One Housing Group Limited (202001357)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001357

One Housing Group 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

The resident’s complaint is about the following:

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from the neighbour above.
How the landlord has handled the resident’s requests for security improvements to be made to the property to deter ASB in her locality.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy and is living in a one-bedroom flat.
The landlord has an antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy, as part of that policy it lists the resident’s responsibilities which include:

To work and cooperate with the landlord fully to resolve disputes and issues. Examples of this include keeping it updated of ASB incidents, attending mediation, providing witness statements, attending court.

The landlord’s ASB policy says amongst other things, that it will do the following:

Work in partnership with other agencies in order to prevent and tackle ASB including the police, local authorities, community engagement charities and any other relevant organisations.
Take early intervention action to tackle ASB hotspots or to manage individual cases.
It may use Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and Neighbourhood Arrangements to resolve ASB issues and prevent them from escalating.
Enforcement action such as civil injunctions, tenancy demotions and possession proceedings will be used where early intervention tools have been ineffective or would not be appropriate.
It will support those who complain of ASB through a range of preventative activities, as determined by the case officer.

The landlord has a compensation policy that allows it to consider awarding compensation to residents where it has been responsible for a delay in resolving an issue or loss of facilities outside of its target timescales.

Summary of events

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from the neighbour above

On 28 August 2019, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the behaviour of the neighbour who lives in the property above her. The resident stated that her neighbour had been banging, shouting and dropping heavy items on the floor consistently which was waking her out of sleep. She said that she believed the neighbour’s behaviour may have been linked to mental health issues. The landlord responded saying that it would be addressing the resident’s concerns with the neighbour.
The neighbour attended the landlord’s office on 30 August 2019, where they spoke to him regarding the noise levels in his property during ‘unsociable hours’.
In October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord again regarding further concerns about the neighbour making loud crashing noises.
On 26 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the neighbour had smashed one of the windows in their property.
On 16 December 2019, the resident reported several incidences that had occurred over the previous weekend with unknown individuals causing ASB in the locality of her home. In response, the landlord said it would look into the possibility of fitting CCTV and other improvements to deter ASB.
On 17 December 2019, the landlord spoke to the Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT), and raised the resident’s concerns with them. The NPT committed to patrolling the area when possible.
On 23 December 2019, the resident spoke with the landlord about ongoing ASB issues. The landlord said that it would look to put in place an Acceptable Behaviour Contract with the neighbour.
On 2 January 2020, the landlord drew up an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). This is an informal voluntary agreement that can be put in place between an individual who has committed ASB a landlord. The contract contained specified agreed terms which the neighbour agreed to adhere to. The ABC was put in place in order to help resolve the issues between the resident and her neighbour.
On 5 January 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour was dropping heavy items on the floor.
On 6 January 2020, the landlord made referrals regarding the neighbour to external support agencies.
On 10 January 2020, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour for a breach of the ABC.
On 19 January 2020, the landlord issued the neighbour a formal warning for breaching the ABC.
On 22 January 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour was banging on the floor.
On 23 January 2020, the landlord visited the neighbour with a nurse to see whether they needed support but there was no answer.
On 29 January 2020, the landlord visited the neighbour with a social worker but there was no answer.
On 30 January 2020, the landlord visited the neighbour but there was no answer.
On 7 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the neighbour due to another reported breach of the ABC, and also to ask him to attend an interview with it (the neighbour did not respond).
On 18 February 2020, the landlord informed external welfare agencies that the neighbour had not been engaging with it and that it was considering further enforcement action.
In the period of 26 February 2020 to 28 February 2020, the landlord sent emails to Social Services and its NHS healthcare partners to advise that it was considering serving the neighbour a Notice of Seeking Possession.
At the beginning of March 2020, CCTV was installed in order to try and deter further incidences of ASB around the resident’s property.
On 5 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say the neighbour had been banging since 2:30am.
On 31 March 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour had visitors at his property, which was against COVID guidelines. These visitors were allegedly drinking and being rowdy.
On 8 April 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour’s visitors had cut her netting in the garden of the property. Also, that the neighbour had smashed his bedroom window with pieces of glass falling to the ground.
On 17 April 2020, just before 4:00am, the resident reported the neighbour banging and smashing his iron in his bedroom. Then shortly after, she reported that he was banging on the windows. The resident reported two further incidents of banging throughout the day.
On 18 April 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour was banging again and that he had friends present that had managed to enter the building through the back of the property. The resident reported this to the police as she said that there was a gate at the back of the property that was supposed to have been locked.
On 23 April 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour’s friends had damaged the communal door.
During April 2020, the landlord had multiple conversations with the resident to keep them updated with the action it had taken in relation to her reports.
Between 28 April 2020 to 4 May 2020, the resident reported three incidences of banging happening from her neighbour.
On 5 May 2020, the resident reported the neighbour and his friends throwing food and rubbish on to her balcony.
On 13 May 2020, the resident reported her neighbour banging on the floor at 1:31am.
On 14 May 2020, the resident reported the neighbour banging on the pipes.
On 19 May 2020, the resident reported her neighbour throwing heavy items on the floor at 3am and again at 4:47am.
On 21 May 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident and confirmed that it was preparing an application for an injunction against the neighbour.
On 22 May 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident regarding the legal case. The resident confirmed that she wished to remain anonymous and would not be willing to attend court.
Between 30 May 2020 and 31 May 2020, the resident reported two more incidences of banging.
Between 2 June 2020 and 30 June 2020, the resident made another 16 reports of ASB from her neighbour relating to banging and stomping.
On 19 June 2020, the landlord sent papers to its legal team to issue to the court; the resident was updated on the case.
On 23 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord for an update on what was happening regarding her reports of ASB.
On 24 June 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s email providing an update and explaining that there were delays in the legal proceedings caused by COVID-19.
On 22 July 2020, the landlord attended a court hearing in order to obtain an injunction against the neighbour. The hearing was adjourned until 10 August 2020; the landlord informed the resident of this.
In July 2020, the resident made four reports of banging from her neighbour.
In August 2020, the resident made another five reports of ASB against her neighbour which included reports of banging and dropping items on the floor.
On 3 August 2020, legal papers were served to the neighbour.
On 10 August 2020, the court hearing was adjourned, and the courts directed the landlord that it needed to attend the neighbour’s property with Social Services to personally serve the legal papers to the neighbour.
Between August 2020 to September 2020 there were multiple emails between the landlord, and external welfare agencies regarding the neighbour’s behaviour.
In September 2020, the resident also made eight reports of her neighbour banging.
On 10 September 2020, the landlord’s legal team informed it that six unsuccessful attempts had been made to serve the legal papers to the neighbour.
On 15 September 2020, the resident reported her neighbour’s friends coming round and throwing stones at his front window.
On 15 September 2020, the court told the landlord that regardless of the neighbour avoiding its attempts to serve him the legal papers, the court would only hear the case once the papers had been served, in person, to the neighbour.
On 19 September 2020, the resident reported finding glass pieces on her windowsill from her neighbours broken glass.
On 20 September 2020, the resident said her neighbour had pressed her doorbell and then set the fire alarm off.
On 30 September 2020, legal papers were served to the neighbour.
On 3 October 2020, the landlord was granted a civil injunction against the resident’s neighbour.
On 28 October 2020, further court papers were served to the neighbour.
On 12 November 2020, the landlord explained that it would not be able to install a gate at the entrance of the property.
On 3 December 2020, the resident made a complaint via her MP who raised a members enquiry. The resident complained that she had suffered noise nuisance for many years from her neighbour living above her. Also, that she had repeatedly had individuals come down the stairs to her basement flat and use the outside area for drugs and prostitution. The resident said that the landlord had done nothing in order to resolve these issues.
On 8 December 2020, the landlord received the sealed injunction order.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord served the injunction to the resident’s neighbour.
On 22 December 2020, the resident reported further noise from the neighbour happening throughout the day and night.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident and their MP. In summary the final response said the following:

This had been a complex and challenging case due to the vulnerabilities of the neighbour involved and his lack of engagement with the landlord.
There had also been delays caused by cancelled appointments, meetings and delays from other third-party agencies involved in this process.
Internally the different parts of the landlord had kept in regular contact and also updated the resident regularly, including out of hours contact and had been making referrals to other outside agencies.
It had attempted to offer case conferences and phone calls to the resident to discuss the case which she had refused.
Issues such as prostitution, drug dealing and homelessness are issues that have been happening in the area for a significant time, which the police were trying to tackle. The landlord’s power to deal with these things directly is limited, so it had been liaising with the police and the council regarding the crime and ASB in the resident’s local area.
The resident had made reports which were sporadic and not detailed enough. She had not filled in the diary sheets and was not willing to provide a statement of evidence for the landlord to be able to go to court.
It said in order to see whether a breach of the injunction had occurred it needed to establish where the banging was coming from, the times and the reoccurrences.
The resident said that as she had provided evidence previously she does not need to provide anything further. However, in order to acknowledge any breach of the injunction it would need evidence of new reports of behaviour that had occurred since the injunction was obtained.
The resident communicated with the landlord on an almost daily basis, it had asked her if she could record the noises on her phone but the resident had refused to do so.

On 11 January 2021, the resident said she had not made further reports of ASB as she had been previously told that the volume of her correspondence with the landlord was too high. The landlord explained that it needed the resident to report incidence of ASB to it so it can see whether the neighbour had breached the injunction.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident asking her to provide diary sheets to log incidents of ASB so that it could see whether there was a breach of the injunction. The resident said that she had already provided enough evidence.
On 27 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to find out whether she had completed any of the diary sheets. The resident replied stating that she would not provide any diary sheets.
In February 2021, the resident made further reports about her neighbour’s behaviour, the landlord informed her again that it would need her to complete diary sheets in order to progress action against the neighbour. The diary sheets were not completed by the resident.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord sent an update response to the resident, (its final response), reiterating what it said in its response dated 22 December 2020.
On 6 May 2021, the resident approached this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.

How the landlord has handled the resident’s requests for security improvements to be made to the property to deter ASB in her locality

On 16 December 2019, the resident reported several incidents that had occurred over the previous weekend with unknown individuals causing ASB in the locality of her home. Following receipt of this information, the landlord explored the possibility of installing CCTV and taking other measures to deter ASB (CCTV was then installed at the resident’s property as a result). Having received the resident’s reports, the landlord installed new lights to the lamp columns in the car park to make the area brighter as a way of trying to deter ASB in this area.
On 17 December 2019, the landlord contacted the Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT) and raised the resident’s concerns to them. The NPT said that they were aware of a group gathering near the resident’s home but did not have enough evidence to take any action. The NPT said it would patrol the area when it had resources available to do so.
On 13 May 2020, the landlord contacted the NPT to request patrols and assistance in relation to the criminal behaviour occurring near the resident’s property.
On 13 May 2020, the landlord asked whether the police could assist the landlord with a partial closure order in the communal area.
On 23 May 2020, the resident contacted several different staff members within the landlord requesting an update and asked for fencing put up around the property.
On 27 May 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a written update on its actions.
On 13 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to say she was still waiting for an update.
On 16 June 2020, the landlord called the resident and provided her with an update.
On 12 November 2020, the landlord updated the resident by email regarding what was being done to address the ABS near her home.
On 3 December 2020, the resident’s local MP contacted the landlord raising a complaint on her behalf.
On 13 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report drug use outside her home and requested that a gate be installed to stop people congregating near her property.
On 14 December 2020, the landlord contacted the police regarding drug use in the street. It asked if the police would consider a Partial Closure Order.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord issued its response to the resident and their MP. In summary the final response said the following:

The property in question is a grade II listed building. Therefore its options for fitting a security gate were now very limited and it was doubtful whether permission would be granted for the gate and higher fencing.
There were concerns about the aesthetic look of the proposals also as this would have meant the resident having a steel cage around the front of her property.
Its surveyor said the only other option would be to install a gate at the bottom of the steps rather than the top. The resident did not agree with this due to concerns about access.
It was reviewing installing extra CCTV and telescopic poles to stop cars parking outside the property.

The police had told the landlord that if the resident contacted the Safer Neighbourhood Team or called 101, then they would patrol, attend and identify the person responsible for loitering outside of the block.
On 4 January 2021, (after the landlord had issued its final response), the police confirmed it would not consider a Partial Closure Order. The police did say that they would patrol the area if the resident reported further ASB.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord sent an updated final response to the resident directly, reiterating what it said in its previous response dated 22 December 2020.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from the neighbour above

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem.
It is not disputed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress and that there have been genuine concerns about visitors to the neighbouring property. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
In the period of August 2019 to October 2019, the resident made two reports of antisocial behaviour, one of which involved concerns that the neighbour may have mental health issues. In response, the landlord explained that it would be in contact with the neighbour to address her concerns. It attempted to contact the neighbour, initially it did not get a reply, but then in October 2019 the neighbour responded, and it was able to carry out repairs to a broken window. Later in October, it was able to speak with the neighbour via its Safer Communities Team. This was an appropriate response considering that the landlord was aware that there were mental health considerations regarding the neighbour that needed to be taken into account.
In the period November 2019 to December 2019, the resident raised further concerns which included the smashing of windows and the neighbour’s friends carrying out acts of ASB near her home. In response, the landlord did the following:

Looked into whether improvements could be made to deter ASB near the resident’s home. This resulted in new lights being installed in the car park.
Spoke to the Neighbourhood Policing Team and obtained a commitment from them to patrol the area when possible.
Issued an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) to the neighbour, which they signed on 2 January 2020.

The steps the landlord took were in line with its ASB policy which says that it will take early intervention action to tackle ASB hotspots and that it may use Acceptable Behaviour Contracts to prevent issues from escalating. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB in November 2019 to December 2019 was appropriate.
In the period of January 2020 to February 2020, the resident made further reports of the neighbour banging on the floor, dropping heavy items. In response the landlord did the following:

Sent the neighbour a warning letter for breaching the ABC.
Issued the neighbour a formal warning for breaching the ABC.
Invited the neighbour to attend an interview with the landlord.
Visited the neighbour on two separate occasions with representatives from external welfare agencies.
Wrote another letter to the neighbour regarding possible breaches of the ABC.
Sent letters to external welfare partners about the fact it was considering serving a Notice of Seeking Possession.

The evidence shows that landlord continued to take measures to try and enforce the neighbour’s commitments under the ABC. As the neighbour was not responding, the landlord made known to the relevant partner agencies its intentions to consider escalating proceeding by serving an NOSP. These actions were consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy which requires it to work with partnership organisations and to consider further enforcement actions when early intervention methods have proved ineffective. Therefore, the landlord’s response to further incident reports from the resident was appropriate.
In the period of March 2020 to July 2020, there was a continued pattern of the resident reporting multiple incidents to the landlord. The evidence shows that during April 2020, there were multiple email exchanges between the resident and the landlord where she was kept up to date with how the landlord was dealing with the ASB issues. On 21 May 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it was preparing to apply for an injunction against the neighbour. On 19 June 2020, when it was ready to send the necessary papers to the court it updated the resident again. On 24 June 2020, in response to an email from the resident it explained that there were delays in the legal proceeding due to COVID-19. It also updated the resident when the court hearing on 22 July 2020, to obtain the injunction, was adjourned until 10 August 2020. The evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate measures in keeping the resident informed in regard to the steps it was taking and the progress that it was making in pursuing legal action against her neighbour.
In the period 1 August 2020 to 9 December 2020, the resident continued to report incidents to the landlord including broken glass, the neighbour’s friends throwing stones at his window and noise. The court hearing on 10 August 2020 was adjourned as the court required the landlord and Social Services to serve the court papers to the neighbour in person before continuing with the hearing. The landlord’s records show multiple emails in August 2020 to September 2020, between itself and Social Services regarding complying with the court’s directions in serving the court papers to the neighbour in person. The landlord’s records evidence that its legal team made six unsuccessful attempts to serve legal papers to the neighbour, however the court told the landlord on 15 September 2020, that it would not hear the case until the papers had been served as it directed. The legal papers were eventually served to the neighbour on 3 October 2020 and the courts granted an injunction against the neighbour on 8 October 2020. The injunction order was received by the landlord on 8 December 2020 and served to the neighbour the following day.
When the landlord decided to pursue the injunction there were delays in the application process. This was partly caused by COVID-19 and partly because the court decided that it would not hear the case until legal papers were personally served to the neighbour. This proved challenging as the landlord made multiple attempts to serve the papers to the neighbour and he did not respond for some time. The evidence shows the landlord continued to pursue action against the neighbour as per its ABS policy, kept the resident updated and was eventually successful in serving the legal papers to the neighbour. It encountered delays which were beyond its control and for which it cannot reasonably be blamed, therefore its actions were appropriate.
In the period from 22 December 2020 to 22 February 2021, the resident complained about continued noise from the neighbour. The landlord asked for the resident to continue to report her concerns and fill in diary sheet to log the incidences so that the landlord could use this to evidence a possible breach of the injunction. The resident refused on repeated occasions to complete diary sheets as she said that she had already provided enough evidence to the landlord. The landlord explained in its emails on 12 January 2021 and 27 January 2021, why it needed further evidence, but the resident chose not to supply this.
In order for a landlord to pursue a possible breach of an injunction the standard of evidence required by the courts is high, because a conviction can possibly result in a prison sentence. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the landlord asked the resident to record further evidence regarding the behaviour of her neighbour.
In summary, the resident made multiple reports of behaviour and incidents that were an understandable source of distress for her. However, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour. It considered the resident’s reports, assessed the evidence available, addressed the matter with the neighbour when allegations were confirmed, made referrals for support and took legal action to obtain an injunction. It was also wiling to pursue further legal action if it was provided with further evidence of behaviour by the neighbour that may have constituted a breach of the injunction. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligations.

How the landlord has handled the resident’s requests for security improvements to be made to the property to deter ASB in her locality.

In December 2019, the resident raised concerns about ASB near her property by some unknown individuals. The landlord looked into what it could do to help deter this type of situation and, following this, it installed new lighting in the car park to make the area more visible. It also contacted the Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT), who confirmed that they were aware of the individuals who were causing the issues near the resident’s property. The NPT said it did not have enough evidence to take action but would commit to patrolling the area where it could. On 13 May 2020, the landlord contacted the NPT to ask that it patrol the area to help assist in dealing with the criminal behaviour that was happening near the resident’s property. During March 2020, CCTV was installed as a further deterrent to ASB near the resident’s property.
In the period 14 May 2020 to 14 December 2020, the landlord took the following actions regarding the resident’s reports of ASB:

Asked the police whether they would consider applying a Partial Closure Order regarding the communal grounds where the resident lives so that anyone found participating in ASB could be arrested.
Delivered a panic alarm to the resident.
Explored whether a security gate could be fitted in a way that was compliant with fire safety rules.

The area where the resident lives has some lang standing issues with ASB. In such circumstances, a landlord is limited in the action it can take as it is trying to deal with issues arising beyond its own property. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to take proportionate measures to try to deal with the issues itself as well as engaging relevant outside agencies to help solve the issues.
The resident sent many different emails to the landlord regarding her security concerns. The evidence shows that the landlord made reasonable efforts to respond to these emails and keep her update with its progress. The landlord also investigated what it could do to help deter ASB and put the relevant measures in place. It also engaged outside agencies such as the police, to try and help with the situation surrounding the resident’s property. The actions of the landlord were consistent with its ASB policy in which it says that it will take early intervention action to tackle ASB hotspots and “work in partnership with other agencies in order to prevent and tackle ASB”. Therefore, the landlord has shown that it acted in accordance with its obligations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of Antisocial behaviour.
In accordance of with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for security improvements to be made to the property.

Reasons

The landlord has demonstrated that it took proportionate actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbouring property.
The landlord has demonstrated that it took proportionate actions in response to the resident’s request for security improvements to help deter ASB in the locality.