Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202117526)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117526

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

3 July 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Request to be rehoused.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2022 to discuss issues he was having at his property. He said noise nuisance and ASB were having a negative effect on his condition and that he wished to be moved from the property. The landlord responded on 18 May 2022 to inform the resident that it would not be looking into historic ASB incidents and provided information on how to report any new ASB. It also confirmed that it had increased the resident’s priority banding for a move to band 3 after considering his medical evidence.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2022 to complain about the noise from a neighbour’s dog barking frequently. He continued to report issues about the dog, as well as other causes of noise nuisance from the same neighbour for several months. These reports involved different forms of noise nuisance including shouting, arguing, and frequent noise from visiting cars and motorbikes. The landlord informed the resident that he needed to record these incidents for evidence. It informed him this could be done via the noise app, or by logging diary sheets.
  4. The resident spoke with the Ombudsman on 13 September 2022. He said he wished to raise a complaint about his landlord. He was unhappy with how the landlord had treated him and his reports about the ASB. He also said he was unhappy with the landlord’s refusal of his request to move. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord informing it of this complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2022. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it was handling the current ASB in line with its policies and procedures. It also said that it was working with the relevant authorities regarding the matter. It stated that he needed to continue to provide evidence as it could not act purely based upon hearsay allegations and confirmed how the resident could record this evidence. It further said that the resident had priority banding 3 but had not bid on any properties to move. It confirmed that it was the resident’s responsibility to apply for properties.
  5. The Ombudsman chased a response from the landlord on 23 November 2022. The landlord confirmed on 1 December 2022 that it had issued a stage one response, but had heard nothing further from the resident. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 17 January 2023, provided a copy of the resident’s complaint email dated 11 October 2022 (which had been sent to an incorrect email for the landlord) and asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response by 31 January 2023. The landlord attempted to contact the Ombudsman about this escalation on 26 January 2023 and 1 February 2023. The Ombudsman spoke with the landlord about this escalation on 23 February 2023. The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 24 February 2023. It offered the resident £50 for failing to perform a vulnerability assessment at the outset of the ASB reports. It, however, reiterated that it felt that it had handled the ASB in line with its policy. It also reconfirmed that the resident had priority banding 3 but that it would only make management moves if there was evidence that he was being targeted by the ASB or at immediate risk.
  6. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 23 May 2023 that he wished for us to consider his complaint. He said that he felt the landlord’s actions in handling his reports of ASB constituted domestic terrorism and that its handling of the situation had further traumatised him. He confirmed he wanted the landlord to put him in a bungalow in a quiet environment, describing his current property as a ‘hotspot’ for ASB.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably. This investigation will therefore consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, and the actions it took following these.
  2. The resident has said that his complaints about ASB have been ongoing for a number of years. Whilst these reports have been noted for context, the Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s response to these. The Ombudsman expects that a complaint is made by a resident within a reasonable timeframe of the event occurring, usually around 6 months. This investigation has therefore considered the landlord’s actions in handling the most recent set of reports about ASB made by the resident, which began in March 2022.
  3. The resident has said, on multiple occasions, that the landlord’s actions represented domestic terrorism. This is not an allegation that the Ombudsman would be able to make a finding in relation to. If the resident wishes to pursue these allegations further, he should seek legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will ‘take prompt, appropriate, and decisive action’ and that it will ‘investigate and intervene early’. At its early intervention stage, the landlord has a number of actions it can undertake including warning letters, mediation, and acceptable behaviour agreements. It says that if these do not resolve the situation it can take legal action including injunctions, and possession proceedings where appropriate. It says it will only seek to take legal action when it is is ‘appropriate, proportionate and effective’. When dealing with ASB, the landlord says ‘the safety and protection of vulnerable adults and children’ is ‘paramount’.
  2. The resident raised issues about noise nuisance and ASB for a variety of reasons including a dog barking, shouting and arguing at the neighbours’ address, frequent visitors to the neighbours’ address, and the noise from cars and motorbikes visiting the address.
  3. When the resident first reported ASB to the landlord, it offered to send a warning letter to the neighbour about the dog barking allegations. The resident said he did not wish for this but instead wanted this to be reported to the Housing Services Coordinator. Following this allegation, the landlord visited the neighbour to speak to him about the situation. It informed the neighbour it would be monitoring the situation and would act regarding the noise if necessary. These were reasonable initial steps on the part of the landlord.
  4. The landlord has recorded the instances where the resident reported ASB incidents to it. However, it also informed him that it needed evidence of anything relating to tenancy breaches. The landlord asked the resident to record any incidents using the noise app. The resident informed the landlord he was unable to download this due to his phone. The landlord then said the resident could keep a diary of these incidents as evidence. The resident does not appear to have provided the landlord with this information. The landlord told the resident that it was unable to take enforcement action based purely on hearsay alone. It provided the resident with accurate information about the evidence it needed and highlighted the fact that it would be unable to take enforcement action without any evidence of a tenancy breach or criminal activity.
  5. The landlord kept regular contact with the resident about the ASB. It also worked with the relevant authorities to follow-up on reports and to try and investigate further. The landlord reported incidents to the relevant authorities for them to follow up on. This led to an untaxed vehicle being removed from the property, as well as the removal of the dog from a premises following an incident with another neighbour.
  6. The landlord eventually closed the ASB case on 10 January 2023. This was following no new reports being made since 25 October 2022. This was a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to keep monitoring the case before closing it. The landlord also clearly set out the process for the resident to report new incidents if any problems arose again.
  7. The landlord has offered the resident £50 for failing to perform a risk assessment when the ASB was first reported to it. The landlord said that if the resident had scored above a certain number on this assessment, it would have offered him tenancy support. It has said it made this offer regardless and the resident rejected this. It has provided evidence of historic offers of tenancy support but there is no evidence an offer was made throughout this ASB case. Given the resident’s vulnerability, its failure to perform this risk assessment or offer additional support represented maladministration from the landlord.
  8. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £200 for its failure to properly perform a risk assessment or to offer any additional support to the resident whilst the ASB case was ongoing. This £200 is inclusive of the £50 offered in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range for ‘failures which adversely affected the resident’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

  1. The landlord’s letting policy has three bands. Band 1 is reserved for residents who are losing their home due to demolition or regeneration. Band 2 is for residents ‘with an urgent medical need where the property is unsuitable due to medical or mobility reasons, which will be resolved by applying for a property that is suitable’. Band 3 is for customers with a ‘high medical need…who have been assessed as needing to move to an alternative property to receive support from relatives or a carer, or one which is situated within a supported housing scheme’. Band 4 is the default priority for anyone who wishes to move.
  2. To be rehoused, residents need to apply for properties via the landlord’s internal system. Residents are prioritised by their banding, followed by the date which the band was awarded. Additionally, the landlord has stated in its policy that under certain circumstances, it may ‘make a direct let’ to a tenant. It says the reasons for it performing this may be due to ‘an emergency fire, flood, domestic abuse or if the tenant would be at risk of serious harm to remain in their current home’.
  3. The landlord considered the resident’s medical evidence and placed him in band 3. The landlord informed the resident on several occasions what this meant, and how to apply for properties. The landlord’s communication about the banding and process for applying to be rehoused was clear. The landlord communicated this information to the resident on multiple occasions. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the resident has not applied for any properties through its bidding platform. The landlord’s decision and subsequent actions appear to be fair and reasonable.
  4. The resident has said that he would like to be moved to a bungalow in a quiet neighbourhood. The landlord has said that he would not qualify for a direct move in the circumstances and would need to apply for this through its moving platform. This again appears to be a fair and reasonable decision from the landlord, based on the evidence available to it.
  5. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused. The landlord’s decision was in line with its policy and based on the evidence available to it. It communicated its decision fairly to the resident and outlined clearly how the resident would be able to arrange a move. 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to a complaint at stage 1 in 5 working days. At stage 2, it says it will provide a response within 10 working days. The landlord indicates there may be circumstances when it is unable to provide a response within these timescales, but that it will contact residents to update them if this is the case. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code recommends 10 days at stage 1 and 20 days at stage 2.
  2. The resident’s stage 1 complaint was raised on 13 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2022. This was 13 working days, slightly outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord took 28 working days to provide its complaint response. Whilst the stage 2 was outstanding, the landlord did attempt to contact the Ombudsman to discuss the complaint and there was a delay in the Ombudsman responding to these queries. This however does not account fully for the delay in providing the final complaint response. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated regarding the delay and failed to act within the timescales set out in its policy.
  4. The landlord’s responses were broadly fair in content and tone. It provided the resident with accurate information which it clearly outlined.
  5. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. At both stage 1 and stage 2, it failed to provide its complaint responses within the timescales outlined in its complaints policy. For these failings, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range for a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £300 in compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £200 for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of ASB;
      2. £100 for its failures in complaint handling.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to check the situation with any ongoing ASB and review whether any additional support can be offered to him.