Sanctuary Housing Association (202010279)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010279

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 June 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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by his neighbour’s visitor.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and his partner were a formerly tenants of the landlord at the property, and will both be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
The property is a top-floor, two-bedroom flat, sharing a communal staircase with the property below.
The antisocial behaviour reported by the resident was allegedly caused by a visitor to the occupier of the property downstairs.

Summary of events

On 22 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to make a report of antisocial behaviour in the form of noise caused by his downstairs neighbour’s visitor. Subsequently, he provided it with a log and videos of the antisocial behaviour experienced from 26 April 2020, consisting of loud music being played during unsociable hours, shouting, “banging on windows [and] doors”, and aggressive behaviour towards him.
The landlord then wrote to the neighbour visited by the alleged perpetrator on 27 April 2020, to advise of the reports that it had received regarding their visitor’s above behaviour, contrary to the downstairs neighbour’s tenancy agreement and its previous warnings about this, and the repercussions that this could have for their tenancy.
On 4 June 2020, following further reports by the resident of antisocial behaviour and a threat of violence on 28 and 30 April and 1, 12, 13, 22 and 26 May 2020, the landlord’s solicitors wrote to the neighbour visited by the alleged perpetrator regarding their above behaviour, and to advise of the tenancy breaches implied by this. Additionally, the solicitors mentioned that the landlord had previously issued both verbal and written warnings with regard to their visitor’s behaviour, asked them to cease the disruptive behaviour, and advised that their failure to comply would result in the landlord taking legal action against them without further notice.
The landlord then obtained an antisocial behaviour injunction against the alleged perpetrator from the county court on 5 June 2020, restricting them from visiting the property, the downstairs property or the communal areas and the local area, and from “threatening violence or verbally abusing” the resident. This was followed up by a notice of hearing to the alleged perpetrator from the court for this matter, which was issued on 7 June 2020 for a hearing on 11 June 2020, and by a letter issued to the neighbour visited by them by the landlord’s solicitors, on 15 June 2020, addressing further breaches of their tenancy agreement and of the above injunction.
On 27 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to log a stage one formal complaint regarding its handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour, and the fact that he believed that it should not have rented the property to him, because it was aware of the alleged perpetrator’s legal history. It logged this on 2 November 2020 and, on the complaint escalation form, it noted that it had reviewed the above antisocial behaviour case and had decided to partially uphold his complaint. However, the resident was not happy with this decision, as he disputed the landlord’s position that it did not have prior evidence of the above legal history.
The landlord issued the stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 November 2020, addressing the following:
1. With respect to the events and discussion that occurred during his initial property viewing, it decided that it would not uphold this part of the complaint, as it determined that no misleading information was provided to him deliberately.
2. Regarding the alleged perpetrator’s behavioural and legal history, it advised that it was “aware of elements” concerning this; however, it “would not usually share this personal information with other parties” and decided to not uphold this aspect of the complaint. The landlord explained that it had no previous reports of nuisance, antisocial behaviour or criminality about them, so it would not have been possible for it to have alerted the resident of these, and the authorities dealing with the alleged perpetrator’s legal history, which it worked with, did not deem it necessary to put risk control measures in place for them.
3. In relation to the actions taken to deal with his reports of antisocial behaviour, it advised that it had reviewed the case file and found that it had exhausted all of the avenues available to it, including by remaining in contact with him and obtaining the above injunction, and that it had handled the case in accordance with its procedures. However, the landlord identified that it could have provided further support and information, when the alleged perpetrator was allowed to visit the premises in vicinity to the resident’s property following the county court’s subsequent revision of the injunction in September 2020. Therefore, it decided to uphold this aspect of his complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
4. Additionally, the landlord mentioned that the resident had moved out of the property, for which it agreed to carefully manage the future letting to reduce the risk of similar events occurring to others.
The resident then emailed the landlord on 6 November 2020, to advise that he was unhappy with its above complaint response and to request for his complaint to be escalated to the final stage of its complaints procedure. This due to his evidence of the alleged perpetrator’s above behaviour, conversations with its housing officer and the police, and the likelihood that it would have been aware of this and of publicly available information about their legal history, for which it acknowledged his escalation request on the same day.
On 4 December 2020, the landlord issued the second and final complaint response to the resident, comprised of the following:
1. A date-by-date summary detailing all of the events, actions and communications between it and him in respect of his antisocial behaviour case from 22 April to 15 September 2020, and his subsequent complaints about this. This included the resident’s request to be relocated from 6 July 2020, for which the landlord suggested on 24 July 2020 that he contact the local authority to update his rehousing application to them with his child’s details that it could then provide a supporting letter for.
2. Confirmation that, following its investigation, it had decided to partially uphold the aspect of his complaint that concerned the letting of the property, which it had done in “good faith” despite having a limited awareness of the alleged perpetrator’s legal history that the appropriate authorities had not deemed a risk.
3. It reiterated that it had decided to uphold his complaint concerning the level of support that he had received from it in September 2020 around the injunction, which it agreed to discuss with its housing officer in order to prevent a recurrence of this. The landlord confirmed that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding the events and discussion that had occurred during the initial viewing of the property, for the reasons outlined in its above response to his stage one complaint.
4. Additionally, it determined that it would not uphold the following aspects of his complaint for the above reasons, and due to the fact that it had not been provided with details of all of these matters. The resident’s complaint that the landlord did not fulfil its duty of care, and put him “at risk and that this could have been avoided”. His complaint that he “had moved into the property based on lies and that this was unfair”. The resident’s complaint that the landlord did not inform him of the effect on a previous occupier of his property of antisocial behaviour caused by the alleged perpetrator. His complaint about its poor customer service, and his complaint that its housing officer was “directly at fault” for the antisocial behaviour experienced.
5. As a resolution, it apologised to him for the above identified shortcomings and offered him total compensation of £125, which was divided into a payment of £50 for “any upset caused by the lack of support”, £50 for poor communication, and £25 for the delay in logging the resident’s complaint.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day to advise that he would not be accepting its complaint resolution, or compensation offer, as he felt that the impact that the antisocial behaviour had on him, was higher than this. He explained that this was for reasons including the fact that he had spent approximately £400 to “make the property liveable”, for which he provided photographs, together with the effect of this on his household’s health, the risk to life caused by the alleged perpetrator’s revised injunction, having to stay locked inside, and paying double to live privately elsewhere for safety reasons.
The resident then emailed this Service on 21 December 2020, to advise us of the above and of the following:
1. He had moved from the property “to get away from the threat”.
2. During the initial viewing of the property, he was assured that the neighbours who used the communal entrance “[were] not a threat”.
3. His complaint concerned the “constant antisocial behaviour [experienced] since the start of the tenancy”.
4. His reports of illegal substance use and smoking in the communal area were ignored by the landlord.
5. The injunction obtained by the landlord “was broken multiple times” by the alleged perpetrator, which led to their arrest and imprisonment. However, the landlord then failed to seek possession of the downstairs property or, subsequently, inform the resident of the alleged perpetrator’s release from prison and the removal of the injunction.
6. He considered the landlord’s offer of compensation to be “insensitive” considering the inconvenience and distress caused by the antisocial behaviour of the alleged perpetrator, and the fact that he had spent “over £400 to get the property ready”.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s tenancy agreement

The tenancy agreement states that “the landlord shall not tolerate behaviour which causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance or damage to neighbouring, adjoining or adjacent premises or to other people.”
The tenancy agreement also states that, in instances where violent or threatening behaviour is displayed, “the landlord shall…take such legal action as is available to it to remove the perpetrator” from the premises.

Antisocial behaviour – housing and support procedure

The landlord has a set of measures in place under its antisocial behaviour – housing and support procedure to address antisocial behaviour, such as mediation, tenancy support and verbal/written warnings.
The landlord also has the power under the procedure to obtain a civil injunction, “which can be used quickly to protect victims” from occupiers who have, or are likely to, commit antisocial behaviour.
The landlord operates a five-stage antisocial behaviour procedure, which is comprised of the following steps: assessing vulnerabilities, categorising the antisocial behaviour, investigating the antisocial behaviour, providing the result of the investigation, and closing the case.

Compensation guidance

The landlord has discretion under its compensation guidance to put things right with apologies, explanations and financial compensation when its service fails or falls below its published standards, including for time, trouble, inconvenience, delays and additional costs incurred due to its action or inaction. However, it is not permitted to offer compensation for items such as circumstances beyond its control or personal injury claims that will instead be handled by its external insurers. The landlord is able under the guidance to pay up to £400 compensation in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience arising from its service failures, and to pay up to £50 compensation to recognise minor instances of poor complaint handling by it.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by his neighbour

The resident contacted the landlord from 22 April 2020 onwards to report antisocial behaviour caused by the visitor to the property below his. Subsequently, at its request, he provided it with diary sheets and videos from 26 April 2020 detailing the antisocial behaviour experienced. This was a reasonable and expected first step as, considering the landlord’s obligation to act in a fair and impartial manner towards all its residents, it could not take any action without substantial evidence that antisocial behaviour had taken place.
Following the resident’s provision of diary logs to the landlord, it then wrote to the downstairs neighbour visited by the alleged perpetrator on 27 April 2020, to advise of the reports received, and to warn of the repercussions this could have for them. This was in line with its antisocial behaviour – housing and support procedure, detailed at paragraphs 17 and 19 above.
As the antisocial behaviour did not stop and continued to be reported by the resident together with a threat of violence from 28 April to 26 May 2020, the landlord’s solicitors then issued the downstairs neighbour with a further warning on 4 June 2020, and it obtained an injunction against the alleged perpetrator on 5 June 2020. This was meant to prevent them from being at or in the vicinity of the property and the resident, as well as to stop any further threats of violence or verbal abuse.
By doing so, the landlord also complied with the terms set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement, detailed at paragraph 16 above, and adhered to its antisocial behaviour – housing and support procedure at paragraph 18 above. This is because it issued written warnings to the neighbour visited by the alleged perpetrator, and also exercised its power to obtain an injunction to protect the resident, in response to the threat of violence and antisocial behaviour reported in breach of the tenancy agreement, which this and the procedure permitted it to do.
The alleged perpetrator’s infringements of the injunction’s terms led to their subsequent arrest and imprisonment for this, and no further reports were made or actions taken for their behaviour until 27 October 2020, when the resident contacted the landlord and requested for a stage one complaint to be submitted. This concerned its handling of his antisocial behaviour case, for which a response was issued on 5 November 2020, and the final response to his escalated complaint of 6 November 2020 was issued on 4 December 2020.
Following its investigations of its handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour at both stages of its complaints procedure, the landlord admitted to failures in respect of poor communication and support provided, as it did not inform him of the alleged perpetrator’s prison release and injunction revision in September 2020. As a result, it apologised to him for this and offered him total compensation of £125 in recognition of the lack of support, poor communication, and a delay in logging his complaint, as well as agreeing to discuss this with its housing officer in order to prevent a recurrence of these failings.
In the resident’s subsequent communication to the landlord and this Service, however, he was unhappy with the above compensation amount. This was because of reasons including the fact that he had felt this was not proportionate to the amount of inconvenience and distress that his household had experienced, their health, the additional living costs of moving elsewhere, and the fact that he had spent over £400 on improving the condition of the property in order to live there, which he subsequently vacated.
Nevertheless, the fact that resident’s spending on improving the property, together with his additional living costs for moving elsewhere, were not included in his above stage one and final stage complaints to the landlord, and there is no evidence that they subsequently completed its complaints procedure, means that these issues are outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because this Service cannot consider complaints about matters prior to their exhaustion of a landlord’s complaints procedure. Moreover, the landlord’s compensation guidance above at paragraph 20 did not permit it to compensate the resident for a personal injury claim for his household’s health, which is also not within our authority to provide in the way that a court or insurer might.
This Service appreciates the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident’s household from the threat of violence and antisocial behaviour that they experienced. However, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord to him was reasonable and proportionate for the failures that this was meant to compensate him for. As advised by it, the amount above was offered for its poor communication, lack of support, and any upset caused by this in September 2020, as well as for a delay in logging his complaint, and not for the inconvenience and distress caused by the alleged perpetrator’s threat of violence and antisocial behaviour itself. The latter was beyond the landlord’s control, and so it was not permitted to compensate the resident for this under its compensation guidance.
While the resident reported that the landlord was aware of the alleged perpetrator’s legal history and was dissatisfied with its handling of his initial viewing of the property, the letting of this to him and his antisocial behaviour reports in light of this, there is no evidence to suggest that its above actions could have been taken sooner or more forcefully. This is because its complaint responses explained that it had only had a limited awareness of the legal history, there had been no previous reports of nuisance, antisocial behaviour or criminality to it about the alleged perpetrator, and relevant authorities dealing with their legal history did not deem this to be risk.
It was therefore not possible for the landlord to alert the resident of the alleged perpetrator’s legal history, or for it to have taken earlier or further action for this, until it received the above reports of their antisocial behaviour and threat of violence, which also meant that these were beyond its control. Additionally, its compensation guidance gave it discretion as to the level of compensation that it awarded, and so it was not required to increase this, as its compensation offer was proportionate to recognise its lack of communication and support in September 2020, as well as its minor complaint handling delay, in light of the amounts permitted by the guidance.
The landlord also responded appropriately to the resident’s request for assistance with finding alternative accommodation from 6 July 2020 in order to move away from the alleged perpetrator. It did so on 24 July 2020 by advising him to update his rehousing application with the local authority with his child’s details, for which it could then provide a supporting letter. This was reasonable because doing so would have made the local authority aware of the importance and urgency of his circumstances, and may have helped to progress this in a more timely manner.
To conclude, this Service appreciates the inconvenience caused to the resident by the antisocial behaviour that his household experienced. However, considering the events and facts presented above, the landlord’s failures in handling this were minimal, and would not have had a significant impact on the outcome of his complaint or situation. Furthermore, it did acknowledge its failures, and offered the resident an apology, a reasonable amount of compensation, and agreed to discuss these with its housing officer.
The landlord has therefore been recommended below to re-offer the £125 compensation that it previously awarded to the resident, if he has not received this already. It has also been recommended below to provide him with details to enable him to submit a claim for its insurers, in light of his reports of his household experiencing personal injury to their health from his antisocial behaviour complaint, as well as additional costs from having to improve the condition of the property and move to live elsewhere.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour from his neighbour’s visitor satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its failures regarding a lack of support, poor communication and complaint handling to the resident, and it offered him an apology, reasonable compensation, and agreed to discuss these with its housing officer.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Re-offer the resident the £125 compensation that it previously awarded to him, if he has not received this already.
2. Provide the resident with details to enable him to submit a claim for its insurers, in light of his reports of experiencing personal injury and additional costs from his complaint.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to whether it will follow the above recommendations.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.