The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202007710)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007710

Sanctuary Housing Association

19 February 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 refers to:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her neighbour.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident’s neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s property is a ground floor flat.
  2. The resident stated that she has had issues since 2017 with noise nuisance from her neighbour. She had reported these incidents to the landlord on numerous occasions and said that these issues had escalated from noise nuisance such as shouting, loud music and fights, to more intimidating behaviour, such as swearing, making rude gestures and shouting at her.
  3. The resident and her neighbour took part in mediation on 18 January 2020 and agreed to: “draw a line” under the previous events and move forward; leave each other alone; keep noise levels within normal domestic levels; and avoid retaliatory action with each other.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 February 2020 and stated that her neighbour had broken the mediation agreement as they had been playing loud music in the afternoon and into the early evening. The resident reported loud music being played again in April 2020 late into the evening. The landlord’s notes suggest that no further reports had been received by 18 May 2020 and the case was closed.
  5. The resident reported further harassment from her neighbour in May 2020 and stated that her neighbour had been playing loud music for five hours and then began jumping and swearing. The resident had called her nephews to help support her in approaching her neighbour. The neighbour was then reportedly abusive and intimidating towards her. She went downstairs to call the Police and the neighbour had exposed themselves to her nephews. She stated that she did not feel safe and that her neighbour had been arrested for the ASB and indecent exposure.
  6. The resident reported an incident to the landlord on 24 May 2020 and stated that her neighbour was at his window, making “rude finger gestures” and swearing at her nephew’s family. The resident stated that she was used to this behaviour but did not want her neighbour to also verbally abuse her family as it had caused upset. The resident stated that she would be calling the Police again following this incident.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 25 May 2020 and issued a formal warning following the incident of indecent exposure. It stated that the neighbour’s actions were inexcusable. Since the Police were not taking any further action, the landlord stated it would not take legal action at this stage. It warned the neighbour that if any further allegations were received that it would look to take action against their tenancy. It reminded the neighbour to stick to the terms of the mediation agreement and not to make any contact with the resident. 
  8. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 16 July 2020 which stated the following:
    1. She said that the landlord had not taken successful action following her reports of her concerns about ASB from her neighbour over three years. She explained that she was living in constant fear inside her own home due to the behaviour of her neighbour.
    2. Historically the issues had to do with the level of noise from her neighbour’s flat, but this had escalated into attacks of verbal abuse. She stated that the behaviour escalated in March 2020 and the neighbour had been threatening and abusive by calling her names, making animal sounds, shouting at her and playing loud music constantly.
    3. She stated that following her neighbour’s arrest, they had been quieter, although the behaviour was escalating once more. She stated that her neighbour was constantly shouting at her through the window when she left or returned to her home. She had made the landlord aware of each occasion of abuse.
    4. She stated that this ongoing situation had affected her mental health and she was living on eggshells in fear of setting her neighbour off. She acknowledged that the landlord had been supportive but had done little to make the situation any better. She explained that as she was working from home due to Covid-19, she was unable to escape the situation. She asked the landlord to act and help her feel safe in her own home as she feared her neighbour would become violent towards her.
  9. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 31 July 2020 and stated the following:
    1. It explained that whilst it appreciated the situation was distressing for the resident, it had taken all available action to try and resolve the dispute between her and her neighbour.
    2. It stated that it had sent warning letters, which the resident reported helped the situation for some time. It had also provided mediation, which had not worked successfully. It had offered to install noise monitoring equipment but due to the restrictions in place because of Covid-19 it had not been able to follow through with this action. It stated that it would explore this option again once the restrictions were lifted.
    3. It noted that there had been counter-complaints made against the resident but there was little evidence available on either part. The Police had not taken any further action against her neighbour, but the landlord had sent warning letters to them following any Police involvement.
    4. It stated that it could implement a Good Neighbour Agreement if the resident wished but explained that this would not hold any legal enforcement powers if breached. It advised that it was in contact with the resident’s neighbour with the aim of finding a resolution but could not disclose further information due to data protection regulations.
    5. It advised that if the resident was dissatisfied with its response, she could escalate her complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process.
  10. The resident requested for her complaint to be escalated on 5 August 2020 stating the following:
    1. She explained that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response as she felt the landlord had not investigated her case fully. She noted its comments in relation to data protection, although pointed out that the landlord may have already breached data protection regulations by mentioning the neighbour’s last name.
    2. She stated that her neighbour had breached the mediation agreement within a week and she had made the landlord aware of this at the time. She highlighted that she had received no information in relation to any counter-complaints and made a Subject Access Request.
    3. She noted the landlord’s comments in relation to a lack of evidence but stated that she had informed the landlord of various crime reference numbers as well as having made several calls to the landlord regarding the ASB. She pointed out that there were witnesses to the ASB and her family members had been verbally abused by her neighbour.  She said that there had been a further incident the same week and provided the corresponding crime reference number. She had also sent the landlord recordings of her neighbour being abusive towards her.
    4. She did not feel a Good Neighbour Agreement would work as her neighbour had not complied with the previous mediation agreement. She explained that she continued to receive verbal abuse from her neighbour which she contended was having a significant impact on her mental health. She also feared that the behaviour of her neighbour would escalate and felt it was only a matter of time before they became physically violent.
  11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 9 September 2020 which stated the following:
    1. It detailed the historic incidents which the resident had reported since 2017 in relation to noise nuisance and ASB from her neighbour. It noted that it had previously contacted them and had offered mediation in 2018 which was declined. It had previously sent the resident a diary logbook to complete should the noise nuisance continue.
    2. It advised that mediation had taken place in January 2020 following a counter complaint made against the resident of excessive noise coming from her flat. It advised that her case had been closed following this mediation agreement and apologised that it had not monitored the situation further.
    3. It noted that following a report of loud music in February 2020, the resident had not been contacted by the landlord and it apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused.
    4. It stated that following the incidents in May 2020 which involved the resident’s neighbour being verbally abusive and allegedly exposing themselves, the landlord took direction from the Police. It explained that where there was Police involvement, the Police would take lead on any investigation and proposed action. It confirmed that the Police had not taken any formal action against her neighbour. The landlord held that it had contacted the resident regularly since this incident although it did not have any recorded notes of the contact made.
    5. It explained that since the incidents the resident had reported were sporadic with long periods between reports, each new report it investigated did not necessitate formal action. It noted that some of the incidents reported on the resident’s diary log had not been recorded and the landlord was unable to establish whether this was a result of the incidents not being reported or a failure in record keeping. It noted that its record keeping had been below standard and, on occasion, aspects of the landlord’s required investigation had not been completed.
    6. The landlord stated that it had highlighted the resident’s experience with its team which it had reminded its team of the importance of recording each interaction to allow cases to be investigated in the future. It had also arranged for a further diary logbook to be sent to the resident so that further incidents could be recorded formally. This evidence would allow the landlord to assess if noise monitoring equipment would be a suitable option moving forward. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience which had been caused as a result of its poor record keeping and failure to follow its policy and procedure.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The Ombudsman would expect complaints to be made to the landlord within a reasonable period, which would ordinarily be within six months of the matters arising. This is because the passage of time makes the investigation of historical events difficult and unreliable. Therefore, whilst historical events may be included to provide context, this investigation will focus on events from January 2020. This is six months prior to the resident raising a formal complaint with the landlord.
  2. The resident has said that the reported ASB has caused her to experience problems with her mental health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to draw conclusions as to the cause of issues with the resident’s health. She may wish to seek professional medical advice and support.
  3. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  4. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of ASB. The resident has accused her neighbour of noise nuisance, verbal abuse and intimidating behaviour. These actions would fall under the heading of ASB, as set out in the landlord’s ASB policy. Therefore, it would have been expected to investigate and take reasonable steps to resolve the ASB which had been reported.
  5. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, such as written warnings, injunctions etc. the landlord would require evidence of the alleged behaviour to support this. Landlords should usually attempt to resolve ASB informally in the first instance, such as through mediation and by contacting the parties involved to discuss the matter. A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts have been unsuccessful in resolving the issues. The landlord would also be expected to communicate with the victim to ensure they have a realistic expectation of the case and actions that can be taken.
  6. In this case, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek evidence of the resident’s reports of ASB by asking the resident to complete diary sheets, discussing the incidents with the resident’s neighbour and offering mediation. The resident reported that the noise issues were ongoing, although these reports were sporadic, with the resident also reporting periods of quiet. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take formal action against the resident’s neighbour. Following an incident of alleged indecent exposure, the landlord acted reasonably by taking direction from the Police. This was a reasonable response as indecent exposure would be a criminal matter, more appropriately handled by the Police.
  7. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account of what happened, the neighbour has offered counter claims of noise nuisance and it would not be reasonably possible for the landlord to establish whether these accounts were correct without supporting evidence. Following reports of noise nuisance from both parties, the landlord acted reasonably by offering to install noise monitoring equipment at the property in order to gain further evidence to support any potential formal action. It is not clear whether this has been installed to date, but the landlord has provided evidence that it has sent a letter to the residents of the block in October 2020 to make them aware that noise equipment may be installed. If the landlord has not already installed this equipment, it is recommended that this action is taken as soon as possible. The delay due to the Covid restrictions is regrettable, but not a failure of the landlord’s.
  8. The landlord highlighted its service failure when handling the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB and acknowledged that it had not always contacted the resident, following her reports, to agree a course of action in line with its ASB policy. The landlord also noted that its record keeping was not always clear and certain correspondence with the resident was not recorded. This was not in line with its ASB policy which states that correspondence in relation to reports of ASB must always be recorded.
  9. The landlord has offered redress for its service failures in relation to its record keeping and implementation of its ASB policy. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £150 for the inconvenience caused by its service failures in these areas. It is not possible to say that had the landlord’s responses and record keeping been as required then further action would have been taken against the neighbour. The continued limitation in this case was the lack of consistent, ongoing, independent evidence of ASB. The poor record keeping related to the contact it had had with the neighbour, as opposed to the records of any evidence it had received. Therefore the failure was one of communication and support, as opposed to missed opportunities for formal tenancy action.
  10. There was no further service failure in respect of the landlord’s actions following the resident’s reports of ASB as the landlord took reasonable steps to gain sufficient evidence of the issues. The landlord took steps to work alongside other agencies such as the Police to ascertain if evidence was sufficient to take formal action against the resident’s neighbour. Similarly, since there had been counter claims of noise nuisance made against the resident, the landlord acted reasonably in requiring further evidence before being able to initiate formal action.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one the landlord should provide a resolution within five to ten working days. At stage two the landlord should provide a formal written complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint and attempt to resolve the matter.
  2. In her initial complaint, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the steps taken by the landlord to resolve the reported ASB had not been successful. She requested that the landlord explain what actions it would take moving forward to help her feel safe in her home. She also stated frequently that the situation had affected her mental health and she felt scared for her safety in her home.
  3. There has been service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Whilst the Landlord has taken steps to investigate its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, it has not addressed her claim that she did not feel safe in her home. The landlord may not have sufficient evidence at this stage to take formal action against the resident’s neighbour’s tenancy, although the Landlord would have been expected to explain what action it could take in the future and its limitations in respect of this matter at all stages and signpost the resident to relevant external services should she need support.
  4. The landlord had reasonably offered to install noise monitoring equipment and offered to implement a Good Neighbour Agreement at stage one, although it would have been appropriate for the landlord to identify a plan of action and provide the resident with further information in respect of what it could do moving forward and what support may be available in its stage two complaint response rather than address its previous actions. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer support or refer the resident to external services which may offer support in relation to her mental health and safety.
  5. In light of this, the landlord should take steps to signpost the resident to relevant support services and agree a plan of action should her neighbour’s ASB continue. It should manage her expectations and explain its limitations. It should also offer a further award of compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by failing to address her safety concerns and offer support.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from her neighbour satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The evidence shows that the Landlord has acted in line with its ASB policy following the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by interviewing the neighbour, sending warning letters and offering mediation. Although there were service failures with respect of its record keeping and contact with the resident following her reports of ASB. The landlord has apologised and offered £150 compensation which is proportionate to the level of inconvenience that the resident has experienced as a result of these failures. To carry out any formal action the Landlord would need to have sufficient evidence of the alleged ASB and identify any perpetrators and it is noted that the landlord intends to install noise monitoring equipment if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord has provided its complaint responses within a reasonable timeframe at each stage, although it has failed to address the resident’s claims that she felt unsafe in her home. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge these concerns and address each aspect of the resident’s complaint. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to detail what action could be taken in the future and its limitations in respect of formal action to manage the resident’s expectations and signpost the resident to any support services available.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions be carried out within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to write to the resident and provide an update on its current course of action in relation to her reports of ASB and signpost the resident to relevant support services.
    2. The landlord is to pay the resident £250 comprised of:
      1. £150 as previously offered, in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its record keeping and failure to contact the resident following each report of ASB.
      2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.