Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212524)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212524

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’).
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives in a two–bedroom property under a periodic assured tenancy, known by the landlord as a ‘lifetime assured tenancy.’
4. The resident described himself as having a learning disability and mental health concerns that he had a support worker for. The landlord’s records noted the resident was vulnerable and disabled. It also noted the resident had a personality disorder and mental health concerns.
5. Within the scope of this complaint, the resident reported that he was a victim of ASB from a neighbour between April 2022 and September 2022. It is noted that the resident has stated that this is ongoing to the time of this investigation. He said this included homophobic discrimination, physical abuse, and malicious counter-allegations from the neighbour. The resident felt that these matters were not investigated or addressed by the landlord throughout the reporting and complaint process.
6. The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 October 2022 through this Service. The resident sought an investigation and resolution to the ASB issues that he had raised. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2022, and it did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said that the resident had not provided additional information that it had requested and therefore it was unable to progress the complaint. However, it awarded £50 compensation for the delay in issuing its complaint response.
7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, through this Service on 27 April 2023 as he felt the ASB issues were unresolved. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2023 and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that it had investigated all of the resident’s reports in line with its policy, but that additional information was not supplied by the resident and the ASB cases were closed. The landlord also outlined that it had met with the resident’s support worker to better understand his vulnerabilities.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 June 2023 seeking a resolution to the ASB issues that he was reporting.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The evidence provided in this case indicates that there have been reports of ASB between the resident and his neighbour since at least January 2021.
10. Paragraph 42(c) says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be 6 months of the matters arising.
11. On this basis, this investigation will only consider matters raised by the resident from 4 April 2022 onwards, as this was 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint. Matters raised prior to this time were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period and will not be considered as part of this determination.

Reports of anti-social behaviour

12. The landlord’s policy adopts the definition of ASB given in Part 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, namely behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance, or annoyance. The policy notes that issues related to “people being unpleasant,” differences in lifestyles, normal everyday actions, and noise would not be considered ASB.
13. Within its policy, the landlord outlines a range of possible interventions it could utilise, including warning letters, acceptable behaviour agreements, mediation and ultimately tenancy warnings or eviction. It is also noted that the landlord could temporarily rehouse a complainant if this was felt to be in the resident’s best interest.
14. The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the Act’) sets out a range of powers that the local authority, police, or courts can utilise in cases of antisocial behaviour, including injunctions, community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders, closure orders and public space protection orders. While the landlord could not apply many of these options directly, it can consider making referrals or applications to other multi-agency partners, where appropriate.
15. In this case, the resident reported that he was the victim of ASB. This included reports of homophobic and physical abuse. The following incidents were reported by the resident between April and September 2022:
    1. Being pushed and slapped / punched during an altercation with his neighbour.
    2. Having water thrown over his garden fence and onto him and his barbeque.
    3. Being called homophobic names by his neighbour.
    4. Being threatened with a baseball bat.
    5. The neighbour’s children swearing at him whilst he was in his property.
16. The evidence shows that throughout the course of the resident’s complaint, the landlord received counter-allegations from neighbours, including that the resident:
    1. Threw dog faeces from his window into the communal car park below. The resident denied this.
    2. Verbally abused his neighbour. The resident denied this.
    3. Punctured his neighbour’s tyres and scratched the car with his keys. The resident did not comment on this allegation.
    4. Racially abused his neighbour. The resident did not comment on this allegation.
    5. Attempted to kiss the neighbour’s son during an altercation. The resident did not comment on this allegation.
    6. Threatened to slit a neighbour’s throat. The resident did not comment on this allegation.
17. In response to this, there is evidence that the landlord took the following action between May and August 2022:
    1. Offered mediation and ‘good neighbour agreements’ to the resident and his neighbour in May 2022. The resident declined this.
    2. Provided the contact details of three specialist agencies who could support the resident if he had been the victim of homophobic abuse.
    3. Arranged a call to discuss the resident’s concerns. The evidence shows that the resident “refused to engage in the conversation.”
    4. Arranged a face-to-face meeting to discuss the resident’s concerns on 25 August 2022 however the resident declined this.
    5. Wrote to the resident requesting further details about his ASB concerns. The landlord’s evidence shows that the resident did not reply to this request.
    6. Visited the resident on 24 August 2022 to discuss his reports of ASB. The landlord wrote to the resident following this visit and noted that he had been “recording, shouting, been verbally abusive and displaying aggressive / threatening behaviour towards our 2 officers in the presence of police officers.” The landlord issued the resident with a final warning for this incident.
    7. Provided the resident with a single point of contact as a reasonable adjustment, following a meeting with his support worker. The resident was subject to a risk assessment by the landlord at this time and the evidence shows this was an attempt to facilitate more positive interactions between the resident and landlord.  
18. The police were called for the incident where the resident reported being the victim of homophobic abuse and being slapped / pushed back by the neighbour. This was the same incident where the neighbour said that the resident had attempted to kiss his son. The police said that:
    1. The resident was “uncooperative with the investigation” as he had not been willing to share CCTV or further information about the incident.
    2. The resident did not provide a statement or attend a voluntary interview.
    3. It closed the case, without making any arrests as the resident was “unwilling to support the investigation.”
19. Ultimately, the landlord wrote to the resident on 9 June 2022 to advise that the ASB case was being closed due to him having not provided additional details and evidence required to progress the investigation. The landlord also noted the police’s comments about his reluctance to provide any further details or evidence.
20. The landlord attempted to obtain further information by writing to the resident, arranging a telephone call, and also a face-to-face meeting. The evidence shows that the resident did not engage with these opportunities. Taking this together, the evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the concerns and was not able to do this due to a lack of engagement with its investigations and evidence.
21. Notwithstanding this, the landlord offered support via mediation, external agencies and through multi-agency working with the police, which was appropriate given the type of concerns the resident reported. The evidence shows that the resident did not engage with the police investigation or accept the offer of mediation.
22. On this basis, the Ombudsman appreciates the impact that ASB can have on residents, particularly given the resident states that these issues are ongoing. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy because it took reasonable steps to obtain further information from the resident but this was not forthcoming. The landlord also worked with the police and was entitled to rely on its opinion on potential criminal matters.
23. Taken together, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord operated an interim two-stage complaint process during the time of this complaint due to a cyberattack. It committed to acknowledging complaints within 10 working days at both stages and issuing responses after 20 working days at stage 1 and 40 working days at stage 2.
25. The resident raised his complaint on 4 October 2022 via this Service. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 17 working days later on 27 October 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued 26 working days after receipt.
26. Whilst these timescales were in excess the requirements in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), they were compliant with the landlord’s policy timescales at the time. Despite this, the stage 2 complaint response acknowledged and apologised for the delay in issuing a complaint response. It also offered the resident £50 compensation in respect of this.
27. It is positive to note that the landlord has now returned to operating a complaints process that is compliant with the timescales within the Code.
28. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord issued its complaint responses within the timescales in its policy, apologised for a perceived delay at stage 2 and offered compensation in respect of this. Taking this together, the landlord  provided an offer of redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
30. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendation

31. The landlord should:
    1. Continue to investigate any future allegations of ASB in line with its ASB policy.
    2. Consider whether mediation or other informal action might assist the ongoing situation.