Southern Housing (202218045)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218045

Southern Housing

18 May 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 ASB issues including the smoking of cannabis and noise nuisance.

Background

2. The resident, who is a secure tenant, informed the landlord that following her neighbour moving into the property in December 2021, issues arose in February 2022 which involved the smell of cannabis smoke, and noise nuisance. In May 2022, she submitted a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the issues and lack of action.
3. On 7 June 2022, the landlord instructed the resident to complete diary sheets and to submit recordings of the noise nuisance through a noise app. Additionally, on 13 June 2022, the landlord outlined an action plan that involved requesting disclosure from police regarding the resident’s reports of cannabis use, contacting other neighbours in order to establish witnesses, assigning a case officer to interview both parties to discuss allegations, and it also advised the resident to continue to log any further incidents into her diary sheets.
4. The landlord’s final response of 21 October 2022 found that it had correctly followed its cannabis process and confirmed that the resident needed to report these incidents to the police. However, it advised that it did not manage the resident’s expectations properly regarding what it could do about the cannabis smoking. The landlord also acknowledged that it had opened the ASB case incorrectly. It advised that it should have been opened for the noise nuisance and not for the cannabis issue. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that there had been communication failures with the resident, including the fact that it had continued to call the resident at times which she had advised that she was unavailable.
5. The landlord advised that there had been no evidence of cannabis use as confirmed by the police, and encouraged the resident to continue making reports to the police should she smell it again. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that it would employ a professional witness to determine whether there was a smell of cannabis coming from the neighbour’s home. It also advised that it would continue to investigate the noise nuisance reports.
6. The landlord agreed that communications could have been handled better, and that it should have given the resident a single point of contact (POC) in order to help manage the case better. It offered £300 in recognition of its failure to open the ASB case properly which caused unnecessary involvement by the resident. It was also in recognition of its communication failures.
7. Following the final response, the landlord continued to investigate the issues, and also employed a contractor to conduct mediation between the two parties. The resident advised this Service that the compensation offered was not enough and that only the eviction of the neighbour, or a move for herself would satisfy her. At this point, the landlord has granted the resident management transfer priority.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

8. Section 10.2 of the landlord’s ASB policy states that once a case has been opened, the landlord should “talk [the resident] through the process of an ASB case including: gathering evidence of allegations, putting the allegations to the other party if agreed, deciding on appropriate early intervention or tenancy action, providing fortnightly progress updates, and writing to confirm the outcome of the case”.
9. Section 11.1 of the landlord’s ASB policy states that once the landlord had agreed on an action plan, it should be”[agreed with] the [resident] and review it throughout the investigation”.
10. The landlord’s guidance on dealing with reports of cannabis states that the landlord should “[advise the resident] to report the matter to the police via 101 or their website… The more reports the police receive the more evidence they have to be able to investigate further”.
11. Section 4.1 of the landlord’s compensation procedure states that up to £250 can be paid for discretionary compensation payments.

The landlord’s handling of ASB issues including the smoking of cannabis and noise nuisance

12. The landlord’s duty when presented with ASB issues is to ensure that it follows its published policies and procedures. This is to ensure that the issues are investigated fairly, thoroughly, and also to ensure the minimisation of involvement and stress for the resident.
13. The landlord acknowledged that the way in which it had opened the case was not in line with its policy and that this had caused additional contact to be made with the resident, from multiple operatives. This caused unnecessary involvement and the necessity for the resident to continue to re-explain herself. The landlord also acknowledged that its communication during its investigation had not been to the required standard.
14. In recognition of these failures, the landlord offered the resident £300. As the failures had been acknowledged by the landlord, there is no dispute that there was service failure in how it had managed the ASB investigation. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation is to determine whether the compensation offered was proportionate to the failings.
15. Whilst dealing with ASB issues, it is undoubtedly a stressful time for the resident. Therefore, the need for unnecessary involvement, and the need to re-explain oneself is something that the landlord should strive to avoid.
16. The landlord attempted this by advising the resident that it would provide a single POC. However, it acknowledged that by raising the case on the wrong system, it had caused several operatives to contact the resident regarding the issue. This caused confusion and constant communication that was not necessary. Additionally, the landlord also confirmed that there were gaps in communication where regular fortnightly contact had been promised.
17. Should a landlord make a promise to the resident, it should ensure that the promise is kept. Failure to do so is a failure to manage the resident’s expectations. This is an integral part of the landlord’s service delivery, and failure to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations can be damaging to the landlord/tenant relationship, and the level of trust between the two parties may diminish as a result.
18. However, it is positive that the landlord acknowledged this, and from the point of acknowledgement in its final response, it ensured that there was a single POC for which the resident could talk to and manage the case.
19. The landlord also acknowledged that there was a delay in investigating the noise nuisance from when it had been reported. This delay potentially caused the resident to experience the issues for an increased period. Had the landlord begun a thorough investigation from when the issues were first raised, mediation could have been implemented sooner. This may have brought a resolution forward. However, it should be noted that whilst the investigation into the noise complaints had not been handled properly at first, the landlord conducted a thorough investigation following its final response. It employed a contractor to attempt mediation, although the neighbour failed to cooperate with this. Additionally, it is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord attempted to ascertain witness testimonies as it suggested it would in its action plan.
20. The landlord also demonstrated that it listened to the noise recordings that had been provided by the resident. It agreed that there was noise nuisance and as a result, issued a warning letter to the neighbour in question.
21. With regard to the resident’s reports of cannabis smoking on the premises, the landlord followed its policies and procedures regarding instances such as these. The landlord’s guidance on dealing with reports of cannabis states that the landlord should “[advise the resident] to report the matter to the police via 101 or their website… The more reports the police receive the more evidence they have to be able to investigate further”.
22. It is clear from the evidence provided that this advice was given to the resident multiple times. Additionally, the evidence provided shows that the landlord requested disclosure from the police regarding the resident’s reports that had been made. This was granted and the landlord was advised that there had been no evidence of cannabis being smoked at the property. The landlord also visited and interviewed the neighbour, which was a reasonable and fair approach.
23. As well as this, the landlord sought witness testimonies. The testimonies supported the police’s confirmation that there was no evidence of this. The landlord also hired a professional witness to be on call at the property between October and November. During this period, the resident made no reports of the smell of cannabis.
24. It is clear that the landlord exhausted all avenues in regard to how it can handle the claims that the neighbour was smoking cannabis on the premises. Without any evidence from the police, the professional witness, the other neighbours and the resident herself, it was fair and reasonable for the landlord not to pursue this matter further.
25. The resident maintained that she either wanted to be moved out herself or for the neighbour to be evicted. The landlord appropriately explained that eviction was a final resort, and that the job of the landlord was to support its tenants through help, and seeking a resolution for both parties. This was a fair approach that would be expected of all landlords.
26. However, the landlord did eventually agree to grant the resident management transfer priority. This was in light of a recommendation by a police officer that supported the prospect of a move due to the potential effects on the resident’s welfare that staying in the property may have.
27. The landlord was not obliged to do this, and therefore exercised its discretionary powers in granting such a move. In doing so, the landlord went above and beyond its obligations in its attempts to support and alleviate the resident of her concerns.
28. The compensation offered to the resident was also above what the landlord’s policies and procedures stated was appropriate for discretionary payments. Section 4.1 of the landlord’s compensation procedure states that up to £250 can be paid for discretionary compensation payments. However, whilst it was above what the landlord would normally offer, it is the opinion of this Service that in this case, this offer was appropriate.
29. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was maladministration that adversely affected the resident, but where there was no permanent impact, a payment of £300 would be reasonable. When this offer is considered with the landlord’s decision to grant the resident a move to a new property, it is the opinion of this Service that the landlord offered reasonable redress in light of the issues faced by the resident.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.