Trent & Dove Housing Limited (202201785)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201785

Trent & Dove Housing Limited

24 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow. The landlord’s records show that he suffers from depression and struggles to climb stairs following spinal surgery.
The landlord responded to a complaint about the resident’s next door neighbour’s dog in 2019. Following this, no reports of ASB were made until 4 November 2021.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 11 February 2022. He said he had experienced ASB from his neighbour for over 2 years and did not feel the landlord was taking sufficient action in response. The ASB reports extended to threats of violence, recent homophobic remarks, and a high frequency noise.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 7 March 2022. In summary it said:
1. The resident tried to report ASB on 3 and 4 November 2022 via the landlord’s Facebook page.
2. It had written to the resident on 11 February 2022 to inform the resident it could not investigate matters which were over 6 months old.
3. The housing officer had communicated with the resident to investigate the ASB reports and contacted the police for a joint approach.
4. It raised a safeguarding referral for the resident as he had advised previously that he felt suicidal.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 March 2022. He remained dissatisfied with the lack of action the landlord had taken to address the ASB. He said the neighbour’s dog had previously run around his garden and that the neighbour had made threats to him. He advised he had been admitted to a psychiatric ward and when he returned the ASB started again.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 4 April 2022. In summary it said:
1. It reiterated its findings in its stage 1 complaint response.
2. The landlord noted a failure in its service when the resident contacted the landlord to report homophobic abuse. It said it should have responded to the report within a shorter timeframe.
3. The issues raised about the neighbour’s dog had been addressed and responded to in a previous complaint response in 2019. No new incidents had since been reported.
4. The noise complaint was still open, and the landlord was working with the local police to resolve the matter. The resident turning up his television to drown the reported noise out could be seen as counterproductive.
5. Mediation had been offered to both parties and it was awaiting acceptance from the neighbour to proceed.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 2 August 2022. He remained dissatisfied at the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports and wants the landlord to take action to stop the low frequency noise affecting his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service has been provided with correspondence relating to reports of historical incidents of ASB in 2019, and recent incidents up until November 2023. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 6 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 11 February 2022, the investigation will not consider events which did not occur within 6 months of the complaint. Rather, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s initial reports from November 2021 up to the landlord’s final response in April 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.

It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame, or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. And that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In this case, the relevant landlord policies are its ASB and complaints policies.
The landlord’s ASB policy categorises reports into 3 types:
1. High risk ASB which includes threats of violence, hate crime, and matters where the victim has high levels of vulnerability. Contact will be attempted by the next working day.
2. General ASB which includes all forms of ASB not categorised as high risk. Contact will be attempted within 5 working days.
3. Environmental ASB which includes littering and dog fouling. Contact will be attempted within 10 working days.
The landlord offers support to complainants reporting ASB which may include maintaining regular contact, providing updates on their case, managing expectations, and ensuring the resident has a point of contact.
When responding to ASB, the landlord can consider a number of options in line with its policy such as warning letters, meetings, acceptable behaviour contracts and support referrals. It notes that partnership working is an essential part of the landlord’s process.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord will not accept an issue which happened more than 6 months ago as a formal complaint.
The landlord correctly applied its complaints policy by informing the resident that it could not investigate his report of historical ASB relating to his neighbour’s dog. This service has not seen any new ASB reports relating to the neighbour’s dog since 2019. Further, this matter had already been addressed within a complaint response in 2019 when the landlord decided to install a fence between the properties. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain the reasons it could not investigate this matter within its complaint response.
The resident reported ASB on 4 and 5 November 2021 to the landlord via its Facebook page. He received an automated response advising that the page was not monitored. It provided the resident with contact details to forward his message to the correct team to receive a response. Records show the resident did not forward the message to the correct channel. In light of this, the landlord did not receive this information and was unable to respond to the report.
The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 24 November 2021, 4 February 2022, and 11 February 2022. He reported he had experienced homophobic comments from the neighbour. The landlord attended the resident’s property on the 25 November 2021 relating to a separate matter but said it would discuss the ASB concerns during its visit. However, there are no records of what was discussed. After the reports made on 4 February 2022 and 11 February 2022, the landlord responded on 11 February 2022 and asked the resident to provide a crime reference number for the incident.
The landlord failed to respond to the reported homophobic comments from the neighbour within 1 day as per its ASB policy timescale for reports of hate crime. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it did not adhere to its policy and noted the report should have been triaged to a higher level immediately. It took steps to ensure this did not happen again by reporting back to the relevant team. The landlord quickly identified its failing and fed back on 11 February 2022. The landlord evidenced learning and apologised to the resident for its delay in responding to the report. This was a reasonable response.
When the landlord opened the ASB case, it provided the resident with incident diaries to complete. It emphasised the importance of him providing evidence and documenting incidents of ASB. The landlord set the resident’s expectations in line with its ASB policy by advising that it would be difficult to progress the case in the absence of this information.
The resident reported ASB and noise including reports of the neighbour “firing” a low frequency noise through the wall, and reports of his neighbour shouting abuse at him from his front garden including threats to kill him. However, the resident did not supply any evidence of the ASB to the landlord or return the incident diaries.
The landlord completed enquiries with the resident about the noise on 3 March 2022 and 17 March 2022. When the landlord asked the resident why he believed the noise was coming from next door, he responded that he “just knew”. He advised that he had tinnitus and the noise was making it worse. The landlord asked if he had used the noise app to which he responded that it had not previously picked up the noise. It suggested the resident contacted environmental health, but he said he had already communicated with them, and they would not open a case. It was appropriate for the landlord to obtain information about the reported noise to determine what steps would be suitable to take.
The resident advised the landlord that he had video evidence of ASB from the neighbour and a video evidencing the noise nuisance. However, he was unable to submit it by email due to the file size. In light of this, the landlord asked to attend the resident’s property to view the evidence and listen to the noise. The landlord contacted the resident to arrange a visit to his property on 14, 16, 17, 24, and 28 March 2022, but the resident refused the proposed appointments due to his health. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the ASB reports. However, in the absence of clear evidence, it was difficult for the landlord to substantiate the claims or take further action.
This Service’s Spotlight report on noise (available at: Spotlight on: Noise Complaints October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)) states that, “landlords should have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships”. Within landlord records, there is reference that the low frequency noise was possibly being caused by the neighbour’s electrical appliance. The landlord applied its ASB policy when responding to noise reports which possibly did not constitute ASB. The landlord is recommended to consider implementing a good neighbourhood management policy for instances where reported noise is not classified as ASB.
Between 11 February 2022 to 4 April 2022, the landlord took the following steps to investigate the ASB and noise allegations:
1. Contacted the police to enquire about the reported ASB and noise.
2. Contacted the neighbour.
3. Discussed the reported ASB with the resident.
4. Held a meeting with the tenancy services manager and customer services manager to discuss the reported ASB.
5. Attempted to arrange a visit at the resident’s property to hear the noise report and review video evidence.

These were all reasonable steps to engage with other agencies and use its own resources to try to evidence the ASB that the resident had reported.

Following enquiries with the police, the landlord was informed that the neighbour had been served a community resolution with the clause they did not speak with the resident. The police were not aware that this had been breached and said it could look at issuing a community protection notice but this would be to both parties. It added that when visiting the resident’s property, they were unable to hear the reported noise and subsequently closed the case. The landlord applied its ASB policy by liaising with the police to investigate the reports made.
Despite the investigations that the landlord carried out, it did not have evidence to corroborate the reports or to link the noise to the neighbour.
However, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to resolve the reported ASB as the relationship between the resident and neighbour had deteriorated. Further, counter allegations had been made about the resident. The landlord referred the case to mediation shortly after both parties accepted. Additionally, it provided advice to the resident in relation to the noise such as suggesting he wore earplugs and did not turn his television up in response to the reported noise from the neighbour. The landlord’s response was proportionate.
Overall, the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident in accordance with its ASB policy. It maintained open communications with the resident to keep him updated on its investigations and ensured he had support in place. The landlord raised safeguarding referrals when he raised concerns about his mental health.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is recommended to consider implementing a good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to its ASB policy with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate.
The landlord is recommended to read this Service’s Spotlight report on noise complaints.