Walsall Housing Group Limited (202224302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224302

Walsall Housing Group Limited

30 April 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 16 December 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, it said it is aware that the resident has mental health difficulties.
3. The resident made several reports to the landlord about ASB from neighbouring properties (property A and property B) between December 2020 to March 2023. The ASB reports included harassment, stalking, banging and loud music (noise nuisance).
4. On 16 January 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord in which he said:
   1. There had been ongoing ASB from neighbouring properties for 3 years.
   2. He felt that the landlord had not taken his reports of ASB seriously.
   3. The ASB was affecting his physical and mental health.
   4. He wanted support from the landlord and wanted to move properties.
5. On 10 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it explained:
   1. It had discussed the resident’s complaint with him on 8 February 2023.
   2. The resident agreed to use a noise recording app to record the alleged noise nuisance. The landlord explained that it was unable to ascertain the level of noise in the property from the evidence the resident had obtained.
   3. It needed evidence from the resident in order to investigate his reports of ASB.
   4. It had spoken with the residents of property A and property B. The landlord said the neighbouring properties denied the noise nuisance.
   5. It had given the resident details about a mutual exchange process and how to use choice-based letting systems.
   6. It had offered mediation to the resident which he refused.
   7. The resident should contact it with any future recordings via the noise app and it would investigate any further reports of ASB.
6. On 7 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. In his escalation request the resident said:
   1. He was unhappy with the conduct of his Community Housing Officer.
   2. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response and felt the landlord had not taken his reports of ASB seriously.
   3. The ASB was ongoing and was affecting his mental health. The resident said he was a vulnerable person.
7. On 27 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
   1. It could not accept general video recordings and the resident would need to use a noise app to record the alleged noise nuisance. The landlord said the resident had agreed to use the app.
   2. It was unable to move forward with the investigation without submissions using the noise app.
   3. It had spoken to the resident’s neighbours.
   4. It had given the resident details of a mutual exchange process.
   5. It had offered the resident mediation, which the resident had declined.
   6. It had carried out a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of the investigation

8. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident reported ASB and noise nuisance in 2020. While it is concerning that the resident said he has experienced this issue at his property for several years, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
9. Therefore, while the Ombudsman has referred to previous issues with ASB to provide context to the resident’s complaint, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events from January 2023 onwards when the resident made a complaint to the landlord about ASB.

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

10. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said the incidents he reported caused him significant distress and anxiety. However, it is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
11. It is a concern that the landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, despite being aware of issues in relation to the resident’s mental health. The landlord should update its systems to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities in line with its relevant policies and procedures. Failure to correctly record vulnerabilities can result in delays in assisting vulnerable residents in accessing additional services they may need.
12. The landlord does not have a separate policy to deal with noise nuisance. The Ombudsman understands that reports of noise nuisance are dealt with via the landlord’s ASB policy or tenancy management policy. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will adopt a problem-solving approach in its management of incident reports and work towards resolution wherever possible.
13. It appears that the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment for all parties at the start of the reported ASB and at significant milestones. In completing risk assessments and focussing upon the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of the ASB. The landlord should have considered the impact on the resident given the resident’s vulnerabilities as well as regular communication with the resident using their preferred method and at an agreed frequency.
14. Prior to the resident raising a complaint with the landlord, there is evidence that the landlord:
    1. Reviewed the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Interviewed the neighbouring properties.
    3. Referred the resident for support from its independent living team, as well as support in accessing a GP and mental health services.
    4. Discussed with the resident how to report ASB.
    5. Discussed with the resident how to apply for properties through a mutual exchange programme or choice-based letting system.
    6. Spoke with the resident and explained the findings of its investigation.
15. On 25 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said the situation with property A was “getting worse”. The resident also said that property A and property B had said they were going to harm him. The landlord spoke with the resident on 8 February, 25 February and 9 March 2023. There is evidence that the landlord:
    1. Reviewed the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Interviewed the neighbouring properties.
    3. Offered mediation to the resident and property A.
    4. Discussed the support available to the resident, as well as access to mental health services.
    5. Explained how to use a noise app to submit evidence of noise nuisance and how to report ASB.
    6. Explained to the resident how he could move properties if he wished.
    7. Advised the resident to contact the police if he received any verbal or physical threats.
16. There is no evidence that the landlord liaised with the Environmental Health Department to determine if the noises reported by the resident were causing a statutory noise nuisance. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord had asked the resident to record the alleged noise nuisance using a noise app. The landlord said it did not receive any reports through the noise app. Therefore, it is unclear if the landlord had sufficient evidence to be able to refer the matter to the Environmental Health Department.
17. In February 2023, the landlord contacted both parties with a proposal of mediation. While the neighbour accepted this, the resident declined. Although unsuccessful, the attempt to organise mediation between the parties clearly demonstrated the landlord’s proactive communication and engagement. This attempt by the landlord demonstrated its ongoing commitment to find a resolution to the reported noise issue.
18. As the landlord did not have evidence to show that the noise the resident was experiencing was a statutory noise nuisance, it was reasonable for the landlord to not have taken such action against the neighbour following the resident’s reports. For the landlord to take formal action against the neighbour, it said it required sufficient supporting evidence of the alleged noise nuisance. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident the type of evidence it required and how the resident could submit the evidence using a noise app.
19. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it could investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, but he would need to provide evidence of the noise nuisance using a noise app. The landlord concluded that it did not have sufficient evidence to enforce legal action or suggest that the neighbouring properties had breached their tenancy agreement. While this was not the outcome the resident wanted, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain this.
20. The resident has requested to be moved permanently into a different property. The Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. It is recommended that the landlord should support the resident with his request to move from his current property and discuss his options with him if it has not done so already.
21. In conclusion, overall, the landlord had taken actions in line with its policy and procedures when handling the allegations of ASB. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the concerns with the resident and explain the reason for its decisions in its complaint responses. While communication with the resident overall could have been timelier, the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint, signposted the resident to relevant support services and referred him to its independent living support team. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of ASB.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

23. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord re-visits the Spotlight report on noise nuisance, available on the Ombudsman’s website. The Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Noise Complaints” report highlights that it is not always appropriate to investigate noise complaints through a landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. Noise complaints often require a tailored approach that is appropriate to the circumstances of each complaint. The landlord should consider this and take the recommendations made in the report on board to improve its service.
24. The landlord should update its systems to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.
25. The landlord should consider reviewing and amending its anti-social behaviour policy to include the use of risk assessments where necessary.
26. The landlord should support the resident with his request to move from his current property and discuss his options with him if it has not done so already.