phone.
  3. However, the case was reopened on 9 February 2021, following receipt of an email from the resident referring to ASB. The resident followed this up with another email in which he complained that he had had to report ASB and harassment too many times before he got any form of response and that the case was not treated as an emergency. The resident said that his neighbour was a rogue tenant with visitors who behaved just as badly. He said that the visitors would bang on the walls during the night and in the early hours of the morning instead of using the entry phone buzzer and that last time all of the neighbour’s windows were smashed.
  4. The housing officer rang the resident on 12 February 2021 but there was no answer. The resident did call back later but at that time the housing officer was no longer available.
  5. On 15 February 2021 the landlord called the resident and was able to speak to him to clarify his concerns. The resident said that he had been reporting the behaviour of his neighbour for several weeks and that he did not feel that the landlord was taking his reports seriously. He said that the neighbour regularly made threats to him, swore at him and banged on his wall to harass him. He also said that the neighbour now had a dog that barked regularly.
  6. The landlord tried to call the resident again on 16 February 2021 but there was no answer. However, the landlord opened an ASB case on that day and sent the resident an acknowledgement letter enclosing diary sheets for the resident to complete. A letter was also sent to the neighbour as the alleged perpetrator.
  7. On 17 February 2021 the landlord rang the resident again but was unable to contact him. However, the resident then did answer the landlord’s call on 19 February 2021. The landlord’s note of the call is that it had a conversation with the resident about its ASB procedures and what action the resident needed to follow in order for the landlord to proceed with its investigations into his allegations.
  8. On 23 February 2021 the landlord emailed the neighbour who responded by denying the allegations and who made a counter allegation against the resident.
  9. On 26 February 2021 the landlord tried to call the resident three times to discuss his complaint. It then sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said that the ASB case was being dealt with by the housing officer who had recently had a conversation with the resident about filling in diary sheets and what action the landlord could take. With regard to the resident saying that he had not received any information, the landlord said that the housing officer had tried to contact the resident four times before sending him a letter by post but unfortunately, she had struggled to get through to the resident on his mobile number.
  10. The resident responded the same day to say that he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. He said that the housing officer had not been in contact with him. He said it was fair enough if the housing officer was saying she had tried to contact him but could not. However, he had not received any correspondence from her by post or email. The resident then said that he had received one letter and that the housing officer had said she was going to email him but never did, so he ended up emailing her. The resident ended by saying that the noise coming from the neighbour’s flat at 2am was very loud and was psychological torture.
  11. On 3 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to explain that it had spoken to his neighbour who denied being responsible for any noise nuisance and who had made counter allegations that it was the resident causing noise issues. The landlord tried to call the resident on 5 March 2021 but there was no answer.
  12. On 7 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to deny the counter allegations against him and suggesting that other tenants in the block were also causing noise problems. On 10 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to ask if there were any further issues.
  13. On 15 March 2021 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The letter included a list of all the times that the landlord had contacted the resident or attempted to contact him between 29 January and 7 March 2021. It said that the resident’s initial complaint had been closed on 8 February 2021 as the housing officer had been unable to contact the resident by phone. It clarified that the issue was not being dealt with as a formal ASB case at that stage as it did not open ASB cases until it had spoken to the complainant to understand the full nature of the problem. Having received subsequent emails from the resident on 9 and 11 February 2021, an ASB case was opened on 16 February 2021 and the resident was written to about that and sent some diary sheets to complete. The landlord said that the diary sheets were an essential part of allowing the landlord to understand what was happening and to take appropriate action. This had been confirmed with the resident over the phone on 19 February 2021, when it was also advised that the landlord had made contact with the neighbour. The landlord said that, as the resident had given his email address as part of his initial contact, it should have attempted to contact him via email in addition to calling him, which would have given the resident the assurance that it had received his complaint and was taking prompt action to respond. The landlord apologised that that had not happened. The landlord said that, although it had responded in line with its procedures, it had learnt from this experience to make attempts to contact customers using all the access channels they have provided details of. The landlord explained that it had also advised the resident that he could report any issues of excessive noise to the Council.
  14. The landlord received no further response from the resident in relation to ASB and so a closure letter was sent to him on 24 March 2021.

Following the stage 2 response

  1. On 28 May 2021 the resident filled in a Council feedback form expressing his dissatisfaction with the service he had received from their environmental health team. The Council responded to say it had reviewed the case. They said that the resident had first made contact on 2 February 2021 to report noise from a neighbour. A letter had been sent to the neighbour informing him that he was the subject of a noise complaint and a log sheet had been sent to the resident to record details of day, time, types of noise and duration of incidents. The resident returned the log on 20 April 2021 which contained eleven entries that indicated that all noise incidents were for short durations of less than a minute. A qualified officer had assessed that the information would not constitute a statutory nuisance and therefore the investigation was closed. The Council said it was satisfied that the investigation had been carried out in accordance with their procedures and that the outcome had been communicated to the resident. The Council concluded by signposting the resident to the correct resource if he was experiencing ASB.
  2. During June and July 2021, the resident further reported to the landlord that the neighbour had been talking loudly, was often banging and had a dog. The resident had also reported the matter to the police. The landlord wrote to other tenants in the block on 12 July 2021 to ascertain if anyone else was suffering noise nuisance.
  3. On 15 July 2021 the landlord carried out a joint visit to the resident with the police. The resident insisted on speaking to them outside his flat, against their advice as it meant that other tenants would see him talking to the police. The police explained to the resident that it needed to check on him because of the call that he had made. The resident was not very talkative but did say that the neighbour below was banging on the walls and ceiling. The resident would not provide details of his GP and said that he did not suffer from mental health problems. The landlord reiterated the procedure for reporting noise nuisance (which it followed up in writing the following day, supplying further diary sheets). The police advised the resident that it would be submitting a care plan.
  4. As there was no further response from the resident, a case closure letter was sent to the resident on 17 August 2021. The landlord has confirmed that it has never received any diary sheets back from the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of ASB and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
  2. On each occasion, the landlord did attempt to contact the resident within five days of him reporting ASB, which is in line with the timescales set out in its ASB policy. The landlord has apologised for initially trying to contact the resident only by phone and not by email. It says that in future it will try to contact tenants using all access channels provided. This Service considers that this approach by the landlord, in response to the complaint, is reasonable and it reflects the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principles of ‘learning from outcomes’.
  3. As a result of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, the landlord followed up the allegation with the neighbour and requested that the resident complete diary sheets. These steps demonstrate that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and was mindful of its obligations to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreements and its ASB policy.
  4. It would not have been fair for the landlord to take action against the neighbour based purely on what the resident was reporting. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord needed to establish the facts of the case before deciding on any potential action.
  5. The ASB process and the need to provide diary sheets was explained to the resident on at least two occasions. Although the resident feels that the landlord could have taken action against the neighbour by issuing an injunction or eviction notice, in order to do that the landlord would have to build a solid case against the neighbour that included substantial evidence of ASB. That process would begin with the landlord reviewing diary sheets that the resident had completed to establish the nature of the alleged behaviour by the neighbour. However, the resident has never returned any diary sheets to allow an investigation to begin in earnest.
  6. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s frustration in feeling that the landlord has not done enough to prevent ASB from the neighbour. However, both the landlord and the Ombudsman can only rely on the presenting evidence to reach sound conclusions which are fair to both parties involved. The Ombudsman does not know why the resident did not return any diary sheets however, the failure to do so has hindered the landlord’s ability to progress the case.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its ASB policy. However, due to insufficient evidence, it was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to close the case when it did.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Reasons

  1. The landlord has advised the resident of the process for building a case against the neighbour. However, the landlord has to be fair to all sides and, without proportionate evidence, the landlord has so far been unable to reasonably support any further action against the neighbour.