Sanctuary Housing Association (202207214)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207214

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 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 of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially reported that her neighbour’s children were causing a nuisance on 19 May 2021 and the landlord opened an ASB case on 3 June 2021. The issues continued throughout 2021 and 2022 and the resident made numerous reports of her neighbour’s children causing a nuisance due to playing football, as the football hit her property and caused damage to her gate. She also reported that she had received verbal abuse and experienced intimidating behaviour from her neighbour and several noise disturbances.
  3. On 19 June 2022 the resident advised the landlord the reported ASB issues with her neighbour were still ongoing and it had not taken any steps to resolve the issues. She also stated she had provided CCTV to the police following a major incident that her neighbour was involved in, and the ASB issues had since increased. She said that she had to replace her gate and fence due to damage caused by her neighbours. The landlord carried out a case review on 11 July 2022 and it determined it was satisfied with its handling of the case.
  4. The resident contacted this Service on 11 July 2022 and we asked the landlord to log a complaint 15 July 2022. In the resident’s complaint escalation, she stated she had evidence to support her ASB reports, which she wanted the landlord to assess. She complained that her housing officer did not regularly communicate with her. She thought that the lack of action from the landlord, had led to the issue escalating and the resident receiving threats from her neighbour.
  5. In the landlord’s final response dated13 September 2022 , it apologised for the lack of communication and action taken, following the resident’s reports of ASB. It also apologised that it had not fulfilled the actions outlined in its stage one response, including a property visit, an action plan and a vulnerability assessment. It stated it had been “unable to substantiate that there has been evidence of harassment or discrimination that we have failed to address”. It offered £200 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident due to its poor handling of her ASB reports. It also offered £25 due to its delayed stage two response.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied as she did not think the landlord had taken sufficient action to resolve the reported ASB, as she had evidence to support her reports.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is recognised that the resident has continued to report ASB following the landlord’s final response to her complaint. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the ASB issues reported prior to the landlord’s final complaint response as the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to consider the additional issues raised through its complaints process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that we may not consider complaints which” are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. This is because landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with their actions prior to the involvement of this Service. As a result, if the resident remains dissatisfied with the handling of her further ASB reports, they can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The tenancy agreement states that “The Landlord shall not tolerate behaviour which social Behaviour causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance or damage to neighbouring, adjoining or adjacent premises or to other people”. As a result, the landlord should investigate and take appropriate action if it receives reports of ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take “swift and effective action to address ASB”, and lists actions such as mediation, verbal and written warnings to the perpetrator and signposting to support services as actions it may take to resolve ASB issues.
  2. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports, due to its poor communication and as it had not taken sufficient actions to resolve the issues. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. When a resident reports ASB, landlords are expected to obtain evidence to investigate the reported issues and determine the appropriate actions to take. The landlord’s ASB policy states that as part of ASB investigations it will consider various investigative methods including interviewing complainants and alleged perpetrators, providing diary sheets and reviewing evidence from photos and noise monitoring equipment. The resident regularly reported incidents directly to the landlord, including reports of her neighbour’s children playing football, hitting her property and belongings, intimidating behaviour and noise nuisance from parties and motorbikes. As a result of the large volume of reports made by the resident, the landlord may have deemed diary sheets to not be necessary. However, as the resident had advised the landlord on 19 June 2022 that she had kept a written log of incidents, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered the additional evidence as part of its case review completed on 11 July 2022, but it failed to do so. It is also of concern that there is no evidence the landlord discussed the issues with the resident’s neighbour following the resident’s initial report. Due to the landlord’s failings to address all available evidence, it may have overlooked relevant information, which may have helped to resolve the ASB issues.
  4. The resident also provided CCTV evidence and the landlord noted that although the footage showed her neighbour had entered her garden and engaged in an argument. It is recognised that while CCTV and video evidence can be a useful tool in addressing ASB, landlords may not be able to draw clear conclusions in all instances. In this case, it was appropriate that the landlord discussed the video evidence with both the resident and her neighbour, but ultimately, the landlord was unable to determine whether any verbal threats were made based on the CCTV. However, the landlord could have done more to sufficiently manage the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take in view of the CCTV provided. Furthermore, there were several instances in which the resident advised she had CCTV evidence of incidents, including a bottle being thrown at her house and her neighbour throwing food at her garden, but the landlord did not request to be provided with the footage. As a result, again, there was a missed opportunity by the landlord to assess all the available evidence. Following the completion of the complaint process, the landlord apologised that one of the videos provided by the resident had not been considered in the complaint. It was therefore reasonable that as a result of the omission, for the landlord to offer a further £25 compensation.
  5. The landlord’s ASB records show that the resident’s initial reports raised issues with her neighbour’s children playing football in the street and causing a nuisance. Children playing would not necessarily be considered as ASB, but there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took steps to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take when the issues were initially reported. The landlord advised the resident in its stage two response on 13 September 2022 that “there is nothing specifically within the terms of a tenancy agreement which prohibits children playing football in the street, which would enable the Housing Team to insist that this behaviour desists”; however, this was over a year after the issues were first reported. Furthermore, on 29 September 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the no ball games sign was not enforceable, which again meant there was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations at an earlier date.
  6. As the resident had reported the children had entered her garden, targeted her property and damaged her belongings, it would be appropriate for the issue to be handled as an ASB investigation. The landlord initially acted reasonably as it discussed the issue with the police, and the resident was subsequently advised that due to the age of the children the police were unable to pursue any action and early intervention had been declined by the neighbour. The police advised that it would regularly walk around the area to monitor the situation. On 20 July 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it would contact the police to complete a visit to her neighbour in an attempt to resolve the issues. However, on 6 October 2021, it advised that it was still awaiting contact from the police to arrange the visit, and the evidence provided by the landlord to this Service indicated that the visit was not completed until 27 June 2022. Although it can be beneficial to take a multi-agency approach to resolve ASB, in this case the landlord relied on the police to arrange the visit to the neighbour, which led to extensive delays due to issues arranging a suitable date. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered completing the visits independently in order to prevent delays in resolving the ASB issues. It should also have assessed alternative non-legal action such as contacting the neighbour to discuss her tenancy obligations regarding ASB or offering mediation.
  7. Although the landlord failed to take appropriate actions when the resident initially reported the issues, it took actions in line with its ASB policy in attempt to resolve the ASB at a later date. The landlord wrote a letter to the resident’s neighbour on 16 June 2022 asking her to ensure her children were not causing a nuisance while playing on the street. The landlord also offered mediation to the resident on 8 July 2022. While both were reasonable actions to take, given that the issues had been ongoing intermittently for over a year, it would have been appropriate to take such action at an earlier date, as it may have prevented the issues from escalating. The resident advised she was not comfortable with proceeding with mediation, which she was entitled to do, and the Ombudsman does not question her decision. However, it was reasonable that the landlord attempted to provide solutions to her concerns, including engaging with the mediator separately to her neighbour, in an effort to resolve the issues. That being said, the landlord repeatedly proposed mediation as a solution to the reported ASB, without offering any alternative actions, which may have been frustrating to the resident, given that she had reiterated on numerous occasions that she did not wish to participate in mediation.
  8. The resident had also reported issues with damage to her property and belongings. However, there is no evidence that the landlord inspected the damage or asked for any evidence when she initially reported that her gate was broken on 17 June 2021. The resident also made a further report that she had to replace her fence and gate due to damage caused on 19 June 2022. Following the completion of the complaint process, the landlord advised the resident on 29 September 2022 that it did not dispute that the resident had to replace the gate, but it had not witnessed the damage. As the landlord did not proactively respond to the resident’s reports, there was a missed opportunity to investigate the damage and take appropriate action.
  9. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will handle noise complaints in line with its ASB policy. As a result, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the resident with a noise recording app, so it could gather evidence of the noise to assess whether the noise constituted as noise nuisance. However, the landlord did not advise the resident to download the app until 8 July 2022, which was significantly later than her first reports of noise disturbance in October 2021. There is also no evidence that the landlord discussed the reports with the neighbour or had taken any steps to resolve the issues. As a result, it failed to address this aspect of the resident’s noise report. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings in its complaint response and apologised that the noise reports were not acknowledged or responded to, but despite this, there is no evidence that any further action has been taken.
  10. Overall, the landlord took some reasonable actions in attempt to resolve the resident’s reports of ASB, but it should have taken substantial action at an earlier date. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord recognised such failings in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) sets out our Service’s approach to compensation. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged some failings and attempted to put things right, but the redress offered was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged there was poor communication and it had not taken sufficient actions to investigate and resolve the issues, which it offered £200 compensation for. However, additional failings have been identified in this report as the landlord failed to sufficiently investigate the damage to the resident’s fence and gate or the reported noise nuisance, so the issues remain unresolved. As a result, £100 further compensation is warranted, in light of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the ongoing ASB issues.
  11. The landlord should also contact the resident, discuss the outstanding issues and confirm its position on any actions it can take going forward. Furthermore, given that this report has identified that the landlord has not assessed all the available evidence, including CCTV and diary entries, the landlord should request any information from the resident that it failed to consider and complete a case review based on this. If additional actions are deemed as necessary, the landlord should clearly manage the resident’s expectations regarding the timeframe and regularly update the resident on any progress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £250 compensation already offered, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £100.
  2. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident, discuss the outstanding issues regarding the damage to her fence and the noise nuisance and confirm its position on any actions it can take.
  3. The landlord should complete a case review, including the evidence it failed to consider, and assess whether any further actions are necessary to resolve the reported ASB.
  4. The landlord should provide proof that it has adhered to these orders within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding handling ASB cases.