Hyde Housing Association Limited (201909932)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909932

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 November 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a Victorian House, split into three flats. The neighbour in question, also an assured tenant of the landlord, lives in the flat immediately below that of the resident.
3. The resident has stated that the ASB by the neighbour has been ongoing since he moved into the flat below hers 15 years ago and has provided this service with evidence of her making formal complaints about noise nuisance by the neighbour in 2003.
4. Between 2015 and 2018 the resident made multiple reports to the landlord regarding noise nuisance by her neighbour. During this time the landlord contacted the neighbour who denied the allegations. The resident also requested that her property be soundproofed due to noise nuisance from her neighbours property, which was not agreed to. The landlord’s records indicate that towards the end of 2018 it discussed an anti-social behaviour agreement with the neighbour, which was not progressed. In early 2019 the neighbour was sent a warning letter and the resident submitted further diary sheets regarding continued noise nuisance by the neighbour.
5. The Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable time of the matter complained about occurring, normally within six months. Therefore, whilst these historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events following the resident’s report of 9 October 2019, as this is approximately one year prior to this Service contacting the landlord on 9 September 2020, requesting that it respond to the resident under its formal complaints process. At this point the level of ASB reported by the resident had escalated in nature.
6. The landlord has provided very limited contemporaneous ASB records such as the reports made by the resident, any risk assessment, or action plans or contact with the neighbour. Where the landlord has not provided contemporaneous evidence, the events and actions referred to in this report have been based on evidence provided by the resident or are based on information included in the landlord’s Legal Action Authorisation form of 7 June 2021.

Summary of events

2019

7. On 9 October 2019, the resident reported the neighbour coughing up phlegm and spitting into her mailbox. The landlord was provided with a crime reference number which it noted had been recorded as criminal damage.
8. In addition to this, on the same date, the resident reported a number of issues, including that of subletting; various ASB issues regarding noise nuisance; alleging the neighbour had disconnected his doorbell and throwing unwanted mail in and around the communal door.
9. On 18 October 2019, it was reported that the neighbour had smeared a white cream like substance all over the resident’s front door, had thrown a wet tissue on to the door which stuck to it, and discarded rubbish all over the stairwell and had ground wet tissue into the carpet. The landlord noted that it was provided with a crime reference and that the neighbour had been charged with criminal damage.
10. On 20 October 2019, it was reported that the neighbour had knocked on the resident’s front door shouting abusive remarks and threatening her. The landlord noted that it was provided with a crime reference.
11. On 5 November 2019, the landlord sent a letter to the neighbour asking them to attend an appointment at its office on 19 November 2019. There is no evidence that this appointment was attended by the neighbour.
12. On 6 November 2019, it was reported that the neighbour had been seen spitting mucus into the resident’s mailbox again as well as ongoing reports of door slamming and on 18 November 2019 the resident reported loud music from the neighbour’s property.
13. Between 23 November 2019 and 27 January 2020, the landlord received 10 further reports of ASB by the neighbour including: two further reports of the neighbour playing loud music, five reports of him causing nuisance due to noise from his game console, one report of him spitting in the communal stairwell, one report of him smoking in the communal stairwell and door slamming and one report of him throwing his junk mail around the communal areas.

2020

14. The landlord noted that on 31 January 2020, the case relating to the resident’s report of 18 October 2019 was closed as the neighbour was to be arrested. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord was advised of this by the Police or the resident.
15. On 11 March 2020, the neighbour was seen spitting on the top of the communal stairwell and on 27 March 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour called her a c*** and slammed a door in her face.
16. On 7 April 2020, the landlord contacted the neighbour and left a message requesting that he make contact to discuss recent events. The neighbour responded the same day questioning the new allegations and when the landlord spoke to the neighbour on 9 April 2020, he denied all the allegations made against him.
17. On 5 May 2020, the resident submitted further diary sheets to the landlord regarding her neighbour door slamming, making threats of violence, playing loud music and breaking covid rules and on 28 May 2020 made further reports of noise nuisance by the neighbour.
18. The landlord emailed the neighbour regarding the new complaints of noise nuisance on 29 May 2020, to which the neighbour responded on 1 June 2020 denying the allegations and inviting the landlord to visit to check for the reported noise.
19. On 9 July 2020, the resident made further reports of the neighbour slamming doors and of loud domestic arguing, pet nuisance and rowdy behaviour. On 13 July 2020, the landlord sent the neighbour a letter regarding the new complaints, which he responded to on 17 July 2020 admitting there had been arguments.  The landlord’s records note that this case was marked for no further action on 25 July 2020.
20. In September 2020, the neighbour appeared in court in relation to the charge made against him regarding the incident of him coughing phlegm into the resident’s mailbox, on 18 October 2019. The neighbour pleaded guilty and was fined.
21. On 9 September 2020, following contact from the resident, this service wrote to landlord asking that it update the resident on her complaint regarding its handling of her reports of ASB or, if had not raised a formal complaint that it do so.
22. In October 2020, the neighbour was reported as being seen spitting on the top of the doorstep. The resident also reported that her vehicle had been damaged by having cola poured over it and that the left side of her vehicle had been scratched. The resident said that she believed that this was her neighbour due to his recent threats. The landlord again wrote to the neighbour regarding these more recent allegations which he responded to, denying all the allegations that had been made.
23. On 24 November 2020, this service wrote to landlord for an update on the resident’s complaint following our email of 9 September 2020.
24. The landlord’s Complaints Co-Ordinator emailed the resident on 1 December 2020, noting that they had tried to call her, but it seemed the number they had was incorrect. They advised that the ASB team would conduct a full review of their handling of her ASB cases. The outcome of which would be included in the landlord’s complaint response, which it aimed to provide by 11 December 2020.
25. The landlord issued its stage one response on 23 December 2020. The landlord noted that there had been a history of ASB by the same neighbour dating back to 2015, and that the resident had stated that this had spanned a period of 15 years. The landlord acknowledged that:

1. Her case had not been progressed in line with its policy.
2. Whilst it did use police criminal evidence to back its enforcement actions, this should not prevent it from taking such action.
3. That it could have dealt with the residents reports regarding her neighbour in a more robust way.
4. Previous recommendations were not followed and there had been missed opportunities to address the allegations in a timely manner with the neighbour.
5. Noted that that the resident had agreed to act as a witness in any proceedings and that it would be recommending that the case be progressed to enforcement stage.
6. Said that to put things right, it had made the decision to pass the case management to a new ASB officer who would thoroughly review the resident’s reports to ensure the case was taken forward in a timely and speedy manner. It would discuss other interventions with the resident to help resolve matters. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the delay in resolving the ASB she had been reporting.

26. On 30 December 2020, the landlord emailed the magistrates court to request a certificate of conviction for the neighbour, after being informed by the police that the neighbour had been convicted on 22 December 2020 of criminal damage and harassment. The landlord explained that the certificate would be used as evidence of the neighbour having been convicted of a serious offence, with regards to possession proceedings is had been instructed to issue under Ground 7A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 or in the alternative under Grounds 12 and 14 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988.

2021

27. On 5 January 2021, the magistrates court responded to the landlord advising it of the fee for the certificate of conviction/memorandum and how payment could be made. There is no evidence of any further response by the landlord at that time.
28. On 4 March 2021, the resident emailed her MP, copying in the landlord. In her email the resident referred to the landlord’s stage one response of 23 December 2020. The resident said that:

1. The last correspondence she had received from the landlord was on 19 January 2021 when she was advised that her case was awaiting allocation to the new ASB officer, which it said would be completed in the following few days. The resident said that she had heard nothing further.
2. The ASB had been occurring for 15 years, outlined the incidents she had reported over the past year and said that that day the neighbour had threatened to kill her, which she had reported to the Police and was awaiting their attendance.
3. She was now in fear of her life, the landlord had not put any safeguarding measures in place, nor offered her any support despite knowing that she was a lone female.
4. Her life was being torn apart by the actions of the neighbour and the stress was having a detrimental effect on her mental health and livelihood.
5. She had become a prisoner in her own home and that it was going to take her being found dead in her flat before she was taken seriously.
6. She needed a prompt response to her email together with a substantial plan of action as to what is going to be done and when.

29. On 5 March 2021, a new ASB officer emailed the resident to introduce themselves, to advise that they would be contacting the Police for further information and to ask if the resident could confirm whether she was still experiencing issues with noise nuisance or other ASB by the neighbour.
30. The resident responded on 9 March 2021 confirming that the ASB and threats to kill were still outstanding and ongoing. The resident said that the neighbour was constantly talking loudly and heard making all kinds of threats against her, including to kill her. The resident said that:
    1. The neighbour had been arrested 21 December 2020 on four counts of criminal damage against her.
    2. On 2 March 2021, the neighbour threatened ‘‘to kick (her) face off’’.
    3. The following day, 3 March 2021, the neighbour had threatened to kick in her front door in and drag her from her bed to beat her up.
    4. On 4 March 2021, the neighbour threatened to kill her and was constantly playing loud music for 5-10 minutes, turning it down for 5 mins and then turning it up again.
    5. On 5 March 2021, the neighbour had threatened to kick her womb out and kick her down the stairs, and that were she to move and him see her, he would stab her.
    6. The resident provided crime reference and CAD numbers for these incidents, all of which had been reported to the Police.
31. The resident also said that despite all the ASB incidents reported to the landlord, which had escalated over the years, she had been told by the landlord that it would have to wait for legal matters to conclude before it could take any action against the neighbour. The resident said that the landlord had failed to act in a timely manner, to investigate the allegations or to obtain the necessary evidence, despite her continuing to provide the landlord with diary sheets, and therefore she wished her complaint to be escalated to stage two.
32. On 24 March 2021, the new ASB officer emailed the resident to confirm that they were currently creating a report which would be used to take enforcement action against her neighbour, asked if there had been any further incidents and said that her escalation request was being dealt with by its complaints team.
33. On 24 March 2021, the landlord noted that it was arranging authorisation for a Notice Seeking Possession (NOSP) for ASB and that previous cases would need to be taken into consideration. The landlord also noted that it had contacted the resident who had agreed to be a witness.
34. On 1 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident confirming escalation of the complaint and that it would respond by 15 April 2021.
35. On 3 April 2021, the Police emailed the resident to confirm that they were working with the landlord in regard to finding a long-term resolution to the ASB she had been reporting.
36. On 6 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and the Police to report that the neighbour had made further threats to rape and kill her. The resident also reported that the loud music late at night, during the day and in the early morning, and the stomping around and slamming continued.
37. On 13 April 2021, the ASB officer emailed the Police asking that it action the disclosure request it had attached, provide the full outcome of the report the resident had made to them on 6 April 2021 and provide a supporting statement which would help in obtaining an injunction against the neighbour.
38. On 16 April 2021, following contact from the resident, this service wrote to the landlord as the resident had not received a response to her escalation request.
39. The landlord issued its stage two response on 27 April 2021 in which:

1. It acknowledged that it had failed to adhere to what it had agreed in its stage one response and that there had been delays in providing its response. For these acknowledged complaint handling failures, the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation.

2. With regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, it said that it was disappointed with the progress of her case prior to the contact by its ASB officer on 24 March 2021 and acknowledged that without the intervention of the Housing Ombudsman it was not confident that the resident’s case would have been progressed in line with its stage one response. For these failures the landlord also increased the £250 compensation offered at stage one to £350, bringing the total compensation offered to £650.
3. The landlord said that the resident should receive an update from the ASB officer by 30 April 2021, providing an update on the progress of the case and enforcement action.
4. The landlord ended by advising the resident that if she remained dissatisfied with its response, she could now refer her complaint to this service.

40. On 28 April 2021, the ASB officer emailed the resident to confirm that they had been in contact with the Police to obtain supporting evidence for the enforcement action it wished to take against the neighbour, asked the resident to bear with them as it was taking them longer to collate all the information due to the extensive history which dated back to 2016. The ASB officer said that the neighbour would be contacted regarding the resident’s report of 6 April 2021 and to advise him of the course of action it was taking. The ASB officer ended by asking the resident to send in any diary sheets or reports she may have.
41. The Police disclosure was received by the landlord on 13 May 2021.
42. On 2 June 2021, the resident emailed that landlord regarding its continued lack of response. The resident said that she had recently been assaulted by the neighbour and he had continually threatened her with sexual assault and to kill her and yet nothing had been done by the landlord.
43. The Police witness statement, requested by the landlord on 13 April 2021, was received by the landlord on 7 June 2021. The statement noted that there continued to be an ongoing neighbourhood dispute, however in recent months the reports to the Police were of a criminal nature including three counts of criminal damage, two counts of harassment, three public order offences and one of common assault.
44. Between 8 and 9 June 2021, the landlord liaised with the Magistrates court with regards to a new memorandum/certificate of conviction request to support its possessions proceedings against the neighbour.
45. On 9 June 2021, the ASB officer completed the landlord’s Legal Action Authorisation form. The form noted that reports had been made by the resident about the neighbour since 2015, and had been ongoing for over six years.

1. The neighbour was charged with criminal damage for coughing phlegm into the resident’s letter box, for which he pleaded guilty in court in September 2020 and was fined.

2. The neighbour was charged with criminal damage again as it was reported that he had smeared an unknown white substance across the communal walls near the resident’s front door.
3. In March 2021 a harassment report was made to the police by the resident stating that the neighbour had made threats to physically harm and rape her.
4. The reports against the neighbour included three counts of criminal damage, two counts of harassment, three public order and threats to physically harm and rape the resident.

46. The landlord drafted a NOSP on 10 June 2021.
47. On 29 June 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord to say that the resident had not heard anything from the landlord with regards to her response to its stage two response, that she was continuing to face daily ASB from her neighbour, was receiving very limited communication from the landlord and did not know whether any action was being taken against her neighbour or what the timeframe for this might be.
48. The landlord issued a further stage two, and final, complaint response on 30 June 2021. The landlord:

1. Said that it was sorry that the resident did not feel the case was progressing quickly enough and that it had could have been more responsive in response to contact from her.

2. Assured the resident that, with senior management involvement, it was working ‘‘tirelessly’’ to ensure the case was effectively progressed and that tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour had begun.
3. Acknowledged that enforcement action could be complex and that this had been a long and testing process for her.
4. Confirmed that the resident’s current ASB officer would remain her point of contact and that should there be any critical updates they would keep her informed.
5. Referred the resident to this service were she to remain dissatisfied with its response.

Events following the landlord’s final response.

49. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate new events that have not been considered though the landlord’s complaints process. However, these matters have been considered for context and are summarised below.
50. The ASB officer emailed the Police on 28 July 2021, to advise that they had chased their manager and legal services for an update regarding the possession process and injunction but were unable to provide an exact time frame of when the injunction would be served. The ASB officer also noted that they had given the resident information regarding her housing options and what they would need if the resident wanted an urgent move.
51. On 19 November 2021, the landlord’s ASB officer attended a MARAC meeting where the resident’s case, and that a NOSP application had been submitted to the landlord’s legal team, was discussed.
52. On 1 December 2021 landlord wrote to MP to advise that it was in the process of taking court action, this could take some time and it was unable to give timescales, with regards to safeguarding it would encourage resident to report concerns to Police and the resident could register on choice-based lettings.
53. On 19 January 2022, the landlord’s ASB officer attended a MARAC meeting where the resident’s case was discussed. The minutes noted that since October/beginning of November 2021 there were no further calls to the Police.
54. On 15 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident, acknowledging that she had been chasing for an update for some time and apologising that it had taken it so long to provide her with a response. The landlord went on to explain that:
    1. The NOSP, drafted on 10 June 2021, was not served until 14 February 2022.
    2. It had committed to seeking an Injunction against the neighbour and whilst initial enquiries were made with its legal team in August 2021, this was not progressed or followed up.
    3. It had looked into why there had been such a significant delay in it making progress with these actions and the reason for this was due to several factors, including: Staff changes, increased caseloads and new or inexperienced staff not being given the proper supervision to progress these actions. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s case had been managed by three different officers in the last 12 months and whilst these staff changes were unavoidable, detailed handovers were not always completed which meant actions were not properly picked up and progressed as they should have been.
    4. The team leader role that oversees the officers had staff changes which meant there were periods of time that officers did not have a direct line manager, so the usual scrutiny and support given to ensure actions such as these are progressed did not happen.
    5. Officers had been dealing with significantly increased caseloads over the past 12-18 months due to COVID which has meant more complex cases requiring legal action have been affected and resulted in delays to action being progressed.
    6. It was important that it learns from the mistakes made in this case so managers within the ASB team would be working together to review its processes around staff changes and management of complex/ high profile cases to ensure it does not make the same mistakes again.
    7. It was sorry for the incorrect and misleading information the resident had been provided regarding progress on the action taken against the neighbour. It referred specifically to the emails of 6 October and 2 November 2021 where she was incorrectly advised that the landlord was waiting for a court hearing and that her neighbour was under notice. The landlord explained that:
       1. When it initially began progressing action against the neighbour, it believed there was an existing court order in place obtained by another department that it intended to apply to vary to include ASB. Unfortunately, after some investigation it became clear that there was no existing order for it to progress, meaning it had to start fresh possession action from the Notice stage.
       2. At one stage, instructions were given to an officer for the Notice to be served but this was not completed; however, an assumption was made that it had been.
       3. It would look at lessons learned from this matter as part of the review of its processes that would be carried out.
55. On 2 March 2022, the landlord’s ASB officer attended a MARAC meeting where the resident’s case was discussed. The minutes note that NOSPs had been served on both the resident and the neighbour (for rent arrears and ASB respectively) and that the landlord would update the meeting once the NOSPs had expired.
56. On 4 April 2022, the Police wrote to the landlord regarding what it described as the persistent anti-social behaviour by the neighbour. The Police confirmed that over the past six months it had been called out to the address more than 50 times which had resulted in the reporting of 4 crimes ranging from harassment, common assault and public order offence. These crimes were all reported showing the resident as the victim. The Police said that these issues had caused the resident tremendous anxiety and that if the resident remained at the address for any longer, they fear that this condition was at risk of becoming worse. The Police said that the way to break this cycle was to remove the resident to a different location away from the problem area.
57. On 27 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident’s MP to advise that the resident’s priority move application had not been accepted by panel. The landlord explained that the reason for this was that her case did not meet the threshold for a priority move. The landlord said that it appreciated the Police had supported the move; however, this was based on the impact the situation was having on the resident’s mental health and not due to a significant risk of physical harm/ violence. The landlord went on to say that the resident would be provided with details of how she could create an account and bid for properties on the choice based letting scheme. However, this may be hampered by the resident’s considerable rent arrears.
58. On 24 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident offering to increase the £650 compensation offered on 27 April 2021 to £1,000 in recognition of the errors that had occurred in its the handling of the resident’ case since its final complaint response in April 2021.
59. On 8 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP to confirm that there had been no progress with regards to the NOSP or injunction as it had not received updated reports or incident details from the resident to be able to progress further action. The landlord referenced its new process around management of complex cases, which it said would shortly be implemented, and asked that the resident provide an update with regards to any recent/ongoing incidents so that it could decide what further action may be required.

Assessment and findings

60. Anti-social behaviour is defined in law as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person. With housing, anti-social behaviour can include noise nuisance, arguing loudly, physical or verbal abuse, harassment of others and banging doors/loud TV and music.
61. Both the resident’s and the neighbour’s assured tenancy agreements state that:

1. The tenant is not to cause or allow any person occupying the property with the tenant’s permission to do anything likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or other tenants.

2. The landlord may start proceedings through the courts to end the tenancy if the tenant breaches the tenancy agreement or fails to fulfil the conditions of tenancy. This could lead to eviction.
3. As an alternative to or in addition to take proceedings to regain possession of the property the landlord may seek an injunction against the tenant in order to stop the breach or any anticipated breach.

62. It is clear from the evidence provided by both parties that the resident had had concerns about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports over a significant period, dating back to 2015. However, as explained in the Background section of this report, this assessment focuses on events following the resident’s report of 9 October 2019.
63. In cases relating to ASB, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to decide whether there has been a tenancy breach in the same way as the courts. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
64. The landlord’s ASB policy explains its approach to ASB and that, except in very serious cases, it aims to provide early intervention to stop cases escalating. It aims to deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner; engage with complainants and alleged perpetrators; provide support and/or take enforcement action; and work with partner agencies such as police and local authorities. It generally considers more significant action such as legal action and eviction if there is sufficient evidence, as a last resort and where other interventions have failed.
65. The landlord’s website details that on receipt of ASB reports, it aims to assess risk and contacts a complainant in a timeframe based on this. It then aims to agree next steps and a case review timescale with a complainant. It aims to monitor situations and ask a complainant to keep it informed about when problems happen, how these affect the complainant and if there are witnesses. It explains that reports are dealt with in line with a complainant’s views and wishes, although in most cases it contacts the person causing a problem. 
66. At the time the resident made her initial report on 9 October 2019, the landlord was already aware that the resident had previously been subject to ASB in the form of noise nuisance by her neighbour. The landlord had issued the neighbour with a warning letter regarding the resident’s earlier noise nuisance complaints. As that was the case, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to consider the newer incidents in the context of previous events, and whether there had been an escalation in the seriousness of the reported incidents which might necessitate a more rigorous intervention. There is no evidence that it did so.
67. Between the resident’s initial report on 9 October 2019 and the landlord’s stage one response on 23 December 2020, over a year later, the resident made at least 23 reports of ASB by her neighbour including noise nuisance, shouting abusive remarks, threats of violence.
68. Following the resident’s reports there is no evidence of the landlord carrying out any form of risk assessment, there were also repeated and unreasonable delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s reports and failures to keep the resident updated as to any action taken with regards to those reports.
69. There is evidence of the landlord interviewing the neighbour. However, there were delays in it doing so and there is no evidence of any follow up or further monitoring following this intervention, despite the resident continuing to report incidents. There is also no evidence of the landlord sending a warning letter or taking any other action set out in its ASB policy, which it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider in the light of the frequency and nature of the resident’s reports.
70. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the landlord should have followed up with the police to determine whether it needed to take any further action. Whilst it is appropriate for the police to investigate criminal allegations, the landlord should still have considered the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its own policies and communicate clearly with residents as to the action it can and cannot take and the reasons for this. The tenancy terms set out the tenant’s obligations in relation to ASB, therefore the landlord should have investigated any alleged breaches of the tenancy by the neighbouring tenant.
71. In its stage one complaint response in December 2020 the landlord acknowledged that it had not progressed the resident’s case in line with its policy, that it could have dealt with the residents reports regarding her neighbour in a more robust way and that its failure to follow previous recommendations had resulted in missed opportunities to address the allegations in a timely manner with the neighbour.
72. These were serious failing by the landlord, especially in light of the nature of the ASB that had been reported, including threats of violence, and so, whilst the landlord’s acknowledgement and apology went some way in providing the resident with redress, it was also appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation. The landlord also said that it had learnt from its failures and that that it would take steps to ensure an improvement in the service received by the resident going forward, which were all appropriate things for the landlord to say.
73. The steps agreed by the landlord were that it would be recommending the case be progressed to enforcement stage, which was an appropriate step for the landlord to take given the volume of reports it had received and that it now had clear evidence of a breach of tenancy given the resident’s guilty plea in court in September 2020. The landlord also agreed that the case would be passed to a new ASB officer would thoroughly review the case, ensure it was taken forward in a timely manner and discuss other interventions with the resident.
74. However, following its stage one response, whilst the landlord did promptly contact the magistrates court to request a certificate of conviction for the neighbour, doing so 2 working days after its stage one response:

1. It failed to progress enforcement beyond contacting the magistrates court on 30 December 2020.

2. The new officer failed to contact the resident until 5 March 2021. This was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait to be contacted and indicates a lack of urgency and recognition of the impact these incidents were having on the resident and a failure to learn from its previous mistakes.
3. There is no evidence of the new ASB officer discussing other interventions with the resident, which it had agreed to do in its stage one response. However, it is noted that when they contacted the resident on 5 March 2021, the new ASB officer did advise that they would be contacting the police.
4. The landlord also failed to give a timescale by which it expected the report to be completed. In fact the report still had not been completed by 24 March 2021, some three months after the landlord’s stage one response.

75. Following contact from the ASB officer on 5 March 2021, the resident reported further incidents relating to threats of violence made by the neighbour between 2 and 5 March 2021 and provided crime reference and CAD numbers for these incidents. Again, there were further delays in the landlord responding to the resident. Given the nature of the incidents reported, the landlord would be expected to promptly contact the resident, but it did not do so for almost three weeks.
76. The landlord also again failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy. It did not follow up with both the resident and the police to determine whether it needed to take any further action following the resident’s recent reports, there is no evidence of it interviewing the neighbour or taking any further steps to seek to prevent any further occurrences, nor of it providing the resident with any support or signposting to other organisations such as those specialising in Victim support.
77. The resident then made a further report that her neighbour had made threats to rape and kill her on 6 April 2021. Despite the seriousness of the report the landlord failed to contact the resident until a week later when it advised it had contacted the Police for a supporting statement. Whilst this was as reasonable step to take, the landlord should also have investigated the reports in line with its own ASB policy; assessed the risk; contacted the resident and discussed an action plan with her; discussed the case with the alleged perpetrator and other agencies; monitored the situation; and dealt with the reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner. There is no evidence that it did so at that time.
78. In its final response, on 27 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to adhere to what it had agree to in its stage one response. The landlord also said that it was disappointed with the progress of her case prior to March 2021 when the new ASB officer contacted the resident.
79. It is evident that the landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its policies and procedures resulted in missed opportunities for it to take more robust action and at a much earlier stage not only with regards to investigating and addressing the ASB reported and but also with regards to support for the resident, all of which contributed to the significant upset and distress experienced by the resident.
80. The landlord also failed to explain the reasons for the significant delay in its making progress with these actions in its final response, an explanation only being provided on 15 February 2022, following further contact from the resident and her MP.  At this point the landlord explained that the reasons for its failures related to staff changes, increased caseloads and new or inexperienced staff not being given the proper supervision to progress these actions, detailed handovers were not always completed, periods of time that officers did not have a direct line manager and Covid.
81. Whilst the landlord may have been open about the reasons for its serious failings in this case, and whilst certain issues such as the impact of Covid may have been outside of its control, it does have a responsibility to ensure that its services are effectively managed, which it did not do in this case. It is also unclear why the landlord did not provide the resident with such an explanation in its final response, which it would be expected to do.
82. In order to put things right, in addition to its apology, the landlord offered the resident a total of £650 compensation, £300 for its failure to adhere to what it had agree to in its stage one response and an increase in the £250 compensation offered to the resident in its stage one response to £350.
83. The Landlord’s Complaints and Compensation Policy statement makes no reference to the level of compensation it might offer. However, the Ombudsman’s Guidance recommends awards of £700 and above in recognition of maladministration that has had a severe and long-term impact on the resident, including physical or emotional impact.
84. Given the level of upset, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident the landlord’s failure to take reasonable, robust and timely action with regards to her reports of ASB, over a period of 18 months, I am not satisfied that the level of compensation offered was proportionate and have therefore ordered that the landlord pay the resident an additional £350 bringing the total compensation payable to the resident to £1,000.
85. It is noted that the landlord later offered the resident an additional £350 compensation but as this relates to its further failures following the landlord’s final response, this has not been considered as part of the compensation for the failures identified in this report. A recommendation has however been made for the landlord to re-offer this £350 in addition to the compensation ordered in this report.
86. The Ombudsman expects landlord’s not only to recognise where its service has not met the requirements but also to learn from the failures identified in order to improve its service going forward.
87. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge its failures during the complaints process, it failed to evidence that it had taken any learning from its findings given that it repeatedly made same errors in the handling of the resident’s case throughout the timeframe considered in this report. Understandably the resident’s trust in the landlord was undoubtedly undermined as a result.
88. However, it is noted that in later correspondence, of 15 February 2022, the landlord confirmed that managers within the ASB team would be working together to review its processes around staff changes and management of complex/ high profile cases to ensure it does not make the same mistakes again. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, given the extent of its failures in this case.
89. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of the guidance drawn up as a result of this review which addresses a number of the issues identified in this report, including; being guided by victims in terms of frequency and method of contact, regular discussion of cases with team leader/manager, guidance regarding handover of cases where a member of staff is leaving or in the event of patch change including contact with resident to inform them and introduce the new officer, if a member of staff is off sick that the manager will run a report to identify their high profile/complex cases and reallocate, where the manager position is vacant, buddies and the wider hub will support one another by regularly discussing high profile/ complex cases to give guidance to ensure these are effectively managed and progressed.
90. On 8 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP to confirm that there had been no progress with regards to the NOSP or injunction as it had not received updated reports or incident details from the resident to be able to progress further action. The landlord referenced its new process around management of complex cases, which it said would shortly be implemented, and asked that the resident provide an update with regards to any recent/ongoing incidents so that it could decide what further action may be required.

Determination (decision)

91. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect its handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.

Reasons

92. The landlord did not act appropriately in response to the resident’s reports in a number of ways; it did not put together an action plan with the resident, setting out what it could and would do and by when and in not doing so, it failed to communicate effectively or to manage her expectations, leaving her uninformed as to what, if any, actions it was taking. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with any support or to take the ‘robust’ enforcement action it had agreed to. The landlord did not remedy this at any point in time during the complaints process and the landlord-resident relationship began to breakdown as a result.
93. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its extensive service failures with regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, for which it apologised and offered a total of £650 compensation, this did not provide the resident with reasonable redress given the level of the failures identified. Whilst the landlord later reviewed its processes, it failed to evidence that it had learnt from its findings during the complaints process, continuing to make the same mistakes throughout the period covered by this report.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

94. That within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is to:

1. Pay the resident the £650 compensation offered in its final response, if it has not done so already.

2. Pay the resident an additional £450 compensation bringing the total payable for the failures identified in this report to £1,100.
3. Contact the resident to ensure that all concerns have now either been resolved or are within the internal complaints process.
4. Contact the resident to agree an action plan for how it will acknowledge, respond to and progress her reports of ASB going forward that is in line with its ASB policy and its guidance on dealing with high profile/complex ASB cases. The landlord is to effectively manage expectations in doing so.
5. Assess the understanding of all relevant staff regarding the requirements of its ASB policy and its guidance on dealing with high profile/complex ASB cases. Where any training needs are identified the landlord is to prepare a timetable for carrying out any necessary training. The landlord is to provide this service with a summary of its assessment and confirmation of any further action taken.
6. Ensure a more robust recording keeping approach is undertaken keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail in cases escalated to the Ombudsman
7. Confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation.

95. That within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is to re-offer the resident the £350 compensation offered in its letter of 24 May 2022.