Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202218579)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218579

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

15 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Handling of the resident’s reports about its officers’ conduct and behaviour.
3. Implementation of its unreasonable behaviour policy.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint assured tenant of the property, a one bedroom ground floor flat, from 2014. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the property. Within the report, both tenants will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
The resident has a mental health diagnosis and a heart condition.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that:
1. It recognises the impact that ASB has on residents and it operates a victim centred approach to dealing with ASB. ASB can be reported by phone, email and in person.
1. It will respond to all reports about ASB made by telephone or email within two working days.
2. It will evaluate all reports about ASB by a triage assessment to establish its seriousness.
3. It will investigate all reports about hate incidents and hate crimes.
4. It will use a risk assessment matrix to:
  1. Identify how the welfare, safety and wellbeing of a resident is affected and consider the impact on them.
  2. Carry out an assessment of any vulnerability and the support in place. It will offer support to victims and perpetrators.
5. It will make use of the full range of non‐legal and legal actions available to it and will take legal action where necessary to protect residents and to stop problems escalating.
6. It is committed to responding early to complaints and agreeing action plans to determine how a report will be dealt with.
The landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy says that:
1. It recognises that residents expressing dissatisfaction may be frustrated and aggrieved. Occasionally, the actions of residents using its services makes it difficult to deal with their enquiry and in a small number of cases their actions can become unacceptable.
1. Unreasonable behaviour can include threatening behaviour towards its staff, making unreasonable demands or having unreasonable levels of contact.
2. When it considers that a resident’s behaviour is likely to have a negative impact, it will tell them why and give them an opportunity to modify their behaviour. If the behaviour continues, it will take steps to prevent or minimise this.
3. It will give clear warnings when it feels that a resident’s behaviour is unacceptable.
4. Where the policy is applied, the resident will be informed in writing about why the decision has been made, what the contact arrangements are, how long the restrictions will be in place and how they can have the decision reviewed.
5. An appeal should be submitted in writing within one month and a senior manager will consider it. A decision will be made within 20 working days.
6. It will always consider making reasonable adjustments with regard to an individual’s medical condition and vulnerability. It will also consider if there are other individuals that may be able to represent the resident.
The landlord’s internal procedure for handling unreasonable behaviour says that at:
1. An affected staff member should discuss any incident of unreasonable behaviour with their manager.
2. The manager will assess the incident considering the impact on its staff member and decide whether to simply record the incident on its system and monitor or whether to take further action.
1. If further action is warranted, the manager should consider the following actions:
  1. Arrange a call or meeting with the resident to discuss its concerns and explain how it wants them to modify their behaviour. It will also tell them that further incidents may lead to action being taken. Any verbal discussions must be followed up in writing.
  2. Consider any known vulnerabilities.
  3. Consider if a safety marker is required.
  4. Send a warning letter.
2. If the behaviour continues or gets worse, the manager should consider the following actions:
  1. Arrange a call or meeting with the resident to discuss the continuing concerns and reiterate how it wants them to modify their behaviour. They will also explain that this is the second and a final warning and further incidents will result in it applying its unreasonable behaviour policy. Any verbal discussions must be followed up in writing.
  2. Consider any support services in place for a multi-agency approach.
  3. Consider if safety alert warning markers are required.
  4. If behaviour is serious enough, consider whether tenancy enforcement action is appropriate.
  5. Send a second warning letter.
3. If the behaviour continues after the second warning, the landlord will discuss the case at its monthly meeting (unless urgent) and make a decision about whether to apply its unreasonable behaviour policy. If the landlord decides to apply the policy, its Chief Executive Department will send a letter to the resident to inform them.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that:
1. It defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf.
1. A complaint can be raised to the landlord by any person affected by an activity or service provided by it. Complaints can be made by calling it, visiting it in person, emailing or writing to it or via social media.
2. It aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. Stage two complaints will be responded to by a manager.

Summary of events

The resident told this Service that he has reported ASB to the landlord for nine years. He also said that a neighbour had subjected him to homophobic abuse in 2017 and as a result they were convicted of a public order offence. His neighbour was also given a restraining order in 2017 that prevented him from threatening or harassing him.
The resident reported he had been subject to homophobic abuse by the same neighbour on 12 July 2021 and 13 July 2021 outside a shop and his property. The landlord opened an ASB case and sent him a letter. It reviewed CCTV footage and told him that it had heard the homophobic abuse on 13 July 2021. It would meet with the police to discuss his report.
On 19 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to complain about its handling of the ASB and homophobic abuse that he had reported. He said that:
1. It had not shown him empathy or understanding and he felt let down by its response.
2. It had failed in its duty of care towards him and his partner.
3. He had raised a complaint with an officer on 12 July 2021 but had not received a response.
4. An officer had told him that they would send CCTV footage to the police but had failed to do so.
5. He was frightened of his neighbour and the ASB had affected his quality of life.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord told him that it would be seeking an injunction against his neighbour. It also said that it was actively working with the police.
The resident reported further homophobic abuse from his neighbour on 28 July 2021. He said that he would report it to the police and that the incident was extremely upsetting and distressing.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord asked the resident to review and sign his witness statement. It told him that it had obtained legal advice and would be submitting an application for an injunction against his neighbour today. It would tell him when the court hearing was scheduled.
On 10 August 2021 and 12 August 2021, the resident reported that he had been woken up by his neighbour arguing and swearing loudly and by a group of young people smoking weed outside the property. On 16 August 2021, it noted that it had reviewed the CCTV footage of the incidents and was not able to take any further action but failed to inform him.
On 24 August 2021, the resident told the landlord that a car had been driven towards him on to the pavement outside the property. He had reported the incident to the police. It discussed the incident with him on 1 September 2021 and said that it “could not prevent someone using the road”. It did not say whether it had reviewed the CCTV footage.
On 1 September 2021, the landlord’s Re-Lets Team spoke with the resident about his niece’s housing application. The landlord recorded that during the telephone conversation, the resident stated that the landlord staff member was “useless”, “a complete waste of space”, “didn’t know what she was doing” and “he was no longer willing to speak to someone of her level”.
The landlord wrote to the resident about this incident on 9 September 2021. The landlord explained it had concerns about his recent contact with the company. The letter outlined its unreasonable behaviour policy and noted that it considered that the call on 1 September 2021 was evidence of the resident contacting the company in an unreasonable manner. It asked that the resident speak respectfully to landlord staff and not to make personal derogatory comments. The landlord warned that if they persisted in contacting the company in a way that is considered unreasonable, it would apply its unreasonable behaviour policy, which may result in restricted contact conditions.
On 29 September 2021, an argument occurred between the resident and its contractors about moving some planters. The resident is alleged to have called one of the contractors “an awkward c***”. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 30 September 2021. The letter explained that following the incidents on 1 and 29 September 2021. It stated that the resident’s tone and conduct during recent contact with its staff and contractors is considered unacceptable and intimidating. The landlord underlined that the resident’s behaviour also breached the tenancy agreement. It therefore confirmed that it had restricted their contact with the landlord for the next six months to email only. The landlord indicated that the resident had the right to appeal its decision.
The resident emailed an appeal to the landlord on 13 October 2021. He highlighted that the landlord had not conducted a proper investigation, he had not been asked for his version of events and the landlord had not spoken to other witnesses. The landlord responded on 2 November 2021 and confirmed that the appeal was upheld in part. The landlord explained that it should have issued a further warning letter rather than restricted contact. It therefore reversed its previous decision.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord said that it had obtained an injunction against his neighbour. It closed the ASB case on 23 September 2021 as he said that he had not experienced any further ASB.
On 7 October 2021, the resident told the landlord that he had been verbally abused and sworn at by a neighbour. It interviewed him and his neighbour, but no evidence was available to support the report. The CCTV footage did not cover the area the incident occurred in. It called him on 3 November 2021 and said that it would close the ASB case as no further issues had been reported to it.
On 7 February 2022, the resident told the landlord he had been verbally abused by a neighbour on 1 February 2022. It reviewed the CCTV footage and sent him a letter on 22 February 2022 to say that it would not take any further action as it was a one off incident.
On 9 July 2022, the resident reported that a neighbour had been driving dangerously around the estate, playing very loud music and been verbally abusive towards him. It told him that it had opened an ASB case. He then reported similar issues on seven occasions between July 2022 and August 2022. The landlord said that it was working with the police and the local authority’s ASB team to try to resolve the issues. Its records show that it closed the ASB case on 5 September 2022 although it did not provide any evidence that it wrote to him.
On 26 July 2022, the landlord issued the resident with a written tenancy warning following a report from a neighbour that he had been verbally abusive towards them on 8 July 2022. It also said that it may take further tenancy enforcement action if it received more reports about ASB. The resident told the landlord that he wanted to appeal the tenancy warning and asked it for a copy of its “mental health policy and same sex policy”. The landlord indicated that it would deal with his appeal as a complaint and escalate it.
On 27 July 2022, the landlord’s ASB team emailed its complaints team to ask it to “escalate this matter to a higher level”.
On 8 August 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and said:
1. It had investigated his complaint. As it had not received any specific details of incidents where he felt it had not responded to him appropriately, it could not raise a complaint.
2. He could request a Community Trigger if he was unhappy with its handling of the ASB case and the police’s actions.
3. With regard to the tenancy warning, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response letter. It stated that, given the video evidence which showed he was aggressive and threatening towards a neighbour, the landlord was satisfied that its decision to issue him with a tenancy warning was appropriate and inline with its policy and procedure.
On 12 August 2022, the landlord opened an ASB case after the resident reported that he had been verbally abused and intimidated by a neighbour who had been served with an injunction. He also said that his mental health had been affected due to the issues. It said that it would “take appropriate actions but that may not mean returning to court for breach of the order at this stage”.
On 16 August 2022, the resident said that he had been sworn at by a neighbour. A can of lighter fluid had been thrown at the property a few weeks ago but this had not been captured by CCTV. The landlord visited the resident with the police on 18 August 2022. It said it would prepare a court application for a breach of his neighbour’s injunction. He said that he wanted his neighbour to be evicted but it told him that it can take a long time to evict a tenant and this may not be possible. If he experienced any further homophobic abuse, it would look to start possession proceedings.
On 19 August 2022, the landlord called the resident to let him know that it would email a copy of his statement to him. The resident told the landlord that he was happy with the statement. The resident also reported that his visitor had been subjected to homophobic comments.
On 21 August 2022, the resident told the landlord that he had been disturbed by loud music and that his neighbour had been speeding around the estate in her car.
On 24 August 2022, the resident told the landlord that his neighbour had filmed him on the allotment and this made him feel “alarmed and harassed”. The landlord said that it had reviewed the CCTV footage of the incident. It had got “advice” and said it was not a breach of his neighbour’s “order”.
On 6 September 2022, the landlord told the resident that its application to “extend the current order has been granted for a further 12 months”. It also attempted to charge the perpetrators with breaches of the previous injunction, but the case was dropped due to a lack of evidence.
On 7 October 2022, the resident told the landlord that his neighbour had been speeding around estate, playing loud music from her car. He was worried about the situation and he had downloaded the noise app to record any further issues. On 13 October 2022, the resident reported again that a neighbour had been shouting at him and driving her car dangerously around the estate.
On 16 October 2022, the resident told the landlord that his neighbour had made homophobic comments towards him on 15 October 2022. He also said that the ongoing issues were affecting his mental health. The landlord called him on 17 October 2022 as it had discussed his report with the police. It said that it needed the police to prosecute his neighbour for making homophobic comments in order for it to be able to take possession action. It had asked his neighbour to drive carefully and would wait for further information from the police.
On 14 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that things had been quiet. The landlord said it was waiting for the police to tell that about the outcome of their investigation into the incident on 15 October 2022. The resident said that another neighbour had been speeding around the estate again. The landlord was not able to access CCTV footage as it was not working.
On 28 November 2022, the landlord told the resident that his neighbour’s injunction had been extended until 4 September 2023. His neighbour must not cause nuisance or annoyance to him or any person visiting his property. However, it could not pursue the contempt application due to evidence presented by his neighbour. The resident was frustrated with the outcome of the investigation and said that he thought it had not taken his reports about ASB seriously. It told him that the evidence it had obtained was not sufficient to allow it to take any further enforcement action against his neighbour. It closed the ASB case on 9 December 2022.
The landlord sent the resident a letter on 30 November 2022 about his ongoing contact with it. The landlord said that it had received a large number of emails from him recently and it asked him to use its general email address to contact it in the future.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 12 December 2022 to ask it for a copy of its stage two complaint response within the next five days. The resident had complained to it about its handling of ASB and asked the Ombudsman for support.
On 15 December 2022, the landlord told the resident that this Service had contacted it following his request for support with his complaint. It listed the complaints that he had made and asked if he wanted to raise a new complaint about its handling of ASB. It also said that he could seek support from the Ombudsman if necessary.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2022 to ask it to respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of ASB by 9 January 2023.
On 22 December 2022, the landlord sent the resident a second letter to ask him to use its general email address as he was still contacting its officers directly. It said that it may apply its unreasonable behaviour policy if he continued to contact its officers directly.
On 6 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that it had not supported him following his reports of ASB. He also said that he was unhappy that the landlord had not evicted his neighbour. It said that it would investigate reports about ASB made by him six months prior to him making a complaint. It would consider older ASB cases as background to the complaint.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 19 January 2023. It said that it:
1. Had investigated six ASB cases reported by him between March 2022 and November 2022. This included:
  1. Case 36577 relates to issues with a neighbour being involved in drug related activity and having a loud lodger. It had spoken to his neighbour and the case was still open.
  2. Case 36237 relates to a report regarding noise nuisance and a speeding car. The resident also reported homophobic abuse. It had closed the case as the police had not taken any action.
  3. Case 35361 relates to one opened on 12 August 2022 and follows similar, historic ASB reports. The landlord had explained that the recent incidents did not provide grounds to evidence a breach of his neighbour’s injunction. It had sought legal advice and extended the injunction in October 2022 following another incident. It had taken his concerns seriously and was satisfied that it had taken all reasonable steps to support him.
  4. Case 34809 was opened on 7 July 2022 and related to a tenancy warning issued to him following a report about unacceptable behaviour. It had responded to his complaint about the tenancy warning on 8 August 2022. The case was closed on 9 September 2022.
  5. Case 32798 was opened on 4 February 2022 and followed a report that a neighbour had sworn at the resident. The case was investigated and deemed that it was a one off incident. No further action was taken and the case was closed on 22 February. The resident complained about the case officer’s ability and the landlord said that there was no evidence to support the complaint.
  6. Case reference 33307 related to unknown youths causing ASB. It said that this issue had been addressed appropriately.
2. Was sorry that he did not feel that he had been supported following his ASB reports. It had not found any failings in the way that it had responded to his reports.
3. Would continue to work jointly with the police if he reported further hate crimes to it.
4. Could only evict a tenant by obtaining a court order. This required “hard evidence”.
5. Provided the resident with information to enable him to escalate his complaint and find contact details about this Service.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 22 January 2023. He said that:
1. He had been reporting issues with ASB for ten years and he was frustrated that it had only investigated reports made to it over the past six months.
2. It asked why the landlord said there were no problems when his neighbour had been “given four court orders”.
3. He was unhappy that an officer had responded to his complaint who had responded to his ASB reports. He said that they were “biased, incompetent and unprofessional”.
4. He felt that the landlord had ignored him and “bushed things under the carpet”.
On 23 January 2023, the resident told this Service that he had asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
On 31 January 2023, the landlord sent the resident a letter to confirm that it had applied its unreasonable behaviour policy to his tenancy following his repeat contact. It asked him to contact it using its general email address. He could contact the landlord if he was reporting an urgent or emergency issue like a repair.
On 9 February 2023, this Service told the resident that his complaint had been ‘duly made’. The Ombudsman aimed to complete the investigation report and decision within 12 months.
On 15 February 2023 and 16 February 2023, the resident told us that he had sought help from his doctor due to the impact of the issues on his mental health.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 17 February 2023. It said that:
1. Although its complaint policy says that it will consider issues that have occurred six months prior to a complaint being made, it had considered the reports made by him 12 months before he made the complaint.
2. It noted that he had reported ASB to it for ten years and this had been considered as background.
3. It had not found any failings in the way that it had responded to his ASB reports.
4. It had worked with the police to investigate his reports. As the police had not been able to take action, it was unable to pursue possession action.
5. It encouraged him to keep reporting ASB.
6. It provided him with information about this Service and how to contact us.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 31 March 2023 to outline the times that he had breached its contact restrictions. It reminded him to use its general email address and said that it may consider taking further action against him if he continued to contact it unreasonably.
On 6 April 2023, the resident appealed its decision to apply its unreasonable behaviour policy. He said that he was not aware of the reasons why it had applied the restrictions to his contact. It emailed him on 11 April 2023 and said that it had written to him on 30 November 2022 and 22 December 2022 to warn him about his unreasonable contacted with it. It would not consider his review request as it had been over one month since the restrictions had been applied to his account. The restrictions would remain in place until the end of June 2023.
The resident reported noise nuisance and an issue with weed being smoked to the landlord on 9 April 2023 and 17 April 2023. On 13 Apil 2023, it told him that it had opened a new ASB case.
On 24 April 2023, the landlord told him that it had reviewed CCTV footage of the incident but there was no evidence to support his report. It asked him if he needed any support. It told him on 8 June 2023 that it had closed the ASB case.
The resident complained to the landlord on 6 March 2023. He said:
1. He wanted to make a complaint about two of the landlord’s officers. They had shown him a lack of empathy, support and respect.
2. He was frustrated that a neighbour kept leaving the allotment gates open. This meant that the allotment was not secure and he wanted help to resolve the issue.
3. That a neighbour had been verbally abusive towards him.
4. He wanted someone in a “higher authority” to resolve the issues as a matter of urgency.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 March 2023. He said that:
1. He was unhappy with a manager at the landlord who had been rude and arrogant. She had not looked into the history of the issues with the allotment.
2. He had been told that a “marker” had been added to his tenancy account. This had caused him a “great deal of alarm, stress and upset”.
3. He wanted his complaint to be dealt with “in a timely manner”.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 12 April 2023. It said:
1. It had investigated his report about the attitude of one of its officers and apologised to him if he felt unfairly treated by her. It had spoken to the officer at length and she had not meant to cause him upset or offence. She had tried to clarify its position and provide him with information to help.
2. The owner of the property was seeking legal advice about the right of way issue. It would make recommendations about the issue when it received this information and would contact him to discuss it.
3. It was sorry that the contact restrictions placed on his account had caused him distress and it reminded him of the restricted contact rules.
4. It was sorry that he had cause to complain. If he was unhappy with its response, he could ask it to escalate his complaint.
5. He could contact this Service for support but failed to provide him with contact details.
On 12 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. He said that:
1. He wanted to raise some additional points regarding his complaint as he felt that they had not been addressed correctly.
2. It was an allotment group, not a “community garden”.
3. On 6 March 2023 an officer had visited the allotment to discuss the ongoing situation with the allotment gates. He said that the officer had “already made her mind up” about the allotment. All he wanted was for his neighbour to close the allotment gates as she had done for the past 13 months.
4. During a phone call on 7 March 2023, the same officer had accused him of bullying his neighbour and said that the allotment might have to be closed. He said that his neighbour had verbally abused other tenants.
5. He was concerned that the same officer had looked at his personal bank account. This was a breach of his data protection.
6. He remained deeply dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint investigation. He asked it to investigate the issues before he escalated the complaint further.
On 13 April 2023, the landlord issued a further response to his complaint. It said that it:
1. Was sorry that it had referred to the allotment as a “community garden”.
2. Had not looked into his personal bank account. It apologised for any miscommunication around the allotment group’s finances.
3. Was sorry that there had been a miscommunication with its officers. It suggested that he worked with one of its officers who he had a good working relationship with.
4. Was waiting for his neighbour to get legal advice and come back to it.
5. Agreed that his neighbour had enough room to move her car out of her property.
On 24 April 2023, the landlord issued another stage one response. It said:
1. It was sorry that he felt that it had not addressed the issues he had raised.
2. It understood that he felt his relationship with an officer had “broken down”. It suggested that he could work with a different officer who he had a “good working relationship” with.
3. It had discussed the complaint with the officer “at length”. She had assured it that it was not her intention to cause him upset or offend him. It wanted the allotment to be a success and said it is a “great addition to the community”.
4. It was committed to working with residents to find a solution to the issues raised.
5. It understood his frustration that an owner occupier was not shutting the allotment gates. It had no control over the issue and it could only ask her to be respectful of other tenants. It would continue to speak to her to try to reach a satisfactory conclusion. The owner occupier is seeking legal advice about the right of way issue and it is waiting for information about this.
6. It was sorry he had to complain. If he was dissatisfied, he could escalate his complaint to the final stage of its procedure. He could also contact this Service for support with his complaint. It did not give him contact details for the Ombudsman.
On 26 April 2023, the resident told the landlord that he was confused about the contact restrictions and asked for some clarification on the contact rules. He was also unsure whether he could contact it directly. An officer said that she would find out more information for him.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 May 2023 and 9 May 2023 as he was unhappy that a senior officer in the complaints team had emailed him after he had complained about her. He said that her behaviour had been unprofessional. He also said that contact restrictions had been placed on his partner, but it had not told him about this.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 10 May 2023. It said that:
1. It was sorry that he felt that it had not responded to all the points raised in his complaint.
2. It had carried out an investigation into his complaint about the attitude of two senior officers and it had responded to this issue in its stage one response.
3. It was committed to trying to resolve the issue with the allotment gates and was still seeking legal advice.
4. He must make sure that any future contact with it was made via its general email address. If he breached its unreasonable behaviour policy, it may take further action which could include obtaining an injunction.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 23 May 2023. It had discussed the complaint with him on the phone. It said that its complaints team was small and that a senior officer had emailed him to update him about his complaint. It had reviewed the email she had sent to him and found it to be acceptable. It said he could now escalate the complaint to stage two and provided him with information about this Service.
On 24 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two. He was still unhappy that an officer was involved in responding to his complaint and asked for another officer to respond to him. He was also still confused about the contract restrictions.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response to the resident on 7 June 2023. It said that the officer he had complained about had not investigated his complaint about her. As she was part of its small complaints team, it did not think that it was unreasonable for her to email him with updates about his other complaints. It also stated that it had concluded the final stage of its complaints process and provided him with information to contact this Service.
The landlord sent the resident a letter and an email to confirm that it had reviewed his contact restrictions with it on 11 July 2023. A senior manager who had not been involved in the case before had carried out the review. It said that it had concerns about the number of times he had contacted it and this was having a negative impact on its officers. It had extended the contact restrictions for a further six months and would only allow him to send it one email per week.
The resident requested a review of its decision to extend the contact restrictions with it on 12 July 2023. He said that he felt that its handling of the issues that he had reported to it had negatively impacted his health. He also asked it to confirm whether his partner, a joint tenant, was subject to the same contact restrictions.
On 10 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to reject his appeal of the contact restrictions placed on him. It said that the restrictions would remain in place and be reviewed at the end of the six month period. He was only permitted to use its general email address and send it one email per week.
On 16 August 2023, the resident told this Service that he had suffered an issue with his heart during a meeting with the landlord on 23 June 2023. He said that he has developed a new heart condition as a result of the anxiety and stress he experienced during the meeting and the ongoing issues with ASB.
On 17 October 2023, the resident told us that:
1. He would be willing to engage in mediation with the landlord to try to improve his relationship with it.
2. He felt intimidated, threatened and ignored by the landlord.
3. He was still frustrated with the way that it had handled his reports about ASB and staff behaviour and was confused about the contact restrictions placed on him.
4. The outstanding repairs had all been completed.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
The resident has raised concerns to this Service about the impact of the ASB on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt his claims, however it is not within its role to establish a link between health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. He may wish to seek independent advice about this, as it may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of his complaint. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.
It is evident that the issues that the resident has reported have been distressing. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the actions reported was ASB or not, but to establish whether the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

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

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will evaluate all ASB reports using a triage assessment to establish the seriousness of the report. This will determine when it contacts a resident. It will use a risk assessment matrix to identify the impact of the ASB and agree an action plan which sets out its expectations of both the complainant and alleged perpetrator. It will also identify if the complainant and alleged perpetrator have any support needs as early as possible. Further information about the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure is outlined within the report’s background.

July 2021 (landlord case number 30170)

The landlord’s case file report confirms that on 12 July 2021 the resident reported that he was the victim of homophobic abuse. A case was opened and the case file indicates that the incident was triaged the same day. An acknowledgement letter was issued and the case was passed to the ASB officer to investigate. The case file also shows that on 13 July 2021 the ASB officer obtained and reviewed the CCTV footage of the incident. Later that day, the ASB officer attended a meeting with the resident, a local councillor and the police. There is no evidence provided of a formal action plan being drafted and shared with the resident. The landlord’s failure to clearly communicate and set the resident’s expectations, may explain why the resident called frustrated at a lack of progress with the case on 19 July 2021. There is also no evidence that a risk assessment was completed.
The landlord’s neighbourhood safety manager spoke to the resident on 20 July 2021 and confirmed that it was preparing the case for an injunction. The available evidence indicates that the landlord’s interview with the alleged perpetrator did not take place until 26 July 2021. It is concerning to note that the landlord communicated its intention to the resident before it had spoken to the alleged perpetrator. Although the landlord held CCTV footage of the incident and went on to obtain injunctions against two local residents in September 2021, it is expected that the landlord would wait until it had spoken to both victim and perpetrator, before confirming the action it was intending to take. Nevertheless, the landlord acted quickly to triage, investigate and take action in response to the ASB reports. However, it failed to undertake a risk assessment or agree an action plan with the resident.

August 2022 (landlord case number 35361)

The landlord’s case file report confirms that on 12 and 16 August 2022 the resident reported verbal abuse and intimidation from the same neighbours that had an injunction served against them in 2021. The landlord’s case file report does not indicate that a formal triage was completed, but a case was opened on 12 August 2022. The landlord did not formally agree an action plan with the resident and put this in writing. However, the call note from 12 August 2022 confirms that the landlord stated that it would review the CCTV evidence and speak to the police. The landlord also discussed the resident’s mental health with them and they confirmed they were in touch with their GP. This mirrors similar conversations within the landlord’s records on 11 and 29 July 2022, where the landlord offered support and the residents confirmed that they were supported by their GP and Stonewall. The landlord completed risk assessments on 12 and 19 August 2022. These indicated a high risk.
Following the resident’s further contact on 16 August 2022, the landlord attended a meeting with the resident and the police to discuss the incidents on 18 October 2022. At the meeting, the landlord confirmed that it would apply to have the injunctions extended. This was granted on 6 September 2022. The landlord also attempted to charge the perpetrators with breaches of the previous injunction, but the case was dropped due to a lack of evidence. Although an action plan letter was not sent to the resident, the landlord acted quickly to take action in response to the ASB reports and it completed risk assessments to inform its course of action.
The resident was frustrated with the outcome and said that he felt that the landlord had not taken his reports seriously. Although the landlord explained to him why it had not been able to take any alternative enforcement action against his neighbour, its records show that it did tell him in August 2022 that “if he experienced any further homophobic abuse, it would look to start possession proceedings”. Its comments understandably led him to believe that it would be able to take alternative enforcement action against his neighbour and the outcome of its investigation was therefore disappointing.

October 2022 (landlord case number 36237)

The landlord’s case file report confirms that on 16 October 2022 the resident reported that he was the victim of homophobic abuse from another neighbour. A case was opened on 17 October 2022. Although no formal triage took place, the case was passed to an ASB officer to investigate. The case file shows that on 17 October 2022 the ASB officer contacted the resident and the police for further information. The ASB officer spoke with the police on 18 October 2021 and reviewed video and sound recordings provided by the resident. The ASB officer spoke with the resident again on 24 October 2022. They explained that the landlord needed to allow the police to carry out their job and that it required a conviction before it could consider submitting a case for possession to the courts.
There is no record of the landlord contacting the alleged perpetrator until 11 November 2022. The landlord spoke with the resident again on 14 November 2022 and it agreed to chase up the police for a further update. The police contacted the landlord on 6 December 2022 to confirm that it was taking no further action. The landlord contacted the resident the following day to confirm that it had closed the ASB case. Although the landlord acted quickly to investigate the ASB reports, the landlord did not undertake a risk assessment or agree an action plan with the resident. Although the landlord was reliant on the police taking further action, the resident was left without an update from the landlord for about three weeks.

April 2023 (landlord case number 38483)

The landlord’s case file report indicates that the resident emailed a report of speeding and loud music from a neighbour causing a disturbance on 9 April 2023. After a delay, the landlord opened a case on 17 April 2023. There is no indication that a triage was completed. The case file shows that on 18 April 2023 the ASB officer contacted the resident and explained that it required evidence in order to look in to the matter. The landlord recommended that the resident use the Noise App to record any recurrences. It provided an explanation of how to set it up and use it in future. The landlord contacted the police and also obtained the CCTV footage for 9 April 2023. It reviewed the recording on 28 April 2023 and did not identify anything out of the ordinary. The landlord decided to review footage from earlier on that day, but did not request this until 18 May 2023, by which time the footage was no longer available.
The landlord completed a risk assessment on 24 April 2023. It was scored as a medium risk. The landlord’s email to the resident dated 24 April 2023 asked if there was any other help or support that they may require. It continued to monitor the situation as the resident reported that the speeding and loud music was continuing. However, no further evidence was received. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 June 2023 to close the case due to a lack of evidence. The landlord was slow to investigate the resident’s reports. It also delayed obtaining all relevant CCTV footage before it was wiped. The landlord completed a risk assessment, but it failed to agree an action plan with the resident.

May 2023 (landlord case number 38828)

The landlord’s case file report indicates that the resident called the landlord on 10 May 2023 and reported that he was the victim of racial harassment from a neighbour. The landlord confirmed it would assess the CCTV footage. No formal triage appears to have been completed, but a case was opened the same day and the landlord completed a risk assessment. This was scored as low. There is no evidence provided of a formal action plan being drafted and shared with the resident.
The resident called chasing an update on 17 May 2023 as he had heard nothing further. The landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator on 17 May 2023 and booked an interview for 1 June 2023. This was completed by telephone on 5 June 2023. The landlord attempted to obtain CCTV footage, but the incident reported had not been captured. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 June 2023 to close the case. The landlord completed a risk assessment, but its investigation was delayed and it failed to agree an action plan with the resident.
The evidence provided by the landlord demonstrates that it kept thorough and comprehensive records of its conversations with the resident while it investigated his reports about ASB. It also demonstrated a positive and proactive approach to multi-agency working and regularly discussed his reports with the police. Although the landlord reviewed the CCTV footage and noise recordings it obtained, these investigations were not always completed in a timely manner. In May 2023, the landlord’s delay resulted in CCTV footage being wiped before it could be reviewed.
The landlord did not always carry out a triage or risk assessments following receipt of his reports of ASB. As a result, it did not demonstrate that it fully considered the impact of each ASB report made by him, establish the seriousness of his reports or evaluate his safety. As a result, it was not able to determine how quickly it needed to respond to him following his reports about ASB. Of particular concern is the failure to complete a risk assessment following reports of homophobic abuse in July 2021.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will agree an action plan with residents to establish how their report will be dealt with. Agreeing a clear and comprehensive action plan is an important part of responding to ASB reports as it provides a landlord with an opportunity to manage a resident’s expectations and agree how it will try to resolve the ASB reported to it. Although the landlord did provide verbal updates of the actions it intended to take, the landlord failed to agree a written action plan with the resident at any point. This resulted in the resident being unsure of what, if anything, was being done about his reports and he was forced to chase up ASB officers. The lack of documented actions with agreed timescales may also have led to delays in the landlord’s management of the ASB cases. In May 2023, the landlord’s delay with its investigation resulted in CCTV footage being wiped before it could be reviewed.
Clarity for residents of what actions are going to be taken and by when will improve understanding and set realistic expectations. They can also help the landlord as a case management tool. It is therefore ordered that the landlord should consider amending its ASB policy to require action plans to be documented and shared with residents.
The landlord says that it will offer support to residents when they report ASB to it. The resident had told the landlord that the ASB had significantly affected his mental health and it was aware that he had physical disabilities. There is evidence to show that the landlord offered support to the resident. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, it could have carried out more frequent assessments of his support needs during the investigation so that it understood how the ASB was affecting him and how it could support him more effectively. As well as discussing support from their GP, the landlord should have informed the resident of support available from independent organisations such as Victim Support, ASB Help or Supportline. Of particular concern is the landlord’s lack of support offered in July 2021, when the resident told the landlord he was frightened of his neighbour and that the incident had significantly affected his quality of life.
The Victims Commissioner’s report on ASB has highlighted that the police, local authorities and social housing landlords all have responsibility to tackle ASB by working together to help victims. Too often, victims are being passed from one body to the other and feeling as if no one is listening. The nature of ASB is such that it may require many agencies to be involved in investigating and resolving it. On this occasion, the landlord has not simply referred the resident to the police. The landlord has always acted on the resident’s reports of ASB and taken steps to investigate. It has also suggested using the Noise App to capture any future incidents. However, aside from the injunctions obtained following the reports in July 2021 and August 2022, the landlord has not shown that it explored all possible preventive measures in response to the resident’s reports.
It is acknowledged that ASB cases with counterclaims make it difficult for landlords to identify the correct course of action. Landlords are not expected to take legal action in response to all ASB cases. However, there are non-legal powers that the landlord can use to tackle persistent ASB and improve community relations. These include acceptable behaviour contracts and mediation. These options could have been explored in relation to the ASB reports in October 2022, April 2023 and May 2023. The evidence available shows that mediation was considered in March 2023 in relation to issues in the community garden, but was not offered to the resident to try to tackle other ASB incidents. Mediation as a tool for good neighbourhood management is not a silver bullet in all instances, but the landlord’s failure to consider this was a missed opportunity.
The landlord appears to have only considered if the evidence was sufficient to pursue injunctions or possession proceedings. This meant it was dependent on the police charging the perpetrator before it would consider intervening itself. This is a high bar to set and can mean nuisance and ASB incidents are left unaddressed, which can easily escalate, entrench and expand into other issues. This can erode community bonds – leading to a wider, deeper sense of dissatisfaction. I have ordered the landlord to consider this when investigating ASB reports in future.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of his reports about ASB. An order has been made for the landlord to pay him £800 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its failure to consistently follow its ASB policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about its officer’s conduct and behaviour

Officer conduct and behaviour

After the resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with the attitude of an officer on 6 March 2023, it carried out an investigation into his complaint. It apologised to him if he felt unfairly treated and said that it had spoken to the officer and confirmed that she had not intended to cause him upset. The landlord carried out an investigation into his reports about the conduct and behaviour of its officers.
On 13 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two. He said that he remained unhappy with the attitude and behaviour of an officer. He also said that she had threatened to close the allotment down. It responded to him and said that it was sorry that there had been a miscommunication with her, she did not tell him that she would close the allotment down. It reminded him that it had carried out an investigation into his complaint and responded in its stage one response. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord did respond to his complaint.

Complaint about a senior complaints officer

The resident complained to the landlord on 9 May 2023 as he was unhappy that a senior officer in its complaints team had sent him an email after he had complained about her. It told him that it had reviewed the emails that the officer had sent him and found that they were acceptable. As the officer worked in its complaints team, it did not think that it was unreasonable for her to provide him with updates about his other ongoing complaints. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It said that the officer would not investigate and respond to a complaint made about her.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about its officer’s conduct and behaviour. It carried out an investigation into his complaint and apologised for any distress and inconvenience that he had experienced.

The landlord’s implementation of its unreasonable behaviour policy

The landlord’s internal procedure for unreasonable behaviour confirms that the landlord failed to follow its correct process in September 2021. Following the first warning letter dated 9 September 2021, the landlord should have sent a second warning letter in response to the incident reported on 29 September 2021. If the behaviour continued following the second warning, the landlord could then arrange a meeting to review the case and make a decision about whether to apply its unreasonable behaviour policy. The landlord skipped this second warning step and no discussion at the monthly meeting appears to have taken place (given that the unreasonable policy letter was sent the day after the incident).
Although the landlord later identified its error following the resident’s appeal, its failure to follow its procedure is concerning. This shortfall has had a clear detrimental effect on the tenant/landlord relationship. As with any allegation of ASB, it is also best practice to take steps to verify the report, consider both sides of the incident and try to identify any other possible witnesses. It is acknowledged that the landlord obtained statements from two contractors about the incident on 29 September 2021, but it should have discussed the matter with the resident or given him the chance to provide a written response before deciding whether a second warning was appropriate. The landlord issued the resident with two written warnings about his contact with it on 30 November 2022 and 22 December 2022 and asked him to use its general email address. The landlord has confirmed that the concern related to the volume and frequency of contacts along with the practice of addressing contacts to numerous officers. Its internal procedure says that a manager should consider arranging a call or meeting with the resident. This enables them to have the opportunity to respond. Although it issues two warning letters to him, the landlord does not appear to have considered arranging a call or a meeting with him.
The landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy says that it will consider making reasonable adjustments if a resident has a medical condition or an additional vulnerability such as a mental health diagnosis. As already mentioned within the report, the landlord was aware that he has a mental health diagnosis and that the ASB that he had reported to it has affected this. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence that it considered his additional vulnerabilities when it followed its unreasonable behaviour policy.
The landlord also failed to consider if the resident was working with any support services when it followed its unreasonable behaviour policy. He told it that he was struggling due to his mental health diagnosis and that he was working with a support service. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have discussed his support requirements to make sure that he understood its decision.
On 26 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that he was confused about the contact restrictions. It did not respond to him at this time and this was frustrating. On 9 May 2023, he asked it again for more information about the contact restrictions. He said that he had been told by an officer that the restrictions also applied to his partner, although he was not aware of this. The landlord again failed to respond to his request for more information.
On 12 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to review its decision to apply its unreasonable behaviour policy. He also asked it again to confirm whether his partner, a joint tenant, was subject to the same contact restrictions. The landlord sent him a letter on 10 August 2023 to reject his review request. Although the letter was sent within its review request timescales of 20 working days, it did not say whether his partner was subject to the same contact restrictions.
The landlord did not ask the resident if there was another person, for example a family member, friend or support worker, who would be able to represent him when he needed to contact it. Its policy says that it will consider this if it is aware that a resident has a vulnerability, such as a mental health diagnosis.
The landlord failed to follow its unreasonable behaviour policy. For the reasons set out above there was maladministration in the landlord’s implementation of its unreasonable behaviour policy. Orders have been made for the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation and for it to organise refresher training for its officers on its policy.

Complaint handling

The resident made multiple complaints to the landlord. This report has identified a number of failings by the landlord in dealing with his complaints.
On 19 July 2021 the resident complained about its handling of the ASB and homophobic abuse that he had reported. However, the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to his complaint. This a significant failing in the its complaint handling.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 19 January 2022. Its response included two different complaint references and failed to clearly identify that it was a stage one response. This was confusing for the resident.
On 26 July 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s decision to issue him with a tenancy warning. The landlord provided a response on 8 August 2022. The Complaint Handling Code confirms that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The landlord’s response on this occasion was extremely short and it could have done more to explain the reason for its decision and how this was supported by its policies and procedures. The resident complained on 6 March 2023 and on 28 March 2023. Although the landlord acknowledged his complaint on 6 April 2023, it did not issue a stage one response to him until 12 April 2023. Its response was outside its complaint policy timeframe.
The landlord’s stage one and stage two responses on 12 April 2023 and 10 May 2023 said that it was committed to resolving an issue with the allotment gates. However, it did not include any details about how long the issue could take to resolve, who he could contact to obtain updates or a plan for how it would resolve the issue. Its response did not reassure him that it would be able to resolve the issue. At the least, the landlord could have offered to provide fortnightly/monthly updates until a clear path to resolution was identified.
The resident complained on 3 April 2023 as he was unhappy that a repair operative had not attended to carry out a scheduled repair. The landlord said that it had forwarded his complaint to its repairs contractor to respond to him. However, he did not receive a complaint response from it. In the Ombudsman’s view, it should have made sure that the complaint was responded to according to its policy.
On 24 April 2023, the resident complained about an issue with fly tipping and rats. He also said that he was worried that some scaffolding that had been installed at another property could cause damage to his garden. The landlord’s response on 18 May 2023 was outside its complaint policy timeframe. It said that the scaffolding would not cause damage to his garden and as it had identified that the complaint had been made on behalf of other people, it would not respond to it. The landlord failed to respond to the issue that he raised about fly tipping and rats.
On 9 May 2023 the resident said that he was unhappy that a senior officer in its complaints team had emailed him after he had complained to it about her. The Complaint Handling Code confirms that the case handler must take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest. The landlord should have made arrangements for another officer, who had not been involved in the complaint, to have communicated with him while his complaint was still being investigated.
On 24 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two. The resident’s email highlighted that the contact restrictions remained a concern. However, the landlord’s stage two response on 7 June 2023 did not respond to this part of the complaint. It is acknowledged that it was not completely clear what the resident’s outstanding concern with regard to contact restrictions was; however, the landlord failed to contact the resident to clarify this before responding to the escalation request. Its response was frustrating for the resident and he told us that felt like he was being ignored as a result.
For the reasons set out above there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made below to pay the resident £350 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports about ASB.
2. Implementation of its unreasonable behaviour policy.
3. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about its officers’ conduct and behaviour.

Reasons

The landlord failed to consistently follow its ASB policy when it responded to the resident’s ASB reports. It did not routinely triage the ASB reports complete risk assessments or offer the resident support. The landlord did not provide any written ASB action plans. Of particular concern is the lack of support offered and failure to complete a risk assessment in July 2021 following a report of homophobic abuse.
It is clear that the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s actions and is frustrated with its handling of the ASB that he has reported to it. However, the landlord did carry out an investigation into his complaint about its officers’ conduct and behaviour. It responded to his complaint and apologised to him for any upset that he had experienced.
In September 2021, the landlord failed to follow its internal procedure on unreasonable behaviour until the resident submitted an appeal. On this occasion and again in 2022, the landlord should have discussed the matter with the resident or given him the chance to provide a written response before deciding whether a second warning was appropriate. It failed to demonstrate that it considered his mental health diagnosis or if another person could act as his representative. It also did not respond to his request for clarification about whether the policy applied to his partner’s contact with it.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or fully respond to a number of his concerns and missed some important issues raised by him throughout his complaints. It also failed to take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £1,650, comprising:
1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his reports about ASB.
2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its implementation of its unreasonable behaviour policy.
3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.
The compensation must be paid to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord must also take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has done so:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Consider amending its ASB policy to require action plans to be documented and shared with residents.
3. Contact the resident to establish if he is still experiencing ASB. If the resident reports new ASB incidents, the landlord should complete a risk assessment, agree and document an action plan and offer support. The action plan should include considering legal and non-legal tools (such as mediation, written warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts) to tackle the ASB.
4. Organise refresher training for its officers on its unreasonable behaviour policy.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord to:
1. Take steps to try to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship. This could include offering a face-to-face meeting, using an independent mediation service and/or providing the resident with a single point of contact.
2. Contact the resident with evidence that the CCTV camera is currently working or with details of how to submit a subject access request to obtain footage himself.