Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Stockport Homes Limited (202123560)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123560

Stockport Homes Limited

19 April 2023

 

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 the following:

  1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the resident’s neighbours.
  2. Repairs to rectify damp.
  3. Right to Buy.
  4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2.     The resident has made further complaints regarding the landlord’s decisions on homelessness applications, removal from the Withheld list, awarding of medical points, the suitability of offers of accommodation, its decision not to provide temporary accommodation and delays in an assessment for adaptations.

3.     What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

4.     After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the above aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

5.     These matters fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body; namely, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) as they form part of the councils’ wider obligations as a statutory authority, rather than its role as a landlord. These matters have not therefore formed part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

6.     The resident was a secure tenant of a two-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. The property was on the ground floor of a two-storey house with a further flat on the first floor. The resident moved into the property following a mutual exchange in May 2018. Since that time there have been several tenants living in the flat above. The resident has explained that due to noise problems and ASB from the flat above both she and her daughter are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Her daughter is supported by Community Mental Health Services who provided evidence of the impact of the living situation on her health as part of the application for rehousing. This recommended that accommodation with residents living above, be avoided.

7.     The flat above is owned by a leaseholder, with the landlord holding the freehold. The neighbours that have lived at the property are tenants of the leaseholder, not the landlord.

Antisocial behaviour (ASB)

Neighbour one

8.     There had been a pattern of noise complaints since the resident moved in. Prior to the complaint being received, there had been historic ASB cases where the resident had been either the complainant or alleged perpetrator. Community protection warning notices had been sent to both the resident and the neighbour above (neighbour one) and the landlord had made referrals for the resident to attend mediation and counselling.

9.     By March 2020, the resident reported that the terms of a mediation agreement had been broken. She raised concerns regarding loud music and banging. She explained that the situation had been exacerbated by Covid regulations and lockdown, as both households were now in the property 24 hours a day.

10. The landlord raised the issue with the neighbour and sent a tenancy breach warning letter. The neighbour denied the allegations and made counter allegations of noise and abuse coming from the resident’s household.

11. The landlord installed noise monitoring equipment on a number of occasions, including from 5 August – 17 August 2020. It confirmed that when the recording was assessed this only provided evidence of everyday living noise. It therefore closed the ASB case and advised the resident of this on 8 September 2020.

12.  The police were called to the address on 16 September 2020 following the resident’s report of an assault. The neighbour above was interviewed under caution, but no further action was taken.

13. The neighbour contacted the landlord on 1 October 2020 and made further allegations of abuse from the resident’s household. She advised the landlord that she would be moving from the property. The landlord contacted the resident and informed her that a complaint had been made. It asked her to attend an interview to discuss the matter. The resident responded and explained that she was currently unwell having suffered a breakdown since the assault. She asked for details of the complaint made against her.

14. Around the same time the landlord was also made aware of incidents occurring during viewings of the upstairs flat which the leaseholder was seeking to sell/let. On 9 October 2020, the leaseholder’s estate agent advised that these were deliberately disrupted by noise from the resident’s household. The leaseholder complained to the landlord about this behaviour on 12 October 2020 and the landlord visited the resident to discuss this on 20 October 2020.

15. The leaseholder continued to report that the resident’s household deliberately disturbed viewings of the property. On 15 November 2020, the landlord warned the resident that it would consider legal action against her should the situation continue. The allegation was denied by the resident who explained that a radio had been left on whilst they were away from the property as a deterrent to burglars, but this had been at a reasonable volume.

16. The landlord made further checks with the police regarding the current situation who confirmed that no further action was being taken against either party.

17. The landlord sent a Community Protection Warning Notice to the resident relating to the condition of her garden, as it had been contacted regarding the dumping of rubbish on a communal area. This had also been witnessed by a member of staff. It also sent her a tenancy warning regarding ASB.

18. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord regarding its handling of her reports of ASB on 9 and 12 November. The landlord response at stage one, on 26 November 2020, addressed the following points:

  1. Noise monitoring letters sent to the neighbour rather than the leaseholder – the landlord confirmed that it had acted in accordance with Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  2. Accuracy of the noise monitoring equipment- it explained how the system worked and confirmed that annual checks were undertaken by the manufacturer to ensure the equipment was working as intended.
  3. Closure of ASB case on 4 September 2020- the landlord confirmed that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations. It had investigated but found no supporting evidence. The noise monitoring confirmed that there was no statutory nuisance and as a result the case was closed.
  4. Warnings given to the resident – counter allegations had been made about the resident’s behaviour, some of which were supported by independent evidence. The landlord had therefore warned the resident and issued a community protection warning notice relating to rubbish in the communal areas.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that the situation was causing distress to the resident and her daughter. It had offered support and non-legal routes to help resolve the situation via mediation, counselling, and direct offers of re-housing.

19. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and requested that the complaint be escalated on 27 November 2020. She did not believe the landlord had properly addressed the impact of the situation on her daughter’s mental health in having to continue living in a ground floor flat.

Neighbour two

20. A new resident moved into the upstairs flat sometime in November 2020. The landlord was made aware that the new neighbour had a disability.

21. On 2 December 2020, the resident reported noise nuisance from the flat above. Her email explained that the new neighbour had a disability and as a result had loud outbursts and dropped things causing noise below. The resident reported one particularly bad night where the neighbour had caused noise from around midnight to 3 am. This kept the household awake and caused the resident’s daughter to have a panic attack. She was unable to attend school the next day as a result.

22.  The landlord offered to provide noise monitoring equipment but explained that there was a two-week waiting list. The resident was asked to keep a record of the noise in the interim. The landlord’s letter also raised the reports of ASB made about the resident’s household at viewings which, it stated, had continued. This included asking potential residents to sign documents that they would not make a noise or flush the toilet after a certain time, and loud bangs and music during viewings. The landlord served a further Community Protection Warning Notice on the resident.

23. The resident continued to be disturbed by the new neighbour and reported noise from a cat locked in one of the bedrooms which jumped about and was frequently told off by the neighbour. The noise continued throughout the night preventing the household from sleeping and causing great distress to her daughter and negatively impacting her mental health.

24. A letter was sent to the neighbour, and noise monitoring equipment was installed on 8 December 2020 – 17 December 2020. A school worker also contacted the landlord with concerns regarding the impact of the situation on the daughter and supporting a move for the family. The resident became increasingly distressed with the noise above and requested that the family be provided with temporary accommodation. The situation continued, with the resident reporting disturbances at night with increasing frequency. She requested urgent temporary rehousing to reduce the impact on her daughter. The landlord offered respite accommodation comprising two nights in a hotel. The resident reported that the rooms were not appropriate for her daughter and the family returned home.

25. The landlord met with the neighbour and her parents to discuss the noise situation. It issued a warning letter regarding the noise and once the noise recordings were listened to and three instances of noise nuisance identified, confirmed that it would be taking further action.

26. The relationship between the two households deteriorated and the situation become worse, with eggs being thrown at the resident’s windows. Unordered food deliveries began to arrive at the resident’s flat. Both households continued to report ASB to the landlord. By February 2021, CCTV footage showed the neighbour throwing eggs at the resident’s home. This escalated over the course of the year with incidents involving neighbour two videoing the family, throwing pasta jars out of the upstairs windows, and deliberately disconnecting the wires to the CCTV cameras. Counter allegations continued to be made.

27. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated in November 2020. A panel hearing was arranged for January 2021 which was delayed, initially due to the Covid 19 restrictions, but later at the request of the resident. The panel hearing took place on 5 October 2021. By this time, neighbour one, who had been the cause of the ASB considered in stage one, had moved from the property. The panel letter states that in relation to ASB the resident believed that the issues were unresolved, and that the landlord had blocked her at every point and not offered help or support in trying to address the behaviour.

28. The landlord referred the resident back to the findings in the stage one response but then went on to consider the landlord’s response since neighbour two moved in. It noted that the most recent reports included egg throwing, throwing glass pasta sauce jars, flushing the toilet, and hoovering at night, repeated food deliveries arriving at the resident’s home, including after midnight, and rubbish left near the residents. It noted that incidents had been reported to the Police who were still investigating and acknowledged that the situation was extremely distressing to the resident and her young daughter. The panel noted that noise monitoring equipment and CCTV had been installed and the ASB team had referred the case to the special housing panel at the council for consideration with five offers of 2-bedroom homes being made to the resident.

29. The panel also considered the counter allegations of noise nuisance made and the residents’ dissatisfaction that neighbour two was allowed to make normal living noise whereas the resident was not afforded the same understanding. The panel found that the landlord had taken appropriate action which included both households being served with Community Protection Notice Warnings where there was an independent witness to the ASB report, installing noise monitoring and CCTV equipment, liaising with the police, and involved support networks. The panel were unable to identify any further action that the landlord could have taken linked to the ASB as reported. It did not therefore uphold the complaint.

Damp

30. The resident’s complaint regarding damp at the property was investigated by the Ombudsman previously and therefore this investigation will only consider matters that formed part of the current complaint.

31. On 19 June 2019, following an inspection of the property, the landlord ordered works to remove the skirting boards and create a bridging gap, including damp proofing.

32. The resident continued to experience and report problems and instructed her own survey of the property. The landlord took issue with the findings of this as the moisture measurements were obtained using a protimeter on plaster. The landlord believed this was not appropriate as the protimeter was only designed to measure moister in timber. It agreed, however, to undertake a further inspection of the property. As a result, it installed a positive input ventilation system and replaced a single panel radiator with a double panel.

33. The situation was not resolved as the resident’s reasons for requesting a review included that she continued to experience excessive condensation.

34. In July 2021, the resident reported water ingress from the chimney breast in the living room. This instigated further investigation of the roof, and works were arranged to drop the chimney which was expected to remedy any water ingress. At the stage two panel hearing the landlord agreed to provide details of the period for this work to the resident. The work was undertaken in November 2021.

35. Since the panel hearing the resident issued a legal disrepair claim in March 2022.

Right to buy

36. Part of the resident’s complaint is that it she has not been able to pursue her Right to Buy due to the length of time it has taken the landlord to resolve the ASB at the property. As a result, property prices had increased. She has requested that the rent she has paid during this period be refunded. She also believed that the landlord had misled her, by advising that her ongoing tenancy would count towards the Right to Buy discount, when she was already entitled to the maximum level of discount.

37. In the landlord’s stage one response, it confirmed that at no time had any steps been taken that would have prevented the resident from pursuing her right to buy. At stage two it stated that it was satisfied that there had been appropriate offers of alternative accommodation which could have removed the household from the ASB. It was a matter for the resident how and when she decided to exercise her Right to Buy.

Complaint handling

38. The complaint was made on 9 and 12 November 2020 with a response sent by the landlord on 26 November 2020.

39. The resident requested that the matter be escalated on 27 November 2020. A panel was arranged with a head of service and an independent customer for the 19 January 2021. The landlord confirmed that the resident would not be able to be represented by her solicitor at the panel.

40. The landlord has explained that this hearing was cancelled due to a change in Government Guidance Covid restrictions regarding gatherings. The resident was duly advised of this and offered a Head of Service paper review or to reconvene a panel once restrictions were lifted. The resident contacted the landlord again in April asking if panel hearings were being reconvened. The resident chose a reconvened panel at a later date. She contacted the landlord about the panel in April when she queried whether in–person panels were being scheduled.

41. The landlord scheduled a new hearing for June 2021. However, the resident was also pursuing a review of a homelessness decision and asked that the panel be postponed until after the review decision. The landlord agreed that this was an appropriate course of action given that the homelessness decision could potentially provide the resident with rehousing. The homelessness review confirmed that there would be a direct offer of housing to the family.

42. The resident challenged the medical assessment that formed part of the suitability assessment for the type/size of property to be offered. She asked that the panel be arranged after completion of this process as this could potentially impact the size and type of accommodation offered. A panel hearing was held on 5 October 2021 and the decision sent to the resident on 8 October 2021.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

43. There was a history of complaints relating to ASB with a prior Ombudsman investigation relating to events in 2018 plus a new panel hearing in 2019. This matter was not referred to the Ombudsman within the requisite time period and has not therefore formed part of this investigation. Similarly, the Ombudsman’s previous investigation is not revisited. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider the appropriateness and adequacy of the actions taken by the landlord in relation to the current complaints, and to make findings based on what is fair in all the circumstances.

Antisocial behaviour

44. Government Guidance, ‘Help with anti-social behaviour for social housing tenants’ sets out that there are two approaches that landlords can take:

  1. Using non-legal solutions:
    1. advising people their behaviour is unacceptable and must stop
    2. issuing direct warnings
    3. acceptable behaviour agreements
    4. referral to mediation or other support services, such as the Supporting Families programme that supports vulnerable families.
  2. Using legal remedies such as:
    1. civil injunctions
    2. possession proceedings

45. This approach is mirrored in the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure which lists potential options available when investigating a case of ASB. This details a mixture of legal and non-legal actions including warnings, mediation, noise abatement notices, and community protection notices.

46. The policy also refers to support and confirms that this may be provided by its housing support team and could take the form of frequent home visits and contact, counselling, and signposting to other services. It also confirms that the landlord will work with other agencies such as the police and social services as part of its investigation and its safeguarding of vulnerable residents.

47. The property where the resident lived during the course of the complaints was a two-storey house converted into two flats. The resident lived on the ground floor and the neighbours in the upstairs flat. A leaseholder owned the flat, therefore, the neighbours were not tenants of the landlord. Any action the landlord could take against the neighbour would therefore be limited, but if it amounted to a breach of the lease, action could have been taken against the leaseholder.

48. Following the reports of ASB from neighbour one, the landlord followed its policy and process. It interviewed both parties and sought to identify the exact nature of the problem; installed noise monitoring equipment; consulted with the police, and offered support to the resident and mediation to both households.

49. Once the landlord had gathered sufficient evidence from the monitoring, each household and external agencies, it was satisfied that there was insufficient evidence of unreasonable noise and behaviour. It had offered support and issued warnings and its decision that there was no further action that it could take against either household was reasonable. It therefore acted within its policy guidelines by closing the case in September 2020.

50. Following the alleged assault, the landlord again consulted with the police, reviewed CCTV footage, and decided that there was no further action it could take against neighbour one. This was a decision that the landlord was entitled to make having appropriately assessed the available evidence.

51. The resident had complained that the landlord advised the neighbour that the noise monitoring equipment was going to be installed rather than the leaseholder. The landlord’s policy guidance states that when installing the equipment its investigating officer must write to the perpetrator advising that it will be installed in a neighbouring property within the following three months. It was therefore acting in accordance with its policy when it informed the neighbours that the equipment was installed. The landlord has also explained that this approach was compliant with the requirements in the code of guidance for surveillance.

52. In relation to the serving of Community Protection Notices, these are intended to deal with non-statutory nuisance. The landlord’s policy gives the examples of ‘litter, graffiti, loud music, overgrown gardens, barking dogs etc.’  It goes on to state that notices can be served if the landlord is satisfied that:

  1. The conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality.
  2. The conduct is unreasonable.

53. Throughout the landlord’s response to the ASB, such notices have been used to warn the recipient that their behaviour was not acceptable and to request that the offending behaviour be addressed. There was also an instance where a notice was issued to the resident due to the placement of rubbish in the garden area. There is no evidence that the resident was treated differently or unfairly by the landlord as the notices served upon her household met the policy requirements. Similar notices were sent to both households.

54. The situation became further complicated once neighbour two moved in. The landlord had to balance the needs of the resident’s household and her young daughter, with the needs of the disabled resident.

55. The landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in both flats on a number of occasions. It liaised with the police, the neighbour’s social worker and parents, plus the leaseholders. It issued a number of Community Protection Warnings to try and curb the behaviour.

56. The landlord also offered short-term respite care to the resident and her daughter on two occasions to acknowledge the distress caused to the household by the ongoing situation. This was outside of its policy which solely refers to moving residents for their own protection. This was appropriate, given the distress being caused the resident’s daughter.

57. The landlord’s handling of the ASB was undertaken in tandem with its obligations as a local authority in relation to homelessness and allocations. Whilst this investigation has sought to look at the handling of the ASB in isolation this is artificial as both processes were running at the same time and there were many areas of overlap.

58. In total seven properties were offered to the resident, five before the complaint was made. There were four ASB case investigations, with one ongoing at the time of the stage two panel. Support was offered via counselling, mediation, two offers of respite accommodation and frequent contact throughout. Noise monitoring and CCTV cameras were installed, the landlord had regular contact with the police, the resident’s daughter’s support services, the resident’s solicitor and the parties supporting neighbour two. The action taken by the landlord reflected the evidence gathered and was compliant with its policy commitments. The landlord’s response to the reports of ASB was appropriate.

Damp

59. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including the external and internal walls, floors, and ceilings.

60. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including damp and mould growth. For damp and mould this means taking preventative measures that could have a significant effect on likelihood and harm outcomes relating to moisture production and ventilation. The landlord sought to limit the risk of condensation by installing the ventilation system.

61. There is no doubt that the new leak to the chimney breast reported in July 2021 will have caused inconvenience and frustration for the resident. However, the landlord had taken remedial action, added a new ventilation system and arranged to remove and renew the chimney, albeit that this took place after the panel hearing. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord delayed unreasonably in dealing with the matter, or behaved unfairly, unreasonably, or incompetently. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has acted appropriately by inspecting the property on a number of occasions, undertaking works to put things right.

Right to Buy

62. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the resident was disadvantaged by the actions of the landlord in any application to purchase the property. The landlord acted appropriately when dealing with the ASB and it was a matter for the resident as to whether she pursued an application to purchase the flat.

63. Given that there were no failings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB there are no grounds that would warrant the refunding of the rent paid by the resident during this period.

Complaint handling

64. The landlord’s stage one was issued within 10 days of the resident’s second complaint and correctly explained how the complaint could be progressed.

65. An escalation request was made almost immediately and a panel with the head of service and a member of the resident panel was arranged for January 2021. The landlord cancelled this meeting due to concerns about Covid and its obligations to keep staff and residents safe. As was appropriate the landlord ensured that an alternative was offered whilst avoiding a meeting in person. It offered a paper review by a Head of Service. Had this been acceptable to the resident the time delay between the stage one and stage two responses would not have been significant.

66. The panel was rearranged once the Covid restrictions were relaxed. However, by this time the resident was awaiting the outcome of the homelessness review. The panel was therefore postponed on two further occasions, pending these decisions.

67. It was reasonable that the landlord postponed the hearing given that the outcome of these reviews could potentially have provided the outcome that the resident was seeking as a resolution to her complaint. Additionally, the resident had requested that the panel be held after the decisions were made.

68. This delay did however have an impact on the landlord’s consideration of the complaint at stage two. By the time of the hearing, matters had moved on, and a new resident was living in the flat above the resident. This had resulted in new instances of ASB.

69. The panel took the time to listen to the resident and from its letter it is clear that her concerns now focused upon the ASB from neighbour two. This meant that the landlord’s response focused less on reviewing the stage one response but upon the new areas of dissatisfaction identified by the resident.

70. Given the length of time that had passed, the speed of new issues arising (both in terms of ASB and the homelessness/allocations decisions) and that at least part of the delay was outside the landlord control (Covid restrictions), this approach was reasonable. The landlord sought to deal with the issues that were concerning the resident and to review its general approach. This was fair given the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

71. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the following complaints:

  1. Antisocial behaviour from the resident’s neighbours.
  2. Repairs to rectify damp.
  3. Right to Buy
  4. Complaint handling

Reasons

72. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy commitments when dealing with the reports of ASB. It investigated, offered support, took appropriate steps to obtain supporting evidence, consulted with the appropriate agencies and issued warnings as was appropriate.

73. In relation to the damp conditions, the landlord inspected and undertook remedial work each time a repair request was received. It installed a ventilation system and undertook works to drop the chimney breast in an attempt to resolve the problems.

74. There is no evidence that the resident was prevented from exercising her right to buy, nor any grounds that would warrant the reimbursement of her rent payments.

75. Although there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, these were either outside of the landlord’s control (Covid regulations) or were at the request of the resident. The delays allowed the panel greater insight into the whole of the resident’s complaint including the elements of homelessness and allocations that have not formed part of this investigation.