Progress Housing Association Limited (202323072)

Background

1. The resident lived at the property at the time of this complaint with her 5 year old son. She advised us that she has depression, anxiety and PTSD. She complained to the landlord about ASB and noise from her neighbours. She also said there were inaccuracies in the property documentation in respect of whether a pathway was communal and the neighbour’s use of this. Since this complaint she has moved to another property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to anti-social behaviour (ASB) and communal access.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to ASB and communal access.
   2. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to ASB and communal access

4. The landlord responded to the reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. It acknowledged there had been some confusion about whether the pathway was communal. It also acknowledged that there had been inaccuracies in the tenancy agreement. If offered a goodwill gesture of £750 to acknowledge this and the resident’s experience since moving in around communal access. This amount was over and above the range recommenced by our remedies guidance and resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.

Putting things right

We have the discretion to make recommendations where we have found reasonable redress or no maladministration.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that the damp and mould impacted the health of the household. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident asked the landlord to change her banding as she wanting to move to another property. In this case, the resident’s concern about the property banding was not the responsibility of the landlord. Choice based letting schemes and an individual’s housing priority and banding within those are a matter for local authorities. Jurisdiction of complaints about local authorities fall under the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As such, we are not able to consider the resident’s property banding.

What we did investigate

8. Between May and October 2023 the landlord received reports of ASB and noise from the resident about her neighbour. The neighbour made counter-allegations about the resident during the same period. During this time the landlord did as follows:
   1. It liaised with the local council about monitoring the reported noise. It gave both parties diary sheets to record and evidence incidents.
   2. It met with the neighbour on three occasions to discuss the reported behaviour. It also met with a number of other neighbours who had become involved.
   3. It reported a threat made against the resident to the police.
   4. It gave both parties a community protection order. This is a written warning to change a pattern of behaviour that is having a negative impact on the local community.
   5. It carried out a joint visit with the council’s environmental health team to both parties.
   6. It explained to the resident the options open to her if she wished to move.
   7. It discussed that it was not responsible for the layout of the plots and boundaries on the estate. It explained to the resident that her section of path was communal so she could not block it with pots to stop her neighbours using it.
   8. It gave all parties a warning about their behaviour following reports of ASB.
   9. As an attempt to resolve the issues between the parties, the landlord offered mediation.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the actions it can take in response to reports of ASB. The actions it took as summarised above, were in line with this policy. It is also apparent  that it tried a number of different approaches to try to prevent an escalation of the behaviour and resolve the issues. The evidence shows it appropriately increased its interventions when it became clear that its earlier actions had not worked. We have seen that the landlord considered the reports made by both parties and responded in an fair and unbiased way in considering that action it could take.
10. Its ASB policy says that it will work with partner agencies where appropriate in response to allegations of ASB. The evidence shows it did so, both with its involvement of the council’s environmental health team about the reported noise and the police in response to a reported threat made against the resident.
11. It’s referral of the parties for mediation was a reasonable step for it to take. Mediation is a tool used across the housing sector as a proactive way to resolve disputes between parties. The resident subsequently declined to take part in this. She made a complaint to the landlord on 22 November 2023 and said as follows:
    1. The address of the property in the tenancy agreement said “lane” not “close”. The tenancy agreement therefore had no legal standing.
    2. The landlord had given her a black and white estate plan. This did not show the shared access rights which should be in yellow.
    3. A neighbour was using her bin storage area.
    4. She had wanted one of the end properties, not one in the middle.
    5. Having no fences at the front of the property was “detrimental”.
    6. She did not want to do mediation as she had done nothing wrong.
    7. She needed “privacy and reduced noise” due to suffering from PTSD. She wanted to move due to the ASB.
12. The landlord encouraged the resident to reconsider mediation and to return the diary sheets as evidence of her reports of ASB. It said until the details around bin storage was clarified, she should store her bins in her garden. These were appropriate suggestions given the landlord’s ASB investigation was ongoing, both in terms of evidence gathering and trying to resolve the situation for all parties while attempting to prevent an escalation.
13. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 and said as follows:
    1. It would ask the resident to sign a new tenancy agreement or deed of variation to adjust the street name. It would also provide a colour copy of the title plan. It apologised for these errors.
    2. It was looking into the issue of bin storage and would confirm this in due course.
    3. In respect to the allocation of the property, the resident had viewed the property. As such, she had known it was joined to others. It had no say about the layout of the site or plot the property was on.
    4. It summarised the action it had taken in respect of the reported ASB.
    5. It explained that the resident could bid on other properties as a means to be rehomed.
14. The response accurately set out the action the landlord had taken in line with its ASB policy and it suggested reasonable interim steps to manage the situation whilst it was clarifying the bin storage. It was reasonable for the landlord address the resident’s concerns around the administrative error with her lease by amending the relevant details in a new agreement.
15. The resident escalated her complaint and said as follows:
    1. She believed there was no shared access across the front of her property but the neighbour had been walking on the area to intimate her. When the resident told the landlord that she would block the area with pots, she said the landlord  shouted and threatened her with disciplinary action.
    2. She would not sign a new tenancy agreement or deed of variation.
    3. She requested compensation.
16. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 and said as follows:
    1. It had asked its legal department for advice about the bin storage.
    2. It was the resident’s decision whether to sign the new tenancy agreement. However, the tenancy terms were implied. It suggested the resident seek legal advice.
    3. It apologised if the resident felt its staff member had raised their voice. It noted the context was that there had been a challenging meeting with differing views around the access rights and ASB.
    4. It advised that the ASB case was still open and it had spoken to the neighbours. It asked the resident to continue to report her concerns and provide evidence. It encouraged her to reconsider mediation and offered an independent mediator.
    5. It explained that she was able to bid for other properties but it did not consider there to be “exceptional circumstances” to need to move. It suggested she could do a home exchange and signposted her to a relevant website.
    6. It acknowledged there had been issues with clarity over access and that the resident had experienced issues with the neighbours. As such it offered a goodwill gesture of £750.
17. The landlord’s response was thorough and covered the issues complained about. It was appropriate for it to refer the bin storage dispute to its legal team who were in a position to clarify this. It appropriately signposted the resident to seek her own legal advice over her concerns about the amended tenancy agreement.
18. The landlord acknowledged that there had been errors in respect of the property information. It also acknowledged that the resident had not had a positive experience with the neighbours. Although we have not identified any failures in how the landlord responded to the reports of ASB, it offered compensation as a goodwill gesture to acknowledge the effect of the situation on the resident.
19. We have noted that following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the resident moved to another property. This was one of the things she had requested as an outcome to her complaint.
20. When failures are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
21. The landlord considered the overall effect of its failures on the resident and offered her £750. This was within a range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where there were failures which had a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident. This was an appropriate level of compensation, which was proportionate to the landlord’s identified failings.
22. In conclusion, our investigation has found that the landlord has provided appropriate compensation to put right the failings identified. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to ASB and communal access. This means the landlord made an offer to the resident which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will subsequently respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
24. The resident made a complaint on 22 November 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 4 December 2023. This was 8 working days from the date of the complaint, so in line with its stated timeframe.
25. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged this in line with its timeframe on 18 December 2023. It advised it would respond by 23 January 2024. It subsequently sent the stage 2 response on 23 January 2024. Although this was 3 working days over its published response timeframe, it was the date the landlord had given. We acknowledge that there was an ongoing ASB case, along with other queries which it had referred to its legal team. In the circumstances, this timeframe was reasonable and did not substantially inconvenience the resident. As such, this leads to a finding of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.

Communication

27. The landlord demonstrated effective and proactive communication with the resident.