Settle Group (202105247)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105247

Settle Group

14 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 handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records show on 10 August 2020 the resident reported that her neighbour’s visitor swore at her whilst contractors were installing a fence between the two gardens. The landlord and a police officer attended on 26 August 2020 to discuss the incident, but the resident was unavailable.
  3. The landlord called the resident on 28 September 2020. Its records show the resident explained that the neighbour’s visitor was “bad mouthing her around the village”. The landlord advised that this was not a tenancy matter as it was unrelated to the neighbour’s tenancy. It signposted her to the police if she thought the visitor was slandering her. It said it would not take further action regarding the incident in August 2020 as it was not deemed to be ASB because it was not an ongoing situation, and there were conflicting versions of events (it is understood that the landlord had spoken to the neighbour about what had happened). The landlord advised her to ignore the neighbour. It said it would make a referral for mediation, but if the neighbour did not want to engage, it would organise conflict management for the resident.
  4. The landlord’s records show it made a referral for mediation on 9 October 2020. As of 3 November 2020, the resident had already undertaken two sessions of conflict resolution.
  5. The landlord’s records show that between 3 and 9 December 2020 the resident and landlord attempted to contact each other but were unable to. They spoke on 9 December 2020.
  6. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord over the phone on 9 December 2020. The landlord’s notes of the conversation say she was dissatisfied it had not responded to her calls on 3, 8 and 9 December 2020. She said she had reported the incident to her housing officer (HO) but did not think they had dealt with it appropriately or professionally. She said the HO had advised it was a police matter. It took at least two months for the landlord to arrange mediation. The HO had not been in contact to see whether there had been further incidents with the neighbour. As an outcome to her complaint she requested a new HO.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2021. She said she was suffering from mental health problems. She reported noise disturbances from her neighbour’s property.
  8. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 22 January 2021. It said it had spoken to the resident on the phone the day before. It had explained the criteria for making a case of harassment and that the police needed to be involved. It advised her to report further incidents of harassment to the police. It said it had offered mediation and advised her of her new point of contact within its team, and gave their contact details. It advised it may change her HO in the coming months following changes to the areas its officers managed. It said it would consider how the HO had managed the incident using its performance management framework. As a result of her complaint, it would carry out a “lessons learnt” exercise in which it would seek ways to better support vulnerable customers in challenging circumstances. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  9. The landlord’s records show it called the resident on 9 February 2021. The resident explained that she was dissatisfied it had not responded to her email from 6 January 2021. The landlord advised her to contact the local authority’s Environmental Health department to report noise nuisance and said it would provide diary sheets so she could record the disturbances.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2021. She said she had “been treated diabolical” by her HO. She said she had not received a response to her email from 6 January 2021. The landlord responded to the resident on 23 February 2021. It apologised for its delay. It said it would make internal enquiries and then provide a more detailed response.
  11. On 23 February 2021 the landlord called the resident. Its records show it agreed to contact the neighbour to see whether they could resolve the outstanding issues. Following the call, the landlord emailed the resident and explained that its phone had updated mid call and ended the conversation. The resident did not receive this email.
  12. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 4 March 2021. The landlord explained on 5 March 2021 that its email had bounced back, it said it would call her that day. The landlord advised later that day that its emails had gone into egress mode (meaning the resident could not read them). It said it would forward its emails to her once it had resolved the issue.
  13. On 12 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and requested all communication to be via email going forward.
  14. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 March 2021. She said there had been a lack of support and engagement from it in terms of the incident. She said she suffered from mental health problems and required support. She said the landlord had a responsibility to action and resolve issues within an appropriate timeframe. It had claimed that there were issues with its emails but she was not having issues with receiving any emails other than those from the landlord. She said it should take responsibility and get someone to look into its system. The landlord had not provided an outcome other than contacting the neighbour about mediation and she had not received a response to the emails she had sent on 17 February and 12 March 2021.
  15. On 17 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and provided a timeline of its communication with her since 23 February 2021, and the occasions when its emails had returned undelivered. It said the neighbour had declined to partake in mediation. It provided the diary sheets and signposted her to Environmental Health to report noise disturbances.
  16. The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 18 March 2021. The resident responded and asked the landlord to forward her the emails which were undelivered.
  17. The landlord held a meeting with the resident on 24 March 2021. Following the meeting, the landlord provided evidence of the undelivered emails. It said it would provide evidence of other undelivered emails once they were available. It asked for a contact number for its support worker to contact her. The landlord also made a safeguarding referral that day.
  18. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 1 April 2021. It said it had investigated why she had not received its emails. It said it had already provided the not delivered notification for certain emails. It said it had made internal enquiries to find the other undelivered emails. It said one of its support officers would proactively check in with her and it had changed her HO. It said a contractor who was present during the incident involving the neighbour’s visitor confirmed that bad language had been used. It said it would write to the neighbour and remind them that they were responsible for their visitors’ behaviour.
  19. On 14 April 2021 the landlord provided evidence of the remaining undelivered emails to the resident.
  20. On 6 October 2021 the resident advised this Service that she remained dissatisfied that her HO had not apologised for their attitude “and lack of support in dealing with the issue”. She said the landlord had confirmed they would apologise for this. She considered that the landlord had not thoroughly investigated the incident from August 2020 or taken any action.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of an ASB incident

  1. The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out that there are certain issues it does not consider as ASB. These include but are not limited to normal day to day living noises, minor personal differences, or parking in the wrong bay.
  2. It is important to be aware that it is not part of the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, taking into account its own internal policies and industry best practice.
  3. The resident’s report that the neighbour’s visitor swore at her would not be regarded as ASB which required further investigation by the landlord. Whilst this incident was understandably distressing for the resident, the landlord would not be expected to take action following a one-off incident of ASB, except in extreme cases such as where there had been threats of violence or an actual physical assault. Although it did not carry out an ASB investigation, the landlord was still expected to speak to the resident and the neighbour to establish what happened. It was also reasonable for the landlord to write to the neighbour to remind them that they are responsible for the behaviour of any visitors to their property.
  4. The landlord also offered mediation in an effort to resolve the situation. Mediation is entirely voluntary and both the resident and her neighbour were entitled to decline to participate or to withdraw from mediation at any time. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation and conflict resolution as options because these methods can be helpful in resolving disputes between neighbours, including ASB in some cases. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has engaged in mediation and conflict resolution in an effort to resolve the situation with her neighbour.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord had said the incident in August 2020 was a police issue. The evidence shows that during the phone call on 28 September 2020, the resident said the visitor was “badmouthing her around the village”. The landlord said this was not a tenancy matter as it did not relate to the neighbour’s tenancy and signposted her to the police instead. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as this issue was not directly related to the neighbour, and as such was not something the landlord would have any control over or be expected to take action regarding. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest that the resident contact the police about this as the police have different powers from the landlord and may be able to investigate and take action following allegations of slander.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an ASB incident in August 2020 was reasonable, in line with its ASB policy and the landlord would not be required to do anything further in this regard.

The landlord’s communication about the ASB and noise nuisance

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2021 to report noise disturbances from her neighbour’s property. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord addressed her concerns until its phone call with the resident on 9 February 2021. The landlord should have acknowledged her concerns sooner, especially when considering the resident had explained the impact the situation was having on her mental health. Nonetheless, in its call it offered her appropriate advice on how to report her concerns of noise nuisances. It also subsequently made a safeguarding referral and arranged regular contact from its support worker in consideration of the resident’s mental health issues. It also arranged for the resident’s HO to change, following her concerns about the existing HO.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to Environmental Health following her concerns about noise, Environmental Health are experts in this area and would be best placed to investigate the issue. The landlord would be expected to work with Environmental Health and consider any evidence and/or recommendations provided by Environmental Health. The landlord would not be expected to take any action against the neighbour without evidence to show that the noise was excessive and occurring over a prolonged period, rather than being a one off or short-lived incident. Environmental Health could assist with providing this evidence, for example by installing noise recording equipment in the resident’s property to monitor the noise.
  3. As part of her complaint the resident has mentioned that she has mental health issues. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health. However, it is beyond the remit of our service to make determinations concerning the effect of any actions or inaction by the landlord on health and wellbeing. However, consideration has been given to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health and the general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation involving her property.
  4. There appears to be no dispute that there was an issue in terms of email communication between the landlord and resident from February 2021 onwards. There were multiple occasions in which the resident did not receive emails from the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this, and on 17 March 2021 provided a detailed timeline to summarise its communication with the resident. It also provided evidence of the undelivered emails. Although it is understandable that it would have been frustrating for the resident as her emails appeared to be going unanswered, the landlord took reasonable steps to reassure her that this was not the case, and that it had attempted to respond. It was transparent, demonstrated that it was taking her concerns seriously, and was actively trying to resolve the matter.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord explained why the incident involving a visitor was not ASB, but still took reasonable steps to offer support by referring her to mediation and conflict resolution. Although there were some complications with its communication with the resident, it was transparent and explained why there had been issues.