Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Two Rivers Housing (202328582)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328582

Two Rivers Housing

15 January 2025

 

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The complaint has been brought by 2 residents who live in a terraced house under an assured tenancy. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The residents have both declared vulnerabilities to the landlord and the Ombudsman as part of this complaint process including one resident being deaf and the other having a heart condition.
  3. The complaint centres around longstanding ASB from the residents’ neighbour. This included:
    1. Noise during antisocial hours of the night such as banging, shouting, and loud music.
    2. The neighbour “punching” or using a hammer to make large holes in his internal walls.
    3. The neighbour damaging their own property and possessions causing noise and distress to the residents.
    4. The neighbour’s dog barking at antisocial hours.
  4. Alongside this, the residents believed that the neighbour was being targeted by a third party, which also led to their property being damaged or targeted on occasions. This included:
    1. Hearing the neighbour’s door being “kicked in” on an “almost nightly basis”.
    2. Faeces and food objects (such as eggs, baked beans, and sauce) being thrown at the neighbour’s property and attracting flies and vermin. On at least 4 occasions, the residents reported that eggs had also been thrown at their property.
    3. The neighbour’s windows being broken on at least 2 occasions.
    4. Damage caused to the residents’ front door, which they believed was caused by an air rifle.
    5. A window on the residents’ car was broken. An unconnected neighbour also reported that a third party had broken their car window.
  5. The residents raised a complaint on 3 July 2023 in which they said they had experienced ASB and noise nuisance from their neighbour for over 2 years. The residents also said that their neighbour had displayed “acts of violence” which had left them feeling scared to live in their own home. The residents were seeking for their neighbour to be relocated as the ongoing ASB was affecting their sleep, health, and wellbeing.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 July 2023 in which it said:
    1. It acknowledged the ASB was longstanding and said it was actively working with the residents’ neighbour and relevant agencies to resolve the situation. Previously, the court had granted an injunction, but this had since lapsed.
    2. It noted that when the neighbour’s partner had left the property, this had almost completely resolved the noise nuisance issues being reported.
    3. It had offered a safety alarm or video doorbell; however, these were not suitable for the residents.
    4. It was exploring options to have both noise monitoring equipment and an ASB camera installed.
    5. It was considering an acceptable behaviour agreement with the neighbour.
  7. The residents escalated their complaint on 7 August 2023 and said:
    1. The landlord had misquoted them in its stage 1 complaint response as the ASB had not reduced significantly, as the response had indicated.
    2. They felt the landlord had not followed through on enforcement against breaches of the ASB injunction.
    3. They felt the landlord had focussed the stage 1 complaint response on the neighbour being targeted by third parties and not fully considered the noise nuisances being generated by the neighbour themselves.
    4. That security measures that the landlord had offered (a personal alarm and Wi-Fi-based CCTV camera) were not suitable and did not offer the protection required.
    5. The landlord had not fully considered the impact of the ongoing ASB on the residents’ health, sleep, and wellbeing, particularly as they felt unsafe in their home.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 September 2023 in which it partially upheld the residents’ complaint. It said:
    1. It acknowledged that the action taken to address the noise nuisance had taken longer than it should have and was now being pursued as a priority.
    2. It had spoken to the residents’ neighbour, visited his property, challenged their behaviour, and was considering legal recourse.
    3. It was aware of the residents’ health needs and was considering what additional support it could put in place.
    4. It had made changes to its wider ASB processes including introducing a triage system, changing the process for logging ASB reports, undertaking more regular case reviews, and employing additional staff.
    5. It would pay £750 compensation as a “discretionary payment”.
  9. The residents remained dissatisfied and escalated their complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 November 2023. This was following further ASB incidents. They are seeking further enforcement action by the landlord, including moving the neighbour to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The evidence provided in this case indicates that there have been reports of ASB between the residents and their neighbour since at least November 2020 and some references to a period of at least 2 years before this.
  2. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be 12 months from the matters arising. This is in the interest of fairness to both parties and to ensure that contemporary records are available to support the investigations by both the landlord and this Service.
  3. On this basis, this investigation will only consider matters raised by the resident from 3 July 2022 onwards, as this was 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint.

ASB

  1. The landlord’s policy adopts the definition of ASB given in Part 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act), namely behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance, or annoyance.
  2. Within its policy, the landlord outlines a range of interventions it could use, including warning letters, acceptable behaviour agreements, mediation, and tenancy warnings or eviction.
  3. The Act sets out a range of powers that the local authority, police, or courts can utilise in cases of ASB, including injunctions, community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders, closure orders, and public space protection orders. While the landlord could not apply many of these options directly, it can consider making referrals or applications to other multi-agency partners, where appropriate.
  4. The residents first reported ASB and noise nuisance from the neighbour’s property around November 2020. They raised their formal complaint regarding this on 3 July 2023. The residents told this Service that the ASB against the neighbour’s property and the noise nuisance are ongoing at the time of investigation. This represents a period of over 18 months from the time of the resident’s formal complaint.
  5. In the intervening period, the landlord took the following actions to attempt to resolve or mitigate the ASB, in line with its ASB policy:
    1. Written to the neighbour on several occasions to highlight the noise nuisance and other antisocial behaviour. The landlord has also written to the neighbour about the condition of their property and warned that this may breach their tenancy if it continued.
    2. Met in person with the neighbour at their property to discuss their behaviour and conduct inspections. The neighbour has often declined access or restricted access during these visits.
    3. Attempted to undertake repairs in the neighbour’s property following damage caused by the neighbour or the third parties targeting the property. The evidence shows that this was often frustrated, delayed, or prohibited due to a lack of contact or access from the neighbour. The landlord took reasonable steps to progress this, including sending warning letters and undertaking further home visits.
    4. Attempted to complete an acceptable behaviour agreement with the neighbour; however, they declined to sign this.
    5. Provided advice to both the residents and their neighbour around moving property under its managed move policy. The landlord also advised the neighbour to consider making a homelessness application due to their safety concerns. The evidence suggests that, to date, neither party has progressed with a managed move application.
    6. Made timely reports to the police related to alleged criminal behaviour, in line with its ASB policy which said it would work with all relevant statutory, non-statutory and community agencies necessary to resolve ASB matters. The evidence shows that the landlord regularly contacted both the residents and neighbour to obtain details (such as crime numbers) in order to progress and monitor matters internally with the police.
    7. Conducted neighbourhood walkabouts and door knocking, including joint visits with the police to obtain further evidence of ASB.
    8. Followed up with the police after they had suggested installing an ASB camera. The police only had 3 of these cameras and therefore the installation near the residents’ address was delayed as they were all in use at the time when the police first requested them. There was also a technical issue which meant that the police could not remove footage from the camera for a period of several weeks. This was not within the landlord’s control. However, the evidence shows that they pursued this matter regularly, to obtain further evidence to progress legal action and the residents were kept informed of this throughout.
    9. Liaised with other third-party services supporting the neighbour.
    10. Took the ASB case to a multi-agency meeting for discussion and input from partner agencies.
  6. The landlord also arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed in the property. This was a reasonable step, particularly given that the residents did not have Wi-Fi or smartphone access for the more commonly used ‘Noise App.’ The landlord took around 6 months to secure the noise monitoring equipment, and this was an unreasonable delay that may have resulted in missed opportunities to collect evidence to support legal action. This caused additional time, trouble and inconvenience to the residents who were already fearful of living in their own property.
  7. Part of this complaint relates to the actions of third parties in the community causing damage to the residents’ and their neighbour’s property. The landlord is very limited in what action it can take to manage potential criminal behaviour from third parties, as this it outside its jurisdiction and responsibility. The evidence shows that it relayed potential criminal acts to the police in a timely way and encouraged both the residents and their neighbour to do the same. This was a reasonable response to these concerns.
  8. There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered other practical measures for reducing noise transference between the resident’s property and their neighbour. This might have included consideration of soundproofing. During one visit to the property, the landlord’s staff noted that there was no carpet in the upstairs of the property and that this would cause more noise to be transferred. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action to address this. This was a failure to consider how it may have assisted with reducing the transference experienced by the residents.
  9. As a resolution to this complaint, the residents were seeking the neighbour being moved to a different property. This is not a remedy that can be ordered by the Ombudsman. If the landlord were to pursue this option, it would need to complete a legal eviction process. While ASB and noise nuisance can both be grounds for eviction, this requires substantial evidence to meet the thresholds required to issue an eviction notice. The evidence shows that the landlord was actively monitoring the situation and took legal advice around the next steps. The landlord did advise the residents on several occasions that it required additional evidence to progress these matters.
  10. Within its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the ongoing ASB being experienced by the residents. It also outlined what practical steps it would take to address this.
  11. In addition, in its stage 2 complaint response, it offered £750 as a “discretionary payment” of compensation. The response did not outline why the landlord had paid this compensation. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to clearly explain which failing it was addressing with the compensation in line with its obligations under the Complaint Handling Code. Notwithstanding this, the compensation offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance given the level of distress and inconvenience that the residents have experienced.
  12. Since the stage 2 complaint response, there is evidence that the ASB is ongoing. The residents have told this Service that the landlord has obtained a new injunction in or around May 2024 and is now considering what, if any, enforcement action may be taken in the future against ongoing breaches.
  13. Overall, the evidence shows that although there were delays in the landlord deploying sound monitoring equipment, it paid £750 compensation in respect of this and the wider circumstances. The landlord has also undertaken a range of other appropriate and timely action including writing and speaking the neighbour, working with multi-agency partners and progressing legal action as sufficient evidence became available. It is acknowledged that the ongoing situation will have significant impacts on the residents’ enjoyment of their property, however the evidence shows that the landlord has acted reasonably, in line with its policy, in managing the concerns to date.
  14. On this basis, there has been reasonable redress offered by the landlord, prior to investigation which has resolved the complaint satisfactorily. The landlord should complete an ASB action plan and share this with the residents to give a clear indication of its future intent. It should also continue to work with the residents and multi-agency partners to progress any future reports of ASB and reiterate its advice to all parties around moving homes, if they still wish to pursue this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the residents prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Create an ASB action plan which outlines that action it has taken to date to address the residents’ concerns around noise nuisance and how it proposes to address the concerns moving forward. The plan must include:
      1. A clear progression for action if the neighbour’s behaviour does not improve.
      2. Realistic deadlines for action to be taken if there is no improvement in the neighbour’s behaviour.
      3. Consideration of any practical measures within either property which might reduce noise transference in the interim.
      4. An assessment of what measures would assist with obtaining the evidence needed to progress the matter, for example further noise recordings.
      5. An overview of multi-agency work that is being taken to address the issue. This Service acknowledges that operational sensitivities or confidentiality may prohibit full details being shared with the residents.
    2. Continue to liaise with the residents, other third parties, and the police to report potential criminal actions against either the residents’ or their neighbour’s property.
    3. Review its procedures and any associated templates related to compensation to ensure that these clearly outline the reasons that compensation is being paid.
    4. Reiterate its advice to the residents and their neighbour about its position on managed moves and support either party to progress these applications if they wish to.