Sanctuary Housing Association (202013347)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013347

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 October 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 17 May 2017. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat. The landlord has confirmed that the resident has vertigo. Since the landlord’s final response, the resident’s tenancy of the property has terminated and the resident has move to another property, as a managed move supported by the landlord.
On 14 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB by his neighbour, that this was a recurring problem that had been going on too long and nothing gets done about it. The landlord opened up a new ASB case with a target date for making initial contact with the resident of 21 November 2019 . The ASB records note that the resident also reported that his neighbour (Ms A) was making noises which imitated sex noises/groaning on a daily basis and that these noises were only being made when he had visitors. The resident requested noise recording equipment stating that he had had enough as it had been going on for over a year.
On the 21 November 2019, the resident made a further report about Ms A again making loud sex noises, slamming doors and stomping around. The resident also reported that another neighbour (Mr B) had also been slamming their front door when they came home from work. The landlord noted that the resident and Mr B had had an altercation on the resident’s door step, the resident alleging that Mr B would not let him shut his door and then shouted at him through the letter box.
On 25 November 2019, the landlord called the resident to discuss his reports of ASB by two of his neighbours. The landlord’s ASB records note that during the call the term harassment was discussed, how the landlord could prove this, what household noise was and the resident’s perception of certain situations. The ASB records notes that an action plan was agreed whereby the landlord was to write to both Ms A and Mr B, leave the case open for a couple of weeks and then call the resident on 2 December 2019 to find out if there had been any further issues. The landlord also advised the resident to call if there were any more incidents and noted that the resident did not want to pursue his complaint at that time. A vulnerability assessment (VA) was completed on 27 November 2019. The case was given an overall assessment score of 13 and noted a response time of within three working days.
On 29 November 2019 the resident called the landlord to report that he was woken at 7:15am by Ms A having sex and described the noise as very loud. The resident said that in his view the behaviour of Ms A was harassment and that for over a year he has been woken because of the noise.
On 9 December 2019, the landlord’s records note that mediation had been accepted by both parties. The records go on to note that the mediation was booked for 18 January 2020 and as being completed on 20 January 2020.
On 23 December 2019, the resident reported fly tipping of bin bags containing household waste, nappies, tins of food etc. by an unknown perpetrator. The landlord’s records note that given the nature of the report, no VA was completed or action plan agreed.
On 28 and 29 December 2019, the resident reported that a third neighbour was throwing scraps of food out of her door onto the garden. The resident said that this had made his cat ill and when he confronted his neighbour about this, she verbally abused to him. The landlord noted that it spoke to the neighbour and asked that she refrain from throwing food into the front garden. The case was closed on 20 January 2020 and the landlord noted that given the nature of the report, no VA had been completed or action plan agreed.
On 3 January 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to complain that nothing had been done about his report of fly-tipping. The landlord’s records note that the tenant called, and was transferred to his housing officer on 7 January 2020, that the resident called the landlord again on 20 and 30 January 2020 to again speak with his housing office, on both these occasions the call was transferred. There are no evidence of what was discussed during those calls.
On 25 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord about the fly-tipping. The landlord advised on 31 March that a job for the whole site had been raised but it was unsure when the works would be completed.
On 17 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report an un-named neighbour spitting at this mother. The landlord called the resident on 24 April 2020 to discuss the incident. The landlord’s records note that the resident did not want an ASB case to be opened but just wanted the incident recording. The case was closed on 24 April 2020 and the landlord noted that given the nature of the report, no VA had been completed or action plan agreed.
On 5 July 2020, the resident called the landlord to report Ms A shouting and having loud conversations until 12:30am that morning. The resident also reported hearing a car screeching outside 5 minutes later but could not confirm if the car noise was related to Ms A’s property. The resident reported that the noise made him feel anxious and disturbed, and unable to relax as it affected his sleep. The landlord spoke to the resident on 7 July 2020 and, whilst it advised that it could not take any action against Ms A for having a conversation in her own property, it would nevertheless contact Ms A to ask her to be mindful about the noise she was making.
The resident called to speak to the landlord on 9 July 2020. An email was forwarded to the resident’s Housing Officer the same day requesting a call back. There is no evidence of the landlord calling the resident back. The resident called again on 20 July 2020 at which point he was transferred to the housing officer. There are no call notes relating to that call.
On 11 September 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of his reports of ASB. The resident said that he kept being harassed by his neighbours and nothing was done about it. The resident said that his housing officer might speak to him but then closes the case, when the reality was that the situation was ongoing. The resident said that this had been going on for too long, that he no longer felt comfortable where he lived and had lost faith in the landlord’s ability to deal with the situation, that his housing officer and area manager were ignoring him, and that he had asked several times for both to call him back but neither had done so, despite assuring him they would.
Following a call with the resident on 22 September 2020 it was agreed that complaint would be escalated straight to stage two, as resident the resident did not want his local operations team (housing officer and area manager) to investigate and as he wanted an independent team to look into the concerns he had raised.
Landlord issued its stage two, and final response, on 21 October 2020. In its final response the landlord considered how it had responded to the following reports by the resident:
1. 14 November 2019 – noise nuisance and feeling harassed by his neighbour.
2. 21 November 2019 – nuisance report regarding two of his neighbours.
3. 29 November 2020 – further report of noise nuisance.
4. 23 December 2019 – reports of fly tipping.
5. 28/29 December 2019 – neighbour throwing food into the front garden
6. 17 April 2020 – a neighbour spitting at the resident’s mother.
7. 5 July 2020 – report of noise nuisance.
The landlord said that, whilst it was satisfied that it had taken appropriate actions, in accordance with its ASB policy, with regards to the resident’s neighbours, it acknowledged and ‘‘sincerely’’ apologised that it had not followed due process in terms of its timescales and communication with the resident in any of the cases raised. The landlord also said that:
1. It was ‘‘sincerely’’ sorry if any of its communications had made the resident feel that it was blaming him.
2. Following its call the resident on 25 November 2019, it was unable to evidence that the agreed call was made to the resident on 2 December 2019. The landlord apologised if the resident did not receive a call that day and noted that there were no further records regarding the noise monitoring equipment.
3. With regards to the fly tipping, the landlord again apologised for its record keeping and communication, and acknowledged that there was a significant delay in the debris being removed, for which it had no explanation.
4. The resident had called on multiple occasions and sent emails, and that whilst its staff may not always be available to speak to the resident, call back requests should be completed within one working day and there was evidence that this did not happen.
5. The landlord said that it had discussed its findings with the members of staff responsible in order to prevent a similar issue occurring in the future.
The landlord said that, whilst it was unable to evidence that the resident had been discriminated against, harassed or ignored intentionally, it acknowledged that the level of service the resident received was below what was expected, for which it was sincerely sorry, and offered the resident £175 as a goodwill gesture, made up as follows:
1. £50 for not adhering to its ASB policy and procedure with regard timescales and communications.
2. £50 for repeated contact from the resident asking to speak with his local housing team and poor response times.
3. £25 for poor record keeping and the inconvenience this caused.
4. £25 for inconvenience.
5. £25 for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint.
On 21 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, providing his bank details for the £175 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures.

The landlord’s ASB procedure confirms that the landlord considers both noise nuisance and fly-tipping as anti-social behaviour.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that:
1. When a report of ASB is made a vulnerability assessment (VA) should be completed and that the response will depend on a combination of the assessed vulnerability of the victim(s) and the impact of the ASB upon them.
2. What may appear to be low level ASB may have a profound effect on someone due to, for example, disability or cultural differences and that staff need to ensure that they take account of this in their response to the ASB.
3. The landlord is to contact and interview the victim within an appropriate timescale as determined by the vulnerability assessment matrix, but no more than five working days of the initial report in any case.
4. During the interview an action plan should be agreed and the victim written to within three days of the interview to outline what had been agreed and what will happen next.

Assessment.

On 14 November 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint about how the landlord had handled his reports of ASB. The landlord initially logged the resident’s concerns as both a formal complaint as an ASB case. The complaint was not progressed as the resident said he did not want to pursue his complaint at that time.
The ASB case, opened on 14 November 2019 and regarding Ms A, had a target date for the landlord to make initial contact with the resident by 21 November 2019. The landlord failed to adhere to this deadline, not contacting the resident until 25 November 2019. During this time the resident had made a further report, on 21 November 2019, about similar noise issues by his neighbour (Ms A), her slamming doors and stomping about and, in addition, reported that another neighbour (Mr B) had also slammed their front door.
Whilst the ASB reported by the resident may appear to be low level ASB, it was appropriate an in accordance with its policies for the landlord to consider the impact the reported ASB was having on him. As a result the vulnerability assessment (VA) completed on 27 November 2019 gave an overall assessment score of 13 (Medium) and a response time of within three working days. There was a delay in the landlord completing the vulnerability assessment (VA). By the time the VA was completed nine working days had already passed since the resident’s report of 14 November 2019 and four day since the resident’s report of 21 November 2019.
When the landlord contacted the resident on 25 November 2019 the steps it took were appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy. The landlord agreed an action plan with the resident, whereby the landlord would write to both Ms A and Mr B, and agreed to call the resident on 2 December 2019 to find out if there had been any further issues. There is no evidence of the landlord calling the resident on 2 December 2019. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its final response, the landlord apologising that it was unable to evidence that the agreed call was made to the resident on 2 December 2019. The landlord also apologised that there had been no further mention of the noise monitoring equipment following the resident’s email of 14 November 2019.
Following a further report regarding Ms A on 29 November 2019, the landlord acted appropriately by exploring options to try and resolve the situation and offering mediation to the resident and Ms A. Following the mediation there were no further reports by the resident of noise nuisance by Ms A until July 2020, six months later, when the resident reported Ms A shouting and having loud conversations until 12:30am that morning. Given the length of time since the resident last reported any noise disturbance by Ms A and the nature of the noise reported, Ms A having a conversation in their own property, albeit the resident considered it to be loud, there were limited steps the landlord could take. Nevertheless the landlord did offer to contact Ms A to ask her to be mindful about the noise she was making, which was again a reasonable step for it to take given the upset it had caused the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately with regards to the resident’s reports of 28/29 December 2019 of another neighbour throwing food into the garden. This is did by acknowledging and recording the resident’s reports and by speaking to the neighbour concerned. Given the nature of the report, and that this had not previously been reported, it was reasonable that no VA or action plan was agreed.
Whilst the resident reported the incident of an unknown neighbour spitting at his mother, he did not want to progress this as an ASB case.
With regards to the fly-tipping. It is not clear from the evidence when the fly-tipping was removed. What is clear is that the resident first reported his concerns on 23 December 2019 and that the resident chased the landlord about this issue on 3 January 2020. Over two months later, on 31 March 2020, the resident again contacted the landlord as the fly tipping had still not been removed. The landlord advised that a job for the whole site had been raised but had not yet been completed. Given the length of time, three months, since the resident first reported the fly tipping, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge, and apologise, to the resident in its final response for the delay in the debris being removed, for which it had no explanation.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we considered both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We may refer to a landlord’s own remedies policy and any other relevant guidance when considering whether the steps that the landlord took to resolve the complaint were reasonable.
Whilst the steps the landlord took in response to the resident’s reports of ASB were reasonable, there were clear service failures by the landlord with regards to both timescales and its communication with the resident. The landlord acknowledged this in its final response. The landlord also acknowledged that it failed to maintain regular contact with the resident, that there was a significant delay in the fly tipping being removed and that there were also failings with regards to its record keeping.
Given the extent of the failures it was appropriate for the landlord to not only apologise but also to offer the resident compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused to him as a result of its acknowledged failures. The landlord also spoke to the member of staff responsible in order to prevent such an issue occurring in the future.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation in the range of £50 to £250 for service failures resulting in some impact on the resident, but which was of short was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. This may include the landlord’s failure to meet its service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
Having considered all the elements of the complaint, the timescales involved and the impact on the outcome for the resident, I am satisfied that the landlord’s acknowledgement, apologies and offer of £175 compensation are sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable and proportionate redress for those failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbours.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its service failure to act in accordance with its policies in terms of its response times, record keeping and communication with the resident. To put this right the landlord offered the resident £175 compensation and said that it had discussed its findings with the members of staff responsible in order to prevent a similar issue occurring in the future. Given the level of service failure, this was appropriate and proportionate, and provided reasonable redress to the resident for the inconvenience and distress its failure caused to him.