Teign Housing (202121147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121147

Teign Housing

31 March 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 how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and lives in a one-bedroom end-of-terrace bungalow. The tenancy began on 29 September 2017.
There were safeguarding concerns with the resident as he had health conditions, including anxiety and depression. The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its system, but has said that it was aware of the resident’s mental health concerns.
The landlord has provided a copy of its anti-social behaviour policy and procedure. The policy says what actions the landlord would take when responding to complaints about anti-social behaviour. The policy also mentioned multi agency working and the ‘community trigger’ and said that the landlord would support those affected by anti-social behaviour and have regard to the needs of the complainant.
The anti-social behaviour procedure gave the following time scales for responding to reports of anti-social behaviour and divided the behaviour up by categories:
1. Category A which related to actual or threatened violence or a hate crime had a response time of one working day;
2. Category B which related to drug and alcohol related nuisance and verbal abuse had a response time of three working days;
3. Category C which related to noise nuisance had a response time of five working days.
The anti-social behaviour was committed by the resident’s neighbour and therefore they are referred to as the ‘neighbour’ in this report. The landlord was aware that the neighbour had vulnerabilities, and safeguarding concerns had been raised.

Summary of Events

In June and July 2020, the resident reported that his neighbour had threatened him. According to its notes, the landlord contacted the Police on 2 July 2020 and the alleged perpetrator on 28 July 2020. The anti-social behaviour was categorised as a hate crime and the landlord offered the resident the chance to move, but the resident wanted to stay as he liked the property and the area.
On 22 July 2020, a mental health practitioner called the landlord on behalf of the resident and explained about the resident’s long standing mental health issues and how vulnerable he was.
In October 2020, the landlord’s records show that concerns were raised about the neighbour’s front garden accumulating a lot of rubbish and having a trolley. The records also say that two plastic sacks of rubbish were dumped into communal areas. The notes said that tenancy breaches were recorded on 14 and 15 October 2020.
On 6 November 2020, further tenancy breaches were recorded in the landlord’s notes. On 16 November 2020, the resident made a complaint about his neighbour’s behaviour regarding noise nuisance. The resident also provided the landlord with four recordings from the noise app with comments. The landlord set up a multi-agency meeting the same day which was attended by the anti-social behaviour officer and the police. Other neighbours were interviewed and they said that the perpetrator’s TV was on extremely loud at 4.30am. There were also recordings of the neighbour’s aggressive behaviour towards the resident and the Police. The notes show that the landlord contacted external agencies, including the Police, on 17 and 19 November 2020 and another multi-agency meeting was arranged for 24 November 2020.
On 13 and 30 November 2020, the landlord offered two further properties for the resident to move into, but the resident was not happy with either property and preferred to remain where he was.
Around 16 December 2020, the resident reported another incident to the landlord and the landlord approached the neighbour regarding the incident. Another multi-agency meeting was set up for the new year. It is not clear from the notes what the incident related to.
The resident raised another two reports of anti-social behaviour regarding his neighbour on 18 and 26 January 2021. The landlord contacted the police on 20 January 2021. The reports were about loud noise and the neighbour harassing the resident with homophobic abuse. The resident also sent the landlord 23 recordings from the noise app with comments. The landlord conducted an in-person visit to the neighbour’s home and a tenancy breach was noted on 27 January 2021, but no further details on this were provided to this Service by the landlord.
On 5 February 2021, the resident made another complaint about their neighbour’s behaviour. The resident sent pictures of his neighbour emptying rubbish in the communal areas and reports show that the resident was upset because the neighbour was shouting abuse. The resident also sent the landlord two recordings from the noise app with comments. The landlord contacted the police again and the notes show that the landlord had contact with other external agencies. The resident made a further complaint on 10 February 2021, and again the landlord contacted the Police on 9 and 22 February 2021.
The resident made further reports of anti-social behaviour on 22 and 23 March 2021 and the notes show that the landlord contacted external agencies about the situation. The Police were contacted on 23 March 2021 and there was another tenancy breach recorded on 24 March 2021. The resident raised another complaint about his neighbour on 29 and 30 March 2021, but no further information has been provided to this Service by the landlord.
In April 2021, the resident sent the landlord four recordings from the noise app with his comments. The resident sent another three recordings in May 2021. In May 2021, the resident also asked the landlord if it could keep an eye out for void properties with a large garden.
In June, July and August the landlord’s records show that it had contact with external agencies. The resident sent a further six recordings through the noise app in June and July 2021. There is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated with the resident during this time.
The landlord said that it first mentioned the community trigger to the resident on 17 September 2021. The resident wrote a community trigger impact statement as part of his application and the case was discussed at a trigger panel review meeting on 1 November 2021. The resident met the trigger criteria, and plan of action was put in place which was to be reviewed on 1 February 2022.
On 3 November 2021, the resident made another complaint about his neighbour shouting abuse at another neighbour and putting rubbish bags on the resident’s wheelie bins after they had been emptied. On 19 November 2021, the resident raised a further report of anti-social behaviour with the landlord as the resident had fly tipped in communal areas.
The landlord logged the resident’s complaint verbally on the 18 November 2021 at stage one and said it would review the reports of anti-social behaviour that the resident had logged since May 2020. The resident’s complaint was that the anti-social behaviour was still ongoing and the resident did not feel the landlord had done enough, and also that the landlord had not informed him of the community trigger earlier. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 18 November 2021.
On 22 November 2021, the resident reported being verbally abused by his neighbour and called a paedophile in front of other people. In December 2021, the resident sent three more recordings of noise from his neighbour using the noise app and provided his comments.
The landlord provided its stage one response on the 2 December 2021. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and said the following:
1. There was a long history of issues that the resident had raised regarding their neighbour and an anti-social behaviour case was opened on 24 July 2021 for hate related remarks towards the resident. The resident was offered a management move and a number of properties were offered to the resident but he decided to remain as he liked the property and the area.]
2. It was actively participating in multi-agency meetings with the local authority, Police and support agencies regarding the resident’s neighbour.
3. The tenancy sustainment manager, the Police and the local authority continued to visit the area fortnightly to speak with the resident and other residents impacted. The landlord said that it would continue to deliver on the actions raised at the community trigger review meeting.
4. The plan was to move the neighbour which was the best decision and it and the police were working to get to this point, and the community trigger review agreed that this was the best outcome. The landlord accepted that the time frame to move the neighbour left the resident with some concerns; however, during this time the resident had been offered welfare calls from its Independence and Wellbeing Service.
5. It followed the correct procedures in this instance by working with multi-agency partners towards a resolution.
On the 15 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it would be providing the stage two response and acknowledged a request to escalate the complaint.
On the 16 December 2021, the landlord provided its stage two response. The response included the following:
1. There was no material difference to the stage one response and it reiterated those points. The landlord continued that the multi-agency response was still in hand and the community trigger had helped the level of importance with alternative accommodation being sought for the neighbour.
2. It would not be going down the enforcement route and cited the equalities legislation as a factor and because it had agreed a multi-agency partnership as a course of action.
3. Its anti-social behaviour policy required it to take action that was proportionate. The solution had been sought and now needed to be fully implemented. The landlord said that this was not something that it had control over, but rather the local authority did.
4. It asked the resident to stay strong and avoid their neighbour and not to react in any way to their attempts to provoke him. The resident should continue to report these instances to the Police.
5. It would continue to remove rubbish when it was made aware that it has been dumped. The landlord would also continue to check in with the resident weekly to ensure that they were alright.
In January 2022, the landlord offered a respite weekend away for the resident to help support him. The resident said he did not want to go away because he did not see the point when he would come back to the same situation.
Notes show that further instances occurred in January 2022 and on 26 January 2022, and the landlord took the decision to take enforcement action and sent the neighbour a letter saying it was bringing his tenancy to an end. The landlord had said it had held off from doing this as it did not want to exacerbate the neighbour’s health and wellbeing, but it was satisfied that it had exhausted all other options to remedy the situation.
There was a trigger panel review meeting on 1 February 2022, and it was decided that the case would remain open. Meetings were set up to occur every two weeks and other recommendations were put in place. However, the neighbour was moved to more suitable accommodation for his needs in March 2022 and therefore the community trigger was cancelled as the issue had been resolved.
The landlord later said that no risk assessment was completed for the resident but he was supported by its Independence and Wellbeing Service, receiving weekly contact, and was signposted to other services to support his mental health.

Assessment and findings

Not every instance of nuisance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. The second is to assess the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
The resident is unhappy with how the landlord handled his reports of anti-social behaviour and believes the landlord could have done more to help him, including informing him sooner about the community trigger. The landlord has said that it followed its anti-social behaviour policy and took a proportionate, multi-agency approach.
In June and July 2020, the resident was threatened by his neighbour and subjected to abuse which was classified as a hate crime. The landlord’s policy categorises this as category A type anti-social behaviour which gives the landlord one working day to respond. From the notes, it is not clear when the incidents occurred but the records show that the landlord contacted the police on 2 July 2020. An anti-social behaviour case was set up on 24 July 2020 and there was some communication with the resident. It is therefore difficult to say whether the landlord has complied with the timescales set out in its anti-social behaviour procedure.
The landlord offered the resident the chance to move but the resident chose to remain in his house in July 2020. The landlord was resolution-focused and acted reasonably by offering the resident a solution to the anti-social behaviour. The resident decided to stay and continued to be subjected to anti-social behaviour consistently from his neighbour who threatened him, shouted verbal abuse, fly tipped rubbish into communal areas and made a lot of noise.
Further anti-social behaviour reports, including hate speech, were made by the resident in November and December 2020 and January, February and March 2021 to the landlord about the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord’s notes show that within a day or two of the reports, it usually contacted the Police or an external agency and sometimes the neighbour; however, the details of the complaint and the exact actions of the landlord are limited and therefore it is difficult to say for certain that the landlord did follow its anti-social behaviour procedure. There are tenancy breaches noted, but again no further details regarding these and the landlord has said that no letters were sent to the neighbour because of their circumstances. Although the landlord did have contact with other agencies during this period, it is inappropriate that there are limited records as to how it decided that enforcement action was not possible, despite the regular and serious reports over several months, and how it communicated this decision to the resident.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour procedure says that it would look to gather evidence to substantiate allegations, including witness statements, and it will listen to audio recordings and diary sheets. The records show that witness statements were taken and call recordings were sent to the landlord on a noise app. Therefore, the landlord did comply with its policy and took reasonable steps to obtain evidence to support the anti-social behaviour.
The notes show that the resident’s noise reports were dealt with by the landlord in January and February 2021 as it visited the neighbour and liaised with the Police. However, the notes for April, May and June 2021 do not show this. Under the landlord’s anti-social behaviour procedure, noise reports were to be dealt with within five working days, but it is unclear that this was done in all cases. With regards to the noise reports from the noise app, there has therefore been a service failure by the landlord in not following its procedure.
The landlord’s records indicate that there was a lot of concern regarding the neighbour’s mental health and welfare and ensuring that the landlord did not breach the Equalities Act. A risk assessment was undertaken which included assessing the needs of the perpetrator as it mentioned that there were safeguarding concerns for them. These actions were in accordance with the landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy which says that the landlord needs to take into account the welfare of the perpetrator.
Whilst the landlord took into account the needs of the perpetrator of the anti-social behaviour, it has accepted that it did not complete a risk assessment for the resident. The landlord’s policy says it will support those affected by the anti-social behaviour and whilst the neighbour was vulnerable, so was the resident. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but it was aware that the resident had very serious mental health and health conditions. The resident also suffered with anxiety and depression caused by the actions of the neighbour.
The landlord has said that it supported the resident by offering respite weekends away, which the resident did not want to do. However, this was only offered in January 2022, after the resident had complained and exercised the community trigger. The landlord said it provided welfare calls to the resident, but again this was after the resident had complained and the reports of anti–social behaviour had been ongoing for nearly 18 months at that point. The landlord should have completed a risk assessment of the resident’s situation, especially given how vulnerable they were, and offered tailored support accordingly. Its failure to do so was inappropriate.
The landlord initially offered the resident the opportunity to move in October 2020, but the resident rejected this as the garden was too small. The landlord offered two further opportunities on 13 November and 30 November 2020, but the notes show that the resident was not keen on the properties. The resident asked the landlord in May 2021 if it could keep an eye out for any void properties with a large garden. The landlord could have offered the resident further chances to move as the anti-social behaviour persisted, but overall it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident the chance to move, particularly given there is no specific requirement for this in its policy.
The landlord has said that it used a multi-agency approach which its procedure says it should do. The anti-social behaviour policy and procedure says that the landlord should contact the Police, local authority and any relevant external agencies. The landlord’s records show that it was regularly in contact with the Police, often several times a month and also other external agencies. It also complied with the community trigger which was undertaken by the local authority. The landlord did therefore follow its procedure in regards to taking a multi-agency approach.
The resident was not happy that the landlord did not inform him of the community trigger process earlier. The resident said that it was the Tenancy Sustainment Manager that told him about the community trigger. The resident felt that this process, undertaken by the local authority, gave more importance to the case and helped lead to a resolution. Paragraph 12 of the landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy, which had the title ‘Making a complaint about the management of anti-social behaviour case’, did mention the ‘community trigger’ and explained that the procedure was activated by a complaint to the local authority.
There is also a threshold that needs to be met before the community trigger can be activated. This can include a set number of instances reported of anti-social behaviour and also other factors such as persistent anti-social behaviour and the harm or potential harm caused. Therefore, before the community trigger can be activated, there needs to be a record of reports and monitoring of the situation which can take a while. That said, the landlord informed the resident about the community trigger in September 2021 and it could have potentially done this much sooner, as the resident had been regularly reporting anti-social behaviour for over a year at that point.
The landlord cleaned up the neighbour’s rubbish after it was made aware that there had been fly-tipping. The landlord did this every time it was made aware and committed to doing this to help make the situation easier for the resident. This shows the landlord took reasonable steps in the circumstances and attempted to make the situation better for the resident.
In January 2022, the landlord informed the neighbour that it was ending his tenancy as his behaviour had not changed. The landlord said that it had tried not to take enforcement action as the neighbour was also vulnerable, but now it needed to act. Whilst this is understandable, the landlord had said to the resident that it would not be taking enforcement action in its stage two response just a month earlier. Although there were further incidents of anti-social behaviour, it does not appear that these were more significant than those previously reported. The landlord could therefore have communicated better with the resident during its complaints process, so that he knew enforcement action was a likely possibility, especially given his reports of how the situation was affecting his health.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds service failure in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

Although the landlord took a multi-agency approach and eventually resolved the anti-social behaviour reports, it did not always keep sufficient records to show how it decided that enforcement action should not be taken and did not keep the resident informed of these decisions. The landlord has demonstrated that it took into account the neighbour’s situation, but has not shown that it fully considered the resident who was also extremely vulnerable. The landlord could have also recommended the Community Trigger to the resident sooner.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay £400 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience, trouble and upset caused by the service failure in its handling of his reports of anti-social behaviour.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is a recommendation that the landlord makes its residents aware of the community trigger process once they have fulfilled the criteria for the threshold, or at the earliest possible stage.
It is recommended that the landlord improve its record keeping so that it has details of all the anti-social behaviour incidents that have been reported to it by its residents and what actions it took in response.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.