Stockport Homes Limited (202006570)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006570

Stockport Homes Limited

2 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) by her neighbour.
The report will also address the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy for a ground floor one-bedroom flat in a two-storey block of eight flats.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

ASB Procedure:

This sets out how the landlord investigates ASB cases. It states that the case needs to be categorised in terms of priority and risk:
1. Cat A – Serious ASB e.g. threats of violence.
2. Cat B – Persistent ASB e.g. verbal abuse, harassment, or intimidation
3. Cat C and D – Tenancy Management e.g. neighbour disputes.
The landlord is required to establish if there are any vulnerability issues to consider and draw up an action plan with the tenant and consider whether mediation is appropriate in the first instance.
As part of the investigation of the case, the landlord is required to engage with other external services such as the Police, local authority, and social services.
The procedure document sets out the various remedies available to the landlord, which include, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, mediation, and formal legal action for tenancy breaches.
At the end of the investigation the Investigating Officer should contact the tenant and explain the outcome of the investigation and explain the reason for closing the case and should also reassure the tenant that if the ASB starts again then the case can easily be re-opened.

Noise Monitoring Code of Practice:

The noise monitoring equipment is to ‘help detect anti-social noise activity, identifying perpetrators and providing evidence of a quality recording that assists the ASB Services Team in establishing if noise nuisance exists or not’.
The code sets out the process the landlord needs to follow when installing noise monitoring equipment. The alleged perpetrator needs to be notified that the equipment will be installed within the following three months of the written notice; the equipment will be recording for a minimum of seven days; the equipment can be installed on a maximum of three separate occasions; the landlord should liaise with the Council’s noise team where appropriate.

Customer Feedback (Complaints) policy and procedure:

The landlord has a two-stage complaints process that consists of a ‘Stage one’ investigation and an ‘Appeal Panel’. If, however, issues are being addressed via another route, then the complainant will be advised to pursue their complaint via the alternative route to resolution; or the complaint will be put on hold until the alternative route has been exhausted.
Stage 1 – landlord can either respond verbally within five working days; or in writing within 10 working days.
Stage 2 – this involves a complaint being reviewed by a more senior officer, usually a Head of Service. There is a criterion to be met before a complaint will be reviewed by the Appeals Panel.
The customer feedback procedure sets out the Appeal Stage criterion as:
1. A substantial element of the complaint has not been investigated or addressed at ‘stage one’;
2. There is potential for the complaint to have an alternative outcome to that offered at ‘stage one’;
3. Action promised at ‘stage one’ has not been delivered in the agreed timescales;
It also states that a complaint will not be reviewed by the panel if the issues raised have been addressed at stage one and no further evidence is likely to be found that would change the complaint outcome.

Compensation policy:

This sets out when the landlord will consider discretionary compensation for identified service failure. Any compensation payment will take into account ‘the level of inconvenience, disturbance, stress or annoyance suffered’ and ‘will also take into account any excessive time taken to resolve the problem’. The policy also sets out the different levels of compensation awards.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 19 April 2020 the resident reported a smell of cannabis in the communal hallway and alleged it was her neighbour. The landlord responded and spoke to the neighbour, who denied using cannabis. The landlord said it would carry out site visits to check if there was a smell.
The resident reported similar allegations on 23 and 26 April 2020 and also reported that the neighbour’s children were playing loudly in the communal area. The landlord responded and said that it had visited the block the previous week and it could not evidence the smell of cannabis. It said it would visit again.
Following the resident’s reports of the neighbour’s children propping open a communal entrance door, the landlord wrote to the neighbour on 1 May 2020 to remind him of his obligations under the tenancy to not leave communal doors jammed open as this could be a security risk.
The landlord’s records show that an ASB report was logged on 4 May 2020 following the resident’s reports of disturbance over the weekend from her neighbour and their six children. She alleged the neighbour was using cannabis and that the children were being disruptive and noisy.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 May 2020 and agreed to visit her on 13 May 2020 to take her statement and discuss the ASB allegations. Following the visit on 13 May 2020 the landlord agreed to visit the neighbour and it also reviewed the video recording provided by the resident.
The resident reported further instances of disruptive behaviour by the neighbour and the children over the weekend. She also sought assistance from her MP.
The MP wrote to the resident on 5 June 2020 and said that the landlord had agreed to appoint a new officer to deal with her case. It was explained that the neighbour was entitled to have visitors and it was up to both parties to work together to make living in close proximity work. The landlord was not able to stop the neighbour from having his children stay over. The MP also suggested possible referral to mediation and counselling services.
There was further correspondence between the landlord and the MP about the resident’s concerns and it was agreed that the MP would recommend the landlord’s suggestion of a joint meeting to discuss the issues.
The landlord’s records of the interview with the neighbour show that he denied any drug use and challenged the resident’s allegation that his children were deliberately antagonising the resident. He also made counter allegations about the resident watching his children and taking photos of them. The neighbour told the landlord that he felt the resident was harassing him and his family.
A report was logged on 12 June 2020 of the neighbour’s children being disruptive. It stated that ‘the kids are now running around the block banging on the front and back doors to be let in, screaming backward and forwards in the hallway. In itself it’s just kids playing but knowing the tenant these past few years, when he arrives at his weekend holiday flat upstairs with his kids, he shows no consideration at all for other tenants and I have seen and heard him prompt the kids to act in a way that he knows will annoy other tenants’.
The landlord updated the resident on 15 June 2020 of what it had done so far. It said that it had carried out weekend inspections to get a better understanding of the issues being experienced. At the last inspection on Saturday morning it witnessed the children playing outside but there was no evidence of any ASB. It said it would continue to do ad-hoc inspections on weekends. It confirmed that it was working with a PCSO and her MP in a joint effort to address the issues.
The landlord’s internal email on 22 June 2020 confirmed that it had carried out three unannounced blocks inspections at different times over the weekend, and it did not witness any ASB or excessive noise disturbance.
Further internal emails on 6 July 2020 confirmed that further visits had been carried out and no evidence of ASB had been witnessed in respect of the allegations of drug use and noisy children. It was also noted that the landlord’s visits were agitating the neighbour. The correspondence shows that the landlord offered the resident noise recording equipment and also offered mediation as a way forward. The internal emails at this time noted that there was a clear neighbour dispute between the parties with both unwilling to consider options to try and address the issues.
On 21 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the neighbour about the allegations of noise disturbance and said it would be monitoring this over the next three months through the use of observational visits by officers and/or the use of noise monitoring equipment.
The landlord’s records show that the ‘noise monitoring request form’ confirmed the interventions already offered had included mediation, a warning to the alleged perpetrator and liaison with PCSO.
On 28 July 2020 the landlord updated the PCSO and confirmed that it had found no evidence of ASB and that the resident had now agreed to install the noise recording equipment. The records show that the Police were not taking any further action at this time about the resident’s allegations of ASB.
The noise recording equipment was installed on 14 August 2020, and the resident was also provided with diary sheets to record noise disturbance instances. The equipment was removed on 24 August 2020.
The noise monitoring report as issued on 2 September 2020 stated:
1. The noise equipment was installed for a period of 11 days and the equipment was installed in the bedroom, there is no evidence of anyone shouting and swearing, the complaint has moved to children banging and shouting, you can hear them in the communal area as you would and yes, they are banging about until they go into the communal area or outside.
2. Sounds like something is being rolled about & banging about loudly.
3. Child in communal area, female, someone’s door closing.
4. Children playing in the communal area.
5. Someone closing their door.
6. Skating sound for 5 secs, low level banging & someone closing their door.
7. Children outside, some banging about.
8. Children running about banging & you can hear them in the communal area.
9. Children outside, some banging about from above then it stops & they are heard outside.
10. Children banging about for 10 secs.
11. Children in communal area & you can also hear children banging about for 10 secs.
On 8 September 2020 a meeting was held between the landlord, the resident, her support worker and a PCSO. The PCSO commented that it had been explained that the landlord had exhausted all efforts to try to resolve the issues between the resident and the neighbour, and unless there was a significant issue nothing more could be done. The PCSO explained the limits as to criminal action and prosecution and lack of evidence to meet thresholds for CPS to prosecute. It was confirmed that the issues raised by the resident were not being ignored, but the fact remained that there was a lack of evidence to justify any further action.
It was agreed that the resident would consider moving and the landlord would assist her with this, but it was explained that this was not guaranteed and it could take some time.
On 17 September 2020 the resident logged a formal complaint via the landlord’s online system. She said that she was complaining about the conduct of her neighbour and his six children. She raised general allegations of nuisance e.g. there were two adults and six children staying in the one-bed flat at weekends; the neighbour smokes cannabis; throws rubbish out of windows; moves the bins; arguing; slamming doors; drunken behaviour; children playing ball games in the communal area; leaving security door ajar; neighbour’s children given a fob; neighbour being abusive and the children mocking her.
The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord but the records provided do not show the landlord’s formal response to this complaint. The available records show that it wrote to the resident on 2 October 2020 to confirm that it had listened to the noise recording she had sent, and it was satisfied that this did not constitute a nuisance or ASB. The records also show that noise recording equipment had been installed recently in another flat and this did not evidence any ASB. The resident was offered the use of noise recording equipment again.
The resident then contacted this Service on 2 October 2020. We wrote to both parties advising them to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. On 12 October 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had logged a Stage 1 complaint.
On 16 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the neighbour again about the allegations of noise disturbance and said that it would monitor the situation over the next three months.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 23 October 2020:
1. It stated that it had attempted to speak to the resident about the specific complaint issues but she had declined to do so. It had therefore reviewed the matter with all the information currently available.
2. The main issues raised by the resident included allegations about her neighbour’s children playing with chalk in the garden, noise nuisance and smoking cannabis.
3. Following these allegations the neighbour had been spoken to and advised about their future conduct and the effect this could have on their tenancy.
4. Several professionals including the Police had completed ad-hoc visits to the block to smell the cannabis, but no evidence was found. Ongoing visits were still being carried out.
5. In relation to the allegations of noise nuisance, it had installed noise monitoring equipment but no evidence of excessive noise was captured.
6. It had reviewed the noise recording provided by the resident which appeared to show that the neighbour was arguing on the phone loudly. Due to this it has offered the use of noise recording equipment again to evidence how often this happens and how loud it is so it can then decide the next course of action.
7. It explained that there was no evidence that the complaints had not been dealt with correctly and thoroughly. It was only able to take action when it had sufficient evidence to do so, which in this it did not have yet.
8. It noted that the ASB issues were still being actively monitored, and if this produced more evidence then further action would be taken. It maintained that it would continue to investigate any complaints of ASB.
9. It concluded that its staff had dealt with the resident’s concerns correctly and professionally and had explained its position clearly at the meeting on 8 September 2020 and that, based upon the evidence at this time, no further action could be taken. It also gave details of how the resident can request an appeal of the complaint outcome.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2020 and said she remained unhappy and wanted the complaint to be escalated.
On 5 November 2020 the landlord asked the resident to provide further details of her reasons for requesting an appeal and explained the criteria for passing a complaint to the appeal stage. It said it could not escalate the complaint to an appeal solely because the resident disagreed with the outcome.
The resident responded and said that she wanted the matter escalated to an appeal because she felt it had not been handled professionally. The resident did not provide any specific details in support of her request.
The resident continued to send emails to the landlord alleging further nuisance and disturbances caused by the neighbour e.g. throwing food outside; noisy arguing; smell of cannabis in the communal area.
The landlord’s internal email on 9 November 2020 showed that it had considered the appeal request and due to the lack of any new evidence, and that the resident wanted the ongoing ASB issues to be looked at, it was agreed that the complaint would not be escalated to a Stage 2 appeal, but the ASB team would take over and deal with the ongoing ASB issues as the appeal would not get involved in handling the ongoing ASB issues.
At this time there was also further correspondence between this Service, the resident and the landlord to establish if the landlord’s complaints process had been exhausted.
On 8 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the complaint would not be escalated to Stage 2 of its process. It maintained that it had investigated the ASB issues appropriately and explained its position in its Stage 1 response, and that it was working with her to try and evidence ongoing ASB. Whilst the resident wanted the landlord to take enforcement action against her neighbour, this was not a reason to escalate the complaint. Furthermore, as there was no evidence to challenge the Stage 1 outcome it was not appropriate for the complaint to be escalated. It confirmed that it was still actively working with her on the ASB issues but the complaint was now closed and the resident could refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
This Service understands that there have been further developments with the ASB case and that, as of February 2021, the landlord was considering installing CCTV cameras in the communal areas and the resident was considering pursuing a new complaint with the landlord about her ongoing ASB allegations.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the ASB reports

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its procedures and acted appropriately. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the ASB allegations or to establish whether or not any party is to ‘blame’ for any of the alleged ASB or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received and to the formal complaint and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.
It is noted that the resident has reported similar allegations continuously over a long period of time. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and the report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.
Looking at the issue of the disturbance caused by the neighbour and his children, the resident’s reports mainly occurred when the neighbour had his six children stay with him on weekends. The landlord has evidenced that it responded reasonably and proportionately to the reports, and whilst the amount of reports made by the resident were considerable, the subject matter of the reports were very similar in terms of the general noise and disruption allegedly caused by the children and also the allegations of the smell of cannabis in the communal area.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded in an appropriate manner to the reports made by the resident and it took steps to investigate these reports in line with its ASB procedure. It spoke to the neighbour about the allegations about the conduct of the children whilst playing in the communal area and also the drug use allegations. It carried out unannounced ad-hoc visits to the block on weekends at different times and it did not note any evidence of ASB both with regards to the behaviour of the children or any drug use.
Due to the fractured relationship between the resident and the neighbour, the landlord responded appropriately by offering mediation and it also engaged with a PCSO to try and get the two parties to work together to address their issues. The key factor in this case is that both the resident and the neighbour were unwilling to work out their differences, and in these situations, especially when there is a lack of actionable evidence of a tenancy breach, the landlord’s ability to practically resolve the issues is hampered.
From what can be seen, the landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the children’s behaviour, and it has demonstrated that it has investigated those concerns appropriately. The landlord has explained that, whilst the resident has her concerns about the children staying over on weekends, the neighbour is not breaching his tenancy in this instance, and without evidence of ASB or nuisance, the landlord cannot prevent him from having his children stay over. The landlord has explained throughout its handling of this matter, and in its complaint responses, that it is mindful of the impact on the resident, and it has committed to continue to investigate any ASB issues and gather evidence where appropriate.
With regards to the allegations of noise disturbances caused by the neighbour and his children, while there were numerous reports made by the resident to the landlord about this, the landlord was satisfied following its investigations that these allegations did not amount to ASB that required any formal action. The reported incidents were considered by the landlord to be matters related to general household living noise. The recordings compiled by the resident were reviewed by the landlord and it was reasonable of the landlord to conclude that the noise did not amount to ASB that would warrant any tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour.
The landlord’s decision not to take action against the neighbour is supported by a noise monitoring report which confirms that the noise recording equipment had been installed in the resident’s flat for 11 days. The types of noises picked up by the equipment would not warrant any formal action against the neighbour. The report clearly confirms that the noise witnessed on the recordings was generally to do with the children playing. Whilst such noises may well cause the resident concern, the landlord is satisfied that they do not amount to ASB or nuisance in this instance.
In its final complaint response the landlord rightly acknowledged that, whilst it could not take any action at this stage, it would continue to monitor the situation and reconsider its decision pending any further evidence – which was reasonable and appropriate.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has appropriately evidenced that it has taken into account all the information and its subsequent decision, and the rationale for not taking any further action against the neighbour at that time, was reasonable in light of the available evidence.
The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s lack of enforcement action and has said that she does not feel supported by the landlord. The resident’s concerns are duly noted however, the landlord is not being unreasonable when it says that it cannot take tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour unless it has sufficient evidence to do so. The evidence available up till the time of the final complaint response shows that the landlord’s handling of the reports was reasonable and the landlord had acted appropriately in its handling of this matter. Furthermore, the landlord has reiterated its confirmation that it will continue to investigate any further ASB reports and it has already offered the resident the noise recording equipment again.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it handles complaints and the timeframes for its responses. Looking at the facts of this case, it is noted that there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.
Looking at the evidence, it can be seen that the resident logged a formal complaint on 17 September 2020, and whilst a system-generated automatic acknowledgement was sent, there is no evidence of any formal response at this time. It was not until the intervention of this Service on 6 October that the complaint was formally acknowledged by the landlord on 12 October (almost four weeks later). There is no evidence to explain this period of delay.
The resident was unhappy with the Stage 1 complaint response and requested that the complaint be escalated on 27 October 2020. The landlord responded appropriately, and in accordance with its complaints policy, by asking the resident to clarify her request for an appeal. The landlord responded appropriately by explaining the complaints escalation process and that an appeal was not automatic. The landlord also acted appropriately by considering the resident’s response and explaining why it felt that escalation of the complaint was not valid.
However, the landlord failed to formally confirm its decision to the resident in a timely manner. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure that were in force at the time of this complaint do not specifically set out the timeframe for making the decision to escalate the complaint. Looking at the available evidence, the landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it made the decision not to escalate the complaint on 9 November 2020. But there is no evidence to show that this decision was communicated to the resident at the time. The resident came to this Service on several occasions and we attempted to confirm if the complaints process had been exhausted, and this was not confirmed by the landlord to the resident until 8 January 2021. Whilst the complaints policy did not stipulate a timeframe, the Ombudsman considers that two months to confirm the decision not to escalate the complaint is unreasonable.
Given the length of the delays in acknowledging the initial complaint, and the escalation decision, the landlord also failed to consider if compensation was warranted for the service failure in accordance with its compensation policy.
Its failure to act in a timely manner meant that the resident experienced unnecessary additional inconvenience from not receiving the decision and having to chase progress with the assistance of this Service, which was unreasonable. By not confirming its decision in a timely manner, it has unnecessarily prolonged the complaints process. Looking at the overall handling of the complaint itself and taking into account the service failures noted above, the Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation of £100 would be warranted in this case.

Determination (decision)

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 anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) by her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord duly acknowledged the resident’s concerns and it has demonstrated that it responded appropriately to the various reports and it acted in a reasonable manner and in line with its ASB procedure. Looking at the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s overall handling of the ASB reports, was proportionate and appropriate.
With regards to the complaint handling, the landlord failed to act appropriately and in line with its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord unnecessarily delayed the completion of its internal complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure identified with its handling of the complaint.
Evidence of the payment of compensation to be provided to this Service within four weeks.