Yorkshire Housing Limited (202315515)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315515

Yorkshire Housing Limited

31 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).
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 29 November 2017, the resident no longer lives in the property. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident first reported ASB in August 2021. The resident stated that:
    1. children in the neighbourhood were causing a nuisance
    2. children were running around in the street, knocking on residents’ doors, climbing over his fence, and had scratched his car
    3. a parent of a child involved had threatened him
  3. The resident requested permission to install CCTV which the landlord granted. The landlord interviewed the resident to understand his concerns and completed an ASB action plan. A warning letter was sent to the parents of the children involved. The resident was also asked to not interact with the neighbours involved in the ASB report. The resident reported that the matter had been resolved and the ASB file was closed.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2022 to make a new report of ASB. The resident stated that the children were kicking footballs against walls, door knocking and then running away, and going into the gardens of other residents. The landlord called the resident on 20 September 2022 and 30 September 2022 to discuss the reports and opened a new ASB file. The landlord offered support to the resident and advised it would write to all residents reminding them of their responsibilities regarding their children’s behaviour.
  5. The landlord visited the area on 8 November 2022 to identify whether it could install fences outlining the borders of each property’s front garden, in order to prevent the children walking across the gardens. The landlord spoke to residents who were keen on the idea.
  6. Another ASB file was opened on 9 February 2023, the resident reported that the previous ASB was still happening. The resident stated that local children were playing football in the street and were knocking at his door to retrieve the ball when it landed in his garden. The resident stated that the children would also climb the fence to retrieve the football when he was not home. The landlord phoned the resident to discuss his concerns and complete its ASB interview form. The landlord made phone calls to several neighbours but were unable to identify the children involved. The landlord explained it would be closing the ASB file because of the difficulties in identifying the perpetrators.
  7. The resident continued to report instances of children playing football loudly and knocking on his door to retrieve their football. The resident stated that his wife felt intimidated when the children entered his garden to get their football. The landlord made several unannounced visits to the street but did not witness the reported behaviour.
  8. The resident made a complaint on 21 March 2023, the resident expressed frustration that the landlord had not stopped the reported ASB. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023. It outlined the steps it had taken previously and contact it had made with the resident regarding his reports. The landlord stated it was planning unannounced visits to the area and would keep the resident updated.
  9. The landlord phoned the resident on several occasions in April 2023 to discuss the ASB he reported. It stated it would look into erecting ‘no ball games’ signs and would speak to the children’s parents if they could be identified. The resident was given permission to use anti-climb paint on his fence. The landlord made telephone calls to the parents of the children involved once it had identified them. The landlord explained to the resident that it would not be putting up a ‘no ball games’ sign as this was difficult to enforce but it was continuing to look into putting up fences in the front gardens in the street.
  10. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 May 2023, because he was unhappy at the speed that changes were being made by the landlord. The landlord visited the street with the police on 31 May 2023 to speak to neighbours. The landlord spoke with the resident and explained that the behaviour he was reporting was unlikely to meet its threshold for ASB for it to take enforcement action. The landlord continued to discuss erecting fencing internally, but noted that the resident’s property was in close proximity to a prison which meant it required special permission to build the fencing.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. The landlord stated:
    1. it did not consider the behaviour the resident was currently reporting to be in breach of any neighbouring residents’ tenancy to take enforcement action
    2. it had reached out to neighbours regarding mediation but there was little interest
    3. it was continuing to look into putting up fences around the front gardens in the street and would let the resident know if this was approved

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy lists the following behaviour as ASB:
    1. assault
    2. constant loud music
    3. name calling or threats
    4. late night disturbances
  2. The policy states that the landlord does not consider children playing or normal household noise at reasonable times to be ASB. The ASB policy states that the landlord will discuss the issues with the affected residents and work with residents to gather evidence. Where there is sufficient evidence of ASB, the landlord will take steps to resolve the matter or take enforcement action if necessary. It will tell residents what actions it is taking and will be clear if it is unable to act. The landlord will work with other organisations such as the police and support agencies when investigating reports of ASB.

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

  1. When the resident first reported ASB, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident, opening an ASB file, and creating an action plan. The landlord also wrote to the neighbours involved to warn them that the behaviour reported was in breach of their tenancies. This resolved the matter for the resident.
  2. When the resident reported further alleged ASB, the landlord spoke with the resident on 2 occasions to discuss his concerns, opened an ASB file, and created an ASB action plan. The landlord offered support to the resident to create a neighbourhood watch group and wrote to local residents to remind them of their obligations in the tenancy agreement. This was appropriate, because it was consistent with the landlord’s policy, and demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
  3. The landlord was proactive in its approach to reports of ASB. It took steps such as conducting unannounced visits to the area, speaking to other residents, and investigating solutions such as fencing around the front gardens in the neighbourhood. The landlord took these steps in good time. It also made enquires to try to identify all the children involved so it could target its actions accordingly.
  4. When the landlord told the resident it was unable to identify the children involved and would be closing the ASB file, it was clear in its explanation and outlined the steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s reports. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. The landlord continued to make unannounced visits to the area, which demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
  5. The landlord took steps to liaise with other bodies such as the police. It visited the neighbourhood with Police Community Support Officers and its ASB officer to discuss the matter with other residents. This was a positive action and showed that the landlord was taking reasonably practical steps to resolve the matter.
  6. The evidence shows that the landlord was actively seeking permission for fences to be built around the front gardens of the affected residents. There were delays in permission being granted because the resident’s street is near a prison. This delay was outside of the landlord’s control. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to relay updates to the resident, the reason for the delay, and the predicted time frame. This was a shortcoming by the landlord but does not amount to a failure of service.
  7. When the resident made his complaint, he expressed frustration that the alleged ASB had not stopped. In its response, the landlord outlined the steps it had taken and that it would continue to make unannounced visits to the area. The landlord clearly explained what steps it could and could not take, and the reasons for this.
  8. In May 2023, the landlord told the resident it did not consider that the behaviour he was reporting to be ASB, or to meet the threshold for enforcement action. This Service notes that the resident was frustrated by the landlord’s decision. The landlord was clear with the resident in its reasoning and acted in line with its ASB policy.
  9. In its stage 2 response, the landlord outlined again why it was not taking enforcement action and that it could not conduct mediation because it had spoken to other residents who did not show interest in taking part. It reiterated its commitment to putting fences around the front gardens in the neighbourhood, which it did in May 2024.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was appropriate. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports and took action to address the reported behaviour. Once it had determined that the reported behaviour did not meet its threshold for enforcement action, it still continued to act to address the resident’s concerns.
  11. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days responded to within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  3. The resident made his complaint on 21 March 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 which was inappropriate.  The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023 which is 5 working days after the complaint was raised.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 May 2023. While the landlord continued to correspond with the resident after this date, it did not acknowledge his complaint on time which was inappropriate. Internal correspondence from the landlord shows that on 11 July 2023 it recognised it had not correctly escalated the resident’s complaint and advised that it offered the resident compensation for this. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 July 2023.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. This is 54 working days after the complaint was made which was inappropriate.
  6. In its complaint responses, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in escalating the complaint.
  7. This Service is aware that the landlord offered the resident an additional £250 compensation after the matter had been escalated to this service. This comprised of £100 for the failure to provide a stage 1 acknowledgement and £150 for poor communication in the stage 1. The role of this Service is to assess the landlord’s response up to the completion of the internal complaints process (ICP). While the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s attempts to resolve the matter, this does not form part of the Ombudsman’s assessment as it was outside of the ICP.
  8. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to service failure. It did not provide a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement, and did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint for several weeks which caused a delay in its stage 2 response. This Service considers that the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for complaint handling to be in line with the remedies guidance available on our website. Any further award would be above and beyond what this Service would look to award in these circumstances. The landlord’s response is considered to be reasonable redress for the failures identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £100 it offered for its complaint handling failures, if not already paid.