Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202208779)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208779

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

21 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

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

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. This is a one bed garden flat. The resident suffers from severe and enduring mental health problems.
  2. The resident reported several incidents of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour to the landlord from June 2020 to June 2021. He reported incidents of abusive language, noise disturbances throughout the night, his neighbour throwing urine out the window, and the neighbour’s garden being excessively overgrown and left with a urine and faeces soaked mattress outside. The resident was also concerned about a possible cockroach and rat infestation due to the condition of the neighbour’s garden.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident, visited the neighbour, cleared the neighbour’s garden and issued the neighbour with warnings on two occasions. It also sent the resident diary sheets to complete for any further instances of ASB.
  4. The resident submitted a Stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 23 June 2021. He complained that the landlord had not followed its policy in conducting an up-to-date Risk Assessment Matrix on the resident and did not offer the resident any support as per its policy.
  5. Further to the complaint, the landlord conducted a case review of the resident’s complaint on 1 July 2021 and issued an action plan going forward, to address the issues. It then wrote to the resident with a Stage 1 complaint response on 2 July 2021. It apologised to the resident, agreed that it had identified areas of not complying with its policy and advised the resident that it had set out clear actions to address the issues going forward and that the resident would be kept informed of all actions.
  6. The resident submitted a Stage 2 complaint on 2 July 2021 as he was not happy with the lack of detail in the landlord’s response, did not believe the apology was genuine and he had also received unclear communication as to where to send the ASB diary sheets.
  7. In its Stage 2 response of 15 July 2021, the landlord apologised for any confusion as to where to send the diary sheets, confirmed the correct address, provided a copy of the risk assessment matrix, and confirmed that the apology the resident had received in its Stage 1 complaint response was genuine.
  8. The resident reported several further incidents of antisocial behaviour from his neighbour, after he had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. His neighbour passed away in August 2022.
  9. As an outcome to his complaint, the resident would like the landlord to apologise in person for its handling of his ASB reports, due to the adverse effect on his mental health. He would also like financial compensation and for the landlord to learn lessons from his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In his complaint to this Service, the resident mentions ongoing ASB incidents from a new neighbour who was re-housed into the previous perpetrator’s property after the death of the original perpetrator. He advises that this person was placed in the property, despite the landlord making it clear that this would be a sensitive let so as to minimise any future disruption to the resident. Whilst this Service acknowledges  the distress caused to the resident, it cannot investigate this matter as there is no indication that the resident has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, and so these incidents cannot be included in the report. This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

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

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as any conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. This includes such behaviour carried out by a tenant, a member of his/her household, a family member or visitor.
  2. The ASB policy states that the landlord’s approach to ASB reports are prevention and early action. The policy states it will always seek to act quickly in an effort to resolve issues before they escalate with a focus on understanding all points of view, setting out clear expectations on all sides and seeking mutually agreed resolutions. The landlord will work with partners and the communities to carry out initiatives designed to prevent ASB and to divert such behaviour with diversionary activity.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it categorises the importance of ASB into three categories. These are defined as:
    1. High – Cases involving violence or threats of violence and hate crimes. Response time within one working day.
    2. Medium – Cases involving damage to property. Response time within two working days.
    3. Standard – Cases involving all other kinds of nuisance. Response time within five working days.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy goes on to say that where a simple, mutually agreed solution cannot be worked out, the landlord will take appropriate action including but not limited to:
    1. Mediation
    2. Restorative justice
    3. Acceptable behaviour contracts
    4. All available legal remedies including injunctions, possession proceedings and undertakings.
  5. Often cases will require support and cooperation with outside agencies and the landlord will actively manage harmonious and efficient partnership working with a range of organisations. Where the anti-social behaviour is a criminal offence, the landlord expects those affected by it to report the matter to the police.
  6. The ASB policy Section 10- Managing risk – goes on to state that it will assess the risk level of each case using the locally agreed Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) and make referrals where appropriate into the Anti-Social behaviour Risk Assessment Conferences.
  7. The ASB policy -Section 11.1- Support for Complainants and Witnesses states that the officer assigned to a case will provide support both practical and emotional based on the RAM score for the case.
  8. The ASB policy – Section 12.1 – Vulnerabilities states that the landlord will always take into consideration vulnerabilities of both complainants and perpetrators of ASB. Where there is a wish to address underlying causes of their behaviour such as drug/alcohol misuse and mental health issues the landlord will offer assistance, signposting and make referrals to specialist support agencies.
  9. In his Stage 1 complaint to the landlord of 23 June 2021, the resident complained that the landlord did not follow its ASB procedures, in that it did not carry out a risk assessment matrix of the resident, did not assess his vulnerabilities and did not offer any practical or emotional support as per its policy. He advised the landlord that he felt suicidal due to the ASB-related incidents and that he was seeking professional intervention for this. He advised that the landlord’s actions since 31 March 2021, had exacerbated the antisocial behaviour. He also stated that the perpetrator’s tenancy breach had not been addressed in a timely, proportionate and effective manner, as per the policy provisions.
  10. The records show that the landlord responded to the resident’s first allegation of antisocial behaviour noted on file. The first record supplied to this Service is from 25 June 2020. The resident complained about his neighbour’s noise nuisance, overgrown garden and hoarding causing a smell and a possible infestation of rats and cockroaches. He also complained about the neighbour’s loud arguments with family members. He also advised the landlord of his neighbour’s self -neglect  and mental health and alcohol issues. The records show that the landlord wrote to the neighbour on 30 June 2020 and advised him that the condition of his garden was a breach of his tenancy. It asked him to tidy it within seven days or the landlord would arrange a caretaking team to tidy it and bill him. This was within the landlord’s published timescales of five working days so the landlord did act within its policy on this occasion. Additionally, subsequent to the resident’s further reports of ASB up to August 2020, the landlord employed contractors to clear the garden and agreed to fund the works itself, which is appropriate and demonstrates the landlord went beyond its obligations to resolve the matter.
  11. However, the landlord did not address the other ASB related matters in the resident’s report. There is no record of the landlord addressing the noise nuisance or arguments with the neighbour, nor are there any records of it looking into the neighbour’s potential need for a referral to external support services. Contrary to its policy, it did not address these issues with the neighbour, nor did it update the resident. This caused the resident frustration and distress.
  12. The resident reported further incidents of antisocial behaviour from his neighbour on 9 October 2020. He stated that the neighbour had been discharged from hospital on 29 September 2020, and that there had been loud TV noises since then in the early hours of the morning, as well as shouting and moaning. He also advised the landlord that there was an odour of faeces coming from his neighbour’s property and that when the resident went to check on the neighbour, the neighbour swore at him. He also advised the landlord that he had confirmed with the neighbour’s family that there was no care package in place.
  13. The landlord acted appropriately in response to this report by acknowledging the resident’s reports via letter three days later and also sending him diary sheets to report any recurrence. The landlord also said it would refer the resident’s neighbour to tenancy support. It also appropriately raised a safeguarding request for the neighbour with Adult Social Services. However, the records show that contrary to its policy, it did not conduct a Risk Assessment Matrix on the resident until 15 February 2021. Despite the landlord completing this matrix in February 2021, and the maximum score being applied for his mental health, the landlord did not offer the resident any practical or emotional support. This caused the resident adverse effect in terms of time and trouble in reporting the ASB, and further distress and anxiety in not being offered any assistance. The resident advised this exacerbated his mental health conditions. Further, the Risk Assessment Matrix stated that a review was due on 15 March 2021, and a review was not caried out.
  14. The landlord went some way in acting appropriately when it responded to the resident’s further complaints of ASB between 29 March 2021 and 7 April  2021. The resident complained of his neighbour dropping urine out of the window and advised the landlord that he was feeling depressed and disgusted. The landlord did write to the neighbour to warn him about the breach of tenancy/ASB. The records show that the landlord also made further contact with social services, and also arranged to have a joint visit to the neighbour with a Police Community Support Officer. However, it did not offer the resident any practical or emotional support, despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This caused the resident further distress and anxiety.
  15. The resident reported another incident of ASB on 16 June 2021, advising that his neighbour was swearing at him through the window which the landlord appropriately acknowledged within its time scales.
  16. Further to the resident’s Stage 1 complaint, the landlord conducted a case file review as was appropriate. It agreed that it would within the next few days;
    1. carry out a new RAM and offer support to the resident due to the ASB having an impact on his mental health.
    2. carry out a joint visit with Adult Social Care to the neighbour to establish if the property was suitable for his needs or if the landlord needed to explore alternative housing options for the neighbour.
    3. discuss the option of an antisocial behaviour risk assessment conference (ASBRAC)/ Victim Support with the resident
    4. send a contractor out to clean the urine that the neighbour had thrown
    5. establish if the case needed referring to the landlord’s tenancy sustainment team
    6. keep the resident informed of any developments and a weekly phone call to establish if things had improved or if the ASB was continuing.
  17. The landlord noted this action plan in its Stage 1 response to the resident and apologised for not complying with its procedures and this was appropriate.
  18. However, although the landlord agreed to complete the above actions within days, the records show that many of these actions did not in fact take place. The landlord did not complete a new RAM until February 2023, (pertaining to a separate ASB complaint) it did not offer any support to the resident, or refer him to ASBRAC /victim support, nor did it phone him weekly. In fact, there was no contact with the landlord, until the resident contacted it again in September 2021. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and caused the resident additional distress and anxiety and exacerbated his mental health conditions.
  19. The landlord provided an appropriate response to the resident’s Stage 2 complaint in respect of the resident’s concerns about confusion about where to send his ASB diary sheets and his concerns that the apology he had received at the Stage 1 was not genuine. The landlord apologised for any confusion regarding the address to where to post diary sheets, advised this was due to a change in offices and that all diary sheets had been passed on and provided the resident with the correct address as to where to send diary sheets going forward. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the apology provided to the resident in the landlord’s Stage one complaint response was not genuine.
  20. However, in his Stage 2 complaint to the landlord, when the resident advised that the landlord had not supplied him with enough detail regarding the risk assessment matrix, the landlord simply sent him a copy of this, together with links to its ASB policy. It advised the resident that it only reviewed risk assessments if there was a material change which triggered a need for review, as per its policy. This Service has seen no mention of this particular clause regarding risk assessment reviews, in the landlord’s ASB policy. Furthermore, from the Risk Assessment Matrix carried out on 15 February 2021, it is noted that a review was due on 15 March 2021. This Service has seen no evidence of such review. This is a failing on the part of the landlord.
  21. In summary, although the landlord went some way in abiding by its ASB policy, there are failings in the way it responded to the resident’s reports of ASB. The resident was not kept updated of events, the landlord did not conduct a timely RAM, did not take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities, did not offer proportionate support to the resident, and did not always issue the neighbour with warnings as it stated it would. This hindered the landlord in being able to resolve the issue at the earlier opportunity and exacerbated the adverse effect on the resident, in terms of distress and anxiety. As such, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord must;
    1. Pay the resident £350 compensation. It should advise this Service once it has done so.
    2. Apologise to the resident. It should share this letter with the Ombudsman.
    3. Review the antisocial behaviour handling failures in this case, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of this.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that its staff are fully trained in its ASB policy and procedures.