Ongo Homes Limited (202113036)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113036

Ongo Homes Limited

26 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The landlord’s handling of ASB reports made against the resident.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and initially made a report of ASB from his neighbour (Miss A) on 22 January 2021 about her not paying back money which he had loaned her and her spreading malicious rumours about him. During the course of its investigation, Miss A made counter allegations against the resident, accusing him, and visitors to his property, of harassment. The landlord issued formal warnings to both parties, and both entered into a Good Neighbour Agreement (GNA) on 22 April 2021.
3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 6 July 2021 about its handling of his reports of ASB, the manner of its staff member who had dealt with him during the ASB investigations, and him receiving a formal breach of tenancy warning. Its response to him on 27 July 2021 explained that its staff were required to be “authoritative” when dealing with ASB but would monitor their conduct and asserted that it had investigated his reports of ASB “thoroughly” and acted on any evidence of ASB it had found. The landlord’s final response on 26 August 2021 agreed with its earlier response.
4. The resident informed this Service on 13 October 2021 that he continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports and its handling of ASB reports made against him.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

5. It should be clarified that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether an event actually occurred, i.e., whether or not ASB actually took place. It is the role of this Service to determine whether any actions taken by the landlord in response to the reports of ASB were in accordance with its obligations under its policy and the law, and whether these actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
6. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that tenants are not to cause nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to anyone. This includes: the use of CCTV which records outside of the boundaries of the resident’s property; harassing or threatening behaviour which causes alarm or distress; or any act that interferes with the peace, comfort and convenience of another person.
7. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that residents take responsibility for the behaviour of visitors to their homes. This policy also states that it will refer ASB complainants to appropriate support services and will provide support to perpetrators to assist them with changing their behaviour. The policy confirms that it will commence an ASB investigation into reports of ASB depending on their priority. For neighbour disputes this timeframe is within ten working days. This also states that it will take proportionate action in consideration of the impact of the ASB on residents, the actions it has already taken and the circumstances of the perpetrator.
8. When a landlord receives a report of ASB from a resident, the Ombudsman would expect it to open an ASB case and investigate the report in a timely manner. The landlord duly opened an ASB case on 22 January 2021 in response to the resident’s report of Miss A owing him money, spreading rumours about him, and sending him harassing messages. It spoke to Miss A on 26 and 27 January 2021 to investigate the reports and to ask her not to engage with the resident in order to stop the reported ASB. The landlord spoke to the resident again on 9 and 10 February in response to further reports of nuisance behaviour from Miss A leading to a formal warning being sent to her on 12 February 2021.
9. The landlord also referred the resident, on 25 January 2021, for safeguarding support, liaised with the police on 10 February and 1 March 2021 about the ASB reports he made and those made against him by Miss A, liaised with the local authority on 11 February 2021 to arrange for CCTV to be provided to him, and referred him to an advocacy service to provide further support for him. These were all reasonable actions which considered the resident’s circumstances and were in accordance with its ASB policy above.
10. The landlord would be expected to take proportionate actions based on the circumstances of the case on the basis of independent evidence. The ASB reports arose from a neighbour dispute in which much of the reports were one person’s word against another, of which no independent evidence, such as video or audio recordings, was available, and its contact with the police had shown that no further action was being taken against either party. A landlord would not be expected to resolve a dispute by taking one resident’s side over another; it would be expected to ensure that residents did not act in a way which breached their tenancy agreements. It was therefore reasonable and proportionate for it to draw up a GNA on 22 April 2021 to limit contact and prevent further ASB reports being made between the two parties.
11. The resident reported, in his stage one complaint escalation, that the landlord’s officer had “spoken down to him” and had not taken his concerns seriously. As described above, there was evidence that it acted reasonably in response to his concerns. Regarding the resident’s report of the officer being patronising, it must be considered that such feelings are subjective. There was no independent evidence provided of the officer’s manner in their interactions with him. It was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to explain, in its stage one complaints response, that its officers were required to investigate serious allegations of ASB and therefore were required to take an “authoritative approach”. It demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns about this seriously by advising that it had fed his concerns back to the officer’s manager for further monitoring of the staff member.
12. The landlord also relayed that it had investigated concerns he had raised about his neighbour videoing him and that its investigation of this had found no evidence when the neighbour’s phone was offered for examination. This demonstrated that it had taken his concerns seriously and had investigated reasonably. It was appropriate for it to not take further action in respect of this report due to the lack of evidence.
13. The resident’s complaint included his wish to be moved to another property. The landlord’s response at stage one outlined his options for seeking another property, such as seeking private accommodation. It stated that a managed move would only be considered if there was evidence that this was the only way to maintain his safety. Given that there was no evidence that the resident was in immediate danger, this was a reasonable response. Based on the Ombudsman’s experience in similar situations, a managed move to another property is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances.
14. In conclusion, the landlord took reasonable actions to address the reported ASB and took steps to support the resident in light of his circumstances, in accordance with its ASB policy. Therefore, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports made against the resident.

15. During the course of the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB, counter allegations were made by Miss A of his guests and visitors causing harassment to her and of him speaking to other neighbours about her which caused her distress. As stated in the ASB policy above, the resident was responsible for the actions of those people visiting his property, and that these visitors were also not to act in a way which may cause nuisance or distress to others.
16. The landlord would be required to consider Miss A’s counter allegations appropriately. As the landlord’s investigation identified a pattern of retaliatory reporting, it was therefore reasonable for it to issue a formal warning on 10 February 2021 to him, to advise him he was not to permit his guests or visitors to cause ASB and to make contact with Miss A. This was a proportionate response in the circumstances, given that the neighbour dispute had resulted in allegations and counter allegations which were not independently evidenced. This also demonstrated that the landlord was not favouring one parties version of events over the others, as both had been issued with formal warnings.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
    2. Its handling of ASB reports made against the resident.

Recommendation

18. The landlord should:
    1. Continue to engage with and support the resident to ensure that his ongoing neighbour dispute is handled appropriately, in line with its policy.