Places for People Group Limited (202206249)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206249

Places for People Group Limited

8 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom flat, her tenancy began in February 2021. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, during the complaint the resident reported that the situation with her neighbour was affecting her mental health.

Summary of events

On 18 and 19 May 2021 the resident sent the landlord evidence of her neighbour (Mr A) shouting and using racially abusive language. The landlord visited Mr A’s property on 11 June 2021, with the police. The landlord issued Mr A with a warning letter on, 11 June 2021, which said that at Mr A had admitted using racist language. The letter said that police had warned him that any further incidents of this nature may result in the police bringing criminal charges against him.
On 29 September 2021, the resident reported a noise disturbance from Mr A, the landlord acknowledged the report and opened an ASB case. The landlord also told the resident to contact the local authority for it to investigate the noise disturbance.
On 1 November 2021 the resident reported that Mr A was turning off the communal light in the underpass that led to her property. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 November 2021 and said that it had spoken with Mr A who had confirmed he had been turning the light off. Mr A had said this was because he wanted to save energy. The landlord said that it had issued a warning to Mr A telling him not to tamper with the communal light.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 December 2021 and said that she was continuing to experience ASB and harassment from Mr A and said:
1. She was concerned about his mental health due to witnessing him shouting abuse from his flat, and was often woken up by him shouting;
2. She had reported him to the police for driving his car illegally, and his harassment of her had become worse after this;
3. He was purposefully creating a noise disturbance by slamming doors and making a noise with the lock on his front door throughout the day and night;
4. She felt bullied by Mr A.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 December 2021 and said it was satisfied that the incidents from Mr A had caused “significant alarm and distress” and it may be necessary to consider applying to the courts for an injunction. It advised that logs of the incidents would help make her case , and that she may need to attend the court as a witness. The landlord said that the alternative approach would be to issue Mr A with a “final warning” that any further incidents would result in legal action. The resident responded on the same day and asked the landlord to issue Mr A with a final warning, but asked that if issues started up again, would it immediately apply to court. It is not clear whether the landlord responded to the question asked by the resident.
On 26 December 2021, the resident reported that Mr A had installed wind chimes that were causing a noise nuisance. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 January 2021 and said that it had visited Mr A and he had agreed to take the wind chimes down.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 January 2022 and asked if Mr A was issued with the final warning letter, as had been agreed in December 2021. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed Mr A was issued with a warning letter. It also said that it did not consider incidents that relate to domestic noise to be ASB such as banging doors, and DIY at reasonable times.
According the landlord’s ASB log, the resident submitted evidence of noise disturbance from Mr A on 15, 20, 25 and 28 February 2022. The resident reported further incidents of noise disturbance on 11, 12 and 18 March 2022. The landlord visited Mr A on 24 March 2022, and decided to make referrals for support services.

The resident emailed the landlord on 1 April 2022 to make a complaint and said:
1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB against Mr A;
2. It had told her that it had enough evidence to take out an injunction against Mr A, but this had not happened;
3. She was not being listened to.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 April 2022 and explained Mr A had displayed concerning behaviour towards her since she moved in, in March 2021. She was particularly concerned as Mr A had told her that he had weapons in his property. The resident said Mr A “bullying and tormenting” her, by creating noise disturbance. The resident asked why the landlord had not pursued an injunction, after the final warning letter had not stopped Mr A’s behaviour.
Following an enquiry from the resident’s MP, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 14 April 2022 and said:
1. It had advised the resident to contact the police if any serious incidents occurred;
2. It had visited Mr A’s property and there was no evidence to suggest he had weapons;
3. Mr A had said he was not intentionally causing a disturbance to anyone, and was open to mediation with the resident;
4. It was of the view that the case did not warrant enforcement, and mediation was the ideal approach.
Having agreed an extension with the resident, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 May 2022 and said:
1. Its legal powers around ASB relate to establishing whether a tenant has breached their tenancy agreement;
2. In December 2021, the resident had agreed that visiting Mr A was an appropriate course of action;
3. The resident had submitted further evidence of ASB and noise disturbance. As a result, it had visited Mr A on 13 May 2022, and he had admitted to shouting and swearing and had voluntarily signed an ‘acceptable behaviour contract’;
4. The evidence of shouting could be considered a breach of Mr A’s tenancy agreement and it felt the behaviour contract was the most appropriate way to deal with it;
5. The resident’s concerns about other noise disturbance from Mr A (his use of his washing machine, wheelie bin, and keys) did not amount to a breach of tenancy, and mediation would be the most appropriate way to tackle the issues. It had made a referral to its internal mediation team who would be in touch;
6. It asked the resident to continue completing diary sheets and providing recordings of noise disturbance on the memory sticks it had provided;
7. If there was evidence that the agreement was breached it may consider legal action, which may include applying for an injunction or possession of Mr A’s property;
8. It now had permission to speak to Mr A’s GP and support agencies, and had made a referral to its tenancy sustainment team, who would work with Mr A to help resolve the issues;
9. It acknowledged that the situation had been “stressful” for the resident, and it was sorry about the impact the situation was having on her.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 May 2022 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 and said:
1. She did not believe mediation with Mr A would work;
2. Was of the view that the noise disturbance she was experiencing was unreasonable and Mr A was using his washing machine to “torment” her. She claimed the washing machine was running from 7 pm to midnight every evening;
3. Mr A would “drop the Yale lock” and slam windows. She would continue to supply diary sheets and records as evidence of this.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 May 2022 to acknowledge her escalation request. It also said that it did not believe noise from domestic appliances would be considered a ‘statutory nuisance’, and advised the resident that she could raise the issue with the local authority to investigate. It explained that it was unable to issue ‘noise abatement notices’.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 June 2022 and said:
1. It had investigated and had not upheld the resident’s complaint;
2. It had appropriately assessed the evidence provided to establish whether the reported incidents amounted to a tenancy breach;
3. It correctly advised that any incidents of harassment could be reported to the police, who have the power to take action against harassment, as it is a crime;
4. It had also suggested that the resident report her concerns about noise disturbance to environmental health, who may supply noise equipment to capture sound evidence;
5. As part of the stage 2 investigation it had asked its tenancy enforcement team to visit the resident and Mr A to raise the issues with Mr A, and then report back agreed actions to the resident. The visit was due to take place the following week;
6. It would consider the fresh evidence provided to establish whether Mr A was breaching the acceptable behaviour agreement, and would assess whether it needed to take further action;
7. It had noted the resident’s request to install a tamper proof switch for the communal light in the underpass, and this was booked for 20 July 2022.

Events after the complaint procedure

The resident contacted the landlord on 22 July 2022 and said:
1. Mr A continued to “stalk” her when she was outside her property;
2. Mr A had breached the behaviour agreement by shouting;
3. She believed the landlord had enough evidence to evict Mr A.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 August 2022 with an action plan which said it would:
1. Visit the resident to take an ‘impact statement’ from her;
2. Send a copy of the statement along with the ASB file to its solicitors who would carry out a ‘legal review’. It would then act on the recommendations of its solicitor;
3. Make a referral to the local authority for noise monitoring equipment;
4. Have an increased presence on site to identify any ASB in the block.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 September 2022 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, and it should have evicted Mr A.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2022 with the outcome of its ‘legal review’ and said that its solicitors advised its legal options were “very limited”. The solicitors had advised that the evidence received since Mr A had signed the behaviour agreement did not warrant court action, as an application for an injunction was unlikely to be considered “just and necessary”. It also advised that an application to evict Mr A was unlikely to be successful. The landlord said that it planned to visit Mr A to put the resident’s concerns to him about alleged breaches of the behaviour agreement. It had also contacted a neighbour, who advised they had not witnessed any concerning behaviour from Mr A.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 September 2022 and asked the landlord to respond to specific questions she had about her case which were:
1. Why it had allowed Mr A to continue to live in his property;
2. Why it was not acting on evidence that Mr A had breached his behaviour agreement;
3. Why she had not yet been provided with noise monitoring equipment.
The landlord responded on 26 September 2022 and said:
1. It, and its solicitors, were of the view that it did not have sufficient evidence to apply for an injunction, or possession of Mr A’s property;
2. The evidence submitted, since Mr A signed the agreement, did not warrant legal action. The behaviour agreement was due to expire in November 2022, and it was going to visit Mr A and decide whether a further agreement was needed;
3. The local authority had not accepted the referral for noise monitoring equipment, because the evidence did not meet the threshold for action;
4. It had conducted 13 unannounced visits in August 2022, at various times including weekends, and it had not identified any issues of concern;
5. It had spoken to other people living in the block, but they reported no concerns;
6. It was going to install CCTV in the underpass to deter people from tampering with the light;
7. It had offered mediation with Mr A, but the resident had declined;
8. It wanted to support the resident with a request for a housing transfer, and would contact her to discuss it further.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 December 2022 to report a concern that Mr A had followed her outside at night, and took a photo of her. The resident said that this was in front of a CCTV camera, and asked the landlord to review the footage. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed it would review the CCTV footage. It also said that it had reported the incident to the police and asked its community protection team to get in touch to support the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 December 2022 and said that it was concerned that the resident’s mental health was suffering at her current property. It said it had identified a vacancy that she could move to, and that it could apply for funding to assist with moving costs up to £500. The resident responded the same day and refused the offer of accommodation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 December 2022 and said it had reviewed the CCTV footage of the alleged incident and said that it did not contain any evidence that warranted further action.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2022 to express a concern about its handling of her ongoing reports of ASB and said:
1. The action it had taken against Mr A had not resolved things as when he was given a warning, he would stop for 2 weeks, and then start creating a disturbance again;
2. Mr A had continued to breach the behaviour agreement, and the landlord had not taken action;
3. She felt her reports of ASB were being ignored.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 March 2023 and said:
1. It had considered all of the evidence provided and found the resident’s claims of bullying and harassment from Mr A were unsubstantiated;
2. Incidents had been reported to the police, and the police had come to the same conclusion;
3. It had reviewed the recent recordings sent by the resident and found they did not amount to a noise disturbance;
4. It acknowledged the distress the resident was experiencing, but found that Mr A had not breached his tenancy agreement, and it would not be taking any action against him.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy states that with issues relating to noise disturbance the landlord expects residents to report concerns to the local authority’s environmental service.. The policy states that it expects residents to report alleged harassment to the police, and it would support the police in its investigation, but the police would take the lead role. If the police decide not to take further action, it would not normally take any further actions or investigate the matter further.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that domestic noise such as banging doors, washing machines, loud talking, and DIY during reasonable hours is not classed as ASB. The policy states that the landlord will consider a referral to mediation in all cases as an early intervention tool, as well as asking alleged perpetrators to agree to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB and noise disturbance from Mr A. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is clear that the alleged perpetrator of ASB against the resident, Mr A, was considered vulnerable by the landlord and suffered with poor mental health. It is not disputed that the resident found Mr A’s behaviour distressing, and the evidence indicates that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously. The evidence also shows that during periods of the resident reporting incidents of ASB, the landlord was concerned for Mr A’s wellbeing. Overall it was a challenging situation for the landlord, as it sought to investigate Mr A’s behaviour, and the impact it was having on the resident. It also sought to act responsibly in its approach to Mr A’s support needs and mental health conditions.
In May 2021,the resident reported that she had witnessed Mr A using racially abusive language, and supplied a recording. The landlord took this concern seriously, and visited Mr A, with the police, and issued him a formal warning about his behaviour. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and in line with its ASB policy. The landlord worked in partnership with the police to investigate the resident’s claims, and in line with the policy, allowed the police to decide on the most appropriate course of action.
In December 2021, following further reports of ASB, the landlord emailed the resident and appeared to suggest it could apply for a injunction against Mr A, or could issue a “final warning”. The resident opted for a final warning, but asked the landlord to confirm it would apply to court if it received further reports of ASB. It does not appear the landlord responded this email, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. It is reasonable to expect the landlord answer the resident’s query to manage her expectations about the process. It is evident that the lack of clarity at this point contributed to the resident’s frustration that the landlord to not take action against Mr A later, as she was of the view he had received a “final” warning. Its lack of clarity unfairly raised the resident’s expectations that court action against Mr A may be imminent.
It is noted that on 25 January 2022 the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations by setting out what it defined as domestic noise that was not actionable. However, it would have been appropriate for its email to have been more specific and outlined what behaviours the resident had reported amounted to domestic noise, and how it related to any potential action against Mr A. It is noted that the landlord’s ASB policy is silent on what it can do when domestic noise causes a noise disturbance, as such a recommendation has been made below.
When the resident reported a concern about Mr A’s wind chimes, and noise disturbance she experienced from them, the landlord attended promptly and asked Mr A to take them down. This was reasonable in the circumstances and is evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concern seriously, and acted decisively.
Following further reports of ASB from Mr A, the landlord asked him to sign a acceptable behaviour contract. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and in line with the early intervention part of its ASB policy. It is clear that the landlord took the further evidence of noise disturbance from Mr A seriously, and sought to work with him to modify his behaviour, in line with its policy.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to manage the resident’s expectations about its view on Mr A’s behaviour. It said that the evidence of Mr A shouting had caused a disturbance, and it had therefore asked him to sign a behaviour contract, which it would monitor. It stated that other evidence supplied amounted to domestic noise, for which it felt mediation was appropriate. This was a reasonable approach, as the landlord clearly outlined the behaviour it believed was ASB, and what action it would take. It also outlined the behaviour it did not view as ASB, to help manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response clearly outlined its position in relation to the ASB and the action it was going to take, which was appropriate. However, it failed to address the resident’s concern that it had previously told her it had enough evidence to start court proceedings against Mr A, but had not done so. The landlord evidently changed its position from the email in December 2021, to its complaint response in May 2022, but it failed to fully address this in its complaint response. It is noted that it did set out its current position, leaving the resident in no doubt of the action it planned to take. However, it is reasonable to expect it to have addressed her specific concern that it had failed to act when it said it would. The complaint response was silent on the question the resident had raised about the “final warning”, and simply stated the resident had agreed for it to visit Mr A. The resident experienced an inconvenience of a lack of clarity or explanation from the landlord, by not addressing the confusion caused about its previous “final warning” statement.
When the resident first reported noise disturbance the landlord, in line with its ASB policy, it advised the resident that she needed to report the noise disturbance to the local authority. This was the correct application of its policy, and appropriate in the first instance. Following continued reports of noise disturbance from the resident, the landlord took a supportive approach and decided to refer the resident’s case to the local authority itself. This is evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns about noise disturbance seriously, and took a proactive approach to engage the local authority. The local authority ultimately advised the case did not meet its threshold for investigation, which the landlord communicated to the resident. This helped manage the resident’s expectations about the alleged noise disturbance, and what action could be taken in her case.
Following further reports of ASB from the resident in July 2022, the landlord responded with an agreed action plan, which was appropriate in the circumstances. Part of the action plan was to obtain an impact statement from the resident, and seek a ‘legal review’ from its solicitor. This is evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, and had an understanding of the impact the situation was having on her. The landlord appropriately sought advice about the likely success of legal proceedings, and informed the resident of its intentions based on the advice, which was appropriate.
The landlord, appropriately, communicated the outcome of its ‘legal review’ to the resident. That the landlord, on advice from its solicitor, decided not to pursue legal action against Mr A must have been disappointing for the resident. However, the landlord took a supportive approach and set out what it would do to continue to support the resident, in the form of unannounced visits, and encouraging the resident to continue to submit evidence. This is evidence that it sought to manage the resident’s expectations about what action it was taking, but also wanted to support the resident with the ongoing case.
Following its legal review, the landlord continued to consider evidence the resident submitted, and responded to her specific questions about its approach. The landlord’s email of 26 September 2022 clearly explained that it was not seeking to take action against Mr A. Its email also took a supportive approach by outlining actions it was going to take, and reassure the resident it would continue to consider evidence she submitted. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as it managed the resident’s expectations about what action it would take, but also acted with sensitivity for the impact the situation was having on her.
Following a further report, in December 2022, that Mr A had followed the resident when outside her property, the landlord reported the incident to the police and made a referral to an internal support service. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and evidence that the landlord took the resident’s report seriously. The landlord also sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the incident with a follow up email on 13 December 2022, that it had reviewed the alleged incident on CCTV, and would take no further action. While this must have been disappointing for the resident, the landlord appropriately outlined its position with clarity.
The landlord offered the resident a transfer to an alternative property on 12 December 2022, in recognition of the impact the situation was having on her wellbeing. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord was clear in its position that it could not pursue legal action against Mr A, but had a clear understanding the impact the situation was having on the resident. This was a supportive approach and sought to reduce the detriment the resident was suffering. It is unclear why the resident refused the offer of alternative accommodation.
The landlord’s email of March 2023, further sought to manage the resident’s expectations about action it could take. It explained it had considered further evidence submitted by the resident, and explained her claims against Mr A were “unsubstantiated”. Again, this must have been disappointing for the resident, but the landlord acted with clarity and consistency in its approach to evidence submitted by the resident.
The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was reasonable. It took her reports seriously, and acted to intervene in line with its policy. The landlord worked in partnership with the police, when appropriate. The case had the added complexity that the alleged perpetrator was vulnerable and suffered with poor mental health. The landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns and the support needs of Mr A with sensitivity. The landlord responded to fresh evidence submitted by the resident, and sought legal advice on the evidence it had, which was appropriate. It communicated the outcome of its legal review to the resident and explained how it would continue to support her, despite deciding not to take legal action against Mr A. Its earlier communication about potential legal proceedings was confusing, and it failed to address or apologise for this confusion. As such, relevant orders have been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

The landlord took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously, and acted to intervene in line with its policy. It worked with, and reported to, the police when appropriate. The landlord sought legal advice on the evidence it had, which was appropriate. It communicated the outcome of its legal review to the resident and sought to explain how it would continue to support her. Its communication about the “final warning” and potential legal proceedings was confusing, and it failed to address, or apologise for this confusion.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of ASB.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its ASB policy to consider what action it can take to deal with complaints when ‘domestic noise’ causes a noise disturbance. This may include such incidents as using appliances late at night.