Magna Housing Limited (202325006)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325006

Magna Housing Limited

31 October 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:
   1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom terraced house. The landlord has recorded no safeguarding concerns for the resident, but it has noted she has mental health conditions.
3. The resident has reported ASB from several of her neighbours, including those who live either side of her, over a number of years. On 7 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that it had consulted with the police about her reports. They confirmed that the incidents she had reported did not amount to criminal offences and a review of nearby closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage had not supported her claims. The landlord offered to refer her for support and asked that she considered mediation before closing the case.
4. The resident continued to report ASB throughout 2023. The incidents she reported included noise nuisance, rubbish being dumped outside of her front door, harassment and intimidation. Around the same time, counter allegations were made about her own behaviour. The landlord reviewed the evidence and discussed the matter with partner agencies within the local partnership coordinating group (PCG) on several occasions.
5. On 21 September 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said she wanted to complain about her experience. At the time, it was not clear whether she had raised a formal complaint directly to the landlord. She said that:
   1. She had been subject to assault, verbal abuse, damage to property and false allegations. She had provided evidence over several years which she felt was sufficient for the landlord to take legal action against her neighbours.
   2. The incidents she had reported were serious and she was unwilling to sign an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) or accept the landlord’s offer of a video doorbell.
   3. She wanted action taken against her neighbours for convictions they held for offences related to harassment.
6. The landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 1 March 2024 and explained that it had reviewed the history of her reports dating back approximately 18 months. It said that:
   1. It had explored a number of options to tackle the ASB. It had sent warning letters to all parties and had engaged regularly with partner agencies. The more recent reports she had made did not meet the threshold for legal intervention.
   2. There had been counter allegations about her own behaviour. Mediation and an ABC had been offered to all parties and had been accepted by her neighbours but refused by her. She had also refused its offer to install a video doorbell to the property. It asked her to reconsider the options it had given her to see if the situation would improve.
   3. Her reports had been reviewed in detail and proportionate actions had been taken, so her complaint could not be upheld.
7. The resident advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She explained she was given different advice from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about what type of evidence the landlord needed to take more affirmative action. She also reported she was unhappy that it had involved a representative from the community mental health team (CMHT) to discuss her affairs. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to:
   1. Admit it had failed in its duty as a landlord and apologise for the distress it had caused.
   2. Financially compensate her for not stopping the harassment at an earlier stage.
   3. Take legal action in the form of eviction or injunctions against her neighbours, or move them.
8. The landlord provided the resident with a final response on 23 May 2024. It explained that:
   1. New reports of ASB would be reviewed on their own merit. In the meantime, she should be mindful that videoing her neighbours without an incident in progress could be viewed as antagonistic.
   2. A representative from the CMHT had attended the multi-agency partnership in line with normal practice and to ensure her vulnerabilities had been fully considered.
   3. A letter of apology or compensation was not appropriate because it had followed its policies and procedures. Legal action against her neighbours was also not proportionate in the circumstances.
   4. Her complaint had not been upheld, but her ASB case remained open. It would only consider reports of new incidents, and in the meantime, she was encouraged to reconsider its offers of mediation and support.
9. The resident advised the Ombudsman that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response as it had not acknowledged it had failed to tackle ASB from her neighbours for over 8 years. She felt that the landlord had discouraged her from providing video evidence of new incidents and ignored her reports. On 30 October 2024 the resident said that ASB from her neighbours was ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It is noted that the resident has reported ASB for some years. It may help to explain that the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. This assessment is therefore focused on events from January 2022 onwards. This is the date from which the resident raised new reports of ASB from her neighbour, and which led to her formal complaint in September 2023.
11. The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has reported ASB from her neighbours over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions had on her health. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the resident’s concerns. However, unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue, determine liability, or award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

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

12. It is important to note that there was a long-standing history of counter allegations between the 3 neighbours involved. It is understood that following incidents that took place in 2021, one neighbour was given a community resolution order (CRO) by the police. The other was given a conditional discharge for assaulting the resident by throwing broccoli at her.
13. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the impact the situation which led to these interventions had on the resident. It is understood that to resolve her complaint she wanted the landlord to take legal action in the form of eviction or an injunction against her neighbours for those offences. In accordance with its ASB policy, the landlord will only consider court action where all other reasonable efforts have failed and where further complaints are supported by evidence. This includes third party evidence and support for action from partner agencies.
14. The behaviour of all 3 neighbours was monitored regularly by the landlord through engagement with the local authority community safety team (CST). Cases referred to the CST are monitored by several partner agencies, which is good practice in accordance with the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It was appropriate for the landlord to consult regularly with the CST to see whether the behaviours the resident continued to report met the threshold for further legal action.
15. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord had a strong relationship with the CST. After the resident reported ongoing issues of harassment and noise from her neighbour on 6 January 2022, the landlord responded to her on the same day. It explained it would need to discuss the evidence she had presented with the CST and would review it alongside CCTV in the area. This was appropriate, particularly given that there were counter allegations between all parties around the same time.
16. On 13 January 2022, the police confirmed that they had investigated ASB reports made by both the resident and her neighbours. They confirmed that there was no evidence that there had been any breach of conditions by the neighbour who had received a CRO. With regards to the resident and her other neighbour, they were reporting an “equal number” of complaints against each other. They commented that it was hard to identify who was classed as the offender and who was the victim. As a result, the police recommended that both parties be given an ABC.
17. The landlord failed to update the resident with the outcome of its discussions with the CST in a timely manner. It was not until 7 June 2022 that it informed the resident that the police did not support her claims. The delay of approximately 6 months was unreasonable and the landlord missed an opportunity to manage her expectations. Further, it did not offer or explain clearly the purpose of the ABC to the resident, nor confirm which agency within the CST would take ownership of implementing it.
18. Where reports of ASB do not meet the threshold for an investigation, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from their ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This should include mediation, which should be offered to residents to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s perspectives.
19. There is evidence to show the landlord offered mediation to the resident on several occasions in the past, and again on 7 June 2022. The offer of mediation was appropriate given the nature of the resident’s reports and the level of counter allegations made, both without sufficient supporting evidence. The option to refer the resident to mediation ought to remain should she wish to reconsider the landlord’s offer.
20. In addition to general noise nuisance, the resident made some serious allegations that her neighbours had harassed her, attempted to break into her property, and conducted “frenzied attacks” on her home. The landlord took her reports seriously. As the reports related to criminal matters, evidence shows the landlord liaised with the police in a timely manner. For example, after the resident reported that red paint had been thrown at her front door on 17 October 2023, the landlord referred the matter to the police within 24 hours which was appropriate. The landlord demonstrated that it understood the serious nature of her reports and referred the matter to the most appropriate agency to investigate.
21. The evidence shows that the police and the CST have been unable to substantiate the resident’s claims, particularly between January 2022 to May 2024. The landlord was therefore limited as to what further action it could take against the resident’s neighbours. As a result, it considered a range of non-legal remedies available to it to tackle the ongoing reports of ASB between all neighbours, in accordance with its ASB policy.
22. The landlord was proportionate and fair in considering what interventions it could take based on the evidence that had been presented to it. For example, it wrote to all parties when there were counter allegations, conducted visits to the area and offered target hardening options to the resident. On 14 March 2023, the landlord offered to install a video doorbell. It has also offered soft door closers to all parties where there were regular reports of noise nuisance. Its offers were reasonable and demonstrated that it was being proactive in trying to improve the situation for all parties involved.
23. Landlords should maintain accurate records of their communication with residents and note any interventions they have taken to act on reports of ASB. While the landlord in this case largely did so, there were occasional gaps where it failed to evidence each report the resident made. For example, it recorded that she had contacted it “30 times” on 23 January 2023. Although the landlord could not reasonably be expected to respond to each report of ASB within this short timeframe, its records failed to evidence what reports she made during this time.
24. The landlord adopted a harm-centred approach to assess the impact on the resident and has evidenced it considered the potential risks. It completed several vulnerable victim risk assessments (VVAs) for her and made a referral to the mental health team. This was in accordance with its ASB policy, safeguarding procedure and information sharing protocol. The landlord provided the resident with a reasonable explanation for why medical practitioners might attend multi-agency meetings within its stage 2 response. Its actions demonstrated a commitment to safeguarding the resident and were in line with accepted best practice.
25. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her belief that she has been “bullied into not obtaining evidence” by the landlord. However, there is no evidence to support that this was the case. Conversely, on 30 August 2023 and within its complaint responses, the landlord assured her that it would consider new reports and review them on their own merit. It made it clear to the resident that she should not be filming her neighbours to pre-empt an incident taking place and that video footage would only be considered of an incident in progress. The advice it gave the resident was fair and in accordance with its ASB procedure.
26. There have been occasions when the resident has not cooperated with the landlord. For example, she refused mediation, to sign an ABC or to have a video doorbell installed, all of which were reasonable offers made by the landlord to try to improve her living situation. Furthermore, on 18 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord she had blocked emails from its ASB officer and had re-directed their communication to a junk folder she intended not to read. This hindered the landlord’s ability to bring counter allegations to her attention and engage in conversation about what it could do to further support her.
27. Overall, the landlord has managed the resident’s ASB case in accordance with its policy. The complaint responses it gave the resident at stages 1 and 2 of its process managed her expectations and she has been offered remedies that are reasonable and proportionate. The landlord engaged positively with the CST in line with good practice set out within the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and explained clearly to the resident why legal action against her neighbours was not proportionate.
28. While the landlord has managed the ASB case effectively, it failed to recognise that there was a gap in updating the resident with the outcome of its discussions with the CST between January and June 2022 which resulted in frustration for the resident. It also fell short in keeping a robust record of each report the resident made and the outcome of the PCG meetings held during the time an ASB case was open for the resident.
29. The landlord’s failure to keep a record of the PCG meetings did not adversely affect the resident as discussions about her case were still evidenced through email correspondence with the CST. However, the landlord’s failure to record the outcome of formal meetings fell short of expectations in accordance with its ASB procedure, resulting in a finding of service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

30. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 21 September 2023. She advised that she had made a complaint to the landlord through an online form but had not received a response. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s claim, there is no evidence to demonstrate that an online form had been completed at an earlier date.
31. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to consider the resident’s complaint and formally respond to her by 1 March 2024. It did so within the required timeframe. The landlord set out the history of events dating back 18 months, which was reasonable as it gave both parties an overview of what interventions had taken place. Its response was detailed and comprehensive. The landlord was clear in its explanation as to why it did not uphold the complaint and provided the resident with details of how to further escalate her concerns.
32. The resident informed the landlord on 6 March 2024 that she was not happy with its response and alleged several statements it had made were “incorrect”. The landlord was delayed in acknowledging the resident’s request for an escalation to her complaint. It was not until 7 May 2024 that it asked her to explain what aspects of its response she remained dissatisfied with. The delay in clarifying this with the resident was unreasonable and contributed to her feeling that the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously.
33. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, it should have responded to the resident within 20 working days of her escalation request. However, as it failed to clarify why she was unhappy with its response in a timelier manner, a stage 2 response did not follow for a further 54 working days. The delay was unreasonable, and the landlord offered no apology for its oversight.
34. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord’s responses were comprehensive and set out clearly what steps it had taken to investigate her concerns about ASB, but it failed to acknowledge that it had been delayed in responding to her at stage 2 of its complaint process. As a result, the landlord failed to fully put matters right for the resident.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £100 in compensation. The amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is made up of:
       1. £50 for the frustration caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
       2. £50 for the delay in responding to her at stage 2 of its complaint process.
    3. Discuss with the resident her most recent ASB concerns and re-offer mediation if appropriate.

Recommendations

38. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of:
    1. Its record keeping for ASB cases with a high volume of repeat contact, to ensure that all reports are stored securely on the ASB case as appropriate.
    2. Its process relating to PCG meetings, to ensure that it has oversight of minutes relating to ASB cases that it manages. In doing so, it should ensure that they are stored on the ASB case appropriately.