Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202113620)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113620

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

5 January 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 response to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s neighbour (Miss A) is also its tenant.
  2. In response to the resident making a report of ASB on 8 April 2021, the landlord sent ASB diary sheets to her the next day. Between 12 and 18 April 2021, the resident made three reports of Miss A using drugs and a report of her shouting over her fence at the resident. The landlord contacted the police on 26 April 2021 to arrange a joint visit to the property.
  3. On 1 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to propose mediation between herself and Miss A.
  4. The resident’s stage one complaint to the landlord has not been provided to the Ombudsman.
  5. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 14 May 2021 in which it noted that it had previously issued ASB diary sheets to her due to a previous report on 25 November 2020. It advised that this case was closed due to no diary sheets being returned to it.
  6. The landlord confirmed that it had carried out a joint visit alongside the police on 10 May 2021 to her property to discuss the “neighbour dispute”. It relayed that she was advised to make alterations to her CCTV installation and the police said that it was unable to take action on her reports of Miss A’s drug use without witnessing this. The landlord said that the resident’s reports of Miss A threatening and intimidating her had been denied by Miss A, and without evidence it could not take further action. It referred her to the police should she feel she was being harassed and it would follow their lead if enforcement action was necessary.
  7. The landlord relayed that, during its visit on 10 May 2021, the resident and Miss A were advised not to have contact with each other and noted that she had agreed to mediation, which it hoped would resolve the matter.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 May 2021 about her ASB case. It informed her that the issues she had reported were “not a landlord issue” and it did not therefore have the power to take action. The landlord referred to its joint visit alongside the police and advised her to report directly to the police if the issues persisted. It reiterated that she and Miss A should not make contact with each other in order to resolve the dispute.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 July 2021 to acknowledge that she had made a report of ASB on 29 June 2021. It advised that it had logged her report and was investigating the matter. The resident submitted ASB diary sheets to the landlord on 22 and 26 July 2021 in which she reported that Miss A had made comments about her. It issued a warning letter to Miss A on 11 August 2021.
  10. The resident spoke to the landlord on 15 and 16 September 2021 to express her dissatisfaction with its handling of her ASB reports. She said that she wanted her complaint to be escalated as, despite regularly submitting ASB diary sheets, no action was taken against Miss A. The resident said she was aware that the landlord had only issued one warning to Miss A and felt that only legal action would stop the reported ASB.
  11. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 17 September 2021 which noted that she had reported to it on 21 June 2021 that Miss A had made threats and racist comments. It detailed a joint visit between itself and the police to her property on 2 August 2021. On this visit it was agreed that both the resident and Miss A were to be formally interviewed by the police, during which they viewed footage of Miss A making threats. Miss A did not attend the interview. The police agreed that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute for threats but not racial slurs. The resident said that a warning from the landlord would be sufficient to stop the ASB and the police confirmed that if further incidents occurred then it would re-open the case.
  12. The landlord confirmed that it visited Miss A on 11 August 2021 and issued a written warning to her. The resident confirmed to it on 25 August 2021 that she was happy for the case to be closed.
  13. The landlord relayed that it had received a report from Miss A about the resident on 10 September 2021, and a counter allegation from her later that day. On 15 September 2021 she made a report of further harassment from Miss A.
  14. The landlord said that, based on the evidence, it had responded promptly and in accordance with its ASB policy to the resident’s reports. It informed her that legal action such as an injunction or possession proceedings would require sufficient evidence to persuade a county court judge to proceed. The landlord believed that there was currently insufficient evidence to commence legal action. It said that it was monitoring the situation and would take legal action once it became appropriate.
  15. The resident contacted this Service on 3 November 2021 to inform the Ombudsman that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that residents, their household members and visitors are not to “cause a nuisance, disturbance or annoyance to any person in the local area”.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it considers ASB as conduct which has caused or may cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person. This applies to the behaviour of the resident’s household or a visitor to the property. This policy confirms that it will seek to address ASB through prevention and early action measures to seek mutually agreed resolutions and work with partner organisations such as the police. It may also take the following actions:
    1. Provide warning letters
    2. Employ restorative justice
    3. Use warning interviews or letters
    4. Enforce Acceptable Behaviour Contracts or Parental Control Agreements
    5. Carry out legal action such as injunctions, possessions proceedings and undertakings.
  3. The landlord’s customer feedback (complaints) policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure it is to provide a resolution within ten working days, at the final stage it is to provide a resolution within 15 working days. If it is unable to meet either of these timescales the landlord should agree an extension with the resident.

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

  1. As confirmed by the tenancy agreement, residents are required to refrain from any conduct which may cause alarm, distress or nuisance to others in the vicinity. The Ombudsman would therefore expect to see intervention from the landlord where it is reported that the conditions of this agreement are not being honoured.
  2. Without sufficient proof, however, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord will be limited in the interventions available to it and the steps it is able to take. The landlord is expected to take steps to obtain evidence so as to ensure that its response is proportionate, warranted, and the appropriate intervention is utilised. Residents also have a responsibility to provide evidence of the events reported.
  3. It is noted that in this case, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not taken legal action against Miss A, despite her reports of ASB through diary sheets. While her diary sheets were important for building a body of evidence, the Ombudsman appreciates that there was still insufficient proof to prompt legal action. It was reasonable that the landlord explained this to the resident.
  4. What’s more, this Service would expect a landlord to attempt to resolve matters by exhausting the interventions available, before seeking to carry out any legal action. Particularly where the matter is believed to be a neighbour dispute, interventions such as mediation can be appropriate in attempting to repair relationships between residents and bringing about resolution.
  5. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord attempted to do this by offering mediation on 1 May 2021. This was reasonable. It was equally reasonable that upon receiving confirmation from the police that threats were made, after reviewing video footage, the landlord provided Miss A with a written warning on 11 August 2021 to remind her of the behaviours which were expected (and what could happen if this was not adhered to). It is noted that the resident was satisfied for her ASB case to be closed on 25 August 2021.
  6. Where suitable, landlord’s will also seek the support of outside agencies to support their investigations / achievement of resolution. The Ombudsman can see that in this case, as the ASB reported by the resident involved criminal behaviours such as racism and drug use, the landlord sought the support of the police. It was reasonable for the landlord to encourage the resident to make reports of criminal activity directly to the police and to advise that it would follow matters up with them.
  7. With this said, the landlord also has a duty of care to its residents and a responsibility to protect residents against ASB. The Ombudsman would therefore expect the landlord to proactively seek to investigate reports of harassment and racism, rather than relying solely on the efforts of the police, and it appears that it did. It is noted that joint visits were undertaken by the landlord (alongside the police) and that the allegations made were put to Miss A (which were denied). While it appears that the ASB did not stop, reasonable and proportionate measures were taken.
  8. It has therefore been concluded that the landlord acted appropriately in addressing the reports of ASB, and in accordance with its ASB procedure. The Ombudsman expects that the landlord will continue to investigate the most recent reports of ASB and act reasonably and proportionately in response to these.
  9. If the resident is dissatisfaction with the action taken by the landlord since it provided its final response, she may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord. This investigation has only considered matters up until the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

  1. This is as the landlord took reasonable and proportionate action in response to the reports of ASB and in accordance with its ASB policy. The Ombudsman is satisfied that its approach was appropriate.