Sanctuary Housing Association (202101495)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101495

Sanctuary Housing Association

26 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
This Service has also made a finding in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Scope of Investigation

From reviewing information provided to this investigation by both parties, it is evident that there is a long-standing issue between the resident and her neighbour and a history of the resident making ASB reports, particularly regarding the neighbour’s dogs. It is noted that she has made two previous complaints, in 2018 and earlier in 2020, to which the landlord has responded.
In relation to the later complaint, which regarded the resident’s dissatisfaction with how the landlord had responded to ASB reports she had made regarding the neighbour’s dogs barking, concerns over the use of CCTV and parking issues, it is noted that the landlord provided a final response on 14 January 2020. While it did not uphold the complaint and advised that it had not identified any service failures regarding how it had responded to the ASB reports, it advised that it would be opening a new ASB case in relation to the resident’s most recent reports, which again centred around the neighbour’s dogs barking.
While the previous complaints, and the landlord’s responses, may be referred to for context within this report, they will not form part of this investigation. This is in accordance with Paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally within 6 months). Therefore, this investigation will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s ASB reports following the conclusion of its previous complaint response, on 14 January 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident rents a three-bedroom house from the landlord, a Housing Association. She holds an assured tenancy and has lived at the property since 2014.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) procedure outlines the approach it should take on receipt of ASB reports. It outlines that:
1. On receipt of reports the victim must be interviewed and an action plan agreed. If appropriate, the victim will be given diary sheets to complete, and the alleged perpetrator and any witnesses will be interviewed.
2. Actions the landlord can take include warnings to the alleged perpetrator, tenancy support, mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts and liaison with other agencies.
3. In most cases informal measures should always be pursued first, with legal action being a last resort. Legal action includes possession proceedings, injunctions and demotion orders.
4. Staff should keep full and accurate detailed records of any contact, communication, and developments throughout a case.
The landlord’s complaint procedure has two stages, a Front Line Resolution (FLR) stage and an Investigation Stage. If it does not prove possible to resolve the complaint at the FLR stage, the complaint can be escalated for a full investigation, after which a response should be provided within 20 working days.

Summary of Events

On 14 January 2020, the landlord provided a final response to a previous complaint from the resident, regarding how it had handled her reports of ASB from her neighbour. As above, although it did not uphold her complaint, it did advise that it would open a new ASB investigation, following a further report she made on 8 January 2020 which described the noise made by her neighbour’s dogs barking as being ‘intolerable’. Landlord records show it noted that, during the call, it could hear dogs barking but it was unable to establish their location. Its records further detail that it advised the resident of the need to provide further evidence to ‘substantiate the claims’ and that it would need to ‘review and try to manage the case’.
Following the ASB case being opened, landlord records show that it received over 20 further reports from the resident between 14 January 2020 and 14 March 2020. While each report will not be exhaustively listed here, they concerned the fact that the resident’s dogs were barking on a regular basis, either because they had been left at home or when they were let out for morning exercise which, in an email report on 7 February 2020, she advised happened every day. On more than one occasion, the resident advised that the barking was affecting her and her family’s mental health or impacting on her children who were working nights or bedbound. The resident also raised a concern regarding the number of dogs that were kept at the neighbour’s property. She advised that there were seven or eight at the property, that she believed this was against the landlord’s tenancy conditions and that the animals were being mistreated.
Landlord records show it treated contact from the resident on 5 March 2020, in which she stated she was unhappy with how she had been treated by staff involved in managing and responding to her ASB reports, as a complaint and it opened a new case. It wrote to her the following day to acknowledge the complaint and advise that it would respond at the Investigation Stage of its complaint procedure by 3 April 2020.
On 2 April 2020, the landlord provided its Investigation Stage response to the resident. It noted that her complaint regarded how it had responded to ‘concerns (she had) reported about dogs at a neighbouring property’. It advised it was able to review how it had handled ASB reports from the resident ‘within the last three years’ but clarified that, within this complaint investigation, it had only considered events and reports made after 15 January 2020. It advised this was because it had already provided responses to previous complaints regarding its handling of previous ASB reports, in February 2018 (which it stated included a review of all ASB reports made since 2014), and January 2020. It cited the reference numbers for these responses.
The landlord provided a detailed summary of the background to the complaint, noting that the resident had contacted it to raise concerns about barking from her neighbour’s dogs on ‘several occasions’ and that it had advised her in its previous complaint response that an ASB case had been now opened. Within its response it outlined the dates it had spoken to the resident regarding the issue and the steps it had taken to investigate the issue. While this report will not refer to every record made by the landlord here, in particular it noted that:
1. Following a call from the resident on 17 January 2020, the landlord arranged a meeting at a local community centre on 31 January 2020 to discuss the situation, although it noted that the resident later cancelled the meeting.
2. The meeting was re-arranged for 7 February 2020, although this too was cancelled but, as noted later in this report, the resident and landlord have different accounts regarding who cancelled the meeting. However, landlord records note it spoke to the resident on 6 February 2020 and advised it did not believe her reports provided evidence of a statutory nuisance. It asked the resident if she would consider the installation of noise monitoring equipment (NME) in her property in order to try and ‘capture any disturbance’ from the neighbour’s dogs.
3. During the conversation on 6 February 2020, landlord records also indicate that the resident stated she did not want it to contact her neighbour to discuss the reports as she was concerned about possible retaliatory action.
4. During a further call on 13 February 2020, landlord records note that the resident advised the barking had stopped and agreed to revisit the situation in a couple of weeks. It noted that the resident raised concerns regarding the welfare of the neighbour’s dogs and the landlord advised although it did not share her concerns, she could contact the RSPCA if she remained concerned.
5. On 21 February 2020, records note the resident reported that the barking had begun again. Landlord notes suggest the resident’s Housing Officer again suggested the use of NME, but the resident advised she did not want the Housing Officer to come to her property and ended the call.
6. The resident made further reports to the landlord in February 2020, following which her Housing Officer wrote a supporting statement to the Local Authority regarding a potential move via their housing list. The landlord also wrote to the resident to confirm it had no concerns over the welfare of the neighbour’s dogs and that there was no legislation regarding how many dogs the neighbour could keep within their property.
7. During a telephone conversation on 5 March 2020, records indicate the resident confirmed she did not want NME to be installed due to a fear of retaliation from the neighbour. The landlord also registered a complaint from the resident due to her expressed dissatisfaction on how it was dealing with her ASB reports.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It advised that it had ‘reviewed the history involved in (her) reports’ and appreciated that she had been ‘concerned both about the actions of your neighbour, their animals and (our) response to this for some time’. It stated that it sympathised with the resident but had not found any evidence that showed her reports had not been ‘managed appropriately’ or that she had been given bad advice. It outlined that:
1. It had explained that there is ‘no legislation in place…to limit the number of dogs that an individual has in a property’ but that it would be able to assist further if statutory nuisance was ‘present as a result of the dogs’ and this is why it had ‘strongly advised’ her to consider the use of NME. It advised that if statutory nuisance was evidenced, the local authority would usually take the lead on enforcement but that it would support and work with the local authority. It further outlined that, if statutory nuisance was not proven ‘but a disturbance is being caused’, it did have ‘informal measures…to try and address this’ but that its options had been limited by the resident stating she did not want it to discuss the reports with her neighbour.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had made further reports following her complaint but referred to a further conversation with the resident on 20 March 2020 in which it again stated the use of NME would be ‘the best way forward’, which it states was ‘in line with the guidance in (our) ASB…procedure’.
3. It believed the ‘appropriate actions have been taken’ following the resident’s reports but did identify some ‘small delays around communication’ which amounted to a service failure. It apologised to the resident for this, advised it would feed back its findings to the relevant managers and offered £50 as a ‘goodwill gesture’ in settlement of the complaint.
4. It had written to the local authority in support of the resident’s wish to move to another property and had also provided housing advice regarding a mutual exchange. It stated it was satisfied that this was a ‘reasonable action’ for it to take.
Following the landlord’s complaint response, the resident contacted it on 6 April 2020. In her email she raised the following concerns:
1. She disputed she had cancelled the meeting referred to and alleged that the landlord in fact cancelled the meeting itself, just prior to the appointment, after her daughter had paid £190 to travel down by train.
2. She requested the landlord ‘change the lies’ in the report and reiterated her complaints regarding how the landlord had handled her ASB case.
3. She also referred to outstanding repairs, which are outside the scope of this investigation.
The landlord replied on 8 April 2020 and, regarding the cancelled meeting advised that, while it had contacted the resident to advise that its Operations Manager was no longer able to attend, her Housing Officer was still able to do so. However, when the Housing Officer arrived, they were advised by the venue that the resident had contacted to cancel the meeting. It also responded to her concerns regarding repairs but noted that they had not formed part of the original complaint so it would not be able to investigate the issue and encouraged her to report the repair issues to its Customer Service Centre. It also confirmed that its goodwill gesture offer remained open to her and advised the resident of her right to contact this Service if she remained unhappy.
On 9 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again, stating that ‘the history of ineffective meetings and time wasting’ needed to be acknowledged and advised that she would be escalating the complaint. The landlord replied the same day and advised that she would be able to refer her complaint to ‘a designated filter or (this Service) once the case has been closed’.
On 20 April 2020, the resident contacted this Service, seeking to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for further investigation and stating that the landlord had refused to assist her following her ASB reports.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 May 2020 to advise that it had now closed the ASB case as it had not been able to ‘evidence a tenancy breach’ following her reports of her neighbour’s dogs barking and was therefore unable to take any enforcement action. It noted the following reasons for the case being closed:
1. The resident had not provided ‘a two week log of incidents, including dates/times/durations of barking’ and her calls and emails had lacked ‘crucial detail such as duration of barking’. It advised this information was required so it could discuss the allegations with the alleged perpetrators of ASB and would ‘normally be required’ prior to the installation of NME.
2. Her reports had not been ‘corroborated by an independent, third party’ and that ‘in order to prove a nuisance’ it needed to have received reports from ‘at least two, non related parties’. It further advised that it had ‘not received corroborated reports in relation to dog barking’.
3. The resident had declined to accept the installation of NME in her property.
It clarified that ‘the alleged perpetrators have always denied the allegations’ and as a result of there being no independent witnesses or evidence from noise monitoring, it was unable to take any enforcement action. It advised that it would only be able to investigate the matter in future if the resident provided ‘corroborated evidence… (an independent witness for example) or, allow us to install Noise Monitoring Equipment in your property’ and at this stage ‘there is nothing further (we) can do’. It stated that the resident had previously declined an offer of mediation and asked that she reconsider the offer.
On 10 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident again to advise that it had now closed her complaint case but its goodwill gesture of £50 as a final offer remained open to her. It further signposted her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the complaint response.

Assessment and findings

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

During its investigation, the Ombudsman has considered how the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of ASB. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions reported amount to ASB or statutory noise nuisance, but rather whether the landlord responded to and managed the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
As noted earlier in this report, the resident has made reports regarding ASB caused by barking dogs from her neighbour’s property for a number of years and the landlord has opened previous ASB cases, although its handling of these has not formed part of this particular investigation. From the evidence available, the landlord appears to have been consistent in its approach to the reported issue of barking dogs, concluding that it has been unable to take enforcement action against any reported ASB due to a lack of evidence that the barking constitutes a statutory nuisance. It is also noted that, within the information provided to this Service by the landlord, there are also some counter-allegations of ASB made against the resident by the neighbour. This Service acknowledges the difficulty that landlords can face when dealing with ASB cases but also appreciates that the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s stated position, which has prompted the complaint under investigation here.
In its previous complaint response, the landlord advised that, as the resident had made further reports of ASB related to the barking of her neighbour’s dogs, it would open a new ASB case. This was an appropriate step for it to take, as it recognised that the issue was ongoing and continued to cause the resident distress. Its complaint response identified further actions for it to take, the need for it to further monitor the situation, and it sought to reassure the resident that it would consider further reports.
Having opened a new ASB case on 14 January 2020, the landlord’s initial response was appropriate and in line with its ASB procedures. It emailed the resident on 17 January 2020, seeking to arrange a meeting to discuss the case, and it continued to log reports made by the resident. The meeting was initially arranged for 31 January 2020, although this was postponed to early February 2020 before being cancelled again. While there is a dispute between the resident and the landlord over who cancelled the meeting, the landlord’s records are consistent in suggesting that it was the resident who cancelled the meeting, although this may have been due to the unavailability of a manager from the landlord. While it is acknowledged that the resident is also consistent in stating that the responsibility for cancelling the meeting was not hers, this Service has not seen any evidence that contradicts the landlord’s version of events.
Regarding how it managed the ASB case, records show the landlord communicated regularly with the resident. It acted appropriately by suggesting actions it could take to address the resident’s concerns, which included speaking to the alleged perpetrator of the ASB (her neighbour) and the installation of NME within her property. It advised why this was a helpful tool in terms of being able to potentially prove that the dog barking constituted as statutory noise nuisance and, in an email sent on 11 February 2020, it provided further explanation on how the NME system worked and what would be required of the resident. It also offered a time and date when it could install the equipment and at the same time asked if the resident had changed her mind regarding granting permission for the landlord to speak with the neighbour. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take and showed that it was continuing to engage with the resident and trying to progress the case.
It was also appropriate that the landlord, at various stages during the ASB case, sought to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining it would be limited in the actions it could take if statutory noise nuisance could not be proven. In line with its ASB procedures, which state that it cannot take enforcement action against perpetrators if the Local Authority is unable to confirm a statutory nuisance, it was appropriate in re-referring the resident to the Local Authority and it its noted that the landlord had its own communication with colleagues from the Environmental Health department during the progression of the case.
It is also noted that, when it received counter-allegations against the resident, in particular relating to a reported ‘altercation’ in March 2020 in which both parties allegedly swore at each other, it put these reports to the resident in a timely fashion and provided her with the opportunity to respond to them. This was appropriate and indicated that the landlord was seeking to treat the resident fairly.
However, it is noted that records show the resident was unwilling to allow the landlord to speak to the neighbour regarding the alleged nuisance their dogs were causing and did not consent to the landlord installing NME in her home. As per the landlord’s published ASB procedures, it states it will only contact the alleged perpetrators of ASB when they have received the express consent of the victim. While this Service appreciates the resident’s stated fear that any landlord actions may have incited retribution from the neighbour, this Service considers that the landlord was therefore limited in what actions it could take to progress the case further. Landlord records show that it acted appropriately by considering whether it could employ any alternative investigative methods, such as using an independent witness, but it ultimately decided not to proceed with this option.
In addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the number of dogs that were kept in the neighbour’s property, and the conditions in which they were kept, the landlord was acted appropriately when advising that, based on the information it had following visits to the neighbour’s property (unrelated to the ASB case), it did not share her worries. It was reasonable that it advised her she should contact the RSPCA if she continued to be concerned. It was also reasonable when it advised that there was no specific legislation which would limit the number of animals a tenant could have within in their home once permission had been granted for them to have pets.
The landlord also acted appropriately by advising the resident with regards to her options to move property. Records show that it provided information regarding the HomeSwapper website for mutual exchanges and discussed her application on the Local Authority’s housing list. It also wrote to the Local Authority to support the resident’s request to be moved to an alternative property. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to have taken and indicate that it aimed to still engage with the resident even if it was not able to progress the ASB case.
The landlord’s ASB procedures state that, once it has progressed a report of ASB to investigation, it should agree a Plan of Action with the victim. However, while there is no evidence that this happened in this case, it is noted that there were initial difficulties in arranging a meeting with the resident to discuss the situation in full and, based on the communication the landlord did have with the resident, there is no indication that the lack of an action plan caused the resident any detriment or lead the landlord to treat her unfairly.
However, the landlord’s ASB procedures also state that, once it has received a report of ASB, it should carry out an assessment of any vulnerabilities that the victim or perpetrator may have. While the landlord’s procedures note that it is ‘the effect on the victim(s) which drives the (landlord’s) response, and not necessarily the type of ASB’ and that ‘what may appear to be low level ASB may have a profound affect on someone due to, for example, disability or cultural differences’, this Service has not seen a copy of the landlord’s assessment. Although its records indicate that one was carried out on 31 January 2020, it does not appear to be included within the landlord’s ASB case and this is something that the Ombudsman would expect to see in its records. This is relevant, particularly as, within the reports made by the resident, she drew attention to how the situation was affecting members of her family, including her daughter who she described at one stage as being ‘bed bound’, and the landlord has not been able to evidence that it considered this information.
While the outcome of its vulnerability assessment may not have altered how the landlord handled the case overall, the landlord has not been able to show that it had considered whether the resident or her family may have needed any additional support and there is little indication in its complaint responses, or its ASB case closure letters, that it took into account how the situation may have been affecting the resident and her family. This was not appropriate and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not treat the resident reasonably.
It is also noted that, within the ASB case closure letter sent to the resident on 28 May 2020, the landlord advised that one of the reasons for it closing the case was that the resident’s complaints had ‘not been corroborated by an independent, third party’ and that ‘in order to prove a nuisance, there would have to be reports from at least two, non related parties…we have not received corroborated reports in relation to dog barking’. However, it is of concern that the most recent ASB case records do appear to contain reports from another resident of barking dogs causing a nuisance, similar to those made by the resident. While this Service will not be able to provide further details of those reports due to third party data concerns, it is not appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with potentially misleading information when justifying its closure of the ASB case. While there is no indication that the additional reports would have led the landlord to change its position that statutory noise nuisance remained unproven, it remains crucial for landlords to provide accurate information to residents. It was not appropriate for the landlord to provide inaccurate information to the resident regarding why it was closing the ASB case and and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord risked further lessening her trust in its investigation and case management by doing so here.
The landlord’s ASB case closure letter also stated that it was unable to progress the case because the resident had not ‘provided…a two week log of incidents, including dates/times/duration of (dog) barking’ and advised that when she had called to make reports of noise nuisance, the reports ‘often lacked crucial detail such as duration of barking’. While the landlord advised that this information was required before NME could be installed or it could speak to the alleged perpetrator, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the reports the resident submitted often did not lack detail and contained information regarding dates, the time of day the barking occurred and how long it went on for. While diary sheets are clearly a useful took in managing ASB cases and there is no evidence that the resident had agreed to complete them, regardless of this, the numerous reports she made would have given the landlord a good picture of the regularity of the barking, the times of day it allegedly occurred and how long it went on for each time.
While it may not have altered how the landlord managed the case or led it to decide that a statutory nuisance had occurred, the wording of the ASB closure letter was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, again slightly misleading and would likely have caused the resident frustration at being advised she had not provided sufficient information when its logging of her reports indicated that she had done so, albeit not within a diary sheet format.
In its final complaint response, the landlord advised that it had identified some minor failures relating to delays in responding to some of the resident’s reports and offered a goodwill gesture of £50. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a proactive step for the landlord to take and amounted to reasonable redress for the identified delays.
However, based on the findings above, the Ombudsman considers that additional compensation would be appropriate to better reflect the identified failings in how the landlord managed the ASB case and how they may have affected the resident, and an Order will be made to reflect this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

in general, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint appropriately. It was proactive in opening a new complaint case while in discussion with the resident in March 2020, despite the fact that the issues raised were similar to those raised in previous complaint it had responded to recently. This was good practice from the landlord and indicated that it recognised there was an ongoing issue and it was positive that it sought to investigate further events, rather than refer the resident back to its previous response.
However, it is noted that, after issuing the resident with its final response at the Investigation Stage in April 2020, and appropriately advising her on how to escalate the complaint to this Service if she remained unhappy, the landlord did not close the complaint until June 2020. It continued to advise the resident that she could not refer her complaint to this Service until the case had been closed. It is not clear why the landlord proceeded in this way, which was not in keeping with its complaint procedures, and this caused the resident a delay in referring her case to this Service. This was not appropriate. However, this Service has not made a finding of service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling as the overall detriment to the resident caused by this delay was not significant and its complaint handling was otherwise appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.

Reasons

In general, the landlord was reasonable in how it managed the resident’s ASB case. It communicated with her regularly throughout the case, sought to manage her expectations where relevant and it is appreciated that it was limited in the enforcement actions it could take due to the resident’s reluctance to engage with some of the investigative process and the lack of evidence of statutory nuisance.
However, while the landlord made reference to a vulnerability assessment being carried out, from the information seen by this Service, it is not entirely clear that one was completed or, if it was, whether the outcome was explained to the resident. There is also no evidence that the landlord took the resident’s overall circumstances, or her reported vulnerabilities, into consideration within its responses and its general handling of the case. Also, while it was not unreasonable for the landlord to close the ASB case, the reasons it gave contained some inaccuracies and inconsistencies that may have caused the resident to question how the landlord had managed the case.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was appropriate, and it responded promptly, acknowledging the complaint, and issuing its response in line with its procedures. However, there was no obvious reason given as to why it did not close the complaint after issuing its final response, or why it advised the resident she could not contact this Service until it had closed the case. While this was not reasonable, there was no evidence of this being of significant detriment to the resident and it other handled the complaint appropriately.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter, pay the resident an increased amount of compensation of £150, consisting of:
1. The £50 already offered to reflect the identified communication delays.
2. An additional £100 to reflect the distress caused by the inconsistencies within its ASB closure letter and the lack of consideration given to the resident’s reported vulnerabilities within its responses.