Hyde Housing Association Limited (202106822)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106822

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 October 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. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of Anti Social Behaviour (“ASB”) by a neighbour. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background and summary of events

2. The tenant has an assured non-shorthold weekly tenancy with the landlord.
3. On 20 February 2020 the resident raised concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour with the landlord. The resident stated that the ASB first occurred on 5 April 2017 and had continued since then. The resident states that the most recent issue had been on 19 February 2020, the neighbour intimidated her on her doorstep and the police were called. This was following communications between the parties regarding payment for the redecoration of the neighbour’s bathroom that had been damaged by a flood from the resident’s property.
4. The resident and the landlord discussed her concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour on 20 February 2020. The resident told the landlord that a neighbour had been harassing her since 2017. The landlord wrote to the resident further to this meeting on 20 February 2020. The landlord asked the resident to provide details of any further incidents.
5. On 4 March 2020 the resident complained that the neighbour had said hello to her child at school.
6. The landlord discussed the allegations with the neighbour on 5 March 2020 and wrote to them on 13 March 2020. The landlord advised the neighbour not to approach the resident and to report any further incidents.
7. On 13 March 2020 the landlord received a response from the police to its enquiry about the 19 February 2020 incident. The police advised the landlord that the neighbour had advised it that the resident had engaged in ASB towards him. The police had closed the incident because the parties had given different versions of events and there was no supporting evidence.
8. On 26 March 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident and advised that it was closing the case. It noted that it had reviewed the messages between the parties the resident had provided and did not find them to be threatening. The resident agreed to close the case and that an investigation was a “waste of time”. The landlord confirmed this in writing to the resident by letter that date. On 30 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had closed the case as it had not received any further reports of incidents. It advised the resident to report further noise nuisance to the council environmental noise team.
9. On 30 September 2020 a surveyor from the landlord attended the resident’s property regarding the installation of soundproofing which the resident had suggested. This was not subsequently installed.
10. On 6 October 2020 the resident complained again about noise nuisance and harassment by the neighbour.
11. On 26 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident responding to recent allegations she had made regarding ASB by her neighbour. The landlord stated that it had agreed to contact the neighbour to make them aware of the allegations. It confirmed that the resident had agreed to provide details of further incidents. It advised the resident to contact the police about concerns about drug use.
12. On 16 December 2020 the landlord spoke to the neighbour regarding the resident’s complaints of further ASB.
13. On 11 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident, further to an email it had sent on 28 January 2021. It confirmed that as it had not heard more from the resident the case would be closed.
14. On 16 March 2021 the resident requested that the landlord reopen the ASB case. She stated that she had continued to be the subject of ASB by the neighbour. She also stated that she had received emails from the landlord regarding complaints about her from the neighbour which were not true.
15. On 31 March 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had reopened the case.
16. On 7 April 2021 the landlord called the resident, who advised that there had not been any further incidents for approximately four weeks however the resident remained unhappy. The landlord said that it would contact the neighbour and monitor the situation. It noted that the resident was distressed.
17. On 19 April 2021 the resident confirmed to the resident that it had contacted the neighbour who had agreed to have no contact with the resident going forward. It enquired if the resident had suffered any further disturbances.
18. On 17 May 2021 the landlord contacted the resident for an update. The resident advised that there had been no further issues since March and she had no new issues to raise.
19. On 9 June 2021 the landlord contacted the resident for an update. The resident advised that they had not suffered any direct issues from the neighbour for over two months, but they were suffering from the smell of cannabis which they believe was from the neighbour. The resident told the landlord that she did not want it to contact the neighbour and monitor. The resident said that they had no other concerns or issues.
20. On 18 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to complain that her son “had been approached” and verbally abused. The resident stated that she would make a report to the police. The landlord advised that it would contact the neighbour and undertake a site visit. The landlord then called the resident on 25 Junes 2021 to advise that there had been a site visit and no issues witnessed. The next case review was agreed for two weeks.
21. The landlord gave its stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 July 2021. The landlord explained to the resident that it had investigated her complaint and concluded that it had not failed in its service. It stated that it had been in regular contact with the resident about her ASB complaint and had been liaising with the police. It had provided the resident with diary sheets and had worked with her to install noise monitoring equipment. It acknowledged that the resident would like for her or the neighbour to move, however it was the landlord’s policy to seek to resolve situations with interventions of tenancy actions. It would, however, offer support if the resident wished to seek alternative accommodation. However, it offered the resident £150 in recognition of her time and trouble in pursuing the matter and the delay in providing its response. It stated that the ASB officer would remain in regular contact and would support noise monitoring installation and provide further guidance on moving.
22. The landlord visited the neighbour on 15 July 2021. The neighbour made counter allegations against the resident. This was discussed on 16 July 2021, where the landlord explained that ultimately it was two conflicting stories with no independent evidence. The landlord confirmed that it had undertaken visits, including a surprise visit, and not identified issues. It was agreed that the landlord would continue to do more visits. It would wait for more evidence from the resident. It followed this up on 24 August 2021, at which time the resident advised the landlord that there had been further ASB and she wished to escalate the complaint.
23. On 9 September 2021 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response to the resident. It stated that it could see that there was a delay in handling the resident’s complaint. It offered the resident £250 for the delay in responding to the complaint, instead of the £150 it had previously offered. It noted that it had visited the neighbour but not found evidence of the smell of drugs. It offered to install noise monitoring equipment. It confirmed that it had offered mediation but this was declined. It confirmed that it had found the noise to be normal domestic noise that would not be considered to be ASB. It acknowledged that on 9 September 2021 the resident had sent evidence of a video which she said was evidence of ASB, and said that it would investigate this and be in touch.
24. On 14 September 2021 the landlord called the resident, who advised that there had not been any further issues. The resident said to the landlord that the landlord was being one sided, which the landlord refuted. It noted that it had visited the neighbour’s property on many occasions to monitor for any acts of ASB.
25. On 27 October 2021 the landlord visited the resident to discuss her concerns. The landlord stated that it would get Acceptable Behaviour Contracts drawn up for both parties to sign.
26. The landlord and the resident communicated on several occasions during November and December 2021 by text, during which the resident expressed her ongoing dissatisfaction.
27. The landlord undertook a site visit on 5 November 2021 and did not identify any concerns.
28. On 3 December 2021 the resident spoke to the landlord regarding overcrowding issues at her property. The resident advised the landlord that there had not been further ASB incidents since last spoken. However, on 20 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the police had visited early in the morning with a noise complaint. The resident claimed that the neighbour was making noise and then blaming her.
29. The resident discussed her concerns about the neighbour making noise with the landlord on 14 January 2022. The landlord noted that it felt that the best resolution for the situation was a move as there had been allegations by each party without sufficient evidence.
30. On 9 February 2022 the resident reported to this service that she had been experiencing ongoing ASB from the neighbour that was causing significant distress. She stated that she had reported this to the landlord.
31. On 4 March 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property to discuss the issue. The resident stated that she felt the situation was beyond mediation.
32. On 7 March 2022 the police attended the resident’s property and noted that it could hear noises from the neighbouring property. It also noted that there was a smell of drugs. The visit was a result of a community trigger request by the resident on 2 March 2022.
33. On 15 March 2022 the police attended the resident’s property following a complaint from the neighbour about her.
34. On 23 April 2022 the police advised the resident that it was currently deciding whether to charge her neighbour. The resident had moved out at that stage and advised the police that she felt unsafe.
35. Undated evidence provided by the resident shows that at some time the landlord submitted a priority move request for her.
36. Undated evidence provided by the resident shows that a legal representative advised her that the landlord had advised then that the neighbour had secured a move away and asked the resident if she would wish to move back. The legal advisor also told the resident that the landlord also advised that it would only consider a transfer request if there was a threat to life.
37. On 5 September 2022 the resident surrendered the tenancy.
38. On 10 October 2022 the resident updated this service. She submitted that the landlord had been unprofessional and “lured” her and her family into danger by asking them to return without the matter being resolved. The landlord insisted that she return to the property on the basis that [the perpetrator] would be moved. However, the resident states that she has been advised that [the perpetrator] remains in the property. The resident also stated that the landlord had provided incorrect information – that her rent would be paused – which meant that her rent account incurred arrears and resulted in her having to pay two rents. The resident reiterated her view that there have been a number of failings by the landlord in its handling of the matter. She stated that it was “heartbreaking” to move from the property she had lived in for 21 years and that the landlord should compensate her.

Assessment and findings

39. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
40. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have affected and caused distress to her. Ultimately she has left the property which she lived in for twenty years. The Ombudsman understands that this has been a significant change for the resident.
41. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
42. The background to this complaint is one of allegations of ASB by the resident and counter allegations by her neighbour. It is relevant for the Ombudsman to acknowledge at the outset that ASB cases involving a number of parties with allegations and counter allegations of the extent presented in this case can be amongst the most difficult and intractable for a landlord to resolve. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important that the Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
43. The evidence shows that the landlord took a number of steps in response to the resident’s complaints since she first complained in February 2020. The landlord visited the neighbour on a number of occasions, including making “surprise” visits. It liaised with the police regarding the incident in February 2020, where the police closed the matter having concluded that there was no supporting evidence and the parties had given different versions of events. It was reasonable to closed the case having established that the limited evidence it had indicated that there was inappropriate behaviour by both parties.
44. When the resident raised issues again in October 2020 the landlord spoke to the neighbour and then closed the case in February 2021 after confirming to the resident that it had not heard from her. This was reasonable.
45. The landlord then reopened the case in March 2021 following a request from the resident. The landlord contacted the resident on a regular basis after this to check if there had been further issues. The resident told the landlord that she did not wish it to take any further action until June 2021 when she raised a further complaint about her neighbour’s actions.
46. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s approach after June 2021 continued to be reasonable – it visited the neighbour on a number of occasions, it offered noise monitoring equipment and continued to check in with the resident. The Ombudsman notes that the evidence indicates that there were also a number of complaints against the resident by the neighbour – which the landlord also had a responsibility to investigate and treat in a reasonable and impartial manner. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident feels that the landlord was biased. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord was impartial. The landlord offered impartial mediation between the parties, which was declined.
47. Ultimately the landlord reached the view that the best resolution would be for one party to move,  as there had been allegations from each party without sufficient evidence. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this was a reasonable conclusion for the landlord to arrive at and the evidence indicates that the landlord offered support to the resident regarding a move. The Ombudsman notes that overcrowding at the resident’s also appears to have been a factor in her move.
48. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was reasonable in the circumstances, based on the information available to it.
49. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. In its stage one complaint response the landlord’s position was that it was satisfied that it had handled the ASB correctly, however it offered the resident £150 compensation for the delay in providing its complaint response. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord increased this to £250. It is not clear why it increased the amount.
50. The evidence suggests that the landlord only progressed with a stage one complaint response to the resident after being contacted by this service on 26 March 2021. The landlord then did not provide the complaint response until 8 July 2021. The complaint was not complex to investigate and the Ombudsman considers that the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to provide its stage one complaint response. However, the evidence indicates that during this period the landlord contacted the resident a number of times about the ongoing matter. The delay in providing the complaint response did not reflect a delay by the landlord in attending to the resident’s concerns. Taking this into account, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the compensation offered by the landlord already is reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

51. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there has been no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti Social Behaviour (“ASB”) by a neighbour.
52. In accordance with section 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there has been an offer of reasonable redress made by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

53. The landlord has taken a number of steps to seek to address the discordant relationship between the resident and her neighbour. Given that there were numerous complaints of ASB from both sides, in the absence of persuasive evidence, the landlord was reasonable to seek mediation and ask both parties to take steps regarding their behaviour. The landlord communicated with the resident regularly regarding her concerns.
54. The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to provide the resident with a first stage complaint response. However, the £250 compensation which the landlord has already offered for this is reasonable.