The Guinness Partnership Limited (202213395)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213395

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

29 September 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 antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy. The property is a 3 bed flat in a converted house with sole use of a garden area. The tenancy started on 14 October 2019. The landlord’s records show a history of the residents having both physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
The landlord and resident acknowledge a history of disputes and ASB reports between the resident and her neighbour throughout her tenancy. In April 2022, she raised further reports of ongoing ASB from her neighbour around post in the communal area, her neighbour’s behaviour towards her and moving things in her garden.
A formal complaint was raised in July 2022 around the handling of the ASB. Within the complaint, the resident requested a management transfer. The landlord declined the request in its formal response and the resident remained unhappy with both the landlord’s handling of the ASB and its handling of her complaint.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says that upon receiving a report of alleged ASB, it will acknowledge this with the reporting person within two days and arrange a meeting within ten working days.
Within the ASB policy it states that where the issue is considered a “neighbour dispute” which is defined as “where there is no harm committed” it will refer them to independent mediation. It says “if this option is rejected by the resident the case will be closed”.
The ASB policy provides examples of reports that are not considered as ASB within its definition. These include:
1. “Sounds of normal day to day living, such as opening and closing of doors, going up and down stairs”.
2. “Minor personal differences”.
The landlords Management Transfer policy says that a resident can be “awarded a priority status to a transfer application, where the applicant’s circumstances represent a threat to life”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy as below:
1. Stage one – Landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two working days with a full response provided within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. If this will not be possible, it should agree an alternative timescale.
2. Stage two – Landlord will acknowledge the escalation and provide a response within 20 working days. If this will not be possible, it should agree an alternative timescale.

Summary of events

The landlord attended the property on 22 April 2022 and spoke to both the resident and her neighbour. This was in relation to her recent ASB report around newspapers and other post accumulating in the communal area. The resident emailed the landlord later that day and disputed the neighbour’s version of events. She also provided pictures of the garden, as she had reported fence slats having been moved and an issue with another fence being loose. She said this was due to “whatever the neighbour was doing against it the other day”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 May 2022 as “I was expecting you to call as you said the week after your visit that you would”. She said she had “booked in for a call with you last week and did not get one”. She asked for an update following the previous visit.
The landlord replied to the resident on 16 May 2022 and said a works order had been raised to clear the newspapers in the communal area. An inspection of the garden fence had also been raised. The landlord said they would call the next day to provide an update. This Service has not had sight of any evidence of a call being made.
On 18 May 2022, the resident reported that her neighbour was “shouting and swearing at me for walking down my stairs”. She said she was “not feeling safe and comfortable in my own home”.
Following a discussion with the landlord that day, the resident provided evidence of ASB diary sheets on 7 June 2022. These detail 11 incidents between 21 April 2022 and 1 June 2022. The resident’s diary sheets included the following:
1. Neighbour used the name “Tiny Tim” on three occasions around her.
2. Neighbour had shouted as she went down the stairs to check the back door was locked. She noted “I feel threaten, scared”.
3. On one occasion they both went to the door at the same time, resident said “he looks at me and smirks”.
4. After parking up one day “I notice the neighbour is doing something to my letter box” and found “clean me” written on it.
5. Resident said “I notice a chair in the garden has been knocked over” and “only neighbour downstairs can see it and touch it”.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 July 2022. She said that the landlord was not offering support following her ASB reports, despite the issues having been ongoing for three years. She said that the landlord had been aware of this but “communication has been awful”, “when someone says they will call me back no one does” and “I do not get a follow up”. The resident said this had left her feeling “unsafe and scared in my home” due to “bullying behaviour, harassment and nuisance as well as personal belongings ruined”.
The Customer Relationship Manager (CRM) contacted the resident on 3 August 2022 to discuss the resident’s ASB concerns. The resident explained that there had been “increased noise disturbances, hostile interactions and further disagreements over the shared area”. The resident said she would like to move to another property in the local area. The landlord invited the resident to attend its office on 15 September 2022 to discuss the concerns further.
A letter was issued to the resident’s neighbour on 3 August 2022 reiterating the “standard of behaviour” expected as part of the occupancy agreement. It noted that although the level of uncollected post in the communal area had reduced, there had been a further build up and residents were required to clear the area.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 4 August 2022. It acknowledged the reasons for the complaint detailed in the resident’s complaint. Within its response it said:
1. It acknowledged a previous failure to respond to her call back request, on 12 July 2022, by the CRM.
2. Mediation had been offered but the resident declined the offer. The landlord asked that she reconsider this.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had attended mediation previously due to separate issues with the same neighbour and said it would arrange a review of the case with the resident at the landlord’s offices.
4. It would write to the resident and her neighbour “reminding everyone of their shared responsibilities of the communal area”.
5. The landlord offered a compensation payment of £25 due to “service failure (communication)”.
The resident responded on the same day and requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two. Within the email, the resident explained her reasons for the escalation:
1. Communication issues were not isolated to the one instance from July 2022. Previous emails and ASB reports had not “been seen”.
2. ASB had been ongoing for three years.
3. Previous mediation agreements had been broken by her neighbour.
4. Resident believed the ASB “won’t go away unless one of us is moved”.
The landlord acknowledged the stage two escalation request on 5 August 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 August 2022 and said that she would like to be considered for a management transfer due to the ongoing ASB.
The resident provided evidence of recordings taken while she was in the garden of the property in which she claimed her neighbour had called her “big bird”. This Service has reviewed the recording and there is a male voice that says “big bird” it cannot be determined what this is in reference to.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 August 2022 and informed her that “further clarification is being sought regarding some of the concerns you have raised”. It said it expected to issue the stage two response by 15 September 2022.
On 14 September 2022, the landlord provided a stage two response to the resident’s complaint. Within its response it included a copy of the Management Transfer policy and said the following:
1. It offered another apology for the issues raised in the stage one complaint.
2. It “acknowledged your poor relationship with your neighbour and this has been ongoing since you moved in” but “your current circumstances do not meet the threshold for a Management Priority Transfer”.
3. It said there was a high qualifying criteria for these transfers as it had “very few properties becoming available”. It explained that “even if the landlord did award a management transfer, you would be waiting many years for a suitable property to become available”.
4. It said if the resident’s circumstances changed, it would review her case.
5. It recommended using “Homeswapper” for a potential mutual exchange or seeking advice from “local authority housing options service”.
6. It acknowledged the evidence the resident had provided but said it could not verify that it was her neighbour that had said “big bird”.
7. The diary sheets and other evidence provided did not “show a threat to life”.
8. It said it would arrange a medical assessment to see if there was “any medical priority to move based on our current policy”.
9. It acknowledged it could have been “more proactive” with previous reports of ASB and it offered an increased compensation payment totalling £100.
The resident emailed the CRM on 22 September 2022 chasing a call she was waiting on. She said she had requested another call two weeks prior but still hadn’t received that.
The CRM emailed on 27 September 2022 and said they were “putting the allegations forward and hope to take the appropriate action based on the feedback provided”. They asked for details of anything further that had occurred since the recent meeting.
The resident responded the next day and said she was waiting for a call following the CRM’s discussion with her neighbour following her claim he called her “big bird”. She said the CRM had said he would call to “discuss next steps which I was happy to think about”.
On 30 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the neighbour to indicate that ASB had been reported and they invited the neighbour to a meeting at its office on 7 October 2022.
The CRM responded to the resident on 6 October 2022 and said they would provide a clear update next week. They asked for permission to play her recordings to her neighbour.
The neighbour attended an interview at the landlord’s office on 7 October 2022. Following the interview, the CRM noted the following:
1. The neighbour disputed looking over the fence, as he cannot due to its height. The landlord was invited to the property to verify this.
2. He disputed damaging a greenhouse and invited the landlord to verify this.
3. He disputed calling the resident “big bird” and said he was referring to a bird that frequently visits the local gardens.
4. A home visit by the CRM was arranged for 14 October 2022.
The landlord attended the property on 14 October 2022 and noted “garden has large surroundings with nature so difficult to determine ‘big bird’ was in reference to a specific person”. The notes also stated that the fence area could not be “looked over”.
Landlord records show that the CRM reviewed the ASB case on 20 November 2022 and found no further reports had been made since the visit on 14 October 2022.
A different CRM contacted the resident on 8 December 2022 to discuss closing the ASB case. The resident was noted as saying she did not wish to close the case and was unhappy that she had not received a call from the former CRM with any update following their discussion with her neighbour. The new CRM agreed to obtain an update and call her back.
The new CRM called to update the resident on 9 December 2022 and noted that the resident did not wish to consider mediation as an option as it had not worked previously.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023 and asked for permission to install a Ring doorbell due to recurring issues with post and parcels with her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is accepted that there have been historical reports of ASB between the resident and her neighbour during her tenancy. However, a formal complaint was not raised around the landlord’s management of these reports until July 2022.
This report has therefore focussed on the events that occurred from six months prior to July 2022 until the end of the internal complaint process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports

It is acknowledged that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of ASB. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
The landlord’s ASB policy applies the definition of ASB from the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. The definition of ASB is subjective and whether a behaviour is considered to be antisocial or not depends on the impact that it has on others. In this case, the resident was clearly distressed at the behaviour of her neighbour and reported that it was impacting on her mental health and daily living.
It is evident that the landlord did not open an ASB case in April 2022, as it considered the issues raised, as per its ASB policy, did not constitute ASB. Instead it was managed as a neighbour dispute. It is the view of this Service that the landlord took reasonable steps at this time, by attending the property and speaking to both parties in the hope of bringing about an amicable resolution.
It is the view of this Service that the landlord’s explanation of the difference between a “neighbour dispute” and ASB could be restrictive. It says a report will be considered a neighbour dispute, rather than ASB, “where there is no harm committed”. However, the idea of what is considered “harm” is subjective and depends on the position of the person considering what is “harm”. Resident’s making a report of what they consider ASB will, in most cases, consider that the report itself insinuates some form of harm. This could lead to residents reports of ASB being incorrectly labelled as neighbour disputes and an inconsistent approach to the landlord’s management of them.
The landlord addressed the cause of the initial dispute by arranging for removal of the newspapers in the communal area and for an inspection of the fences. The landlord also requested that the resident maintain a diary of any incidents that she considered ASB. Although the landlord did not consider the initial reports warranted it opening an ASB case, it did demonstrate an understanding that these issues were causing the resident some distress. In requesting that a diary of such incidents is kept, it has shown that further incidents may lead to an ASB case being opened.
It is evident that after copies of the diary sheets were provided in June 2022, there was a clear lack of engagement from the landlord. Its ASB policy says that it should acknowledge this within two days and arrange a meeting with the resident. However, this Service has not had sight of any records of any further actions or correspondence between 7 June 2022 and the stage one complaint being logged on 27 July 2022. Regardless of the landlord’s assessment of those reports, it should have communicated an acknowledgement and arranged a meeting to discuss them further. This is a failing on the part of the landlord which left the resident feeling, as stated in her complaint, that “communication has been awful” and that when she raised reports “I do not get a follow up”.
During the period reviewed as part of this investigation, the resident had on several occasions raised concerns that she had requested calls from the landlord but did not receive them. The landlord acknowledged at least one failure to call the resident and there were other instances of the landlord agreeing to call but no evidence provided to show that these were made. Further to this, there are significant gaps in contact between the resident and the landlord, which then led to the resident having to chase a response. Given the repeated nature of this particular issue, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have established a contact agreement with her. Contact agreements are usually part of the process when an ASB case is logged. However, given the number of incidents of this being raised in her correspondence, the landlord should have utilised a similar agreement to ensure the resident was kept up to date and wasn’t left feeling isolated in dealing with her concerns. This would have set the resident’s expectations and reduced the time and trouble involved. The repeated ignoring of requests for call backs would have led to the resident feeling distressed and caused unnecessary trouble for her in chasing responses.
When the landlord contacted the resident on 3 August 2022 to discuss the case in detail, an interview is arranged for 15 September 2022. The landlord did not provide any explanation of why this interview was arranged for six weeks after the call. Although the interview was a positive step in obtaining a full understanding of the resident’s ASB concerns, the delay in this taking place could only have led to the resident feeling as if her reports were not being treated with any urgency.
Following the stage one complaint, it is evident that the landlord acted on the resident’s complaint in which she expressed feelings of being “unsafe” and “scared”. Although there is no requirement within its ASB policy, given these expressions being used within the complaint, the landlord should have carried out a risk assessment at this stage. Risk assessments are accepted as good practice and essential in managing risk. By not carrying out a risk assessment, the landlord may have been unaware of potential vulnerabilities and impacts on the resident. This could lead to missed opportunities to signpost for support.
It is evident that following the complaint, an ASB case was opened and the landlord took more significant steps to address the reports of ASB from the resident. Initially a letter was sent to the neighbour to reiterate the expected standard of behaviour and highlighting a continued issue with a build-up of mail in the communal area. However, following further claims of intimidation and ‘name calling’, a further letter was sent to advise the neighbour of the reports of ASB that had been made against him. Interviews were also arranged with both parties in an attempt to understand and address the incidents raised by the resident, with the residents accusations of hostile interactions, harassment and damage to her property raised with her neighbour. This level of involvement from the landlord was essential in making the resident feel like her concerns were being taken seriously.
It is evident that following the landlord’s interview with the neighbour and its visit to the property in October 2022, there were no further reports of ASB made by the resident. In taking these actions, the landlord has shown that it had taken the reports more seriously following the resident’s complaint. As her neighbour denied the allegations that were made and in the absence of conclusive evidence, the landlord was reasonable in its decision not to take any further or more significant action. This demonstrates that although no significant measures were taken, it appeared it had managed to stop disputes between the resident and her neighbour.
It is evident that an agreed behaviour contract was suggested within stage two complaint response but this Service has not had sight of any such agreement being made. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as this could have reinforced its position around the ASB reports. However, as there were no more ASB reports from the resident following the actions it did take, there does not appear to have been any real detriment in it not doing so.
It is clear that the landlord could have taken steps sooner to address the reports of ASB in this case, even if the initial reports were only considered a neighbour dispute. It failed to respond to the reports raised on 7 June 2022, in line with its ASB policy, which led to a delay in it taking the actions it did following the complaint on 27 July 2022. Had it responded the way it did following the complaint, these issues could have been addressed earlier. The landlord did then take reasonable steps in addressing the ASB reports following the complaint and its eventual actions led to no further reported ASB at the property. When considering the management of this process and taking into account the compensation proposed, this Service considers it appropriate to make a finding of reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint. This may have been a finding of service failure had the landlord not taken some steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. The finding reflects that there was service failure by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

At both stages of the complaint process, the landlord met the timescales set out in its complaint policy. The stage two response was delayed but the landlord informed the resident of this delay prior to the 20 working days being up and provided a new date for the response, which it met.
At both stages of the complaint, the landlord showed a clear understanding of the resident’s complaints and acknowledged some of its failings. Despite acknowledging its failure to call the resident back on 12 July 2022, it did not consider the lack of response to her email of 7 June 2022, regarding her ASB concerns. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as had it investigated the management of the ASB reports thoroughly, it would have identified this delay. This lack of acknowledgement is evident in the resident’s escalation request as she said communication issues were not isolated to that one incident.
The landlord has shown that it took the actions proposed in its responses at both stages of the complaint.
Within its stage two response, it provided a detailed response to the resident’s request for a management transfer, along with a copy of its policy for reference. It demonstrated that the residents ASB reports had been considered and also indicated that if her circumstances changed, this may lead to her meeting the qualifying criteria. It directed the resident to other means of obtaining a new property and also suggested a medical assessment to see if this led to a change in her priority banding for a move. This level of detail showed that the resident’s situation had been considered and an increase is made to its offer of a goodwill gesture, following its review.
Ultimately, the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy. It initially failed to acknowledge the severity of the communication issues she had raised but this was acknowledged in its stage two response. The resident’s requested resolution of a management transfer could not be agreed as the ASB reports did not meet the criteria of “a threat to life”. However, the landlord explained this and offered further support and advice in her search for a move. Having reviewed the management of this process, there was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports

Initially managing the ASB reports as a neighbour dispute, the landlord took steps to resolve the monitor the situation. It did fail to provide adequate response to the resident’s diary sheets in June 2022 and her requests for contact following this. This led to a formal complaint after which the landlord engaged with both the resident and her neighbour in trying to bring a resolution to the ongoing issues. The actions of the landlord were successful in reducing ASB reports from the resident after its meeting with the neighbour in October 2022. The landlord did recognise the communication issues within its complaint and it provided a reasonable offer of compensation to acknowledge them. On this basis, this Service considers there was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord managed the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and although it did not acknowledge the communication issues and lack of response to the ASB reports in full, these were acknowledged upon review of the stage one complaint. The landlord showed a good understanding of the complaint, explained its position around the management transfer, offered alternatives to the that process and made a reasonable offer of compensation. Therefore, this Service found there was no maladministration.

Recommendations

The landlord should also make the payment of £100 proposed in its stage two response, if this has not already been provided. If required, this should be make the payment directly to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should review its ASB policy to include:
1. Less subjective definition of ‘neighbour dispute’.
2. Completion of risk assessments.
3. Issuing action plans, including proposals where reported ASB is determined to be a neighbour dispute.
4. Review of positioning of ‘neighbour dispute’ within its ASB policies and practices following initial assessment.
5. Further development of neighbour dispute policy beyond its currently limited content.