LiveWest Homes Limited (202111633)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111633

LiveWest Homes Limited

23 May 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) and her request for a management transfer.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
3. The resident initially made an ASB report to the landlord on 17 February 2021, stating that her neighbour was “banging poles” and she said other neighbours were taking drugs in the block. Between February and June 2021, the resident made several further reports of ASB including two noise nuisance reports, racism, an allegation of sexual references and inappropriate conduct by her neighbour. The landlord requested the resident to document any further incidents and use a noise recording app. The resident had requested a management move to an alternative property.
4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 4 June 2021, as the landlord had informed her it was unable to grant her a management move. She also said that neighbours were shining a laser pen at her door to set off her door bell. In her complaint escalation on 16 June 2021, the resident requested reimbursement of £140 as she had paid for a locksmith to attend as the communal door lock had been tampered with.
5. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it said that it had followed its ASB policies, however due to limited notes regarding the case it would undertake a case review. It offered the resident £25 for service failure for the lack of notes regarding her ASB reports. It said the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer, but it had provided her with other support with moving properties. It reimbursed her for the cost of the locksmith but advised her to report any similar incidents to the police in the first instance.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied as she wanted to be moved due to the continuous ASB she experienced.

Assessment and findings

7. The resident has reported several further instances of ASB, following the landlord’s stage two complaint response, including racist graffiti. As the landlord has not had the chance to respond to the more recent incidents through its complaints process, they will not be assessed within this report. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Ombudsman scheme which states that we will not assess complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
8. It is important to note that it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Rather, our role is to determine whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s 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.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it considers ASB as conduct that has caused harassment, alarm or distress. As such it was appropriate that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports, and took appropriate and proportionate actions. Upon receiving the resident’s initial report of banging, the landlord advised her to complete diary entries and use a noise recording app to document the noise nuisance. There is no evidence to suggest that either of these actions were completed by the resident. The resident made further reports of inappropriate and racially motivated behaviour from neighbours. However, there is no indication that the resident identified who was responsible for these actions. Although it is acknowledged that these incidents would have been distressing for the resident, the landlord is limited in the actions it can take if it is unable to identify an individual perpetrator, as in this case. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord advised it would be unable to proceed with the resident’s ASB case unless she provided diary entries with specific dates and times to facilitate its investigation. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states “where there is no corroborating evidence to allegations, we may not be in a position to take further action”.
10. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will utilise a variety of management tools, including warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, mediation and legal action in an effort to resolve ASB. The landlord cannot reasonably take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB without strong supporting evidence to show that the behaviour was serious and prolonged. In this case, as the landlord has been unable to identify the perpetrator, it would be unable to take such action. Similarly, without identifying the perpetrator, the landlord would be unable to issue a warning or facilitate mediation. Despite the fact that it was limited in the actions that it could take, the landlord signposted the resident to the police when appropriate, such as with regards to the damaged lock and the racial hate crimes. The police have different powers to the landlord and may be best placed to lead any investigation into criminal matters. The landlord would be expected to assist with any investigation by the police where appropriate and the landlord may be able to use evidence gathered by the police to support legal action against perpetrators of ASB.  It was also appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to reimburse the resident £140 for the cost of the locksmith, following damage to the communal door.
11. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord identified that there were limited notes on the resident’s ASB case. The landlord explained to this Service, that it changed its housing system in April 2021, which “presented some challenges around embedding a new way of record keeping and moving records to the new system” and this contributed to the gaps in its ASB records. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this issue. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint, as it completed a full case review, offered the resident £25 compensation in view of its record keeping failing and advised the resident that it had reminded staff to ensure they keep ASB files appropriately updated. In its case review, the landlord assessed additional CCTV evidence and attended the property, but was unable to identify any ASB. It had determined that the resident’s reports of a neighbour shining a light through her door was a reflection from the communal hall window. The police had also reviewed the footage and made the same conclusion. The landlord then sent an ASB case position statement on 22 October 2021, in which it clearly outlined its reasons for closing the ASB case.
12. The resident requested a management move as a result of the “continuous behaviour” by her neighbours. The landlord’s exceptional transfer procedure states that in order to facilitate a management move there must be clear evidence of circumstances such as serious risk of harm or urgent medical need. It was reasonable that the landlord explained to the resident it was unable to facilitate a management move at this time because it did not have sufficient evidence of ASB, so her request therefore did not meet its criteria. The landlord had also clearly outlined its policy and advised the resident to provide any further information that may have supported her application. The resident’s doctor sent a letter to support her move, however the landlord advised it was not sufficient. It was appropriate that the landlord discussed alternative rehousing options, and supported the resident with her applications.
13. Overall, the landlord supported the resident with her reports of ASB, but ultimately as it was unable to identify a specific perpetrator, it could not take further action. The landlord was clear in its communication, signposted the resident to the police where appropriate and supported her with her housing application.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.