Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

South Tyneside Council (202124095)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124095

South Tyneside Council

3 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The resident’s request for priority banding for rehousing.

Jurisdiction

  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised that she remains dissatisfied that the landlord would not change her housing priority banding as a result of the reported ASB.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to applications for re-housing specifically made to the landlord, where the landlord is a local authority. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points or banding, are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  3. As a result, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for priority rehousing banding is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It is open to the resident to submit her complaint about this issue to the LGSCO along with this report in support of the finding that the complaint is within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction to investigate. Any further reference to the resident’s request for her banding to be changed in this report are included for contextual purposes only and this issue has not formed part of the Ombudsman’s assessment of this complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in December 2021. She stated that she had experienced continued ASB from her neighbour and wished to be moved from her current banding for rehousing to priority banding, in order to move to another property. The resident stated the issues with her neighbour had affected her mental health. She was dissatisfied as no formal action had been taken against the neighbour and was disappointed with how her complaint was being handled and she felt as though she had not been listened to or been taken seriously. The resident also remained dissatisfied that her request to be moved to priority banding had been denied after conversations with the landlord and her MP. The resident also stated she was unhappy that the landlord had requested her to remove a video doorbell from her property.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 17 December 2021. The landlord stated that in order for a resident to receive priority banding, there must be clear evidence of harassment, intimidation and bullying. The landlord stated that a police investigation regarding the incident was closed due to lack of evidence, and that the landlord had investigated the allegations on a number of occasions but had been unable to substantiate the claims due to lack of evidence. The landlord stated it had investigated the resident’s concerns regarding the video doorbell and was satisfied that it had handled the issue in accordance with its policies, and therefore, did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 22 December 2021. She stated she had provided evidence, but it was not accepted by the landlord. The resident stated she did not understand why she had been asked to remove the video doorbell from her property.
  5. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 27 January 2022. It maintained its position from its stage on response and stated the evidence the resident provided was ambiguous and could not be taken into consideration. The landlord stated it had requested the resident to return an alterations form in order to use the video doorbell as CCTV, but had not received this from the resident and therefore she was in breach of her tenancy agreement. It explained that it had received counter-allegations in relation to the resident’s ASB reports and acknowledged that a long term resolution needed to be found. It noted that mediation had been offered, which the resident had declined.
  6. In her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB and wished for the landlord to move her into priority banding as a resolution to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident explained in her complaints that the issues with her neighbour have affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her mental health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports and the resident’s mental health. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy describes the landlord’s approach to handling reports about anti-social behaviour. The policy describes anti-social behaviour as conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, and directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management function of a relevant landlord, or consists of, or involves, using or threatening to use housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord for unlawful purposes.
  2. The policy says that conduct that can be classed as anti-social behaviour includes, but is not limited, to racist incidents, hate crime, domestic violence, noise nuisance, intimidation, harassment and threatening behaviour. The policy says that in deciding whether behaviour is anti-social in nature, the determining factor will be the impact that the behaviour has upon others.  
  3.   The landlord’s ASB Policy says that all types of ASB can be classed as Category B except where there is an allegation of race or hate crime, there is violence or a serious threat of violence, or the complaints are so minor that they require little or no further investigation.
  4. When a resident reports a category B (Standard) ASB case, the landlord’s ASB policy says the report will be acknowledged within two working days and the resident will be interviewed within five working days. The policy also says that where investigations need to take place over a prolonged period, residents will receive updates on a fortnightly basis, unless otherwise agreed. All allegations of ASB will be recorded and every case will be investigated in a fair, consistent and appropriate manner.

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

  1. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, we will consider whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately and reasonably, in line with its legal responsibilities, its own policies and procedures and industry best practice.
  2. According to the evidence provided by the landlord, it remained in regular contact with the resident and set out the actions it had taken following the resident’s ASB reports on April 2021 and July 2021. The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy by updating the resident regularly in regard to the ongoing ASB case, recorded relevant correspondence and offered continued support to the resident. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it could not take action against the resident’s neighbour without sufficient evidence and gave the resident advice on how to submit any evidence of ASB from her neighbour. This Service would not expect a landlord to take action against one of its residents without the appropriate evidence, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence from the resident. The landlord acted reasonably in its suggestion that the resident and neighbour use mediation to attempt to solve the ongoing issues and offered to speak to the neighbour on the resident’s behalf. However, the resident decided that she did not want this and therefore declined the offer, which she was entitled to do. The resident was within her rights to refuse mediation, but it was reasonable for the landlord to offer it as an option because it can be helpful in resolving ASB in some cases.
  3. The landlord was severely limited in the actions it could take with regard to the ASB because the resident did not want the landlord to speak to the neighbour about the ASB. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s concern that the situation may escalate if the neighbour was made aware that complaints had been made against them. However, it would not be possible for the landlord to take any action against the neighbour for ASB such as issuing a warning letter or asking them to sign an acceptable behaviour contract without informing them of the allegations made against them and allowing them the opportunity to respond. The landlord would not be expected to tell the neighbour who had made allegations about them but it would need to let them know what they were accused of. In this context, there was nothing more the landlord could do aside from assisting the resident with gathering evidence of ASB which could be used to support further action in the future.
  4. Upon receiving the resident’s reports of ASB on 19 April 2021, the landlord stated it could not take further action against the resident’s neighbour until it had heard back from the police regarding the case. The evidence indicates that the police investigation was closed due to lack of evidence and therefore the landlord did not take formal action against the resident’s neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait until the outcome of the police investigation before deciding whether to take formal action against the neighbour for ASB. The resident had accused the neighbour of criminal behaviour and the police are best placed to investigate criminal matters as they have expertise in this area and different powers to the landlord to take action against perpetrators. Once the police investigation had concluded, the landlord decided that there was insufficient evidence to support formal action against the neighbour for ASB. This was a reasonable decision based on the available evidence.
  5. The resident reported further ASB from her neighbour on 21 June 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident after this incident to listen to the evidence provided by her. However, according to the landlord’s internal notes, the voice recording provided by the resident was not clear and did not identify the voices in the altercation and therefore could not be taken into consideration. As stated above, for a landlord to take any enforcement action against a resident it would need firm evidence of ASB, therefore the landlord acted reasonably in its response to this incident.
  6. It was also reasonable for the landlord to investigate and respond to complaints it had received regarding the resident’s video doorbell. In line with the tenancy agreement residents are allowed to carry out improvements to their own properties including fitting CCTV and video doorbells provided they ask permission from the landlord before installing the doorbell and that they ensure the camera does not show anyone else’s property. The landlord has explained that the resident did not seek permission for the doorbell and therefore she was in breach of her tenancy agreement by installing it. The landlord sent the resident an alterations form so she could apply for retrospective permission for the doorbell but it did not receive the form back. If the resident wants to have a video doorbell, she should apply to the landlord for permission to have it. Overall, the landlord’s response to this issue was reasonable as it was in line with the tenancy agreement and industry best practice.

Determination

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

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord continue to support the resident regarding her move from the property, and consider changing her banding, should evidence of further ASB occur.