Orbit Housing Association Limited (202327625)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327625

Orbit Housing Association Limited

31 May 2024

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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
2. The landlord’s handling of parking issues reported by the resident.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident is an Assured Non-Shorthold Tenant of the landlord under a tenancy commencing 19 December 2022. The resident moved to the property by way of mutual exchange.
The property is a four bedroom property in which the resident lives with her son, who is her carer, two grandchildren and a dog. The resident suffers from several long term illnesses and uses a wheelchair, of which the landlord is aware.
The resident’s property has an integrated garage. However, the resident has difficulty using the garage as it is not large enough to allow wheelchair access.
The close in which the resident’s property is situated is a cul-de-sac with very limited outside space for resident parking. It is understood from information provided by the landlord to this Service that there are no designated disabled parking spaces on the site and that each property has a set allocation. The resident was informed after moving in that she had been allocated the use of a parking bay nearby. The resident also has difficulties using this parking bay as it is situated close up against a wall.
The resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of parking issues between the resident and her neighbour, who shall be referred to in this report as neighbour A. Neighbour A’s property is in very close proximity to that of the resident. Neighbour A’s property does not have an integrated garage but has an allocated parking space under an awning situated beneath an adjoining neighbour’s property. It is understood that neighbour A does not have a car but has visitors who do.
On 19 December 2022, being the day of the resident’s move in to the property, she parked her car in the space in front of her garage. Neighbour A visited the resident and was verbally abusive. Neighbour A told the resident to move the car and threatened to smash it up if she did not do so. The resident complied.
The following day, on 20 December 2022, the landlord’s lettings officer attended the resident’s property for her to sign the tenancy agreement. The resident reported what had happened and asked whether she was allowed to park outside the garage. She was informed that she was and was advised to report the incident to the landlord.
The landlord’s call log shows that on 28 December 2022, the resident reported ASB and neighbour issues to the landlord. The detail of the ASB is not recorded, save that the neighbour was smoking drugs. The landlord advised the resident to report the matter to the police. On 3 January 2023, in a further call with the resident, the landlord advised the resident to call the police about the neighbour and drug issues and to keep a log and report the noise to environmental health if need be.
On 6 January 2023, the landlord’s log records further details of the ASB. It records a threat to damage property or person; that neighbour A was blocking the resident’s garage and had threatened to smash her car if she parked there. The landlord noted that the resident was disabled and a wheelchair user who needed access at all times in case of emergency. The resident reported constant loud music from neighbour A and other behaviour of smoking weed, fights and smashing glass.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 January 2023. The resident made the landlord aware during this call that neighbour A was parking near her garage which meant that she could not get out of her property with her wheelchair and an ambulance would struggle to get to her. The landlord advised the resident that it generally did not get involved with parking disputes but that if it continued it may get involved. There is no evidence in the records produced by the landlord to this Service that the landlord took other steps at this stage in response to the resident’s concerns.
Further reports of ASB by neighbour A were made by the resident on 15 February 2023 when a nurse visiting her was verbally abused by neighbour A for parking in front of the garage and on 23 February 2023 when neighbour A banged on the door of the resident’s property and verbally abused the resident and her son.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 3 March 2023. It explained that while it did not normally deal with parking issues, when it led to harassment its Community Safety and Anti-Fraud (CSAF) team would investigate. On the same day, the landlord carried out a risk assessment which assessed the risk as medium; it sent a letter to the resident confirming that an ASB report had been passed to the CSAF team to investigate; and it made an advice and support referral for the resident who was suffering stress from the ASB.
The resident’s son made additional reports of ASB by neighbour A in calls to the landlord on 5 April 2023 and on 12 April 2023 concerning the ongoing parking and ASB issues. He reported neighbour A smoking weed and holding parties until 3 am which had been reported to the Council and in the online diary. The resident stated that neighbour A was regularly knocking on the door and shouting and swearing; parking in the resident’s parking space and in front of the garage and their front door which had meant that on 9 April 2023 the NHS had had to get neighbour A to remove the car to allow the resident to be returned home from hospital. Neighbour A had installed a trampoline which could see directly into the resident’s kitchen and invaded their privacy. The landlord agreed to visit on 14 April 2023. It explained that the purpose of the visit was to discuss the parking and trampoline issues as the other issues were to be handled by its CSAF team.
At the landlord’s visit on 14 April 2023, the landlord’s property manager showed the resident’s son the parking bay belonging to their property. It also spoke to neighbour A who said that she did not have any issues with the resident aside from the ongoing parking dispute and that the resident parked her vehicle outside the garage which blocked access to her i.e. neighbour A’s property. The resident was unhappy with the outcome of this visit and stated that she would submit photos of neighbour A’s parking.
On 26 April 2023, the resident reported to the landlord’s CSAF team that neighbour A was trying to get her dog to the fence to feed it something and laughed when asked not to do so. The resident wanted to know what the landlord was going to do and complained nothing ever seemed to get done. The resident’s son complained to the landlord’s property management team the same day regarding the parking issues. He informed the landlord that within hours of its property manager’s visit, neighbour A’s visitors had parked three cars which blocked them in and were not moved until 1 am. He wanted the matter escalated as nothing was actually being done.
On 3 May 2023, the resident reported that neighbour A had a party with loud music until the early hours of the morning. In the morning, there were beer cans on the floor outside the house which another neighbour had cleaned up. There were parking issues again. The resident expressed concern that the landlord was doing nothing about the ASB issues. In response the landlord had an internal meeting and arranged a visit for 12 May 2023.
On 5 May 2023, the resident made a formal complaint. For reasons which are not clear, this complaint was recorded by the landlord as having been received on 20 June 2023. In her complaint:
1. The resident explained that she moved to the property in December 2022 and was wheelchair bound. She struggled to get in and out of her car using the garage and so parked her car outside it.
2. The resident explained how neighbour A had told her to move the car.
3. The resident complained that the landlord had attended the property and had informed neighbour A that she should use the awning for parking and had informed the resident that she could not park outside her garage. The resident understood that this decision was based only on the layout of the houses and did not accept the decision.
4. The outcome sought by the resident was:
  1. To be able to park her car outside her house. She was disabled and needed to park there.
  2. The parking needed to be sorted out as the resident needed ambulances regularly.
  3. Neighbour A needed to stop arguing with the resident. The resident made reference to drug use and that neighbour A had cut the strings to her gazebo.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord visited neighbour A concerning the parking issues. Neighbour A agreed that they would not park in front of the resident’s garage and would only park under their awning.
On 2 June 2023, the landlord called the resident who advised things had been fine in relation to ASB. She reported she had made a complaint regarding the parking she had been allocated and was informed this was a property management issue and not investigated as part of the ASB.
The resident’s son called the landlord on 14 June 223 on behalf of his mother chasing an update on the complaint. He reported that neighbour A had deliberately moved their full rubbish bin so that it was nearly not collected; and that neighbour A’s child had thrown stones at his mother’s car. The resident’s son made further calls to the landlord on 20 June 2023 seeking an update and reporting further incidents of neighbour A’s ASB on 21 and again on 26 June 2023. On these occasions, neighbour A had moved the resident’s wheelie bin so that it was not emptied, had played loud music and was smoking weed. The resident’s son requested a call back. There is no evidence in the landlord’s log that he received one.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord sent a warning letter to neighbour A regarding the numerous complaints it had received about them and their neighbours concerning continuing parking issues, drug use and loud noise. The letter noted the breach of tenancy conditions and warned that it may take action against the tenancy. Between 27 June 2023 and 30 June 2023 the landlord liaised with the local council’s Community Protection Officer (CPO) regarding a proposed joint visit to the property.
On 3 July 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and discussed it with her on the telephone. Following the call, the resident provided the landlord with photographs of the neighbour’s cars blocking access to her property.
On 6 July 2023, the landlord provided its Stage 1 response. It referred to the history of the matter and did not uphold the complaint:
1. With regard to the parking issues, the landlord stated that it could not allow her to park outside her garage as this was not an allocated parking space. The landlord explained that if the resident parked there it would cause hindrance to the resident’s neighbours and block in neighbour A’s awning.
2. The landlord had been unable to find any tangible evidence to support the resident’s claim that its lettings officer had advised the resident that she could park outside the garage.
3. The landlord informed the resident that when she accepted the property as a mutual exchange she accepted it for what it was.
4. The landlord explained that due to GDPR issues it was unable to disclose what actions were being taken against the resident’s neighbour. It assured the resident that the matter was being dealt with in line with its policies and procedures.
The resident was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint and on 10 July 2023 requested that it be escalated. This was acknowledged on 13 July 2023.
The proposed joint visit by the landlord and CPO took place on 26 July 2023. Neighbour A was not at home. The landlord sent a final warning letter to neighbour A on the same day.
On 28 July 2023, the landlord provided its Stage 2 response. While it empathised with the resident’s difficulty in parking her car in the garage, it stated that it agreed with its original decision. It explained that:
1. Allowing the resident to park outside her garage would have an impact on her neighbour’s awning and created an access issue for them.
2. The landlord had to adhere to the established allocations to ensure fairness among all residents.
3. It recommended that the resident consider contacting other residents on the estate to explore the possibility of swapping parking spots. It could not enforce exchanges but if a neighbour was willing to accommodate the resident’s needs it may be a way to find a mutually beneficial solution.
4. Regarding the ongoing issue of her neighbour’s ASB, it assured the resident that its CSAF team was actively investigating the matter and appropriate action would be taken in response to the findings of any investigation that took place. It stated that its team would keep the resident informed of any updates or decisions made.
The resident was not happy with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to this Service on 13 November 2023. The resident wished to be able to park outside her house. She complained that when she first moved into the property she was told by the landlord that she could park in front of the garage but after reporting threats and intimidation from her neighbour the landlord had told her not to park in front of the garage. She had been told she could not park in front of her garage because it restricts access for her neighbour, however the neighbour’s visitors frequently blocked her access in and out of her home. The landlord had advised her to use an alternative parking space which was unsuitable due to her disabilities. She was continuing to experience issues with noise and odour nuisance.
It is noted that following the Stage 2 response, the resident continued to suffer ASB from neighbour A, including drug use, which the resident reported to the police. The landlord investigated the matter between 4 October and 6 December 2023. During this time the landlord provided a warning to neighbour A and carried out a joint visit with the police. The landlord advised the resident that it could not take further action as there was no evidence of drug use to support it. The case was closed on 6 December 2023. It is understood from the resident that neighbour A’s ASB has continued and is still occurring.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.

The landlord’s ASB policy distinguishes between behaviour which is within the scope of the policy and that which falls outside it. Included within its scope are threats of violence, drug dealing and use, noise and verbal abuse/harassment/ intimidation. Parking issues fall outside the scope of the policy although in exceptional circumstances they can be treated as ASB.
The policy requires the landlord to carry out a risk based assessment of reported ASB and agree an action plan with each complainant which will include how and when to keep in contact. The landlord’s ASB and Hate Incidents Procedure (“the Procedure”) sets out a range of actions available for the landlord to try to resolve ASB and further detail of the procedure to be followed for ASB cases.
When the resident made her initial reports of ASB to the landlord on 28 December 2022 and 3 January 2023, the landlord advised the resident to report the matter to the police and to keep a log and report the noise to environmental health if need be. In doing so, the landlord acted in line with the Initial Steps set out in its Procedure which provides that where safe and appropriate to do so a complainant should be advised to contact other relevant agencies and make a record of any further incidents.
The landlord’s Procedure also requires the landlord to review the information provided and make contact with the complainant to do a thorough assessment. Where the reported behaviour is within the scope of its ASB policy the landlord should complete an initial report, action plan and risk assessment. Where the incident is not in scope for ASB, the complainant should be advised of this and given correct advice on how to manage the allegations.
In this case, while the landlord appears to have reviewed the information provided by the resident on 6 January 2023 and discussed the issues with her on 10 January 2023, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records provided to this Service that it prepared an action plan or conducted a risk assessment at this stage as required under its Procedure.
It is noted that on 10 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it generally did not get involved with parking disputes. While a dispute over parking was involved in the resident’s report, it was also clear that this was accompanied by verbal abuse and threats of violence from neighbour A. The resident’s wellbeing was also at risk because neighbour A was parking near her garage. This caused access difficulties for the resident as a wheelchair user and emergency services who needed to visit her. The reported behaviour by neighbour A over parking was properly characterised as ASB from the outset and within scope of its policy, as was later accepted by the landlord.
In the event, the landlord carried out a risk assessment and prepared an action plan on 3 March 2023, after a further period during which the resident continued to experience ASB which she reported on 15 February 2023 and 23 February 2023. The landlord acted appropriately in making an advice and support referral for the resident.
The landlord’s action plan noted the resident’s expectations that neighbour A would be spoken to about the ASB. It was blank as to the next steps to be taken by the landlord. The landlord’s action plan is not evidenced elsewhere in the landlord’s records.
There were a number of non-legal options available to the landlord to address the ASB at this stage, as outlined in its Procedure, and which it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken. These included verbal and written warnings, acceptable behaviour agreements and mediation. However there was delay in the landlord deploying these options:
1. Under the landlord’s Procedure, as a preliminary matter following the risk assessment, the landlord should have assessed if a reminder of the tenancy agreement conditions could be given to all parties in the form of a warning letter to resolve the matter without the need for further intervention or action. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this at this stage. A warning letter was not issued to neighbour A until 30 June 2023, 3 months after the risk assessment and after many more incidents of ASB had occurred.
2. The landlord’s property management representative conducted a visit to the property on 14 April 2023. However, this visit was expressly limited in scope to explain the parking arrangement to the resident and neighbour A and was not for the purpose of dealing with the ASB issues which were being handled by the landlord’s CSAF team. No verbal warning was given at this visit.
3. The landlord visited neighbour A’s property on 15 May 2023 at which it discussed the parking issues and gave a verbal warning to the effect that neighbour A should only park in its allocated awning. There is no record of other aspects of neighbour A’s ASB being discussed or that warnings were given in respect of them, such as loud music, drug use, verbal abuse of the resident and her visitors. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do so, given that these were also breaches of tenancy and of great concern to the resident
It is acknowledged that other agencies were involved in the matter, namely, the police and environmental health and that in such cases the landlord will not always be the organisation to deal with the allegations. However, in such instances, the Procedure envisages that the case manager will work pro-actively with the other organisations. The landlord’s records provided to this Service do not show what liaison there was by the landlord with the police or environmental health during this period (if any).
Following the continuation of neighbour A’s unacceptable behaviour after 15 May 2023, the landlord issued a warning letter on 30 June 2023. This appropriately included references to drug use and loud noise as breaches of neighbour A’s tenancy. When that failed to be effective, the landlord arranged a visit to neighbour A on 26 July 2023 albeit she was not at home; and it sent a second, final warning letter on the same day. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take. It also appears that these actions met with some success, albeit temporary, as the resident agreed to close the ASB case on 23 August 2023.
During this time the resident was left in the dark as to the action the landlord was taking or intended take in order to resolve the continuing ASB issues. This was not in line with the landlord’s Procedure which specifies as a mandatory action that parties should be contacted and kept informed throughout. The resident had cause to complain on 26 April 2023 and 3 May 2023 that nothing ever seemed to get done. The resident’s son chased the landlord for an update on 15 June 2023, having received advice from Citizen’s Advice, and again on 26 June 2023.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint did not shed any light on the matter. Its Stage 1 response of 6 July 2023 explained that due to GDPR issues it was unable to disclose what actions were being taken against the resident’s neighbour. It assured the resident that the matter was being dealt with in line with its policies and procedures. Similar assurances, without any detail, were given in the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 28 July 2023. These statements were unlikely to have been of any assurance to the resident. It would have been appropriate, and in line with the landlord’s Procedure, for the landlord to keep the resident suitably informed about the action it was taking.
There were service failures by the landlord in the above respects by reason of its delays in taking action to deal with the resident’s complaints of ASB and its communication failures with the resident which amount to maladministration. Detriment was caused to the resident who suffered distress and inconvenience from the continuing ASB, time and trouble in having to make repeated reports and enquiries to the landlord in order to resolve the matter and in bringing her complaint. Particular concern was caused to the resident due to the difficulties of emergency services accessing her property for her health needs. Under the circumstances, an award of compensation would be appropriate.
This report has necessarily focussed on the period up to the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 28 July 2023. Further incidents of ASB occurred after that, as detailed above, which the resident has informed this Service is continuing. Accordingly, an order has been made in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of parking issues reported by the resident.

The landlord’s car parking management procedure requires each estate to have a parking management plan setting out the layout of parking spaces and allocation of them. The procedure states that lettings officers should refer to the plan when letting new properties to see whether any car parking spaces are available for new residents. Disabled residents who have a valid blue badge (as the resident does) are prioritised for parking bays. Such residents are allocated a parking bay close to their home where possible. The lettings officer is required to liaise with the property manager when letting a property to a disabled customer who needs a parking space to review the availability of suitable parking facilities.
The plan for the resident’s estate showing the allocations for properties has not been provided to this Service.
As noted above, the resident was allocated a parking bay near to her property which also has an integrated garage. From reviewing the evidence, it appears to be common ground between resident and landlord that:
1. Although the resident’s house has an integrated garage, it is not suitable for the resident’s disability.
2. The parking bay allocated for the use of the resident nearby is also not suitable for wheelchair access as it is situated close up against a wall.

On first moving in to the property on 19 December 2022, the resident parked her car outside her garage due to the difficulties in accessing it. This met objection from neighbour A as detailed above.
According to the resident, the landlord’s lettings agent advised her the following day that she could park outside her garage. It is understood from the landlord that its representative is not available to confirm this conversation.
Subsequently, the landlord advised the resident that she could not park outside her garage. This was conveyed to the resident by the property manager at her visit on 14 April 2023. The landlord reviewed the matter and endorsed this approach in its Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses to the resident’s complaint.
The reasons given for this decision by the landlord in its Stage 1 response were that it could not allow her to park outside her garage as this was not an allocated parking space, it would cause hindrance to the resident’s neighbours and block in neighbour A’s awning. The landlord informed the resident that when she accepted the property as a mutual exchange she accepted it for what it was.
In its Stage 2 response of 28 July 2023, the landlord stated that it had to adhere to the established allocations to ensure fairness among all residents. It recommended that the resident consider contacting other residents on the estate to explore the possibility of swapping parking spots.
The landlord’s approach was not reasonable. Under its parking management procedure, the landlord should have considered the suitability of the parking requirements for the resident at the time of letting the property. It seems that this did not happen for reasons which are unclear. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed of the difficulties presented by the parking layout at the property in advance of her move or that the landlord considered her parking needs at the time.
Having become aware that the resident was a wheelchair user after she moved in to the property, and that both the possible places allocated for the resident to park were unsuitable for her needs, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to take steps to explore if there were alternative solutions, such as whether the existing parking bay could be widened or (as suggested by the resident herself) reallocating her parking bay to her neighbour instead of the awning so that the resident could park outside her property without blocking her access.
The landlord failed to explore these options. It unfairly placed the burden on the resident of trying to find an alternative solution when it was in a position to do so having overall management and responsibility for the estate and the parking on it.
This was maladministration by the landlord which caused detriment to the resident who was unable to use her garage or parking bay and faced difficulties in accessing her car.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1, the landlord should record and acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If a resident is unhappy with the response, it can request a review. Such requests are acknowledged within 5 working days and a Stage 2 response provided within 20 working days.
The resident brought a formal complaint on 5 May 2023 which was not acknowledged as required under the policy. The complaint was incorrectly recorded by the landlord as having been received on 20 June 2023. This caused delay and the need for the resident to chase the complaint on 14 June 2023.
The complaint was acknowledged on 3 July 2023 which was 4 days outside the landlord’s policy timescales if it had been received on 20 June 2023.
On 4 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it had not completed its investigations. The letter contained undeleted pro forma options including a space for a date to be inserted for when the landlord expected to complete its investigations. An open ended extension is not in line with the landlord’s policy which provides for an initial extension of up to 10 working days and further liaison with the resident if extensions are required beyond that. In fact, the Stage 1 response was issued by the landlord on 6 July 2023 which was within policy timescales of 10 working days from the date of the acknowledgement.
Neither the Stage 1 nor the Stage 2 response responded fully to the resident’s concerns regarding the handling of her reports of ASB. However, this aspect has already been addressed above and compensation awarded.
The landlord’s failure to follow the correct policy procedure at Stage 1 was a service failure which caused delay in the resolution of the resident’s complaint and the need for the resident to chase the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of parking issues reported by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay £750 compensation to the resident made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by the failings in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.
  2. £100 for the failings identified in its handling of the parking issues reported by the resident.
  3. £50 for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Conduct a management review of the history of the reports of ASB by the resident to date and its responses to them to establish points of learning to inform its handling of the current ASB issues experienced by the resident.
4. Explore alternative options for the resident to park near her property which are suitable for disabled parking and update the resident on the outcome.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.