Southern Housing Group Limited (202126214)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126214

Southern Housing Group Limited

7 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

1. The resident complains about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour reports made about her, including its decision to issue her with a warning letter.

Background

2. The resident has been the assured shorthold tenant of the property since 13 October 2016.
3. The resident complained, in November 2021, that the landlord had identified her as a perpetrator of ASB (including her being issued with a tenancy warning letter in August 2021) when she considered that she was a victim of ASB by neighbours in the block. She said that issues had arisen after the resident had been abroad for several months, with neighbours accessing her flat to look after her cat. The arrangement broke down and the resident asked a friend to collect her cat, but the key could not initially be located. For context, it should be noted this occurred during lockdown in the first part of 2021. The resident’s complaint focussed on the following events which occurred after the resident returned:
   1. There was an argument between the resident and neighbours which the resident stated was filmed and then edited to show only what she had said. The resident complained that the landlord used this as evidence of ASB although she stated the recording had been tampered with.
   2. A neighbour reported an incident where she stated that the resident shouted at her in the laundry room and followed her to her flat where she shouted outside. The resident stated this incident did not happen.
   3. The resident reported that a neighbour knocked on her door during the night on a number of occasions. When she went to the neighbour’s flat at midnight to ask her not to do this, the resident stated she was assaulted when the neighbour threw crutches at her.
4. The landlord’s stage two (final) response of 5 April 2022 did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, for which it offered £25 in compensation. In regards the ASB issues however, the landlord concluded that its review of the case had confirmed that it had ‘followed the tenets’ of its ASB policy. It said there was no evidence of ‘biased treatment’ from staff or unfair treatment and its decision to issue the resident with a warning letter was taken after close examination of the evidence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

5. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; this investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
6. There is a large volume of email correspondence between the resident and landlord on file.  All the information has been taken into consideration whether or not it is specifically referred to in this report. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but rather it will outline the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
7. This report uses ‘neighbour’ to refer to other residents living in the same block as the resident, not necessarily meaning living immediately adjacent to the resident’s flat.

ASB policies, procedures and the occupancy agreement

8. The tenancy agreement states that tenants:
   1. must not do anything that is likely to cause nuisance and annoyance to others.
   2. should keep all possessions inside the property and not leave items in the communal parts.
   3. should keep under control any animals kept at the property and not keep any animal that might cause nuisance or annoyance to others.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure aims to prevent incidents of ASB from escalating, by the landlord taking a balanced approach using a combination of measures including prevention, early intervention, support and enforcement. The policy states the landlord will risk assess reports of ASB to determine severity. The landlord will direct complainants to report matters to the police where appropriate and will work with other agencies. The landlord will treat all information it receives in confidence and seek consent before sharing it in a form likely to identify its source. The landlord will not disclose the identity of parties who have made allegations to the alleged perpetrator. The landlord uses a range of informal actions to try to resolve issues of ASB at an early stage and prevent escalation. These can include advice and assistance to help neighbours find their own solution; verbal warnings and written warnings; meetings; general letters sent to a block; mediation; and good neighbour agreements. The landlord will interview complainants and perpetrators; gather evidence; agree an action plan; review cases regularly; keep parties informed; and keep detailed records. The policy and procedure state that any action taken by the landlord will be a reasonable and proportionate response to the behaviour reported and the landlord can escalate its response where necessary.

Landlord response to ASB reports

10. The landlord contacted the resident in mid-July 2021 who explained via email that after she returned from abroad, a neighbour knocked on her door during the night on various occasions and when she went to her neighbour’s door at midnight to ask her not to do so, the neighbour threw crutches at her.
11. Given that this appeared to be a neighbour dispute, it was appropriate that the landlord suggested mediation. Mediation can be a useful opportunity for neighbours to talk about problems in a conversation facilitated by a neutral third party. The landlord’s ASB policy notes mediation as a possible option for early resolution of ASB. The resident advised the landlord that she did not consider mediation necessary. Mediation did not progress at this time since both parties need to be willing to participate. The landlord also contacted the community safety team about any issues raised. This was appropriate action according to its policy which states that the landlord will liaise with other agencies.
12. Later in July 2021, the landlord made an action plan after it became aware of an alleged incident when a neighbour reported that the resident shouted at her in the laundry room. The landlord addressed the incident with the crutches with the neighbour which was in line with its ASB policy and procedure which states the landlord will investigate any reports by contacting those involved. The landlord suggested a good neighbour agreement to the neighbour and the resident. This was a reasonable approach given the complaints and counter-complaints and such an agreement is a way to try to resolve a neighbour dispute at an early stage by setting out behaviour expected in the future.
13. The landlord was willing to amend the draft neighbour agreement if the resident had feedback. However, the resident did not agree to sign as she considered it a confession of wrong doing. The resident informed the landlord that she places her possessions in the corridor if she is re-organising her flat and she had concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour and that others were causing trouble for the resident by making reports to the landlord.
14. Since the resident did not agree to the good neighbour agreement, it was reasonable that the landlord again suggested mediation. The landlord noted mediation would allow both parties to express their views and move on since the relationship had broken down and the landlord had been asked to get involved but had not witnessed the behaviour first-hand.
15. Email and phone contact between the resident and landlord continued throughout July 2021 with the resident asking the landlord for copies of all complaints made and details of witnesses. The resident considered it was not against the law to argue and she felt she was a victim. The landlord explained that the good neighbour agreement was a way to agree on future behaviour, agree to being a good pet owner and close the dispute. The landlord also explained that having an argument in a communal area may cause nuisance and the best approach is to walk away. The landlord also noted the resident’s concern about racial harassment and asked her to provide further details.
16. Communication continued throughout August 2021 with the resident maintaining that it was her prerogative to leave her case in the hallway by her door and put the contents of her flat in the hallway if she was cleaning. The landlord asked that she keep the communal areas free of items and accompany her cat in the communal areas. On 16 August 2021 the resident stated that she made a complaint about harassment and assault from her neighbour. The landlord responded appropriately the following day asking the resident for full details of harassment including dates and times and enclosed diary sheets. Diary sheets would allow the resident to gather evidence which would inform the landlord’s response. The landlord again offered mediation which was a reasonable option since talking about the issues may lead to resolution.
17. In response, the resident explained she was the victim of harassment having received unwanted notes, visits, an assault with crutches and verbal abuse. She queried how complaints had been upheld when she had not been provided with evidence. By mid/late August, the police were involved regarding the incident between the resident and a neighbour involving crutches.
18. The landlord reviewed the evidence on the ASB case on 27 August 2021, concluding that a warning letter was appropriate. This warning letter referred to the relevant tenancy clauses about not leaving items in the communal hallway and not leaving the cat unattended in communal areas. The landlord noted that the resident did not agree to a good neighbour agreement or mediation. The landlord advised it would monitor any future incidents and could take further action. The landlord also advised that it had discussed the incident when the resident visited her neighbour and reminded the neighbour of her tenancy obligations.
19. The landlord asked that further incidents be reported to the police and landlord. The landlord also provided appropriate advice to try to avoid future issues, asking that the resident and neighbour do not make contact, including but not limited to leaving notes, knocking on doors and approaching each other in the common parts. The landlord advised it would monitor any reports made about the neighbour and re-open the investigation if needed. The landlord noted the police had closed the case.
20. The resident subsequently sent several emails to the landlord asking that the warning be withdrawn. The resident considered there were elements of truth but also fabrication and lies; she did not consider a warning was warranted; and she did not accept that others had asked the landlord to keep their reports confidential as she wanted the landlord to share evidence with her. The landlord responded to the resident’s appeal about the ASB warning on 11 October 2021, but this investigation has not had sight of that letter.
21. Whilst understanding the resident’s distress and her wish to see the evidence that the landlord held, the landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord will treat all information it receives in confidence and seek consent before sharing it in a form likely to identify its source. The landlord will not disclose the identity of parties who have made allegations to the alleged perpetrator. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to provide the resident with names or details which would identify those who made reports to the landlord.
22. The landlord suggested a good neighbour agreement instead of a written warning which would “fall away” as the resident would be committed to the agreement. The neighbour in the dispute would enter a similar agreement.
23. The resident accepted a warning about her case and cat being in the communal hallway but did not accept the other aspects of the warning as she considered that people do have disagreements; people had been putting up notes for a long time; and she would decide whether to report a matter. The resident wanted feedback on false claims that she stated other neighbours had made including an altercation in June which she said did not happen and a recording that had been edited to show her as the “aggressor.”
24. The landlord advised the resident on 5 November 2021 that it would review the case the following week and share evidence with the resident where it could. The landlord explained there were no grounds for it to remove the warning at this time. The landlord advised it would then contact the resident to discuss her counter-allegations of ASB and review the evidence to determine what action was appropriate against perpetrators. The landlord explained it could consider further action if it continued to receive complaints about the resident posting letters to neighbours when she had been asked not to do so. The landlord reviewed the case the following week and considered what information could be shared.
25. On 18 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident about her appeal against the ASB warning letter. The landlord advised it reviewed all correspondence and this was its final response. The landlord started by explaining how ASB is defined in the relevant legislation; it is conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person or is conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to their occupation of residential premises. The landlord went on to explain that when it receives ASB reports, it tries to intervene early to avoid escalation. The landlord advised that a previous staff member noted a warning letter being sent in April 2021.
26. However, further investigations showed this was not sent and no actions were taken until another member of staff took over in July 2021 and contact was made with the resident.  The landlord explained that where residents fall out, mediation is recommended but as the resident was unwilling to take part, the landlord drafted a good neighbour agreement as an opportunity to prevent escalation. The landlord went on to explain that as the resident did not agree to this, the next step was a written warning. The landlord explained it was satisfied with the information shared by neighbours (whose identities were to remain anonymous), including conversations and emails that the resident provided, that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a warning letter and that as long as no further incidents took place, the case could be closed.
27. The landlord explained that no one is permitted to store items in communal areas, staff would inspect further and if the resident could confirm who was leaving items there, the landlord would engage directly with them, keeping her identity protected. The landlord noted any letters sent to residents or put on the notice board that make a resident feel intimidated, harassed or abused will be treated as ASB. The landlord enclosed copies of letters that the resident wrote and posted on the notice board that it stated were unacceptable.
28. The landlord noted that the resident now accepted the warning letter but would like it re-worded. The landlord advised it reviewed this but did not consider further changes to be required since action taken was in line with its ASB policy and reflective of the landlord’s position that the resident’s behaviour had been unacceptable and was considered ASB. The landlord explained this was because there had been a combination of incidents or tenancy breaches which the resident had been involved with and multiple complaints from residents who wished to remain anonymous. Since the warning letter, the landlord received further reports of behaviour that was considered ASB (reports made with the request to protect neighbours’ identities).
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s counter-claims sent on 15 and 18 October 2021 that neighbours had made false complaints. The examples the resident gave were of a neighbour visiting her home late at night in February and March to provoke her, putting a note under her front door and making a telephone recording of the resident using threatening behaviour. The incidents of the neighbour visiting the resident’s home were covered in the early investigation and discussed with both parties. The landlord noted the neighbour confirmed she put a note through the resident’s door stating that she smells, and it was evident the relationship had broken down. To resolve this, the landlord offered mediation and a good neighbour agreement which the neighbour agreed to. The landlord noted the recordings were “threatening and racial and there are no excuses for this behaviour.” The landlord advised it would not revisit these allegations, but new incidents could be reported, or the resident could complete diary sheets previously sent.
30. Along with the above letter, the landlord attached examples of notes which the resident had put up in communal areas which it stated were not acceptable and attached “recordings of you being threatening, abusive and racist.” The landlord explained the case was closed; asked the resident not to approach neighbours about this; and explained the case could be re-opened with further steps taken if there were more complaints.
31. In response the resident sent several emails between 18 and 22 November 2021, including making a stage one complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. The resident thanked the landlord for sending her evidence but wanted the landlord to provide all complaints received and considered the landlord’s reference to anonymity to be unfair.  The resident disagreed that she could not put up notices but explained she had not done so since the landlord had asked her not to. The resident included copies of notices she put up in February 2021. The resident stated she was angry in the recording because of neighbours not handing her flat key to her friend who came to collect the cat whilst she was abroad. The resident stated the recording was edited to leave her voice saying she would break her neighbour’s nose. The resident stated the landlord used the recording against her despite it being edited to mislead. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not shown her complaints; did not speak to immediate neighbours who had not made any reports; and refused to re-word the warning. The resident stated others were the perpetrators of ASB.
32. The landlord’s letter dated 8 December 2021 entitled ASB investigation outcome complaint explained actions taken to that point. It also explained that the landlord wrote to and spoke with the neighbour who the resident had an altercation with and apologised if this was unclear in previous communication.
33. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 17 December 2021, confirming no warning letter had been sent by a former staff member and apologising for any distress caused.   The landlord explained that to investigate ASB,  staff spoke with the resident; spoke with other residents in the block including reviewing written communications; reviewed police intervention between the resident and another resident; spoke with environmental health and ASB teams to identify any ASB reports; reviewed photographic evidence provided by the resident and other residents; discussed allegations of ASB with residents, and reviewed photographic, audio and video evidence of incidents reported, to try to understand who the perpetrators were; offered mediation; investigated other residents having access to the resident’s home whilst she was away; and requested that in the absence of a formal written warning that the resident sign an acceptable behaviour agreement.
34. The landlord explained it was unable to take any action regarding other residents taking care of her cat because the resident made those arrangements with other residents directly. The landlord explained that following its investigations, it found there were sufficient grounds for the landlord to take further action against the resident and against the neighbour. The landlord noted it tried to ensure the best possible outcome by offering mediation, but the resident was unwilling to take part. The resident was also unwilling to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement. Instead, a formal warning letter was issued after which the Area Services Manager reviewed the ASB case as the resident requested. The landlord and resident spoke at length about the matter and the landlord agreed to retract the warning letter if the resident was willing to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement (as was her neighbour). The resident did not agree and requested the terms were amended which the landlord did not agree to do as it considered the terms were reflective of the issues the landlord had investigated and found to exist.
35. The landlord noted it sought to act in an unbiased way and explained that during its investigations there was no corroborating evidence presented which indicated it should cease any action against the resident. The landlord also explained that residents it spoke to asked to remain anonymous to protect their identity as they had concerns the resident may possibly approach them in the future. The landlord noted the resident accepted a number of allegations including the condition of her property, presence of her cat in communal areas, storing of her suitcase in communal areas and approaching neighbouring properties at unacceptable hours. The landlord noted it wrote to and spoke with the neighbour who the resident had an altercation with, reminding them that the landlord could take further action about their future conduct which could include an acceptable behaviour agreement. The landlord apologised if this was not made clear in previous communication. The landlord recognised the resident felt she had been treated differently from other residents but explained this was not the case. The landlord explained it had engaged with residents she reported as having been involved in nuisance and spoken with or warned them about future conduct.
36. The landlord noted the resident’s feedback that other residents were also leaving items in communal areas and the landlord wrote to all residents about this and advised it would monitor this during estate inspections. The landlord concluded that its investigation and actions were fair and proportionate, and it was right to issue an ASB warning letter as other options such as mediation and an acceptable behaviour agreement had been exhausted.
37. The resident remained dissatisfied that she was given a warning whilst those she stated had “presented fake evidence” were protected by the landlord. The resident wanted to know who had sent audio recordings to the landlord and in what context. The resident did not agree that complaints made amounted to ASB and wanted further details of complaints made. The resident remained concerned the recording had been edited and believed the landlord had not contacted neighbours. The resident considered anonymous complaints meant she could not challenge false allegations. The resident also considered mediation was unnecessary as she was not in contact with neighbours. The resident stated she would accept an edited version of the warning letter. However, she stated she did leave items by her door briefly and felt the landlord had no right to ask her not to write notes to neighbours. Overall, the resident wanted more information about why the landlord considered it appropriate to issue a warning. This was treated as a stage two complaint.
38. The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 5 April 2022, noting it had tried to call the resident before doing so but had been unable to reach her. The landlord offered to discuss the letter with the resident. The landlord also apologised for and offered compensation for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint. The landlord outlined the information reviewed and advised that looking at events involving the resident and others in the block, the landlord could not see any failure to follow its ASB policy. The landlord advised that on receipt of ASB reports, it investigates and interrogates evidence provided by victims and neighbours and looks for ways to mediate and resolve. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it stated it did not find evidence that staff treated the resident in a biased way as she had alleged. The landlord advised it was unable to share details of evidence as it must protect the privacy of all residents.
39. The resident remained dissatisfied and wanted matters she was disputing removed from the warning letter. She considered the stage two response letter did not address her issues. The resident complained that the landlord considered the audio recording of her shouting to be ASB and had ignored her complaint that the video was edited. The resident complained the landlord warned her about ASB when others had done worse. The resident accepted that there was an argument, her cat sat in the corridor and her flat was messy but questioned that this amounted to ASB. The resident also complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord had withheld information from her, the landlord had not revised the warning, she had not blocked communal areas and she was accused of incidents which did not occur and accused of racism based on a “doctored recording.”
40. This Service acknowledges the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and the distress this has caused her. It is understandable that the resident wanted sight of all complaints made but the landlord’s policy indicates that the identity of those complaining will not be disclosed. Nonetheless, the resident was aware of some of the evidence where there had been a neighbour dispute and the landlord disclosed details where possible.
41. For the landlord this appeared to be a situation of complaints and counter-complaints between the resident and neighbours. Whilst acknowledging that the resident wanted the landlord to withdraw the warning letter, this was not the approach advocated by the landlord’s ASB policy which encouraged early intervention to avoid escalation of ASB. Although the resident did not agree that her actions amounted to ASB, the landlord was using the definition of ASB set out in the legislation and had evidence sufficient to justify its response. Although the resident had not had sight of all complaints made, the photographs of notes she sent to the landlord, some of which were not appropriate in tone or content, would in themselves prompt a response from the landlord.
42. Whilst understanding that the resident considered others behaviour had been worse, this did not preclude the landlord from contacting the resident and there is evidence that the landlord addressed other neighbours’ behaviour too and advised the resident it had done so. The resident also reviewed communication with the police to inform its response which was in line with its ASB policy.
43. The resident has complained that an audio recording had been tampered with by neighbours. This is not something this Service could verify or otherwise. However, the resident herself noted that the recording included her saying she would break her neighbour’s nose and this, irrespective of the context and what else was said, would be sufficient to warrant a response from the landlord.
44. Taken altogether, the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord has handled extensive correspondence with the resident, written detailed responses and also discussed matters with the resident on the phone. The landlord investigated issues that the resident and neighbours raised, offered mediation on a number of occasions, sought further information from relevant agencies, reviewed the ASB case frequently and suggested a good neighbour agreement. The landlord only issued a warning when these other options were rejected and offered to remove the warning if the resident wished to sign a good neighbour agreement. The landlord reviewed the warning letter after the resident made an appeal as well as reviewing its actions after the resident made a formal complaint. Taken altogether, the landlord’s response to a complicated situation of complaints and counter-complaints was appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of ASB reports made about the resident, specifically in relation to its decision to issue her with a warning letter.