Southern Housing Group Limited (202119541)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119541

Southern Housing Group Limited

31 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived at the property since 5 March 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom flat, and the landlord is a housing association.
The landlord’s records note the resident has a vulnerability linked to her physical health. The resident’s correspondence also shows that the resident disclosed to the landlord that she was experiencing poor mental health throughout is complaint process.

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of her reports had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s obligations

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlines that when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour, agencies must consider the effect that such behaviour has on victims and witnesses. It also states that agencies should recognise and consider the debilitating impact on that persistent or repeated anti-social behaviour can have on victims, more so over a period of time.
Section 4.17 of the tenancy agreement states that resident’s must does not cause a nuisance or annoyance to anyone living in, visiting, or engaging in lawful activity in the locality of the property or scheme. Examples of nuisance behaviour include but are not limited to playing loud music, verbal, or physical abuse, arguing, and slamming doors, offensive behaviour, dumping rubbish, using abusive language, harassment, and hate crimes.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour and harassment policy states it will deal with cases of ASB or harassment, it says it will take a victim centred approach to tackle ASB including prevention and early intervention. The policy states once a complaint has been raised the landlord will also complete a risk assessment to identify those at risk and/or vulnerable. A risk assessment will be reviewed on a three-monthly basis. The landlord will contact within 1 working day to discuss the complaint if the resident is at high risk. If a resident is medium or low risk, then the landlord will contact within 2 working days.
The landlord will then complete an action plan which will be sent to the resident confirming next action, if appropriate. The resident will also be supplied with diary sheets to enable to landlord to gain insight into the ASB.
The landlord’s vulnerability policy states that improving life chances of its most vulnerable resident’s is a key strategic priority for the landlord. The landlord said its committed to identifying, recording, and responding to the needs of its resident’s whether possible. It goes on to say it will do this by:
1. making referrals to, and working with, statutory agencies
2. signposting to and working with relevant support agencies
3. updating the person on the progress of its actions
4. monitoring and reviewing support action plans, as necessary.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure which states:
1. At stage one the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a formal response within ten working days.
2. At stage two, the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within five working days and provide a full and final response within 14 days following a full investigation of the complaint.

Summary of events

2020

On 8 April and 20 April 2020, the resident raised an ASB complaint with the landlord, stating that a neighbour had their TV on loudly and that neighbours were having loud conversations in the carpark. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 April 2020 and agreed to speak to the neighbours about noise levels.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2020 to say that a neighbour had purposely scratched her car. As a response to the reports that landlord offered all resident’s involved access to mediation services to seek a resolution. The resident and a neighbour agreed to engage with mediation services in June 2020.
On 18 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she had been threatened with violence by her neighbour. The resident advised that the neighbour shouted through her window and said, “I have already told the landlord that I’ll hurt you mate.” The resident confirmed she recorded this on her mobile phone and provided a copy to the police and also to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 22 July 2020.
On 3 August 2020, the resident said her neighbours were outside her flat talking loudly as a way of intimidating her, which made her feel uncomfortable. On the same day, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that a neighbour should not have a reason to park outside of her flat. The landlord agreed to contact the neighbour.
The landlord went onto to say that it could not grant the resident permission to install CCTV over communal grounds, as it was not in line with the Data Protection Act 1998.
On 4 September 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint. The landlord also contacted the police the same day. The police advised it was serving the resident with an acceptable behaviour contract for her intimidating behaviour to neighbours.
On 6 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to contact the neighbour above to ask that them to not bang on the floor. The landlord emailed the resident the following day and asked the resident what times the neighbour was banging and how often. The landlord said once it had the information it would look into it further. The resident replied the same day to the neighbour was banging on the floor at 6am and this caused the resident distress.
The resident initially complained to the landlord 9 October 2020 regarding how the landlord handled her ASB complaints. The resident said her neighbours in the flat above created a noise nuisance. The resident went onto say that the landlord’s housing manager was rude and abrupt when she raised her ASB complaints. The landlord contacted the resident the same day to discuss her complaint. The landlord also emailed the resident with a copy of its complaint policy. The landlord did not provide any details on when it aimed to complete its stage one complaint investigation at this time.
On 12 October 2020, the resident reported that her car was being blocked by neighbours. The resident said it was unacceptable as there were empty spaces in the carpark. The resident provided pictures to the landlord and the police. The following day on 13 October 2020, a police officer emailed the resident to say that if her vehicle was being blocked, then she needed to call 101.The landlord contacted the resident on 23 October 2020 to request that the resident to break down her video of the neighbour making violent threats towards her into smaller files so it could review it.
The resident provided a video to the landlord on 25 October 2020 showing her neighbours ASB. The resident reports that the video showed the neighbour threatening her.
Throughout December and January 2020, 2021, the landlord contacted the resident on 2 occasions and advised it was monitoring her case.

2021

The landlord contacted the resident on 19 January 2021. The resident confirmed that she did not have any sound recordings of ASB. she said footfall in the flat above was heavy and the TV loud. The resident said after the landlord contacted the neighbour in the above flat the noise got louder. The landlord confirmed that mediation had been offered, but the neighbour had declined the offer.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 February 2021 to say that a neighbour had blocked her in the car park. The landlord responded on 9 February 2021 to say it would raise her issue for future monitoring. It also confirmed that it changed the allocated parking for residents, and it had advised the resident of this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 February 2021 to say her neighbours had rejected having allocated parking. The resident reiterated that it was a hostile environment for her to live in due to the neighbours harassing her.
On 12 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask what action it took on her ASB reports of July 2020. She asked landlord to confirm if had looked at the CCTV at the time that was provided. The landlord advised it would investigate.
On 15 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say she felt she had been treated differently because of her racial profile. This included when her son came to the property to bring shopping he was challenged. The resident said she felt that the landlord had not treated her fairly in comparison to neighbours. This included that the landlord had not approached her neighbours to address her ASB complaints. The resident said the landlord needs further training on understanding how discrimination affects individuals.
The landlord responded to the email on 16 February 2021 to assure the resident that it treats all resident’s fairly and equally. The landlord confirmed it had added the resident’s concerns to her ongoing ASB case.
On 17 February 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 12 July 2021 to confirm it did review the CCTV the resident provided on 18 July 2020. The landlord confirmed this in its email to the resident dated 22 July 2020.
On 24 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and said she was unhappy that she had not received a response to her complaint despite other neighbours receiving a resolution quicker.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 April 2021 to say that her neighbours were hostile, so she did not think mediation would work. The resident attached a copy of emails from an acquaintance who overheard a neighbour shouting at her in December 2020. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day to confirm it had investigated the resident concerns about a neighbour’s camera. The landlord confirmed that the camera was a dashcam in a neighbour’s car. Therefore, the landlord did not take any further action.
The landlord contacted the resident on 2 May 2021 to ask if she had any further incidents with her neighbours. The landlord said once it received the information it would investigate it further. The landlord confirmed that due to it receiving a high number of queries it is currently dealing with a backlog which is causing delays. Also, the landlord advised the resident to raise concerns with the police if she continued receiving abuse from the neighbours.
On 3 May 2021, the resident raised further incidents of ASB from her neighbour. The resident said a neighbour was spending a long time sitting in his car which is directly outside her flat. The resident said that the neighbour told her to ‘go home.’ The resident said the neighbour was discriminating against her. The resident advised that the impact of ASB left her feeling exhausted and she felt isolated and unsafe in her home.
The landlord responded to the resident on 5 May 2021. The landlord asked the resident to provide further details on what ASB was occurring. The landlord provided the resident with a daily log sheet to record issues when they happened. The landlord advised to return the log sheet once completed.
On 9 May 2021, the landlord started a risk assessment but noted it did not have enough information to complete it. The landlord also raised an ASB case and asked the resident to confirm how often she was being threatened by neighbours. Also, when the incidents were happening and the impact this was having on her. The landlord attached a diary sheet for the resident to complete. It also advised the resident to contact the police if she received any threats or abuse.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 May 2021 to request it provides a copy of an email it sent to her on 13 October 2020. The resident confirmed that the email related to the landlord installing CCTV.
On 16 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say that when her friend visited her a neighbour stared at them both. The resident said this left them both feelings alarmed and unsafe. The resident attached a copy of the video of the neighbour as they used discriminatory language. The resident requested for CCTV to be installed in the resident block.
On 17 May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm it did not hold any of crown simmons records, which was the previous landlord. The landlord confirmed that when it took over crown simmons properties due to data protection records were not shared. The landlord did not say what period this related to.
The landlord responded to the resident on 20 May 2021 to request which neighbour used discriminatory language towards the resident and her friend as the resident did not state who. The landlord said it would review the video of the neighbour the resident supplied on 16 May 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2021 and requested that it installed CCTV in the communal areas of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 May 2021 to say she was being harassed and abused by the neighbours. The resident reported that a neighbour had been fly tipping in the bin store by leaving shopping trolleys and mattresses. The same day the resident met with the police following the landlord’s request to discuss her ASB complaints. The police also attended two other neighbouring properties, but they were not available. The police emailed the landlord to confirm that the resident felt racially victimised, and it had reviewed the video evidence of person sitting in their car from April 2021.
On 31 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the ASB was relentless. She reported that a neighbour was creating a noise nuisance and after she reported it the noise levels raised. Also, that neighbours had been talking about her next to her window so she could overhear the conversation. The resident said her car was scratched, had post stolen and parcels damaged due to her racial profile.
On 3 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email about fly tipping and confirmed it had added it to her case. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s email of 31 May 2021 on 4 June 2021 and confirmed it would review the CCTV.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 and 15 June 2021 to report that a neighbour had blocked her in the car in the carpark for 30 minutes when there were spaces available.
On 11 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she was still being harassed and being told to ‘go home’ and being called derogatory names. The resident went on to say that when she went to put rubbish in the communal bin a neighbour was sitting in there and it was intimidating. The resident said when her son visited, he scrutinised because of his racial profile as other visitors did not.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2021 to say she was woken up at 2am in the morning by banging on the door and shouting. The resident said this was very intimidating and the resident said she feels that no one is helping. The resident said she was close to having a breakdown due to the impact of the hate and discrimination she was suffering.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the car park and confirmed it was looking into the issues.
On 28 June 2021, the resident’s sister contacted the landlord. The sister said she was unable to attend the resident’s home as she had suffered abuse from neighbours when she had visited previously. The resident’s sister said this is causing her sister great distress.
The landlord contacted the resident’s sister on 1 July 2021 to acknowledge her concerns. The landlord advised the resident’s sister to log incidents with the police.
On 2 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that a neighbour was filming her property from a camera in their car. Also, another resident was in her car filming her from her mobile telephone. The resident requested that the landlord install CCTV to help resolve the ASB in the area.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 July 2021 to confirm it had added her latest ASB concerns to her case.
On 26 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to thank it for installing CCTV in the communal areas of the property and to cover the carpark. The resident said despite this a neighbour sat in his car with a dashcam camera pointed at her to intimidate her. The resident said this was harassment and distressing as she lived alone.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 August 2021 to report that when she was leaving her home, a neighbour aimed their dashcam camera at her property.
On 5 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord following its email that she had breached her tenancy. The resident disputed that she had repeatedly banged doors and the ceiling. The resident said she has never made excessive noise and has in fact been on the receiving end of noise nuisance. The resident said disputed the landlord’s view that her recording neighbours was intimidating and harassment. The resident said she was recording neighbours who were threatening her. The resident said she was advised to do this by the police.
The resident went onto say that she was a victim of ASB in 2020. The resident provided the landlord with crime reference numbers of the incidents reported and stated that she believed that they were racially motivated towards her, her family members, and visitors. The resident requested for the landlord to provide the evidence it relied on to say she had breached her tenancy due to racial and other harassment. The resident also raised that she felt that the landlord’s housing manager made false allegations against her.
On 11 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident. The landlord confirmed it had attempted to contact the resident but there was no answer. The landlord advised the resident to report ASB complaints as soon as they happen for review. It advised the resident that if she felt intimidated to contact the police. The landlord completed a follow up call the same day to check on the resident’s wellbeing as she had reported that she had felt suicidal, but the resident did not answer.
The landlord emailed the resident and attached information about using a noise app. It also advised the resident to continue to make a record of any concerns she had regarding her neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord advised once received it would review this and complete an action plan.
On 20 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say she was suicidal. The resident confirmed she had taken an overdose earlier in the week and was still in hospital. The resident advised that her liver is damaged and was on medication to sedate her.
On 26 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to arrange a meeting with the home management team. The landlord confirmed the person the resident wanted to speak to was currently on annual leave from the office.
On 9 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request for the evidence that she was a perpetrator of ASB. The resident said she had provided the landlord with video evidence, sound evidence, witness names, accounts, and police reference numbers that she is the victim of ASB. The resident said she had been in contact with the landlord for over a year and had not received any support.
The resident said that she has had to spend a lot of time visiting the hospice as her brother was dying and stayed in her mothers and hotels to escape the harassment she was getting from neighbours. The resident said she wanted to meet a senior member of staff to discuss an action plan.
On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm that she was verbally abused by her neighbour when she was leaving her property. The resident said she found this alarming and intimidating and reported it to the police. The resident said she is being constantly harassed by the neighbours which caused her to have an emotional breakdown on 17 August 2021, which led to her being hospitalised. The police confirmed receipt of her ASB report the same day.
Throughout September the following communications between the resident and the landlord occurred:
1. On 10 September 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that she had been verbally abused by a neighbour. She confirmed that the matter was reported to the police and provided a crime number for the incident.
2. On 13 September 2021, the landlord responded to confirm that it had forwarded the resident’s concerns to its home service manager. On the following day, the police contacted the landlord to provide information regarding the reports of ASB.
The landlord contacted the resident and offered to meet on 1 October 2021 to discuss her complaint.
The police contacted the landlord on 30 September 2021 to say the resident was open to mediation but noted it may no longer be appropriate.
On 8 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say she had received abuse from her neighbour when she returned home. She advised that she had stayed in her car until it was safe to go into her home, but when she did the neighbour barged at her. The resident confirmed that she was feeling a great deal of stress with the situation. The same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and that it had added it to her case.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 November 2021 to confirm that it had visited several neighbours over the past months regarding the breakdown in relationships. The landlord said a meeting may be arranged for the residents to discuss the ASB allegations.
On 8 November 2021, the resident reported that she had been intimidated and abused by a neighbour.
On 11 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident’s complaint dated 3 August 2020. The landlord said:
1. it would not change the resident’s housing officer as it was satisfied, she followed correct ASB process
2. it acknowledged the resident’s complaints about the noise of the above flat
3. it confirmed that property above does have carpets
4. it had provided the resident with nuisance recording sheets and offered mediation
5. it had liaised with the police
6. it had investigated how it handled the resident’s ASB complaints and found that it followed correct process.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 November 2021. The resident reported that she was feeling suicidal and was due to speak to her GP the following day. The landlord made a safeguarding referral to the local authority on behalf of the resident the same day as the resident felt suicidal.
The following day the landlord contacted the resident to do a welfare check. The resident reported that she was feeling better but sleepy. The landlord advised the resident to contact it should she need to.
The landlord raised an urgent safeguarding referral to the local authority for the resident on 17 November 2021.
On 21 November 2021, the landlord received reports from a neighbour regarding the resident’s ASB. The neighbour reported that the resident was intimidating by filming them without consent.
The resident contacted this Service to say that she had not received a response to her complaint. As such, this Service contacted the landlord on 23 November 2021. This Service provided a copy of the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded the same day to confirm that it had not received the resident’s initial complaint. As such, the landlord raised the complaint from 23 November 2021 and agreed to respond by 7 December 2021.
The police contacted the landlord on 23 November 2021 to confirm that it had received allegations from the resident and her neighbours over the previous weekend.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 November 2021. The landlord did not provide a timescale of when it would issue its complaint response.
On 1 December 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to request for a copy of the video she claims the landlord has not looked at. The following day the resident forwarded the landlord a copy of the video. The landlord contacted the resident to confirm it received the video and it would be included as part of the investigation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 December 2021 and raised that a neighbour had been driving at high speed in and out of the residential block. The resident felt this was intimidating and was concerned the neighbour could injure someone. The resident also explained that her friend had bought her incense to help her relax and alleviate insomnia due to problems she had with her neighbours. The resident said she was happy to not use them again if the landlord wanted.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 December 2021 to report that after having her old mattress picked up by the local authority waste disposal service the neighbours accused her of fly tipping. The resident said she felt that she was part of a hate campaign from the other neighbours. The resident said due to the other resident’s behaviour she was considering leaving the property.
The landlord reviewed the CCTV provided by the resident and issued a warning to the neighbour regarding dangerous driving on 13 December 2021. The same day the landlord contacted the resident to confirm it had reviewed her concerns and had taken action.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 7 December 2021. The landlord said:
1. It had worked closely with the police and other agencies and has followed guidance provided. Also, had followed its own policies and procedures. It also acted on all suggestions the community trigger made and have implemented all suggestions.
2. It reviewed the resident’s recent video of her neighbour dated 18 July 2020 and found the neighbours behaviour to be unacceptable. The landlord confirmed it followed its procedures and informed the police of the threats.
3. This included the landlord speaking to the neighbour and their unacceptable behaviour and threats.
4. It reviewed the resident’s video dated 4 December 2021 and it did not find it constituted ASB.
5. overall, the landlord did not uphold the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2021 to request it provides a stage two response. The resident said she contacted the police who said they had not received a report from the landlord. Therefore, the resident said she was unhappy that the landlord said it did as there was no evidence.
On 23 December 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for it to progress the complaint to stage two. On 17 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord for an update and the landlord advised that it was dealing with a backlog.
On 28 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that neighbours were threatening and abusive towards her. The resident reported that on 24 December 2021 she was trapped between the two communal doors where she was shouted and sworn at. The resident said she was left feeling intimidated. The resident said that although her home meets her needs, she has looked into moving. The resident went onto say that she disagreed with her neighbours’ counter ASB allegations that she was the perpetrator. As such, the resident said the landlord failed to address her neighbours ASB as they continued to harass and intimidated her.

2022

On 10 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm that she was considering a home swap. She said she was struggling with the impact of the neighbours ASB, and she believed neighbours were behind people pretending to be potential home swappers. The resident said people were cancelling with no logical explanation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s ASB concerns on 11 January 2022. It said it had discussed the alleged altercation with the police who confirmed it was not taking any further action. The landlord said that it had reviewed the CCTV with the police and found it was an argument between the resident and the neighbour. Also, both parties had been shouting at each other prior to the altercation and found neighbours, including the resident have taken videos of each other. It acknowledged that the resident had felt suicidal and advised the resident to seek medical support. The landlord signposted the resident to ‘mind’ which is a mental health support charity and made a referral to the local authority on behalf of the resident.

The landlord went onto say that it had taken all of the resident’s ASB concerns seriously and that of her neighbours against the resident. The landlord said that it had identified that the resident’s behaviour had been challenging to her neighbours and included that she had been verbally abusive, recording neighbours and banging doors.
On 17 January 2022, the landlord contacted the local authority to say it was aware of the resident’s complaints of ASB in March 2020. At this time, the resident reported high level of noise from her neighbours. The landlord confirmed at this time it referred the case to a community harm and risk management meeting (CHaRRM) and a community trigger was made. The referrals were reviewed by multi agencies who were satisfied with the landlord’s and polices actions. In conclusion the landlord added CCTV and moved the resident’s carparking space. The landlord said it offered all parties involved mediation. The landlord said it provided advice to the resident on moving to a new property, but the resident was not taking this offer at this time. The landlord confirmed that the resident was continuing to look for a move on home swapper.
On 18 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to raise that a neighbour had driven fast near her and had made racist comments towards her. Also, the resident made videos of this. The police contacted the resident on 19 January 2022 to provide crime reference numbers for her recent complaints.
This Service contacted the landlord on 20 January 2022 to request for the landlord to action its stage two complaint response.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 January 2022. The landlord said it had spoken with the police regarding an altercation between the neighbour and the resident. The landlord said it had reviewed the CCTV footage and it agreed with the police that both parties were shouting at each other.
The landlord contacted the resident on 24 January 2022 to acknowledge her email dated 10 January 2022. The landlord confirmed it had liaised with the police regarding the altercation between the resident and her neighbour. The landlord said both it and the police had reviewed the evidence supplied and no further action was being taken. The landlord said it had not found any evidence that the resident had suffered racial harassment, but it found that both the resident and her neighbours had been videoing each other. The landlord said following discussion with the police it agreed that video evidence had been taken to the extreme and this was causing increased bad feeling amongst resident’s to the point of harassment. The landlord went onto say it found it alarming and was concerned that the resident had said she felt suicidal. The landlord advised the resident to seek medical support or contact a mental health organisation.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to provide a second warning of a breach of tenancy. The breach of tenancy related to the resident’s neighbour’s complaints about the resident’s ASB. This included:

a. the resident had been banging doors which is a noise nuisance

b. the resident using her mobile phone to record her neighbours. The neighbours felt this was intimidating and harassment

c. the landlord offered the resident to attend mediation due to the breakdown in relations between the resident and her neighbours

d. the landlord advised the resident to seek medical advice if she was suicidal.

On 28 January 2022, the resident sent the landlord a memory stick with videos. The resident said the videos showed people harassing her.
The resident instructed a local councillor to help with the complaint on 31 January 2022. The councillor contacted the landlord the same day to ask if the landlord needed any further information to progress the complaint.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident’s councillor to confirm that it was in the process of reviewing its stage two complaint response.
On 3 February 2022, the landlord contacted the landlord to arrange a meeting with the neighbour, and also the police. The landlord advised that this would be an opportunity for the resident to share her footage of being the victim of ASB. The landlord proposed for the meeting to take place on 9 February 2022.
The resident responded on 7 February 2022 to say she did not feel mentally strong enough to attend a meeting.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 February 2022 with regards to the counter allegations of ASB. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if she found her front door difficult or heavy to open and if so, whether the resident has reported this.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 14 February 2022. The landlord said:
1. it had worked closely with the police and other agencies to investigate all of the residents ASB complaints.
2. it reviewed the resident’s ASB complaints and found it followed correct process and policy
3. it did not uphold the complaint
4. it would not offer the resident compensation as it does not offer compensation for ASB complaints.

Post complaint

Between February 2022 and June 2023, the resident has advised this Service that she has reported further incidents of ASB to the landlord. Therefore, the ASB matters remain ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not result in a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
In cases relating to ASB, it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
In this case, the resident had raised a number of reports to the landlord between 2020 and 2023 that she felt threatened, received racist verbal abuse and felt intimidated by her neighbours. Also, that her neighbours caused a noise nuisance and that she had been physically assaulted by a neighbour and her family which overall caused the resident a great deal of distress.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that during 2020 the resident raised 10 separate ASB complaints to the landlord. This included complaints that she had been threatened by her neighbours and that the neighbour above caused a noise nuisance.
The landlords ASB policy outlines that noise nuisance is a form of ASB when a neighbour creates unreasonable noise. The landlord policy goes onto state that in cases of unreasonable noise that it can seek to obtain evidence from noise monitoring equipment, CCTV, diary sheets, visiting the location and gathering evidence from professional witnesses like the police.
The records provided by the landlord shows that the resident provided diary sheets to the landlord in August 2020. However, the landlord advised the resident that due to the country being in lockdown due to covid-19 that she should be more tolerant. The records also show that the resident requested for a noise monitor to be installed in December 2020. The evidence goes on to show that the landlord contacted the resident in January 2021, to recommend that the resident keep reporting the noises to help strengthen her ASB case.
Nearly eight months later in August 2021, the landlord advised the resident to download a noise app to record any noise nuisances. However, it took the landlord until February 2022 to request for the resident to supply copies of the noise app recordings.
From the evidence provided to this Service the landlord was proactive in April 2020, as it contacted the neighbour regarding their noise levels. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbours following the resident raising further noise nuisance reports. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord considered other ways of obtaining evidence such as the option of providing a noise monitoring equipment, even after the resident requested this in early 2021. Therefore, the landlord missed an opportunity earlier on in its ASB investigation to explore the extent of how the noise levels were impacting on the resident.
The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations or keep her informed that her noise nuisance concerns were being monitored. This Service has found that there was a significant delay on the landlord’s part for it to recommend that the resident downloaded a noise app. Also, there is no evidence that the landlord was proactive in approaching the local authority to investigate the noise nuisance. Additionally, for the landlord to obtain the evidence the local authority had from the noise app the resident downloaded. This is not in line with its own ASB policy to use gathering tools such as noise monitoring equipment. Also, for the landlord to be proactive in engaging with alleged perpetrators with the aim of resolving the issue.
The records show that mediation was offered to the resident and her neighbour in July 2020. This Service notes it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident and her neighbours for mediation. However, when mediation no longer was viable between the parties the landlord failed to offer the resident access to mediation as a single party. Had the landlord have referred the resident alone then she would have access to support earlier in the process and this would have been best practice. Further, this would have helped the resident to obtain coping strategies regarding the ongoing ASB that would have been beneficial.
From the evidence provided this Service can see that the landlord was not proactive in acknowledging the resident’s concerns in a timely way. In terms of acknowledging ASB complaints, this Service can see that in 2020 the landlord acknowledged only some of the resident concerns. However, there was periods of inactivity from the landlord where it did not respond to the resident’s emails for a few weeks such as in August 2020. This was not in line with its own ASB policy to acknowledge ASB complaints between one and two working days.
The records show that the landlord was more proactive in 2021. However, there the landlord took longer than stated in its policy when the resident raised concerns between April and August 2021. This meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to obtain further evidence to assess the resident’s case and to resolve the situation as early as possible. As such, the landlord was not always proactive, and this was not reasonable or in line with its own policy. In terms of what this Service would expect, it is reasonable for a resident to have confidence in their landlord when reporting anti-social behaviour and it was unreasonable for the resident to have to chase the landlord for a response.
This Service finds that during 2020 and 2021 the landlord failed to follow its own ASB policy and did not take a victim centred approach. As early as February 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that she had been a victim of hate related abuse. The landlord’s own ASB policy states that hate crime or hate incidents will be dealt with as high-risk cases of ASB. Also, that when a resident reports a hate incident, the landlord will refer to its safeguarding policy to ensure that the resident is responded to and supported within one working day.
This Service had not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged that the resident was a victim of a hate incident. In contrast, the evidence considered by this Service shows that the landlord referred to the ASB as ‘neighbour disputes’ and failed to recognise that the resident had perceived the incidents as being motivated against her due to her ethnicity. This was not appropriate. This left the resident without the support it references in its own safeguarding policy. Additionally, the landlord’s actions were contrary to statutory guidance and best practice to ensure a victim centred approach to ASB allegations. As such, there was a missed opportunity for the resident to obtain specialist support for the hate crime as the landlord failed to sensitively handle the allegations raised by the resident. Further, the landlord failed to offer target hardening measures to the resident, which may have supported her throughout the life of the case.
Despite its ASB policy and procedure stating that it will do so, there is no evidence of the landlord agreeing an action plan with the resident at the earliest opportunity. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord only indicated completing an action plan in September 2021. Given the resident reported ASB to it throughout the case, the landlord was very slow to act on these reports or did not act at all. This shows poor case management practice and failure on behalf of the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and seek any form of resolution. This Service therefore finds that the resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience throughout her case as she was not given clear timescales in which the landlord would complete relevant actions to address the reported ASB.
Further to this, the records show that throughout the ASB process the resident had regularly told the landlord that the ASB was having a detrimental impact on her health. This included that the resident was feeling distressed, isolated, stressed, and felt threatened. The resident also reported to the landlord that due to the emotional impact the ASB was having on her she had overdosed to end her life and consequently was hospitalised. It is necessary for the landlord to consider and respond to these in accordance with its policies.
This Service would expect the landlord to complete a risk assessment in reported ASB cases to assess the resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm. In this case, this Service has found that the landlord completed two risk assessments, taking place on 14 December 2020 and 9 May 2021. However, neither risk assessments considered the risk to the resident regarding her ongoing concerns about ASB. This Service would expect the landlord to assess the level of risk when the resident initially raised an ASB complaint. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to complete ongoing risk assessments particularly given that the resident raised allegations of hate incidents. This would have provided the landlord with the opportunity to assess any potential harm arising from the residents raised ASB concerns. Further, it would have also allowed the landlord to consider what support the resident required.
From the evidence provided the landlord failed to complete a risk assessment at its earliest opportunity in August 2020 and instead waited until December 2020. At this time, the landlord noted the risk to the resident was medium. However, the risk assessment at this time lacked any detail of what was discussed and agreed with the resident. This is not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy to establish any vulnerabilities the resident and any impact it was having on the resident’s wellbeing. Also, to identify what action or support is required to help the resident with the process.
The landlord did raise its concerns about the resident’s wellbeing with the local authority in November 2021. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord offered the resident any support from when she initially raised ASB complaints in 2020, until November 2021. Had it done so, it could have gone some way in assisting the resident in coping with the situation as she was repeatedly informing the landlord how the situation was negatively impacting on her. This Service finds that the landlord did not follow its ASB policy in offering support to the resident. Further, it did not appropriately follow its vulnerable person’s policy as it was not proactive in making referrals or signposting the resident to support agencies throughout its ASB process.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord liaised with the police throughout 2021 and the beginning of 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the ASB complaints with the police and this is in line with its ASB policy. It was also appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to raise hate crime or physical assaults with the police should this happen. This demonstrated good practice showing it took a partnership approach.
However, the landlord over relied upon the evidence of the police to inform its decision on its determination of a hate crime and other ASB. As such, there is limited evidence that the landlord was proactive in its own responsibilities and the use of its own interventions. Further to this, the landlord was not clear in its explanations to the resident what its role was in its ASB investigation.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to contact the police when a criminal offence took place, the landlord was responsible for providing support and interventions to target ASB. The landlord was also responsible for explaining to the resident that although the police can investigate criminal offences, its standard of evidence is higher than that of a civil case. That being, that the civil burden of proof is based on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the landlord to rely solely on the police investigations on whether ASB did or did not happen. This is due to the fact that even if the police found a matter to not be a criminal offence, it is not to say that the landlord could not apply to civil courts to address ASB matters by way of sanctions.
The evidence provided shows that the resident provided various pieces of evidence to the landlord which included photographs of vehicles parking outside of an allocated space. Also, CCTV footage of alleging that the resident was threatened with violence.
There is limited evidence that the landlord considered all of the evidence provided by the resident. Had it done so, the landlord could have determined if the footage contained useful evidence that a hate crime had been committed. This would have allowed the landlord to investigate it further and if appropriate consider whether legal action was appropriate. With this in mind, the landlord did not fully investigate or consider all of the evidence available to it to fully investigate the residents ASB concerns.
Further to this, the landlord’s communication to the resident at times were inconsistent. This left the resident in a position of using unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord for an update. Further, causing the resident further distress and inconvenience that her concerns were not taken seriously.
Overall, this Service therefore finds that the resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience throughout her case as she was not given clear timescales in which the landlord would complete relevant actions to address the reported ASB. The landlord failed to actively listen to the resident and take her concerns of being a victim of incidents motivated by hate seriously and offer the correct level of support and assessment of risk. Therefore, the landlord fell short in his handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. Due to the delays in seeking any real resolution to the matter and the ongoing significant detriment to the resident, this amounts to severe maladministration.

The associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 9 October 2020. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. One year and one month later, on the 11 November 2021 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. This Service notes that the landlord did not provide updates to the resident during this time or provide any reason for the delays. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code requires a landlord to keep its residents regularly updated about progress. The landlord failed to do so. In all the circumstances, this Service finds that the landlord’s delay to provision of its stage one response was unreasonable and contrary to its own policy and the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2021 to request it provided a stage two response. Due to the delay in receiving the landlord’s stage two response the resident contacted this Service. Eight weeks later the landlord provided its stage two response on 14 February 2022. The records show that during the eight weeks the resident contacted the landlord on 17 January 2021, to request for an update on when she will receive the stage two complaint response. The landlord said it is currently dealing with a backlog but did not confirm when the resident would receive its complaint response.
There is a clear failure in the landlord not providing its stage one and stage two complaint response in a timely way. Further, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided any mitigation for the delays.
The landlord’s significant delays in providing its stage one response was unreasonable. This adversely affected the resident and caused her unnecessary time and trouble requesting for a response. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify, address and learn from the failings identified above.
The landlord has also failed to identify its complaint handling failings. At both complaint stages the landlord did not acknowledge its delays nor did it apologise. Therefore, the landlord did not offer any redress for the time and trouble, or distress and inconvenience caused to the resident being left in the complaint process for an unnecessary period of time. This is not inline with this Services code that if something goes wrong, a landlord should acknowledge this and put things right by way of remedy. In addition, the Code is clear that landlords should apologise for any failings identified and provide an appropriate remedy to reflect the extent of its service failings. This includes but is not limited to providing an apology and where appropriate financial remedy.
Overall, there were severe failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. There was significant delay of one year and one month in providing its response which contributed to the resident’s distress and further exacerbated the situation further. This significant delay and the landlord’s lack of effective communication regarding the delay constitutes severe maladministration.
This Service orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation to adequately reflect the avoidable inconvenience arising from its complaints handling failings and apologise to the resident for those it previously did not acknowledge.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Reasons

As outlined above, the landlord failed to be proactive in its ASB investigations and failed to take a victim centred approach to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour. This was not in line with its own policy or statutory guidance. The landlord also failed to document key elements of its ASB procedures, including producing risk assessments or clear action plans. In not doing so, the landlord did not thoroughly investigate, implement tools to aid its investigation or provide support to the resident causing her significant detriment.
There was a significant delay in the landlord issuing its stage one complaint response. There was also a delay in the landlord issuing its stage two response. This was not reasonable and not in line with what this Service would expect. Further it is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy. It offered no explanation for these delays or make any undertaking on what steps it would take to ensure the same complaint handling failure is avoided in future.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord will:
1. An appropriate member of the senior leadership team to apologise to the resident for failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1600 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1000 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of her reports of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance.
  2. £600 to address its failings in complaint handling that caused the resident time and trouble and inconvenience.
3. The landlord should carry out a review of the resident’s case and her complaint to determine what action the landlord should take to ensure the failures do not happen again. The review should include:
  1. How it takes a victim centred approach on ASB cases inclusive of providing support when necessary for vulnerable residents.
  2. How it handles ‘hate crimes and incidents’ to ensure that it follows statutory guidance and its own policy.
Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord take the following action:
1. The landlord should review and update its ASB policy, if it has not already done so, especially with regards to its case review process and procedure. This includes the landlord making risk assessments, having clear action plans, and adhering to service level agreements in how it responds to complaints about ASB.
2. Review its complaints policy to ensure it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.