Sheffield City Council (201915229)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915229

Sheffield City Council

24 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

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

Background and summary of events

Background

1. The resident was a secure tenant of a 1 bedroom flat from 5 February 2018. The resident has advised that she vacated the property at the end of the tenancy on 17 February 2020. The landlord is a local authority. It has described the flat as being within a block of 5 other properties.
2. When the resident signed up to the tenancy, she advised that she had no disabilities or support needs that could affect her ability to manage the tenancy. During the initial tenancy check visit in March 2018, the landlord recorded that there were no ‘warning/assistance’ codes needed but she did inform the landlord during the course of her tenancy that she had previously had mental health problems.
3. The landlord has a tenancy conditions booklet that states:

‘You, your household and visitors must not do anything which is illegal, dangerous or which would cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm or distress to other people. This condition applies within the boundary of and in the locality of your property.’

4. The landlord has an ASB policy that describes examples of ASB including ‘playing excessively loud… television’ and ‘verbally abusing another person’. It states that it expects tenants to ‘take responsibility for minor personal disputes with their neighbours’ but confirms it will take ‘appropriate action based on factors such as the evidence available’. It sets out options it can take such as supporting victims by referral to Victim Support, warning letters, mediation referrals, acceptable behaviour contracts and legal enforcement where necessary.

It adds that:

‘We will regularly review cases and close them at the appropriate time. We will aim to do this only when the situation is fully resolved and no further action is required. However in some cases we may have to close the case because we have concluded that no action is possible (for example because evidence is not available). We will always tell the person who reported the problem that we intend to close the case and why. Where necessary we will also give them advice on what to do next.’

5. The landlord has a separate noise nuisance guide that aims to provide a ‘structured approach to evidence gathering’. It states that its Neighbourhood Team will interview the complainant and alleged perpetrator, support the complainant, make attempts to witness noise, refer cases to Environmental Protection and mediation, issue warnings and refer the case to the ASB Team if legal enforcement is needed.
6. The landlord has a Complaints Policy that sets out a two-stage process for complaints that require an investigation. The first investigation has a timescale of 28 days but there is no set timescale for the investigation review.

Summary of Events

7. The landlord has provided this Service with evidence related to neighbours of the resident – this contains information that is personal to the neighbours so cannot be shared within this report but it has been used to provide context.
8. During the initial tenancy check in March 2018, the resident expressed concern that her upstairs neighbour had asked her to turn her television volume down in an aggressive manner. The landlord opened an ASB case file in April 2018 and quickly set up home visits and telephone interviews with the resident and her neighbour.
9. The ASB case file remained open for the remainder of the resident’s tenancy (to February 2020) and there is evidence that the landlord took the following actions based on its internal records and notes:

• maintained contact with the resident through a combination of home visits and telephone calls from April 2018 to February 2020
• noted giving the resident advice about the types of actions open to it at least as early as May 2018, subsequently explaining in August 2018 that it could not investigate why the neighbours did not like her
• interviewed and wrote to the resident’s neighbour in May 2018 about the allegations the resident had made
• reviewed the case in May 2018 when it decided to monitor the situation as both the resident and neighbour had agreed not to speak to each other
• sent diary sheets to the resident and accepted completed incident diaries back from her (these recorded incidents between July 2018 and December 2019)
• interviewed the resident about counter allegations received that she was causing noise and using unacceptable language against neighbours (it wrote to her about this in August and September 2018)
• interviewed the neighbour again in January 2019 following a report from the resident of loud music
• wrote to all households in the block in February 2019 following a report from the resident of shouting in communal areas
• interviewed a downstairs neighbour in February 2019 following allegations made by the resident about shouting and threats
• noted further allegations and counter allegations from, and about, the resident in April 2019, August 2019 and October-December 2019
• closed the ASB case in February 2020 due to lack of contact and the resident moving out

10. The landlord has made a record, and provided evidence, of multi-agency work with third parties such as:

• providing information to Victim Support in October 2018
• liaising with Shelter during May 2019
• requesting information from the Police in May 2019 and liaising further with them in August 2019 (when the Police advised that they were not undertaking a criminal investigation)
• referring a noise equipment request to the local authority Environmental Protection Team in June 2019 (the Team subsequently reviewed the incident diaries and decided noise monitoring equipment was not justified in this case)
• making a referral to the local authority Night Time Enforcement Team in June 2019 which led to an evening visit in July 2019 that yielded no evidence of noise (the Team stated in October 2019 that they would close the case as they had received no further reports from residents to that point)
• a mediation referral in June 2019 once both parties had agreed to proceed (the mediation provider wrote to the landlord in August 2019 to advise that the resident was now not wishing to take part in mediation and wrote to the resident in October 2019 stating that she had withdrawn from the process so it would close the case)

11. It is not disputed that the resident vacated the property in February 2020, at the end of her tenancy.
12. The resident approached the Housing Ombudsman in February 2020 and stated that she felt the landlord had not dealt with her ASB reports appropriately. This Service asked the landlord to consider the resident’s complaint in March 2020. The resident approached the Ombudsman again in July 2020 to state that there had been some dialogue with the landlord but she remained dissatisfied. This Service therefore asked the landlord to respond to the complaint.
13. The landlord issued a Stage 1 complaint response on 17 August 2020. An apology was offered for the failure to issue a response following the first contact in March 2020 – this was attributed to the pandemic. The landlord stated it had spoken to the resident and had defined her complaint as being about its failure to send a final letter to her summarising its actions in handling the ASB reports she made. It laid out an overview of the reports the resident had made to it during her tenancy and noted that it had answered a Subject Access Request made by the resident in July 2019 which led to a summary of her ASB case being sent to her. The landlord provided a history of the actions it had taken in response to ASB reports between April 2018 and February 2020.
14. The resident submitted a complaint escalation request on 31 August 2020 on the following grounds:

• she claimed that it was ‘slander’ for alleged perpetrators of ASB to engage in ‘hate and malicious taking down of character in front of visitors’
• she denied that she had refused support and stated that she was not offered ‘proper support’
• members of the landlord’s staff had listened to a ‘tape of some of the hate speech’ that she recorded two of her neighbours committing

15. The landlord issued a Stage 2 complaint response on 1 October 2020. An apology was offered for the delay in providing the response and the landlord confirmed that the complaint related to concerns the resident had raised about the handling of ASB. The response summarised the history of allegations made by the resident (and about the resident) and listed the actions taken in response. It also concluded that:

• it had no evidence of slander of the resident by alleged perpetrators
• its records showed the resident had refused offers of mediation and referral to an appropriate support agency
• there was insufficient evidence for the local authority to install noise recording equipment to the resident’s home
• a recording provided to it by the resident in July 2018 was largely inaudible and concluded to be inadmissible
• the Police had informed the landlord that it was not proceeding with investigation of any alleged criminal activity

16. The resident approached this Service again on 2 October 2020 to state that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she felt she had co-operated fully with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

17. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
18. It is not disputed that the resident began to raise concerns about the way her neighbour spoke to her soon after she moved into the address in February 2018. The landlord has demonstrated that within a few weeks of the report, it had opened an ASB case file, interviewed both parties and wrote to the alleged perpetrator. The evidence seen by this Service indicates that both parties subsequently agreed not to speak to the other and the landlord therefore decided it would monitor the case without need for further action. These were all appropriate actions and in accordance with the landlord’s policies.
19. Over the course of the period July 2018 to December 2019, the resident made further reports of being spoken to in an offensive manner by neighbours and also of loud music from a neighbouring address. The landlord has evidenced that it collected incident diaries, continued to communicate with the resident and interviewed alleged perpetrators when reports were made. Similar counter allegations were made about the resident and the landlord responded to these reports in the same way. This demonstrates that the landlord responded to reports as and when they were made by both the resident and her neighbour and took a balanced approach – these were reasonable actions for the landlord to take and in line with its ASB policy to ‘investigate reports of anti-social behaviour and seek both sides of the story where necessary’.
20. The types of ‘informal action’ available to the landlord are set out in its policies and procedures, namely mediation referrals, interviews with neighbours involved in the dispute, acceptable behaviour agreements and tenancy cautions. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord interviewed alleged perpetrators (both the upstairs and downstairs neighbours) on several occasions, negotiated acceptable behaviour agreements and issued letters to an alleged perpetrator and the block. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligations.
21. The landlord made a file note of the occasion when members of its staff listened to a recording the resident provided – it stated that the recording was not of a good quality and that the conversation could barely be heard. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the recording (and it is not for this Service to determine admissibility of evidence) but it was reasonable for the landlord to listen to it and consider whether it would be evidence that could be used to take enforcement or not.
22. The landlord’s noise nuisance policy requires it to attempt to gather evidence by interviewing the parties involved, making attempts to witness noise and referring cases to Environmental Protection. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord has endeavoured to obtain evidence on various occasions by writing to other residents, sending a Night Team Enforcement Team and asking the local authority Environmental Protection Team to consider noise recording options. These were all appropriate actions and show that the landlord acted in accordance with its obligations.
23. It is not disputed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for her and that she told the landlord that the ASB had impacted her enjoyment of her property. In response, the landlord kept the ASB case file open, met with the resident and liaised with third parties such as Victim Support and Shelter. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide these methods of support while the ASB was ongoing and its decision to keep the ASB case file open demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
24. The evidence seen by this Service shows that the resident agreed to the landlord’s mediation referral in early 2019 but that the mediation provider subsequently informed the landlord that the resident had told them she was unwilling to co-operate with them shortly after they received the case. The letter it sent to the resident in October 2019 confirmed that this was the reason they were ending their involvement. The landlord repeated this information in its complaint responses to the resident. It did not imply that the resident had refused all support or to co-operate generally but was accurate in reporting that the mediation offer had ended for this reason.
25. In summary, the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s allegations of ASB were appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures. They also reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector. It collected and retained reports of ASB, gave advice to the resident while maintaining contact with her, took ‘informal actions’, raised the ASB concerns with the alleged perpetrator and attempted to obtain evidence of the ASB. The resident co-operated by recording incidents and making reports to the landlord but the landlord’s actions in response were fair given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

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

Reasons

27. The range of actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s ASB reports were appropriate and in accordance with its obligations and policies. It has evidenced that it took proportionate steps to investigate and address ASB while offering support to the resident.