Chisel Limited (202112550)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112550

Chisel Limited

24 October 2022

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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy started on 2 January 2006. The property is a one bedroom terraced house.
On 20 January 2020, the resident reported an incident that happened on 18 January 2020 whereby his neighbour had shouted at him and a visitor, about the visitor having parked their car outside his property. The neighbour shouted and swore at them and walked off. The neighbour then sent the resident (copied into the landlord) an email on the same day threatening to take “effective action” against anyone parking causing an obstruction. The resident said this behaviour was ASB/criminal and he asked the landlord what the process was going forward.
In its response dated 23 January 2020, the landlord advised it had referred this incident to the local community officers and had requested a meeting with them the following week to discuss their options. It said it would request a cautionary visit to the neighbour and it provide an update once it had met with community officers. In a response sent to the landlord on the same date the resident advised that he reported the incident but queried if this type of behaviour by his neighbour amounted to a breach of his tenancy agreement.
On 25 January 2020, the resident sent the landlord a statement from his visitor regarding the alleged incident that occurred on 18 January 2020. This was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day.
On 30 January 2020, the resident reported a further incident whereby his neighbour started shouting and swearing at him as he left his property for work that morning. The resident told the landlord this was intimidating behaviour and that he expected a robust response from the landlord.
On 28 May 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that he had received an email from his neighbour accusing him of acting in a racist manner when he urinated against another neighbour’s wall. The resident said this was a malicious allegation.
The landlord has supplied the resident’s log of ASB incidents reported to it which says the resident received an unsolicited email from the neighbour on 30 May 2020.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 June 2020 referring to its contact with the police that it said did not consider the neighbour’s behaviour a crime. It said the officer had spoken to the resident and that the officer had advised that any incidents must be reported at the time of the incident. The landlord advised the resident to forward any details or threats to police. It said if at any point he or his partner felt threatened, they should dial 999 immediately. It provided contact details for the police officer whom it had been in communication with regarding the incident as well as its own contact details.
On 3 June 2020, the landlord asked the resident to provide a written statement regarding the incident with his neighbour.
The resident’s log of ASB reports indicates that on 8 June 2020 the resident reported that the neighbour had come up to his house and taken photos whilst he was receiving deliveries.
On 22 June 2020, the landlord asked the resident to provide a written statement regarding the incident with his neighbour as it had not yet received this. It could not move his case forward without knowing the facts. If it did not hear from him by 1 July 2020, it would be closing this complaint.
On 23 June 2020, the resident replied explaining that he did not understand what was required as he had already shared the unsolicited email as evidence of the harassment he was being subjected to. He had also submitted numerous other incidents and a witness statement. He asked for the landlord to call him.
On 25 June 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding its response to his reports of “targeted harassment”. He advised that he had been subjected to repeated acts of intimidation and harassment since earlier in the year and this had extended to guests and visitors. He and his visitor had supplied written statements regarding the verbal assault on a visitor in January 2020. He then logged another incident some weeks later. The landlord had not followed up with him about this. He also referred to the unsolicited email dated 28 May 2021 calling him a racist and reiterated this was threatening behaviour. His race was mentioned in the email and so constituted harassment and a potential hate crime.
The resident also reiterated his previous report of the neighbour taking photos of the delivery van. He said his partner felt unsafe yet the landlord told him to call the police; that is not a good enough response from the landlord. It is affecting his quality of life yet it was being ignored by the landlord. He referred to its complaint policy requesting a response be provided within three days.
On 1 July 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and advised it would be passed to the Secretary to respond to him accordingly. It asked him to provide a statement as to whether the urination incident with the neighbour occurred as stated in the neighbour’s email to him. It was trying to understand what had fuelled this attack.
The resident’s log of ASB reports indicates that on 12 July 2020 he reported that the neighbour was outside of his house staring and pointing at his property. Further, that on 16 July 2020, he received an email from the neighbour which he found “meaningless but intrusive”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 July 2020 and 18 August 2020 to chase up its response to his complaint.
On 17 September 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that he had been violently attacked by his neighbour. On 18 September 2020, resident forwarded an email he received from neighbour who admitted attacking him but claimed he was provoked.
The landlord interviewed the resident on 17 September 2020. This Service has not been provided with any notes of discussions between the parties at this time.
The landlord subsequently engaged a specialist organisation to provide it with support to manage the resident’s and one other ASB case. This organisation issued a report on 26 October 2020 which has been shared to the Ombudsman. This report amongst other things, made a number of recommendations including mediation, a Neighbour Agreement or as an alternative issuing an individual Acceptable Behaviour Contract. This report also encouraged use of logs and said parties should have written confirmation of all information discussed, including action plans and realistic and achievable timescale. It also stated that the attack on 17 September 2020 alone would not be enough to secure an injunction against the alleged perpetrator.
On 12 November 2020, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response. It apologised for failing to reply in a timely manner. It referred to its interview with him on 17 September 2020 and to agreeing to outline a plan to deal with his complaint. It advised that it had “in hand” mediation work. It also acknowledged that improvements to its services were needed and said that the Board had considered options that would contribute to improvements to the service and had agreed the following:
1. engaging specialist support from an organisation. They had been asked to act in a non-legal capacity to support the staff team manage anti-social behaviour caseloads and promote best practice.
2. participating in a complaint handling accreditation framework that would promote best practice and model complaints handling in accordance with Ombudsman guidelines.
3. the recruitment of an additional full-time housing officer. The Housing Officer will be employed 5 days per week and will support the team deliver improvements to the service to tenants.
On 17 November 2020, the resident asked the landlord for a response to his points including:
1. What action had been taken in regard to the neighbour.
2. Dates it gave for the specialist organisation to contact him had been missed.
3. He was following up with the police in regards to the incident on 17 September 2020 but he was surprised the landlord had not given him any feedback about how it was managing its role in the investigation. He asked if it was liaising with the police about the assault or if he was expected to. He referred to the police’s request for witness statements from workmen who witnessed the assault and asked if the landlord had sent these.
On 17 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s response and reiterated the Board had agreed to engage specialist support and advised that the next step was mediation and said that the specialist organisation had written to him.
On 3 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident referencing that he had declined the mediation service offered. It acknowledged his request for a Panel Review and said as per the complaints process, he would need to clearly inform it of why he was still unhappy and what further resolution he was seeking.
On 22 December 2020, the resident’s incident log reported that his neighbour had banged on his door and walked away. The resident stated that he felt upset and under threat again and that it was another attempt at harassment and intimidation.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord provided a response from its Chair however this Service has not been provided with this email.
On 16 February 2021, the landlord asked the resident to provide a log of any further incidents.
On 26 February 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and said that further to their 18 February telephone call, it was writing to him to set out further steps it would take to improve the situation with his neighbour. It referenced discussing that the landlord had confirmed in its 13 January 2021 response that his complaint had been upheld.
It also said that according to legal advice received, following the incident that occurred in September 2020, the potential remedy of an injunction against his neighbour would be difficult to obtain. However, it had taken appropriate and proportionate action in relation to his neighbour although it was unable to share details with him due to data protection rules.
The landlord also advised that following a consultation with tenants, it intended to introduce a Good Neighbour Agreement for his road. It would encourage residents to raise any concerns they might have with their new Housing Officer and said that any received would be investigated. Furthermore, it said if anyone felt intimidated, they could contact it.
On 9 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising he was dissatisfied with its handling of his complaint and no remedy to the ASB had been provided. He said no one had liaised with him around the Good Neighbour Scheme referenced. He asked whether because the landlord had upheld his complaint, it would be taking any further action. He said he was not relying solely on ‘injunction’ grounds’ for escalation of his complaint.
He had supplied logs with corroboration detailing threats, verbal attacks and imitation to his guests (a witness statement) and an assault on himself (witness statement), he asked what further corroboration was needed. He said the landlord had never approached him or the witnesses to the assault for a formal statement. He advised he had spoken to the police that day and the neighbour had been charged and cautioned for assault on 3 February 2021.
On 19 March 2021, the landlord provided a final response to the resident. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its protection of his safety and decision not to escalate his complaint. It states that since the altercation on 17 September 2020, no further incidents had been reported except for minor incidents reported in his 16 February 2021 email but said these were not sufficient grounds for it to take further action.
It said it had explained its concerns about seeking an injunction at that time given that no further incidents or immediate safety concerns had been reported. It reiterated that a sanction had been taken against his neighbour but it was unable to share details with him. Therefore, on this basis, his complaint was not escalated as resolution sought had been met in part except for his request for injunction which had been explained.
It agreed that the delays in responding to questions during the investigation and post-determination of his complaint were unacceptable and for this it apologised.
It explained that the Good Neighbourhood Agreement had not commenced and had not been finalised. It would be compiled following consultation with residents on his road to ensure it reflected and incorporated the views and sentiments expressed by all tenants. It said that his new Housing Officer, would be leading on this together with the support of its new interim housing operations manager. It fully appreciated this had been a difficult experience for him and said it remained committed to supporting him.
On 29 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about its refusal to respond to key questions raised in his 9 March 2021 email. It has not answered his questions about its assessment of the risk and it had not acknowledged his advice that the neighbour had been cautioned on 3 February 2021.Despite all the evidence he had supplied it felt like there was no appetite to deal with this.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a further final complaint response. It acknowledged that his request for a Panel Review hearing was refused as his stage one complaint was upheld and the resolution he sought had been met in part which was the sanction of his neighbour. It reiterated that an injunction was not warranted given that there were no immediate safety concerns and no current incidents.
The landlord responded to outstanding points made in his 9 March 2021 communication including:
1. His query about whether it was taking any further action as per its ASB or Harassment policy – it had requested that he provide logs of incidents that detailed any continued harassment however this had not been received consequently no action could be considered.
2. He had supplied logs and evidence of threats, verbal attacks, intimidation to his guests and an assault on himself and asked what else did the landlord need – the log submitted detailed incidents during the period 31 May 2019 to 22 December 2020, including the incident of the 18 September 2020 were considered. A sanction was imposed against his neighbour. He had not provided details of further incidents as referenced above.
It repeated advice given in its 19 March 2021 regarding the Good Neighbourhood Agreement and that his new Housing Officer, would be leading on this. It advised it was closing his complaint and that he could escalate his complaint to this Service.
In its response to this Service’s evidence request, on 16 December 2021, the landlord explained the staffing issues it had been experiencing since the complaint period. It also provided details of internal organisational changes that it was currently implementing in order to improve its complaint handling and the way it deals with ASB.
It also referenced the recommendations made in the report dated 26 October 2020 and said recommendations made for mediation, a Neighbour Agreement and Acceptable Behaviour Contract, were declined by the parties. It also referenced advice given in the report explained that it was highly unlikely that an application to the court for an injunction would have been successful.

Policies and tenancy terms

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, a tenant must not cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours and must not commit any form of harassment.
The landlord Harassment policy states it will not tolerate any kind of harassment and it will provide support and advice to tenants who are subjected to harassment. It states that its ASB policy explains how it deal with harassment.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that ASB includes violence or threats of violence by residents and harassment and intimidation by a resident, family member, visitor where it affects other members of the community. It will categorise ASB into 3 categories, with a response time of: 1 working day for Priority A cases which includes actual violence or threats of violence and racial or any other form of harassment including hate crime; Priority B cases with a response time of 7 working days which include serious or on-going intimidating behaviour and; Priority C cases with a response time of 15 working days.
Further, for all cases of ASB that are reported, the landlord will set up an agreed action plan with the complainant for how the case would be handled and will keep them informed of actions taken throughout the process; this will normally be monthly but may be weekly for serious cases.
It believes that prompt, appropriate and decisive action is essential to deal with ASB before it escalates, with a strong focus on resolving the problem positively for all parties whilst having regard to the full range of tools and legal powers available.
Within its policy the landlord commits to multi-agency working to tackle ASB and states it will:
1. work in partnership with the police, local authorities and other landlords and agencies to find positive ways of dealing with ASB.
2. look to signpost perpetrators of ASB who are vulnerable themselves to specialist agencies and support services.
3. treat all complaints of anti-social behaviour seriously and wherever possible work with all parties to try and find a positive solution.
4. ensure its actions are prompt, firm and proportionate to the nature of the problem.
5. use all legal remedies available to it when other options have failed or are inappropriate.
6. ensure that residents are made aware of their responsibilities and rights in relation to ASB.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.

The Ombudsman’s role is to examine whether the landlord’s acted in accordance with its own policies or reasonably when responding to reports of ASB rather than assess if the allegations themselves constitute ASB or harassment.
The landlord is a small housing association and it told this Service in December 2021 that during the period of the complaint it was experiencing internal issues including difficulties filling roles such the Chief Executive. The Transformation Plan the landlord supplied to this Service details organisational changes it is currently implementing in order to improve its complaint handling and the way it deals with ASB. Whilst this may indicate it has reviewed and learned lessons from the resident’s case, as this investigation primarily focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from January 2020 until April 2021 that were considered in the landlord’s complaint responses, only its actions taken during this timeframe have been assessed.
Whilst this review found that the landlord took some appropriate action when responding to the resident’s allegations of ASB and harassment by his neighbour, who is also a tenant of the landlord, overall, its response to the resident’s allegations did not reach the expected standard as key aspects of its ASB policy were not followed.
The first incident reported by the resident on 18 January 2020 concerned alleged swearing and shouting from the neighbour directed at both the resident and a guest whilst they were parked outside of the resident’s house. The neighbour then sent the resident (copied into the landlord) an email on the same date threatening to take “effective action” against anyone parking causing an obstruction. To support his complaint, the resident provided the landlord with a witness statement from his visitor. There is no evidence to show the landlord assessed the priority of this allegation or agreed an action plan with the resident for how the case would be handled or of it contacting the neighbour to interview them about their behaviour. This indicates a failure by the landlord to follow requirements set out in its ASB policy.
Its response however to the resident at this time indicates the landlord had been in communication with local community police officers as it told the resident it had requested a meeting with them to “discuss options”. It advised the resident that it would request a cautionary visit by the police to the neighbour and provide an update once it had met with community officers.
Its contact with the police regarding the incident was in accordance with its ASB policy which advocates a “multi-agency” approach to preventing ASB. However, there is no evidence of the landlord providing any update to the resident in regards to these actions as promised. Further, there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took any further action itself in relation to this incident or the next incident reported by the resident on 30 January 2020 involving a further allegations of being sworn and shouted at by the neighbour. As such, its response to the resident’s reports up to this point was inadequate.
When the resident forwarded to the landlord a further email he received from the neighbour on 28 May 2020 that he considered was “malicious”, the landlord asked the resident to respond to an allegation made by the neighbour within the email that the resident had acted in a racist manner by urinating on a different neighbour’s wall. On balance, the landlord’s request was reasonable as gaining an understanding of the perspectives of both the complainant and the alleged perpetrator, enables it to decide the most appropriate course of action to follow, although it is unclear in this case if the neighbour had raised a complaint about the resident.
However, given the nature of the neighbour’s email sent to the resident which mentioned the resident’s race, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have also contacted the neighbour to ask for their response to the resident’s complaint, in order for it to effectively assess if action was needed to help prevent the issue escalating. However, this Service had not seen any evidence of this or of the landlord reminding the neighbour of their responsibilities under the tenancy agreement. Whilst not specifically mentioned in the landlord’s ASB policy, tenancy warning letters are commonly used by landlords when dealing with ASB allegations and such action may have reduced the possibility of the further incidents.
The resident had reported this incident to the police and the landlord was in communication with them regarding this, however, it told the resident that the police did not deem the neighbour’s behaviour as a crime. Whilst by liaising with the police the landlord acted appropriately, generally landlords are responsible for considering what action it needs to take, if any, in accordance with its own policies, regardless of the outcome of any investigation by the police. On balance, the lack of any steps taken by the landlord to address the situation itself at this stage shows a failure by the landlord to follow its ASB policy or act reasonably when handling the resident’s reports.
On 17 September 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that he had been violently attacked by his neighbour on 18 September 2020 and he forwarded an email he received from the neighbour who admitted attacking him although claimed he was provoked. Whilst the landlord interviewed the resident there is no evidence to show that the landlord either: carried out a risk assessment; agreed an action plan with the resident or; contacted the neighbour in regards to the incident. Given the nature of the allegation, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to take prompt action and consider if it needed to put in place appropriate support for the resident (and potentially the neighbour), as per its ASB policy which promotes multi-agency working including with support services where relevant. Therefore, its failure to do so constitutes further evidence of the service provided by the landlord not reaching the expected standard.
Whilst it is clear that the landlord was in communication with the police following this incident, this Service has not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate any ongoing contact with the police. It is noted that in a subsequent email to the landlord dated 29 March 2021, the resident told it that he had received confirmation from the police that the neighbour was issued a caution by the police on 3 February 2021.
Following the incident on 17 September 2020, the landlord did engage a ‘specialist organisation’ to provide it with support to manage the resident’s and one other ASB case. This organisation issued a report on 26 October 2020 which amongst other things, made a number of recommendations including to consider use of mediation, issuing a Neighbourhood Agreement or as an alternative issuing an individual Acceptable Behaviour Contract. The report also recommended that the landlord keep a record if they refused to sign which could be produced if legal action was then taken.
The landlord’s appointment of this third party shows it was proactive about seeking assistance with handling the resident’s ASB complaint more effectively. In its stage one response dated 12 November 2020, the landlord referenced the support it was receiving from this organisation and referred to other internal changes such as the recruitment of a full-time housing officer and advised that it “had in hand” mediation work. However, whilst in its subsequent communication with the resident it said he had refused mediation, the landlord did not respond to this Service’s request for evidence of this.
Further, whilst the landlord later told the resident that it intended to get all parties to sign a Good Behaviour Agreement to promote amicable engagement with each other, as at the dates of its 19 March 2021 response and final complaint response of 9 April 2021, the landlord told the resident this had not been finalised. The landlord has since told this Service that “complainants” had declined to sign this or an Acceptable Behavioural contract.
In terms of the landlord taking action against the neighbour following the attack on 17 September 2020, when queried by the resident, in its response of 26 February 2021, it said it would be difficult to obtain an injunction against the neighbour for this. In its final response of 9 April 2021, it said as there had been no further incidents or immediate safety concerns, this action was not warranted. The landlord however advised the resident that it had taken appropriate and proportionate action in relation to his neighbour however said that it could not share the details of this as this would amount to a breach of data protection laws. The landlord has a responsibility to protect tenants’ personal data as such its response in this regard was reasonable, however, as the landlord has not responded to this Service’s request for details of the sanction referred to, we have been unable to verify that it took appropriate and proportionate action against his neighbour.
In summary, the landlord did not take sufficient or prompt action in response the resident’s ASB and harassment reports and its failure to carry out any risk assessments shows it did not take seriously the safety of the resident and potentially the neighbour. Its engagement of a specialist organisation to help it manage the resident’s ASB case was an appropriate step in improving its response, however this only happened after the resident reported the attack of 17 September 2020, as such, this could have happened earlier.
Furthermore, whilst there is some evidence to show it followed some of the recommendations made by this organisation such as asking the resident to keep a log of incidents, there is a lack of evidence to show the suggestions for use of mediation, a Good Neighbourhood Agreement and an Acceptable Behavioural contract were sufficiently progressed by the landlord. Overall, the landlord did not take the resident’s reports and associated complaint sufficiently serious.
Within its responses to the resident, the landlord did acknowledge that there were delays in answering some of his points raised. However, it did not acknowledge the majority of the failures found in this review and it did not offer the resident compensation for stress and inconvenience which would have been appropriate in the circumstances.

Complaint Handling

The landlord complaints policy states if the complaint cannot be resolved to their satisfaction within 3 working days, it will treated as a formal complaint and the contact the resident within 5 days to clarify the issues, identify the desired outcome and agree a timescale for the response. It will then investigate the complaint and provide an outcome letter within the timescale agreed.
Its policy states that if residents feels the landlord has not dealt with their complaint satisfactorily, they can ask for a Panel Review. On receipt of a request to escalate a complaint to Stage 2, a complaints panel will be convened within 21 days of receipt of the request. If a complaint has been upheld at Stage 1, it will not be escalated to a Panel Review unless the resident clearly informs it of why they are still unhappy and what further resolution they are seeking.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 25 June 2020 and the landlord did not provide a stage one complaint response until 12 November 2020. There is no evidence of it agreeing this timescale for its response. Therefore the lengthy delay in issuing its response constitutes evidence of it failing to follow the timescales in its complaints process.
Furthermore, despite the resident requesting that his complaint is escalated to stage two for a Panel Review, the landlord refused to do so on the basis that his complaint had been partially upheld at stage one, due to the sanction taken against the neighbour. Its stage one complaint response does not state it was upholding his complaint nor mentions a sanction. In any event the parties remained in communication in regards to the substantive complaint for more than four months after the resident’s initial escalation request until it issued final responses on 19 March and 9 April 2021 which signposted the resident to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took some appropriate steps when responding to the resident’s ASB reports for example, liaising with the police in regards to the incidents reported. However, it failed to follow key aspects of its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports over a prolonged timeframe indicating it did not take the resident’s safety sufficiently seriously.
The landlord unreasonably delayed with providing its stage one response and did not provide sufficiently clear reasoning for not escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two. Due to this and it continuing to provide responses in regards to the substantive issue over the subsequent four months until the landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman, this prolonged the complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Provides an apology to the resident for the service failures identified in this investigation.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £500 based on:
  1. £350 for failing to effectively handle his ASB complaints.
  2. £150 for complaint handling failures.
3. Review the service failures identified in this report and explain to the Ombudsman how it will ensure the effective handling ASB complaints going forward.
4. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.