Mount Green Housing Association Limited (202220870)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220870

Mount Green Housing Association Limited

17 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is described as a ground-floor flat, situated within a small block of flats. There is another flat immediately above the property, which was occupied by the resident’s neighbour, who had several physical and mental health vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of.
3. The resident first reported noise disturbance coming from her neighbour, consisting of shouting and banging within their property during unsociable hours, on 28 January 2022. The landlord’s records show that the next report was on 10 March 2022, which consisted of banging on the floor and calling ambulances. From 22 April 2022 the frequency of the resident’s reports increased.
4. During April 2022 the landlord contacted several third-party organisations in relation to the neighbour’s behaviour, and several multi-agency meetings were held following this to determine what actions could be taken. The landlord took various other actions including visits to the neighbour, issuing warnings and placing bubble wrap on hard surfaces in the neighbour’s property.
5. The resident continued to report the noise and during July 2022, she said that the noise disturbances were now having an impact on her mental health and well-being, as well as her performance at work. The landlord asked the resident to complete a risk assessment so that it could compile an action plan. The landlord provided the action plan to the resident on 8 July 2022 which confirmed it would send a formal warning letter to the neighbour, provide weekly updates to the resident, and offer support coaching to the resident.
6. The landlord held a final multi-agency meeting on 5 August 2022 and following this, it informed the resident that it now had a permanent solution that it could put in place. Around this time the resident informed the landlord that she was no longer staying at the property due to the impact on her mental health and wellbeing. The landlord offered alternative accommodation in a guest room, but this was declined by the resident and she requested the landlord to move either her neighbour or herself to a different property. The neighbour subsequently moved out of their property by the end of August 2022.
7. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 August 2022. She was unhappy that she was unable to stay at her property due to the continued disturbances and had incurred costs moving to temporary alternative accommodation. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB, and that she had been paying rent, council tax, and bills for her property while she was away.
8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 2 December 2022. It concluded that it did not breach its policies and procedures or its regulatory and statutory obligations, and it had taken reasonable and proportionate steps to investigate the ASB reports. It said it had been open and transparent regarding the actions it took but that updates were limited at times due to sensitivities around data sharing. It agreed that the process was slow and frustrating for the resident but attributed this to needing to work with third-party and external organisations due to the sensitive nature of the case. It upheld its previous decision to not compensate the resident for her alternative accommodation or waive her rent but agreed that its limitations on communicating with the resident made it appear it was taking limited action at times.
9. As a result of the resident’s complaint, the landlord looked to address the following learning outcomes:
   1. To consider email responses to residents on Fridays that may result in unanswered questions ahead of the weekend. It would therefore look to contact tenants earlier in the week where possible, and if unable to, consider phone contact ahead of the weekend or staff annual leave to avoid any further dissatisfaction.
   2. To maintain regular contact with residents to assure them that appropriate steps were being taken during ASB cases.
10. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. As a desired outcome she wanted compensation for the three weeks of alternative accommodation she paid for, a rent reduction for the timeframe she was away from the property, and for the Ombudsman to conduct a review of the landlord’s handling of the ASB.

Assessment and findings

11. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that on receipt of an ASB report it will complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the person reporting the ASB. It will use a range of preventative, early intervention and enforcement actions to tackle ASB, including mediation, support from other agencies, warning letters, injunctions ad possession orders. Where it becomes aware a person causing ASB needs additional support it will take reasonable steps to help them access support, and when considering action, their needs will be assessed against the impact of their behaviour on others. It will keep residents informed of the actions being taken.
12. The resident initially reported the ASB in January and March 2022. In response the landlord attempted to contact the neighbour about the reports as well as their support agencies, and asked the resident to record the noise and report any further incidents to it. This was a reasonable and proportionate response given the sporadic nature of the reports at this time.
13. The ASB was reported on a regular basis from 22 April 2022 onwards and the landlord responded by promptly seeking support from other agencies. This was in line with the ASB policy which confirms the landlord will coordinate a multiagency approach where appropriate and ensure any necessary support is in place for perpetrators of ASB.
14. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the landlord was in regular contact with the relevant agencies, including chasing them where appropriate in order to progress the matter. At least three multiagency meetings took place – during May, July and August 2022 – during which the situation with the neighbour was discussed and actions agreed. The evidence shows that steps were being taken by the agencies involved to provide a long-term solution to the ASB, but due to the complexity of the case this was likely to take some time.
15. The landlord also visited the neighbour with other agencies on at least two occasions in May and June 2022, during which the landlord took steps to mitigate the noise by wrapping surfaces in bubble wrap, removing items being used to generate noise, and installing signs. In addition, it made the neighbour aware during these visits and in warning letters sent in May and July 2022 that they should stop the ASB and that this was a potential breach of their tenancy.
16. The landlord’s records show that for the most part it kept the resident updated on the action that was being taken in response to her reports. However, there were some occasions where its communication could have been better, for example there was a period of several weeks in June 2022 during which there is no evidence of any updates being provided to the resident. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this shortcoming in its complaint responses and explained how it would apply learning from the complaint. The landlord was also correct to explain to the resident that the information it could share was at times limited, as this related to the neighbour’s personal circumstances and was confidential.
17. Although it is evident that the landlord took comprehensive action to address the neighbour’s behaviour, it did not ask the resident to complete a risk assessment and agree a formal action plan until early July 2022. Doing so at an earlier stage may have helped manage the resident’s expectations about what the ASB investigation could achieve and the timescales involved, and provided assurance that all reasonable steps were being taken to progress the matter. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to review its handling of this aspect of the ASB case and implement any learning.
18. The neighbour was moved from her property permanently in August 2022, therefore resolving the resident’s ASB reports. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s wish for the ASB to be resolved at an earlier stage given the distress the situation has caused her. However, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord was responsible for any delays in progressing the ASB case. The situation was complex, requiring a multi-agency response, and the landlord was reliant on other agencies to progress a permanent solution.
19. Furthermore, the landlord appropriately made the resident aware why legal action against the neighbour was not deemed appropriate in the initial stages of the case, and that if the matter did proceed to court then it would need sufficient evidence of the ASB to support such action. Ultimately, the landlord was unable to move the neighbour immediately and it provided appropriate advice to the resident in this regard.
20. It is understood that the resident moved out of her home for several weeks as a result of the ASB and that she requested the landlord to compensate her accordingly. When dealing with requests to waive rent, the landlord would be obligated to consider the resident’s request in line with her tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement forms a legally binding contract, in which rent and other financial arrangements are agreed. In this case, the resident vacated her property temporarily and without prior consent from the landlord. Ultimately the landlord was not obligated to reimburse the resident’s rent and other costs incurred and therefore its decision not to do so was reasonable in the circumstances.
21. Taking everything into account, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. As outlined above, there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s communication with the resident but overall its response to the reports was in line with its ASB policy. It took timely and appropriate action to coordinate a multiagency response and progress a permanent solution to the matter.

Determination

22. 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 antisocial behaviour and request for compensation.

Recommendation

23. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its communication with the resident about the risk assessment and action plan, and takes steps to ensure these are completed at the earliest opportunity in ASB cases going forward.