Incommunities Limited (202119336)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119336

Incommunities Limited

30 May 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports concerning antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 24 October 2011 and the property is a 3 bedroom house.
  2. During September 2020, the resident made reports about her neighbour concerning rubbish in the garden and verbal abuse received from the neighbour’s children. Following this, during October 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm if there were any further issues. As there were no recent incidents, the resident was happy for the case to be closed.
  3. The resident made a report on 2 July 2021, about her neighbour’s children damaging plants, fencing and entering into her garden uninvited. Following this on 19 July 2021, the resident informed the landlord she did not wish to pursue the ASB report further as the matter has settled down.
  4. On 13 October 2021, the resident reported issues concerning rubbish in the neighbour’s garden, the neighbour blocking the driveway and issues with the resident’s neighbour’s children. The landlord advised it would attend the property to inspect the garden.
  5. On 14 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord stating she had reviewed its ASB policy and said that the neighbour’s behaviour fell under intimidation. She said she was considering referring this to her MP. The following day the resident said that once cameras were installed she would be able to collate evidence. She explained that she had been avoiding going into her garden because of her neighbours. The landlord proceeded to inspect the garden the following day and spoke to the neighbours.
  6. On 17 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord asking for the neighbour’s rug to be moved off the fence as it smelt. She explained she was told this would be removed two weeks ago. As it was unhygienic she did not want to touch it. The landlord responded the following day, explaining that the resident was incorrect. It explained it had spoken with her on 13 October 2021, following her reports of mess in the neighbour’s garden and proceeded to inspect this on 15 October 2021. It explained it found no issue with the garden’s condition. It said it would ask the neighbour to remove the rug, but explained this did not come under its garden policy.
  7. During November 2021, the resident made a report of dissatisfaction to the landlord regarding the handling of the ASB, however the landlord referred the resident to our service. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s staff and how they handled her complaint. The complaint was then recorded as a stage one complaint, and the landlord issued its stage one response on 3 December 2021, it explained that it had previously advised that it had no evidence to support the resident’s claims of ASB, and therefore no action could be taken.
  8. Further internal conversations took place between the landlord in December 2021 regarding the resident’s reports. It was stated that the resident’s reports did not constitute ASB.
  9. During January 2022, the resident provided the landlord with support statements and screenshots from the neighbour’s Facebook. The landlord later stated that it could not see tenancy breaches from the messages provided. It also explained that mediation between the neighbours would be the most suitable option. Subsequently in January 2022 a mediation referral was made. The landlord also attended the resident’s property to discuss concerns further and listen to noise recordings made by the resident. The landlord then asked if a noise app could be forwarded to the resident.
  10. On 1 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It understood the residents complaint to be about dissatisfaction with its handling of ASB reports and concerns about how the resident was spoken to. The landlord explained its stance on nuisance and what it did not treat as ASB. This included parking noises, living noises, one-off parties, children playing, lifestyle, personal disputes, and social media complaints.
  11. With regards to the resident’s complaints about car parking, the landlord reviewed the resident’s images and acknowledged that others had been parking inconsiderately, this included the landlord’s company vehicle. It apologised for the inconvenience and explained parking issues with the neighbour would best be addressed through mediation.
  12. With regards to the Facebook screenshots provided by the resident, it explained that the neighbour’s comments referring to the resident on Facebook would not be something it would consider to be a breach in tenancy. It did not find the comments to be threatening and it found no risk of harm to the resident. The landlord advised the resident to block or disengage from posts or individuals she did not want interaction with.
  13. The landlord had reviewed images with regards to the rubbish in the neighbour’s garden, but stated it was not at a level where it would have considered further action. It explained it had correctly visited the neighbour and investigated the matter.
  14. The landlord further explained with reports that do not constitute a breach in tenancy, it may offer mediation between neighbours. As the ongoing issues were causing the resident distress, it offered this to her in an effort to improve the situation. The landlord stated it followed its correct ASB procedure, however recognised it could have suggested mediation sooner. It acknowledged the reports had been about behaviours rather than noise nuisance, however felt it would be useful to provide the resident with information about recording via a noise app.
  15. The landlord apologised for the difficulty the resident experienced in raising her complaint when she requested a team leader to investigate the matter. Therefore It offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £50 for the inconvenience caused.
  16. The resident thanked the landlord for looking into the complaint and for putting mediation in place however she rejected its offer of compensation as she felt it would mean the matter was resolved. She further expressed that, should mediation not work, she would be looking to take the case to our service.

Assessment and findings

  1. A landlord has two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states parking issues, children playing, lifestyle and social media complaints would not necessarily be considered as ASB. Therefore no further action would be taken when these issues are reported.
  3. We understand the resident expressed upset with neighbours parking across her driveway. The evidence shows that when the resident made a report of this, the landlord proceeded to address these issues with the neighbour. We have not seen that any further action was taken in regards to this after the landlord spoke to the neighbour, however the landlords actions were proportionate and in accordance with its guidelines. We have seen that the landlord also recommended that the parking issues be discussed within the mediation session between the parties and agree that this is something that both parties could benefit from.
  4. Whilst we recognise that the landlord’s policy states it will take no further action with regards to parking issues, and given the longstanding issues, should this problem remain it may be suitable for the landlord to consider other alternatives to resolve the issues.
  5. With regards to unkempt gardens the landlord states that this is something which would not be registered as an ASB case, but would be forwarded to the housing officer, and that officers should aim to respond within 5 working days. In this instance we can see the resident had made a report about the neighbour’s unkempt garden in September 2020, the landlord discussed this further with the neighbour and conducted several inspections of the garden until it was fully cleared to the landlord’s satisfaction. Following reports in October 2021, the landlord conducted further inspections within the expected timeframe and found the garden to be in an acceptable condition. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, in both instances, the landlord’s actions were appropriate. It responded within a reasonable amount of time of the resident raising concerns, sought a solution and explained its position clearly to her.
  6. With regards to the resident’s complaint about the neighbour’s children being verbally abusive, such behaviours could constitute harassment under the landlord’s ASB policy. We understand that, in order for the landlord to take further action, it would require evidence to support the resident’s claims. Based on the limited evidence available we are unable to say the landlord’s actions were unreasonable. We can see the landlord recommended the resident use the noise app to record any nuisances and this was reasonable given the circumstances. If such issue occur in future, and if the resident is able to provide evidence, the landlord should investigate the matter in line with its ASB policy.
  7. The resident expressed concerns over the landlord’s staff’s handling of her complaint, further stating that she was made to feel that her reports of ASB were of a mild nature. In response to the resident’s concerns at the time, we can see the landlord arranged for a new case handler to deal with the case, it also apologised and offered the resident compensation. As the landlord adequately addressed the resident’s concerns and took actions to put matters right by assigning a new case handler and offering compensation was fair and reasonable, in the Ombudsman’s opinion.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in response to the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

  1. We find the landlord’s actions to the resident’s reports to be proportionate and in accordance with its guidelines. The landlord appropriately considered its compensation policy and made a fair offer to the resident.