Stonewater Limited (202204943)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204943

Stonewater Limited

16 January 2024

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) and hate crime by his neighbours, including the resident’s concerns of discrimination by the landlord.
2. Handling of counter allegations about the resident’s alleged ASB.
3. Handling of his rent account including its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of court fees.
4. Response to the resident’s reports of poor ground maintenance.
5. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2007. The property is a two-bedroom house which is situated in a cul-de-sac. The front garden is adjoined with the next-door neighbour’s garden and a couple of the other neighbours gardens. Both properties are adjoining and have one wall that separates them. The resident described himself in their communication with the landlord as of black Jewish origin. The landlord does not have any records of mental health issues or vulnerabilities for him.
For this Service’s investigation, the landlord provided the resident’s accounts from 2012. The resident had an outstanding debt since May 2012 related to rent arrears. In November 2013, following a court injunction order, the court awarded to the landlord £1002.40 in court fees, and they were applied to the resident’s account. Additional £100 court fees were applied in 2014 following a rent debt order. Although these issues occurred some time ago, they remain relevant in terms of the complaint.

Policy, procedures and good practice

The landlord’s ASB policy uses the definition of ASB as per Section 2 of the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and particularly a conduct capable of causing alarm, harassment and distress to anyway, and conduct causing nuisance and annoyance to a person in relation to that persons’ occupation of residential premises.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines hate crime as any incident which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any person as being motivated by prejudice or hate. It acknowledges hate crime can take forms related to physical violence, threats of violence, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. It would respond to a hate crime report within 1 working day in order to form an action plan.
As per its ASB policy, the landlord is committed to tackle all forms of incidents and/or hate crimes that target people based on their age, disability, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation or any other protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. The landlord will ensure by building a proactive partnership that appropriate support and safeguarding is provided for victims of ASB and will work to promote empowerment resilience and tolerance, ensuring that only intervenes in issues where it is appropriate to do so.
The landlord’s ASB also states:
1. The landlord is committed to ensure that interventions are proportionate, and evidence based and ensure effective communication to the residents.
2. The landlord will make use of all options available to tackle incidents of ASB and hate abuse. In the case of ASB, unless the severity of the case warrants more formal action, it will initially utilise more informal interventions such as direct contact with the alleged perpetrator, informal undertakings, mediation.
3. Where incidents warrant more formal action due to their severity and/or intensity, the landlord will utilise the following: Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, Civil injunctions, Possession action, Criminal Behaviour Orders, Community Protection Notices, Closure Orders.
4. The landlord will consider where relevant any rights the perpetrator may have in terms of the Equality Act 2010 or the Human Rights Act 1998 and where necessary will weigh up whether taking action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The landlord has provided its current complaint policy which was issued in September 2022. These complaints policy states as follows:
1. The complaint process has 2 stages. At both stages the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. If it requires any extension, it will acknowledge it with the resident.
2. A complaint will be closed if there is no further contact from the resident 15 working days after it sends the complaint response.

Summary of events

Records show that there was an ongoing dispute between the resident and neighbour A since 2016. The main concerns of the dispute were the boundary between the resident’s front garden and the neighbour’s back garden and the positioning of the bins there. The neighbour (A) made numerous reports about the behaviour of the resident. These included threatening behaviour, assault, racial comments and noise nuisance. The resident made counter allegations about the rubbish from the positioning of the bins, noise and racial discrimination by the neighbour (A).
Some instances were reported and investigated by the police and an ASB case was open with the landlord since 2016. In 2017, the landlord obtained an injunction order against the resident, and in 2019 an interim injunction order was also obtained against the resident.
The exact date is unclear, but following the injunction orders, the resident had installed some fence panels between his front garden and the neighbour’s (A) back garden in attempt to resolve the insufficient fencing issue. Between September 2019 and March 2020, there was no activity on the case.
In March and April 2020, the resident reported to the police and the landlord that he “had been suffering in silence while the next-door neighbour (A) was tipping off their bins in his driveway”. The resident explained that the fence panels he had installed had been pushed by the neighbour to bulge on his side of the driveway. The resident accused the local authority and the landlord of discrimination based on racial grounds in relation to their response to his reports on the above issues.
On 12 April 2020, the next-door neighbour (A) reported to the police that the resident had been making threats to them for over 8 years. The police responded to the reports, during which the resident was unwilling to engage with one of the two officers that attended the property on account of his ethnicity. The police also referred to concerns about the resident’s mental health in their notes from the visit. The police noted that the resident cited the Bible, “appearing obsessed and having limited engagement”.
The police concluded that the issues were not related to crime, made a vulnerable adult non-crime referral and advised the tenants to contact their landlord. The police forwarded the information to the landlord. In May 2020, the next-door neighbour raised their concerns with the landlord and asked for action as “the police were doing nothing” after they had reported that the resident had made death threats. They also reported a smell of cannabis coming from the resident’s property.
In May 2020, other neighbours at the cul-de-sac emailed to the landlord stating that they had found the resident’s behaviour “disturbing, intimidating and annoying” due to his abusive language and threats. This was further evidenced in their witness statements about an incident from 12 May 2020. This was caused by the resident’s allegations that one of the neighbours (different than neighbour A) had damaged his car due to works in their garden. The police attended and identified no damages to the resident’s car. The neighbour (different than neighbour A) reported to the landlord that there had been 4 incidents in the previous 14 years of the resident shouting at the but that on this most recent occasion the resident had “ran at the fence”.
On 2 July 2020, the resident called the landlord and accused it and the neighbours of “structural racism”. He said he had experienced this for over 8 years, and it had to end or “someone would get hurt”. The landlord noted that the resident was quoting the Bible and changing the subject of conversation frequently which made the conversation “difficult and long”. He also stated that he had replaced the fence panel which had a hole, and that the landlord should reimburse him for the days work. He also called the landlord’s member of staff an “uneducated idiot”.
Following further complaints from the next-door neighbour (A) about the resident’s behaviour, the landlord’s contacted the police in relation to its investigation. On 11 August 2020, the police completed their investigation into the events from May 2020. With their case review stating:
1. Out of 6 neighbours the police had spoken to, one had issues in the past with the resident and one had current issues relating to their son being called “racist” by the resident while outside in their garden.
2. Out of 6 neighbours, one said that the alleged victim, next door neighbour (A) “was not that innocent that she was making it out” and was often shouting abuse to the resident.
3. Out of 6 neighbours, one said that the resident was actually looking after them as they lived on their own.
The same day (11 August 2020), the landlord responded to the resident’s racial complaint (ref.40155). It did not clarify the stage it was responding to. It said:
1. It had reviewed the telephone call from 2 July 2020 and the ASB case file and could not find any evidence of racism or biased behaviour towards the resident.
2. While the landlord’s staff found it difficult at times to communicate with the resident, it had been “patient and respectful”.
3. It believed the bin issue to be an incident when the bins had been emptied. With regards to the fence panel, any issues should be referred to its maintenance team in the future.
4. It did not uphold the complaint and advised the resident that if he did not get in touch by 1 September 2020, it would close the complaint.
On 18 August 2020, the resident requested an escalation of his complaint. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not considered that the repair of the fence panel was not his responsibility. He was also unhappy that the neighbour was “destroying the fence to deprive him of his privacy”. He considered this to be a hate crime. He also complained of “structural racism and racial discrimination”. He enclosed videos as evidence of how alleged perpetrators had sent their children to cause damage to his car and sought action from the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 3 September 2020 and asked the resident to clarify his desired outcome. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the formal complaint. On 10 September 2020, another neighbour reported to the landlord being intimidated by the resident as she was talking to his next-door neighbour (A).
In internal correspondence, the landlord acknowledged further reports from the next-door neighbour (A), their desire to be moved and that no charges had been raised with the police. In correspondence from September 2020, between the landlord and the police, the police advised that regardless of no charges being raised, the resident and neighbour A could not live together, and that one should be moved. As such, the landlord could consider supporting the neighbour’s management move. It also considered internally, due to the resident’s abuse to staff and frequency of his contact, to trigger its unreasonable conduct by complainant (UCC) procedure and limit his contact or provide a formal warning. There is no evidence whether this was done.
In October 2020, neighbour (A) made further reports about an incident where the resident had been shouting at her. The landlord also took a decision that her case did not qualify for a management transfer as it did not meet the threshold for immediate danger. The neighbour was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision. They stated that they had been threatened on many occasions. On 2 January 2021, the neighbour reported further threats from the resident and a serious incident of banging on the adjoining wall and shouting “I am going to stab you”, “demons”, “demonic bitch”. In an email to the landlord of 3 January 2021, the police informed it that the resident’s actions had been “crimed” (which potentially means that meets the threshold of a crime).
On 15 February 2021, the resident was arrested for a threat to damage his neighbour’s (A) property. Another neighbour tried to support the resident and secure his front door until he was released. This same neighbour was shouted at by the next-door neighbour (A) and they reported to the landlord that neighbour A and their family, which included extended family members living with them during the Covid pandemic, had become abusive. The neighbour who was supportive to the resident’s situation reported that they would apply for a restraining order for the resident’s next-door neighbour (A).
After the resident was released on bail, the landlord considered initiating civil injunction and possession proceedings against the resident. The next-door neighbour (A) reported on 24 February 2021 some additional concerns related to having installed a fire alarm in their property in the past because of the resident’s previous threats to burn down the property. They also reported to the landlord concerns of the resident dealing drugs and the involvement of the other neighbour who had been supporting him during the police arrest.
On 9 March 2021 in order to complete an Equality Act assessment form, the landlord contacted the community mental health team. It found out that the resident had been unknown to those services and no mental health issues had been recorded. The assessment form also noted that the landlord was seeking to start possession proceedings on the grounds of the resident causing nuisance and annoyance to the persons residing nearby and to the landlord’s staff.
On 18 March 2021, the resident made a formal complaint during a telephone conversation with the landlord. The landlord noted the resident’s concerns as follows:
1. He had called earlier that day and staff had been “rude to him”, when he had tried to report that neighbours had been racially discriminating him.
2. His Neighbour next door (A) was telling lies. He stated he had taken them to court with evidence in 2018-2019 and they had been issued with an injunction. (This Service has not seen an injunction against neighbour A).
3. The landlord had been biased as it had not investigated his concerns about the bins, reports of noise and neighbours shouting racist comments to him. Evidence had been sent in 2018 and the landlord had lost it.
4. The landlord contacted his GP without his consent and breached data protection.
5. He wanted compensation for the landlord “attacking him and being unprofessional”.
6. He had been to the police for his bail and the police had confirmed there was no evidence. He further compared the situation to the past where the neighbour had stated the resident had shouted that he would burn the house down, but the recordings had not supported this allegation.
7. The neighbours (A) next door were in breach of Covid- 19, (he provided no further information about this). The resident also added that the neighbours had been scratching his walls for over two weeks.
The following day, the landlord raised some concerns with the mental health services in relation to the resident and confirmed that the ASB case related to the neighbour’s reports of the resident’s behaviour had been reopened. It contacted the resident’s general practician (GP), who advised that the resident was not on any mental health medications. On 23 March 2021, the GP further advised after conversation with the resident that he did not have any mental health issues. However, the GP passed on to the landlord the resident’s statement that he had issues with racism from neighbours.
In a telephone conversation with the next-door neighbour (A), the landlord explained that it had sent them and the resident warning letters. The landlord explained that it had evidenced the next-door neighbour (A) had also been shouting abuse, hence the letters. This service has not seen evidence of these.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord responded again at stage 1. It stated:
1. It admitted it experienced technical difficulties during the telephone conversation with the resident and also its member of staff had been talking over the resident.
2. It acknowledged ongoing problems between him and his neighbour (A) for a number of years. In the past the resident had been served with an injunction due to his behaviour. As such it would not offer any reimbursement for the appearance at court. It did not clarify what appearance it referred to.
3. The ASB at the cul-de-sac had been monitored and investigated thoroughly over the past few years with the independent collaboration from the police, the local authority’s ASB team and legal providers.
4. It explained that it had made contact with the resident’s GP as it had a duty under the Care Act 2014 to ensure all of its tenants were safe and receiving the support that they needed.
5. It provided him with information on how to raise his concerns if ASB was experienced.
On 20 April 2021, the next-door neighbour (A) gave her notice as she had been offered a move through the local authority. The landlord discontinued with the injunction as it had previous experience of witnesses withdrawing from the injunction proceedings in 2019.
In April 2021, the resident requested information from the landlord about the minimum amount of rent arrears he could pay. On 11 and 12 May 2021, the resident reported that the ground maintenance was not to a good standard as the grass cutters were leaving some of the areas uncut. He considered this to be discrimination. On 14 May 2021, the resident made a payment as per a debt agreement he had reached with the landlord about his rent arrears (this Service has not seen it, but the landlord’s file suggests this was done in May 2021). On 20 May 2021, he received a notice of seeking possession (NOSP).
On 28 May 2021, in an email to the landlord, the resident raised again his concerns about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. He added his concerns about the ground maintenance issue and the rent arrears. He said:
1. He had been reporting the neighbour’s (A) behaviour for long time, but the landlord had not acted. The resident was concerned the landlord would not return his calls, or visit the property or review his evidence, including about the neighbour scratching the walls for over 2 months.
2. The landlord had been discriminating against him and considered the false allegation against him when applying for an injunction. The resident further said that he had proven to the court that the allegations were false and as such the court costs should not be for him to pay.
3. He was not mentally ill and had provided a letter from his GP.
4. The ground maintenance team had left only his part of the grass uncut and this could be seen in a footage (this Service has not seen the footage).
5. The resident had been paying his rent and service charges. He was also making payments as per the debt agreement, regardless the landlord had sent him NOSP.
6. The landlord had supported those who were discriminating against him and had not visited him to obtain the evidence he had. He added he had sent evidence of the neighbour’s ASB, but the landlord had lost them.
The resident reiterated his concerns in June about the ground maintenance. On 2 June 2021, the landlord sent an acknowledgement at stage 1 about the maintenance of the area outside his property and the handling of his ASB reports. This Service has also seen undated screen shots of complaints about the fence panels being blown off, the resident’s reports of alleged abusive language by the next-door neighbour, obstructing his parking and the neighbour’s (A) use of barbeque. The resident also raised issues about the landlord not reviewing or losing the evidence that he had provided and not offering mediation. The landlord’s acknowledgement suggested that a response would be sent by 15 June 2021.
On 15 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request an explanation of a letter received by the court about an adjourned hearing. He believed that it was related to his rent arrears. The landlord responded that due to a technical error, it had not notified the court about its decision from April 2021 to discontinue the injunction proceeding. It reassured the resident that an acknowledgement to the courts had been sent after his contact.
On 17 June 2021, the landlord issued its formal complaint “commitment”. It did not clarify at what stage of its complaint’s procedure it was responding to or provided any escalation information. It stated:
1. It acknowledged again as per its response from April 2021 the ongoing problems between the resident and his neighbour. It advised it had always taken court action when it felt it had enough evidence.
2. It did not address the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB but acknowledged his dissatisfaction with its handling. It also invited the resident again as per its response in April 2021 to share any evidence about the neighbour’s ASB with its ASB team.
3. It apologised it had not communicated clearly with him about his rent arrears. It noted that the resident had been a subject to a suspended possession order in 2013, and while this had expired there was still debt on his account. It confirmed that the resident had made an agreement to repay the debt, but it had issued notice of seeking possession as part of its standard procedure. It said it would take no further action if the resident paid his rent and arranged payments.
4. It was committed to equality and diversity and apologised if the resident had felt it had been biased against him.
5. In relation to the ground maintenance, its investigation had revealed that it was below its acceptable standard and had raised it with its contractors. It further clarified that the contractors had explained a staffing issue. It apologised and offered £150 compensation for the delay in resolving this.
In July and August 2021, the next-door neighbour continued their contact with the landlord about the resident’s behaviour although they had moved out. However, there was no evidence of further incidents or reports from other neighbours and on 12 August 2021, the landlord closed the case temporarily.
In September 2021, the landlord received a report of an incident involving abusive language by the resident directed against the new neighbour (B) and their son. This was reported to the police who contacted the landlord. The landlord discussed the incident with another resident who claimed to have heard the resident shouting that the neighbour’s (B) son had thrown rubbish in his garden. They reported the resident calling neighbour B “racist bitch” and their son “fucking bastards”. The witnessing neighbour found that the abuse the resident had been shouting was “terrible”.
On 10 September 2021, after this Service’s contact, the landlord wrote to the resident that he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
On 18 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord following a receipt of a warning letter about his comments to the new next-door neighbour’s (B) visitors and other households. The resident stated he was not happy with the letter suggesting “racial comments” and had CCTV evidence showing he was the victim. He also raised concerns that strawberries were thrown into his garden, which meant “slavery”. He accused the landlord of being racist for not considering his evidence and provided further footage, which he said he hoped the landlord would review this time.
The next door neighbour B reported to the landlord on 16 November 2021 a further incident involving abusive language by the resident directed against them and their son. Recordings were provided to the landlord, who reviewed them and noted that it could clearly hear the abuse.
The same day, the resident wrote to the landlord. He stated that his partner was white, and his children were half white as were most of his good neighbours. He accused the landlord of acting in a “structural racist’s way” and “collecting fabricated allegations from those who were racists”. He said that his had gone for 10 years and affected his health and wellbeing. He added that he still had the items that had been thrown in his back garden and the landlord had not acted on his reports. Additionally, he was dissatisfied that he had to pay “unnecessary” court fees. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 19 November 2021 and said it would respond by 3 December 2021 about the resident being a victim of racial discrimination.
In internal correspondence a senior member of the landlord’s staff advised that the resident was “in their radar” for a while and the landlord was in the process of taking legal action. It also stated that one tenant moved out because of the resident and the new tenant that had moved in had already started reporting ASB incidents. It assigned the review of the reports to the staff member that was handling the ASB case against the resident.
On 3 December 2021, the landlord issued another (fourth) stage 1 response to the resident. It stated:
1. It acknowledged it had previously responded in June 2021 to his ASB concerns. It had reviewed the videos of the children in the area, but it could only act where ASB was taking place.
2. It had taken seriously his allegation of discrimination based on race and would investigate in full as a priority.
3. It had an Equality and Diversity Policy, and it signposted the resident to it on its website.
4. The resident could escalate at stage 2 by 24 December 2021.
The resident contacted this Service again and asked for assistance. This Service requested from the landlord an explanation as to the position of the formal complaint. The landlord responded that the resident had been provided with an opportunity to escalate the complaint and an email was sent to him on 10 September 2021, but he had not escalated the complaint.
The landlord contacted the new next-door neighbour (B) again in December 2021 and January 2022. The neighbour B had installed a video doorbell in the meantime. As no further incidents were reported related to the resident’s behaviour, the landlord closed the ASB case.
On 1 March 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request from his email of 18 February 2022. This Service has not seen the resident’s email.
On 14 March 2022, the landlord sent a stage 2 response. It stated as follows:
1. The landlord’s members of staff were undertaking annual training to ensure they understood and dealt with the impact of discrimination. The landlord added that it was committed to diversity and equality. It had taken the allegation of discrimination seriously.
2. It was important for the resident to raise any ASB reports to its ASB team which would investigate and assess the situation.
3. It received a one-off noise nuisance complaint from the resident where the recording had shown that the neighbour was apologetic for the disturbance.
4. It investigated the staff involvement into the ASB issues and could not identify any fault of its staff.
5. Any court costs on the resident’s account were from a court matter in 2013. The court proceedings from April/ May 2021 had been discontinued and as such no cost had been incurred.
6. It was currently receiving three payments from him and his benefits. They were covering the debt which was £1269.29 on the main rent account. Once this was covered the landlord would look to collect the debt for the court costs which were as follows:
  1. £1002.40 for an injunction from June 2013.
  2. £100.00 for a hearing about rental debt in January 2014.
7. It could provide him with further advice and assistance on the benefits he was eligible to receive related to Discretionary Housing Payment.
8. The resident could escalate the matter to its customer complaints panel if not satisfied with the response.
In March and April 2022, another neighbour (C) from the next street reported an incident in their garden and abusive language by the resident. The neighbour also reported the use of pellet gun by the resident, the impact of which broke a window at the neighbour’s (C) property. Neighbour C reported this to the police and the landlord on 2 May 2022. They reported the shot going close to their daughter’s head, however, the police found no evidence that the gun had been shot by the resident. Neighbour B (who was reporting a previous incident with their son) stated that they felt concerned about their safety.
Another neighbour D, reported a couple of days later that the resident had stated “You are one of them, your time is coming”. The above issues were also reported to the police. Further reports of the resident’s threatening behaviour were made to the landlord by the neighbours in the following month. The neighbours also stated that the resident was keeping fighting dogs at his property and as such they were afraid to go into their gardens.
Towards the end of May 2022, the landlord sought legal advice to progress the ASB case. On 16 June 2022, the police informed the landlord they had closed the case about the pellet gun. They advised that they did not have any reports of fighting dogs and asked how the landlord was sure the dogs at the resident’s property were fighting dogs. The police asked the landlord what action it would be taking to manage the situation.
On 20 and 21 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that his neighbour (unclear which one) had been looking into his garden and purposely knocking fence panels. He believed them to be racist, he quoted the Bible during the phone call and asked for a call back from a manager.
On 28 June 2022, the landlord sent its second stage 2 complaint response. It stated:
1. It had reviewed its stage 2 response (possibly referring to 14 March 2022). It repeated its equality and diversity commitment statement. It also confirmed its position about the ASB reports and how they should be reported.
2. The resident was making payments towards his rent arrears and the Universal Credit Alternative Payment Agreement (UCAPA) – £362.16 was put in place in April 2020, when the resident’s rent debt reached £2000.00. The resident was paying £58.95 per month to cover the rent amount not paid by UCAPA. The Universal Credit Rent Agreement (UKRA) – £33.49 was to reduce the outstanding rent debt. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s statement that he had been unaware of this, but it had explained the rent payment a few times in its conversations with the resident.
3. It had not requested payments for the court fees at this stage but had made the resident aware of them.
4. It was committed to explain this further to the resident in case it remained unclear. It would also assist him with any additional financial support application.
5. The resident could refer the complaint to the Ombudsman. However, it also explained that he had the option to refer the complaint to its customer complaints panel.
In June and July 2022, the landlord was in close communication with the police and some of the neighbours who had been reporting the incidents, to discuss legal action and request further information from the police.
On 15 July 2022, the landlord discussed the resident’s concerns further with him. This Service has seen the follow up email where the landlord asked him for police reference numbers for racial abuse by the neighbours. The landlord also asked him to provide evidence again as it had lost them previously.
The landlord considered taking possession proceedings and completed an Equality Assessment form in September 2022 after a couple of neighbours provided witness statements.
The resident brought his complaint to this service on 1 October 2022. Following this Services’ contact with the landlord and request for evidence, on 20 January 2023, the landlord issued another formal response in relation to its complaint handling. It stated as follows:
1. It had not always provided “the best service” in terms of its communication to the resident.
2. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The Ombudsman had asked it to contact the resident and discuss the complaint in December 2021, but it had not done so.
3. In recognition for the above failures, it apologised and offered £250 compensation.
4. It had taken learning from its complaint handling and changed its complaints policy in September 2022 to reflect the best practice from the Housing Ombudsman.
During the course of the investigation, the landlord explained to this Service that the court order for the rent debt had expired and it was prepared to offer to waive the fees of £100.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident raised concerns with this Service that the landlord treated him differently due to his race. While it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make legally binding findings on discrimination allegations, this Service will consider the overall handling of the resident’s complaint and whether the landlord treated him fairly.
The resident believes that the incidents with the neighbours reported constitute a hate crime. This is a matter for the Police and is not a matter for the Ombudsman to determine. The Ombudsman’s investigation is concerned with the actions taken by the landlord following receipt of the resident’s concerns, and whether this action was fair in the circumstances.
Due to the nature of the ASB complaints, their frequency over multiple years and the volume of the evidence, this investigation does not tend to provide a full and detailed information on each of the incidents. This investigation will focus on the period leading up to the resident’s initial complaint from 2 July 2020. This reflects the dispute resolution principles where landlords should be given the opportunity to investigate, which is made significantly more difficult when time has passed. This Service does however have the discretion to consider historical matters when appropriate to do so and in this case, this Service has included some of the events prior to 2020 for further clarity.
The number of the resident’s contacts with the landlord’s income team was considerable for the period between April 2021 and August 2021. While some of the evidence or events were not referred to in this report and there were some recordings related to the actual ASB, in the interest of fairness this Service had reviewed all the evidence provided.
With all the evidence considered, this Service will focus on the overall landlord’s handling of the issues raised by the resident, including its handling of the situation, and particularly whether it responded to the multiple ASB reports and counter allegations in a reasonable and fair manner. However, the Ombudsman does not have the remit to establish of whether the ASB actually happened or who was responsible for the ASB.

Handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) and hate crimes by his neighbours, including the resident’s concerns of discrimination by the landlord.

Whilst it was clear that there was an ongoing neighbour’s dispute over many years, it is unclear of how it started. The landlord’s file suggests that the main reason for the incidents were the border between the two properties and the noise complaints. The resident’s installation of the fence had resolved the issues partially for a period of time, but the reports started again.
The resident reported on a few occasions issues with his neighbours displaying racist behaviour. He made additional reports of the fence panels being knocked down, the bins and rubbish thrown into his driveway and on his car and noise from the wall separating the properties. The resident initially raised those issues in July 2020 and followed up on them in March 2021 and May 2021. However, in its multiple stage one responses (this will be further reviewed in the landlord’s complaint handling), the landlord only provided him with advice on how to reports those issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have opened another ASB case different from the one it had opened for the resident’s alleged ASB and investigated the resident’s reports about the neighbours. It did not do so and as such it did not follow its ASB policy to take appropriate action.
It is appreciated that the nature of the case required the landlord to work closely with the police. However, the landlord could not demonstrate full engagement with the resident when he was reporting the issues. The landlord did not have any action plan or clear approach other than to apply for an injunction against the resident. It is noted that following one of the incidents in September 2020 it issued a warning letter to a neighbour (A). Overall, the landlord could not demonstrate that it was proactive in managing the neighbour’s dispute. It would have been reasonable for example for the landlord to explore further options available such as mediation or behaviour agreements. Such actions often act to diffuse tension between parties and prevent further escalation as they can enable parties to consider their own behaviours and the perspectives of their neighbours.
It is noted that the landlord lost the resident’s evidence and admitted to this failure at a later stage in July 2020. The resident asked on a few occasions between March and May 2021 for the landlord to visit him and review the situation and his evidence. The landlord’s records suggests that this did not happen.
Given the length of time and the landlord’s handling of his reports, it was understandable for the resident in these circumstances to feel the landlord was biased and only dealing with the reports against him. As such, he raised on multiple occasions allegations of racial discrimination from both the neighbours and the landlord. While this Service cannot investigate and make findings as to whether there was any discrimination experienced by the resident, the Ombudsman can look into the landlord’s response to those allegations and whether it had conducted a full and fair investigation on those issues.
The landlord had taken appropriate action to respond to the resident’s complaint in reviewing telephone notes and its file. It had shown in its first stage 2 response of March 2022 that it had taken the allegation of discrimination seriously. It reassured the resident how it trained its staff to work in a diverse environment and that its staff had a good understanding of equality and diversity issues when delivering its services.
While this was a reasonable approach to investigate the resident’s concerns, the landlord still did not address its handling of his ASB reports and as such missed an opportunity to put things right for him or take learning from its failures.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond and engage with the resident at an earlier stage with regards to the fence, the bins and the noise and investigate thoroughly his reports under a separate ASB case and provide a clear action plan. However, it did not do so. As such, it did not act in line with its policy which states that the landlord would tackle any ASB at the earliest opportunity and ensure that interventions are appropriate. Its failure to act proactively and effectively here potentially contributed to the continued escalation of the issues experienced by the parties.
In March and June 2022 the landlord reviewed the footage related to children playing but did not go further to visit the resident or collect other evidence. If it had not considered this as ASB at the time, it should have clearly stated this in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
For the above reasons there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord could not demonstrate that it had engaged actively in the resident’s reports of ASB. Additionally, it was overly reliant on the police and the information provided by the police. However, this Service has not seen a thorough investigation of the resident’s ASB reports nor appropriate steps taken to resolve the matter or stop it from further escalation such as mediation or behaviour agreements. This Service has awarded compensation of £250 for the inconvenience this had caused to the resident. A further order for staff training on this has also been ordered below.

The landlord’s handling of counter allegations about the resident’s ASB.

The evidence is clear that there was an ongoing dispute between the resident and his next-door neighbour (A) and the one that moved after neighbour (B). In some of the incidents there were additional neighbours involved. While the resident appears to have had a good relationship with some of the neighbours in the area, he had altercations with more than 3 of his neighbours. It is clear that the police were involved on a number of occasions and in 2013 and then in 2018 this ended with a civil injunction for the resident. A further civil injunction was initiated in 2021 but the landlord did not progress it due to the withdrawal of the witnesses.
It is appreciated that the police were heavily involved in this dispute. Additionally, these types of dispute are often difficult to manage, and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information and advice provided by the police. Its action in relation to the injunction and the consideration of possession proceedings was in line with its policy where the landlord can take more formal action relevant to the severity of the incidents. Given the nature, extend and frequency of the counter allegations received about the resident, as evidenced in the information made available to this investigation, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s action were reasonable and proportionate.
Additionally, the landlord had made attempts to support the resident. It contacted the relevant services and whilst it had not found any issues with the resident’s health, it still provided him with information about support services in its stage 2 response of March 2022. This was reasonable and a customer-oriented approach.
However, it is of concern that the landlord was not fully engaged in managing the situation at an earlier stage. There is no evidence of any visits to the properties other than a couple of cases where an injunction was sought and witness statements were taken. Additionally, there was not clear communication with the resident to manage his expectations, which led him to experience additional distress. For example, when he contacted the landlord to ask about the court hearing adjournment letter in June 2021, he was not aware that the landlord discontinued the injunction proceedings.
Additionally, the landlord was not proactive in following the advice the police gave it in September 2020 to take further action as the neighbours did not appear to be able to live together any longer. It took the landlord over 12 months to consider a management move for the next-door neighbour, who was willing to accept it and was pursuing this course of action. The neighbour (A) was actually moved by the local authority in May 2021. This delay was not reasonable in the circumstances and further exemplifies the landlord potentially exacerbating the situation by not acting in a timely and effective manner.
Overall, the landlord followed its policy in dealing with the allegations made against the resident and took proportionate action. However, it could not demonstrate that it had communicated clearly with the resident and fully engaged to resolve the dispute where the police considered that a move could improve the situation.
As such, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the neighbours’ reports of the resident’s ASB. Particularly, the landlord delayed proactively engaging to resolve the situation. It did not clearly communicate or manage the resident’s expectations. It is noted however that the delay in the move of the neighbour did not, in actual fact, improve the situation in the neighbourhood. As such it did not have a great impact on the ASB case.
It is also appreciated that the landlord experienced difficulties in its communication with the resident due to his multiple allegations of discrimination and his behaviour towards its staff. There is evidence that the landlord considered its unreasonable behaviour process, but had not appeared to have followed it though. This process could have enabled the landlord to manage the behaviours provide better service overall for the involved parties. This Service has taken into consideration these mitigating circumstances. As such, this Service has made a learning order for the landlord in relation to its staff training (to deal with complicated ASB cases which require a more holistic approach).

Handling of his rent account including its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of court fees.

This Service has seen multiple contacts between the resident and the landlord in relation to the resident’s rent arrears and the landlord’s handling of his rent account. The landlord had been responsive to the resident’s concerns and was clear as to the nature of the payments coming into his rent account from his benefits. However, it had not been entirely clear in its communication as to the nature of the resident’s debts and that the payments were going towards his rent debt.
This was, however, clarified in its two stage 2 responses of 14 March 2022 and 28 June 2022. The landlord explained that it had not requested the payments for the court fees from the injunction order in 2013 for £1002,40 as the resident had to initially clear his rent debt. It explained that the court fee of £100 was applied to the resident’s debt in 2014 following a rent debt court order.
During this investigation, the landlord explained to this Service, that the rent arrears order had expired, and the landlord suggested to this Service that it would waive the fee of £100 off.
The resident’s main concern about the administration of his rent arrears was about the addition of the court fees to his rent account debt. As this had been awarded by the courts this service is unable to take a decision as to whether this was reasonable. This request should be referred to the legal process as this was the process by which the fees were awarded. However, this Service can consider the landlord’s communication and handling of the resident’s account.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had made any errors in the administration of the resident’s account. However, it had taken a considerable amount of time to explain the nature of the debts and the resident’s payment to him. The resident raised those concerns in March 2021 and the landlord formally responded in March 2022.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to be clear at an earlier stage about the nature of the debt and the different rent and court fees payments. While it is appreciated that it had offered further assistance with financial support and explanation in case the resident experienced difficulties in understanding his rent arrears and debt, the delays in the providing transparent information on the rent arrears and debts were considerable. As such this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account. Compensation of £100 is considered fair for the distress and inconvenience this failure caused the resident. An additional recommendation has been made as to the landlord’s suggestion to write off the £100 debt from the expired order, if this has not already been done.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ground maintenance issues.

This Service has seen evidence of the resident’s reports of ground maintenance issues, and particularly grass cutting in May, June and July 2021. There was no evidence provided as to the landlord’s contact with its contractors or the communication between them. However, there is no evidence that these reports continued after June 2021. The landlord had acknowledged in its second stage one response from 17 June 2021 that the standards of the ground maintenance was not appropriate. It raised this with its contractor and explained that this was due to lack of staff. The landlord apologised and awarded £150 in compensation.
Given that the reports about the grass cutting discontinued after June 2021, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had taken appropriate action with its contactor to resolve the issue. Its investigation was thorough and appropriate. The compensation of £150 provided was proportionate for the inconvenience experienced by the resident having to chase this for 2 months as such the landlord offered reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On 2 July 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. This was responded to on 11 August 2020. This was 19 working days outside of the timeframe outlined within the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 August 2020. His escalation request was clear and provided the reasons for the escalation. The landlord asked for the desired outcome to which the resident did not respond. Regardless, the landlord should have sent a stage 2 response but it did not do so. This was a failure by the landlord to follow its complaint policy and provide a formal complaint response at stage 2. No reason was given for this failure.
On 18 March 2021, the resident raised another formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports and it being biased in its consideration of the evidence provided by the neighbours and him. The landlord responded on 1 April 2021 at stage 1. This was within the timeframes of its policy. In its response, the landlord stated that if the resident did not contact it by 16 April 2021, it would close the complaint.
There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord about its response until 21 May 2021, when he raised again his concerns about its ASB handling and added new issues related to the rent arrears and the ground maintenance. It would have been reasonable at this stage for the landlord to separate the complaints by escalating the ASB issues and reviewing it at stage 2 and creating a new, separate complaint to address the new issues. The landlord did not so. Instead, it responded at an unclear stage and labelled its response “complaint commitment”. This was not in line with its process and the good practice of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) which requires landlords to follow fair process.
The resident raised further concerns, which were acknowledged on 19 November 2021, and the landlord responded again at stage 1 on 3 December 2021. This was the landlord’s fourth stage 1 response. This was unreasonable and deprived the resident form earlier resolution or bringing the complaint at an earlier stage to this Service.
The landlord stated in its response from 3 December 2021 that it had an open ASB case about the resident’s reports (this Service has not seen evidence of this, which was discussed in the ASB handling section). However, it did not address its handling of the resident’s ASB reports which were raised as a formal complaint in 2 July 2020. This was not appropriate or in line with the nature of the Code, which states that landlords should investigate resident’s complaints in full.
This Service chased clarification on the landlord’s position related to the resident’s formal complaint on 23 December 2021. The landlord responded that it had advised the resident of how to escalate his complaint in September 2021. This was following its fourth stage 1 response to the ASB issues. It is of concern that even following the involvement of this Service, the landlord did not escalate his complaint. It would have been reasonable at this stage for the landlord to discuss the complaint with the resident and escalate it to stage 2. This added to the resident’s frustration and his perception that the landlord was treating him unfairly.
After escalating his complaint on 18 February 2022 (this service has not seen evidence of the resident’s email), the landlord responded at stage 2 on 14 March 2022. A further stage 2 response was sent on 28 June 2022. In both stage 2 responses, the resident was advised that he could escalate his complaint to another stage and have the complaint reviewed by a review panel or he could contact the Ombudsman. This was confusing advice and caused further frustration and uncertainty as to the landlord’s complaints process. Additionally, it suggested three stages of complaint review which was not in line with the Code.
Given the resident’s main concerns of how the landlord had dealt with his reports of ASB, it is of concern that the landlord failed to progress those issues in line with its policy and process. This caused a considerable delay and confusion at to the position of the formal complaint within its process.
It had issued a further complaint handling response in January 2023, where it had admitted failures in its communication and delay in the complaint process caused by failure to escalate. The landlord stated that it had reviewed and changed its policy in September 2022 in line with the Code.
It also apologised and offered compensation of £250. However, this is not proportionate to the failures identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident. Additionally, it should be noted that the landlord’s acknowledgement of its failure was only following a notification from this Service that the Ombudsman would investigate.
For the above reasons, there was maladministration into the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint handling had considerably delayed the complaints progress through the landlord’s process. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectation and deprived him of the opportunity to bring his complaint to this Service at an earlier stage.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) by his neighbours, including the resident’s concerns of discrimination by the landlord.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of counter allegations about the resident’s alleged ASB.
3. Service failure in relation to its handling of his rent account including its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of court fees.
4. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of poor ground maintenance.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Given the nature and the intensity of the neighbours’ reports it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the police investigation and advice. However, it had not demonstrated that it was proactive in trying to resolve the issues when there was no injunction imposed on the resident or that it had followed up on the advice provided by the police (that the resident and the next-door neighbour could not live together) in a timely manner. Having said that, it is appreciated that this delay did not have a major impact on the situation as the change in next-door neighbour did not improve the situation and additionally, there were further reports about the resident’s ASB by other neighbours in the area, including the new neighbour.
With regards to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord could not demonstrate that it had opened another ASB case and investigated these reports thoroughly. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore the main reasons for the neighbour’s dispute which were related to rubbish thrown into the resident’s driveway and issues with the fence panel. The landlord admitted losing the resident’s evidence and could not demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s reports seriously. Additionally, it did not manage his expectations.
The landlord provided clear information as to the resident’s rent account and further support and advice on his financial circumstances. However, it failed to clarify in a timely manner the nature of his debt and the payments going towards them.
The reports of the grass not being cut in his part of the property discontinued, which evidenced that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to resolve the issue. The landlord informed the resident about its investigation, the reasons for the failure and provided proportionate compensation for the issues experienced.
This Service identified failures of the landlord to follow clear process, additionally, to the failures related to delays in escalation and communication, which the landlord identified in its complaint handling follow up response. It had issued four stage 1 responses, two stage 2 responses and one follow- up complaint handling response, which caused confusion as to the positioning of the resident’s complaint in the process. This had raised some valid concerns in the resident about the landlord’s treatment being unfair.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to apologise to the resident for the failure identified related to its complaint handling and handling of the ASB cases.
The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation amounting to £800. This is comprised of:
1. £400 offered by the landlord prior to this investigation.
2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced by the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB by his neighbours.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure in communication about the resident’s rent account.
4. Additional £150 for the time and trouble the resident experienced by the landlord’s complaint handling.
It is ordered that the landlord review its complaints policy in the view to provide fair, transparent process which could be easily accessed, and the tenant voice could be heard, and with regard to its commitment to equality and diversity. understood by diverse tenants. In this aspect to provide training to its complaint handling staff.
The landlord to provide training to its staff about how best to follow its ASB policy in complex cases like this when the police is involved but no court action could be initiated due to lack of evidence.
The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to provide evidence of compliance.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider writing off the debt of £100 related to the expired court order and inform the resident of its decision.