One Manchester Limited (202105524)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105524

One Manchester Limited

1 June 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 antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident has reported several ASB issues to the landlord regarding her neighbour since 2017, including obstructive parking, noise nuisance and lockdown breaches. On 3 March 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour’s children had been playing football in the street despite the “no ball game” sign. She was concerned that the football would damage her property and asked the landlord to discuss the issue with her neighbour. The landlord said that it was unable to enforce the no ball game sign but advised the resident to report any damage to the police.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 7 May 2021, due to ongoing issues with her neighbour’s children playing football. She said that they had hit her car, trespassed to retrieve the balls and hit the ball against the boundary fence. She also said that she wanted the landlord to enforce the no balls sign. In her complaint escalation, she stated she was dissatisfied that the landlord would not discuss the issue with her neighbour and that the landlord disagreed that the reported behaviour was ASB. She said that the children had caused damage to her ornament and plant, and she thought the landlord would only act when there was serious damage.
5. In the landlord’s final response, it said that it was unable to take action against children playing in the street, unless there was evidence of damage to her property. It stated the no ball game sign had been historically fitted by the council, and it was unable to enforce it. It had reviewed evidence sent by the resident and had determined the reported behaviour was not ASB. It said it had recommended mediation which the resident had declined. It concluded that it had acted in line with its ASB policies.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she stated that she remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not taken any action against her reports of ASB, which had persisted for several years. She also said that the children playing football had led to damage to her car.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has referenced historical reports of ASB. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events six months prior to the complaint being raised.
8. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not, but to establish 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.

The landlord’s handling of the ASB reports

9. The landlord’s ASB policy states that ASB is “any conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person where it directly or indirectly relates to or affects our housing management function”. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord promptly discussed the issue with both the resident and her neighbour. It also assessed video footage that had been sent by the resident as evidence of ASB.
10. Although the reported behaviour has caused nuisance to the resident, children playing would not be considered ASB unless those playing are engaged in other more serious nuisance such as verbal abuse or criminal damage. The landlord had explained to the resident it would be unreasonable and disproportionate for it to take action against children for playing, unless there was evidence that they had caused damage to the property. It was appropriate that the landlord explained to the resident the threshold of evidence it would require to confirm that the neighbours were intentionally kicking the football onto her property and advised it required CCTV evidence. This was a reasonable request as the landlord was aware the resident’s CCTV covered the area of her drive, where the children were reported to be kicking the ball, however upon viewing the images, the landlord deemed that it was clear there was no intention by the children when playing football and the balls went into her property. To satisfy itself, it was reasonable that multiple members of the landlord’s staff assessed the video footage the resident sent, and all determined it not to be ASB. The landlord also took part in a multi-agency meeting to assess the available evidence, in which it was concluded there was no legal action it could take, and this was also confirmed by the police.
11. The landlord reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take. Although the resident’s frustration regarding the landlord not implementing the no ball sign is understood, it provided a reasonable explanation that as the sign had been installed by the council, rather than the landlord, it was unable to enforce it. The landlord noted that the sign should be removed, but it was there to act as a deterrent. The landlord also advised that as her neighbour was no longer a tenant, but a homeowner, it would be unable to pursue any tenancy action, but it could pursue an injunction with sufficient evidence.
12. As the behaviour was not determined to be antisocial, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take. It offered mediation to the resident on several occasions, however the resident had declined. It also signposted the resident to the police, to make any reports of damage to her property and said it would take the appropriate action following their investigation, however the police did not pursue any matters. The landlord would be unable to take any formal action, such as an injunction, as it requires strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not discussed the issue further with her neighbour, however, without any evidence to confirm ASB, it would not have been necessarily appropriate for it to do so, particularly as the neighbour was no longer a tenant of the landlord and no further action was being taken following the multi-agency meeting.
13. Overall, the landlord promptly responded to the resident’s reports, however, as it was unable to substantiate the claims as ASB, it was limited in the action it could take, but ultimately, it took reasonable steps to investigate the reports and took proportionate actions.

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.