Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (202122596)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122596

Poole Housing Partnership Ltd

22 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident has been the secure tenant of a two-bedroom flat since late 2017. The resident was assigned the tenancy via a mutual exchange. The landlord was an arms-length management organisation and managed the properties on behalf of the local authority. By 20 April 2022 the resident had moved to another property with a different landlord.
  2. The resident’s complaint was that her reports of ASB by a neighbour (the neighbour) had not been dealt with by the landlord and that the landlord should have taken action against the neighbour. This was particularly in relation to the incident involving the neighbour damaging the resident’s bike with her wheelie bin. The landlord’s overall position was that the incident had been investigated and recorded and appropriate steps taken to try to deal with the neighbour dispute.

Scope

  1. The resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman noted that the landlord sent her contact details to the wrong email address when trying to arrange mediation which the resident considered was a data breach. This matter will not be considered as part of this investigation as there is no indication that the issue has been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint. Therefore, the landlord has not had an opportunity to respond to this concern. In addition, the Ombudsman does not consider matters which fall within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaints handling body. Matters concerning data protection breaches can be raised with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
  2. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of anti-social behaviour and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; this investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The resident’s emails make reference to having experienced other ASB issues from the neighbour which the resident did not report to the landlord because she was intending to move to another property. Whilst being aware of this as the context to the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman can only assess the landlord’s response to ASB incidents which were brought to its attention. The focus of this investigation is therefore on the landlord’s handling of the incident where the resident complained that the neighbour had damaged the resident’s bike. This was the matter addressed by the landlord in its complaint responses; other ASB issues will be referred to only insofar as they are context for this complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, residents are responsible for the behaviour of those living with them and their visitors. The tenancy agreement states that residents must not be verbally or physically abusive to anybody. The tenancy agreement also states that residents not do anything that is likely to cause nuisance and annoyance to others.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that whenever possible it facilitates and encourages changes in behaviour to achieve long-term resolution of ASB cases. Any action taken by the landlord will be a reasonable and proportionate response to the behaviour reported. The policy states that the landlord will assess every ASB complaint as to whether it constitutes a breach of tenancy; if there is a realistic prospect of resolution; if it affects the housing management function; and if there is evidence to support action. The landlord’s policy states that it uses a triage process to assess the complaint and determine any further investigation or action. Where appropriate the landlord undertakes an evidence–gathering exercise to identify the most appropriate course of action. The landlord will advise the complainant and alleged perpetrator of the outcome. The landlord uses a range of informal actions to try and resolve issues of ASB at an early stage and prevent escalation. These can include verbal warnings, written warnings, meetings or home visits, and mediation.
  3. On 26 May 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the neighbour. She noted that problems started the previous year including verbal abuse from the neighbour. More recently (in May 2021), the resident’s mother had asked the neighbour not to slam the door and experienced verbal abuse from the neighbour. The neighbour complained of verbal abuse from the resident’s mother and this led to a warning letter from the landlord.
  4. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this email the following day advising that the complaint would be assessed, and the landlord would contact the resident about opening an ASB case. An internal email indicates that the complaint was to be triaged which was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy although this investigation has not had sight of the outcome of that triage.
  5. Given that there had been complaints and counter-complaints between the resident and the neighbour, it was appropriate that the landlord suggested mediation on 7 June 2021. Mediation can be a useful opportunity for neighbours to talk about problems in a conversation facilitated by a neutral third party. The landlord’s ASB policy notes mediation as a possible option for resolution of ASB.
  6. The resident agreed to mediation and the landlord received this response on 29 July 2021. Since mediation is a voluntary process, both parties need to agree to take part in order for it to progress. Therefore, whilst it is appropriate for a landlord to offer mediation, a landlord is unable to insist that it takes place.
  7. There were no further reported ASB incidents until early August 2021 when the resident alleged that her bike was damaged by the neighbour moving her wheelie bin. The context to this incident was that the resident and the neighbour have adjoining gardens. According to the landlord’s plot plans, both residents have shared access at the front and the neighbour uses a right of way over a portion of the resident’s plot.
  8. It was in line with its ASB policy that the landlord assessed this incident via triage in order to determine the appropriate response. It was appropriate that the landlord responded by telephone to discuss the incident with the resident. The landlord had also confirmed that an ASB case had been opened. The resident discussed the matter with housing management and then with a more senior staff member when she had concerns about how matters were being dealt with.
  9. The resident reported the incident to the police and it was appropriate that the landlord asked the resident to inform staff of the outcome of the appointment with the police (although there is no evidence as to this). The landlord’s ASB policy indicates that it will work with partner agencies. The outcome of any investigation by the police would inform what, if any, action the landlord would take.
  10. The resident sent the landlord video clips that she had recorded of the incident and by 16 August 2021, the landlord had been able to view the videos. The landlord noted that in its view, the matter was a disagreement over bins and the landlord could not see any evidence of ASB that would require the landlord’s involvement. The landlord also advised that the resident could not continue to padlock the gate as this was blocking the neighbour’s access.
  11. On 16 August 2021 the resident informed the landlord that she had reported another incident to the police. The resident stated that the neighbour and a friend had been talking loudly about her and the following day she found one of her buddleia clippings snapped off and taken. On the same day, a further email from the resident to the landlord stated that she locked the gate because of the neighbour’s verbal abuse; her bike had not been in the neighbour’s way; and the neighbour did not have a right of access to her driveway which was not wide enough for a vehicle and a bin without the risk of damage.
  12. The landlord tried to contact the resident by telephone and when it was unable to reach her, it sent an email instead advising that she should not restrict access for the neighbour. The landlord visited the resident on 13 September 2021 and discussed the shared access. The resident stated she did not understand why the neighbour came down her driveway. The landlord intended to arrange an appointment with the surveyor to discuss shared access which was an appropriate step since this seemed to be the cause of some aspects of the dispute.
  13. When the resident reported on 23 September 2021 concern about the neighbour’s use of her driveway to bring washing machines in and out, the landlord advised it would contact the neighbour. In order to clarify the shared access, it was appropriate that the following day the landlord also sought further detail from the surveyor about the shared access including a plot plan. The landlord tried to arrange appointments for the surveyor to visit the resident and the neighbour to explain the shared access. When the resident cancelled the appointment, the landlord instead explained this to both parties by telephone.
  14. On 4 November 2021 the landlord reviewed the case. As there was no further evidence of ASB issues, it was to close the case. The resident advised this was because she was staying away from the property. Whilst understanding the resident’s reasons for staying elsewhere, this meant that the landlord was not in receipt of further reports about ASB and therefore did not have additional evidence to form the basis of any further action.
  15. The resident made a formal complaint on 22 November 2021 as she did not consider that the landlord had addressed the neighbour’s behaviour. The resident was waiting for the police to arrest the neighbour who she stated had intentionally damaged her bike with the wheelie bin. The landlord agreed to open a stage one complaint. The resident wanted as an outcome to her complaint for the neighbour to be moved.
  16. The landlord responded on 6 December 2021 noting that it had investigated the complaint by speaking with housing management staff and accessing relevant case notes. The landlord noted that several incidents had been reported by the resident over the last 12 months and a housing officer had contacted the resident to discuss her concerns with her directly. The landlord acknowledged that on occasion there seemed to be a delay in the resident receiving a response. The staff member investigating the complaint at stage one confirmed he had personally viewed the videos of the incident involving the resident’s bike. He agreed with the landlord’s original view which was that whilst there was clearly a disagreement between the resident and the neighbour, there was nothing in the videos to suggest the neighbour had done anything to warrant further action. The landlord had tried to arrange mediation and attempted to meet with the resident and neighbour to discuss the disputed driveway access to try to resolve the issues identified. The landlord therefore did not uphold the complaint.
  17. The resident wished to escalate the complaint because the landlord’s stage one response did not mention the video that the resident sent of the neighbour “ramming” her bike with the bin. The resident was concerned that the landlord did not have all the facts when responding.
  18. The landlord sought further information from the police who advised that they had investigated and there would be no further police action due to insufficient evidence. It was reasonable therefore that this informed the landlord’s response as to any tenancy breach on the part of the neighbour.
  19. The landlord’s stage two response advised the resident that the staff member investigating the complaint at stage one had viewed the video. Having viewed the video, the staff member investigating the complaint at stage two was of a similar opinion that it was inconclusive that the damage to the resident’s bike was caused intentionally. The stage two response noted that it appears that the neighbour was taking the bin out and the bike was parked close to a shed giving limited space for the bin to pass, although the bike was clearly clipped. At stage two the landlord confirmed that logged on its system is a chronology of events, an ASB triage, and an ASB case opened. The landlord advised that any future reports of ASB would be dealt with in line with its policy. In summary, the landlord did not uphold the complaint as events were recorded correctly and various routes were considered to resolve the neighbour dispute, including mediation. The landlord had also talked through the stage two outcome with the resident by telephone.
  20. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 12 January 2022 that the landlord had failed to deal with the neighbour’s ASB which had been a problem for the last year and a half. The resident complained that the landlord’s stage two response stated there was not enough space for the neighbour to move her wheelie bin but this was an assumption made without looking at all of the evidence. The resident was concerned that the landlord was taking the neighbour’s side and wanted the landlord to issue tenancy breach notices to deal with the neighbour’s ASB.
  21. This Service acknowledges that the resident’s concerns about ASB caused her distress and the resident has referred to her own health concerns along with both her sons having ADHD and her older son having autism and epilepsy.
  22. For the landlord this appeared to a situation of complaints and counter-complaints between the resident and the neighbour. Whilst acknowledging that the resident wanted the neighbour to be moved, this was not the approach advocated by the landlord’s ASB policy. Before a landlord could take legal action to evict one of its tenants, it required significant amounts of evidence of tenancy breaches and there is no indication that the landlord had this evidence in this case. Taken altogether, the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord discussed the issues with the resident, completed a triage assessment, contacted the neighbour, offered mediation, sought further information from the police and clarified the shared access with the resident and the neighbour. This Service has seen no evidence that the information available to the landlord warranted further action against the neighbour. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about ASB.