Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202112342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112342

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

23 August 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 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:
1. the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports;
2. adaptations to the resident’s property;
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy began on 24 June 2019. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat within a house conversion.
The landlord has advised this Service that its records show that the resident has health conditions such as a visual impairment, chronic renal failure, type 2 diabetes, mobility issues and hypertension.
The tenancy agreement requires the resident not to cause “a nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress or harassment” to neighbours and that its ASB definition includes excessive domestic noise, abusive behaviour and racial harassment. It adds that the resident must not smoke in internal communal areas and should obtain the landlord’s permission before carrying out structural changes, altering fixtures and fittings or installing laminate flooring.
The landlord has an ASB policy that shows that:
1. it encourages residents to report hate crime and criminal activity to the Police;
2. neighbour dispute cases (where no harm is committed) are referred for mediation and closed if this option is rejected by the resident;
3. on receipt of an ASB report, it will contact the complainant within two working days and offer to meet within 10 working days and its initial approach is to “investigate and monitor any risk”;
4. it will assist the Police and local authority and take a multi-agency approach when tackling ASB;
5. it will “offer appropriate measures to support victims and gather evidence”;
6. it will close a case where it cannot gather sufficient evidence to take action but will “consult the complainant before proposing to close a case and explain our reasons for doing so”.
The landlord has an adaptations policy that shows that it will:
1. work with local authority occupational therapists (OTs) to support tenants and make their homes more suitable for their needs or support them to access more suitable housing;
2. only consider an adaptation following a recommendation by an OT or other suitably qualified health professional;
3. “evaluate the practicality, viability and cost of the recommended adaptations and will consider the recommendations, the tenant’s circumstances and the long-term viability of the property” once it receives the OT assessment;
4. “keep tenants updated with the progress of their adaptation request once a referral has been received from the Occupational Therapist”;
5. seek funding for works through the local authority disabled facilities grant;
6. “refuse applications where it has reasonable belief that the tenancy may shortly be terminated, either due to the end of a fixed term, or where the tenant is known to be seeking transfer to another property”.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage complaints process where it is required to respond within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively.
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for it to award payments where there have been unreasonable delays against published standards and policies and where distress or inconvenience has been caused.
The resident has made historic ASB allegations about the former neighbours at both her previous and current addresses. This investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of ASB reports she made about her current neighbour since they moved into the upstairs flat in October 2020 as this was the focus of complaints raised by her and her representatives from early 2021; the neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that it liaised with the local authority in early October 2019 as there had been an OT referral at the resident’s previous address but adaptations were also likely to be needed in her new property.
The landlord’s records show that the resident advised it on 15 January 2020 that she had just had an operation on one eye and was due for an operation on the other.
The landlord noted that it received an adaptations referral from the local authority on 28 January 2020 – this included recommendations for removal of the bath and installation of appropriate shower facilities. The local authority made a request on 31 January 2020 for the case to be prioritised given the resident’s worsening health.
The landlord noted that the resident contacted it on 10 February 2020 about a disabled bath installation. It added on 17 February 2020 that it told the resident there was a wait of several months for adaptations and that it had been required to wait for a new local authority referral after she moved address. It spoke to her again that day though to confirm the local authority had asked for her adaptations to be prioritised.
The landlord noted on 12 May 2020 that there was no management survey held for the property and an asbestos check would be needed but the case was on hold to the end of June 2020 due to Covid-19. It wrote to the resident on the same date, confirming it had received the local authority referral.
The landlord noted that it received contact from a hospital social worker on 11 June 2020 who said the resident had presented with severe depression due to her living conditions and needed to be re-housed. It noted on 12 June 2020 that the resident’s representative had said that the resident had objected to moving into a sheltered scheme and that it checked the resident was receiving mental health support.
The landlord noted on 1 July 2020 that the resident was shielding but it had arranged an adaptations survey with her for 6 July 2020.
The landlord records show that it updated the resident on 29 July 2020 that the specification for adaptation works had been passed to the OT for review and authorisation. The OT replied the same day, giving authority for works to proceed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 August 2020, confirming that a specification for adaptation works had been drawn up and that it was awaiting quotes from three contractors.
The resident replied to the landlord on 9 September 2020, giving her permission for adaptation works to proceed.
The landlord noted on 24 September 2020 that it had received three quotes for the adaptation works and had awarded the contract to one of these (it contacted the contractor on that date accordingly). It added that it was still awaiting an asbestos report before it could apply for the disabled facilities grant.
The landlord obtained an asbestos report for the property on 13 October 2020, following an inspection the day before – it noted that no actions were required. It subsequently recorded it had submitted a disabled facilities grant application on 2 November 2020 (when it also updated the resident).
The landlord’s records show that it received regular reports from the resident from early October to mid-November 2020 of noises from above in the night, including a washing machine, heavy footsteps and items, slamming of doors, banging on the ceiling and a dog barking. The landlord noted 16 reports during this period, that the resident said she had made a sound recording on 17 November 2020 and that she chased updates on 23 and 27 November 2020.
The resident chased progress with her ASB concerns again on 4 December 2020 and there were several further reports from her during 9-16 December 2020. These related to a dog barking, DIY in anti-social hours, loud crashes, music and shouting.
The landlord noted further ASB reports from the resident between mid-December 2020 and mid-January 2021. The resident alleged her front doormat had been urinated on and had feathers crushed into it plus cigarettes and lit matches had been thrown into the garden, a flowerbox was broken, there was a bin on the floor and her doormat had then been removed.
The landlord noted on 21 December 2020 that it had written to the resident, confirming it had received disabled facilities grant approval and would contact her once it had availability for the contractor. It wrote to the contractor on the same date, asking for its availability for a pre-contract site meeting.
The landlord noted on 6 January 2021 that it spoke to the resident to arrange a site meeting but she told it she was looking to move. It recorded that it told her that a condition of the disabled facilities grant was that she would remain at the property but she said this was not possible so it was agreed that it would place the adaptations on hold pending the outcome of her medical priority banding review. It said it had asked her to let it know once the banding review was complete.
The landlord recorded on 11-12 February 2021 that the resident reported she had overheard her neighbour speaking about her and she would like the neighbourhood officer to interview them. She added that she had recently come out of hospital and would like a virtual meeting to deal with the ASB. Further reports were received on 22 February 2021 when the landlord noted that the resident was very upset about ASB from members of the neighbour’s household.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 23 February 2021 and she told it that she believed the DIY and heavy footfall noise was deliberate. It recorded that it suggested mediation which the resident seemed to agree to.
The landlord noted a report on 6 March 2021 from the resident where she reported her neighbour was looking for her by pressing up against a window and using racist language; it recorded that it contacted the Police for them to attend.
The Police wrote to the landlord on 8 March 2021 to advise that it had attended the resident’s property twice in recent days and that she had reported intentional excessive noise from the neighbour above. The landlord acknowledged the report, confirming it had spoken to the neighbour the day before but that this was being handled as a neighbour dispute. It advised that it had raised the issues of slamming doors and cigarette butts with the neighbour who had apologised and agreed to modify behaviour and had offered the resident to apply for sheltered accommodation and listed the address for soundproofing consideration.
The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 26 March 2021, advising that:
1. the resident was no longer in agreement to mediation since her neighbour’s household had used racial terms;
2. the resident had not been contacted by the landlord about her ASB allegations and her January 2021 complaint remained unanswered;
3. it asked for the landlord to investigate ASB given the resident had provided a 20-minute recording of a dog barking and her carers had reported a high level of noise;
4. the resident’s property had been included in a list of addresses for survey which it linked to her soundproofing request and asked when the survey would occur;
5. the landlord had been aware of the need for adaptations since June 2019 and the resident was “not at present” moving so they asked for adaptations to proceed urgently;
6. it asked for the landlord to provide its policy on management transfers.
The landlord’s records show that an additional medical priority was awarded to the resident’s banding on 11 May 2021 and that it signposted the resident to the local authority to make a housing application. It also noted on 12 May 2021 that it had attempted safeguarding calls to the resident.
The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 13 May 2021. They said they had not received answers to their correspondence in late March 2021 and raised concerns that:
1. the resident’s neighbour had moved in during October 2020 and subjected the resident to continuous ASB, including DIY and dropping of items at anti-social hours, a front door mat soaked in urine, abuse from the neighbour’s son and dog barking noise but the landlord had not addressed these;
2. the resident has carers who attend the property twice per day and they had repeatedly referred to the excessive noise and the resident had sometimes been unable to sleep for 72 hours at a time;
3. following a conversation with the landlord on 24 February 2021, the resident had made a soundproofing request but no steps had been taken;
4. allegations of hate crime (through the use of racial terms) by the neighbour had not been investigated in accordance with the landlord’s hate behaviour policy;
5. the landlord received an OT request form in January 2020 and surveyed the property in July 2020 but adaptation works were still outstanding.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 21 May 2021, in response to an enquiry from him of 4 March 2021. It confirmed it had received ASB reports in January 2021 and had proposed mediation which the resident initially agreed to but then withdrew from. It added that further noise and hate crime allegations had been made in March 2021 but no evidence for these was established. It added that a ‘professionals meeting’ had been initiated which led to an increased housing priority banding for the resident (on medical grounds) and signposted her to the mutual exchange, local authority housing and sheltered accommodation recourses (as it did not hold housing stock in the resident’s preferred location).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 May 2021. She said that she had refused mediation when it became a racial issue and alleged that the landlord had not responded to her ASB complaints. She also denied that it had spoken to her about sheltered accommodation and set out the serious health conditions she faced which she suggested the landlord had not fully considered when assessing her priority banding. The MP forwarded this correspondence to the landlord the following day.
The landlord’s records show that it made a note on 28 June 2021 that it had recently spoken to the resident who reiterated the allegations about her neighbour and said she could no longer live at the property. The landlord noted it had told the resident that it would escalate her complaint and it wrote to her MP accordingly on 29 June 2021.
The landlord liaised with the Police again in early July 2021 who advised that it had no evidence to support the ASB allegations.
The landlord addressed a final complaint response to the resident’s solicitor on 21 July 2021. It concluded that:
1. the resident had not proven any of the ASB allegations against her upstairs neighbour, including an accusation of urinating on her door mat and children intimidating her through her front door;
2. it had addressed issues such as noise and debris falling into the garden with the neighbour and they had apologised and said they would endeavour not to cause noise at night, would have tidied up the debris if the resident had raised it with them, would be more careful with cigarette butts and would not slam doors;
3. the resident had made similar allegations about a neighbour at her previous address and the previous upstairs neighbour at her current address (whom it said had moved due to harassment by the resident) but had refused to take up mediation offers;
4. it had previously installed carpet and underlay in the upstairs flat which it considered to be adequate but it said it would allow the resident to install soundproofing if this was done professionally;
5. soundproofing is only considered “in the most extreme of anti-social behaviour cases where we have identified a need of installing sound proofing where it has been evidenced that there is a constant noise nuisance problem”;
6. bathroom adaptation works had been placed on hold in January 2021 as the resident had informed it that she was due to move but it would be happy to review this if the resident wished to stay;
7. it had dealt with the resident’s hate crime allegations with the local hate crime department but there was no evidence of a racially motivated incident and the neighbour was distressed when these allegations were put to them;
8. it was aware that the resident had made other reports to the Police but not regarding racially motivated incidents;
9. it offered for two members of staff to visit the resident to determine whether any further multi-agency support could be offered to her;
10. it had received counter allegations about the resident and would need to deal with these through its ASB policy, including enforcement action if appropriate;
11. it signposted the resident to explore housing options such as a mutual exchange or application through the local authority or bidding to move to a purpose-built block (where noise transference was less likely);
12. it had been unable to resolve these concerns within the timeframe for a stage one complaint for which it apologised, awarded £60 compensation and said it had addressed this with the team, offering reassurance that recent changes would improve its communication delays.

Summary of Events after landlord complaints process

The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 August 2021, advising that it had sent its final complaint response to her solicitor on 21 July 2021.
The landlord noted on 20 August 2021 that it closed the ASB case due to lack of evidence and lack of engagement via mediation.
The resident approached this Service via her MP on 24 August 2021. She expressed continued dissatisfaction on the grounds that:
1. her complaints had not been addressed or resolved;
2. the racist behaviour of the previous tenant had never been addressed and this had continued with the new tenant;
3. the landlord had not considered her health conditions appropriately and should agree a reciprocal move for her so she could live nearer her support network.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails during August-September 2021 that demonstrate that the resident alleged her neighbour was making noise during homeswapper viewings, there was another ‘professionals meeting’ and the landlord had issued a ‘reciprocal arrangement’ letter so the resident could approach a local authority of her choice for a potential move.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

ASB Reports

The resident initially reported various forms of noise nuisance from her upstairs neighbour shortly after they moved in during October 2020. The landlord’s records show that multiple reports were made by her in October-November 2020 that she was being kept awake, or awoken, late at night, or during the early hours of the morning, by her neighbour’s DIY, banging of furniture, slamming of doors and a dog barking. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it should acknowledge reports within two working days, offer to meet the complainant within 10 days, assess risk and investigate. It was inappropriate that there is no evidence that the landlord took any of these actions during October-November 2020.
The resident made further ASB reports in December 2020 and January 2021 that her neighbours had continued to cause noise nuisance but also included reference to damage to her possessions and rubbish being dropped. There is again no evidence that the landlord sought to acknowledge these reports, discuss potential risk and actions with the resident or investigate. This was inappropriate as the landlord was obliged by its ASB policy to carry out these actions, particularly given it was aware that the resident was vulnerable and she had informed it of the potential impact of the ASB on her health.
The resident chased the landlord again on the ASB issues in February 2021 when she alleged that the noise nuisance was deliberate. The landlord’s records show that it offered mediation at this point which was an appropriate option for it to explore given the ASB was potentially part of a neighbour dispute. However, it is unreasonable that it took the landlord four months (from October 2020 when ASB was initially reported) to make this mediation offer.
The resident made a further allegation in early March 2021 that there had been an incident of ASB that had a racial element to it. The landlord responded by ensuring that the Police were involved and sharing information with them. It was appropriate for it to take a multi-agency approach and its interactions with the Police indicate that it raised the hate crime allegation with the neighbour. However, there is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of the outcome of its investigation until it corresponded with her MP in May 2021 nor that it considered whether mediation was still an appropriate option in light of this incident. The delay between March-May 2021 in the landlord offering the outcome to its hate crime investigation was unreasonable and will inevitably have caused the resident distress given the seriousness of the allegations.
When the landlord reviewed its handling of the ASB allegations through its complaints process, it advised the resident (via her solicitor) in July 2021 that it had discussed her allegations with the neighbour and obtained assurance about some aspects of the noise nuisance. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to put the resident’s allegations to the neighbour and advise them of its expectations on future behaviour, the landlord has not provided any records to show when these interviews occurred, whether any warnings were issued to the neighbour and how it intended to follow up to check the situation had improved. It also failed to demonstrate how it had assessed that the resident was sensitive to household noise, beyond highlighting that she had made similar reports in the past. Given the resident had told it on a few occasions that she had recordings of the noise nuisance and her carers had also witnessed it, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to make an assessment of whether the domestic noise was excessive or not.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in informing the resident what actions it had taken in response to her ASB reports and failed to demonstrate how it had assessed risk or investigated the noise nuisance concerns. This meant that the resident had to chase progress during October 2020 to February 2021 and will have been left uncertain as to whether the landlord could address her concerns or not.

Adaptations

The landlord was aware from the beginning of the resident’s tenancy that adaptations to the property may be required. However, it did not receive a referral from the local authority until late January 2020 so there was no service failure on the landlord’s part prior to this.
The landlord responded to the local authority referral in January 2020 by liaising with the resident in early February 2020 and explaining that there could be a delay of a few months in progressing the works. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and some delay during the subsequent months due to the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown was inevitable (with restriction on landlords conducting property inspections), the landlord failed to keep the resident regularly updated and did not pass the job to its surveyor – there was no further progress in this regard until 12 May 2020 (when it reiterated to the resident that it had received the OT referral) and 1 July 2020 (when it arranged the survey).
This lack of communication on the part of the landlord was not in accordance with its adaptations policy which sets out that it will “keep tenants updated”. This was particularly inappropriate given the local authority’s request that the case be prioritised and that the landlord was aware of the resident’s worsening health.
Between late July 2020 and early November 2020, the landlord completed the survey, drew up a specification of works, obtained quotes from three contractors, appointed one of these contractors and applied for a disabled facilities grant. These actions were in accordance with its adaptations policy and were completed within a reasonable timescale given the landlord also needed to conduct an asbestos survey during this period.
The landlord wrote to the resident in December 2020 to confirm the disabled facilities grant had been successful and sought to arrange a site meeting in January 2021 in preparation for works commencing. However, during its conversation with the resident, she informed it that she was trying to leave the property. The landlord’s adaptations policy sets out that it will refuse an application where the tenant is seeking a property transfer. Given the resident’s focus at this time was on securing a move to another area and on obtaining increased priority bandings to do so, it was appropriate for the landlord to suspend the works but advise her to return to it should she decide that she would be remaining in the property.
In summary, the landlord acted appropriately by commencing the adaptation process once it received a local authority OT referral and suspending it when it became aware that the resident wished to move out of the property. Although it advanced the adaptations in accordance with its procedures during July 2020-January 2021, there was a failure to pro-actively communicate with the resident on the lack of progress between February-June 2020.

Complaint handling

The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord in late March 2021, passing on her dissatisfaction with its handling of her noise nuisance reports, her hate crime allegation and the adaptation works. The landlord should have logged this correspondence as a complaint and responded accordingly but there is no record of it acting at all prior to the solicitor chasing the matter up in mid-May 2021. This delay was inappropriate and will inevitably have caused the resident uncertainty as to how her concerns were being investigated.
After the solicitor’s chaser correspondence in mid-May 2021, there was a further inappropriate delay as the landlord did not confirm until late June 2021 that it intended to escalate the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its complaints process. Although the landlord did issue a final complaint response in late July 2021, this was four months after the initial solicitor’s letter which was an inappropriate delay well outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
However, when the landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s case through the complaints process, it also considered the complaint handling itself. It acknowledged there had been a delay, apologised for this, awarded £60 compensation and said that it was taking steps to address this with the team and improve its communications. This level of compensation is within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a repeated failure to answer correspondence which has had an impact on the complainant and so was a proportionate offer of redress.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in answering the resident’s complaint during the period March-July 2021 but the combination of the apologies offered, service improvements outlined and compensation awarded represented appropriate redress for its service failure. Therefore, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, it was fair in its assessment of the service failure, took steps to put things right and demonstrated it had addressed the learning points.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of adaptations to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it investigated or responded to the resident’s ASB reports between October 2020 and February 2021 despite being aware of her potential vulnerabilities.
The landlord failed to communicate appropriately with the resident about her adaptations request between February-June 2020.
The landlord did not log or acknowledge complaints made via the resident’s solicitor in March and May 2021. However, it has accepted and apologised for these service failures, promised to undertake service improvements and its compensation offer of £60 was fair given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. offer a meeting with her to discuss any ongoing ASB concerns and explain how it would investigate these;
3. check whether it is currently her intention to leave the property or not and advise her whether it is still willing to progress adaptation works (if she intends to remain in the property).
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £375, made up of
1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the maladministration in its handling of her ASB reports;
2. £125 in recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to her by the service failure in its handling of adaptations to her property.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident £60 compensation that it offered in its final complaint response of July 2021.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.