Six Town Housing Limited (202112523)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112523

Six Town Housing Limited

26 June 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the ASB reports about the resident’s neighbour.
2. The landlord’s visit to the property on 20 August 2021.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2010 and lives in a two bedroom bungalow, located within a cul-de-sac. The resident is a wheelchair user.
There is a long history of ASB reports between the residents living within the cul-de-sac. The reported neighbour in this case, will be referred to as ‘Neighbour A’ throughout this report.
Between February and September 2020, Neighbour A was reported for ASB against another resident who lives within the cul-de-sac, hereafter referred to as ‘Neighbour B’. The resident also reported Neighbour A was being verbally abusive to others, in September 2020. As a result of the reports made against Neighbour A, they were issued with public order warning by the police and a tenancy warning letter by the landlord, in November 2020.
The resident did not make another report about Neighbour A again, until more than six months later, in March 2021. Due to the period of time between the reports, this investigation will be focused on the reports the resident made from March 2021, onwards.

Summary of events

The resident reported to the landlord on 29 March 2021, that Neighbour A had been verbally abusive and she had CCTV footage of them breaking a fence. The Police also contacted the landlord, on 3 April 2021, to notify that it had received several reports about Neighbour A since 29 March 2021.
Three of the reports made to the police, involved the resident being called derogatory names and being threatened with violence, by Neighbour A. The police were not provided with audio evidence of this. The police also notified the landlord that it would need to contact the resident about the CCTV she installed, as it was covering Neighbour A’s property and they were not happy about this.
On 6 April 2021, the resident asked her neighbourhood officer for an urgent call. On the same day she submitted a complaint about the officer’s response to her ASB report.
The landlord sent the resident a letter on 8 April 2021, acknowledging the reports about the ASB issues. It explained that could only take tenancy enforcement action based on evidence and it provided the resident with diary sheets to gather evidence. The landlord also informed in the letter, that it was awaiting an update from the Police regarding the reports of ASB.
The neighbourhood officer called both the resident and the reported neighbour, on 13 April 2021. When it spoke with Neighbour A, they reported that they were not happy that the resident’s CCTV was overlooking their property. The landlord confirmed that it would be speaking with the resident about redirecting her CCTV so that it did not overlook other properties. It also offered mediation to the neighbour but they declined.
When the landlord spoke with the resident, they discussed her CCTV and it informed her that her CCTV should not cover areas beyond her property. During the call the resident raised concern about the way the officer had responded to her reports about Neighbour A. In response, the officer explained that counter allegations had also been made about the resident by Neighbour A, but neither party had provided evidence of their reports to the landlord. The neighbourhood officer informed that evidence was required for it consider enforcement action. The resident was also offered mediation with the neighbour during the call but declined the offer. The call eventually was terminated by the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 May 2021 and reported that another neighbour (Neighbour C), was doing DIY before 8am, had installed a bright light in their garden and complained about blue badge holders when they parked in the disabled bay. The landlord reports indicate that it spoke with Neighbour A about this allegation and they denied it. The landlord subsequently closed the case.
Between 28 May and 13 July 2021, the police contacted the landlord and informed that it had received reports from the resident about incidents that took place between Neighbour A and Neighbour B. It confirmed that the resident sent it video and audio recordings from her CCTV, of these incidents. The evidence submitted was shared with the landlord, who visited Neighbour A about the reports made to the police. During the visit, Neighbour A made counter allegations against the resident including that they were not happy that her CCTV cameras were facing their property.
After the visit, the landlord issued a tenancy warning to Neighbour A for shouting and calling others’ offensive names as it had evidence that they had done so.
The police and the landlord met on 13 August 2021 to discuss the ongoing issues between the residents as well as the resident’s CCTV, as there were concerns this was still covering beyond her property. During the meeting, the police noted that the resident was sending footage of her neighbour’s property and reporting incidents she was not involved in. The landlord and police agreed to complete joint visits to the properties of the resident, Neighbour A and Neighbour B, and offer them mediation.
The joint visit to the resident’s property took place on 20 August 2021. Two staff members of the landlord attended, one of which was the neighbourhood officer. The landlord reiterated that the resident’s CCTV should not cover areas beyond her property, it took images of the CCTV display within her property and asked that she complete a permission form for the CCTV. Mediation was also offered to the resident again and she declined. At a point during the visit, the resident asked the landlord’s staff to leave.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 1 September 2021 about the visit. She complained that the landlord’s staff would not leave after she asked them to and said she felt coerced into the visit. She said she had been misled about when a conference between police and the landlord was taking place. She also stated that she was told she had to provide reasonable access to the landlord and asked the landlord to define this. She stated that she had provided evidence of the ASB and did not believe that the landlord was acting against the neighbour because they had a relative working for the local authority.
On 10 September 2021, the landlord sent the resident a complaint acknowledgment. It attempted to call the resident to discuss the complaint but was unsuccessful. The landlord provided a stage one response on 4 October 2021.
It apologised for the delay in responding and explained this was due a change in the investigating officer. It said that the officers who attended the visit, reported back that the resident re-engaged in conversation after she asked the officers to leave. It also said that the resident confirmed that the officers could stay. The landlord explained that it did not uphold the complaint about the officers refusing to leave on the basis of the information it received. The landlord said that there was no indication that a conference was due to take place with the police and landlord and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. It advised that if the resident wanted this investigated, she would need to provide details about the when the conference was due to take place.
The landlord clarified what it considered was reasonable access and explained that it could not find a record of when it insisted on the resident providing access to the property. It did not uphold the complaint but advised the resident could provide further information if she wished to. In relation to the complaint about its response to the ASB reports, the landlord did not uphold the complaint because it found it had followed up on all reports it received from the resident. It noted that the CCTV records that the resident had based her allegations on, were a breach of relevant guidelines and the CCTV itself was not authorised by the landlord and therefore could not be used to take formal action against the neighbour.
The resident responded to the landlord on 25 October 2021. In this, she referred to a subject access request that the landlord had dealt with separate to the complaint. Therefore, the landlord asked the resident to clarify what, from its complaint response, she was unhappy with. It asked that she complete an escalation request form.
She responded on 31 October 2021 and stated that the neighbourhood officer called her on a private number, even though she previously informed she would not accept calls from the private number. She also reported that the officer said it was okay for Neighbour A to call her derogatory names referring to her disability. She stated that she wanted to know what the landlord was going to do about the officer. She advised that a staff member within the landlord, informed her the landlord would be meeting with the police on 16 August 2021 but when she called two days later, she was informed no such meeting took place. The resident spoke of the visit on 20 August 2021 and said she was not given notice the landlord would be attending. She said as a result, she could not arrange for support to be present and felt that Neighbour A was given the chance to have support when the police and landlord did the joint visit at their property. The resident reiterated her concern that Neighbour A was being treated differently due to their relative working for the local authority.
On 2 November 2021, the landlord informed the resident that the issues she mentioned, were not part of her original complaint and therefore would be responded to as a new stage one compliant. It explained that it could not comment on the circumstances of other residents and could only investigate her reports of ASB, involving interactions she had with the neighbour. It provided a stage one response, on 12 November 2021.
In response to the complaint concerning the neighbourhood officer, it provided a summary of the notes from the conversations the resident had with the officer. The landlord confirmed that it found that the officer had taken the relevant action in relation the residents ASB reports and did not uphold the complaint. The landlord informed that the visit in August 2021, was not to inspect the property and said the resident could have, therefore, refused access. It reiterated that it could not comment on the circumstances of the other residents but said that had it been notified the resident required support when the officers attended, it would have given her the opportunity to arrange this. The landlord confirmed that it found no evidence that it had treated the resident unfairly and did not uphold the complaint. It also did not find that it had treated the neighbour any differently and noted it could not specify what it had done in the neighbour’s circumstances, due to data protection.
The resident contacted with this Service on 30 November 2021, she informed she was unhappy with the response she received. She reiterated her complaints about the neighbourhood officer and the unannounced visit. In addition, she referred to the landlord’s complaint response of 4 October 2021, and commented that while the landlord spoke with the reported neighbour it did not follow up with tenancy action. This Service then wrote to the landlord with the information the resident provided.
The landlord provided its final response on 15 December 2021. It upheld its previous responses about the visit on 20 August 2021 and reiterated it did not find that the resident was treated unfairly. However, it recognised it may have been helpful if it informed the resident of the visit in advance. It apologised for this and advised that this learning would be shared with the relevant members of staff. It noted that the resident’s CCTV remained an issue as it still had not received her permission request. It informed that it would be getting in contact with the resident about this.
In relation to the complaint about its response to the ASB reports and the neighbourhood officer, it found it dealt with the reports of ASB appropriately and said its inability to act against the reported neighbour, was due to a lack of evidence. In relation to the allegation about the neighbourhood officer making inappropriate comments, the landlord confirmed that the neighbourhood officer could not recall such a conversation taking place and said that it could not find any record of such conversation. It advised that if the resident wanted to provide details, it was willing to look into it.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedure

The landlord’s ASB policy explains that it aims to respond to reports of ASB within realistic timescales. It states that in order to address ASB effectively, it aims to do various things including, the use of a variety of methods to resolve problems before legal action becomes necessary.
The policy also informs that the landlord will work with other local authority departments and agencies, such as the police, in order to deal more effectively with nuisance and ASB. It can use evidence from the police to take enforcement action against perpetrators.
The procedure for responding to reports of ASB, includes a member of the relevant team carry out an initial investigation which includes interviewing the parties to the complaint, to try and resolve the issue in the most appropriate way. The landlord is expected to then agree an action plan, setting out the steps to resolve the matter.

The landlord’s response to the ASB reports

Between March and December 2021, there is one report to the landlord from the resident about Neighbour A on 29 March 2021. However, the resident reported further incidents to the police shortly after, which were eventually shared with the landlord on 3 April 2021.
The report the resident made to the landlord was limited in detail as it had no information on the date the incident occurred or who the verbal abuse was directed at. The reports to the police however, provided details that it was the resident who was subjected to verbal abuse and threats of violence by Neighbour A.
After receiving the information from the police, the landlord took action to contact the resident and the alleged perpetrator on 13 April 2021. The overall time it took to act on the resident’s report and the information it received from the police was not reasonable, particularly as the initial report from the resident was scarce in details.
The landlord’s policy does not specify timeframes that it is expected to respond to reports, but in the absence of details from the resident, it would be expected that the landlord would have contacted the resident sooner than it did. It took eight working days before it wrote to the resident on 8 April 2021 acknowledging her report. Prior to the letter being sent, the resident asked for a call back from the neighbourhood officer and complained about the officer however, neither was acknowledged in the landlord’s communication to her.
While the landlord is not considered to have responded to the reports within a reasonable timeframe, it has shown that it took the appropriate action to both the reports made by the resident and the counter allegations it received. This is because, it provided the resident with diary sheets with its letter dated 8 April 2021, for the resident to collect evidence of ASB she reported. It also explained to the resident why it required the evidence and its explanation was in line with its policy, which confirms that any action against reported perpetrators must be reasonable and rely on evidence.
As well as the report submitted by the resident, the landlord also received counter allegations about her by the neighbour concerning her CCTV. The police also highlighted that the resident’s CCTV was an issue, to the landlord. The landlord brought the concerns to the resident, explained why she was required to adjust her CCTV coverage and gave her the opportunity adjust her CCTV coverage. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to follow up with the resident about this, as it sent follow up letters to the resident between April and August 2021, after it received further reports from the police and the neighbour about the CCTV. There is no indication the resident followed the landlord’s advice.
When the resident made a report of nuisance from Neighbour C, on 28 May 2021, the landlord’s records indicate that it spoke with the incorrect neighbour. Its records note that it spoke with Neighbour A, who denied the claim, rather than the accused neighbour. There is no record of the landlord having spoken with the accused neighbour the resident reported on 28 May 2021. This indicates an error on the landlord’s part. The landlord then closed the case however, there is no evidence that it provided an update to the resident about the action it had taken and its decision to close the case. This is not in line with its procedure, which indicates that it will inform the resident of its actions and notify them in writing, where it will not take any further action on a report.
In the response to the complaint, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation as to why it was not able to take enforcement action against Neighbour A. While the resident made the report, she did not provide any evidence of the behaviour or make any further reports to the landlord about Neighbour A, after the landlord provided her with diary sheets on 8 April 2021.
The landlord also found from its complaint investigation, that it followed up with the reports the resident made and while the evidence supports this, as noted above, the landlord did not respond to the report made in March 2021, within a reasonable time. The landlord’s complaint investigation did not identify this. It also did not recognise that its response to the report made about Neighbour C was not responded to in line with its policy. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint response did not address the fact that it did not address the initial complaint the resident raised on 6 April 2021.
While the action the landlord took in response to the reports made about Neighbour A was appropriate, the landlord has not acknowledged the occasions where it did not act in line with its ASB policy when responding to the reports or offer any redress in recognition of this.
In this case, the landlord’s shortcomings in its handling of the ASB has meant that the resident has had to spend time and trouble pursuing it for a response specifically to the report she submitted in March 2021. This subsequently resulted in her complaint in April 2021, which the landlord did not acknowledge or deal with, in line with its complaints procedure. The landlord also failed to properly investigate the report the resident made about Neighbour C. It spoke with the wrong neighbour about the allegation before closing the case and did not inform the resident at any stage of the action it had taken in response to her report.
An order of £125 compensation has therefore been ordered below, for the delay in the landlord’s response to resident’s initial ASB report in March 2021 and the error in its investigation into the resident’s second ASB report in May 2021, including its failure to notify the resident of the actions it took in response to that report.
This Service notes that the landlord’s complaints policy informs that it aims to respond to complaints at stages one and two, within 10 working days. There was a delay in the landlord’s response to the stage one complaint, as it did not respond until a month later. The landlord, when responding at stage one, provided an explanation for the delay and an apology.
Following the initial response, the landlord also took steps to effectively manage the complaint. It sought clarification from the resident about why she wished to escalate the complaint, which was appropriate as her escalation request submitted in October 2021, mentioned her subject access request and not the complaint. When the resident complained of new issues within her escalation request, the landlord made a reasonable decision to address the new matters as a new stage one complaint. Its subsequent complaint responses were also issued within the timeframes set out in its policy.

The landlord’s visit to the property on 20 August 2021.

The tenancy agreement explains that a resident must allow the landlord into the property to inspect it or, meet any other responsibility it has as a landlord. It states that a landlord will try and give 24 hours’ notice to a resident if it requires access.
In the resident’s case, the purpose of the landlord’s visit was to attend jointly with the police to discuss the ASB allegations and her CCTV, which it continued to receive reports about.
The landlord was aware from seven days prior to the visit, that it was going to attend the property with the police, as this was agreed when the parties met on 13 August 2021. It is a reasonable expectation on the landlord to have provided the resident with at least 24 hours’ notice of the visit, as indicated in the tenancy. The landlord did not provide the resident with any notice that it would be attending and this is a failure, as it had it had time to do so.
The landlord’s unannounced visit to the property to discuss such matters, was likely to have caused tension, as indicated by the fact that during the course of the visit the resident asked its staff to leave and the resident in her complaint, mentioned she felt coerced into having the visit. Had the landlord given the resident advance notice, her expectations would have better managed as she would have been aware that the visit would be taking place and the reason for the visit.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint regarding the visit but said it recognised, the resident may not have been aware she could have refused the visit and that it would have been helpful if it provided notice.
The resident felt obligated to accept the visit and this is understandable particularly, as the police were also present. Regardless of the fact that the resident may have refused the visit, there is no evidence that this was made clear to her on the day.
Whilst the landlord apologised to the resident for not providing notice, it did not provide a reasonable explanation for its unannounced visit. It is clear that the landlord had the opportunity to give the resident notice and the fact that it did not, is unreasonable. So, an award of compensation is appropriate in recognition of this failure.
There has been a service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the visit on 20 August 2021. Although it acknowledged and apologised for not notifying the resident of its visit in advance, this in itself is not proportionate to the failure. The Ombudsman considers that an award of £100 is reasonable in recognition of the inconvenience to the resident.
In response to the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s staff members refused to leave, the landlord took the appropriate steps to investigate this. The landlord spoke to both members of staff who attended as well as the police officer. All three officers’ accounts of what occurred during the visit, confirmed that the resident re engaged in the conversation after asking the landlord’s staff to leave, and confirmed that the resident agreed the officers could stay on the visit. It was fair for the landlord to not uphold the complaint on the basis of the feedback. The evidence it received including that from the police, a third party in the matter, supports that the officers did not refuse to leave.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the visit to the property on 20 August 2021.

Reasons

The landlord acted on the report it received from the resident and worked collaboratively with the police to respond to the reports. However, there was a delay in the landlord acting on the report about Neighbour A in March 2021, which resulted in a complaint that the landlord never acknowledged. In addition to this, after the landlord received the complaint about another neighbour, Neighbour C, it did not notify the resident of what actions it took or, inform her when it closed the case. In its response to the complaint, the landlord has not acknowledged these issues or offered any redress to the resident for them.
The landlord has recognised that it did not provide the resident with notice of the visit on 20 August 2021 and apologised. But this itself, it is not proportionate to the failure.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that within four weeks of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident £225 compensation comprising:
1. £125 for the maladministration found in its response to the ASB reports.
2. £100 for the service failure found in its response to the complaint about the visit on 20 August 2021.
The landlord is to confirm to this Service when it has made the payment to the resident.