Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202205227)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205227

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

14 December 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 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) by her neighbours and their dog.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat in a building with an entrance and a communal garden that are shared with her neighbours.
3. The resident advised the landlord on 14 October 2021 that she had concerns about her neighbours’ dog, as she alleged that it had charged at her in the communal garden. The landlord advised her at the time to contact the police. It also sent a tenancy warning to her neighbours on the same day, advising them to keep their dog on a leash and not to leave it unattended.
4. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord again on 21 January 2022, alleging that the dog had tried to attack her. She advised that she had contacted the police, who had given her an email address to contact regarding dangerous dogs, for which the landlord spoke to her on 27 January 2022 and agreed to warn the neighbours that this was in breach of their tenancy and to remain in control of the dog on 3 February 2022, after it confirmed that she was uninjured.
5. The resident then made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 4 February 2022, as she felt that no action had been taken by it after she had told it and the police multiple times about being attacked by her neighbours’ dog. She advised that she could not use the communal area when the dog was there, and that the dog was never kept on a leash. The resident therefore wanted to know what action would be taken against her neighbours and their dog, for which she wanted to be kept updated.
6. In its stage one complaint response of 7 February 2022, the landlord said that it had advised the resident that day to start filling in diary sheets about the ASB. It had also sent her neighbours a further tenancy warning. The landlord additionally advised that the resident’s case would remain open, and that it would contact the police to find out what action would be taken against her neighbours in relation to their dog. She subsequently advised the landlord on 7 February 2022 that ASB by her neighbours was continuing, including their use of her bins and their dog’s presence at the gate preventing her from entering her property for 30 minutes.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 February 2022 because she felt that her “life was in danger”, and that the landlord was not taking her case “seriously”. She reported that she had previously provided it with video evidence of her neighbours’ dog being off its leash and attacking her, and that she had also sent the landlord her completed diary sheets. The outcome that the resident wanted was to be kept safe from her neighbours’ dog.
8. The landlord then contacted the police on 1 March 2022, who confirmed that they had visited the resident’s neighbours and had assessed that their dog was “well behaved and not aggressive” during the assessment. The police also advised that they would not take further action against the neighbours because the dog had not bitten the resident. The landlord therefore offered mediation between her and her neighbours on 3 March 2022, although the neighbours refused this due to their outstanding counter allegations against her. It nevertheless advised them that their dog’s behaviour was in breach of their tenancy agreement, and that they should remain in control of the dog.
9. In its final stage complaint response of 11 March 2022, the landlord found that it had acted in line with its ASB policy, and that there were no grounds to uphold the resident’s complaint, but that it would continue to support her in the matter, for which it subsequently issued her neighbours with a joint warning with the police.
10. The resident then complained to this Service, as she was unhappy that the ASB was still ongoing. She wanted her neighbours’ dog to be kept on a lead in communal areas and for her to have a safe environment. We subsequently requested further information from the landlord about her case, and it confirmed to us that her building had a shared entrance, the police had suggested to it that she was vulnerable, and that it considered that the neighbours’ counter-allegations against her had contributed to the issues in her case. It also explained that the resident had reported fouling in the communal garden by the neighbours’ dog to it that it had viewed on CCTV, for which it had spoken to them and checked the garden to ensure that this was cleared up on the same day.

Assessment and findings

11. The landlord’s tenancy agreements only permit its tenants to keep registered assistance or similar dogs at its properties with shared entrances. These also permit it to ask for pets to be removed if they cause nuisance or foul in communal areas, which its tenants have to clear up and hygienically dispose of immediately.
12. The landlord’s ASB policy prioritises cases into a high, medium or standard category. The resident reported that her case would fall into the high category, involving violence or threats of violence, because she reported aggressive behaviour by her neighbours’ dog, and that it had allegedly tried to attack her.
13. Regarding a case that has been categorised as high priority under the landlord’s ASB policy, it was obliged to respond to the resident within one working day of her raising an ASB case. Its aim is prevention and early action, and it will seek to act quickly in an effort to resolve issues before they escalate, focus on understanding both points of view while setting out clear expectations on all sides, and seeking mutually agreed resolutions working with its partners and communities. The landlord is also required by its policy to consider the vulnerabilities of the parties to an ASB case, and to offer assistance, signposting and to make referrals to specialist support agencies to address underlying causes.
14. On the same day that the resident informed the landlord about the ASB from her neighbours’ dog on 14 October 2021, it advised her to contact the police, issued her neighbours with a tenancy warning, and told them to keep their dog on a leash and not to leave the dog unattended. It also advised her about the steps that it had taken.
15. These actions were in line with the landlord’s above obligations to do so under its ASB policy. This is because it responded to the initial report within the specified one-working-day timeframe, advised the resident of what steps to take, and also issued her neighbours with a tenancy warning, as early action and prevention of further ASB. The landlord’s warning to her neighbours and advice to them, in relation to their dog, set out its expectations of them and, by informing her of its actions, it managed her expectations.
16. While it is concerning that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s subsequent ASB reports in January and February 2022 as promptly as it did to her initial report in October 2021, this was in light of its previous advice to her to contact the police, which she confirmed that she had done in her subsequent reports. As it required more evidence of ASB to enable it to take further action for her reports, it instead took longer to respond to these by seeking such evidence by sending her diary sheets and contacting the police, which confirmed that she was uninjured and that the dog was not assessed as aggressive or badly behaved.
17. The landlord’s ASB policy additionally states that, where a simple mutually agreed solution cannot be worked out, it will take appropriate action, including but not limited to mediation, warning interviews/letters, and all available legal remedies.
18. The landlord did send multiple warnings to the resident’s neighbours on 14 October 2021, and 3 and 7 February and 3 March 2022, and it also offered mediation between her and her neighbours on 3 March 2022, but this offer was rejected by the neighbours. It additionally provided the resident with diary sheets on which to record ASB by her neighbours, and so these actions were in accordance with its obligations to do so under its ASB policy.
19. The landlord’s ASB policy further states that it will provide practical and emotional support to the resident, based on the Government’s risk assessment matrix (RAM) score for the case. This is generated by assessing an ASB victim’s level of vulnerability in relation to the ASB, which will then be used to classify the victim as being at low, medium or high risk.
20. The landlord did leave the resident’s ASB case open and continued to provide ASB support to her, even after its final stage complaint response, including by issuing a warning to her neighbours jointly with the police. It also informed this Service that she scored 22 on the RAM, and therefore was not referred to the local ASB risk assessment conference. This indicated a medium RAM score, requiring appropriate recording, referrals, follow up, planning and reviews on the landlord’s part in partnership with the police. This therefore supported its approach to the resident’s ASB case, under its ASB policy’s obligation for it to support her vulnerability in relation to ASB based on her RAM score.
21. It is of concern, however, that the landlord’s ASB policy does not give more detail as to what steps it will take to assess whether there has been any ASB. For example, whether it would provide residents with any recording equipment, or whether residents are advised to record evidence of ASB. The ASB policy instead simply states that advice will be based on the RAM score, which does not help to explain this, manage the expectations of residents, or set out what proactive measures residents can take. It would have more been helpful if the landlord’s ASB policy had contained a basic generic list of steps to assess and record ASB.
22. However, the landlord’s ASB policy does state that practical support will be given to residents, based upon the RAM score. This confirms that measures are taken and advice is given on a case by case basis, and so residents would be advised on the best course of action after their case had been assessed. It has therefore been recommended below to review its ASB policy with a view to improving its explanation as to its assessment and residents’ recording of ASB.
23. Moreover, neither the landlord’s ASB policy nor its approach to the resident’s case envisaged the possible resolution of her complaint outside of the ASB framework set out by the policy, whereas its tenancy agreements and the facts of her case suggested otherwise. This is because it confirmed to this Service that her building had a shared entrance with her neighbours, and the tenancy agreements only permitted registered assistance or similar dogs at such properties, but there is no evidence that it investigated whether the neighbours’ dog met this criteria. This was inappropriate, as the landlord could have attempted to resolve the resident’s complaint by seeking or warning of the removal of the dog if the ASB continued and the dog was not permitted at the building.
24. However, the landlord did not do so, and nor did it seek or warn of the withdrawal of the resident’s neighbours’ permission to keep a dog if she experienced further ASB and the dog was permitted at the building. In addition, it did not consider this approach to trying to resolve her case outside of its ASB framework despite its tenancy agreements also allowing it to ask the dog to be removed if the dog caused nuisance or fouled in communal areas, which the neighbours had to clear up and hygienically dispose of immediately. As the resident reported nuisance from the dog to the landlord throughout the course of her case, and it confirmed to this Service that the dog had fouled in the communal garden and her neighbours had to be asked to clean this, it should have at least considered asking for or warning of the dog’s removal.
25. It is concerning, moreover, that the landlord only investigated supporting the resident for her vulnerability in relation to ASB after the police had suggested to it that she had further vulnerabilities, and it told this Service that it considered that her neighbours’ counter-allegations against her had contributed to the issues in her case. As its ASB policy obliged it to consider the vulnerabilities of the parties to an ASB case, and to offer assistance, signposting and to make referrals to specialist support agencies to address underlying causes, it ought to have discussed this with her to enable her to receive more specialist support for her vulnerability beyond that in relation to ASB. This could have helped to have resolved the resident’s case by addressing the underlying issues affecting this, but there is no evidence that the landlord did so, which was unreasonable.
26. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its tenancy agreements’ conditions and remedies with regard to ASB and pet nuisance, and of its ASB policy’s provisions in respect of specialist support for vulnerabilities, to ensure that these are considered in every relevant case. It has also been ordered below to seek to put right its failings in the resident’s case by contacting her to invite her to discuss any assistance that it can provide her with to obtain more specialist support for her vulnerability, and to resolve any outstanding concerns that she has in relation to its handling of her case.
27. In addition, the landlord has been ordered below to put right its failings in the resident’s case by paying her proportionate compensation in recognition of this. This is in line with the range of compensation recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected her that it neither acknowledged nor attempted to put right.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours and their dog.

Orders and recommendations

29. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Contact the resident within four weeks to apologise to her for its failings in her case.
    2. Contact the resident within four weeks to invite her to discuss any assistance that it can provide her with to obtain more specialist support for her vulnerability and any outstanding concerns that she has in relation to its handling of her case.
    3. Pay the resident £250 compensation within four weeks in recognition of its failures to consider its tenancy agreements and to discuss providing her with more specialist support for her vulnerability in her case.
30. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its ASB policy with a view to improving its explanation as to its assessment and residents’ recording of ASB.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its tenancy agreements’ conditions and remedies with regard to ASB and pet nuisance, and of its ASB policy’s provisions in respect of specialist support for vulnerabilities, to ensure that these are considered in every relevant case.
31. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.