Manningham Housing Association Limited (202104146)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104146

Manningham Housing Association Limited

30 March 2023

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about it referring her to a mental health agency.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, it is determined that the following aspect of the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about it referring her to a mental health agency.
  2. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord passing her details to an external mental health agency dates from July 2019, approximately two years before the resident raised her concern about the matter. As it is not possible to make a reliable determination on historical events, this aspect of the complaint will not be considered within this investigation.
  3. Furthermore, it is noted that the landlord provided an explanation to the resident about the above aspect of the complaint in its panel meeting prior to its final stage complaint response. During this, it was recorded that she was satisfied that it had not referred her to the mental health agency.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident made reports of ASB from her neighbours dating back to 2016 and there was an interval of approximately 21 months between the historical incidents and her recent reports commencing on 7 April 2021. In line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme above, the historical issues will not be considered in this investigation, although they may be included to provide context to the complaint. This investigation will therefore focus on events from six months prior to the resident raising her formal complaint with the landlord.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. There was a history of conflict between herself and her neighbour dating from 18 April 2016 to 30 July 2020 involving verbal comments and abuse. Mediation was offered twice and the resident refused on both occasions. The neighbour confirmed on 30 July 2020 that matters were resolved between the parties.
  2. A dispute occurred on 2 April 2021 during which the police were involved. The landlord spoke to the resident about the matter after viewing video evidence of the incident. She said that the incident had arisen through a parking dispute and said that her neighbour had been harassing her. The landlord offered the resident mediation, which she agreed to. She reported further harassment from her neighbour on 16 April 2021 which the landlord spoke to the neighbour about. There was no evidence for the landlord to pursue the matter as the allegations were word against word. On 19 April 2021, the resident declined mediation, asking for no further contact from the landlord. On 19 May 2021, the resident reported ASB from her neighbours’ children. The landlord viewed her video footage and found no evidence of ASB; consequently, it advised the parties involved not to approach each other.
  3. The resident raised a stage one complaint through the Ombudsman on 24 May 2021 in which she said that the landlord had not provided support to her despite her experiencing threatening behaviour from her neighbours. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 7 June 2021 said that it had done all it could to resolve matters between the parties since 2019. It urged the resident to consider mediation and offered her a management transfer to alternative accommodation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 10 June 2021 as she felt it had not considered the ASB issues correctly. She wanted the landlord to evict the neighbour, said it was not concerned with her safety. In the meantime, the landlord reviewed the resident’s video footage in connection with a new ASB report and found no evidence of ASB. It liaised with the police about the resident’s ASB reports which resulted in a joint visit to her on 10 August 2021 where she was asked not to approach the neighbour. The resident made further reports to the landlord of parking issues and threatening behaviour on 26 August and 11 October 2021. It viewed video footage of the parking, which showed no evidence of ASB, and referred the threatening behaviour to the police.
  5. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 29 October 2021 which did not uphold her complaint. It reoffered her a management move and support with rehousing and urged her to consider mediation. The resident informed this Service on 4 May 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of ASB and wanted to be rehoused, or for her neighbour to be evicted.

Assessment and findings

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

  1. It is noted that video recordings were submitted as part of the evidence for this investigation. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on video evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the recordings, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not generally place significant reliance on recordings in reaching our decisions. Nevertheless, it will be considered whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of ASB and any evidence she submitted as part of her reports.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it regards ASB to be “conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”. This goes on to explain that this is behaviour that affects the landlord’s ability to manage its housing, which includes harassment, verbal or physical abuse; racial abuse or hate crime; noise nuisance; or threatening or intimidating behaviour.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy distinguishes ASB from ‘neighbour disputes’ which are characterised as “Queries, comments and complaints made in a way that is offensive or insensitive to the other party which can be dealt with through an apology and/or a better appreciation of different religious and/or cultural values.” In such disputes the policy states that mediation will be offered to resolve the situation if appropriate.
  4. There was no evidence of a failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. In response to her ASB reports, it appropriately spoke to the neighbours and viewed video footage to investigate the issues. As it found no evidence of actionable tenancy breaches, it was reasonable for it to propose mediation to resolve the neighbour disputes, in line with its ASB policy above.
  5. When the landlord received reports from the resident of threatening behaviour, it appropriately liaised with the police to establish whether there was evidence of any actionable ASB. When it was found that the ASB could not be evidenced, it was a reasonable and proportionate response for it to ask the parties involved not to engage with one another.
  6. When a landlord receives a report of ASB, it would be expected to investigate the report and gather evidence. This forms the first step to taking formal tenancy action against a tenant, which has the ultimate outcome of the tenant being evicted from their property. For a landlord to take this step, it would need to be able to present a robust body of evidence showing breaches of tenancy to a judge, and evidence that it had taken all reasonable actions to address the ASB. As its investigations had not found substantial evidence of ASB, it was reasonable for it to take informal action to resolve matters between the parties involved, such as proposing mediation and discouraging them from approaching each other.
  7. The landlord’s choice-based lettings policy provides for it to offer management transfers, avoiding the normal requirement for a resident to apply for a change of property. The conditions permitting such a move are that there is an emergency situation, or that a resident is “facing… forms of harassment where their wellbeing is at risk”. As there was no evidence of serious ASB which put the wellbeing of the resident in immediate danger, the landlord acted in excess of its obligations to offer the resident a management move. This demonstrated that it took her concerns about her safety seriously and paid consideration to the potential detriment to her wellbeing. The landlord, therefore, proposed a reasonable solution to resolve the situation which took the resident’s circumstances into account.
  8. In conclusion, the landlord responded reasonably and proportionately to the resident’s reports of ASB in the circumstances, and offered a management move to another property which was in excess of its obligations. This demonstrated that it was committed to resolving the issues she reported.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it is determined that the complaint concerning the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about it referring her to a mental health agency is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Continue to engage with the resident in facilitating a management move to another property.
    2. Continue to engage with the resident to investigate her current reports of ASB.