Home Group Limited (202003709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003709

Home Group Limited

17 March 2021 [amended 11 June 2021]

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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), by her neighbour.
2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is a ground-floor flat, situated in a building with similar properties.
The ASB reports concern the neighbour living in the first-floor property in the building.

Summary of events

The landlord’s internal records, dated 30 March 2020, show that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction about noise coming from the flat above, that took place between the hours of 5:30am until 7:00pm. The resident mentioned that the occupier of the flat allowed his pet to relieve itself in the communal areas and that he improperly disposed of cigarette ends. The landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the receipt of her complaint that same day. It confirmed that the matter was recorded as a formal complaint, under its ASB procedure, and that it would contact the resident to “carry out an initial investigation” and “complete an action plan”.
On 31 March 2020, the landlord contacted both the resident and her neighbour to discuss the resident’s concerns regarding noise levels and the neighbour’s pet’s containment. Further landlord communication records and notes showed multiple contacts between the landlord and resident, between 1 and 20 April 2020, during which the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the following:
1. The amount of noise caused by the neighbour’s children and pet.
2. Finding cigarette ends in the rear garden at the property, which she believed were discarded by her neighbour.
3. She felt that her neighbour’s behaviour was purposely intimidating and that he was using his pet to intimidate her.
4. The neighbour’s pet bit her because it was not properly contained.
5. The impact that the above had on her mental and physical health.
6. Additionally, records showed that during the same period the landlord also liaised with the police, the local authority, the resident’s MP, and the resident’s neighbour to discuss her concerns and find a resolution.
Communication between the landlord and the resident’s MP, that took place between 20 April 2020 to 12 May 2020 showed that the landlord:
1. Investigated whether the resident’s neighbour breached the tenancy agreement, although it determined that the neighbour had not breached this.
2. Reviewed its allocations policy to ensure that the resident’s neighbour could occupy the flat with his children.
3. Requested that the resident maintains “a log of further incidents” for it to be able to conduct an investigation.
4. Provided the neighbour with advice on how to contain his pet and what would happen should any other incidents occur.
5. Offered to arrange mediation between the resident and her neighbour.
On 17 May 2020, the resident provided photos showing a crack in her ceiling, which she advised was caused by her neighbour’s stomping. She also mentioned that various types of litter were found in the garden at the property. Subsequently, on 25 May 2020, the resident provided the landlord with a nuisance diary spanning across 48 days, between 25 March 2020 to 12 May 2020, and advised that she “rarely left” her home during the above period “in fear of a further altercation” with her neighbour.
On 26 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to request that her reports of ASB by her neighbour be investigated under the landlord’s complaints procedure. Later, the resident advised she was seeking the advice of a solicitor and supplied a letter issued by her GP, dated 18 June 2020, underlining the impact that the recent incidents had on the resident’s mental and physical health.
On 29 June 2020, it was confirmed that a mediation agreement was made between the resident and her neighbour.
As per the landlord’s internal records, a new stage one complaint was logged on 2 July 2020 and a written acknowledgement was sent to the resident on 3 July 2020. The local authority wrote to the resident on the same day to advise that, based on the data provided, it could not take further action towards her neighbour as the logs detailed regular, household noise which could not be helped because of the standard of sound insulation between the properties. The local authority also advised that to investigate matters further it had to install noise monitoring equipment. However, it was noted that the resident was no longer living in the property and therefore could not operate the noise monitoring equipment.
On 6 July 2020, the landlord provided the resident with an action plan in which the landlord:
1. Advised the resident that it would “carry out a face to face conversation” with her neighbour regarding the concerns raised.
2. Requested that she documents any incidents of ASB caused by her neighbour and provided advice on how to report this.
3. Asked that she notifies it of any instance where her neighbour’s pet was not contained.
4. Informed the resident that it would ensure that her neighbours’ flooring was “carpet and not laminate”.
Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 8 July 2020, reiterating the above.
As the resident was unhappy with the outcome of the stage one complaint, this was escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure and it issued a written acknowledgement on 7 September 2020. The stage two complaint response was issued on 24 September 2020. At this time the landlord advised that it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and found that this was investigated in line with its policies and that it could not “progress with tenancy enforcement action” because it did not have substantial “evidence of breaches”. Further correspondence, dated 27 September 2020, noted that the landlord had been in contact with the resident, on 14 September 2020, regarding “access to the property to survey the soundproofing” and “established that the investigation would need to be carried out” in the neighbour’s property.
The resident advised that the landlord informed her that, following a “case review meeting”, held on 26 February 2021, it decided to close the ASB case because “there have been no complaints for the last three months”. The resident noted that the landlord was made aware that she “had temporarily moved out” of the property, due to the ASB incidents and the impact these had on her health. Furthermore, the resident advised that she attended a meeting with the landlord, at her property, on 26 February 2021, and that the landlord “witnessed one such incident” because, at the time of the visit, the resident found “ornamental pebbles” scattered across the “pathway entrance, seemingly in a deliberate way”. More so, the resident advised that “each time” she returns to the property “there would be damage of disruption”.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that the issue has caused medical conditions and supplied a letter issued by her GP in respect of this. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB caused by her neighbour and her medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s tackling ASB policy

The landlord’s tackling ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person”.
The landlord commits to taking a proactive approach in respect of ASB by “taking steps to reduce the risk of ASB” by “making improvements to (…) existing homes and communities where reasonable and appropriate”, “carrying out estate inspections”, advising its residents of their “rights and responsibilities when they sign up to a tenancy” and that “if they engage in ASB, this may lead to legal action being taken against them, which would ultimately result in them losing their home”.
Additionally, the landlord’s tackling ASB policy states that it would take “swift action” in respect of ASB by initially encouraging residents to “resolve issues themselves” (where safe and applicable) or “through the use of mediation”. Furthermore, the landlord commits to: investigate reports of ASB; “work with other agencies such as the police and local authority” and “take appropriate enforcement action against perpetrators” if it has “sufficient evidence to do so”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), by her neighbour

The Ombudsman appreciates that the situation has caused distress and worry to the resident and we have not disregarded the effect this has had on her. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate or make a determination on whether an individual is responsible for ASB. Instead, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and subsequent complaint about this matter.
The resident made a report of ASB, caused by her neighbour, to the landlord on 30 March 2020. The landlord acknowledged this as a formal complaint on the same day and contacted both the resident and her neighbour on 31 March 2020 to discuss noise levels and proper pet containment. Records also showed that between 1 and 20 April 2020, the landlord liaised with the resident, her neighbour, police, local authority, and the resident’s MP to discuss issues raised and find a way to put things right. The above actions were in line with the landlord’s tackling ASB policy because it identified the report as a complaint in a timely manner, advised the resident and her neighbour of their “rights and responsibilities” as tenants, and worked with third – party agencies to investigate and find a resolution.
Records dated between 20 April 2020 and 12 May 2020 show that the landlord reviewed the tenancy agreement and allocations policy to verify whether any breach was committed at that time, by the resident’s neighbour. As the landlord did not have corroborative evidence to support formal action, the landlord provided the resident’s neighbour with advice on pet containment and what would happen if this was not adhered to; it also requested that the resident keeps a diary of all and any ASB incidents, as well as offering to appoint a mediator. In respect of the above, it is noted that the landlord cannot reasonably take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB without strong supporting evidence to show that the behaviour is serious and prolonged. Furthermore, it is also taken into account that, should the matter be escalated to court, the landlord would need to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally through mediation or tenancy warnings, prior to legal action. By taking the above into consideration, it is clear that the landlord approached the case in a reasonable manner because it initially checked whether the resident’s neighbour breached their tenancy agreement. When the landlord determined that the tenancy agreement had not been breached, it was reasonable to provide further advice to the resident’s neighbour, offer mediation as an attempt to put things right informally, and request supporting data from the resident, in case the matter needed to be escalated further.
The resident provided the landlord and local authority with a diary of events on 25 May 2020; this was reviewed and it was determined that most incidents were related to noise, which was considered reasonable household activity by the local authority. Noise monitoring equipment was also offered to the resident. The landlord then appointed a trained mediator who spoke with both parties and drafted an agreement between the resident and her neighbour which was sent to the landlord on 29 June 2020. Subsequently, the landlord provided the resident with a plan of action on 6 July 2020 advising her to report any future incidents, that it would discuss her concerns with her neighbour “face to face” and ensure that his flooring was carpet and not laminate. By taking the above into consideration, it is evident that the landlord acted in line with its tackling ASB policy by liaising with authorised third parties and trying to put things right informally through mediation.
In respect of the landlord’s offer to ensure that that the resident’s neighbour’s flooring was carpet and not laminate, it is noted that this was in line with the landlord’s commitment to reduce the risk of ASB by “making improvements to (…) existing homes and communities where reasonable and appropriate”; it was not confirmed to this Service whether this was completed. However, the resident confirmed that the landlord contacted her on 14 September 2020 and advised that a soundproofing survey was to be carried out in the neighbour’s property.
With regard to the events that took place on 26 February 2021, it is noted that the landlord decided to close the ASB case because no further incidents had been reported within the last three months, despite the resident making it aware that she had temporarily moved out of the property. This Service understands that this situation caused stress and inconvenience to the resident; however, the landlord’s decision to close the case, after three months of no further reports, was reasonable because as stated above, the landlord would not be expected to take further action against a tenant, without substantial supporting information. In this instance, should the resident return to the property and experience further ASB, it would be beneficial for these incidents to be reported to the landlord, along with supporting data, in order for it to have the opportunity to investigate and decide whether further action would be appropriate.
To conclude, this Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident; however, based on the information provided to this Service, it is clear that the landlord took reasonable measures to investigate and put things right, in line with its tackling ASB policy, by liaising with third party agencies, reviewing if any breach of contract was committed by the resident’s neighbour, requesting supporting information, facilitating reports any further incidents, offering mediation, and improvement of soundproofing.

The landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments policy

The landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the lack of action or standards of service provided by it.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy which states that, once a complaint is lodged at stage one of the landlord’s process, it aims to resolve this within five working days; however, if this cannot be adhered to, then the landlord commits to informing the resident of the reasons why this cannot be done and attempt to “resolve it as quickly as possible”.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord closed the complaint at stage one after the resident agreed to the action plan; however, the stage one response makes no reference to any investigation into the actions it had taken to date in response to the initial reports of ASB; it simply apologised that the resident was dissatisfied with its ASB service. The stage one complaint response was, broadly, an ASB action plan and not an investigation or response to a resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the case in the three months between her first reports and her formal complaint. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to explain its actions in more detail and potentially the opportunity to prevent the matter from escalating.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB caused by her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s initial stage one complaint.

Reasons

The landlord adhered to its tackling ASB policy by liaising with other agencies to find a resolution, offering mediation and improvement of soundproofing, advising the resident and her neighbour of their rights and responsibilities as tenants, signposting the resident to relevant agencies, and discussing the issues raised with the resident’s neighbour.
The landlord failed to adequately address the resident’s dissatisfaction with its response to her reports of ASB in its stage one response letter, thereby missing the opportunity to resolve the matter earlier.

Orders and recommendations

Order

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to issue an apology letter and pay compensation of £50 for the service failure identified in this investigation.
The landlord is to pay this to the resident, in full, within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider offering further complaint handling training to staff to ensure complaints are adequately investigated and responded to.
If not already completed, the landlord should ensure that the resident’s neighbour’s flooring is carpet and not laminate and carry out the soundproofing survey it offered. The landlord should confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman when these steps have been completed.