Citizen Housing (202205624)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205624

Citizen Housing

20 December 2023

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports of ASB and harassment made against the resident.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and lives in a ground floor flat. There is a communal garden adjoining the resident’s property that is accessed via a gate to the side of the resident’s property. The windows of the resident’s property overlook the communal garden.
The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident of limited mobility due to health conditions, and having a mental health condition.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 19 July 2021 to report a concern that his neighbour’s dog was fouling in the communal garden. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 July 2021 to get more information following his report and he said:
1. The neighbour (Ms A) allowed her dogs to foul in the communal garden, and she would leave the faeces on a dustpan for several days before disposing of it;
2. Ms A’s dog had jumped onto the ledge of the resident’s window, and had scared one of his visitors;
3. Ms A did not lock the gate after using the communal garden.
The landlord told the resident that it would discuss his concerns with Ms A.
Following a concern raised by a neighbour, the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 July 2021 to confirm the purpose and permitted use of the communal garden. The landlord said that it had received reports that the resident had told other residents that they could only use the garden for a limited amount of time. The landlord advised the resident that the garden was communal and for all residents to use, and asked him to allow others to use the garden.
On 7 October 2021 the resident reported a noise disturbance from Ms A’s dogs due to persistent barking. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 October 2021 to discuss his concerns. The resident reported that the dogs were “whining and barking” everyday from 7am. The landlord said that noise disturbances needed to be reported to the ‘noise team’ and gave him the number.
The police contacted the landlord on 22 November 2021 and said it had been called to a “neighbour dispute”. The police said the resident had reported Ms A’s dogs being left unattended in the communal garden, and had jumped onto his window ledge. The police advised it had spoken to both parties concerning the dispute.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 November 2021 and said:
1. It was writing to him following his recent report about Ms A’s dogs to the police;
2. It needed evidence of the dogs being left unattended in the communal area before it could take action. It had spoken to Ms A on several occasions about his concerns, and it currently had no evidence to support what he was reporting;
3. The resident’s concerns about noise disturbance from the dogs, due to them being left unattended, needed to be reported to the noise team so that evidence could be obtained;
4. It gave phone numbers for the local dog warden and the local authority customer services.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 December 2021 to supply evidence in support of a report of ASB against Ms A, in particular her dogs, and that Ms A had verbally abused him in relation to his disability. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the evidence on the same day, and wrote to the resident on 13 December 2021, and said:
1. It had reviewed the video evidence and diary sheets he had provided and decided to open an ASB case;
2. It had supplied more diary sheets and asked that he continue to complete them, and gave advice about recording specific dates and times of incidents;
3. It had created an action plan and provided it with the letter, it asked the resident to sign the plan and return it;
4. It advised the resident that if he has been a victim of a crime it should be reported to the police, and provide the landlord with the crime reference number, it would then contact the police to discuss the concern;
5. Due to the resident’s concerns about hate crime, it gave advice about how the resident could report hate crime to the police.
The resident submitted diary sheets to the landlord on 8 January 2022 which stated that Ms A’s dogs were left unattended and off the lead in the garden on 3, 8, 9 and 11 January 2022. The landlord contacted the dog warden on 18 January 2022 and asked it to visit Ms A, following the reports made by the resident. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 March 2022 to inform him it was closing the ASB case.
The resident sent email correspondence dated 11 January 2022 in which the resident requested contact from the landlord in order to “upload evidence” which the resident had collected.
On 20 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about its handling of his reports of ASB, and said:
1. Its decision to close the ASB case was based on “false evidence”;
2. The ASB case should not have been closed because Ms A was still leaving the dogs unattended in the garden and they were often outside his window, which meant his bedroom was “uninhabitable”;
3. Ms A had been told by the landlord to keep her dogs on a lead, but was not doing so.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 June 2022, and said:
1. It had closed the ASB case on 1 March 2022 after an investigation into his reports about the neighbour’s dogs;
2. It had spoken to Ms A who had said she kept the dogs on leads as much as possible and tried to clean up after them as much possible;
3. Residents were allowed to use the communal gardens for pets, as long as they were “reasonably controlled”;
4. The resident had refused mediation with Ms A, and it encouraged him to reconsider this as it was of the view it was the most appropriate way to resolve such issues;
5. Given this was the first time the resident had raised a concern since the ASB case was closed in March 2022, it was not going to reopen the case;
6. It would conduct an unannounced visit to the property to see if the dogs were causing a nuisance;
7. It asked the resident to continue to complete diary sheets, to enable it to have up to date information about any incidents that occurred. It would continue to review any evidence submitted by the resident, and decide on the next steps.
The resident contacted this Service on 27 June 2022 and said that he had raised a complaint with the landlord about its handling of the ASB case, but had not had a response from the landlord. This Service wrote to the landlord on 29 June 2022 and asked it to open a stage 1 complaint. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2022, and said:
1. It reiterated much of the content of its letter of 24 June 2022, outlining the actions it had taken in the case;
2. It had only received 2 diary sheets which indicated 5 times the dogs were in the garden off the lead and had defecated. It had visited the property and found no issues in relation to the dogs;
3. It had closed the case on 1 March 2022, as it had received no further complaints regarding the dogs;
4. It reiterated the advice from its letter of 24 June 2022 about mediation, diary sheets, and that it would do an unannounced visit.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2022 and asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2 and said:
1. The landlord was not taking his concerns about ASB seriously;
2. He had experienced verbal abuse from Ms A in relation to his disability, as well as her dogs causing a nuisance;
3. The landlord had “promised” that Ms A would keep her dogs on the lead;
4. The landlord had not acted on diary sheets he had provided;
5. Its comment that he had refused mediation was inaccurate, as he had said he was willing to talk to Ms A about the issues;
6. Due to concerns about safety, he had paid £240 for bars to be fitted to his windows;
7. He continued to experience noise disturbance from the dogs;
8. Ms A had been using his wheelie bin for her dog waste, and had questioned why he had two wheelie bins;
9. The landlord had accused him of “unfounded claims”, and he had been told by the police that the landlord would contact him about the accusations, but it had not.
On 20 July 2021, Ms A made a report of ASB against the resident claiming that he was harassing her, and she had contacted the police.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 August 2022 and said:
1. It had done a number of unannounced visits to the property, and had found no evidence of unaccompanied dogs. The local authority dog warden had also visited and found the same;
2. It had spoken to Ms A at the time of the resident’s reports about her dogs and the use of the communal garden. Ms A disputed the resident’s claims;
3. The evidence the resident had supplied in support of the ASB case did not demonstrate the levels of harassment or nuisance from the dogs that he was alleging;
4. It understood that the issue of the dogs was upsetting and distressing for the resident, but there were instances where it had limited powers to take action;
5. It had been in regular contact with the police regarding the matter, and the police had said it was not taking action against Ms A;
6. The police had also informed the landlord that Ms A had made a counter allegation of harassment against the resident, and suggested that mediation would “be a good solution for both parties”;
7. The police did not offer mediation, only restorative justice, which the resident had declined. It sought an internal mediation service, but they were unavailable. It found that it should have sought alternative sources of mediation and communicated this to the resident. It apologised for its handling of the offer of mediation, and reiterated its offer;
8. The resident had now exhausted its complaint procedure, and it advised how to contact this Service if he was dissatisfied with its response.
The resident contacted this Service on 8 August 2022 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He said that his complaint was unresolved and he felt the landlord had closed the ASB case without properly investigating it.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contacted the landlord on 3 October 2022 and said that the issues with dogs fouling in the communal garden were continuing and there were instances of fly tipping outside his property. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 October 2020 and said:
1. The photo evidence he had provided of dog excrement in the communal garden did not prove that Ms A’s dogs were responsible;
2. It asked the resident to provide evidence that indicated who had been fly tipping outside his property;
3. It would write to all residents in the block asking for any information they had on the reported incidents.
The landlord sent a letter to all residents asking for information in relation to the resident’s allegations on 10 October 2022.
The landlord sent the resident a follow up letter on 14 October 2022 and said it had been contacted by the police following a report the resident made. It had informed the police that it had offered “restorative justice” to the resident on 2 occasions, but he had refused. The landlord said it could not take any action against Ms A, as it had no evidence of any tenancy breach. It “strongly recommended” that the resident consider restorative justice with Ms A, so they could both resolve the issues they were experiencing. Ms A had told it that she was willing to engage with the process in order to try and resolve the dispute.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy states that on receipt of a report of ASB or hate crime the landlord will contact the reporter promptly, and agree an action plan. It says it will challenge and strive to change behaviour relating to ASB. When a resident reports a noise nuisance, the landlord expects residents to report it to the local authority. It says that it will not take action in disputes where it thinks it is more appropriate for neighbours to resolve minor disputes between themselves.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that at stage 1 a complaint will be acknowledged within 3 working days of receipt. The procedure states that if the it recognises it has made a mistake, an offer of compensation may need to be considered.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it can award up to £200 for inconvenience caused by a failure in service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

When the resident first reported a concern about Ms A, her dogs, and her use of the communal gardens in July 2021,the landlord responded promptly and said it would discuss his concerns with Ms A. This was an appropriate initial course of action in the circumstances, as the landlord sought to challenge the behaviour of Ms A that the resident found to be unacceptable. This is evidence that the landlord sought to prevent the situation escalating further, and act as an intermediary between the two parties. Its prompt response is evidence that it took the resident’s concerns seriously, and took action that it deemed appropriate at that time.
When the resident reported a concern about noise disturbance from Ms A’s dogs in October 2021, the landlord advised the resident to report the issue to the noise team at the local authority. This approach was in line with its ASB procedure. The landlord explained that this was in order to gain assistance in getting evidence in support of his case. However, the landlord’s initial response, and its follow up letter of 26 November 2021, did not give any explanation of what the noise team would do to assist him, or what the process involved. Considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, and accepted best practice of a victim centered approach, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been more supportive at this stage. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided greater clarity about the process by giving an explanation of what it involved. It would also have been reasonable taken a more supportive approach by offering assistance in reporting the resident’s concerns about noise disturbance to the local authority, and its approach in this instance was cursory.
After the resident had reported concerns to the police, the landlord wrote to him on 26 November 2021 to outline its position in relation to his concerns. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about its process and explained that it could not take any action without evidence to support his claims. This was a reasonable approach to take, as the landlord acted on concerns raised by the resident and took a supportive approach to outline what he needed to provide in order for it to take action.
On receipt of evidence from the resident, in December 2021, the landlord reviewed it and decided to open an ASB case, which was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord had encouraged the resident to supply evidence to support his claims, and when evidence was provided, it took it seriously and opened a case. The landlord issued the resident with diary sheets to record incidents, and provided an action plan it had agreed with the resident, which was the correct application of its policy, and reasonable in the circumstances.
As the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to facilitate providing further evidence as per his email correspondence dated 11 January 2022, there is a possibility that it could have taken further measures or investigated any potential evidence the resident had at the time. The result of this may have altered the landlord’s decision to close the ASB case in March 2022. Therefore, this constitutes a failing in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding evidence which it had requested, and this would have impacted the resident negatively, as such this was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord reported the resident’s concerns to the local authority dog warden to investigate further, on receipt of diary sheets. This was reasonable, and further evidence that it took the resident’s claims seriously and acted on new information.
Having closed the ASB case in March 2022, due to a lack of evidence and no further reports of issues, the resident raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of the case in June 2022. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about its handling of the case by writing to him and giving an explanation about why it had closed the case, and what it could do to support him further. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about why it had closed the case, and the fact that it did not have enough evidence to open a new case. While this must have been disappointing for the resident, the landlord was clear in its position and explained its reasoning. It took a supportive approach by reiterating its offer of mediation and said that it would continue to monitor the situation.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 3 August 2022, sought to further clarify its position about its handling of the case and why it could not take the action the resident wanted. It explained that it could not evict Ms A, as it had no evidence of a tenancy breach. The stage 2 complaint response handled the resident’s concerns with sensitivity by showing an understanding that he found Ms A’s behaviour distressing, but it did not amount to something it could act upon. This was a fair approach, as it considered the impact the situation was having on the resident, but sought to explain, with sensitivity, why it could not give the outcome he wanted.
The stage 2 complaint response admitted a failing in how the landlord had handled the offer of mediation and how it had communicated with the resident about it. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its identified failing. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered redress in the form of compensation, for the failing. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it may need to consider offering compensation for inconvenience when it finds a failing, and it is unclear why the landlord did not in this case. Even if the landlord did not think that compensation was warranted for its admitted failing, it would have been reasonable for it to give an explanation of why it was not offering compensation. The resident experienced an inconvenience in how the landlord communicated about its offer of mediation, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered compensation for this.
In the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, he said that he had incurred costs, as a result of the ASB he was experiencing. He explained that he had to install bars due to his concerns about safety from the dogs, and this had cost him £240. The landlord’s complaint response was silent on the matter, which was unreasonable. The landlord may have been of the view that it did not need to reimburse the resident for this cost, but it should have at least addressed this concern. The fact that it did not was a failing, for which the resident experienced an inconvenience.
When the resident reported further concerns about ASB in October 2022, the landlord responded appropriately by setting out what evidence it needed the resident to provide, and what action it would take. It told the resident it would ask other residents for information, which it did. This is evidence that it took the fresh reports seriously and sought to investigate the resident’s claims.
The landlord wrote the resident a follow up letter on 14 October 2022 and said that it could not take any action against Ms A without the evidence to support it. It further reiterated its offer of restorative justice, and explained that Ms A wanted to take part. This was an appropriate approach as it sought to encourage the resident to engage with the solution it deemed most appropriate. The landlord’s repeated offer of mediation/restorative justice was appropriate, as both parties had stated they were willing to talk to the other to try and resolve the situation. It is unclear whether the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of mediation, or restorative justice.
When initially reporting ASB, and throughout his complaint, the resident reported that Ms A had been abusive towards him, and the abuse amounted to a hate crime because Ms A had referenced his disability. The landlord took this concern seriously and encouraged him to report the alleged hate crime to the police. This was appropriate as a hate crime is a criminal matter, and the police would be best placed to investigate the matter and take further action as necessary. The landlord also explained, in its stage 2 complaint response, that it had discussed the resident’s concerns with the police throughout. This is evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concern about the alleged abuse seriously, and worked closely with the police when concerns about a hate crime were raised. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about his allegations, by explaining that the police did not intend to take any action against Ms A.
The landlord’s overall approach to the resident’s concerns about ASB, in particular in relation to Ms A’s dogs, was appropriate with exception to a missed opportunity to engage with the resident when the resident requested to share evidence. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about what action it could or could not take in relation to evidence it had. The landlord worked in partnership with the police, and jointly decided that mediation was the most appropriate solution for the dispute. It offered mediation and restorative justice in much of its communication with the resident.
The landlord admitted a failing in its handling of the mediation, and said it should have sought alternatives when its internal capacity for mediation was unavailable. However, it would have been appropriate to offer redress for its admitted failing. The landlord’s approach to reporting noise disturbance was cursory and offered little explanation to the resident about the process. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have adopted a more supportive approach. The landlord’s overall approach to the resident’s reports of ASB was proportionate, but there were several minor failings which caused an adverse effect to the resident. The resident experienced a lack of clarity about reporting noise disturbance, and an inconvenience due to poor communication about the offer of mediation and costs he claimed to have incurred. Additionally, the resident was responded to regarding evidence he had collected and wished to provide. As such, a determination of maladministration has been made, and relevant orders have been made below.

Reports of ASB and harassment made against the resident

In July 2021, the landlord received a report that the resident had refused access to the communal garden. It acted appropriately by writing to the resident and clearly outlining its position, and expectations. The landlord outlined what allegation had been made, and set out its expectations that the garden was for use of all residents and their pets. The tone and content of the landlord’s letter was appropriate and clearly set out its expectations, and its approach to that particular allegation was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation request of, 6 July 2022, said that the landlord had made “unfounded” accusations of harassment against him. It is not disputed that Ms A made counter allegations of harassment against the resident in this case. It is not the role of this Service to establish whether Ms A, or indeed the resident, committed ASB. Rather, the purpose of this investigation is to assess the landlord’s handling of any reports of ASB. This Service has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord accused the resident of committing ASB or harassment, rather it explained to the resident that Ms A had made an allegation against him.
Following the resident’s concern about the allegations of harassment against him, the landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to explain its understanding of the matter. The landlord explained that it had discussed the allegations with the police, and the police were taking no further action against the resident, or Ms A. It explained that the police had suggested mediation between the two parties as being the most appropriate solution to the dispute, which the landlord offered. Its approach was appropriate and clearly outlined its position in relation to the allegations that were made against the resident.

Complaint handling

In June 2022 the resident raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of his ASB case, and expressed his view that it had inappropriately closed the case. The landlord did not open a stage 1 complaint at this stage, which it could reasonably be expected to do. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made, and states a complaint does not need to explicitly say it is a complaint. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at the service he had received, it therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to open a stage 1 complaint at that stage. That it did not was a failing in its complaint handling. Had it opened a complaint, the resident may not have been cost the time and trouble of seeking intervention from this Service to ask the landlord to open a complaint. It is noted that the landlord wrote the resident a letter explaining its handling of the ASB case, but it would have been more appropriate to have done this as a formal complaint response.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint at either stage 1 or 2. It is noted that the landlord has provided automatic replies, sent from its complaints inbox that do acknowledge the receipt of an email into the inbox. However, such emails cannot be considered as a formal acknowledgment of a complaint. The Code states that when acknowledging a complaint, the landlord must set out its understanding of the complaint, and the outcome the resident is seeking. This Service has seen no evidence that landlord did this at either stage of the resident’s complaint, which is a failing in its complaint handling. The resident experienced an inconvenience of the landlord not acknowledging his complaint appropriately, and as such missed an opportunity to ensure the landlord had the correct understanding of his complaint.
It is noted that both the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were sent within the timeframes set out in its procedure and the Code. The landlord’s complaint response, on the whole, addressed the substantive concerns of the resident’s complaint and had consideration for the individual circumstances of the resident. Its stage 2 complaint response in particular showed a sensitivity towards the resident’s circumstances, even though it was not providing the outcome he wanted.
As outlined earlier in this report, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to offer compensation, when it admitted a failing. Its response also failed to address a specific concern the resident had raised about costs he claimed to have incurred. As such, relevant orders have been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and harassment made against the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s overall approach to the resident’s concerns about ASB was appropriate. The landlord was consistent in its requests for evidence and sought to manage the resident’s expectations about what action it could take. The landlord worked in partnership with the police, and decided that mediation was the most appropriate solution for the dispute. It admitted a failing in its handling of the mediation, for which it would have been appropriate to offer redress. The landlord’s approach to reporting noise disturbance was cursory, and offered little explanation to the resident about the process. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concern about costs he claimed to have incurred.
The landlord handled allegations made against the resident appropriately. When initial allegations were made about him blocking access to the garden, it wrote to the resident to outline its expectations. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord itself made allegations against the resident, but did explain it had received allegations made by Ms A. It used its complaint response to clearly outline its understanding that the police were taking no action against the resident, and that both it and the police felt mediation the most appropriate course of action.
The landlord failed to open a complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with an aspect of its service, which would have been appropriate and in line with the Code. The landlord did not formally acknowledge the resident’s complaint, and failed to address specific concerns the resident raised in his stage 2 escalation request. The landlord admitted a failing in its handling of the substantive issue, but failed to offer appropriate redress for this.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pay the resident £450 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB;
  2. £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint;
3. Write to the resident to outline its position in relation to the costs he claimed to have incurred, due to alleged ASB;
4. Contact the resident to discuss his concerns about noise disturbance from Ms A’s dogs, and discuss how it can support him to make a report to the local authority, if he wishes to do so. The landlord should give particular consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities when considering how it can support him in making a report.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to conduct training with its complaint handling staff with a particular focus on:
1. Understanding when to open a formal complaint investigation, in line with the Code;
2. The importance of sending complaint acknowledgments that are compliant with the Code;
3. The importance of offering appropriate redress when a complaint investigation identifies failings.