Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202307467)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307467

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

29 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour.

Background

  1. The resident lived in a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident reports that she lives with several health conditions, including seizures and a traumatic brain injury.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 23 February 2023. The resident was dissatisfied that:
    1. the landlord had not dealt with her recent reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour (referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’)
    2. the landlord had told her the neighbour was permitted to have visitors, which she believed was incorrect
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2023, the landlord:
    1. acknowledged the resident had made several reports of ASB from the neighbour in the flat above her home
    2. stated it had advised the neighbour they were not permitted to have any guests stay overnight in their home whilst the ASB was being investigated, including a named individual
    3. explained the neighbour was aware it was investigating the ASB, and was liaising with other neighbours, the police, and the local authority’s environmental health department to gather evidence
    4. advised the resident to report any further incidents of excessive noise or guests staying over
    5. explained the neighbour was still permitted to have guests visit them at their home
    6. provided the resident with diary sheets to record and report any further incidents of excessive noise
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 April 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied that:
    1. the overnight visitors and noise disturbances from the neighbour’s home were ongoing
    2. the landlord had taken no action to address the ASB
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2023, the landlord:
    1. reiterated that the neighbour was permitted to have visitors, and had advised the neighbour that visitors should be mindful of other residents and keep noise to a minimum
    2. stated it had investigated the ASB and liaised with police, environmental health, and other neighbours
    3. explained that it needed evidence of what ASB was occurring and when, in order for it to take further action
    4. invited the resident to provide diary logs of any incidents
    5. stated the case would remain open and it would continue to monitor the situation
  6. In her complaint to this service, resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB, wanted it to take further action to address the ASB, and to offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In her complaints to this service, the resident reported that she ended the tenancy in or around August 2024. She was dissatisfied with how the landlord handled the ending of the tenancy and its communications with the resident.
  2. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’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

  1. There is no evidence that the resident has raised these new complaints with the landlord. Therefore, these complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and not ones that this service can investigate.
  2. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these matters, she should raise a new complaint. If at the end of the landlord’s complaints process she remains dissatisfied, she may bring that complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate.
  3. This report will focus on the landlord’s response to ASB between November 2022 and August 2023, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will consider a range of options in response to reports of ASB. This includes:
    1. mediation
    2. warning letters
    3. acceptable behaviour contracts
    4. parental control agreements
    5. non-legal undertakings
    6. referrals to other agencies
    7. restorative justice
    8. legal remedies, such as injunctions, possession proceedings, and undertakings
  2. Between December 2022 and January 2023, the resident reported several incidents to the landlord which included:
    1. the neighbour arguing loudly with their partner and screaming, including in the early hours of the morning
    2. loud music being played until the early hours of the morning
    3. the police arriving at her home looking for a named individual who had been staying with the neighbour
    4. noise being caused by the named individual when the neighbour was not at home
    5. parties being held in the neighbour’s home
    6. an incident on 25 January 2023 in which the resident heard the neighbour say they would “kill” the resident for reporting the ASB
  3. The evidence indicates that in response to these reports, the landlord took the following actions in January 2023 to investigate the ASB:
    1. asked the resident for further details about the ASB incidents
    2. interviewed other neighbour’s who corroborated the resident’s reports
    3. liaised with the police about the ASB reports and the concerns about the named individual
    4. asked environmental health whether the resident had reported any incidents and whether it intended to take any further action
    5. interviewed the neighbour
  4. As a result of the landlord’s investigations, it identified that:
    1. there were credible incidents of ASB, although at least one of the incidents reported by the resident was disputed by the neighbour
    2. the named individual which the police had been looking for was homeless having recently been released from prison, and had been staying at the neighbour’s home 2 nights a week
    3. the resident had not reported any noise incidents to environmental health since 2022
    4. in November 2022 environmental health asked the resident to inform it if there had been any further noise incidents but it did not receive a response from her
    5. environmental health had closed its investigation in December 2022 due to a lack of evidence, and had determined that the resident’s reports were unlikely to be a statutory nuisance as they were infrequent
    6. the police had investigated the incident in which the neighbour had been heard saying they would “kill” the resident, and had determined that this was not a criminal matter and would be more appropriately dealt with by the landlord and environmental health
  5. The evidence indicates that by the end of January 2023, the landlord had:
    1. told the neighbour they were not permitted to have guests stay over at their home whilst the ASB incidents were being investigated, and specified this included the named individual
    2. provided the neighbour with information about how the named individual could seek their own housing
    3. informed the police and probation service that the named individual was not permitted to stay at the neighbour’s home and advised that the named individual should present as homeless to the local authority
    4. reminded the neighbour of the terms of their tenancy agreement and warned them that their tenancy would be at risk if the noise continued
    5. advised the resident to report any noise incidents to environmental health so that it could reconsider its decision
    6. advised the resident to complete diary sheets and provide it with information about any further incidents
    7. told the resident it would continue to gather evidence and would take action if it could demonstrate the neighbour continued to breach the terms of their tenancy agreement following these actions
  6. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was reasonable. This is because the evidence indicates it took the resident’s reports seriously, was proactive in investigating the incidents, gathered evidence, and took proportionate action to address the cause of the ASB.
  7. Throughout February 2023, the resident reported further incidents which she alleged to be ASB. This included:
    1. concerns that there were multiple people living in the neighbour’s home
    2. noise complaints
    3. the neighbour’s cat triggering an alarm on the resident’s CCTV
    4. the neighbour standing in the doorway of their own home on some evenings
  8. On 21 February 2023, the landlord reviewed the CCTV evidence the resident had provided to support these new allegations of ASB. The landlord concluded that:
    1. there was no evidence that there was anyone else living in the neighbour’s home in February 2023
    2. there was no evidence to substantiate any noise complaints in February 2023
    3. the neighbour standing in their own doorway was not a breach of their tenancy agreement
  9. On 22 February 2023, the landlord:
    1. told the resident it had considered her recent reports and determined that there was no evidence of any ASB having occurred since January 2023
    2. invited the resident to provide information about further incidents
    3. stated it would review the case again on 22 March 2023 and if there were no further reports by that time, it would close the ASB case
  10. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s decision was reasonable. This is because it reached a decision based on the evidence available to it at the time. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this.
  11. In its stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2023, the landlord reiterated the actions it had taken to address the ASB and invited the resident to inform it of any further incidents.
  12. Throughout March 2023, the resident continued to report concerns about multiple people living in the neighbour’s home and stated she had CCTV evidence of this. She also reported the neighbour was interfering with her CCTV camera.
  13. On several occasions, the landlord asked the resident to provide the evidence she had referred to. It also advised the resident how she could record incidents of noise through a new ASB reporting app.
  14. In response, the resident told the landlord on several occasions that she would not provide it with any evidence or engage with its investigations. The Ombudsman cannot hold the landlord responsible for this.
  15. The evidence indicates that the landlord did liaise with the police about the resident’s concerns. On 21 March 2023, the police informed the landlord they had investigated the resident’s reports and had determined there was no evidence anyone had interfered with the resident’s CCTV.
  16. On 21 April 2023 the landlord told the resident it had reviewed the ASB case and decided:
    1. the neighbour was now permitted to have visitors stay overnight, with the exception of the named individual
    2. the named individual was permitted to visit the neighbour, and it would review its decision about permitting them to stay overnight on 21 May 2023
    3. it had considered the resident’s reports, liaised with the police, and had not identified any continuing ASB
    4. invited the resident to supply further evidence of ASB and offered to demonstrate how to use its noise recording app
  17. In her complaint escalation, the resident was dissatisfied because the landlord had previously told her the neighbour was not permitted to have any visitors stay overnight.
  18. The Ombudsman acknowledges it would have been desirable to the resident for the neighbour not to have any overnight visitors. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord reached a decision it was entitled to make and which was based on the evidence available. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it was within the landlord’s gift to decide that the neighbour was not permitted to have overnight visitors.
  19. In its stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2023, the landlord reiterated its advice that the resident provide evidence of any ASB incidents. It explained it was only able to take action on the evidence it had available. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable.
  20. Between June and August 2023, the resident continued to report alleged incidents of ASB which she said she had evidence of. This included:
    1. noise complaints
    2. multiple people living in the neighbour’s home
    3. the neighbour had hacked various things belonging to the resident, including:
      1. TVs
      2. phones
      3. cars
      4. bank accounts
  21. In response to these reports, the landlord:
    1. reiterated it needed evidence to take action on the ASB, and invited the resident to provide this
    2. interviewed various neighbours who were unable to corroborate the resident’s reports
    3. asked environmental health whether the resident had provided any further evidence to it, which it told the landlord she had not
    4. asked the police whether the resident had been a victim of hacking, which it told the landlord it had investigated and there was no evidence to support this conclusion
  22. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. This is because it took the resident’s reports seriously and made reasonable efforts to gather evidence. In the absence of any evidence, the landlord took no further action. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this.
  23. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of ASB, in that:
    1. it took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously and was proactive in gathering evidence, including interviewing witnesses and coordinating with other services
    2. it took proportionate action to address the ASB and continued to monitor the situation
    3. provided the resident with various means and opportunities to provide further evidence
    4. took actions based on the evidence it had available at the time
  24. However, there is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment for the resident at any time. Although a risk assessment would not have changed the outcome for the resident, it would have demonstrated best-practice by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of antisocial behaviour.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord review its ASB policy and consider whether it ought to include further details about if or when it will complete risk assessments in response to ASB.