London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202002926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002926

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 February 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

The complaint is about
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour from the resident and her neighbour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor flat with two bedrooms and holds an assured tenancy. In making her complaint, the resident has been supported by and represented by her daughter who does not reside with her.
The resident has a heart condition and also suffers from stress, panic attacks and low mood. The resident says her health and wellbeing has been made worse by the anti-social behaviour (ASB) of her neighbours and the actions of her landlord in response.
The reported ASB by the resident consisted of intimidation, watching the resident in her garden, noise from the neighbours’ piano and dog barking, recordings being made of the resident, aggressive behaviour, littering, damaging her garden and verbal abuse. These reports all concern the same household.
Counter-allegations of ASB were made by the same neighbours which were investigated by the landlord. These allegations included the resident swearing at the neighbours. Following this, the resident was advised that if the behaviour continued she would be issued with a tenancy breach warning letter by her landlord. The resident says she found this very distressing.
The neighbours moved elsewhere in July 2021 with most of the incidents reported to have taken place in 2019 and 2020. The landlord closed the ASB case when the neighbours moved and no further ASB has been reported.
The resident remains dissatisfied with how the landlord handled the ASB allegations from both sides and how her complaint was handled including the amount of compensation offered by the landlord. The resident has approached this service for assistance in resolution.

Summary of Events

The first incident of ASB reported by the resident and seen by this service took place in October 2018 when neighbours were having a party. The resident said the neighbours were throwing balloons at her window, making a lot of noise late at night and laughing at her. The resident said they had also parked in a bay reserved for her use and left mess behind. The resident reported this incident to police and was given a crime reference number.
The neighbours had made counter-allegations previously in June 2018 that the resident had sworn at a member of their household when he had been in the garden.
The landlord’s file notes indicate in response to the reports in 2018, it suggested and arranged a mediation process. There is evidence that the resident attended some mediation meetings in 2018 although it is not clear how many sessions were attended or how often they occurred.
On 14 February 2019, the resident reported a barking dog causing noise from her neighbours’ property to the local authority. The local authority contacted the landlord who advised that it was aware of the reported ASB which was in the process of being investigated. In response to the reports of ASB made to the landlord, the resident was asked to keep a log of any incidents using diary sheets. The landlord said that the barking dog was everyday noise and not statutory noise nuisance. The landlord said that due to this it would not be taking any enforcement action on this issue.
In March 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord that the diary sheets she had been completing had been ignored and that she had been making reports about her neighbours since 2015. The resident said she had been to her GP because of the stress this had caused. This complaint was responded to initially with a phone call from the landlord and once again the resident was asked to continue to maintain a diary of events.
In April 2019, the resident reported her neighbours leaving a mess with balloons but this was withdrawn in May 2019 when the resident realised her neighbour was not involved.
In the first week of June 2019, an incident occurred when a repairs contractor arrived to carry out street work to the property next door to the resident. Video footage of the incident made by a neighbour has been seen by the landlord and by this service. The resident objected to the contractor using her parking bay to carry out the work and said he damaged her plants by using that location. The footage shows the resident having a prolonged argument with the contractor as she asks him to vacate the space he is occupying to carry out the work and he refuses saying he is entitled to carry out the work. Due to this incident, the contractor refused to send another worker to the location and the repair work raised was delayed.
On 11 June 2019 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint she had made in March 2019. During the call, the landlord noted that the resident accepted that she could have handled the incident with the contractor differently and was advised that the landlord expected its operatives to be able to carry out their duties without being verbally abused. The resident requested a meeting with her GP so that she could better explain her side of the situation and how it was affecting her.
On 28 June 2019 and then on 10 July 2019 two meetings were arranged by the landlord. These meetings were attended by senior housing officers, the resident and her GP. The landlord said that the purpose of the meetings was for the resident’s GP to ‘get a better understanding of the ASB issues you have reported to him.’
At the meeting in July 2019, the resident said she had informed police that due to the stress caused by ‘malicious remarks’ made by her neighbour, the resident had informed police that she was ‘going to kill myself and take my neighbour with me.’ The landlord advised the resident of the possible implications of this statement with her GP present.
A letter was sent to the resident on 17 July 2019 explaining the outcome of the meetings and advising that if further ASB incidents were reported to the landlord it would ‘instigate legal action immediately which may initially involve taking out an injunction against you through the courts.’ In the letter, the resident was also reminded of the terms of her tenancy agreement ,section 5 of which states the resident must not ‘harrass or threaten’ others or ‘do anything likely to cause annoyance.’
On 20 September 2019, following contact with this service, the landlord sent the resident an email confirming that a complaint had been logged regarding the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and about the behaviour of the officer handling the resident’s ASB case.
A formal response at stage one was sent on 1 October 2019. In this, the landlord said:
1. The resident had been ‘identified as the main perpetrator’ of the ASB. It said this was evident from police reports, complaints from other residents and video evidence.
2. It had supported both the resident and her neighbour and taken action in line with its ASB policy.
3. Mediation was suggested by the landlord and attended by both parties.
4. An acceptable behaviour contract or similar agreement had been signed by both parties.
5. Following the incident with the contractor, the landlord had arranged meetings with the resident’s GP. The landlord said the GP had confirmed the resident had capacity to understand the implications of her behaviour as her health problems were mostly physical.
6. The actions it had taken such as the tenancy breach warning were appropriate in the circumstances.
7. It would be closing the complaint if it had not heard back from the resident within two weeks.
No further incidents were reported until six months later when on 22 April 2020, the resident reported that she was being intimidated by her neighbour when in the back garden as they were constantly watching her while she was gardening. In April 2020, the resident’s daughter contacted the landlord to complain that her mother was not being listened to and should not have been reminded by officers about the tenancy breach warning given to her previously without investigating first.
In May 2020, allegations were made by the residents neighbour that she had was shouting from her window when they were in the garden. The resident and her daughter provided a witness statement saying that the resident had been shouting due to a hearing impairment. The witness statement also said that the witness was concerned for the resident who was isolated during the Coronavirus period and was a valued member of the local community.
In July 2020, the landlord started the process of gathering information to apply for an injunction. The draft injunction said the resident was ‘not to approach, have contact with, shout or scream and or verbally abuse’ her neighbours. According to the evidence seen by this service, the injunction was not pursued and no further ASB incidents were recorded for the next few months.
During March 2021, the resident was in contact with this service regarding what she described as difficulty in getting a response to her complaint and escalating her complaint through the landlord’s process.
On 27 April 2021, the resident reported her neighbour peeping through her front door at her. The following day, the landlord contacted the resident’s daughter by phone and discussed the ongoing ASB dispute with the neighbour. The landlord advised it would issue a warning to the neighbour if the incidents continued.
On 30 April 2021, a complaint was recorded by the landlord following contact from this service. Telephone contact was made with the resident and her daughter. Following this call, the landlord said it would take in to account the resident’s health and circumstances when assessing the ASB reported.
On 21 July 2021, an ASB case closure letter was sent to the resident saying that the neighbours had now moved elsewhere.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage two which is the final stage of its complaints process. In its response, the landlord said that:
1. It had investigated the ASB reported by the resident including talking to witness but found no evidence of ASB.
2. It had met and discussed the situation in two meetings with the resident’s GP present.
3. There had been no incidents reported since April 2020 although the landlord made reference to prior incidents such as the day the contractor was unable to carry out repair work.
4. It recognised a failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, delay in responding to the complaint and the time and trouble taken in making the complaint. These factors were awarded £20, £100 and £50 respectively making a total offer of £170 compensation.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response saying that insufficient compensation has been awarded for the stress and anxiety caused to her. The resident and her representative say that the landlord did not investigate the various allegations fairly, giving more weight to the allegations made about the resident than the allegations made by her. The resident also says that various staff members have behaved inconsiderately by referring to the tenancy breach warning given to the resident which has caused additional distress.

Assessment and findings

ASB report handling

The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its tenants. Section 218 of the Housing Act 1996 (as introduced by S.12 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003), requires housing associations to prepare a policy and procedure on ASB. The Act also gave housing associations powers to evict residents for harassment.
The Neighbourhood and Community Standard is one of the four consumer standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. As part of this standard, the landlord is required to ‘work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB in the local area.’ The standard requires landlords to publish an ASB policy and goes on to encourage landlords to take a pro-active, preventative approach to ASB when possible.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), was introduced in 2005, replacing the Housing Fitness Standard. The purpose of the guidance was to help landlords risk assess the condition of housing from the perspective of avoiding or, at the very least, minimising potential hazards. It recognises noise as a psychological hazard – threats to mental or physical health from exposure to noise caused by a lack of sufficient sound insulation. The landlord therefore had a responsibility to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of noise such as the barking dog.
The landlord’s response is guided by its ASB policy which has been provided to this service. Under the terms of its 2011 ASB policy, the landlord says that in response to reports of ASB it will:
1. Assess the ASB when it is reported and assess whether it is high priority or high risk.
2. Keep in regular contact with all parties.
3. Arrange an interview at the place of choosing by the reporting party.
4. Provide advice and support and follow safeguarding procedures.
5. Refer and signpost parties to appropriate agencies.
6. Agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep this regularly updated.
7. Use whatever powers and remedies are appropriate to reduce the ASB. The list of tools available includes mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts and tenancy breach warning letters as well as legal measures such as injunctions, evictions and community protection notices.
The landlord also says that it will ‘treat those who been affected by ASB sympathetically and sensitively’ and will ‘adjust our approach as necessary’ during the course of an ASB case based on the needs of the reporting party.
In response to the resident’s reports of ASB, there is evidence that the landlord took the following actions:
1. Interviewed and gathered information on various incidents from both the resident and her neighbour as well as other local witnesses.
2. Met with the resident and her GP on two occasions to discuss the allegations.
3. Arranged mediation between the two neighbours.
4. Following mediation, an acceptable behaviour contract or similar agreement was signed by both parties.
5. Informed the resident that further reports of ASB could result in legal action such as eviction or an injunction being applied for.
6. Discussed the resident’s needs with her GP and found out if further support was required.
7. Assessed that the noise reported by the resident did not require further action as it was everyday noise rather than statutory ‘noise nuisance’ as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
8. Closed the ASB case following the neighbour leaving the location.
The above actions were all reasonable, proportionate and appropriate steps to take in relation to the ASB reported. Referral to a mediation service and the production of an acceptable behaviour contract was overall an appropriate response to the neighbour dispute which emerged in 2019. No evidence has been seen by this service to suggest that the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of noise or other ASB.
Based on clause 5 of the resident’s tenancy agreements which states that the resident must not ‘harrass or threaten’ others or ‘do anything likely to cause annoyance’ to other residents, the landlord was entitled to say that a tenancy breach warning letter could be issued if the resident’s behaviour persisted. The landlord never issued such a letter but its staff made repeated references to the threat of legal action and possible eviction over the duration of the ASB case which remained open for a period of over eighteen months.
Since these warnings were verbal rather than written, it is not possible for this service to assess whether these warnings and references were heavy-handed or disproportionate. However, as part of the learning from this compliant, the landlord should consider whether its system provide staff with appropriate information to staff regarding the needs of their residents and the possible impact verbal warnings could have. This was important here since the resident was known to have some mental health issues and had mentioned suicide in the past. A recommendation about this has been made below.
The landlord was entitled to take action following the incident in June 2019 with the repairs contractor as it has a responsibility to protect staff and ensure repairs can be carried out. The landlord wanted to meet with the resident and agreed to do so at the resident’s GP surgery in recognition of mental health concerns. The fact that it did so showed that it was being flexible in its approach to the ASB case and demonstrates an appropriate regard for the resident’s health and general circumstances.
The resident has said that the repeated references to legal action have been extremely upsetting and the actions of staff have caused her considerable distress and anxiety. While it is not doubted that these comments did cause distress, this service has not had access to recordings of phone conversations or other evidence that indicates staff behaviour was inappropriate.
It should also be noted that this service does not provide compensation to complainants in the same way that a court does. We are unable to quantify medical impact and award compensation for damages or negligence. Our focus is rather on the actions of the landlord and whether or not the actions taken were in line with relevant legislation and the landlord’s policy and procedures. With this in mind, it is fair to conclude that the landlord responded appropriately to the reports of anti-social behaviour.

Complaint Handling

Over the time frame considered in this report, which is from 2019 until the end of the landlord’s complaints process in August 2021, the landlord clearly struggled with what can sometimes be a blurred line between a report of ASB and a complaint being made by the resident.
The resident contacted this service several times to assist in registering and escalating her complaint with the landlord. This is evidence that the landlord was not able to easily pick up and identify the resident’s dissatisfaction with the service she had received and separate this from her ongoing ASB case. No evidence has been seen that the landlord failed to investigate concerns about staff members appropriately.
The landlord’s file notes suggest that many expressions of dissatisfaction were dealt with via phone calls rather than a formal process. While it can be effective to respond to complaints in this way, phone calls should always be followed up with written accounts of the conversation and information given to residents about the complaint escalation process if they remain dissatisfied.
This resulted in some elements of the resident’s complaints ‘not being listened to’ and the complaints process being effectively stretched out over two years rather than handled within a more regular timeframe of a few months. The stage one response from the landlord was in October 2019 with the stage two response being sent in August 2021.
Based on the information available, the resident’s initial complaint was made in March 2019 when she expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of her ASB case. Instead of a formal response being sent, a phone call was made with a formal stage one response only being sent seven months later in October. It is fair to conclude that this would have resulted in some distress and inconvenience to the resident who was forced to take time and trouble to escalate her complaint further and was known to suffer from both physical and mental health issues.
The landlord’s complaints policy dated 2011 indicates a target timescale of a 10 working day response at stage one and 20 working days for stage two. The landlord has accepted that there were errors in acknowledging complaints, as well as delay in responding to them and has offered £170 compensation broken down as £20 for the acknowledgement failures, £100 for delays and £50 for time and trouble taken in pursuing the complaint. This is reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the extended nature of the complaints process and the failure to provide complaint escalation information at the appropriate time. £170 is also in line with Housing Ombudsman guidance which suggests payments between £50 and £250 for service failures which have caused distress and inconvenience over an extended period.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its service failures in complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to reports of ASB. The landlord investigated and used the tools available to it to try and reduce the ASB such as mediation and an acceptable behaviour contract. It also organised two meetings to discuss the ASB where the resident’s GP was present.
The landlord has acknowledged delay in the complaints process and made a suitable offer of compensation of £170 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident and her daughter and apologise for any distress and inconvenience caused to her while it investigated reports of ASB. The landlord should consider any further goodwill gesture it can make (such as vouchers for gardening or redecoration) and ensure that appropriate flags are in place on its systems so that staff members are aware of the residents needs if any incidents of ASB are reported in the future.