East Riding of Yorkshire Council (202208441)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208441

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

4 August 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour, and of the neighbour’s counter-allegations of ASB against the resident.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident held a tenancy with the landlord. She received carers allowance for her husband and her child who has autism and learning difficulties, which the landlord was aware of. The resident has also told the Ombudsman that she is currently being treated for mental ill-health due to the current situation with her neighbour.
On 6 April 2022, the landlord received an ASB report from the resident’s neighbour about the resident. It therefore sent a letter to the resident explaining this, asked her for the opportunity to discuss the report, and pointed out the relevant terms of her tenancy relating to noise disturbances, which were the focus of the ASB report. Subsequently, the resident arranged a meeting with the landlord for the following week, to discuss the complaint in person.
On 26 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by telephone. She was upset about what she felt were false allegations of noise disturbance by her neighbour, and told the landlord that the neighbour had made threats on her life. She wanted to speak to the landlord’s housing management officer because she wanted her neighbour removed from the property for breaching their tenancy agreement.
Additionally, the resident told the landlord that social services had contacted her about her family, and she believed this was due to her neighbour making anonymous calls to them. The landlord discussed these issues with the resident by telephone on the same day, and she told it she was going to contact the police. The landlord confirmed it would continue to monitor the situation.
On 25 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again by telephone because she was frustrated with its handling of the situation. The landlord advised her to keep reporting incidents to the police, who it was in touch with to investigate her neighbour, and make a log of anything the neighbour was doing that related to potential tenancy breaches.
On 22 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to explain her neighbour had been abusive to both her and its contractor while they did some work at the property. She explained that police had attended, and she requested her neighbour be charged with harassment. She explained that later the neighbour kept calling her and then putting the phone down without speaking, and started intentionally creating noise disturbances during the night and the morning. She said she wanted the landlord to attend and see for itself. On 24 August 2022, the resident sent the landlord part of a video showing the neighbour’s contact with its contractor. The landlord noted receipt of this.
On 15 September 2022, the resident raised a formal stage 1 complaint to the landlord, via the Ombudsman, about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports concerning her neighbour.
On 30 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It told the resident it would be discussing her ASB reports at a meeting in October 2022 with the police, its own ASB team, and other agencies. It also said that moving forward it would look at the actions it may be able to take with regards to any breach of tenancy obligations by her neighbour. The landlord agreed to work with other agencies to resolve the issues in the resident’s case so that she could have quiet enjoyment of the property, and it asked her to provide it with a diary or incident log if there were further issues with the neighbour.
In October 2022, the resident reported further incidents of harassment by her neighbour, including a parcel through the post that she had passed to the police and intermittent banging noises that the landlord could not take further action for, and that the police were reviewing CCTV footage following an alleged violent altercation with the neighbour. The resident said that previous warnings the landlord had given her neighbour were not effective, although it said that it had met with the police who were looking into the incidents and it asked her for any logs that she had not provided it and to view the CCTV footage. However, on 17 October 2022, she requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
In November, and December 2022, the resident made further ASB reports about her neighbour to the landlord, including noise nuisance and threatening voicemails. Additionally, she told the landlord she had not received a stage 2 complaint response. It explained that it had another multi-agency meeting with the police in November 2022, asked if she had a support worker, and advised her and the neighbour to avoid contact with each other.
On 4 January 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in responding, and confirmed that in the meantime its housing team had spoken to her numerous times about the ongoing situation with her neighbour. It confirmed that the resident had been keeping logs of noise nuisance, and would be sending them to it for review. It said it was working closely with the police to resolve the issues she was experiencing, and that any appropriate action it would take would be dependent on the results of the polices’ investigation.
The landlord confirmed that at the time, it did not have enough evidence to take action against her neighbour, but that it would consider what the most appropriate course of action was when it received the outcome from the police. It explained that, while the resident sought for it to remove the neighbour, it was a lengthy process for it to try and evict them that did not always succeed, and that it did not yet have the evidence to start. Although the landlord agreed to regularly review the resident’s evidence and take appropriate action, and to regularly contact, support and update her and her family from January 2023 onwards, via both its housing management officer and another senior officer overseeing this.
The neighbour remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint, and brought it to the Ombudsman to investigate, where it was duly made on 9 January 2023. She explained that she sought for her neighbour to be removed by the landlord because of their behaviour towards her and her family, which was affecting her severely disabled and unwell husband, their autistic child, and her mental ill-health.
Since then, between January and June 2023, the resident has made other ASB reports to the landlord about her neighbour, concerning further noise disturbances and harassment, which it suggested it could install noise monitoring equipment at the property for. Although its internal correspondence on 17 February 2023 stated that the police were pushing for it to take action against the neighbour for breaching their tenancy, which it declined to take, as it considered that there was no legal reason or possibility for it to do so until the outcome of the police investigation.
In June 2023, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that the resident’s ASB case remains open, and that it is liaising with the police to see if any action can be taken. However, it explained that it had offered mediation, moves and noise monitoring equipment to both her and her neighbour, who it both considered to be vulnerable, which were rejected, as well as a referral to adult social care for the resident that was also declined. The landlord added that it would serve notice on the neighbour if the police confirmed that they had breached their tenancy by allegedly assaulting the resident in October 2022, but that it had not completed a separate risk assessment for the resident, as it was aware that this had been completed by other agencies.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman has noted that, as part of the resolution to her complaint, the resident wants her neighbour removed from the property, which she reports is because their behaviour has affected her and her family’s ill-health and disabilities. This is very concerning, but the removal of the neighbour and the effect of their behaviour on her and her family’s health has not been considered in this investigation. This is because, under the Scheme, ordering or recommending the eviction of residents by landlords, and the determination of liability for damages to health, are outcomes that are not within our authority to provide, as we do not have the powers or expertise to do so. Although the general distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her family from the landlord’s handling of her case has been considered.

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

The landlord’s ASB policy states that a “personal support plan will be produced for any victim [of ASB], assessed by [the landlord] to be of medium or high risk of harm and will be managed by a dedicated officer until action taken reduces their vulnerability to a lower risk”. The landlord has confirmed that in this case this was carried out by other agencies.
However, it is of concern that the landlord did not assess the level of the risk of harm or vulnerability to the resident and her family from the ASB for itself, or provide the Ombudsman with a record of such an assessment from another agency. This is particularly in light of their vulnerabilities, and because its own completion or record or a risk assessment for them would make it best placed to decide the extent of this, how to deal with it, and when it was lowered, which meant that the fact that it did not do so was a failing on its part.
The landlord nevertheless spoke and wrote to both the resident and her neighbour about the ASB reports, and it took and considered further evidence of this in the form of video footage and written logs. It also liaised with the police and other agencies, offered noise monitoring equipment, mediation, and a potential move, which both parties refused, and offered the resident an adult social care referral that she declined.
These actions were taken in line with its ASB policy that, in addition to permitting it to move victims of ASB and take legal action to apply for a range of court orders to deal with tenancy breaches, confirms that it will regularly meet and share information with the police and other agencies to tackle ASB. The policy also requires it to do so by gathering evidence of ASB from sources including residents, its staff and contractors, CCTV, the police and elsewhere, offering mediation and supporting perpetrators’ vulnerabilities, before it issues warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, and seeks legal action.
Therefore, while the resident wanted the landlord to take legal action to remove her neighbour, and it noted that the police were also pushing for it take action against the neighbour for tenancy breaches, its ASB policy required it to first gather evidence, offer mediation, and support for the resident’s, her family’s and her neighbour’s vulnerabilities. This meant that it acted in line with the policy by doing so, and it was also reasonable for it to both seek sufficient supporting evidence before it took legal action that it had explained was a lengthy process that did not always succeed, and offer the parties these alternatives to try and resolve the ASB, or to move elsewhere, which they declined.
The landlord’s ASB policy also states that if a resident is not happy with the response to their ASB reports and considers “no action “ or “insufficient action” has been taken, they can activate a “community trigger” to have the issue reviewed. There is nevertheless no record of the landlord making the resident aware of this, despite her raising numerous ASB reports, and voicing her concerns that the landlord was not doing enough to resolve the situation. This was another failing by the landlord.
The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not give her more detail about the counter-allegations made against her by her neighbour. However, the landlord’s ASB policy states that all reports of ASB remain confidential, so it was appropriate for the landlord to give limited information to the resident, to make sure the report remained confidential.
Given that many of the allegations and counter-allegations made by the resident and her neighbour were about household noise nuisance, it is of concern that the landlord did not consider whether any noise insulation or other sound proofing measures would have been possible or could have helped the situation. There is also no record that noise monitoring equipment was suggested for the resident. This would have been appropriate given the circumstances, and these were recommendations that were made by the Ombudsman in its spotlight report on noise complaints, published October 2022.
It is also concerning that the landlord has relied on the ongoing investigation by the police into an assault allegation made by the resident against the neighbour,to say that it could take no further action on her ASB reports until this was concluded. It also told the resident to keep reporting incidents to the police, even though it had declined to take action concerning tenancy breaches against the neighbour that the police had requested it carry out in February 2023.
The approach of landlords relying on the police to not take any further action themselves in ASB cases is discouraged by the Ombudsman, and the landlord’s stance here is contradictory in referring the resident to the police for reported tenancy breaches by her neighbour, when it declined to take the action requested by the police for those same breaches. This was a further failure by the landlord.
The landlord has therefore not taken all of the actions required in response to the resident’s ASB reports in line with its ASB policy, or guidance from the Ombudsman on noise disturbance. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered below to carry out a full case review of its handling of the resident’s ASB case, with an update on the outcome and the next steps in the case with clear timescales to be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman. It has also been ordered below to consider and respond to the resident about possible sound proofing measures at her property.
Additionally, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £600 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family by its failure to fully take appropriate action regarding her ASB reports. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation of up to £600 for failures that adversely affected the resident that the landlord has failed to acknowledge or attempted to put right, and in light of the distress and inconvenience that she reported that this caused her and her family, including as a result of their vulnerabilities. It has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to handling, recording and progressing ASB reports, risk assessments, actions and community triggers, in line with its ASB policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint and feedback policy is a two-stage process, which requires it to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 or 20 working days. As per the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, landlords are required to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the date of the complaint acknowledgement, and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint with the landlord via the Ombudsman on 15 September 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 September 2022. This was 10 working days later and therefore in line with the complaint and feedback policy’s appropriate response time.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 17 October 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 January 2023, 54 working days later. As per the landlord’s complaint and feedback policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, the landlord is required to provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord has confirmed that the 34-working-day delay was because her request for a stage 2 had not been recorded correctly on its system. This was a failure by the landlord, which its stage 2 response appropriately apologised to the resident for.
However, the landlord did not otherwise remedy the unnecessary time and trouble that the resident would have experienced from its delay in handling her stage 2 complaint. Whereas the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends compensation from £50 for failures in the service the landlord provided and did not fully put right, including time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, the landlord is ordered below to pay the resident £50 to recognise its failure in complaint handling, and failure to fully acknowledge this with the resident. It is also recommended to review its staff training needs in regard to complaint handling, timely responses and record keeping, in line with its complaint and feedback policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
1. Its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour, and of the neighbour’s counter-allegations of ASB against the resident.
2. Its associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a full case review of its handling of the resident’s ASB case within 8 weeks, and provide an update on the outcome and the next steps in the case with clear timescales to be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.
2. Consider and respond to the resident within 4 weeks about possible sound proofing measures at her property.
3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £650 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
  1. £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family by its failure to fully take appropriate action regarding her ASB reports.
  2. £50 to recognise its failure in complaint handling, and its failure to acknowledge this with the resident.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to handling, recording and progressing ASB reports, risk assessments, actions and community triggers, in line with its ASB policy.
2. Review its staff training needs in regard to complaint handling, timely responses and record keeping, in line with its complaint and feedback policy.