Connect Housing Association Limited (202207740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207740

Connect Housing Association Limited

30 November 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of Anti-social Behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at the property between 6 November 2017 and 30 April 2023. The landlord is a housing association, which owns and manages the property.
The property is a semi-detached 4-bedroomed house. The resident has raised various allegations about the behaviour of the neighbour living in the attached house. This neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord.
The two properties have 4 off-road parking spaces in front of their houses. There are 2 rows of 2 spaces, which means the cars in the front row can potentially be blocked in if there are cars parked behind them. The resident has claimed he was told by the building developers when he moved in that he had 2 parking spaces assigned to his property.
On 11 April 2022, the resident reported that his neighbour’s van was blocking in his car. The resident stated the van was a commercial vehicle so should not be parked in the parking spaces under the terms of the tenancy. The resident also complained that parked cars had been blocking access to his front door.
The landlord sent the resident a letter entitled “outcome of visit” on 28 April 2022, in which it responded to various allegations the resident had raised:
1. Parking of commercial vehicles – the landlord stated the CCTV footage showed that the vehicle in question was a transit van, which didn’t fall under its definition of a commercial vehicle (the landlord confirmed a commercial vehicle would be a lorry or trailer).
2. Parking and visitors – the landlord stated it had evidence of the resident’s neighbour parking over two spaces, but it could not do anything about this. The landlord stated the neighbour would only be required to park within the boundary of one space if they had a guest needing to use the second space. The landlord also said it had no control over visitors or residents parking in the area it did not own. The landlord confirmed, as this was public space, it would be a matter for the police.
3. Dog nuisance – the landlord confirmed the resident had previously provided photographs of dogs urinating on or near his property from January 2021 and April 2021, but there was no recent evidence of this. The landlord confirmed it would visit the neighbour and raise this issue, and the issue of dogs not being on leads. However, it confirmed it could not take enforcement action on this because of the lack of evidence. The landlord confirmed it would update the resident on the outcome of the visit with his neighbour in due course.
During a telephone call on 13 May 2022, the resident told the landlord about comments its tenancy enforcement officers made during a visit to his home a few weeks prior. The resident said the officers suggested he should leave the property if he was unhappy living there. The resident said that they would not have said this to him if he was white. The landlord responded to this claim in writing on 18 May 2022. In the letter, the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the two officers independently, and their version of events matched. The landlord was satisfied that the suggestion of the resident moving out was said in the context of a larger discussion providing the resident with his options. As such, the landlord concluded that the suggestion was not inappropriate and that there was no evidence of racial discrimination. The landlord confirmed its officers were impartial and would visit his neighbour in due course to discuss the concerns raised.
The resident sent the landlord photographs and a video on 6 June 2022, which showed parked cars and a man urinating in a bush, who the resident claimed was a visitor of his neighbour.
Following a visit to the resident’s neighbour, the landlord sent the resident a letter entitled “outcome of investigation” on 20 June 2022. In this letter, the landlord confirmed it had now closed the case and provided responses to the allegations the resident had previously raised:
1. Regarding parking, the landlord confirmed there was no evidence from the provided photographs of any inappropriate parking.
2. The landlord confirmed it had raised the allegations of pet nuisance and a visitor urinating with the neighbour, and it was satisfied there was nothing further it needed to do.
3. The landlord also noted that the resident had made alterations to his garden to enable him to “take ownership of the grassed area”. The landlord wrote that it hoped this had alleviated the resident’s concerns.
The resident raised further concerns with parking on 11 July 2022, alleging that a visitor at his neighbour’s house had parked in his designated parking space for two days. The landlord discussed this with the resident on 22 July 2022, and they agreed to send the issue to mediation between the resident and his neighbour. The landlord closed its case on 18 August 2022 after completing the referral for mediation. The mediator wrote to the landlord on 19 August 2022, confirming mediation did not go ahead because the neighbour did not want to proceed. The mediator also confirmed that the resident had wanted a written agreement from the neighbour, which was not part of the mediation process.
The landlord received contact from the police on 8 September 2022 regarding an allegation the resident had made about the neighbour’s visitor urinating. The resident had alleged to the police that the visitor had done this for racist reasons. The landlord told the police that the resident had not previously raised concerns to it that the visitor had done this with racist motivations. The landlord told the police it had closed its case for the incident with the action it had taken (outlined in the letter dated 20 June 2022). The police confirmed to the landlord that they would not take any further action on the alleged incident and would provide advice to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 September 2022, alleging that visitors to his neighbour had parked inappropriately and had verbally abused him when he asked them to move. The resident also complained of his neighbour playing loud music at midnight. The neighbour contacted the landlord on 22 September 2022 and made counter allegations that the resident was harassing visitors at her home, taking photographs of them and being aggressive.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2022 and 23 September 2022, asking it to call him back, and the landlord called him on 29 September 2022. During this discussion, the resident spoke of another recent incident where a visitor to the neighbour had parked in his space, blocking his car in. The resident said his wife had beeped the car horn for 15 minutes to get the visitor to come outside. The resident said he then approached the man and asked him not to park there, and the man responded aggressively. The resident also spoke of another incident on 20 September 2022, when the neighbour had hired a gardener who was blowing grass cuttings onto his cars. When the landlord asked what resolution the resident would like, he said he would like bollards fitted and parking spaces marked for each property. The landlord agreed to send an incident diary book to the resident so he could log any further events. However, the resident later told the landlord on 10 October 2022 that he did not want to fill in this diary and felt he should not need to, given the amount of time he had been raising incidents.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on his behalf on 17 August 2022. We asked the landlord to clarify at which stage it had considered the resident’s complaint, and whether it had completed its internal complaints procedure with the two letters it had sent previously. In its response, the landlord said it had handled the matter under its ASB policy rather than its complaints policy, and it claimed the resident had previously declined to raise a complaint. The landlord confirmed it would raise a stage one complaint, and it called the resident on 6 September 2022 to discuss this. During this call, the resident asked the landlord to consider:
1. His allegations of nuisance and ASB by his neighbour and the landlord’s handling of these reports.
2. His allegation that the landlord had treated him differently because of his race.
3. Actions the landlord can take to prevent any further nuisance or ASB from the neighbour.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 4 October 2022, in which it said:
1. It had reviewed its records in relation to his allegations of nuisance and ASB from the neighbour, and found it had taken the appropriate actions. The landlord stated “the circumstances of the case are not such to warrant any other intervention than has already been offered to you and your neighbour – namely, mediation”.
2. It had found no evidence that it had treated the resident differently because of his race.
3. For these reasons, it did not uphold the complaint or offer any resolution.
The landlord called the resident on 10 October 2022 and stated it had received information from the neighbour about the parking incident he reported on 29 September 2022. The landlord confirmed the neighbour’s evidence showed that the resident’s car was not blocked in, so it was not taking any action on the matter. Regarding the incident of the gardener blowing grass cuttings onto his car, the landlord confirmed this did not equate to ASB. The landlord confirmed the neighbour had provided evidence to show the resident had been stood at his door taking photographs of the gardener which, the landlord warned, was unreasonable behaviour. The landlord advised it could potentially take tenancy action against him if it received further reports of unreasonable behaviour.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 by telephone on 24 October 2022, stating the stage one response contained inaccuracies.
The resident also sent a letter to the landlord dated 17 October 2022, in which he:
1. Said the landlord had done nothing to address his reports of ASB, other than offering mediation and referring him to the police.
2. Stated the police had told him that the landlord had misadvised him and that the landlord had a responsibility to address the issues he had raised.
3. Said that his time spent living next to his neighbour had been the worst time of his life, and he had suffered constant harassment.
4. Included a list of allegations about his neighbour’s behaviour.
5. Said the matter had reached a very serious level and could no longer be ignored, and that he feared for his wife’s safety.
6. Asked the landlord to install dividers or bollards in the parking spaces, and to obtain a written assurance from the neighbour that she would stop all forms of harassment.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 25 November 2022, in which it:
1. Confirmed it was satisfied it had responded to the reports of ASB appropriately and proportionately in line with its policy.
2. Said the parking spaces were not designated for individual properties. It wrote it had considered whether it could create division between the parking spaces to alleviate problems, but concluded this was not possible because of the layout of the spaces. It confirmed it could not police where residents parked and it expected residents to resolve parking matters among themselves, except where it escalated into ASB.
3. Agreed there had been some delays in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint, and offered a goodwill gesture of £50.
The resident rejected this offer and, having completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, contacted the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.
The resident provided his notice to leave the property on 3 April 2023, and he moved out shortly after this. The resident told the landlord he felt he had been driven out of the property by his neighbour’s behaviour and the landlord’s inaction. The resident asked the landlord to provide compensation to cover the costs he has faced as a result of leaving the property. The resident has confirmed to this Service that, to resolve the matter, he is seeking compensation to cover these costs and his distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has told this Service there have been historical issues with the neighbour from the start of the tenancy. There has been no documented evidence, or specific details, of these issues provided by either the landlord or the resident. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has discretion over whether or not to consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would usually be within six months of the matters arising. This assessment will not consider any events before 11 April 2022, as neither the landlord or resident have given us evidence to show these issues were reported to the landlord at the time.
The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately where allegations of ASB – whether criminal in nature or not – have been raised, in line with its policies and procedures. The Ombudsman also reviews whether the landlord liaised with appropriate third-party organisations, such as the police, in these scenarios.

Reports of ASB

The Regulator of Social Housing sets out responsibilities for registered providers of social housing in England under its Neighbourhood and Community Standard. Section 2.3.2(d) of the Standard confirms registered providers should take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalates, resolving the problem while having regard to the full range of tools available.
Section 6.5 of the landlord’s ASB and Harassment Policy and Toolkit (ASB policy) confirms the landlord will assess each ASB report they receive to determine if the issue is an ASB issue. The landlord uses the definition included in the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 to define ASB as “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”. The landlord’s policy gives examples of everyday living noises or minor differences in lifestyles as not constituting ASB. If the reported issue does not fit the definition of ASB, the landlord will not investigate but it will make a record of the report.
For reports that the landlord considers to be ASB, section 7.3 of the policy says it will assess risks and identify support needs. Section 7.4 states the landlord will minimise the burden on the complainant by “only ask[ing] witnesses to record evidence for us where it is necessary and where it is safe for them to do so. We will use technology to gather evidence where it is reasonable to support the victim”.
For all ASB reports, section 6.6 of the policy confirms the landlord will:

a. Acknowledge all reports within two working days.

b. Contact the victim to take details of the report within five working days.

c. Carry out an investigation if appropriate.

d. Take action if appropriate.

e. Respond to the victim within one working day of receipt of the report in more serious cases, including those involving the threat of violence or hate crime.

f. Monitor and manage all ASB reports through regular supervision.

The ASB policy confirms it will seek to resolve disputes between neighbours informally at an early stage wherever possible. Section 6.2 of this policy sets out the enforcement tools the landlord uses:

a. Encouraging tolerance and consideration in localities and neighbours to have ‘garden fence’ conversations to resolve their issues.

b. Providing a professional mediation service for individuals willing to participate, which facilitates a dialogue between parties to enable them to reach their own solution.

c. Interviewing victims and perpetrators (if possible) before issuing either a verbal, written or final warning if there is evidence of unreasonable behaviour.

d. Producing a written agreement between a perpetrator of ASB and the landlord, which sets out the standard of behaviour expected.

There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports on 11 April 2022, 6 June 2022, 11 July 2022 or 20 September 2022 within two working days, or that it contacted the resident on either of these occasions to gain further details of the report. This is contrary to the process set out in section 6.6 of the ASB policy. The landlord did eventually provide a response to each of the reports but, in not fully following its process, it may have missed the opportunity to gain greater insight from the resident about the nature and circumstances of the reports. Further contact from the landlord on these occasions potentially could have prevented the issues escalating.
In his report submitted on 11 April 2022, the resident raised concerns that his neighbour’s visitors had been driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Although the landlord responded to the concerns raised over parking, it did not acknowledge this part of the resident’s report. Even if there was no enforcement action it could have taken, the landlord should have still acknowledged this concern in its response, and it could have signposted the resident to contact the police regarding this alleged criminal behaviour.
The landlord offered mediation on 3 occasions, and the resident’s neighbour declined this each time. It was not appropriate for the landlord to continue to offer mediation when it was evident that the neighbour did not want to engage with this. The landlord should have moved onto other enforcement actions as per its policy. This could have included providing technology to help the resident gather evidence, independently gathering evidence itself using surveillance, interviewing the neighbour about each allegation, and issuing written warnings where appropriate.
The landlord liaised with the police regarding the complaint the resident had raised around racial discrimination, and the police confirmed they would not be taking any further action. The landlord took the police’s lack of action as reasoning not to take any action itself. This was incorrect, as the landlord should have carried out an independent investigation to determine if the neighbour’s behaviour amounted to racial discrimination. This could have included interviewing the resident and neighbour, determining what level of evidence it had, and providing technology to the resident to gather further evidence if required (as per section 7.4 of its ASB policy). Given the impact racism can have on the victim, it would have been appropriate to investigate as fully as possible.
From the evidence seen, it does not appear that the landlord ever completed a risk assessment or considered what additional support it could provide to the resident, which it should have done under section 7.3 of its ASB policy. This would have been particularly suitable in this case, given the allegations of racism and the amount of ASB and nuisance reports the resident made.
The landlord wrote in its stage 2 response that it could not police where residents park. However, section 3.42 (“Parking and vehicles”) of the resident’s tenancy agreement includes rules for parking. One rule pertinent to the resident’s complaint states that residents should not, or should not allow their visitors to, “park vehicles anywhere or in any way which is capable of causing a nuisance or obstruction”. As this is a term of the tenancy agreement, there is a responsibility on the landlord to enforce this. In advising otherwise, the landlord was incorrect about this in its stage 2 response.

Complaint handling

Under section 1.3 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords are expected to know when it is appropriate to raise a complaint on behalf of the resident, without the need for the resident to use the word “complaint”. In this case, the landlord did not provide a stage one complaint response until 4 October 2022, which was after this Service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. The landlord had sent the resident two letters (“outcome of visit” and “outcome of investigation”) prior to this. However, given the amount of times the resident had raised concerns, and considering the resident had also expressed dissatisfaction about the conduct of the landlord’s staff during the telephone call on 13 May 2022, it would have been appropriate to send the resident a formal stage one complaint response without the need for involvement from this Service.
In both its stage one and stage 2 responses, the landlord did not individually address each of the issues the resident had raised as a concern, nor explain what actions it could take to address these. The landlord’s responses were not proportionate to the breadth of issues the resident raised. Had the landlord provided a comprehensive response which proposed appropriate action for each issue the resident raised, it is possible the resident would have accepted this. The complaint could then have ended, and the matter could have been dealt with through appropriate ASB investigation and enforcement actions.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord wrote that there were no designated parking spaces for the resident’s address. However, an internal email from the landlord dated 7 December 2022 shows that, after issuing the stage 2 response, the landlord found the building development plans for the property. These plans showed that the resident and neighbour should have had two designated parking spaces each. Since this was a key issue in the resident’s complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to locate these plans before it issued the stage 2 response. As it did not do this, the landlord included misinformation in its stage 2 response about the parking.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is hereby ordered that, within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides compensation to the resident totalling £1,300. This comprises:
1. £1,000 to cover the distress and inconvenience faced by the resident due to the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
2. £300 to address the service failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
It is ordered that, within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a written apology from a senior member of staff.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider marking the parking spaces for the properties to prevent potential future disagreements between other residents.
The landlord should review how it implemented its ASB policies and procedures in this case and identify learning. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the review within 12 weeks, and implement the outcome.