Yorkshire Housing Limited (202200611)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200611

Yorkshire Housing Limited

27 September 2022


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:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
    2. The resident’s reports of repairs in the property.
    3. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s reports of repairs is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure unless if there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
  2. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the landlord, this is not something on which this Service can adjudicate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint before the Ombudsman can consider it. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation as a separate complaint at that stage.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s property is a flat, within a building of six others.
  2. The resident reported ASB occurring in the building on over 40 occasions between February 2021 and December 2021, as a result of a neighbour (perpetrator – also a tenant of the landlord, whose tenancy commenced in February 2021) and her visitors. The reports included noise nuisance, verbal abuse, physical abuse, aggressive behaviour, drug taking, drug dealing, smoking inside buildings, leaving communal doors open, setting smoke alarms off, breaching Covid-19 restrictions, spitting on doors and letterboxes, and theft of parcels. The police visited the property on at least six occasions due to reports of ASB. Between February 2021 and December 2021, the landlord contacted the perpetrator on over 20 occasions to discuss the ongoing ASB. Ultimately, the perpetrator was removed from the building in December 2021 following a court process.
  3. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the ASB specifically the eviction procedures and the gathering of evidence, and how the perpetrator came to become a landlord tenant in the first place. The resident felt that the relevant checks were not completed on the perpetrator, to ensure she would not cause a nuisance. The resident also remained unhappy that the planned eviction of the resident did not take place as initially detailed.
  4. The landlord stated in its complaint response that its process and procedures were carried out prior to the perpetrators tenancy commencing, and the information provided was verified prior to moving in. In regard to the possession proceedings, the landlord said it had followed the relevant steps and completed the action within a reasonable timeframe, with significant delay caused by a change in the process for securing evictions. The landlord stated that it could not apply a closure order itself, but it had applied to the local authority in September 2021. In response to the resident’s concerns about CCTV not being installed, the landlord stated an investment of this type, would take time to procure and implement and it could not be assured that the installation would have deterred the ASB from happening. In conclusion, the landlord offered to reimburse the resident up to £120 for the costs of any private CCTV installed and agreed to freeze the resident’s rent for the following 12 months.
  5. The resident referred this matter to this Service, as she remained dissatisfied with the way the landlord handled the ASB as she felt that the landlord “could have done more” to support her, such as installing a suited lock on the communal door; offer CCTV; provide constant support, updates and communication; rehome the resident or the perpetrator; and show more empathy. She also remained dissatisfied with the handling of her complaint as she felt the landlord did not understand her complaint and ‘distorted’ her concerns, and felt she should have been offered a rent refund of £4400, in consideration of the effect the ASB had on her. The resident also referred to the landlord having offered her a month’s rent worth of compensation following the completion of the complaints process, though no evidence was provided in this respect.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s ASB procedure has a four-stage approach to tackling ASB:
    1. At stage one, interviews with both the complainant and the perpetrator should take place; the landlord should also review the evidence and conclude its findings. Examples of the outcomes are mediation or warning letters. If further reports of ASB occur, the case should be escalated to stage two.
    2. At stage two, interviews with both parties should take place again. However, if a further three reports of ASB are reported, the case should be escalated to the next stage.
    3. At stage three, the landlord should seek assistance from the ASB team, and agree upon the next actions to take.
    4. At stage four, the landlord should begin to prepare to take legal action. This includes the issuing of eviction proceedings where appropriate.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it should offer the complainant support in the form of: prompt interviews; use of CCTV and sound recording equipment; out–of–hour telephone contact; and requesting extra police patrols.

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has stated that the ASB affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about the effect of the ASB on the resident’s mental health; however, the Ombudsman is not able to determine matters of liability or causation and will not consider complaints which would be more reasonably dealt with via another organisation or procedure. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.

Reports of ASB.

  1. As per the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord should tackle the ASB in a four-stage approach. The landlord has evidenced that it followed through on the requirements of this policy by escalating appropriately through each stage as the resident’s reports continued. For example, the landlord first received reports of ASB occurring on 23 February 2021 and subsequently issued three warning letters to the perpetrator on 23 February 2021, 12 March 2021 and 6 April 2021. On 23 April 2021, following further reports of ASB, the landlord informed the perpetrator that it would be taking legal action and would be seeking an eviction notice. The landlord at every stage issued warning letters and completed tenancy enforcement action against the perpetrator, which the ASB procedure required it to do.
  2. The resident felt the landlord did not act fast enough to evict the perpetrator. The landlord explained to the resident that it had to satisfy the courts that it had provided the perpetrator with sufficient time and notice to stop the behaviour, before seeking an eviction. This included providing warning letters and an opportunity for the resident to stop the behaviour. Therefore, the landlord took the appropriate actions as per its ASB policy and in accordance with the requirements of the courts.
  3. The landlord also could not evict the resident any sooner because between the period June 2021 to July 2021 the law changed around the eviction procedure, meaning that residents needed to be provided with four months’ notice prior to any eviction proceedings. This was different to the previous two to four weeks’ notice that was required to be given prior. In short, the landlord was constrained by the legal process and an application to the court could not be submitted sooner. As such, there was no unreasonable delay on behalf of the landlord. Furthermore, the landlord did not have control over the court’s decision to allow the resident an additional six weeks before being evicted and could not have overturned any decision made.
  4. The resident no doubt felt frustrated by the time taken for the case to progress from her initial reports through to the eviction of the perpetrator. However, a landlord’s role in progressing through such a process is limited. A landlord does not have the authority to evict a tenant as only a court can make such a decision. Instead, a landlord is expected to make reasonable and timely decisions as to when to progress down a legal route and, in so doing, to balance the needs of its tenants (including alleged perpetrators) with the requirement to ensure that sufficient evidence is obtained to justify its actions.
  5. It is acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied with the evidence – collection process. The resident felt that the collection of evidence to support the perpetrators eviction had become a ‘full time job’ for her. The landlord’s policy states that at the first stage it will request the resident to complete diary entries and keep records of the ASB. Therefore, the onus upon the collection of evidence is upon the resident. Whilst this may at times feel like a ‘job’, especially where the perpetrator is committing frequent acts of ASB, as was the case in this instance. The resident is the first line of reporting for the ASB as the resident experiences the behaviour in real time.
  6. In regard to the resident’s concerns with the evidence collection, it is important to note that the landlord’s ASB policy does state that it should consider providing residents with sound recording equipment. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that this was considered by the landlord as an appropriate action to take. The use of sound recording equipment in the property could have taken some of the onus off the resident, as she would not have to physically report the noise incidents as they occurred.
  7. On the evidence gathering issue however, it is noted that there is no evidence that the resident raised concerns surrounding the collection of evidence during the period where this was being requested. Therefore, the landlord was not aware that the resident felt this to be an inconvenience and did not have an opportunity to respond accordingly during the evidence–collection period.
  8. The landlord responded appropriately when confirming that landlords do not have the power to implement closure orders; instead, the police and local authority are those who have the power to implement these. The resident was concerned that the landlord had not applied for a ‘closure order’ on the perpetrator. However, the landlord explained that it had sought an order from the local authority who rejected its application due to insufficient evidence. Unfortunately, the landlord then has to obtain further evidence to support a reapplication for the closure order. Therefore, the landlord was restricted in its power to obtain a closure order.
  9. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that the landlord should have communicated this to the resident sooner and made her aware that an application had been made and subsequently denied, as this would have kept the resident updated and provided the resident with assurance that the landlord was doing all it could to resolve the ASB. This would have been in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which pledges to keep residents informed about the progress of its investigations.
  10. Furthermore, the resident felt that the landlord could have communicated better regarding the ASB and felt that some channels of communication were, upon reflection, inappropriate or outside of the landlord’s typical communication channels. The ASB policy states that it should contact the resident every fortnight in regard to the ASB; in this case, the landlord often contacted the resident more frequently than every fortnight and, therefore, went above its procedural requirement in communicating with the resident.
  11. In regard to the communication channels used by the landlord, from the evidence provided, it used varying communication methods of which it deemed appropriate for the resident to report ASB at any time of the day. It is expected that if a resident feels that the communication channel is ‘inappropriate’ or would prefer an alternative method of communication, the resident should inform the landlord of the desired method of contact. In this case, the resident did not raise concerns with the landlord about the communication channels used and, therefore, the landlord was unaware that the resident felt that this was not appropriate. There is no failing, therefore, but it is recommended that the landlord should contact the resident to request her preferred method of contact for any future communication.
  12. The resident felt that the landlord could have ‘done more’ to resolve the ASB in the form of CCTV, suited locks and rehousing either the resident or the perpetrator. It is important to acknowledge that the landlord has various methods to tackle ASB which includes, warnings, good neighbour agreements and installing CCTV amongst other methods. However, this is not an exhaustive and mandatory list of methods to tackle ASB and not every action needs to be taken. Instead, landlord’s are expected to take proportionate action against the ASB and take measures, in which it deems necessary.
  13. The resident felt that the landlord should have installed CCTV or considered reimbursing for CCTV purchased at her own cost. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it should consider offering the complainant support in the form of CCTV.  However, it is not an obligation that the landlord should install CCTV if the landlord believes this would not be beneficial to the investigation of the ASB, especially where the main reports are of noise nuisance. It is also important to note that there is no legal obligation for landlords to install CCTV following reports of ASB, as this would be deemed as an improvement to the property, in which landlords are not required to complete.
  14. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that installing CCTV would take time to procure and implement and that there was no guarantees that this would have made a difference in this case. This was reasonable as the landlord did not dispute that there was sufficient evidence available for it to proceed down a legal route. As such, there was no benefit in terms of evidence gathering from installing CCTV, only a possible deterrent factor, which the landlord did not consider would apply in this case given the nature of the perpetrator’s behaviour. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to not proceed down a CCTV route, it was fair in the circumstances for it to offer to reimburse monies the resident had paid out in obtaining personal monitoring equipment for herself.
  15. The resident also believed that the landlord should have installed a suited lock to the communal door. The landlord informed the resident that owing to the type of ASB occurring, installing the suited lock would not have made a difference as the perpetrator and her visitors were ‘buzzing’ into the building. Therefore, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation to the resident as to why the lock did not need to be installed as a means of preventing the ASB and why it would not be deemed a proportionate in response to the ASB.
  16. The resident felt the landlord should have offered to rehouse the resident or the perpetrator, to avoid the ASB escalating. Whilst this Service appreciates the resident’s belief that this action would have been an appropriate solution to the ASB, the landlord would not be strictly obligated to do so as it deemed legal action to be the best route. It is also worth considering that suitable vacant properties may not have been available during this period of time, and also in consideration that there may be other tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority for rehousing than the resident or the perpetrator, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence.
  17. The resident also questioned the vetting process that the landlord went through prior to the perpetrator securing their property. The landlord reviewed the process that had taken place and was satisfied that the perpetrator had met the relevant requirements at the time and that it had taken appropriate steps to verify the information that had been provided during the vetting stage. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances given the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint.
  18. The resident’s concerns were clearly justified given the nature and extent of the ASB that followed immediately following the commencement of the perpetrator’s tenancy. The perpetrator’s behaviour, as well as that of her visitors, clearly caused significant distress to the resident over a protracted period. However, in all the circumstances of the case, it is evident that the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy in its attempts to resolve the issue, including progressing down a legal route in a prompt timeframe.

Complaint Handling

  1. The resident stated that she felt the landlord did not understand her complaint and ‘distorted’ it to ‘avoid’ any responsibility for the issues that she had faced. In the evidence provided to this Service and the resident’s escalation to this Service, the landlord has appropriately addressed all of the resident’s concerns and engaged with the substance of the complaint. This Service found no evidence of the landlord attempting to ‘avoid’ responsibility in the complaint responses, which is further supported by the findings above. Therefore, the landlord handled the resident’s complaint appropriately and addressed all aspects raised.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.