Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Watford Community Housing Trust (202008650)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008650

Watford Community Housing Trust

30 March 2021


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours (Ms Y and Ms Z) after 16 September 2020.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours (Ms X and Ms Y) between 18 March 2019 and 16 September 2020.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours (Ms Y and Ms Z) after 16 September 2020.

  1. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  2. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident asked that her more recent reports of ASB by her neighbours, Ms Y and another neighbour (Ms Z), be considered as part of this investigation. The resident provided this service with a copy of her diary notes which cover a period between 9 October 2020 and 28 February 2021.
  3. There is no evidence that a complaint made to the landlord, about its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours (Ms Y and Ms Z) after 16 September 2020, has exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process, and so, in accordance with Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, these matters have not been considered as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an Assured Shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy agreement commenced on 3 June 2013. The property is a 2 bedroom flat.
  2. On 18 March 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report loud parties at her neighbour (Ms X’s) flat which she said occurred every Saturday, going on to the early morning. The resident said that the parties were now starting to occur during the week as well. The resident said that visitors spilled out into the communal areas leaving drinks cans behind them and that she believed there was drug use in the property. The resident said that she was particularly concerned about the noise has her son had a heart condition and he was having his sleep disturbed.
  3. The landlord’s records note that the case was allocated to ASB officers with a severity rating of medium. The landlord spoke to the resident on 27 March 2019. The resident was to contact Environmental Health to request a diary sheet to record the noise nuisance with a view to having recording equipment fitted and the landlord agreed to send an ASB survey to all the flats in her block to obtain more evidence, which it did the same day. The landlord also emailed the Police to report the allegations that the resident had made about her neighbour.
  4. On 4 April 2019, the landlord called the resident. The resident confirmed that the ASB survey had been received. During the call the landlord reminded the resident of Environmental Health’s criteria for two weeks of completed diary sheets reporting a consistent noise nuisance, to receive approval for noise monitoring.
  5. On 11 April 2019, the landlord called the resident again. The resident reported that that the noise from her neighbour’s flat had not been too bad but there was a lot of noise from people in the stairwell. The landlord advised the resident that it would be visiting her neighbour, which it did the following day. As the landlord was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property on 12 April 2019, a calling card was left asking the neighbour to contact the landlord.
  6. The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour (Ms X) on 15 April 2019.
  7. On 18 April 2019, the resident called the landlord to report that, on 12 April 2019, her neighbour (Ms X) had banged on her door and shouted at her for reporting them to the landlord. The landlord reassured the resident that her complaint was confidential and that her information would be divulged to her neighbour. Following the call the landlord updated the Action plan, carried out a risk assessment and increased the case severity rating to higher.
  8. On 26 April 2019, the landlord called the resident for an update on the ASB and as no diary sheets had been received. The landlord’s records note that the resident asked that the landlord call her back, which it did on 2 May 2019 and diary sheet sent to the resident on 3 May 2019.
  9. On 13 May 2019, the landlord called the resident for an update on the ASB. The landlord’s records note that nothing had been reported recently. On 6 June 2019, the case was closed as no diary sheets had been received and there had been no further reports of ASB by the resident.
  10. On 29 July 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report ‘‘frequent disturbances’’ from another of her neighbour’s (Ms Y’s) property. The resident reported frequent loud visitors late at night and the smell of drugs throughout the day. The landlord’s records note that the case was initially given a severity rating of medium which was later updated to lower as the drug/alcohol element of the complaint had been removed. The case was then closed on 18 September 2019. The reason given for the case being closed was that there had been no further reports.
  11. On 3 October 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident, following a conversation they had had with the resident earlier that day about further ASB by her neighbour (Ms Y). The resident said that her neighbour smoked drugs in the communal areas and that people were constantly coming and going from Ms Y’s flat. Following the meeting the landlord contacted Ms Y to arrange a visit for 10 October 2019. The landlord told the resident that it would provide her with an update in the week beginning 14 October 2019. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident wished for her complaint to remain anonymous. The case was closed on 22 December 2019 as there had been no further reports by the resident.
  12. On 16 March 2020, the landlord received an email from the Police’s Safer Neighbourhood team advising that, following numerous calls from neighbours reporting the smell of drugs, loud music and groups downstairs, an officer attended Ms Y’s property over the previous weekend. The police reported Ms Y was not present and that the property smelt of drugs. The police said it was the second time that they had visited where the tenant had not been there and there had been other males, who did not reside there, staying over. The landlord responded the same day confirming that, further to the police reports, and as Ms Y was on a starter tenancy, it had sent her a warning letter. The landlord also said that if other residents were willing to give statements or incident logs to support the alleged behaviour of Ms Y it would consider serving a Section 21 notice to end the tenancy.
  13. On 22 March 2020, the Police’s Safer Neighbourhood team contacted the landlord again. The police provided the landlord with a statement by one of the resident’s other neighbours regarding the behaviour of Ms Y and her visitors. The police also said that they had received a total of 11 reports on the last two months all regarding loud music, drugs, groups of people leaving Ms Y’s flat.
  14. On 23 March 2020, the landlord emailed the Police’s Safer Neighbourhood team to advise that it would have served a Section 21 notice on Ms Y that week but, due to the Covid restrictions, it would not be able to proceed with an eviction. The landlord did say however that it had warned Ms Y that her tenancy is at risk and that hopefully that would resolve the issues that had been reported.
  15. On 30 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again to report that there had been further incidents of ASB by her neighbour (Ms Y) including smoking drugs, spitting on the floor, groups congregating in the communal area and people going in and out her neighbour’s flat. The resident said that if the landlord could not sort out the issues she had been reporting then she needed to be considered for rehousing.
  16. Between 14 and 16 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord a number of times again reporting that her neighbour (Ms Y) was smoking drugs. The resident also reported that there was a congregation of people with a ‘‘massive black pit-bull type mastiff dog’’ who were looking at her window and laughing. The landlord advised that the resident that she should also report her concerns to the police by calling 101. Following a further conversation with the resident on 21 April 2020, the landlord reopened her ASB case. A new risk assessment was carried out and the case severity recorded as Higher. The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour (Ms Y) the same day. The neighbour refuted the allegations and said that the police had attended the previous day and that they had found ‘‘nothing untoward’’. The landlord said that it would be speaking to the police and would contact the neighbour again were it to receive any further complaints.
  17. On 23 April 2020, the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint in a meeting with the police. The police reported that they had recently visited the neighbour’s (Ms Y’s) property within ½ hour of the resident’s call and had not found there to be any smell of drugs or groups of people. The police told the landlord that Ms Y’s flat was ‘‘clean and tidy’’, that there were ‘‘no concerns’’ and that they were recording the resident’s reports as ‘‘malicious’’. 
  18. On 14 May 2020, the resident messaged the landlord to ask when its offices would be open. The resident said that she was being intimidated every time she sees her neighbour and she was getting worried about leaving the property with her children. The resident was advised to call 101 and asked for a named police officer.
  19. On 26 May 2020, the landlord reviewed the case and called the resident, following which the resident emailed the landlord a copy of the diary notes she had kept between 30 March and 25 May 2020. These included the smell, use and dealing of drugs, shouting and screaming, spitting on the floor, loud music, numbers of people constantly coming and going, and her neighbour (Ms Y) and her neighbour’s boyfriend watching and intimidating her and her children.
  20. On 1 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report that there was a strong smell of drugs in the flats again. The resident also reported that the fire door had been tied so that it was constantly open. The resident sent the landlord a photograph of the door.
  21. On 8 June 2020, the police’s Vulnerable Victims Case Manager emailed the landlord to advise that they discussed a potential move with the resident to ask if that were something the landlord could assist with. The landlord called the resident the following day to advise her that it had forwarded her complaint log to the police and would update her as soon as it had heard back from them.
  22. On 15 June 2020, the landlord emailed Victim Care Support to ask that they send supporting evidence for the resident’s request to move. Victim Care Support provided the requested evidence in a letter dated 18 June 2020, in which it confirmed that the resident had been receiving twice weekly emotional and practical support from them from 14 April 2020 which they said was to support her with the impact the incidents had had on her.
  23. On 19 June 2020, the landlord’s ASB office completed a Housing Panel application, supported by the letter from Victim Care Support and incident logs from the resident for March, April and May. The application also confirmed that the police had investigated the allegations but had said that they would not intervene as they consider the complaints to be malicious.
  24.  On 26 June 2020, the Housing Panel declined the move request. The reason for the panel’s decision was that it would not in normal circumstances move a resident due to ASB as moving the resident would not resolve the ASB and the ASB would still impact other residents. The panel also questioned what investigations had been done in relation to other neighbours. Following the panel’s decision the landlord advised the resident that it would be contacting the resident’s other neighbours to see if they were experiencing the same issues and asked the resident to continue keeping a diary of any incidences.
  25. On 10 July 2020, the landlord emailed both the resident and the police’s Vulnerable Victims Case Manager. The landlord said that it had tried to call the resident that morning but had not been able to speak to her and so left a message. The landlord confirmed that on 1 July 2020, another ASB survey had been sent to all tenants in the resident’s block in order to gain further supporting evidence of the alleged ASB by the resident’s neighbour. The landlord explained that if it received any responses they may strengthen its case to serve a legal notice on the alleged perpetrator. The landlord said that it had allowed two weeks for any responses, which would be 14 July 2020, and that it would review the case the following week.
  26. The landlord received responses to its ASB survey from two of the resident’s other neighbours. The other neighbours also reported the smell of drugs and many visitors to Ms Y’s flat, shouting, swearing and smashing scaffolding. The landlord later noted that these responses were shared with the police and the landlord’s ASB officer contacted the resident to update her.
  27. The landlord noted that during its call with the resident, the resident reported that she had again been suffering noise nuisance from Ms X’s property. On 29 July 2020, the landlord wrote to Ms X inviting them to contact the landlord to discuss complaints it had received about loud music and noise from visitor to her property over the weekend of 17 to 19 July 2020.
  28. On 16 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint which the landlord acknowledged the following day. The resident requested that the landlord’s handling of her case be investigated, that urgent action be taken to address the issues she had been reporting and that she and her family be moved elsewhere. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day and advised her that it would investigate her complaint and contact her within 10 working days to advise her the outcome of its investigation.
  29. The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 2 September 2020. The landlord said that it was satisfied that:
    1. It had taken action to follow up after each incident had been reported and had worked with the relevant community safety partnerships to try and resolve the situation.
    2. It provided the resident with advice and sent her diary sheet. The landlord also said that it visited her neighbour (Ms Y) to discuss the reports it had received about ongoing ASB.
    3. It contacted the resident in March 2020 and a police officer was allocated to her case. The landlord said that ‘‘various’’ visits were carried out by the landlord and the police but neither found any evidence to support the resident’s allegations.
    4. It had considered the media and recordings the resident had submitted, which it shared with the police, but they provided insufficient evidence for any action to be taken at that time. However, the landlord said that it had continued to work with the police and had discussed the issues with her neighbour (Ms Y) and issuing them with a warning.
    5. It had reviewed the resident’s reports and had spoken with other neighbours and concluded that the noise was from day to day living and the respective lifestyle and so no further enforcement action had been taken. However, the landlord went on to explain that if the resident would like to record the noise levels she could make a request to the Council for noise recording equipment to be put in her property.
    6. It was sorry the resident felt that its ASB officer accused her of lying or implied that she was making the allegations up. The landlord confirmed that that was not their intention and that they were sorry for any distress this may have caused and that if she were experiencing particular relationship issues with her neighbours, it would be happy to refer them for external mediation, which the landlord said it believed could prove to be beneficial.
  30. The landlord ended by advising the resident that is she still wanted to move, it would be able to give her advice and support with regards to a mutual exchange. The landlord also provided the resident with the link to its Homeswapper website where is said there was information about how to begin her application.
  31. On 11 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to request that her complaint be escalated to Stage 2 of its formal complaints process. The resident said that she had not initially wanted to move but felt that she had no alternative because, despite reporting her concerns to the landlord and the police on numerous occasions, nothing had been done. The resident said that the landlord had not sent her any diary sheets and had not carried out the visits it said it had. The resident also said that the police had told her that her neighbour (Ms Y) would be handed a Section 21 notice but that did not happen. The resident also complained that the landlord had not acted on the two responses it had received from its ASB survey in July 2019. The resident said that whilst she appreciated the landlord’s offer of mediation she had no choice but to decline as she did not want to be in the same room as her neighbours.
  32. The landlord issued its final response on 16 September 2020. The landlord said that it had considered the issues raised by the resident in her request to escalate her complaint but that it did not consider these to be appropriate to deal with as an appeal. The landlord explained that this was because no new evidence had been submitted beyond that which had already been investigated. The landlord asked the resident to continue to report any ASB by her neighbours and that it would encourage mediation, which it would book for her if she changed her mind. The landlord also said that it would be able to provide the resident with advice and support regarding a mutual exchange and provided the resident with details of the Homeswapper website should she wish to register and search for properties.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies, procedures and agreements.

  1. The landlord’s Anti-Social behaviour policy states that it takes a risk-based approach to managing ASB, working in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour.
  2. The policy states that the landlord will assess and monitor the risk and response to reports within the relevant timescale according to the risk:
    1. Low – including drug taking, the smell of drugs, noise, music, shouting/raised voices. The policy states that these cases will be responded to within 5 working days.
    2. Medium – including rowdy nuisance, obstructing communal areas/exits, abusive behaviour. The policy states that these cases will be responded to within 3 working days.
    3. High – such as harassment, suspected drug dealing, hate crime or domestic abuse. The policy states that these cases will be responded to within 1 working days.
  3. The landlord’s ASB procedure explains the steps the landlord will take in response to reports of ASB. These include:
    1. Assessing and monitoring the risk and responding to reports within the relevant timescale, according to the risk.
    2. Contacting the complainant and developing an action plan with the complainant.
    3. If the Complainant is unable to provide any evidence of the event, the Case Officer should provide the Complainant with Incident Sheets and set a timetable to review.
    4. If it has been agreed under the Action Plan, and is part of the investigation, the landlord will interview the Alleged Perpetrator to make them aware of the allegations and listen to their response.
    5. Where necessary we will advise the Tenant to contact the appropriate local authority environmental health team who may install noise monitoring equipment.
  4. The ASB procedure describes both the legal and non-legal action the landlord can take to resolve ASB. Non-legal actions include mediation and warnings. Where a non-legal remedy is unsuccessful in resolving a Medium/ High ASB matter or there has been a serious breach of the Agreement, the policy states that the landlord will consider taking legal action in order to resolve the case, including Section 21 notices.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours (Ms X and Ms Y) between 18 March 2019 and 16 September 2020.

  1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB by her neighbours (Ms X and Ms Y) The resident said that she kept a diary as the landlord had advised, that she had been in constant contact with the landlord and the police and that the landlord had contacted other residents to see what their experience was of the ASB she had been reporting, but no action had been taken. The resident described the distress and anxiety this matter has caused her and expressed her concern about the impact this matter has had on her and her son’s physical and mental health.
  2. 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.

Ms X

  1. The landlord’s policy states that when the landlord receives a report of ASB it  should assess the risk and then contact and carry out the initial interview with the resident, within the required timescales for the level of risk. As the resident’s report of 18 March 2019 had included rowdy behaviour by the visitors to her neighbour’s (Ms X’s) property, it was appropriate for the landlord to assess the level of risk as medium.
  2. During its call with the resident on 27 March 2019, an actions plan was developed and agreed with the resident, in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord agreed to send an ASB survey to all residents to obtain more evidence and emailed the police to report the allegations that the resident had made about her neighbour (Ms X). In accordance with its ASB policy the landlord also provided the resident with advice about contacting Environmental Health regarding the noise nuisance she said she was experiencing. In a call with the landlord on 4 April 2019 the resident confirmed that the ASB survey had been received. No evidence of the outcome of the survey has been seen by this service.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states if it has been agreed under the action plan, and is part of the investigation, the landlord will interview the alleged perpetrator to make them aware of the allegations and listen to their response. The landlord discussed this with the resident during their call on 11 April 2019 and interviewed Ms X on 15 April 2019. Whilst this exceeded the one to ten working days timescale given in the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord had attempted to carry out the interview on 12 April 2019 but Ms X was not home when they visited and so it was reasonable for the landlord to leave a card asking the alleged perpetrator to call them to arrange another appointment.
  4. The landlord also acted appropriately when the resident called on 18 April 2019 to report that her neighbour (Ms X) had banged on her door and shouted at her for reporting them to the landlord. This it did by reassuring her that her complaint was confidential and that her information would not have been provided to the alleged perpetrator, and by carrying out another risk assessment, increasing the case severity rating to high.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy describes grounds under which ASB cases can be closed, including where there are no further reports or evidence of ASB has been received. Having had no further contact from the resident since 13 May 2019, and after the landlord had sent the resident diary sheets for her to complete on 3 May 2019, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case on 6 June 2019. It is unclear whether the landlord advised the resident at the time that the case had been closed.
  6. Following further reports by the resident of loud music and noise from visitor to her property over the weekend of 17 to 19 July 2019, it was appropriate for the landlord to write to Ms X inviting her to call them to discuss complaints it had received. There is no evidence of Ms X’s call to the landlord, having had no further contact from the resident it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case on 18 September 2019. It is unclear whether the landlord advised the resident at the time that the case had been closed.

Ms Y

  1. Following reports from the resident on 3 October 2019 of her neighbour (Ms Y) smoking drugs in the communal areas and that people were constantly coming and going from Ms Y’s property, the landlord again acted in accordance with its policies and procedures by arranging to visit Ms Y on 10 October 2019, seven days later. Having had no further contact from the resident it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case on 22 December 2019. It is unclear whether the landlord advised the resident at the time that the case had been closed.
  2. When the landlord was contacted by the Police’s Safer Neighbourhood team on 16 March 2020, advising that the police had attended the neighbour (Ms Y’s) property following numerous calls from neighbours reporting the smell of drugs, loud music and groups downstairs. The police reported Ms Y was not present and that the property smelt of drugs. The police said it was the second time that they had visited and Ms Y had not been there and there have been other males, who do not reside there, staying over. Given the reports made by the police, it was appropriate for the landlord sent a warning letter to Ms Y. It was also reasonable for the landlord to ask the police if it could obtain statements or incident logs to further substantiate the resident’s claims, in order for it to consider serving a Section 21 notice to end the tenancy.  
  3. On 22 March 2020, the police provided the landlord with a statement by one of the resident’s other neighbours and confirmed that they had received a total of 11 reports over the past two weeks regarding loud music, drugs, groups of people leaving Ms Y’s flat. Given the additional evidence that had been provided, substantiating the resident’s claims, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to proceed with issuing Ms Y with a Section 21 notice. However, it was unable to do so until the tenant has been in the property for over four months and under Covid restrictions it was not permitted to carry out evictions at that time.
  4. Following further reports by the resident towards the end of March and into April 2020 about Ms Y, the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its ASB policy by reopening her ASB, carrying out a new risk assessment, giving the case a Higher severity level and advising the resident to report her concerns to the police by calling 101. The landlord then spoke to Ms Y again on 21 April 2020 to make them aware of the allegations and listen to their response. Ms Y denied the allegations. Nevertheless it was reasonable for the landlord to warn Ms Y that it would be speaking to the police and would contact them if there were any further complaints made. The landlord also discussed the resident’s reports in a meeting with the police on 23 April 2020, during which the police told the landlord that they were recording the resident’s reports as malicious.
  5. The landlord again acted appropriately when it received the resident’s diary notes, covering the period between 30 March and 25 May 2020, and following a further report from the resident on 1 June 2020. This it did by reviewing the case, calling the resident and sending her complaint log to the police as part of its policy to work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour. The evidence provided by the resident may also assist the police were they to consider taking any criminal action against Ms Y. The landlord also sought to obtain further evidence by carrying out another ASB survey of other residents in the resident’s block in July 2020, which was also shared with the police.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.

  1. The landlord acted appropriately following receipt of the email from the police’s Victim Care Support on 8 June 2020. This it did by asking victim Care Support to send any further evidence to support the resident’s request to move, which it included with its Housing Panel application form, together with incident logs from the resident for March, April and May 2020 regarding Ms Y.
  2. The resident’s application was considered at the landlord’s Housing Panel on 26 June 2020 and declined.
  3. The landlord’s Housing Panel Guidance notes state that Managed Transfers may be offered in the case of urgent or extreme housing needs such as harassment or hate crime, serious ASB, or other significant threat to a person’s safety or wellbeing.
  4. The policy goes on to state such an application should be supported by supporting evidence in the form of a police report and crime reference number.
  5. As there was no evidence of serious ASB and no supporting evidence from the police, it was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s Housing Panel Guidance for the landlord to decline the resident’s application for a Managed Transfer. It was also reasonable for the panel to conclude that whilst moving the resident would resolve the ASB for the resident, the ASB would still impact other residents.
  6. As the panel had questioned what investigations had been done in relation to other neighbours, it was appropriate for the landlord to send another ASB survey to all tenants in the resident’s block in order to gain further supporting evidence of the alleged ASB by the Ms Y.
  7. Whilst the resident’s application for a Managed transfer was unsuccessful, the landlord continued to support the resident’s request to move by providing her with advice about Mutual Exchange and with a link to its Homeswapper website. The landlord also said that it would continue to give her advice and support should she wish to proceed with a mutual exchange.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours between 18 March 2019 and 16 September 2020.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.

Reasons

  1. Following each of the two reports by the resident of ASB by her neighbour (Ms X) the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy by assessing the risk and taking steps to investigate the resident’s concerns including interviewing the alleged perpetrator. When the resident made her first report about Ms X, the landlord also sent an ASB survey to all the all the other residents in her block in order to gain further evidence of the reported behaviour and provided the resident with advice about contacting Environmental Health. In the case of both of the resident’s reports of ASB by Ms X, following the intervention of the landlord no further reports were made and the cases closed.
  2. Following the resident’s initial reports of ASB by her neighbour Ms Y, the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy by assessing the risk and taking steps to investigate the resident’s concerns including interviewing the alleged perpetrator. As there had been no reports in the two months following the landlord’s initial intervention it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case. The next report about the behaviour of Ms Y was from the Police’s Safer Neighbourhood team. Given the nature of the reports made by the police it was reasonable for the landlord to write to Ms Y to warn her of her behaviour. The police subsequently provided further evidence to substantiate the allegations made against Ms Y. However, whilst the landlord had initially said that it would issue Ms Y with a Section 21 notice, it later confirmed that it was unable to do so as no evictions were permitted at that time due to Covid restrictions. Nevertheless, the landlord further warned Ms Y that it would speak to the police again if any further complaints were made.  The landlord also carried out another ASB survey the results of which it said it may strengthen its case were it to serve a legal notice on Ms Y. The landlord offered the resident mediation in order to seek to resolve the issues that she was having with her neighbours but this was declined by the resident.
  3. The landlord Housing Panel considered the resident’s request but it was denied as the evidence provided did not meet the criteria required for a Managed Transfer to be agreed. Following her unsuccessful transfer application, the landlord provided the resident with information about Mutual Exchange and said that it would give her advice and support should she wish to proceed with a Mutual Exchange.