Yorkshire Housing Limited (202102640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102640

Yorkshire Housing Limited

5 December 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rats in her garden.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident has raised concerns about the banding allocated to her during her re-housing application. However, as the waiting list is administered by the local authority, this aspect of the complaint falls outside of our jurisdiction. Instead, the resident will need to raise a complaint to the local authority, if she believes her priority should be increased, and then refer the complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) should she be unhappy with the outcome of the complaint.
In light of the above, details relating to the resident’s transfer application have been omitted from this report. However, details regarding the resident’s request for a management move – which on occasion are discussed alongside the resident’s transfer application in the correspondence received – will be included as part of this assessment.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a three-bedroomed house with a private garden. The neighbours referenced in this report are also tenants of the landlord.
It is noted that in correspondence provided to this Service, there have been previous ASB cases as well as reports of pests in the resident’s garden dating back to May 2020, which have subsequently been closed by the landlord, with the most recent ASB case being closed on 2 December 2020. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to December 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in May 2021 following an incident in March 2021.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord’s records note that the resident called it to report that she had had an altercation with one of her neighbours, who she said was abusive and threatening to her and her daughter. Other neighbours, she said, were also shouting at her out of their windows and filming her and her children. The resident also reported this incident to the police that same day.
The landlord emailed the resident the same day confirming an ASB case had been raised and would be investigated accordingly. It confirmed it would be in touch shortly to discuss.
In an email dated, 25 March 2021, the landlord provided information on how to use the noise app it had provided, advising her to log and record any further incidents, which it would then review on 7 April 2021.
In a letter from the resident’s General Practitioner (GP) to the landlord, dated 13 April 2021, it requested that the resident be considered for a managed move due to the likelihood that remaining in the property would exacerbate her mental wellbeing because of the issues she was having with her neighbours.
The resident and the landlord exchanged emails on 14 April 2021 in which the landlord highlighted the importance of recording evidence to support her allegations against the neighbours, which would be reviewed in two weeks. It informed her that one of the neighbours had made counter allegations against the resident, and advised her to continue to avoid contact. The landlord also asked if she would be willing to participate in mediation. The resident’s reply confirmed this was the first time she had been made aware of counter allegations of an incident that happened ‘weeks ago’. She advised that she was not at the stage where she could participate in mediation due to situation.
The landlord’s internal records confirm it visited the resident on 20 April 2021 where it was made clear that it and the police were unable to take formal action even though she had taken photographs of various alleged incidents.
The landlord’s records from 27 April 2021 note that the resident called it to report that rats were in her back garden. The landlord advised the resident that it was her responsibility to resolve as it was localised to her property. That same day the resident reported that the neighbours were shouting to each other and staring at her, but she confirmed this was not audible. She also said that she was made aware that the police were going to arrange a meeting with all parties.
The landlord’s records from 4 May 2021 state that it had explained that an incident two weeks prior, whereby one of the neighbours was in their garden staring at the resident and speaking about her to another neighbour, did not constitute a breach of tenancy and it was therefore unable to discuss this with the neighbour unless it was specifically abusive to her.
The resident made a formal complaint via email on 4 May 2021 regarding the following:
1. The landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour. She said she was still waiting for the outcome to concerns raised seven to eight weeks prior and was unaware of the outcome of the police meetings.
2. The landlord’s handling of a rat infestation in the property, which she said occurred before her tenancy began, and was now continual.
The landlord’s records of 5 May 2021 note that, following the multi-agency meeting, the ASB would be left for the landlord to address moving forward. The notes show that the landlord spoke with the resident about a doorbell camera, which she agreed may be beneficial.
The landlord’s records note that the doorbell camera was ordered on 7 May 2021.
The landlord’s records note that it had spoken with the resident on 11 May 2021 about an incident on 9 May 2021 in which the neighbours were reported to have been laughing at her. The landlord deemed this not to be a breach of tenancy and would therefore not be investigated further.
On 13 May 2021 the resident reported an incident to the police. The resident also emailed the landlord requesting to speak to it regarding the incident.
The landlord’s records note that it spoke to the resident on 14 May 2021 in which the resident said:
1. She did not know when the multi-agency meetings were taking place nor the outcome of these.
2. She had had a doorbell camera sent out but there were hedges in the way which obscured the view into the communal area where the incidents were happening.
3. She informed it of the incident the previous day and that she did not stay at the property for fear of further threatening behaviour.
4. She said she had photographic evidence of her neighbours crouching behind cars watching her property and car.
5. She did not feel the landlord had taken steps to keep her and her family safe.
The landlord’s records note that it spoke with the resident on 15 May 2021 in which the resident reported a further incident from the previous night. The landlord confirmed it would investigate and call her back the following week.
The landlord’s records note that it spoke with the resident on 18 May 2021 about the incident reported on 13 May 2021. She said the neighbours were talking and, when they saw the resident, they shouted abuse. The landlord asked the resident to check the doorbell camera to see if this had recorded, although it explained it would be difficult to prove.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint letter, dated 18 May 2021, it addressed each complaint in turn as follows:
1. Antisocial behaviour – the landlord explained that, unfortunately, not all incidents warranted a breach of tenancy. There was evidence that the ASB incidents she had reported had been logged, though further evidence would be needed before any action could be taken. It said that no action could be taken regarding the initial incident she reported on 18 March 2021 due to a lack of evidence. In short, the landlord was satisfied it had responded in line with its ASB procedure, though the case remained open to monitor and investigate further reports.
2. Pest control – the landlord confirmed that it was not responsible for pest control in individual properties.
This concluded the landlord’s response.
A medical assessment letter, dated 25 May 2021, was provided (it is unclear if this was sent to the landlord) that described the resident’s feeling of being victimised by her neighbours which had, in turn, affected her mental wellbeing. It said she was too frightened to stay at the property and was at risk of continued decline in her mental health due to the situation with her neighbours.
Emails from the resident dated 8 and 9 June 2021 to the landlord reiterated that she was spending a lot of time away from the property, so to avoid any further incidents. However, she reported incidents at the school and GP surgery with one of the neighbours staring and mumbling. She mentioned that the sooner she could move to her preferred area the better. She also reported a parking incident on 9 June 2021 where she found her car blocked in by one of the neighbour’s vehicles.
In an email conversation on 29 June 2021 the landlord informed the resident that it was looking to close the case as it had not had any substantial evidence of any breaches of tenancy. The resident replied reiterating she was away from the property for the majority of the time and thereby minimising the likelihood of further incidents. She asked if she was eligible for a management move.
The landlord confirmed she was not eligible for a management move as the ASB did not warrant this at this stage. The resident, dissatisfied with the response, clarified that the request for a management move was more than just for the ASB; it was for the impact on her mental health too. She said she had had enough of the ASB, sending photos, and keeping logs of incidents, and wanted her concerns taken seriously.
In an email dated 30 June 2021 the landlord asked what area and size property she preferred, as it said it could make a referral to the lettings team for a managed move, though it said the success of this could not be guaranteed.
The landlord’s records note that a management move request was made on 30 June 2021.
The landlord’s records note that it spoke with the resident on 15 July 2021 to confirm that her management move request had been rejected. In addition, it was agreed between both landlord and resident that the ASB case would remain open for time being.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 19 July 2021 requesting confirmation of the status of the complaint.
On 21 July 2021 the landlord confirmed to this Service that the complaint had been closed in May 2021 at stage one, but it was happy to escalate to stage two and would let the resident know.
On 28 July 2021 the landlord asked the resident if there had been any further ASB incidents.
The landlord’s records show that on 3 August 2021 pest control were contracted to inspect ‘a rat infestation throughout the block’.
On 4 August 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the ASB case had been closed due to no response to the email dated 28 July 2021.
In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, dated 6 August 2021, the landlord addressed each point in turn as follows:
1. Management move – the landlord explained that it only offered management moves in exceptional circumstances and her case did not meet the criteria.
2. Pest control – the landlord confirmed that, as the resident had informed it that the problem exists in the neighbourhood in general and not just in the resident’s garden, a survey was conducted by pest control specialists on 5 August 2021, which it said would keep the resident updated on once the report is provided.
3. Antisocial behaviour – the landlord confirmed that the conclusions of the stage one complaint were accurate, with all steps that it could have taken to support the resident being taken, in line with its policies and procedures. The case had now been closed, but it assured the resident that it could re-open this at any point.
The landlord advised the resident to continue to log all incidents of ASB. It also provided information about how she could widen her property search by signing up to Homeswapper, looking at socially-rented properties online, and joining online social media home-swap groups. This concluded the landlord’s response.
In the resident’s email to this Service, dated 7 August 2021, she confirmed she remained dissatisfied with the following:
1. The rat infestation was ongoing, which she said was an issue before she moved into the property. She said a survey had recently been conducted and when she spoke with the surveyor, he had said it was unsafe for children to be outside.
2. She was unhappy with the outcome of the ASB case, despite the evidence she provided to support her claims.
The resident’s desired outcome was for the landlord to facilitate a management transfer.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy details certain actions it can take when addressing reports of ASB such as carrying out prompt interviews; seeking evidence; the use of CCTV and sound recording equipment; issuing warnings; seeking early resolutions through mediation; issuing formal cautions; and taking enforcement action. It also states that it will communicate clearly to complainants, witnesses and perpetrators keeping all parties regularly updated about progress of its investigations.
The landlord’s access to homes policy states that urgent transfers can be made if a tenant is the victim of one or more of the following, that has been ongoing for three months or longer with no reasonable prospect of early resolution and where violence or threats of violence are present:
1. Hate Crime
2. Harassment
3. Antisocial behaviour
4. Domestic violence
The landlord’s pest control policy stipulates that where a home, including external areas such as gardens becomes infested with pests, and where the landlord has not contributed to the cause of this, it will not normally undertake any direct action or meet any of the costs of treatment.
Nevertheless, in cases where pest infestation is not the direct responsibility of the landlord, it will support customers in dealing with the infestation including liaising with local environmental health agencies and specialist contractors.
Conversely, if the landlord has contributed to the cause of the pest infestation, such as by failing to carry out a repair or make good following repair, it will take action to eradicate an infestation within the communal area. Moreover, the landlord will have the discretion to take proactive action in cases where, if left, the infestation has, or is likely to, cause serious health and safety concerns, has affected more than one property, has the potential to spread to multiple properties, and undermines the structure of a particular property.

Scope of Investigation

First, it is acknowledged that the resident is unhappy that she was not told about the ongoing pest issue before she moved into the property. As referenced in paragraph 7 in the Background and Summary of Events section, due to the timeframes involved, we are unable to investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
Second, it is also noted that, as part of the resident’s complaint in May 2021, she had raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the wet room in the property to be replaced with a standard bathroom. For clarity, this did not form part of the complaint brought forward to this Service and therefore this aspect will not be investigated as part of this report.
Third, the resident has stated that she considers that the landlord’s actions, or lack thereof, has had an impact on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nevertheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.
Lastly, the resident has reported, in an email to this Service on 23 August 2021, that contractors had entered her property without contacting her beforehand, which caused her considerable distress. Whilst this accusation has seemingly caused alarm, it is outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation to consider events after the date that the case was duly made. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, a landlord requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. The landlord’s role, therefore, is to assist a resident in gathering evidence to support their allegations and to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the reports, taking proportionate action where necessary, in accordance with its policies and procedures.
In this case, the landlord has demonstrated that it took its role seriously and sought to address the ASB in accordance with its obligations. The evidence shows that, following the initial report of ASB on 18 March 2021, the landlord sought to support the resident in gathering evidence by providing a noise app on 25 March 2021, a doorbell camera in May 2021, and consistently encouraging the resident to report, and keep a record of, all incidents of alleged ASB, which it could then investigate. These were proportionate actions to take when considering the need for evidence in order to corroborate the resident’s claims.
Likewise, the landlord’s communication was, for the most part, clear, timely and informative. The landlord proactively sought contact with the resident via emails, telephone calls, and visits, in which it asked about further incidents, provided updates, and gave advice on what did and did not constitute ASB. There is also evidence of the landlord conducting interviews with the neighbours, offering mediation, and liaising with outside agencies such as the police.
Ultimately, however, the resident’s report of ASB could not be independently substantiated. The landlord could not take any formal action against the alleged perpetrators of ASB without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. This is not to say that the ASB did not occur or was not a cause of great distress for the resident. It is simply that, despite its efforts to support the resident in gathering evidence of ASB, and despite other organisations, such as the police, being involved, the landlord was not in a position to take formal action against the neighbours due to a lack of supporting evidence. In view of the above, there was no maladministration by the landlord for its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
That said, although communication was more often than not timely and informative, there were a few instances whereby the landlord could have improved its communication with the resident. For instance, part of the resident’s complaint of 4 May 2021 was in relation to not being aware of the outcome of the incident raised on 18 March 2021.
When an incident is reported to the police, the landlord is reliant upon the police to investigate the incident as an alleged crime first and foremost and, therefore, it should wait for the outcome of the investigation before it can act (if necessary). However, once the matter had been concluded, and it was apparent that the police would not be taking any further action, the landlord would have been expected to update the resident and detail the next steps accordingly.
Whilst the landlord did confirm in its stage one complaint response of 18 May 2021 that action could not be taken regarding the initial report in March 2021 due to a lack of evidence, it did not specifically address the resident’s concerns about the length of time it had taken to provide an outcome to that report; nor did it address her concerns about not being updated about the multi-agency meetings.
The landlord’s internal record’s do show that the resident was informed on 20 April 2021 that both the police and the landlord were not going to take any formal action. Yet because this later formed part of the resident’s complaint, it would have been helpful if the landlord had provided a more formal response (in writing) at an earlier stage regarding the outcome of this incident, especially as it had been investigated by the police.
Similarly, the landlord could have provided a formal response to the resident’s concerns about not being aware of the outcome of the multi-agency meetings. Nonetheless, the above instances, although not ideal, did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident and were not sufficient enough to constitute service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.

In exceptional circumstances, such as in cases of severe and persistent ASB, a landlord can consider a direct transfer (management move) of a tenant to another one of its properties.
The resident’s desire to be moved was predicated on her belief that the ASB was sufficiently bad enough to warrant a direct transfer and that the overall impact on her mental wellbeing, for which she had provided medical evidence, should have resulted in the landlord facilitating a direct move.
However, whilst this Service does not doubt the impact the situation has had on the resident’s mental health, the resident’s situation did not meet the threshold for such a move, as per the landlord’s criteria detailed in the landlord’s access to homes policy, whereby urgent transfers can be made if a tenant is the victim of ASB which has been ongoing for three months or longer with no reasonable prospect of early resolution and where violence or threats of violence are present.
As explained above, the reports of ASB were such that it could not be independently substantiated by either the landlord or the police. The threshold for such a move was therefore not met and the landlord’s decision, following the resident’s request for a management move in June 2021, was in accordance with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rats in her garden

When the resident first reported rats in her garden on 27 April 2021 the landlord responded in accordance with its pest control policy, as there was no indication at the time that the rats were present in any other properties or in the communal areas; nor was it evident that the present of rats was due to the landlord’s negligence. The landlord reiterated this in its stage one complaint response of 18 May 2021, following the initial complaint on 4 May 2021, clarifying its position.
The landlord’s subsequent decision in August 2021 to instruct specialist pest control to carry out a survey of the communal area was reasonable in the circumstances, following further reports that the rats were not just situated within the resident’s garden. The landlord could choose, at its discretion, what action it could take, which was also in accordance with its pest control policy, whereby it can take proactive action in cases where, if left, the infestation has, or is likely to, cause serious health and safety concerns, has affected more than one property, has the potential to spread to multiple properties, and undermines the structure of a particular property.
In light of the above, there was no service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of rats. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with the outcome of the survey, in writing, and provide details, if any, of the next steps and expectations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Its response to the resident’s request for a management move.
3. Its response to the resident’s reports of rats in her garden.

Reasons

The landlord investigated the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its policies and procedures. Ultimately, however, there was no clear evidence of ASB, despite the landlord’s actions and investigation into the matter. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take further action against the neighbours.
Similarly, because the severity of the ASB could not be independently substantiated, the resident did not meet the threshold for a direct transfer (management move) at this stage. It was reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to reject this proposition.
Finally, the landlord’s actions following the resident’s reports of rats in the property, were in accordance with the landlord’s pest control policy.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord continue to respond accordingly to the resident’s reports of ASB and support her in gathering evidence, taking proportionate action where necessary.
It is also recommended that the landlord responds in writing to residents when outside agencies are involved, such as the police, providing details of the outcome and the next steps and expectations.
It is recommended that the landlord update the resident regarding the pest control specialist’s survey conducted on 5 August 2021, if it has not already done so, providing details, in writing, of the landlord’s next steps and proposed actions, if any.