Yorkshire Housing Limited (202312628)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312628

Yorkshire Housing Limited

25 February 2025

(amended 21 March 2025)

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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident was the assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat, and the landlord is a housing association. The landlord’s records say the resident is vulnerable and registered disabled. A representative has assisted the resident with this complaint. For the purposes of this report, unless we need to specify, all communications from the resident and her representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
4. The resident reported her neighbour (the neighbour) for ASB on various occasions in 2021. The landlord issued warnings and applied for an injunction against the neighbour. In July 2021, the court issued the injunction which banned the neighbour from threatening or abusive behaviour and playing loud music for a year.
5. The resident made several reports of noise and ASB over the next few months and the landlord investigated and issued warnings to the neighbour. After February 2022, there is no record of any further reports of noise or ASB for 6 months. The injunction expired in July 2022.
6. The resident made further reports of ASB in August 2022 and the landlord investigated but found the neighbour’s actions did not amount to ASB. The resident asked to be moved to another property and the landlord forwarded the case to its managed move team on 23 August 2022.
7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 August 2022 saying she was disappointed that it had not responded to her emails over the previous 3 weeks. The landlord apologised and offered a meeting to discuss unresolved issues. On 6 September 2022 the resident declined this meeting due to ill health.
8. The resident continued to report incidents of ASB and noise and the landlord asked her to record incidents of noise on its noise app. It also attended the property on 25 October 2022 to listen to the noise. The resident chased any follow up to this meeting on 15 November 2022 and advised that ASB and noise continued and it had failed to resolve it in line with its ASB policy.
9. On 11 January 2023 the resident complained formally about a lack of action on her case. She provided a list of further incidents of ASB and noise nuisance and said the landlord:
   1. Had not told her when the injunction expired, which was unprofessional.
   2. Had taken too long to review her case.
   3. Failed to respond to emails in August 2022.
   4. Failed to update her after the meeting of 25 October 2022.
   5. Should move her as her mental health was deteriorating and she was too scared to go to the property.
10. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 30 January 2023. It said:
    1. When the injunction ended the resident had made no reports of ASB or noise for 6 months, so there were no grounds to mention it.
    2. It had taken a while to review her case but this was because of the amount of evidence involved. There had been no service failure.
    3. While it had failed to respond individually to several emails in August 2022, it had apologised and offered to meet the resident to discuss any matters raised in those emails. She had refused this offer.
    4. During the meeting on 25 October 2022 staff had told the resident that the noise did not amount to a nuisance and they would take no further action. There had been no need for further feedback, but it apologised for a lack of clarity that caused confusion.
    5. It could not offer her a new property, but she could apply to the council as it would be more likely to be able to help her.
    6. Having reviewed the evidence gathered from the most recent noise recordings, it had found they did not amount to noise nuisance. It offered mediation if the resident would like it.
11. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 February 2023, saying the landlord had failed to follow its ASB policy by not taking prompt action against the neighbour. She repeated that: it should have told her when the injunction ended; officers had said they would contact her after the meeting on 25 October 2022; and she wanted to be moved.
12. The landlord began to investigate at stage 2. In March 2023, the resident approached her MP who became involved in her case. On 21 March 2023, the landlord told her it had “stopped the clock” on the complaint to gather further evidence. The resident continued to report incidents of noise and ASB.
13. In late May 2023, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of alternative accommodation and left the property.
14. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 7 June 2023 it said the resident’s main reason for escalating her complaint was the lack of a follow-up call after the October 2022 meeting, which it had already apologised for. It had investigated all reports of ASB made since stage 2 and found they did not amount to ASB.
15. The resident was not satisfied with this response and brought her complaint to us. She would like the landlord to apologise and pay compensation as she had paid for private counselling because of the ASB and lived in her car for months as it was not safe to be at the property. She also incurred costs in moving house as a result of the managed move.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s reports of ASB

16. In cases involving ASB and noise, it is not our role to determine whether any ASB, threats or noise occurred, or the severity of those issues. Instead, we assess how a landlord dealt with the reports to decide whether it followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably in all the circumstances.
17. The landlord successfully addressed the neighbour’s behaviour by obtaining an injunction in July 2021 and the resident made no complaints of ASB between February and August 2022. While she submits that the landlord’s failure to inform her that the injunction had ended in July 2022 was rude and unprofessional, the evidence does not support that. The landlord advised the resident in July 2021 that it had obtained a 1-year injunction, so she was already on notice of when it would end. Further, as there were no recent or ongoing ASB issues at the time, it was reasonable for the landlord to refrain from alerting the resident to the end of the injunction unnecessarily.
18. The resident began reporting incidents again in August 2022 and was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. However, we find that the landlord’s communication was largely polite and helpful. It stated its findings sympathetically and told the resident what evidence it would need to support her allegations. While the resident was clearly frustrated the landlord did not accept that many of her allegations amounted to ASB, its responses were reasonable and fair.
19. The resident said in early August 2022 that the officer had not been in touch with her for several months which she considered to be unacceptable. However, the officer replied that, as she had not reported any ASB for several months, this had not been necessary. We agree that, in the absence of any reports of ASB, there was no need for the landlord to contact the resident.
20. The resident said in an email of 31 August 2022 that she had sent 8 emails between 12 and 23 August 2022 without receiving a reply (no copies provided). However, in the landlord’s email of 12 August 2022 it set out what actions it had taken to deal with her concerns and why it did not believe the neighbour’s acts constituted ASB.
21. We have also seen the landlord’s response to the resident’s email of 31 August 2022 in which it apologised for its failure to respond to her other emails sooner. It explained the reason for that failure, which was that the officer dealing with her case had been involved in several urgent and severe cases of criminal ASB. It then offered to arrange a meeting to discuss her issues so that nothing would be missed. The resident rejected this offer a week later saying that she was too ill.
22. The landlord’s ASB operational procedure in use at the time said it would contact a complainant “at least fortnightly to assess and evaluate the case and to check on any further incidents, updating records accordingly”.  Its ASB policy in use at the time said it would deal with reports of ASB “promptly, proportionately, and effectively, keeping complainants and community updated where appropriate, and using legal remedies where necessary”. The landlord narrowly missed the target of communicating with the resident for 2 weeks between 12 and 31 August 2022. However, this minor failure did not amount to a service failure. It was understandable given the extreme urgency of the officer’s other business.
23. The landlord had already responded fully to the resident’s issues on 12 August 2022. At the time, she was reporting the neighbour for carrying out car repairs in the car park and parking their caravan there. The landlord had advised that it had asked the neighbour to remove the caravan and given him 2 weeks to do so, and that it was not ASB to repair a car in the car park. For these reasons, while it would have been better if the landlord had responded earlier, its response was proportionate.
24. Over the next 2 months, the resident began to report frequent noise nuisance involving hammering, banging, loud music and television. The landlord asked her to provide diary sheets and noise recordings, investigated her reports of ASB (but found no evidence to support them) and asked her to continue to record incidents on the Noise App. These were all appropriate responses. Senior officers of the landlord then visited the property on 25 October 2022 to witness the noise. This was a sensible and proportionate response to her reports and an example of good practice in line with its policy.
25. The resident says the landlord undertook to send her its findings after that meeting, and the landlord disputes this. However, the resident emailed the landlord shortly after the meeting saying it should “come back to us asap with the outline of a plan that you were thinking about”. Therefore, regardless of what was agreed at the meeting, the landlord was promptly put on notice that the resident expected some follow-up. Further, it would be good practice for the landlord to confirm the outcomes of such a meeting in any event, to ensure that expectations were effectively managed and all were clear on any next steps. This omission amounts to a service failure which caused the resident distress.
26. The landlord was also responsible for a further failure over a considerable period to assess the noise from the neighbour’s property. At the landlord’s request, the resident made noise recordings for 2 weeks after the meeting. However, it did not collect the recording device until 21 December 2022 or assess the recordings until 3 January 2023, 10 weeks after the meeting. This was an unacceptable delay and was a further service failure which contributed to the resident’s distress.
27. As part of her complaint, the resident expressed a desire to move as a result of the ASB. The landlord’s allocations policy says “Managed Moves will be considered where there are circumstances that threaten life or seriously affect the safety of a customer. These include exceptional cases of anti-social behaviour and harassment, including serious or targeted hate crimes.”
28. The resident clearly believed herself to be at risk from the neighbour and told the landlord so frequently. However, the landlord found that this was not an exceptional case which would justify offering a managed move. The evidence shows that this decision was one the landlord was entitled to make on the facts. Therefore, there was no service failure in its failure to move the resident.
29. Landlord staff made applications for managed moves on the resident’s behalf but were open with her that they were unlikely to succeed because of the policy. Instead, the landlord advised her to apply to the local council, which has a greater housing stock to draw on, for a move. This was good service on the landlord’s part. Later, in May 2023, the landlord did offer to move the resident. She accepted and this brought an end to her reports of ASB. However, as it had no obligation to make this offer, it was not a service failure that this was not done earlier.
30. It is clear that the resident found this period extremely difficult, and she has advised that it was so distressing she had to live in her car for several months. She blames this situation on the landlord’s failure to control the neighbour’s behaviour. However, it is not our expectation that the landlord should manage its residents’ behaviour on a day-to-day basis and the landlord was not, itself, responsible for any ASB the resident was experiencing.
31. Instead, we have looked at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and acted to reduce the impact of any ASB. In doing so, we have identified that there were positive steps taken by it to investigate and respond to the reports. However, there were also failings which did cause delays and contributed to the resident’s distress and frustration over a period of 2 months. The landlord failed to acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses and did not consider any financial remedy. In our view, the failings amounted to service failure and an award of compensation is warranted to ‘put things right’ in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
32. The landlord’s compensation policy in place at the time separated complaints into 3 categories; low, medium and major impact. This case falls under medium impact where “the events have caused unreasonable inconvenience and the landlord has failed to meet the required standards”. The policy does not set out what levels of compensation would be appropriate for such cases.
33. However, the landlord’s current compensation policy found on its website suggests that awards where there has been a “moderate impact” should result in payments of between £200 and £600. This is an appropriate range which is broadly in line with our own remedies guidance. For that reason, we have chosen a compensation figure in line with this policy. The failures identified in this report fall towards the lower end of that range and we have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200.
34. The resident asked in her complaint to this Service that we should order the landlord to reimburse the costs she incurred when moving to her new home. However, as the landlord was not responsible for any ASB or noise she suffered, it was not because of the landlord that she wanted to move. The landlord merely helped her to do so and the costs were not its responsibility.
35. The resident also says she has incurred expenses because of these events. She says her mental health was severely affected and she required counselling as a result. We cannot say whether there is a causal link between a resident’s health issues and the actions of landlords and we cannot say that the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB led her to require counselling. She may wish to seek legal advice, as legal action may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of her complaint.

Complaint handling

36. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy in place at the time says it should acknowledge formal complaints within 2 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receipt. If a complainant requested an escalation of their complaint, the landlord had to acknowledge this within 2 working days and provide a response within 20 working days of the request.
37. The policy also contained a “stop the clock” provision which said “there may be times where we will extend the timescale of a complaint. In such circumstances and in agreement with the customer, a time extension of up to 10 working days will be approved and the complaint placed on “Stop the Clock”. This extension will be confirmed in writing to the customer”. The policy says longer extensions will be approved where “there is good reason to do so”.
38. The resident complained formally on 11 January 2023. The stage 1 response was issued 14 working days later, just outside the target timescale. The resident then escalated the complaint and this was acknowledged 10 days later, again outside the target timescale.
39. On 17 March 2023, 20 working days after the request, the landlord wrote to the resident saying, “we need more time to investigate the complaint. We’ve paused it; what we call “stop the clock” …. This means it will take longer. When we’re ready to restart, we’ll be in touch”. Informing the resident that it had stopped the clock in this way did not meet the requirements of the policy, as the landlord did not first agree the extension with her. Indeed, she wrote to the landlord after hearing of the delay saying that she was “very disappointed” and she was “unable to leave her home without fear”.
40. A “stop the clock” pause should have lasted no more than 10 days. In fact, the landlord provided the stage 2 response on 7 June 2023, 74 working days after the escalation request. In the interim, there is no record of any attempt by the landlord to explain what was happening to the complaint or to apologise for that delay. Both of these would have been appropriate. During this period the landlord did arrange for the resident to move, but this does not excuse the delay in the complaint handling process.
41. The complaint handling failures identified in this report amount to maladministration. Our guidance on remedies says that awards for maladministration should usually fall between £100 and £1,000 with awards for complaint handing errors usually being lower than those for failures in the landlord’s core services. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £200 compensation for the complaint delays.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Sent a letter to the resident apologising for the failures identified in this decision.
    2. Paid the resident £400 compensation comprising:
       1. £200 for its failures in handling her reports of ASB.
       2. £200 in recognition of its complaint handling errors.