The Havebury Housing Partnership (202204113)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204113

The Havebury Housing Partnership

29 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, including noise nuisance.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a one bedroom ground floor flat. Her tenancy began on 24 June 2002.
The landlord records the resident as having autism and fibromyalgia. It updated its records in September 2021 to record anxiety and depression disclosed by her during the investigation of the antisocial behaviour case that is the subject of this report.
The flat above the resident’s is also occupied by a tenant of the landlord.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s formal complaint, she referred to antisocial behaviour issues going back to 2014 and a previous formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of these, which was partially upheld in 2016. As there is no evidence of the resident raising a further complaint with the landlord prior to 9 March 2022, this investigation will only examine events from 1 July 2021 onwards. This is eight months prior to the formal complaint being made and is when the landlord opened the antisocial behaviour case which was ongoing at the time of complaint. This is within a reasonable timeframe to consider and aligns with the landlord’s complaint responses.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that the tenant is responsible for the conduct of all people living in or visiting their home, and must ensure they do not cause a nuisance or annoy anyone in the local area.
The landlord has an antisocial behaviour, nuisance and harassment procedures document. This states that:
1. It seeks to take an incremental approach to dealing with antisocial behaviour and nuisance. It describes this as using early intervention techniques such as verbal or written warnings, home visits, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts before it will consider legal action.
2. Its tenancy and estates team are collectively responsible for all aspects of case management, including effective communication with any individuals involved and recording details and actions.
3. In exceptional circumstances, where a complainant is vulnerable or the case is complex, it may be appropriate for it to be managed by a nominated officer.
4. When it receives a report of antisocial behaviour it will respond to carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the complainant within one working day.
5. It will routinely contact complainants at a mutually agreed frequency. Typically every ten days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its complaint policy says that it will not consider complaints where the issue giving rise to a complaint occurred more than six months ago.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer discretionary compensation where it has failed to deliver a service to its advertised standard, or in recognition of residents’ distress and inconvenience or time and trouble taken.

Summary of events

On 1 July 2021, the landlord sent a contractor to the resident’s property for a drainage issue. The resident contacted the landlord to say that she believed a member of her neighbour above’s household had caused the issue by flushing items down the toilet. She also reported the neighbour’s taps being turned on and off throughout the day causing noise nuisance. The landlord opened an antisocial behaviour case.
On 5 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to raise further concerns about the neighbours. The landlord carried out a review of the case and decided not to assign it to a nominated officer. It set out a list of next steps, which included contacting the resident to create an action plan and sending her nuisance log sheets.
On 8 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report the neighbour’s household member had been slamming doors, turning taps on and off and flushing the toilet for four hours straight the previous night. The landlord signposted her to the local authority environmental services department for assistance. It said it would contact her the next day to complete an action plan.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 July 2021 and created an action plan for the case. This included visiting both her and the neighbours. It sent her nuisance log sheets to record further incidents.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 July 2021 to express dissatisfaction that the case had not progressed. She said that the noise was affecting her health. She informed the landlord that she had completed the nuisance log sheets and would send these to it. The landlord carried out a review of the case and concluded that it should conduct a home visit to the resident.
The landlord visited the resident on 21 July 2021 as part of a community door knocking exercise. The resident advised that the issues were still ongoing and she believed the noise was being made maliciously. The landlord also visited the neighbour’s property. It spoke with the household member who admitted to causing the noise nuisance and previously flushing inappropriate items down the toilet. They informed the landlord they would stop this behaviour.
On 3 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the noise nuisance was still occurring. The resident said the impact of the noise was affecting her employment and she was struggling to eat and sleep. The landlord said it would carry out a further review of the case with a view to assigning it to a nominated officer to manage. The landlord’s review noted that it had previously held a meeting with the resident and its solicitors to explain the difficulty in establishing a tenancy breach from the behaviours of the neighbour’s household member. It suggested sending a summary of the current events to different solicitors to seek advice. The landlord stated that it believed the case would ultimately end up assigned to a nominated officer but did not need to be at this time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 August 2021 to chase up the outcome of its case review. The landlord advised it would not be assigning her case to a nominated officer. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at this stating the situation had been ongoing for some years and she had completed the nuisance log sheets as requested. The following day the landlord agreed to carry out a further case review and update her the next week.
The resident called the landlord on the 7 September 2021 and 8 September 2021 chasing an update on the case. She stated she was experiencing a considerable amount of distress from the situation and that it was affecting her mental and physical health. She said the landlord needed to consider her vulnerabilities in its handling of the case. She said she had attempted to speak with the member of the neighbour’s household responsible for the noise but this had had no effect.
On 13 September 2021, the landlord assigned the case to a nominated officer to manage.
On 22 September 2021, the landlord carried out a risk assessment with the resident which assessed her as medium risk. It offered a home visit to attempt to witness the noise, which the resident declined. The landlord created an action plan which included sending a warning letter to the neighbour and carrying out case reviews every three weeks. It stated that if there was no improvement at the next review it would write to the neighbour a second time and arrange a home visit.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 October 2021 to carry out a case review. The resident stated that things had been quiet for a few days after the landlord’s letter but that the noises were now worse than before and she felt this was deliberate. The landlord sent a second warning letter to the neighbour, arranging an appointment for a home visit. It carried out the visit on 26 October 2021.
After further reports of noise from the resident, the landlord visited the neighbour again on 8 November 2021. During this visit, it offered mediation between the parties but the neighbour and their household member declined this. The landlord agreed to write to the neighbour clarifying what was and was not acceptable noise.
On 15 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the member of the neighbour’s household was now using a carpet sweeper excessively in addition to the previously reported noises. The landlord visited the neighbour’s property again on 29 November 2021 and signed an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) with the neighbour and their household member.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 20 December 2021 and 5 January 2022, reporting that the situation had not improved. She said the neighbour’s household member was now banging on the windows of their flat and throwing items out of them. The resident informed the landlord that her employment had ended, so she was at home more which had increased the impact of the noise on her mental health. The landlord signposted her to local support services. The landlord also stated it would refer the case to solicitors for legal advice.
The landlord attempted to visit the neighbour’s property on 12 January 2022 but could not gain access. It visited again on 18 January 2022 and a second ABC was signed. This had been amended to include not banging on the floor or throwing items out of windows.
The landlord visited the neighbour’s property again on 1 February 2022 and 16 February 2022 where a further ABC was signed. On 1 March 2022, the resident advised the landlord that the noises had stopped, but she believed this may be due to the neighbour’s household member being unwell. The landlord acknowledged that this was a possibility and agreed to keep the case open despite the issues having ceased.
On 9 March 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the case since 2014. She expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of consistency and communication from the landlord and the fact the situation had not been resolved. She said she did not believe the landlord had taken the matter seriously or offered her appropriate support, and had delayed in allocating her case to a nominated officer.
The resident informed the landlord that the noise had started again on 21 March 2022. The landlord visited the neighbour’s property on 23 March 2022 and signed a new ABC.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 4 April 2022. It said that:
1. Anti-social behaviour cases were initially overseen by its tenancy and estates team and only allocated to a nominated officer at the stage where it began enforcement action.
2. Following the case being opened on 1 July 2021, the tenancy and estates team had engaged with the resident’s neighbour and tried a variety of approaches to resolve the issues.
3. Following a case review, it had recognised the impact the situation was having on the resident and assigned the case to a nominated officer. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in completing a risk assessment with the resident which meant it was not initially able to understand the impact events were having on her, or best support her.
4. The incidents reported were primarily related to household noise, and so enforcement action was unlikely to be successful. However, it committed to referring the matter to its solicitors for advice and stated it was working with the neighbours to explore the possibility of them moving from the property.
5. The landlord summarised that it had acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports but acknowledged that it had not always communicated this effectively to the resident. It offered her £110 compensation for her inconvenience, distress and the lack of service she had received at times.
The resident made further reports of noise on 4 April 2022 and 20 April 2022. On 25 April 2022, the landlord carried out a visit to the neighbour’s property and a further ABC was signed.
On 4 May 2022, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process and rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the case prior to 1 July 2021 and that she felt the landlord had been concerned only about offering help and support to the neighbour’s household and not to her. She was also dissatisfied with the fact that the landlord’s stage one complaint referred to the nuisance as being “household noise” and said this showed a lack of understanding of what she had been experiencing.
The landlord received advice from its solicitors on 9 May 2022. This included a recommendation to carry out a proportionality assessment should it wish to pursue legal action. The solicitors also offered to take a witness statement from the resident to be used in any legal proceedings, which the landlord accepted.
On 25 May 2022, the landlord sent a contractor to the resident’s property as waste was coming up through her bath. The contractor found the drainage system was clogged with items including clothes, food and towels which it believed to have come from the neighbour’s flat. The landlord carried out the proportionality assessment on the same day. In this assessment, it recognised the impact of the issues on the resident and deemed it appropriate and justified to serve a notice of seeking possession on the neighbour’s tenancy.
The landlord visited the neighbour’s property on 30 May 2022. The neighbour’s household member admitted that they had been putting items down the toilet again. A final ABC was signed which had been updated to include engaging with the landlord regarding a management move and not putting household items down the toilet. The landlord also arranged for its solicitors to write a letter to the neighbour threatening legal action if the nuisance behaviour continued, this was sent on 1 June 2022.
On 6 June 2022, the landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint. It repeated that its antisocial behaviour process was that cases were not allocated to a nominated officer until they reached a particular level. However, it said it was conducting a review of how it managed cases to ensure this was effective and met residents’ needs. The landlord said it could understand the resident’s frustrations and was sorry that she felt it had prioritised the neighbours over her, but assured her that it had not. The landlord confirmed it was seeking legal advice on the case and would continue to work with other agencies and keep the resident updated. It increased its offer of compensation to £200.
On 14 June 2022, the resident’s neighbour accepted an alternative property through the landlord’s managed move process. They moved out on 4 July 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident closing the antisocial behaviour case. It advised her that it would be completing a “sensitive let” when it re-let the neighbouring property to ensure the best chance of her not experiencing further nuisance behaviour.

Assessment and findings

Upon receiving the resident’s initial report of nuisance on 1 July 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by opening an antisocial behaviour case. However, it failed to complete an action plan until 9 July 2021 and a risk assessment was not carried out until 22 September 2021, when the case was assigned to a nominated officer. This is not in keeping with the timescales within the landlord’s antisocial behaviour procedures document. Failing to complete the risk assessment delayed the landlord in fully assessing the impact of the case on the resident, giving due consideration to her vulnerabilities and making the decision to allocate a nominated officer to the case.
The landlord’s initial action plan involved visiting both the resident and the neighbour to discuss the noise issues. This allowed it to reassure the resident that her complaints were being investigated, gain an understanding of the situation from both sides, and attempt to resolve the issues using a verbal warning. This was an appropriate early intervention in line with the incremental approach explained in its procedure and was completed within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s communication with the resident from the point the case was opened until it was assigned to a nominated officer on 13 September 2021 was inconsistent, as acknowledged in its stage one and two complaint responses. Although the landlord’s records evidence that it was actively carrying out enquiries and conducting reviews of the case during this period, the resident was not appropriately updated about these. This resulted in the resident taking the time and trouble to contact the landlord chasing information and being left frustrated at an apparent lack of progress. When the decision was eventually made to allocate a nominated officer, the resident was not informed of this until over a week later.
The resident stated in their stage one complaint to the landlord that they were satisfied with the handling of the case by the nominated officer who took it over on 13 September 2021. Based on the evidence provided by the landlord to this Service, the case was handled appropriately and reasonably from this time. The landlord continued its incremental approach using warning letters, home visits and ABCs in line with its process document. It offered support to both parties, worked with partner agencies and considered a wide range of interventions – these actions were all appropriate and in line with the its ASB procedures. Throughout this period, the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident and offered timely updates.
The landlord also sought advice from its solicitors and took appropriate steps to prepare for legal proceedings. Evidence seen by this Service shows that the landlord decided not to commence legal action as the neighbour was working with it to pursue an imminent management move. This was a reasonable position and allowed the landlord to continue engaging effectively with the neighbour whilst reserving the option to take enforcement action should that engagement cease.
The situation was resolved by the neighbour moving under the landlord’s managed move process. The landlord began this process in December 2021 with the move completed in July 2022. This was a reasonable period of time and, based on the evidence provided to this Service, an appropriate outcome for all parties. The landlord also acted appropriately by committing to carrying out a sensitive let of the neighbour’s property once they had departed.
Through the complaints process, the landlord recognised there had been earlier failings in its handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports. It apologised for this, promised to learn lessons from the case and awarded compensation of £200. This was a proportionate level of compensation given the failures were for a relatively short period between July-September 2021 and demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused.
In summary, the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s case was not in keeping with its relevant process and it did not communicate updates to the resident in a reasonable timely manner. However, its compensation award and actions following the allocation of the case to a nominated officer offered sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case. Its service subsequently improved and the case was managed appropriately to a satisfactory conclusion.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour, including noise nuisance, satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord’s complaint responses recognised its failings and apologised to the resident. It showed willingness to learn from the complaint by carrying out a review of how it managed antisocial behaviour cases. The offer of £200 compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of “service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord:
1. Completes a review of how it manages antisocial behaviour cases as referenced in its stage two complaint response.
2. Makes payment to the resident of the £200 compensation offered in its stage two complaint response.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.