Vivid Housing Limited (202232798)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232798

Vivid Housing Limited

23 September 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 handling of:
1. Reported anti-social behaviour from the resident’s neighbour.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property was a basement flat within a block of flats.
In February 2022, the resident reported verbal abuse from her neighbour and also loud music coming from her neighbour’s property.
On 12 December 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated she felt the landlord did not take strong enough action against her neighbour when she submitted her initial reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB). She also explained that she would like her neighbour evicted.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 29 December 2022. It explained that it had reviewed the resident’s case and stated that there were previous reports of excessive noise, and it explained she was given advice about contacting environmental health, and it also spoke to her neighbour about the noise. The landlord stated that to escalate anything to a legal measure, the case must be built on a foundation of solid evidence. It stated it did not have sufficient evidence until more recently, and then appropriate legal action was then taken in obtaining an injunction. It explained that it did not have suitable evidence to consider any legal tenancy action, extension, or demotion of tenancy at an earlier time.
On 29 December 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She stated she had sent a lot of evidence to the landlord regarding her neighbour’s ASB and explained that there had been no action from the landlord within the last year. The resident stated that the reported ASB incidents had impacted her family, work and home life and caused emotional distress. She also stated that she believed the investigation of the stage 1 complaint was not independent and by someone in a separate team.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 February 2023. It explained that it had reviewed the reported anti-social behaviour which took place in the first year of her neighbour’s tenancy and stated it did not feel that tenancy enforcement action should have been taken during that period. The landlord explained that it had taken legal action and obtained an ASB injunction. It stated there had been alleged breaches, and it had applied to court for committal, but stated there had been delays in the court process as the resident’s neighbour didn’t have legal representation. The landlord also explained that there was a delay in fitting the spyhole camera on her door because it previously ordered the incorrect one. It explained it aimed to fit the spyhole camera within the next week. It also stated that its neighbourhood team would put the resident forward for a management move. The landlord also explained that the investigation of the stage 1 complaint was independent and completed by its tenancy enforcement team leader, who was in a separate team to its colleague managing the ASB case. The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation to resolve the complaint, which included £150 for the delay in fitting the spyhole camera, £200 reimbursement for additional cameras and security purchased by the resident and £50 for it not updating the resident in relation to environmental health.
On 21 February 2023 an operative attended the resident’s property and attempted to install a spyhole camera system, however it required a different type.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said that an operative could attend on 28 March 2023 top fit the camera.
On 28 March 2023 an operative attended the property and attempted to fit a spyhole camera, but left the camera for the resident to set up on their own (internet) network. A picture was also taken of the camera and the box left in the resident’s home.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for the landlord to acknowledge its mistakes and apologise to her.
The resident has confirmed with the Ombudsman that she moved to a new property in June 2023. Therefore, she is no longer experiencing the reported ASB.

Assessment and findings

Reported anti-social behaviour from the resident’s neighbour.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised as part of her complaint, that she experienced noise nuisance from her neighbour for around 4 years. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this is a longstanding issue for the resident. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised until December 2022. In addition. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will consider specific events from around December 2021 onwards. This is in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), which sets out our service’s remit. The Scheme explains that this service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy explains that ASB incorporates a very wide variety of behaviours ranging from noise nuisance through to criminal activities, hate crime, assault, and criminal damage. The policy provides examples of some of the ASB issues it would investigate, including:
1. Hate crime.
2. Violence or threats of violence.
3. Verbal abuse (such as shouting or swearing at someone).
4. Criminal damage.
5. Harassing someone for any reason.
6. Being very noisy or rowdy.
7. Taking or selling illegal drugs.
8. Nuisance from pets and animals.
9. Using a home for illegal things.
The ASB policy also explains that the landlord will not act if there isn’t enough evidence or support from victims and witnesses. It states that it will assess the case and contact the people involved. In addition, it also explains that it will often use early interventions, such as warning letters, meetings, partnership visits, acceptable behaviour agreements and good neighbour agreements. The policy also states, if appropriate, it may refer the case to an assessment or mediation service. Finally, the policy also explains that a range of legal tools can be used if it’s appropriate and there is sufficient evidence, such as:
1. Notice of seeking possession.
2. Suspended possession order.
3. Section 21 notices.
4. Possession proceedings.
5. Mandatory ground for possession.
6. Civil injunctions.
7. Demoted tenancies.

Assessment

It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether someone has committed anti-social behaviour, but rather, this service will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
The resident reported verbal abuse from her neighbour and loud music coming from her neighbour’s property in February 2022 and submitted a complaint to the landlord about the noise nuisance and ASB on 12 December 2022. However, the Ombudsman has noted from the landlord’s records for contextual reasons that the resident has previously reported issues with noise nuisance from her neighbour since 2019. In response to the historical reports, the landlord sent correspondence to all residents asking them to be mindful of the noise. In addition, the landlord also carried out soundproofing works to the resident’s neighbour’s floorboards to help manage the impact of the noise. It also asked the resident to complete an ASB diary/log and offered mediation to the resident and her neighbour. The landlord also issued the resident’s neighbour with an acceptable behaviour agreement and referred the resident to its victim support service. The landlord also worked in co-operation with the police and environmental health.
Following the resident’s report of verbal abuse and noise nuisance from her neighbour in February 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property on 8 February 2022, to discuss and view the footage of the verbal abuse, so it could take the appropriate action. In addition, the landlord also contacted its solicitor in April 2022, explaining that it wanted to apply for an injunction against the resident’s neighbour.
During the landlord’s application for the injunction order, the resident continued to report noise nuisance from her neighbour. The landlord’s solicitor attempted to apply for an interim injunction order before the court hearing of the actual injunction. However, this was rejected by the court. The injunction was approved by the court in September 2022 and issued to the resident’s neighbour during the same month and the resident was updated regarding this.

The landlord carried out the appropriate action in line with its ASB policy by considering legal measures and applying for an injunction. The landlord applied for the injunction after it had gathered sufficient evidence and exhausted the early intervention measures referenced in its ASB policy. The Ombudsman recognises that living with the ongoing ASB for such a long period of time must have been difficult for the resident. But a landlord would normally only consider legal measures as a last option. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in this instance.
Following the resident’s neighbour’s injunction being issued, there was a reported potential breach of their injunction on 1 October 2022 due to them playing loud music. The resident provided the landlord with video evidence of the incident. On 4 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with information about local and national support services, which could support her with the ongoing impact of the ASB on her health. The landlord had previously referred the resident to its victim support service. Its referral to support agencies shows the landlord considered the resident’s mental health and wellbeing and constitutes good practice by the landlord.
A further potential breach by the resident’s neighbour was reported on 7 October 2022. The report included verbal abuse and threats. The landlord contacted its solicitor and police to discuss the reported breaches of the resident’s neighbour’s injunction. Following this, a court hearing was arranged in October 2022 for the injunction breach, however the hearing was adjourned due to the resident’s neighbour not having legal representation. As an injunction is a legal tool, it was appropriate for the landlord to take these steps.
In December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It explained that it would continue to monitor the ASB cases and the injunction and work with the local police. The landlord also stated that it would purchase and arrange an installation of a spy hole camera for the resident’s door.
In January 2023, the rearranged court hearing for the resident’s neighbour’s injunction breach took place. However, the hearing could not take place as the resident’s neighbour did not attend on the day. The landlord acted reasonably in pursuing the potential injunction breaches. It could not control the court process and it could not compel the neighbour to attend court.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident in February 2023. It acknowledged and apologised in its response for failing to fit the spy hole camera to the resident’s door and confirmed that it would arrange for installation of the camera within the next week. The landlord also stated that it would put forward the resident for a management move. It started processing the resident’s management move application in February 2023 and asked the police to provide a supporting statement for the move application in March 2023. The landlord requesting a supporting statement from the police was appropriate as it would have made the resident’s management move application stronger. The landlord approved the management move application in March 2023.
In March 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and her neighbour and explained that it would not pursue a court hearing for the reported potential breaches as there was not sufficient evidence to seek a conviction. However, the landlord explained to the resident’s neighbour that it would apply again to court if there were future breaches.
In April and May 2023, the resident reported further ASB incidents, including noise nuisance and verbal abuse from her neighbour. The landlord encouraged the resident to report these to the police, as they had the power to arrest the resident for injunction breaches. In addition, the landlord also reviewed the evidence provided relating to the incidents, and its solicitor identified the verbal abuse incident as a breach. The landlord’s solicitor applied for a court hearing for the resident’s neighbour because of the injunction breach.
The resident was offered a property via her management move application and moved to a new property in June 2023. The landlord arranging for the resident to move to another property was a reasonable solution to effectively resolve the ASB that the resident was experiencing. In addition, in October 2023 the court dismissed the resident’s neighbour’s case for the injunction breach as there were no further ASB reports. However, it was confirmed that the injunction would remain in place for the agreed timescale.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident was dealing with the ASB from her neighbour for a prolonged period of time and recognises it must have been difficult. However, the landlord responded and managed the reported ASB incidents in line with its ASB policy. It carried out a range of measures to help manage and prevent the ASB, worked with the local police and carried out a management move for the resident. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there was a delay in it updating the resident about environmental health and fitting a spy hole camera on the door. The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation, which included £150 for the delay in fitting the spyhole camera, £200 reimbursement for additional cameras and security purchased by the resident and £50 for it not updating the resident in relation to environmental health.
Although the landlord responded reasonably to the ASB and acknowledged its delays in its stage 2 complaint response; the resident has confirmed that the landlord failed to fit the spy hole camera to her door before she moved property. The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that this would be installed in February 2023. Therefore, considering the landlord failed to do this by June 2023 when the resident moved out, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of reported anti-social behaviour from the resident’s neighbour. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right,

The associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code explains that landlords must have a person or team assigned to take responsibility for complaint handling to ensure complaints receive the necessary attention, and that these are reported to the governing body.
The Code refers to that person or team as the “complaints officer.” For some organisations, particularly smaller landlords, the Code states the Ombudsman recognises that this role may be in addition to other duties. The complaints officer may allocate complaint handling to another person. Where this is the case, the complaint handler appointed must have appropriate complaint handling skills and no conflicts of interest.
The resident raised as part of her complaint escalation request to the landlord that she believed that the investigation of her stage 1 complaint was not independent and completed by someone in a separate team.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 complaint response. It explained that complaints are managed by the most appropriate person, who is often the team leader or manager of the staff member the complaint relates to, as they are the subject matter experts in that area. In this case, its colleague was an experienced tenancy enforcement team leader with a wealth of knowledge of investigating ASB cases. The landlord also stated its colleague was in the tenancy enforcement team and not the neighbourhood team, so it was satisfied that there was no conflict of interest.
The landlord’s response was reasonable, and the Ombudsman agrees that the landlord dealt with the complaint independently and there is no evidence of a conflict of interest. This is because the landlord’s staff member who was managing the resident’s ASB case was in the landlord’s neighbourhood team, and a staff member in the landlord’s tenancy enforcement team issued the stage 1 complaint response. Therefore, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of reported anti-social behaviour from the resident’s neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident for failing to install the spy hole camera on her door.
The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in installing a spy hole camera on her door.
The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £400 compensation as offered within the stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so.
It is also recommended that the landlord review its record keeping practices in relation to repairs and communications, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, unless it has already done so since its final response to this complaint in February 2023.