LiveWest Homes Limited (202016803)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016803

LiveWest Homes Limited

10 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The resident lives at the property with her adult son.
  2. The landlord’s ASB and Harassment Policy states that it will aim to resolve the majority of incidents through early intervention by using a range of tools such as coaching, warnings, acceptable behaviour/parenting contracts (ABC), referrals to other statutory and voluntary agencies, community resolution and mediation service.
  3. The Policy further states where the behaviour is of a criminal nature, it is likely that the police will be the lead agency in the investigation. In these cases, the landlord will support and work with them and its actions may be guided by their findings and outcomes.
  4. The Policy goes on to add that the landlord will contact the victim reporting hate crime within 24 hours to discuss the incident. The police will assess if a hate crime has been committed and the landlord will work with the police to take appropriate action against the perpetrator. If, after police investigation, it is clear the incident is not motivated by prejudice or hate, the landlord will continue to deal with any incident in line with the ASB policy.
  5. Whilst I note that there were further incidents which occurred following the landlord completing its complaint process, the resident only raised the new ASB complaint to stage one and advised the landlord that she did not want to deal with it again. As such the Ombudsman has not considered the events which took place following the final response dated 15 April 2021.

Summary

  1. In July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord with regards to her concerns about her neighbour who had recently moved back into the flats, after moving away previously. The resident felt that her neighbour should not have been allowed to move back into the flats due to previous incidents of ASB.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord and the police a series of incidents which occurred in November and December 2020 relating to verbal abuse, homophobic abuse, and harassment.
  3. Within 24 hours from the first report to the landlord, it responded to the resident confirming it had contacted the police to enquire about the case. It advised it was arranging for diary sheets to be sent to the resident and asked her to keep it informed of any updates or any further incidents.
  4. In November 2020 the landlord sent the resident diary sheets to log any incidents and advised the resident to report any hate or harassment crimes to the police. On 2 December 2020 the police visited the resident and her son to discuss the issues had over the years with the neighbour.
  5. On 3 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident, confirming a case had been opened and it was working with the police to investigate the matter. It advised the resident to report any further incidents to the police and to complete the diary sheets previously sent and return them after 14 days. Later in December 2020 the landlord went to see the resident and her son to take details of the harassment. The landlord and police took steps to speak with the resident’s neighbour regarding the reports.
  6. The landlord and police visited the resident about the incidents in January 2021. Following the visit, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that as no further reports had been made, the police decided not to invite the resident for a formal interview however, an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) was suggested. The landlord provided a copy of the draft contract to the resident and the neighbour and advised if the resident agreed to the terms of the contract, it would like to visit her on 5 March 2021 with the police to have this signed.
  7. Through February 2021 the resident was in contact with the landlord about the issues that she had with her neighbour, although no new reports were made at the time.
  8. The police contacted the resident’s son to advise due to insufficient evidence to support the allegations, it was unable to take any further action at this time and it was confirmed that the resident’s neighbour declined to sign the ABC.
  9. On 10 March 2021 the resident called the landlord requesting the complaints procedure for the ongoing ASB issues, noting she had spoken to a solicitor. The resident was unhappy with the outcome of her ASB case and that her son was advised that her neighbour declined to sign the ABC. She was also unhappy as the police advised they would not take any further action. The landlord advised the resident that in the first instance it would be wise to speak with the Housing Officer’s manager and asked for the opportunity to arrange this. The landlord made her aware of her rights to raise a complaint with the police if she was unhappy with their enquires or conduct.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 March 2021 to raise a complaint about how her ASB reports were dealt with. The resident advised that her neighbour had been harassing her and her family since she moved into the property in 2010. She was concerned that the neighbour was returned to the property after a mutual exchange despite the previous ASB issues. The resident was unhappy that the landlord was unable to take any legal action following her recent reports of hate crime and harassment, given the neighbour had refused to sign the Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). The resident explained her solicitor advised that the landlord had broken the rules as they have a different duty and policy than the police and should be taking further action as the neighbour was in breach of her tenancy. The resident was unhappy that the landlord’s local neighbourhood team manager did not contact her or her son to update them on the progress of the case. The resident felt the landlord had not taken her reports seriously.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 March 2021 advising that it looked to provide a response by 18 March 2021.
  12. On 18 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident, referring to its telephone conversation with her on 10 March 2021, to advise that due to the nature of her reports, the investigation was being led by the police. Due to insufficient evidence the police confirmed to the resident that it would not take any further action at this time however the incidents would remain on file. The landlord confirmed it worked collaboratively with the police to encourage her neighbour to enter into an ABC to manage behaviours of the household. It advised the neighbour declined this, denying any wrongdoing. The landlord suggested mediation and recommended that if there were any further issues, the resident could try and get evidence of the behaviour as it was happening, such as recording the incident. The resident was advised to try and avoid her neighbour and not to engage in any confrontation. The landlord offered its coaching and advice service on dealing with difficult situations.
  13. On 24 March 2021 the landlord issued its first response. The landlord explained it was unable to find any failures with the way it handled the resident’s reports of ASB. It confirmed that it took a proportionate response, recognising the seriousness of the reports and visited her neighbour twice about the homophobic comments with the police. It updated the resident on 18 March 2021 suggesting support in order to prevent further incidents. The resident was advised if she and her son would like support, it was able to offer coaching services, mediation as well as guidance from third party organisations.
  14. On 26 March 2021 the landlord received a call from a representative at the organisation Stand Against Racism & Inequality (SARI) about the case. The landlord explained all the actions it had taken, and the representative noted that the landlord had listened to the resident and escalated the case through the police and criminal route. The representative advised the landlord to continue to monitor the situation for now but felt the actions taken by the landlord were appropriate.
  15. The landlord received correspondence from the resident on 6 April 2021 expressing dissatisfaction with the first response. She advised she was not interested in any support that was offered in the response. The letter was unclear as the resident advised she wanted to escalate the case, but also advised that she did not want any further assistance from the landlord.
  16. Following a call to the resident on 7 April 2021 the case was escalated and acknowledged by the landlord the same day.
  17. On 15 April 2021 the landlord provided its second stage response. The landlord acknowledged that issues that were previously reported by the resident in 2013 before her neighbour moved out of the flats and confirmed her neighbour returned in December 2018. The landlord confirmed with regards to her more recent reports raised from November 2020, it had acted in line with its policies and procedures. It noted that since December 2020 it was pleased to hear no further reports of hate related incidents had been made. The landlord confirmed that as the neighbour declined to sign the ABC, denying the incidents occurred, the police were unable to escalate the case further due to insufficient evidence. It explained as the ABC was voluntary, it was unable to force tenants to complete this, however, should any further incidents of this nature occur, the neighbour’s failure to enter into the ABC would form part of the landlord’s consideration when deciding on actions to take.
  18. The landlord explained that its ASB policy and procedure was sufficiently robust in its approach to hate crime and that it had followed this. With regards to the neighbour moving back into the flats, the landlord confirmed it had audited the mutual exchange and the correct process and checks were made. As such, the neighbour had the right to exchange back into the property and there was no reason to reject the application. The landlord confirmed it had spoken with the organisation SARI about the case who concluded that the landlord had taken the correct course of action.
  19. The landlord reiterated the options it had previously offered the resident such as its coaching services and mediation. Whilst it appreciated the resident had declined these, it offered further details of these services for her to consider.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating complaints about ASB, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the ASB exists as alleged, rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to review the evidence that is available and determine whether the landlord acted in line with its duties, obligations and procedure as set out in any relevant policies.
  2. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which suggests that the landlord has acted inappropriately or departed from its procedure in relation to the incidents which occurred. The resident’s reports were investigated, and the landlord was in regular communication with the resident. Diary sheets were provided and reviewed, and the landlord was in communication with the police regarding the hate crime reports raised by the resident and her son in line with its ASB policy. The landlord also offered to provide the resident with information about her options to move to a new property. It did attempt to resolve the issues raised by offering coaching services and mediation which were declined by both the resident and her neighbour. As both parties declined these voluntary options and due to insufficient evidence, the landlord was limited with regards to any formal action it was able to consider.
  3. Given that there was an absence of evidence for the landlord to take enforcement action against the resident’s neighbour it was appropriate for it to consider what else could be done to try to tackle the behaviour the resident had reported.
  4. The landlord explained the purpose of an ABC was mainly to encourage behaviour change.  It is a voluntary plan so not contractually binding however it is a good tool to use to show an individual is willing (or not) to work with agencies to resolve issues. It can also be used as evidence should there be need for court/enforcement action.  In this situation, had it been proven that the neighbours were intentionally causing alarm or distress then the landlord would have been able to consider further tenancy action. However, given the neighbour’s denial of the allegations and often a lack of evidence or independent witnesses, the landlord was further limited in its actions. As such, its offer of mediation was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. Evidence provided to the Ombudsman by the landlord indicates that it actively made contact with the resident’s neighbour regarding the ASB reports and attempted to remedy the situation. It is clear that both tenants have had issues with each other over the years.
  6. The landlord’s Mutual Exchange Policy does not detail any exclusion related to ASB unless there is an injunction, an ASBO/Criminal Behaviour Order or court undertaking that has been granted and the requirements of that are still in force. As such, the Ombudsman has been unable to find anything to suggest that the landlord incorrectly allowed the resident’s neighbour to move back.
  7. Based on my investigation, there is no evidence to suggest that there was a failing by the landlord in the handling of the ASB case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Reasons

  1. The landlord has demonstrated that if followed the steps within its ASB policy to attempt to resolve the resident’s reports about her neighbour with the help of the police. As both parties were unwilling to participate in a mediation, ABC, or coaching, and given the lack of evidence, the landlord was unable to take any legal action.