Clarion Housing Association Limited (202013129)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013129

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 June 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be re-housed under the management transfer process.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a three-bedroom flat on the ground floor in a converted building with his partner and three children. The landlord accepted complaints from both the resident and his partner, therefore the resident and his partner will be referred to in this report as resident A and B respectively. The resident’s neighbours (referred to as neighbour A and B respectively) occupied the flat above. The assured tenancy began on 18 December 2015. It is assumed that the neighbour would have been subject to the same tenancy terms as the resident.

The legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the resident’s obligations included:
1. Not to behave in an anti-social manner (including and not limited to, shouting, swearing, making offensive gestures and banding on walls or ceilings), and parking other than in an authorised parking spaces.
2. To take reasonable steps to ensure that excessive or persistent noise (including noise caused by other occupants) is not caused. Noise included noise that caused a nuisance or annoyance. Laminated hard flooring and lino was not permitted in living rooms and bedrooms above the ground floor.
3. Obtaining the landlord’s permission in writing before keeping a dog or any other animal which could cause a nuisance to neighbours of the premises. The granting and refusal of permission was in the discretion of the landlord but would not be unreasonably refused. Permission could be withdrawn by the landlord on reasonable notice at any time on reasonable grounds. The resident was required to keep any animal allowed on the premises under control at all times. The resident was responsible for the cleaning (including cleaning up faeces from external and internal areas of the property) of any animal kept on the premises.
The landlord’s ASB policy stated that:
1. It took ASB seriously and was committed to tackling it. It took positive action, working closely with partner organisations, to encourage them to take the lead in tackling crime and serious ASB and to ensure a collaborative approach was taken in tackling other forms of ASB.
2. Reports about ball games, disputes over boundary issues, actions which amount to people being unpleasant (e.g., staring at or ignoring people), parking, and other neighbourhood issues were not generally considered to be ASB.
The landlord’s ASB procedure provided as follows:
1. The landlord was to record incidents of ASB and categorise crime as category 1, noise as category 2 and all other forms of ASB, including dog fouling as category 3. Physical violence was considered as urgent and not subject to a threshold requirement. The other categories required several reports within a specified short space of time.
2. If a threshold had not been reached, the landlord should inform the resident that it would only investigate their complaints as ASB if a pattern of bad behaviour had been established and would request they report any further incidents.
3. Where a report was logged as ASB, steps the landlord would take included interviewing the complainant and agreeing an action plan.
4. For all incidents that were crimes, the landlord would ensure the Police were involved.
5. It would give the alleged perpetrator of ASB an opportunity to give their account of the incident.
6. Cases could be closed when the complainant would not try other approaches where there was not enough evidence to take any more formal action. If there was evidence of continuing ASB, the landlord would consider giving a tenancy warning to the perpetrator and/or consider the use of an “Acceptable Behaviour Contract” (ABC).
Under the management transfer policy, while there was a significant demand for social housing, the landlord recognised, in exceptional circumstances, that it may be necessary to try and urgently rehouse a tenant outside of its allocations criteria due to a serious threat to their personal safety. The landlord would transfer a tenant to another property where the resident was experiencing serious anti-social behaviour or harassment that put their life at risk or domestic abuse. It reserved the right to refuse a management transfer despite the eligibility criteria being met, where the tenant was actively involved in gang–related violence or other gang related anti-social behaviour or criminal activity and it was concerned that the move would have a significant and adverse effect on the community to which the tenant/ household would be moved. Management transfers were only to be considered if the Police confirmed in writing that there was a serious risk or threat to the tenant or their family that meant it was no longer safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at the property and there was a realistic chance of a suitable property becoming available quickly.
Under the landlord’s data protection/CCTV policy, reviewed in June 2021, the landlord recognised the benefits of CCTV including the prevention and detection of crime and to assist with civil claims, increase security, and the feeling of safety. It also recognised the implications for the privacy of individuals. In relation to tenants installing CCCTV, residents needed to request permission and submit a plan. Permission would be given in writing. Cameras were to be fitted in accordance with their neighbours’ rights to privacy; not directed into someone else’s home or property and / or overlook communal areas. It warned that its misuse could lead to criminal and civil sanctions.
The landlord’s “permission’s policy”, reviewed in March 2021, dealt with requests for keeping a pet and fitting laminate flooring. One of the main objectives of the policy, was to ensure residents’ activities did not unduly cause nuisance to other residents and that they were all treated in a fair and equitable way. It would consider the impact of neighbours. It could give retrospective permission but reserved the right to enforce tenancy conditions if it did not give permission. The policy recognised that keeping pets could have significant health and social benefits for their owners. However, irresponsible pet ownership could cause a nuisance to other tenants. It therefore reserved the right to revoke permission to keep pets.
The landlord would not unreasonably deny its tenants from keeping pets but would base its decision on the size and suitability of the property, the number and type of pets to be kept, access to a private garden and the history of any previous pet ownership. Any decision would not set a precedent for future requests.
The landlord would not agree to residents fitting laminate, wood or other types of hard flooring in flats or maisonettes that were above another residential property. This was to avoid creating a noise nuisance for the residents living below and subsequent noise complaints.
Under the compensation policy, the landlord would make an award of £50 to £250 for repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls, failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. An award would rise to £250-£700 where there had been failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with its policy. For example, to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments. It would pay £15 for each failed appointment.

Chronology

The evidence indicated that complaints about ASB began in 2019. In order to be proportionate, the Ombudsman will investigate events from October 2020, six months leading up to the resident’s formal complaint. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord had recorded several sporadic reports in 2019 and 2020 concerning neighbour A and his family members, including allowing dog fouling, staring in an “intimating way”, gestures, filming, banging on the door and “screaming abuse”, crashing doors, and noise along the laminate floor.
During the same period, neighbour A reported resident A driving his motorbikes along the pavement and into their shared gated area.
Both resident A and neighbour A reported an incident that occurred on 14 October 2020 as follows:
1. Resident A reported that the neighbours had left dog faeces in the communal garden area and asked neighbour A to pick it up. This developed into an argument with neighbour A whose daughter assaulted the residents.
2. Neighbour A reported that resident A assaulted him and his daughter.
3. Both parties reported having suffered injuries.
4. Resident A was arrested and subsequently released with no charges. The Police did not take any further action due to there being allegations and counter allegations. Resident A stated that the incidents were recorded.
The landlord contacted neighbour A on 27 November 2020 to discuss both the incident and the reports of dog fouling.
The landlord also telephoned resident A on the same day. The landlord discussed the keeping of motorbikes on common parts and the keeping of pets. The landlord explained there were rules concerning the use of filming and CCTV. Resident A said he had permission to store vehicles at the property and that both households had pets.
The landlord wrote to resident A on 27 November 2020 with an acknowledgement of the resident’s reports and an action plan as follows:
1. It was investigating his reports of ASB. It advised him to avoid confrontation and to report any further incidents.
2. It had found that he had permission for his pet but not permission to park two motorcycles on the landlord’s land or install CCTV. It asked the resident to show this to the visiting housing officer. If the resident did not show the permission, this would indicate he did not have it and he would be deemed to be in breach of his tenancy.
3. It offered an appointment for 2 December 2020 to review the resident’s evidence he had reported as holding on CCTV.
The landlord also wrote to neighbour A on the same day in similar terms in relation to the permissions he held.
The landlord (its housing officer in conjunction with its relevant teams) considered resident A’s request for permission on 2 December 2020 to park his motorbike outside and have CCTV pointing directly at his property. Permission for parking was denied on the basis this would constitute a fire risk. The vehicles should be parked on a road or driveway. As the property consisted of flats, it also refused permission for CCTV unless there was serious ASB and a threat to life. It had a duty to protect the privacy and rights of others who also occupied the building, and it could not guarantee that the camera would only be facing where the bike was to be parked. Moreover, as the bike would not be at the property, there would be no need for CCTV.
On 3 December 2020, resident A reported that the landlord did not attend the appointment to review the CCTV evidence on the day before.
The landlord attended on 4 December 2020. The residents were out. According to its records, it left a voicemail with the residents that permissions they had sought had been refused: motorbikes should be kept on the road due to the petrol and fire risk. Permission to install CCTV was also refused.
On 11 January 2021, resident A reported neighbour A’s daughter’s partner had loitered outside their property, looking at his bikes, and had returned on separate occasions. He also reported the neighbours “deliberately” slamming the communal door and “stomping” up the stairs and in their home. Neighbour B dragged the buggy across the hall shouting abusive language.
The landlord referred the case on 11 January 2021 to its tenancy specialist team.
The landlord telephoned resident A on 12 January 2021 and reminded him he did not have permission to park the bikes at the property. It was its policy that no fuelled vehicles were to be kept on property as this constituted a fire risk. His request for another pet had been denied. Resident A reported that another neighbour had two pets.
On 12 January 2021, there was a further incident. Neighbour A alleged that residents A and B assaulted their daughter and resident A had keys in his hand at the time. Their daughter suffered an injury to her head which required hospital treatment to gashes to her head as a result.
According to resident A, neighbour A’s daughter had “shoulder barged” and head–butted resident B and pushed over the baby buggy while the baby was still in the buggy. Resident B had sustained injuries as a result.
The next day, the landlord telephoned neighbour A whose daughter related her version of the incident. It also spoke to his daughter in relation to resident A’s allegation concerning her partner looking at the motorbikes. The daughter stated that she did not have a partner, and that the bikes were still chained to the wall.
The Police informed the landlord on 14 January 2021 that there was to be a criminal investigation.
The landlord considered granting a management transfer which could be difficult, given resident A occupied a three-bed property and “had a few tenancy breaches”.
On 19 January 2021, the local authority safeguarding team contacted the landlord with concerns that the Police had attended the property twice, there had been physical assaults and injuries sustained by those residents, and a report that a neighbour had pushed over a pram with a one–year-old child in it. Children had been caught in the “crossfire”.
On 21 January 2021, resident A made reports of the neighbours stamping, staring at him and of their dog barking,
The landlord replied on 21 January 2021 to the local authority that there was nothing on the footage to suggest a pram being pushed over or of any child being injured. The altercation was being investigated. The filming did capture the resident A “aggressively” saying “so, you are just going to barge into a woman then”. It explained that it could not move both families and even moving one would be a challenge as they both occupied three-bedroom houses which were in short supply.
Resident B telephoned the landlord to make a complaint on 2 February 2021 that he was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of progress. He said he had written a 3,000-word complaint going over the issues reported.
The landlord logged this as a formal complaint on 5 February 2021 as follows:
1. How the landlord had handled the resident’s reports of dog faeces in the garden and communal areas. The resident explained that this issue with the neighbour’s dog had been ongoing for two years.
2. How the landlord has handled the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from the same neighbours.
On and around 12 February 2021, the landlord considered the motorbikes. One was deemed to be acceptable but not the other, because it was directly on the ‘Means of Escape’ for evacuation. It considered that there was no reason for the bikes to be stored where they were, as the resident could park them on the street. As they were not permitted in the communal area at any time, the resident could be in breach of his tenancy. If they did not comply, the landlord would escalate the matter as a tenancy breach.
According to the landlord’s records of 15 February 2021, it considered two video recordings. One showed resident A mounting the pavement into the front area and not giving a pedestrian time to properly get out of his way. The behaviour was deemed to be unacceptable by a safety officer. The videos showed a disregard for fellow neighbours which needed “to be escalated”. Not only did the second motorbike compromise the main exit but it also effected the basement exit and was not permitted to be parked there. The specific bike needed to be removed and a sign put up stating ‘No parking or obstructing this area is to remain clear as this is part of the Means of Escape enforced under the Fire Safety Order (2005)’.
Resident A reported further incidents on 15 February 2021. They had called 101 four times and had the Police attend the property regarding resident B’s report of the neighbour’s threatening and aggressive behaviour and abuse. The neighbours had shouted alleging their pet had fouled in the garden. He had a video recording of the incident. The neighbour’s son had smashed a set of work ladders into his ring doorbell camera. He then continued to smash the ladders in the communal hallway for several minutes before shouting “aggressive and violent abuse” towards the resident and his partner. Resident A considered the son should not be there as he was not living there, and a lockdown was in place. He also reported the neighbours slamming the doors and stamping up and down the stairs. He considered the neighbour would assault them. The children were “petrified”.
The landlord wrote to the Police on 19 February 2021 enquiring whether there was any intention to pursue charges against resident A for the injuries sustained by neighbour A’s daughter.
The landlord wrote to resident B with its first stage response on 24 February 2021 as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding outside of its target timescale of 10 working days.
2. Resident A was seeking a move to a different property and a different housing officer.
3. In relation to the dog fouling, the resident felt the landlord had not taken effective action to investigate or enforce its ASB policy on the first report some time before. The landlord explained that it had adopted a “partnership approach”, pursuant to its policy, to try to bring about a resolution.
4. In relation to the landlord’s handling of the ASB from her neighbours in the property above, it noted that there was a live case in which resident A was the complainant. There had been a delay in carrying out the initial interview and action plan for which it apologised. The landlord contacted resident A on 27 November 2020 by telephone to discuss the incident. Resident A had inferred that the landlord had placed the blame on him. The case notes did not indicate that was the case. The landlord had arranged to visit resident A on 1 December 2020. It was established that whilst resident A was arrested, the Police took no further action and indicated that both parties were potentially at fault and resident A may have been defending himself.
5. The landlord had liaised with, and had formally requested further information from, the Police regarding their intervention in relation to the reported assault on 12 January 2021. Due to the serious allegations and violent nature of this neighbour dispute, it was reasonable that it awaited further information regarding the ongoing Police investigation and outcome with a view to determining the next course of action.
6. It apologised if the resident felt the response regarding pet permissions was incorrect. The landlord would not unreasonably deny its residents from keeping pets but would base its decision on the size and suitability of the property, the number and type of pets to be kept, access to a private garden and the history of any previous pet ownership. Any decision would not set a precedent for future further requests. In their case, it quoted that “the granting and refusal of permission is in the discretion of the Landlord but would not be unreasonably refused”. As “reported” by the resident, their neighbours “may have” received permission to keep two different types of domestic pets whilst resident B was refused permission to have a second pet dog. This decision would have been reviewed on a case–by–case basis. A request to consider permission for a dog and cat would be considered differently from a separate permission request for two dogs.
7. In relation to the neighbours having laid laminate flooring without permission, which was contributing to noise nuisance related ASB, it was unable to disclose what action if any it was taking, due to data protection. The landlord was unable to conduct home visit inspections due to the Covid 19 Health and Safety regulations. The local authority was unable to assist with noise nuisance monitoring for the same reason.
8. In relation to the request for the landlord to consider a Management Transfer/Move as a resolution to the situation, it appreciated the resident’s concerns for the safety of their children. However, the reported ASB did not meet the threshold for a Management Transfer. A management transfer would only be considered in a small number of circumstances where a tenant was experiencing serious anti-social behaviour, harassment or domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put the tenant or a member of their households’ life at risk. This had to be confirmed in writing by the Police, identifying that it was no longer safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at the property.
9. The landlord had briefly discussed considering a mutual exchange. It tried to arrange a home visit, but home visits were currently on hold, due to Covid 19 restrictions.
10. In relation to the resident’s request to change housing officer, it could see no evidence as to the officer being biased, rude or unprofessional. In the circumstances, there was insufficient cause to reallocate the case to another officer. However, the officer had delegated future verbal communication to another team.
11. It would update the resident after it had received a report from the Police regarding the outcome of their investigations. It invited the resident to continue to report any further incidents of ASB so they could be recorded as evidence if any legal action be required.
12. It offered £50 as compensation payment for its delayed complaint response and would credit this to the resident’s rent account.
13. If the resident were dissatisfied with the response, she should reply within 20 working days explaining why she remained dissatisfied.
Resident B replied on 26 February 2021 that the dog fouling and intentional noise ASB was unresolved although it had been ongoing for over 2 years. The letter contradicted itself stating due to the seriousness and violent nature of the incident, the landlord felt it was reasonable to wait an outcome from the Police, however it was not serious enough to warrant a management transfer.
On 28 February 2021, resident A requested escalation of the complaint to the landlord as follows:
1. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s “final resolution”.
2. He objected to the housing officer’s manager investigating the complaint. The fact that her previous decision regarding permission for his doorbell CCTV and to park his bikes was overturned on appeal demonstrated her “discrimination”.
3. While the landlord confirmed that his reports regarding dog fouling and ASB noise were only being investigated after two and half years, it had written to him about his bike and doorbell, within a week of the neighbour’s complaints.
4. The landlord had not attended to look at his evidence, but it had attended in order to take photos of his doorbell.
5. He had logged two complaints against the officer’s conduct but she was still making relevant decisions and even if the landlord did not agree she had behaved in a biased and unprofessional manner, she should not have been “in charge” after he had made a complaint. He was therefore also making a complaint about a further housing officer who was also dealing with the case.
6. Both the Police and Social Services had stated that resident A needed to be moved for his household’s own safety.
7. He had been told “lies” about the reasons the landlord refused permission for a second pet. He set out different reasons he said the landlord gave: it was that the landlord had a “one pet” policy, he was not allowed a second pet, and, finally, that a cat and a dog is different to two dogs. Another neighbour kept two dogs. Finally, pet permission was granted on a case-by-case basis which his solicitor had advised him was “illegal”.
On 1 March 2021, the landlord telephoned resident A to inform him that there was an ongoing police investigation. If the Police pressed charges against him or the neighbours, this could mean enforcement action in the form of an injunction on either or both sides. Resident A could apply for an exchange. Resident A said the Police case was closed. He had been advised to seek a transfer. He said he had permission for his motorbikes and CCTV doorbell. The resident considered he had been discriminated against given the landlord had not addressed the dog fouling or removal of the laminated flooring upstairs.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour’s daughter on 1 March 2021 to inform her that the Police would not be taking further action. The body video footage evidence showed there had been a physical altercation between the parties. It had been investigated but there was no CCTV that captured any of the incident except the noise of the disturbance. Third party witnesses’ evidence was contradictory and were reluctant to give evidence and it considered the evidence by the parties themselves was insufficient. The landlord did not believe that there was a realistic prospect of conviction to anyone involved due to insufficient evidence. No further action was being taken by the Police.
The landlord spoke to resident A on 3 March 2021 as follows:
1. The landlord was seeking legal advice on applying for injunctions against both parties, as this would protect both parties given the evidence that both parties were involved in the fight. Resident A said he was happy with that.
2. The landlord reassured resident A that it had spoken to a social worker in January 2021. It had made further enquiries with the Police. It had offered a specific email address to the social worker for contact. It had explained to the Police it would not move a perpetrator of ASB. It may consider a management transfer.
3. A “tenancy breach process” had been started for the neighbour’s laminate flooring as well as for resident A’s CCTV installation, outhouse, and storage of motorbikes.
4. Resident A stated that the fire safety team had approved the location of his motorbikes.
5. The landlord advised resident A to ensure that the CCTV installation focused only on their personal property rather than communal parts of the building. Resident A reassured the landlord it did.
6. It would consider installing carpeting at the above property.
On 3 March 2021, the Police advised the landlord that there was a “significant risk of harm”, having advised both households “on numerous occasions” not to engage with one another, “they both seem to continue to do so and words of advice are not being given”.
The landlord wrote to resident A on 3 March 2021 with an acknowledgement and action plan. The action was to contact neighbours, make a joint injunction application, and consider a management move.
The landlord wrote to resident A on 10 March 2021 in response to his complaint dated 17 January 2021 (sic) regarding its handling of ASB and his staff complaint as follows;
1. It apologised for the delay in replying outside its target timescale of 10 working days.
2. In relation to the landlord’s handling of the ASB, resident A had provided some footage of incidents showing dogs fouling in the communal garden at the property.
3. In relation to his report of the neighbour’s dogs fouling in the communal area, the housing officer had written to all the parties involved and encouraged them to contact the landlord to seek permission, retrospectively if required, to keep a dog. The same was also advised in regard to installation of CCTV and the parking of vehicles in the communal parts of the estate. The landlord attempted to investigate these issues on 4 December 2020 but was unable to gain access.
4. The landlord wrote to resident A on 27 November 2020 confirming a proposed action plan and discouraging contact with the neighbours. Its course of action would be informed by liaison with relevant statutory agencies and the outcome of any criminal investigations
5. In relation to the resident’s concerns that the neighbour had two dogs and he was not given permission to get a second dog, it explained who in the landlord organisation made the decisions. The landlord was reviewing its decision regarding CCTV installation and parking of vehicles in the communal parts of the estate.
6. It was investigating his concerns raised on 10 December 2020 in relation to the laminate flooring in the property above. Arrangements had been made for underlay and carpeting to be laid in his neighbour’s property with an aim to minimise noise transference. He had stated that he was satisfied with this approach.
7. The landlord had informed the resident on 3 March 2021 that the Police had contacted it in January 2021 to request that an urgent transfer was considered. The landlord had informed the Police that in line with its Management Transfer Policy, it was unable to transfer perpetrators of ASB. It had requested a Police disclosure report to establish who was the responsible party. The landlord had consequently decided to apply for an injunction order against all parties involved and would simultaneously consider a management transfer option for one of the households involved. It would contact the resident when a decision had been made.
8. Regarding the staff complaint and a request for another officer, although initially it had decided not to allocate a different officer to the case, after a conversation on 1 March 2021, it had decided to do so. That officer would contact the resident to discuss a way forward.
9. It offered a £50 compensation payment for its delayed complaint response and would credit the resident’s rent account.
10. The resident had 20 working days to request escalation of the complaint.
On 17 March 2021, according to the landlord’s internal emails, neighbour A had agreed to the carpeting, the landlord considered installing soft door closing mechanisms to all three front doors, neighbour A’s mutual exchange process was progressing. It was considering suspending the injunction application, given the possible move. It also considered the presence of motorcycles and the CCTV, and the removal of an internal wall between the bathroom and a toilet without permission. The neighbour was prepared to downsize and had been proactive in finding alternative accommodation. As both families were deemed to be at risk, a management transfer ought to be considered for either household.
On 24 March 2021, the landlord considered the application for a management transfer.
A carpet contractor inspected the neighbours’ (A and B) property on 29 March 2021. It provided a detailed description of the floor covering in the property. It found there was laminate in the lounge but the rooms were above the 3 bedrooms so that noise transference issued from the lounge should not be an issue. Laminate flooring was fitted in two of the bedrooms and were also fitted with a sound board underlay.
1. It could not identify where the noise issue was coming from.
2. The property was an older property so some noise transference would be expected when walking inside the property. Noise transference had been considered when laying the floor. It suggested that initially it could try fitting a better underlay and better-quality carpet to the stairs which might reduce some of the noise when walking upstairs but there was no guarantee this would be the case.
The landlord decided on 30 March 2021 to leave the flooring as it was, given the contractor’s recommendations.
The resident wrote on 12 April 2021 requesting an update on the carpets, on the application for an injunction and soft door closures.
On 15 April 2021, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 complaint response to both resident A’s and his partner’s complaints. It had been agreed that it would amalgamate the responses to resident A’s letter on 17 January 2021 and Resident B on 5 February 2021 and summarised the issues as follows:
1. The reports of dog fouling and noise, culminating in two altercations in October and January 2021.
2. The landlord did not respond to several reports, the housing officer was not helpful and did not take the matter seriously.
3. On two occasions, appointments were made for an officer to visit and view the CCTV and ASB evidence, but no-one attended.
4. Permission was refused regarding the second pet while the neighbour owned two pets.
5. Resident A’s requests for permission for CCTV and a management transfer and that a different officer be assigned.
The landlord went on to respond as follows:
1. Its response was handled correctly, including working in partnership with the Police, who investigated the incidents in October 2020 and January 2021.
2. In accordance with the pet policy, permission for two dogs was different to giving permission for a cat and a dog.
3. The resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer, so it was not agreed “at this time”.
4. It considered that the officer had managed the case correctly and there was no reason to allocate a new officer. However, it had done so as it felt it would be helpful.
5. In relation to the complaint about dog fouling, it took “appropriate action” including sending warning letters. It was reviewing permissions.
6. It had investigated the laminate flooring issue. It had considered offering to fit carpet in the flat above.
7. It considered a management transfer for one of the parties.
8. It had awaited further guidance and information from the Police.
9. It informed the resident that it intended to seek an injunction against both parties
10. In line with its complaints policy and procedure, a complaint was managed and investigated by a dedicated team and went to the relevant service area to obtain information in order to formally respond to a complaint. It was usual practice for a service manager to be involved in investigations and respond to complaints about their team as they had a full understanding of their specific area; they were also then well-placed to implement any lessons that may be learned as a result of complaints. A senior manager investigated a complaint at Stage 2.
11. In relation to a discrepancy in the handling of the resident’s complaint about the neighbours and their counter allegations, it noted that the initial report about noise nuisance was received on 29 November 2019. There was a further report on 24 August 2020 about dog fouling and noise. It accepted that the report was not correctly handled, as it should have investigated the flooring of the flat above at the time of the initial report.
12. It failed to handle the second report of ASB correctly, as it was not actioned. The landlord wrote to all parties in October to “remind them” of the responsibilities that came with dog ownership. It had made a number of improvements of its processes including a new dedicated team.
13. It apologised for the lack of response to the earlier reports and acknowledged the inconvenience caused. It apologised for missing the appointments and had delivered relevant training.
14. It explained that the previous officer was no longer in charge of the case. A new officer had been allocated.
15. It had not found evidence that the previous officer mishandled the case or acted in a biased way. It had been a challenging case to manage, as there have been allegations and counter-allegations. There had also been two serious incidents, which resulted in police involvement. As a result of this, it was considering taking out injunctions against both resident A and neighbour A which demonstrated its even-handed approach.
16. It explained that as part of investigating ASB, difficult questions had to be asked. It could find no evidence that the officer had been unprofessional. It had not been able to listen to the phone calls because only some calls were recorded.
17. While the Police recommended that either household be moved, it was on the basis that the neighbour relationship has completely broken down. This was not sufficient to meet the criteria for a management move. It would reassess the situation on receipt of official police disclosure on the conclusion of their investigations to reassess.
18. Social services were initially supportive of a management move on the basis that the reported incident of the pram being pushed over had been captured on CCTV and therefore a proven event, but, in fact, the alleged incident was not captured on CCTV and was contested. It supported its proposed action of awaiting the outcome of the police investigation before making any further decisions.
19. In relation to the pets permission, the relevant section in its Permissions Policy was “the landlord will not unreasonably deny our residents from keeping pets but will base (its) decision on the size and suitability of the property, the number and type of pets to be kept, access to a private garden and the history of any previous pet ownership”. The officer making the decision on the permission for a further dog considered these factors. The decision was being appealed in any event.
20. It would investigate the report about the other neighbour and take any appropriate action but would not inform the resident of the outcome due to data protection regulations.
21. In relation to the solicitor’s advice that making a decision on a case-by-case basis was contrary to the Equality Act 2010, the landlord considered that it was not appropriate to have a blanket policy. It recognised the benefits of pet ownership and tried to grant permission wherever possible. However, permission needed to be balanced against the wellbeing of the animal and its impact on neighbours.
22. It was not able to offer the resident a management transfer to a new home at the time as the resident did not meet the criteria, which was where a tenant was experiencing serious anti-social behaviour that puts their life at risk, or domestic abuse.
23. The information from the Police and social services did not meet this high bar and so it was unable to agree to a management transfer at this time. He could ask to appeal the decision.
24. In relation to the initial failures, it offered £170 compensation as follows:
  1. Instances of poor communication £100.
  2. 2 missed appointments at £15 per appointment £30.
  3. Delay to the peer review £50.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord requested soft door closers on all communal doors. It also wrote to the resident as follows:
1. The contractor attended the neighbour’s property with a view to installing carpets, however, he had reported back that the property was already appropriately insulated and therefore it would not be feasible to install new carpeting as this would have little impact on the noise transfer issues. It would not therefore proceed with this intervention as it would not make any practical difference to either party and also would not demonstrate value for money.
2. While the witness statements had been prepared, it would not be submitting the application to Court for at least the next two weeks as there was a realistic prospect of his neighbours being relocated within a short timeframe. This was a temporary suspension as it did not have a timeframe for the move.
3. It would install soft door closers and would provide a timeframe.
4. It would provide updates in the meantime.
On 15 May 2021, resident A refused the noise monitoring equipment brought to the property on 10 May 2021 on the basis neighbour A was due to move. The landlord decided to close the case given the resident declined a “wider” investigation and the neighbour was due to be moved. It wrote to the resident on 19 May 2021 to say it was concluding its investigation. The resident had declined the sound monitoring equipment which limited its ability to determine whether the noise was “household noise or a statutory nuisance”, the resident expected the matter to be resolved by the neighbour relocating shortly.
According to the landlord’s records, a house had become available in May 2021 for a management move but would not be ready for a further three weeks.
Both resident A and the neighbours made further reports regarding verbal abuse, threats and filming. Mediation was discussed and the parties were advised not to speak to one and other. It would reconsider injunctions if the neighbour did not move house.
The evidence indicated that the neighbours moved out on or by 12 July 2021.

Assessment and findings

There was no evidence of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of dog fouling, the neighbours staring, and making noise. While staring and household noise were examples of behaviour not deemed to constitute ASB, dog fouling was. The reports did not meet the landlord’s threshold for those categories of complaints. However, the landlord should have responded by acknowledging the reports, and either stating what action it would take or providing an explanation why it would not take action. The landlord’s initial lack of response to the neighbour’s initial reports of dog fouling and the flooring led to the resident feeling the landlord was not taking him seriously and, later on, that he had been treated unfairly in comparison to his neighbours. However, the landlord, in its second complaint response, accepted that it had failed to respond to the resident’s initial reports.
While there were allegations and counter allegations, given the seriousness of the incident, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to have addressed the reports in any event. The landlord should have, and could have, written sooner, which it later acknowledged. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to investigate the reports and make enquiries of the Police. It was also appropriate to have written a formal acknowledgment of the report on 27 November 2020, if belatedly, and to set out what action it was taking.
It was also inappropriate of the landlord not to have attended the appointment at the resident’s property on 2 December 2020. This was an opportunity for the landlord to have inspected any evidence the resident held and to take a proactive role in managing the poor neighbour relationship. While there was no lasting impact, given the evidence indicated that the landlord viewed the video evidence later on, a visit at that time would have reassured the resident that the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
It was reasonable that the landlord interviewed both parties, given there were allegations from both parties. The policy and good practice required the landlord to interview both parties: the complainant and alleged perpetrator.
The landlord acted reasonably in considering the range of issues raised by both parties, regarding the motorbikes, CCTV, the neighbour’s flooring, and the number of pets. The landlord acted reasonably in investigating what respective permissions the parties had and acted appropriately in considering retrospective applications for permissions.
The evidence showed that the landlord gave careful consideration to giving permission for the bikes and CCTV. The CCTV policy itself was detailed and suggested caution. The evidence also showed that the housing officer resident A complained about consulted with her colleagues in relation to the permissions sought. The landlord’s reasons for initially refusing permission, such as safety and invasion of privacy, were all reasonable grounds and rightly within the remit of a responsible landlord. It reassured the resident that it would investigate his report that another neighbour had two dogs. The landlord’s reasons for treating a dog and a cat and two dogs differently was in line with its permission/pet policy. A policy allowing the landlord to consider a request on case-by-case basis was reasonable. An inflexible approach with the landlord fettering its own discretion could potentially be unlawful. The policy set out the various factors the landlord would have to consider.
The Ombudsman did not see evidence that the landlord had changed its approach to the pet permission a number of times, as reported by the resident. If that was the case, the landlord should be consistent or explain any changes in its approach, such as an amendment in its policy.
While the evidence was not clear whether the landlord granted all the permissions the resident sought, it was reviewing its decisions. If, as the resident indicated, the landlord changed its decision following resident A’s appeal in the resident’s favour, the Ombudsman does not consider that there was evidence that the landlord officer had treated him unfairly. The fact that the landlord changed its decision is not in itself evidence of bias but evidence of an open mind. Moreover, while the landlord did not accept that it had shown bias, it acted reasonably in making the pragmatic decision to allocate a different housing officer to the case.
In the Ombudsman’s view, a decision by the Police not to prosecute should not determine the actions of the landlord, as the Police would be considering the incident in the context of a higher burden of proof. Nor would a landlord have to necessarily determine there was only a single guilty party. The landlord acted reasonably in making a decision to seek injunctions against both parties. This showed an even-handed approach and would have been an appropriate step to take in order to address the situation, in particular as there was evidence of an assault having taken place. The landlord’s reasons for not pursuing it, that the matter was being resolved by a move, was also reasonable. In any event, a court application would have involved the landlord in costs and was likely to have prejudiced the neighbour’s application to move. It was pragmatic to postpone the court application pending the move. However, given its stated robust response in relation to ASB, the landlord could have considered other steps, such as warning letters or an ABC, in particular after the incident in January 2021.
It was reasonable of the landlord to consider fitting a carpet but also reasonable, while frustrating for the resident, to change its decision following the advice of the carpet contractor. It was reasonable to consider that the costs were not justified as the landlord is entitled to protect its financial resources. The evidence indicated that the order for soft door closures was raised but was not clear whether they were fitted. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
The landlord acknowledged its failings that it had delayed in responding to the resident’s initial reports and to the report of October 2020. It offered compensation which was in line with its policy. Given the initial reports were less serious, its initial failures did not have a significant impact. The landlord could not have foreseen that not addressing the reports of dog fouling and noise would have led to the incidents of October 2020 and January 2021. The evidence showed that the landlord would not have fitted carpets. The delay in responding to the reports of October 2020 was serious but not long-lasting. In the circumstances, the level of compensation offered by the landlord was, in the view of the Ombudsman, reasonable.
In other respects, the landlord investigated the reports of ASB in particular in relation to the incidents of October 2020 and January 2021. It considered a management move for one or the other party. It demonstrated, in the Ombudsman’s view, an even-handed approach in addressing the potential tenancy breaches of both parties, and in any event, granted the permission the resident was seeking. It considered both fitting carpet in the property upstairs and soft closures and only withdrew that decision on the advice of a carpet contractor following a detailed inspection. It made the decision to apply for an injunction against both parties and again, suspended action and gave a reasonable explanation for doing so. It offered noise monitoring equipment and reasonably closed the case given Resident A declined this and the neighbours moved in any event.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to consider a management move.

The landlord acted reasonably in considering the resident’s request for a management move.
While a landlord should consider police advice in relation to risk of serious harm to a tenant, and the views of a social worker seeking to protect the welfare of children, ultimately it is for the landlord to make its own decision. The Ombudsman would expect that decision to be appropriate and reasonable. The landlord did not consider that there was a risk of serious harm, and, in any event, not uniquely to the resident and his family. The landlord’s interpretation of the police advice was that it advised a move as the neighbour relationship has completely broken down was questionable, given the police advice was to move due to a “significant risk of harm”. However, the landlord’s policy criteria stated a risk of “serious harm”, the evidence was inconclusive regarding the allegations of the pushing of the pram, despite the presence of witnesses, and there was no evidence of social services concerns continuing beyond their initial enquiries in January 2021. In any event, the landlord had also agreed to consider a management move application by the neighbours, and it was only necessary to move one household, not both. However, given the advice of the police to both the landlord and resident, the landlord should have explained its decision-making more clearly.
However, the evidence showed the landlord had other reasons for not agreeing to move the resident. It was only necessary to move one household. The evidence showed that the landlord favoured moving the neighbours rather than the resident for policy reasons but also for practical reasons: a) the neighbours were prepared to downsize which meant a wider availability of properties and b) they were being more proactive in identifying property and seeking a mutual exchange.
As distressing and frustrating the decision was for the resident, its decision not to grant the resident a management move was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman noted that the reasons the landlord cited for not offering a move, namely the tenancy breaches of the resident, were not cited in the management transfer policy. The policy only referred to participants in gang behaviour and similar conduct. While it is reasonable not to move an alleged perpetrator of ASB, as it simply moves the ASB to a different location, the policy was not clear on that point and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was, in the view of the Ombudsman, reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the residents’ request to be re-housed under the management transfer process.

Reasons

While there were initial delays in the landlord’s responses to the residents’ report of ASB, the landlord acknowledged those delays and offered reasonable compensation. Thereafter, it investigated the incidents, and the evidence showed that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it acted in an even-handed manner. It made efforts to take steps to resolve the matter which, in the end, was resolved by the neighbours moving away.
The landlord considered a management move, its reasons for its decisions were reasonable and it was only necessary for one household to move.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has established a new team to address ASB. It should ensure, if it has not already done so, that all reports are responded to in accordance with its policies and that serious incidents are addressed with appropriate speed and actions, such as warning letters and ABCs.
The landlord should consider the wording of its management transfer policy, whether it is sufficiently comprehensive for its purposes, or ensure that its decision making is consistent with its policy.