Torus62 Limited (202207353)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207353

Torus62 Limited

22 May 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The landlord’s decision to issue the resident a tenancy warning.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a one-bedroom flat in a block.
  2. On 14 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord in order to report ASB (noise nuisance) by one of his neighbours. He was advised to record and upload any noises to the landlord’s noise application. He was also advised to note any future occurrences in incident diaries, and the landlord said it would contact him within two weeks. The resident said the issue was making him very anxious, and said he was not receiving mental health support. The landlord recommended he contact his GP for support. The officer unsuccessfully attempted to contact the resident again in order to review his case and set up an agreed action plan, and then subsequently wrote to him, asking him to make contact.
  3. On 4 April 2022, the resident advised the landlord that he had taken some noise recordings. The landlord attempted to arrange an appointment to interview him, but was unable to get the resident to agree to a date.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint on 12 April 2022. He complained that the officer he had been dealing with had been unprofessional, not been proactive, and had made assumptions about him. The resident wanted someone else to investigate his ASB case.
  5. On 13 April 2022, the landlord advised the resident that no noise reports had been received from other tenants, but that other tenants had reported that the resident had caused some disturbance in his own efforts to locate the source of the noise. The landlord said it would make further enquiries, and said the resident would be placed on a waiting list for the noise recording equipment, and that he would be contacted within two weeks.
  6. The resident reported further noise to the landlord on 21 April 2022, but said he had not recorded it with his noise app. He was reminded to do so in order to capture evidence. The resident subsequently uploaded noise app recordings. However, upon reviewing them, the landlord heard no significant noises.
  7. The landlord told the resident on 27 April 2022 that it had received reports about his CCTV potentially infringing on neighbours’ privacy. It advised him that his CCTV camera should focus on his property only. It was also noted at this point that the landlord had referred the resident to its support team. officer had made a referral to the landlord’s support team who were now supporting him.
  8. On 11 May 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it would contact him every two weeks until the noise issue was resolved. Between 11 May 2022 and 22 June 2022, it contacted the resident nine more times regarding the ongoing noise, and also wrote to other tenants about the noise reports. The landlord also discussed with the resident the state of his physical and mental health.
  9. On 17 May 2022, the resident reported that he had been woken up a number of times by banging by three of his adjoining neighbours. He advised that he had reported the matter to the police, who he said told him the neighbours’ actions would be considered to be harassment.
  10. On 8 June 2022, while on the phone with the landlord, the resident said he was recording the conversation. The landlord ended the call. Following this, the resident amended his complaint to include the terminated call, and disputed the CCTV issue.
  11. The landlord issued its first complaint response on 22 June 2022. It described the steps it had taken following the ASB reports and concluded that its officers had acted appropriately. It explained why the call had been ended (because he was recording without the other party’s knowledge). It explained why it had written to him about the CCTV, and noted that its officer had already had further discussions with him about it. It explained that it would not change the officer dealing with the resident’s ASB case.
  12. On 4 July 2022, one of the resident’s neighbours reported noise disturbance from the resident.
  13.  Following this latest report about the resident the landlord sent him a tenancy warning letter on 6 July 2022. It explained it had received ASB reports about him from other tenants in relation to noise, threatening behaviour, and the CCTV. It referred him to his tenancy obligations, and also explained that this noise he had been reporting appeared to be everyday household noise rather than ASB. It told him that the warning “will remain on your tenancy file and will be referred to if Torus are requested to provide a reference for you in the future.” The landlord urged the resident to engage with his support and health care teams.
  14. On 8 July 2022, the resident escalated his complaint because of the tenancy warning that he had received. He disputed the allegations about him, and said he had supporting evidence. He complained that he had not been contacted before issuing the warning letter, and that the landlord was siding with his neighbours. He explained the impact these issues were having on his mental health, and said he did not feel there was any point in making further ASB reports.
  15. On 27 July 2022, the landlord issued its final complaint response. It explained that it had investigated how the resident’s ASB reports had been handled, and that the warning letter had been sent in line with its ASB policy. It noted that its officers had subsequently visited the resident to discuss his concerns, that he had agreed to try mediation with his neighbours, and that noise monitoring equipment had now been installed. It asked the resident to continue to engage with its ASB officers. It explained how the resident could escalate his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
  16. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with how the landlord had responded to his ASB reports, and because it had issued him a tenancy warning. He wanted the warning removed from his file, and for the landlord to resolve the ASB he was experiencing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that there are steps it can take to support residents experiencing ASB. This includes dealing with reports promptly, and keeping residents updated and informed of developments.
  2. The resident initially reported ASB to the landlord on 14 March 2022, and the landlord responded on 21 March 2022, within one week. The landlord provided updates on its actions in relation to speaking to other residents about the noise he had been experiencing. That was an important action to take, because for a landlord to take formal ASB action it needs evidence, and speaking with potential witnesses is one way of gathering that.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy, under section 6.2, also states that where necessary the landlord should refer residents to support services. In this case, the landlord recommended to the resident that he contact his GP. It also contacted the police on his behalf to see if they could provide support. Furthermore, the landlord referred the resident to its own support team. Finally, upon discovering that a family member had recently passed away, the landlord provided information about bereavement support. These were therefore appropriate actions by the landlord, in line with its policy, and with good practice.
  4. Section 6.2 of the landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord and resident should agree upon a realistic action plan where appropriate, and the landlord should communicate with them on a regular basis by an agreed method of communication throughout the investigation and any subsequent action. During its initial contact in March 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it would contact him within two weeks, and it did do this by attempting to contact him a number of times on 1 April 2022, in order to review his case and setup an action plan. After failing to make contact, the landlord wrote to him on the same day and asked him to call it. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately by adhering to the commitment that it had made to the resident.
  5. The resident notified the landlord, on 5 April 2022, that he had recorded the noise nuisance. However, despite trying, the landlord was unable to arrange an appointment date on which it could listen to the recordings and interview him. Nonetheless, this is further evidence of the landlord attempting to work with the resident to resolve his concerns.
  6. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord should consider a range of methods, where appropriate, to assess risk, resolve the ASB, and reassure the resident. The landlord did this by installing noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property; provided ongoing support and contact in line with what had been agreed with the resident; making a referral to its own support team; and liaising with the police where necessary. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps in response to the resident’s ASB reports – in line with its policy and good practice.
  7. The resident has provided recent information and evidence about the ongoing noise disturbance he says he continues to experience. Such reports and evidence should be given to the landlord, as the landlord is responsible for considering them and taking appropriate steps where that is warranted.

The tenancy warning

  1. The resident said in his complaint to the Ombudsman that he wanted the landlord to remove the warning from his file. While there could be some circumstances in which the Ombudsman might consider making such an order, this type of issue relates to personal data accuracy and storage, which is the primary remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO). The ICO is the more appropriate organisation to respond to such a request, and so it will not be considered in this investigation. The contact details for the ICO can be found online at its website.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that residents should behave appropriately and in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreements states that  the resident should not cause nuisance, alarm, or distress to neighbours.
  3. The landlord issued the tenancy warning to the resident because of the reports it had received about him from some of his neighbours, who had alleged he had acted in a threatening manner and believed he was using his CCTV inappropriately. It is important to appreciate that the letter was a warning that the landlord had received such reports, and that such behaviour could put his tenancy at risk, not a statement that the allegations had been proven. It was an appropriate and standard action to take in such circumstances. It is basic good practice to write to an alleged ASB perpetrator to alert them to any reports made about their behaviour, and give them the opportunity to either change their behaviour or dispute the allegations.
  4. The resident complained that the landlord should have spoken to him before sending the letter. In some circumstances that might have been the appropriate action to take, and even if the call was followed up with the letter, it would have at least allowed the resident to provide his own version of events, and potentially be reassured that he was being listened to. It would also have been in line with the wide ranging support the landlord had been offering or suggesting to the resident. The landlord explained in its complaint response that the warning had been in line with its procedures, and there is no evidence suggesting the landlord was obliged to contact the resident before sending the letter. Nonetheless, a recommendation is made below in regard to this issue.
  5. Having issued the warning, it stands to reason that the landlord would keep a record of its for future reference, if necessary – just as it would with any other information it holds in relation to the resident’s tenancy. As explained above, if the resident has concerns about the landlord’s retention of the letter he may wish to contact the ICO for advice.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. decision to issue the resident with a tenancy warning.

Recommendations

  1. In cases such as this one, where there are allegations and counter allegations, the landlord may wish to consider how it communicates any formal warnings, so as to avoid any perception from either party that a warning is being issued unfairly or unjustly.