WATMOS Community Homes (202013725)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013725

WATMOS Community Homes

2 August 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. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
    3. The resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom house. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a Housing Association.
  2. The landlord operates a three-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request an independent review of the decision by the Area Operations Manager and a response is to be provided within 10 working days. If the resident is not satisfied with the decision he can meet with the appeal panel to discuss the complaint and it will provide a formal response within 3 days.
  3. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that ASB is any conduct that causes or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or nuisance to others and that everyone should be able to enjoy peace, quiet and security in their home. Its website notes that noise nuisance, verbal abuse and harassment are forms of ASB. The policy highlights that possible remedies for ASB include warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, and working with other agencies. Where the behaviour persists the landlord can apply for ASB orders, injunctions and possession (eviction) proceedings. The resident handbook highlights that it is the resident’s responsibility to report instances of ASB to the landlord and anything criminal to the police.
  4. Under S2.3 of the tenancy agreement the resident must ensure that they and any other person living in or visiting the home, including children, do not act in any way which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or is anti-social. This includes causing noise nuisance in the locality. Noise should be kept to a minimum between 11pm and 7am Monday to Saturday and before 9am and after 10pm on Sunday
  5. The landlord provided this Service with evidence related to neighbours of the resident regarding ongoing ASB issues at the property – this contains information that is personal to the neighbours so cannot be shared within this report but it has been used to provide context to this investigation.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord received reports of ongoing ASB in regard to noise and nuisance from the resident at the property. The landlord opened an investigation and provided ASB logs that demonstrated nine separate complaints of ASB in April 2020. It wrote to the resident about loud music coming from his property and advised that it would take action in relation to the issue.
  2. In May 2020, the landlord’s ASB logs show a further 10 reports of ASB against the resident for loud music, shouting and verbal abuse against neighbours.
  3. On 5 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about the allegations of ASB made against him and asked for it to provide specific dates and times of the alleged ASB and any reports and actions it had taken. He acknowledged that on 2 April 2020 he had played music from 19:30 to 12:00 but it was kept to a minimum level. He questioned why the landlord had not come and visited the property.
  4. On 6 May 2020, the landlord sent a warning letter and responded to the resident’s requests and stated that it could not disclose the information provided to it by other residents. It stated that it did not have the specific times of the noise and nuisance complaints and that he would need to contact the Noise Pollution Team. It advised that noise should be kept to a minimum between 11pm and 7am Monday to Saturday and there should be no noise before 9am or after 10pm on Sunday, which meant that the resident was in breach of the terms of his tenancy agreement.
  5. On 14 June 2020, call logs show that the landlord contacted the resident and discussed the allegations of ASB against him. The resident advised that he should be able to play music in his own home. The operative investigated the resident’s complaint against his neighbour and was advised by the resident that the neighbour attended his wife’s workplace to shop and ‘intimidated her’. The landlord advised that the neighbour was entitled to shop but the resident claimed that his neighbour should not shop there. 
  6. On 25 June 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that it had unfairly dealt with complaints of ASB made against him, that it had not responded to his allegation made on 14 June 2020 and that he had been racially abused by his neighbours.
  7. On 9 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and addressed the resident’s concerns. It outlined that it had opened an investigation and contacted the resident about the complaints that had been made against him. It highlighted that it had spoken with the resident’s neighbours, the safe neighbourhood team and the noise prevention team in order to gather useful information and it had issued several warning letters. It acknowledged that it was not able to meet with the resident in person due to the prevailing global pandemic. It stated that it had spoken with the resident multiple times by telephone and email about his counter allegation of ASB and contacted the alleged perpetrator to start an investigation.
  8. On 17 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident about several noise and nuisance complaints that had been lodged against the resident. It highlighted that the resident had been playing loud music which caused heated arguments between the resident and his neighbours. It stated that the safe neighbourhood team were dealing with the case and advised that it had caused significant distress to other residents.
  9. On 11 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and apologised for the way that he had spoken to it. He stated that he had been monitoring the decibels of his speakers and asked why the landlord had not attended the property or installed sound monitoring equipment. He stated that he felt unfairly judged and that the landlord had ignored his complaints of racial harassment from his neighbours.
  10. On 14 August 2020, the landlord replied to the resident’s email from the 11 August 2020, and advised the following:
    1. That since April 2020 a consistent and significant volume of complaints had been made against the resident in respect of noise and nuisance emanating from his property. The complaints came from a number of households and all specify the noise nuisance as loud music.
    2. It stated that it had not attended the resident’s property due to the Covid-19 pandemic but had liaised with the police who had attended the property and advised that his speakers were large and should not be played in a residential dwelling.
    3. It advised that it had attempted to address the issues with the resident through warning letters but the resident continued to play music at an unacceptable level. It said that it would be seeking an injunction against the resident to stop him playing loud music in the property.
    4. It raised that during a call on 10 August 2020 the resident was rude to a Customer Service Officer and that such conduct was a breach of the resident’s tenancy.
  11. On 13 October 2020, there was a County Court hearing in regard to the ASB issues at the property. The Court granted an Injunction Order pursuant to Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to prevent the resident from, amongst other things, playing loud music at the property and shouting or being verbally abusive towards his neighbours and visitors.
  12. On 16 October 2020, there were further reports of ASB against the resident for playing loud music and the police attended.
  13. On 26 November 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final review panel decision. It addressed the following issues:
    1. That the resident’s complaint about his neighbour was not treated fairly by staff: As the alleged behaviour was racial harassment it advised the resident to report any incidences to police. It asked the resident to provide CAD numbers so that it could ask for police disclosure as proof and take action if there had been a breach of tenancy.
    2. That the resident complained that the landlord had blocked his telephone number to prevent him contacting the landlord: It advised that it did not have the capabilities to block resident’s numbers and therefore his number had not been blocked.
    3. That a member of staff of called the resident on their own mobile phone to abuse him: It concluded that the phone used was a work phone and that there was no evidence of the staff member being abusive.
    4. That the resident was banned from contacting staff members directly: It acknowledged that the resident was only permitted to contact it through a third party as he admitted to ‘raising his voice to staff’ in an unacceptable manner and it had instructed its staff to terminate abusive phone calls in line with its policies and procedures.
    5. That it threatened the resident with court action: It found that the landlord had acted in line with its ASB policy by issuing the resident warnings by telephone and mail about his conduct and advised that it would take action. It highlighted that the resident was in breach of his tenancy agreement, and it had taken action which it deemed approprate.
    6. That the resident had asked why the landlord did not visit the property if the noise level was not acceptable: it advised that police visited the property and highlighted that the speakers used by the resident was not suitable for home use. It stated that its noise team did not visit the resident due to the Covid-19 pandemic but were now starting to conduct home visits.
    7. It advised that it wished to support the resident in rebuilding the relationship between him and his neighbours and its staff through mediation and asked the resident to contact it to take up the offer.
  14. Between November and December 2020, there were 14 further ASB complaints against the resident for playing loud music at the property.
  15. On 28 January 2021, the landlord served a Notice of Seeking Possession on the resident. The landlord highlighted that the resident was in breach of Section 2.3 of the tenancy agreement. From April 2020 to January 2021 the landlord received 47 ASB complaints about the resident, these predominantly were in regard to playing loud music during the day and disturbing the neighbours but also that the resident was verbally abusive towards its staff.
  16. On 1 February 2021, the Court granted an Injunction Order pursuant to Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to prevent the resident from; intimidating or engaging in conduct that causes or is likely to cause harassment, shouting or using foul or verbally abusive language or gestures towards any person alarm or distress towards any person amongst other things, playing any music, screaming, shouting, singing or banging anywhere at the residence or engaging in conduct which causes or is capable of causing nuisance and/or annoyance towards any person.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of ASB. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrator amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the reports about this appropriately and reasonably. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, this Service is an alternative to the courts and whilst we have considered the landlord’s handling of the reports against the resident and its decision to seek an injunction we do not have the power to change or overrule a decision made by the Courts. 

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.

  1. It is not disputed that there was a large number of ASB complaints against the resident in regard to noise and nuisance in April 2020. The landlord demonstrated that it acted swiftly and opened an ASB case file, wrote to the resident and issued a warning letter in line with its ASB policy. The landlord appropriately kept in contact with the resident over the coming months as it received more allegations of ASB against the resident. The landlord took approprate steps and contacted the resident’s neighbours, the Safe Neighbourhood Team and the Noise Prevention Team in order to gather information about the allegations. In July 2020, there were further allegations against the resident from a number of neighbours and the landlord wrote to the resident highlighting that he was in breach of his agreement. The ASB continued at the property and the landlord reasonably applied to the County Court for an Injunction Order in line with its ASB policy. There were 14 further reports of ASB against the resident in November and December and the landlord fittingly filed a Notice of Seeking Possession on the resident. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligations in responding to the reports of ASB against the resident for noise and nuisance. They also reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector. It collected and retained reports of ASB, it worked with external agencies and took several informal actions against the resident to address the issues of ASB. Overall, the landlord’s actions were proportionate given the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. The resident made counter allegation of ASB and racial abuse against a neighbour in June 2020. The landlord appropriately started an investigation into the matter and contacted the resident to gather further information about the complaint. The landlord took approprate steps and contacted the alleged offender however it determined that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the complaint. The landlord advised the resident that he should report any racial abuse to the police and provide it with a CAD number so it could take further action if needed in line with its ASB policy. There was no evidence provided to this Service that the resident reported any incidences of racial abuse to police. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably in investigating complaint by speaking with both parties and providing the resident with approprate information about how to report instances of ASB.

The resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.

  1. During stage two of the landlord’s complaints process the resident raised issues that the landlord’s operatives contacted him using their own mobile phones to abuse him and that his number had been blocked from calling the landlord. The landlord appropriately investigated the matter and provided evidence through phone records that its operatives had contacted the resident using work mobile phones and found that there was no evidence of abuse towards the resident and the landlord took reasonable steps to address the matter in its final review response to the resident. In relation to the blocking of the resident’s phone number the landlord provided evidence from its IT department that its phone systems are not capable of blocking any calls. The landlord suggested that the resident may have been referring to the landlord banning him from calling it due to abusive and inappropriate behaviour. Overall, the landlord investigated the complaint and made an informed decision in line withs its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
    3. The resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.

Reasons

  1. The range of actions taken by the landlord in response to the reports of ASB against the resident were appropriate and in accordance with its obligations and policies. It evidenced that it took proportionate steps to investigate and address the ASB complaints.
  2. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB and racial abuse. It interviewed the parties involved and provided the resident with information on how to report racial abuse and assured the resident that it would take further steps if the evidence was available.
  3. The landlord had taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct. The landlord would need to have sufficient evidence to take any formal action against its staff.