Yorkshire Housing Limited (202127465)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127465

Yorkshire Housing Limited

23 October 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 (ASB).

The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s complaint concerns ASB which he experienced from other residents in the road which was long standing in nature. The resident has provided information to this Service regarding ASB which dates back to 2017.

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out in its Scheme. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

The resident’s complaint which is the subject of this investigation was logged by the resident with the landlord on 29 April 2021.This investigation report will therefore focus on the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of ASB from six months prior to that date.

To the extent that the resident’s prior reports of ASB and the landlord’s responses to them are relevant by way of background and context, this is set out below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord of a one bedroom flat under a tenancy agreement commencing 17 April 2015. It is understood that the resident moved out of the property in about May 2022.

The landlord has provided this Service with its relevant policies and procedures applicable at the time.

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the landlord’s approach towards preventing and stopping harmful behaviour in its neighbourhoods. Among other things, the policy provides that:
1. Where ASB occurs, the landlord will respond quickly by carrying out interviews; seeking evidence; issuing warnings; seeking early resolutions through mediation; issuing formal cautions; and taking enforcement action.
2. Where the alleged perpetrators are children or young people, the landlord will involve parents and guardians to resolve the problem. It will seek to liaise with relevant bodies such as social services, schools, and youth offending teams.
3. The landlord will communicate clearly to complainants, witnesses and perpetrators in a language and format appropriate to their needs. It will keep all parties regularly updated about progress of investigations.
4. It will use legal action where necessary to protect customers and property from harm. It will endeavour to work with perpetrators and complainants to resolve problems without resorting to legal action.
The landlord’s ASB operational procedure provides its staff with a step by step guide to properly investigating, managing and closing reports of ASB:
1. Following an initial report of ASB, the landlord should contact the complainant within 5 working days to arrange an interview. It should interview the perpetrator within 5 working days thereafter to obtain the perpetrator’s response to the allegations.
2. In urgent cases, which are those involving violence or threats of violence, hate abuse or crime, damage to property, or domestic abuse or violence, the timescales are reduced to 24 hours of the initial report of ASB.
3. The landlord should check its records for previous cases involving the same individuals and transfer any relevant data to the new case file.
4. The landlord should assess and evaluate the information gathered and decide what action to take. This can include mediation; warning letter and caution; Good Neighbour Agreement (GNA); partner agency intervention; and tenancy enforcement legal action.
5. The outcome of the case is communicated to both victim and perpetrator. This can include the closure of the case where there are no further incidents within 6 weeks.
6. Further reports of ASB are investigated similarly at stage 2 of the procedure. At this stage, possible outcomes can include the installation of evidence gathering equipment; professional witnessing; and community safety audits as well as the outcomes at stage 1.
7. A maximum of three further ASB incidents will be investigated at stage 2, before escalation to stage 3 which requires a case review meeting with the ASB team.
8. The last stage is stage 4 which contemplates that the landlord will take legal action.
9. Supporting victims and witnesses of ASB is described as a continuous process. The landlord provides this support by contacting the victims and witnesses regularly, this being at least fortnightly during the case.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. A complaint at stage 1 must be made within 3 months of the event giving rise to the complaint. The landlord aims to provide a stage 1 response to a complaint within 10 working days of receipt of a complaint. A resident who is not satisfied with a stage 1 response may request that it be escalated to stage 2. The landlord’s complaints policy does not state a timescale for providing a stage 2 response. Under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords are expected to respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of a request for escalation.

Summary of events

The reports of ASB made by the resident to the landlord included alleged incidents perpetrated by neighbours who will be referred to in this investigation report as neighbours B, C and D.

The resident was also a witness to incidents of ASB by the same neighbours against a vulnerable neighbour, who shall be referred to in this investigation report as neighbour A.

All of the resident’s neighbours A, B, C and D were tenants of the landlord.

By way of background and context, the description provided by the resident to this Service of the historic incidents of ASB which he had reported to the landlord included that:
1. He had experienced abuse from neighbours B and C and/or their children, including homophobic abuse.
2. Children of neighbours B and C entered the resident’s garden which he shared with neighbour D, leaving rubbish and food in it.
3. Harmful comments were made by neighbours B, C and D against neighbour A and their carers.
4. There was loud music from neighbour D on a number of occasions during the week.
5. Neighbours B, C and D would sit in front of the shared gate to his property and would not move to let him by, requiring him to use the gate of neighbour A in order to enter his property.
In 2019, a dispute arose which involved neighbours B, C and D regarding the way the carers for neighbour A were parking when attending neighbour A’s property. As part of a landlord mediated resolution of that dispute, the resident agreed that the carers for neighbour A could use his parking space.

On 27 May 2020, the resident reported that neighbour C used threatening and abusive language towards him. Following investigation by the landlord of the incident, in June 2020, the resident and neighbours B and C entered into a GNA at the request of the landlord. In the GNA, the resident and neighbours B and C gave undertakings as to their future conduct towards each other and agreed that contact should be through the landlord.

The landlord’s covering letter to the GNAs explained that it took matters of ASB very seriously and that any further tenancy breaches could result in legal action against their tenancies.

Notwithstanding the mediation and the GNAs, further incidents of ASB occurred in 2020. An incident of noise nuisance involving neighbours B and C was reported by the resident on 17 August 2020. The resident also reported the unauthorised use of his parking spot on 6 October 2020.

These incidents prompted the resident to bring a formal complaint against the landlord on 7 October 2020 in respect of its handling of ASB cases.

The resident complained that the GNA had not been kept to and that he had continued to raise ASB reports with the landlord but nothing got done. The resident complained that he received abuse and was scared to step out of his property. The resident asked that a letter be sent to his neighbours so that they knew to keep the fence locked or shut so that children could not walk in. He complained that neighbour D was letting the children in.

On, or about, 14 October 2020, the landlord’s representatives visited the resident to discuss the parking and the other issues on the street which were the subject of the resident’s complaint.

On 16 October 2020, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. The stage 1 response letter upheld the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledging that there were a number of things it could have done sooner to improve his experience. The landlord also undertook various actions in response to the complaint to address the issues of concern to the resident:
1. The landlord arranged for the parking spaces to be painted, as confusion over the unmarked bays was contributing to hostilities over parking.
2. The landlord agreed to raise the height of fencing to the rear of the resident’s garden to deter children from climbing it.
3. With regard to the resident’s reports of serious verbal abuse from his neighbours, the landlord stated that it had struggled with evidence to support more serious action. The landlord agreed to fit a Ring doorbell which it stated should provide it with the supporting evidence it needed to progress things if the resident had any further issues.
On 29 April 2021, the resident reported to the landlord he had been the recipient of homophobic abuse from a group of youths sitting outside his property. The resident had stayed away from his property for 3 hours as he was unable to walk past them.
On the same day, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident stated that over the past 3 years, he had continued to report ASB and it was not properly dealt with despite being given a Ring doorbell and a GNA. He wanted to understand what actions had been taken as a result of his reports and if they were investigated in line with the landlord’s policies. Despite all of the reports of ASB, no warnings had been made to his neighbours.
The resident was contacted by the landlord’s representative the same day. The resident provided details of the ASB incident. At the same time, he reported that a child of neighbour C had been in the garden a few times and he was worried the situation would escalate again. The landlord’s representative provided her contact details and advised that he should let her know of further issues. She informed him that the information would be shared with police and the local housing provider of which the youths were thought to be tenants. The resident reported that he wished to move as he felt he had no option. The landlord provided advice on applications with the local authority and by way of mutual exchange.
The landlord supplied the resident with video evidence from the police related to hate crime incidents in the area to establish if the individual responsible for the homophobic abuse could be identified from it. On 30 April 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that the perpetrator who had abused him was not shown on it.

On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s Tenancy Management Team Manager responded to the resident’s complaint. It is assumed from the context that the landlord’s letter was a stage 1 complaint response albeit this was not explicitly stated in the letter.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it addressed the action it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of ASB:
1. The landlord explained that it had struggled with evidence to support more serious action against his neighbours. It had tried to improve things by using mediation, the GNA, the Ring doorbell, increasing the height of the fencing and marking up the parking bays.
2. It referred to the resident’s concern that he had been defeated by the GNA and that his neighbours should have been issued warnings. The landlord stated that it did not have the evidence to support issuing warnings. It explained that the GNA was a tool it used to try to mend relationships between neighbours.
3. It noted that the resident was still having problems with children coming into the communal grounds. The landlord stated that it had already heightened the fence. The gate did not have a lock and the landlord would see if it could be locked.
4. It stated that the Ring doorbell was also a great way of stopping problems from happening and getting evidence if it did. It asked that the resident provide footage if the problems continued.
5. It stated that a representative from its Tenancy Enforcement Team (TET) would keep him updated with its actions to deal with the current ASB case reported on 29 April 2021, which it referred to as a hate crime. The resident was advised to contact the representative if he felt he needed any more advice or support with getting evidence or any safety concerns.
6. It explained that it had investigated the matter by looking through all the reports the resident had told it about. It noted that in its response dated 16 October 2020, replying to the resident’s complaint about the handling of his previous ASB, it found that things could have been done sooner to improve his experience. The landlord agreed and apologised again for his past experience.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s representative enquired of the resident whether there had been further incidents with the neighbours. She advised she was waiting for a meeting with the ASB team and police. The resident confirmed that due to the weather, no one was sitting outside and it had been quiet and there had been no abuse.

On 17 May 2021, the landlord stated that as it had no information as to who the youth was that was abusive to him, it was unable to take the investigation of the hate crime matter further. It closed the hate crime case raised but left open the other matters reported by the resident (with the tenancy management team). The resident confirmed agreement to this.

On 28 June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that children from neighbour C continued to enter the garden and verbally abuse him when he asked them to leave via the Ring doorbell. The partner of neighbour C had entered the garden and tried to cause intimidation. The resident stated he would send footage of the incidents and informed the landlord he had reported it to police.

On 16 July 2021, the landlord’s Tenancy Management Officer (TMO) contacted the resident who supplied further details of the incident. The resident also reported a separate incident with a parking sign. A parking sign erected years previously had been removed by neighbour A and this had caused further arguments. Neighbour B had made a sign and put it back up but this had been ripped off again. The TMO advised the resident that all should be following the GNA and report things to the landlord rather than causing further issues.

On 30 July 2021, the resident chased the landlord having not heard from the TMO regarding the ASB he had reported. He wanted a plan to stop the children entering the garden which he stated was continuing.

The resident emailed the landlord on 31 July 2021 with video evidence of children entering the garden and of vehicles parking in neighbour A’s drive.

On 2 August 2021, the landlord’s TMO spoke to the resident. The resident stated that there had not been verbal abuse over the last few weeks but that the children continued to come into the garden, causing a mess and damage. They were seen with metal bars hitting the fences. The resident stated he was not happy with the case and investigations and the landlord agreed to speak to the TET and police and arrange a visit to speak to neighbours B, C and another neighbour regarding the actions of their children.

Following the call, on 2 and 3 August 2021, the resident emailed the TMO with video footage of children entering the garden, a vehicle parked in neighbour A’s parking space, and neighbours around his gate.

On 6 August 2021, the TMO advised the resident that she had not had a response from the police. She had spoken to the Tenancy Enforcement Officer for the area who had advised that she contact the local authority ASB Officer.

The resident supplied further video footage between 7 and 16 August 2021 of incidents of children in the garden.

On 18 August 2021, the TMO updated the resident that she was waiting to hear back from the police. She had emailed the ASB Officer for the police/council and had been advised that she was on leave until 31 August 2021. The TMO stated that once she heard back, she would be arranging to visit the resident’s neighbours. She had had a meeting with the TET who were happy to visit and deal with the matter and felt that police assistance/presence would be helpful.

On 15 September 2021, the TMO updated the resident that she had spoken to the PCSO and ASB officer for the police. She had been asked to compile a list of the names of parents and children involved in the reports and pass that through for them to look at and this would allow them to start the process of looking into ASB warnings.

The resident responded on the same day to provide further video evidence of children entering the garden.

On 22 September 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident complained that:
1. He had had a visit from the PCSO that day asking for footage to be sent across.
2. The resident was not happy with the lack of contact, support and dealing with the ASB case.
3. He did not feel as though he had had any help and felt like a prisoner in his own home because he tried to avoid abuse.
4. Neighbour B had attached their own no parking sign onto a fence. The resident stated this was not following the GNA and the landlord had let it happen.
5. The resident wanted something put in place to stop the children coming into the property and warnings to be given to those who had been causing the issues.
The landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint under stage 2 of its complaint process, noting that the resident had complained regarding the same issue in the past which had received a stage 1 response in May 2021.

The landlord’s Head of Place (HP) discussed the complaint with the resident on 7 October 2021 and provided a stage 2 response by letter dated 13 October 2021. The response stated:
1. There was not any legal action it could take at the moment. The complaints were mainly about children running/playing in garden areas and parking. It acknowledged that there had been more serious problems in the past which the landlord had dealt with in 2018/19.
2. It noted that the TMO had been working with the PCSO to try and resolve the problems. It stated that they would be visiting the area that week to visit those concerned. This was the right course of action for neighbourhood problems of this nature.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had felt that in the past the landlord had not always got back to him as often as he would have liked. It explained that some of the people he mentioned had left the landlord over three years ago and it was difficult to investigate this.
4. The TMO would make sure that she kept in contact with the resident. The resident had her email address if he needed to get in touch.
The resident responded on 14 October 2021, seeking clarity on points not covered in the response, these being:
1. The no parking sign which neighbour B had put up and which the resident stated he had mentioned on the call to the landlord’s HP.
2. The lack of communication and updates from the landlord.
3. The landlord’s failure to deal with breaches of the GNA and its promises of action which had gone unfulfilled.
4. The resident referred to the negative impact which the ASB had had on him and his neighbour A which had pushed neighbour A to the point of attempting to commit suicide on 2 occasions and that he had been prevented from this by the occupational health team at his place of work.
The landlord’s HP responded the same day. She informed the resident that the landlord would not deal with actual incidents of ASB within the complaints process. The complaint was about a service failure and the landlord appreciated it had not kept in touch as well as it could have done. The TMO was looking after the case and the landlord would keep the case open until things were more settled. The HP had copied in the TMO. The TMO and the resident could agree how often to keep in touch.

Post complaint events

On 15 October 2021 and 22 October 2021, the resident sent video footage of further incidents of children entering the garden and dropping rubbish into it.

According to the landlord’s records, the expected joint visit (by the landlord and PCSO) to the neighbours did not take place in the week of 13 October 2021, as indicated in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The landlord’s TMO sent follow up emails to the PCSO regarding the visit on 27 October 2021 and 9 November 2021.

In December 2021, the landlord and PCSO visited the parents of the children causing the nuisance. The parents were advised that if the behaviour continued, the PCSO would issue ‘yellow’ warnings to the children.

On 4 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had not received any recent reports of children causing a nuisance and that if he had not experienced any further nuisance it would close the case.

On 7 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming the action taken and that the case was closed.

The landlord’s records show that the case was closed with the outcome that the perpetrators’ behaviour improved after early intervention.

On 15 March 2022, the resident referred the complaint to this Service. The issues raised in the resident’s complaint included that:
1. The landlord had failed to take action in respect of his reports of ASB.
2. In June 2021, he had been informed that the police wished to attend with the landlord to issue yellow notices. However, the landlord dragged its feet to the point that they could not attend until December 2021.
3. The communication from the landlord had been appalling.
4. In his most recent stage 2 complaint, a large chunk of the complaint was discarded and he was told it was not part of the complaint, despite the fact it was.
5. The resident explained the impact on him and neighbour A. He was anxious and fearful of leaving his flat and had begun actively looking elsewhere for a new home (with a different landlord). At his worst point in 2021, he considered suicide due to the lack of support from the landlord and the constant failures.
On 14 April 2022, the resident supplied this Service with a detailed account of the ASB instances which he had experienced between 2017 and 2021.

It is understood that the resident moved to a different property with a different landlord in May 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints of ASB

As set out in paragraphs 15 to 23 above, the backdrop to this complaint is that the resident had experienced a number of incidents of ASB involving his neighbours over several years. The common themes of the ASB were disputes over parking; verbal abuse directed at the resident; youths entering the resident’s garden as a cut-through and dropping rubbish in it; and occupants of neighbouring properties sitting outside his property and intimidating him from entering his home.

Prior to the period covered by this investigation, the landlord’s interventions to resolve the ASB incidents had included:
1. A landlord mediated resolution of the parking issues in 2019.
2. Arranging for the resident and neighbours B and C to enter into GNAs in June 2020 in which they gave undertakings with regard to their future conduct towards each other and agreed that contact should be via the landlord.
3. In response to the resident’s complaint of 7 October 2020:
  1. marking the car parking spaces of the resident and neighbour D;
  2. raising the height of the rear fence to the resident’s garden;
  3. fitting a Ring doorbell camera.

Following these measures, on 29 April 2021, the resident reported a further incident of homophobic abuse from youths sitting outside his property.

The landlord appropriately treated the incident as a hate crime. Under the landlord’s ASB procedure, hate crime is classed as an urgent case. As such, the landlord was required within 24 hours to interview the complainant to obtain the facts of the case, to interview the perpetrator (if appropriate) and to conduct an assessment of risk to decide what action to take and communicate this to the victim.

The landlord’s records indicate that it responded to this ASB incident in accordance with its procedure. The landlord’s representative contacted the resident on the same day to obtain details of the incident. Neither the landlord nor the resident were able to identify the perpetrators from the evidence available. The landlord was therefore unable to take steps to interview them. The action taken by the landlord’s representative was to share details of the incident with the police and local housing provider and she advised the resident to contact her if he had further issues. The landlord closed the case as a hate crime on 17 May 2021 with the resident’s agreement.

The resident subsequently reported further incidents of ASB.

On 28 June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that children of neighbour C continued to enter the garden and verbally abuse him when he asked them to leave via the Ring doorbell. The partner of neighbour C had entered the garden and tried to cause intimidation to the resident.

Under its ASB procedure, as a non-urgent case, the landlord should have contacted the resident to obtain details of the incident within 5 working days and interviewed the perpetrators within 5 working days. It should have assessed and evaluated the information gathered, decided what action to take and communicated this to the resident.

It would also have been in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure to identify the incident as involving the same individuals as had been involved in previous ASB events and taken that information into account in dealing with the ASB report.

According to the landlord’s records, the landlord’s representative did not contact the resident in response to the report until 16 July 2021. This was 14 working days later, 9 working days outside the landlord’s required timescales.

Further, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records produced to this Service that the landlord interviewed neighbour C, whose children and partner had been identified by the resident as having been involved in the incident, or that it evaluated the evidence available to decide what action to take, as required under its ASB procedure.

During the conversation with the landlord’s TMO on 16 July 2021, the resident reported a separate incident involving a parking sign. The landlord’s TMO advised the resident during the call that all should be following the GNA and reporting things to the landlord rather than causing further issues. However, having provided that advice, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action in respect of the incident reported by the resident or that it communicated with the resident about it.

Following the discussion on 16 July 2021, the resident should have been kept informed of the outcome of the case and been supported by regular contact. However, the landlord did not keep the resident informed or contact him. As a result, on 30 July 2021, the resident was required to chase the landlord for an update.

On 2 August 2021, the landlord’s TMO spoke to the resident. In this call, the resident informed the TMO that children had continued to come into the garden, causing a mess and damage. They were apparently seen with metal bars hitting the fences.

The landlord agreed in its call with the resident on 2 August 2021 to speak to its TET and police and arrange a visit to speak to neighbours B, C and another neighbour regarding the actions of their children.

Whilst this was appropriate action for the landlord to take, there followed a considerable delay in the landlord implementing this action. From the landlord’s records, it seems that it was not until December 2021 that the landlord and PCSO visited the parents of the children causing the nuisance. This was 5 months after the resident reported the ASB on 28 June 2021.

It is apparent from the landlord’s updates to the resident during this period that at least part of the delay was due to the availability of the PCSO to accompany the landlord in visiting the resident’s neighbours. However, the landlord appears not to have considered whether any other action might have been taken by it in the interim to address the ASB. This would have been appropriate given the delay in arranging the visit with the PCSO.

It is notable that during this 5–month period, the resident continued to experience and report incidents of ASB to the landlord and provide video footage of them:
1. On 31 July 2021, the resident emailed a video of children entering the garden and of vehicles parking in neighbour A’s drive.
2. On 2 and 3 August 2021, the resident emailed the TMO with video footage of children entering the garden, a vehicle parked in neighbour A’s parking space, and neighbours around his gate.
3. Between 7 to 16 August 2021, and on 15 September 2021, the resident supplied further video footage of incidents of children in the garden.
4. On 15 October 2021 and 22 October 2021, the resident sent video footage of further incidents of children entering the garden and dropping rubbish into it.
The resident identified to the landlord that neighbours B and C (or their children) were in the video footage.

There was therefore evidence available to the landlord that the incidents of ASB were continuing to occur during this period in the form of children entering the resident’s garden, vehicles parking in the parking space allocated to the carers for neighbour A and neighbours collecting around the resident’s gate. These were all incidents which the resident had previously reported as issues of concern. They involved neighbours B and C (or members of their family) who were parties to the GNA.

It would have been reasonable, and in line with its ASB procedure, for the landlord to take into account the repeated incidents of ASB involving the same individuals during this period (and historically) and consider whether the evidence available could have allowed it to progress further interventions. This could have been considered either pending, or in addition to, the landlord’s proposed visit to the neighbours. Possible outcomes which it may have considered are set out in the landlord’s ASB procedure. This could have included letters to the resident’s neighbours B and C who were parties to the GNA with the resident.

There is no evidence in the landlord’s records that it considered taking any action in response to these incidents, other than awaiting the forthcoming visit with the PCSO, which it had discussed and agreed with the resident on 2 August 2021.

It is unreasonable that it is not clear from the landlord’s records whether, or how, it followed the 4 escalating stages set out in its ASB procedure when dealing with the various incidents of ASB the resident reported to it on and after 28 June 2021.

The end result for the resident was that the ASB being experienced by him was effectively unaddressed by the landlord for a period of 5 months. This was not reasonable or in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.

The failures of the landlord during this period contributed to the resident feeling that he was not being supported by the landlord, notwithstanding that he himself had complied with the terms of the GNA in order to avoid conflict with his neighbours.

The landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s reports of ASB caused detriment to the resident. The resident endured continuing ASB incidents from his neighbours which he said intimidated him and caused him distress. The resident felt unsupported by the landlord. These factors inevitably impacted the resident and ultimately caused him to state that he felt he had no option but to move properties. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the resident to be awarded financial compensation of £500 in respect of the landlord’s failures.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident’s stage 1 complaint was logged on 29 April 2021. The complaint was expressed in general terms that the landlord had not properly dealt with his reports of ASB over the past 3 years.

The landlord’s complaints policy shows that a complaint at stage 1 should be made within 3 months of the event giving rise to the complaint. The landlord’s response reasonably focussed its review on ASB incidents which were recent to the complaint, rather than the ASB experienced by the resident over the previous 3 years.

It did so by addressing the hate crime that had been reported by the resident on 29 April 2021 (on the same day as the complaint). It also cross-referenced to its previous complaint response issued on 16 October 2020, some 6 months previously. Although outside the 3 month window set out in the complaints procedure, this was helpful and appropriate given the proximity of that complaint and the similarity of the issues raised.

The landlord reiterated that ASB incidents reported by the resident at that time could have been dealt with sooner and apologised again. Its stage 1 response also set out the actions which had been taken to address the resident’s reports of ASB, as requested by him.

Under the circumstances, the landlord’s stage 1 response dealt with the issues raised by the resident in his stage 1 complaint appropriately and in line with the complaints policy.

The resident’s further complaint of 22 September 2021 was treated by the landlord as a stage 2 complaint, as it raised the similar issues as had been raised at stage 1.

By this date, the resident had experienced the further ASB incidents which he had reported to the landlord on 28 June 2021 and thereafter. The resident set out the issues he wished the landlord to deal with in his complaint.

The landlord could be expected to have addressed all of these issues in its stage 2 response. However, the response did not address the lack of support and contact which the resident complained of, the parking sign issue, or the outcome which the resident said he was seeking.

The substance of the stage 2 response was a brief statement that the landlord’s TMO had been working with the PCSO to try to resolve the problems and would be visiting the area that week to visit those concerned. The landlord did not address, or apologise for, the delay which had occurred up until that point in arranging the visit. The landlord should properly have acknowledged this, given that there had been substantial delay by this time.

The response stated that there was not any legal action which the landlord could take at that moment, without explaining why. This would have been helpful, given that the resident had provided substantial video evidence to the landlord. The resident had been led by the landlord (in particular in its responses to his complaints of 7 October 2020 and 29 April 2021) to expect that the video evidence provided by the Ring doorbell would assist it in taking the more serious action which it said a lack of evidence had stopped it taking before.

The landlord’s stage 2 response described the resident’s complaints as mainly about children running/playing in the garden areas and parking and referenced that there had been more serious problems in the past which had been dealt with in 2018/19. This description understated the incidents reported by the resident which involved verbal abuse (which the landlord had categorised as hate crime) and intimidation which had caused the resident distress and had prevented him from entering his home. The landlord’s description was likely to have led the resident to feel that it did not appreciate the impact of the ASB suffered by him or consider it a serious matter.

The landlord’s HP was given an opportunity to deal with the outstanding issues by way of a response to the resident’s follow up email of 14 October 2021 in which he outlined the points not covered in the stage 2 response. The brief response from the landlord’s HP was to inform the resident that the landlord would not deal with actual incidents of ASB within the complaints process and that the complaint was about service failure.

However, it was within the scope of the complaints process for the landlord to address these issues. The resident’s complaint was of landlord inaction in dealing with his report concerning the parking sign (which was first raised on 16 July 2021), its failure to provide him with support or contact as a victim of ASB (as required under its ASB policy), and its failure to enforce the terms of the GNA or otherwise deal with the ASB incidents he had reported. Each of these aspects concerned service failure, notwithstanding that the subject matter was ASB.

In failing to address these matters, the landlord also lost the opportunity to put things right for the resident.

There were therefore failures in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2. The resident was caused time and trouble in referring the complaint to this Service for a resolution. Under the circumstances, an award of £200 would be reasonable financial compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed in various respects to act in accordance with its ASB procedure when responding to the resident’s reports of ASB made on 28 June 2021 and thereafter. The action which the landlord agreed to take to address the ASB was delayed for 5 months during which time the incidents of ASB continued unaddressed. The landlord failed to consider other options available to it to deal with the ASB during this time. This caused detriment to the resident.

There were a number of failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2. It failed to deal with all of the issues in the resident’s complaint. It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in taking the action which had been agreed to address the resident’s reports of ASB. It did not explain why it was unable to take legal action to address the ASB incidents, and described them in a way which understated them and was likely to have caused the resident to feel that the landlord did not consider them to be serious. The resident was caused time and trouble in referring the matter to this Service for a resolution.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
Pay the resident compensation of £700, made up of:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its failure to effectively to address his reports of ASB.
2. £200 compensation for the time and trouble caused to him by the failings identified in its complaint handling.

The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

As noted above, it is unclear from the landlord’s records whether, or how, the landlord applied the 4 escalating stages set out in its ASB procedure when dealing with incidents of ASB.

It is recommended that the landlord consider staff training and/or review its record keeping (as appropriate) to ensure that the process set out in its ASB procedure is followed.

The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions with regard to the above recommendation.