Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202200789)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200789

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

6 February 2024

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 antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident occupies a one-bedroom first floor flat in a block. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement dated from 28 April 2011. The resident shares a communal entrance with her neighbours.
3. The resident has been reporting ASB since at least 2018. This has included noise from loud music and a smell of cannabis in the communal entrance. The landlord opened ASB cases but closed them following investigations, as there had been insufficient evidence of cannabis use, and the level of noise was not at a level that would be classed as a nuisance.
4. On 9 February 2022 the resident again raised concerns that he could smell cannabis in the communal area. The resident believed this was from his neighbour, who for the purpose of the report, will be referred to as tenant x. The resident also said that tenant x had blacked out her windows at the front and back of her property. The landlord opened an ASB case as a result of the concerns raised.
5. The landlord allocated the case to one of its Neighbourhood Safety Officers, provided diary sheets, and told the resident to contact the police. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 February 2022 and discussed the concerns raised. It advised the resident that it could not act without evidence of cannabis use and said it would contact the police for an update.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and lodged a formal complaint on 7 June 2022. He wanted the landlord to:
   1. investigate the reports of cannabis use.
   2. ask tenant x to stop smoking drugs in the building as it was affecting other residents.
   3. arrange a joint visit with the police.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 June 2022. The landlord said:
   1. in accordance with its complaint policy, it would only usually consider a 6-month period for investigating complaints.
   2. whilst it had sight of all the ASB cases, it had only reviewed the most recent case, which had since been closed.
   3. an ASB case was opened on 9 February 2022.
   4. it was assigned to a Neighbourhood Services Officer.
   5. it had advised the resident that to progress the accusation, it would need the resident to provide any supporting evidence.
   6. it had spoken to the resident on 15 February 2022 about a previous joint visit.
   7. the Neighbourhood Services Officer assigned to the case had been present at the joint meeting and was therefore able to update the resident on the outcome of it.
   8. that tenant x had denied smoking cannabis and had shown an e-cigarette that contained CBD oil.
   9. in the absence of physical evidence, it was difficult to take tenancy action.
   10. it had advised the resident to continue to report the cannabis use to the police, as the accusation was a criminal matter.
   11. it had liaised with the police regularly on the matter.
   12. to bring an assured tenancy to an end, it would have to go to court, and it was unable to do so without evidence of cannabis use.
   13. a senior member of staff had visited tenant x and found no evidence of cannabis paraphernalia, or cannabis smoking.
   14. it was satisfied that the advice and actions taken by its staff were appropriate, and in line with its policy and procedures.
   15. it had discussed the blacked-out windows with tenant x and had no objections to the windows.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint. The landlord provided its final response on 19 October 2022. It reiterated the findings as above and further said:
   1. that the resident had approached the local authority in March 2022 to speak to the ASB team.
   2. the ASB officer at the local authority had confirmed it would not take action on cannabis use, as it was a criminal matter.
   3. it had worked closely with the police and would continue to assist where possible.
   4. it would provide the police with a fob to the block and a sharing protocol was in place.
   5. it had taken the resident’s reports seriously and investigated them.
   6. it acknowledged the distress to the resident.
   7. any actions taken needed to be evidence-based.
9. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had failed to resolve the issue. He wanted the landlord to take action as recommended by the police and to put up signs in the building warning against cannabis use.
10. In communication with this service, the landlord said the resident had not made further reports of loud music or smelling cannabis since November 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scoping paragraph

11. Whilst the resident has said the ASB has been ongoing for more than 4 years, this service will focus this investigation on the events from 9 February 2022.

The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

12. A landlord has two main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is not necessarily to determine whether ASB occurred but to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation in line with its ASB policy.
13. The landlord’s policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person. Or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
14. Paragraph 16 of the landlord’s ASB policy makes particular reference to smoking cannabis. It states, “although we will record reports about tenants/residents smoking cannabis as an ASB case, if the complaint is from a single source, such as a neighbour, we may not be able to progress the case through lack of evidence. This is because these reports are difficult to prove without sources, for example, corroboration from other neighbours or professionals who have visited the property (such as the police)”
15. The resident raised concerns on smelling cannabis on 9 February 2022. The resident stated the issues had been ongoing for more than 4 years. In addition, the resident was concerned that tenant x had blacked out their windows.
16. In line with its policy, once the resident reported the issue on 9 February 2022, the landlord took the following steps:
    1. opened a new ASB case.
    2. assigned the case to a Neighbourhood Services Officer.
    3. advised the resident that in order to progress the reports, it would need evidence of cannabis use.
    4. advised the resident to contact the police as the allegations were a criminal matter.
    5. provided diary sheets to enable the resident to evidence a pattern of use and nuisance.
17. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 February 2022. The landlord explained that smelling cannabis alone is not sufficient evidence to allow it to take tenancy action. The landlord said it would contact the police for an update about any action they intended or might be considering taking.
18. The evidence confirms the landlord liaised with the police on 17 February 2022. The police confirmed it was not taking any further action due to insufficient evidence and reiterated that smelling cannabis was not sufficient evidence. The landlord and police are evidenced as discussing issuing the police with a fob to the block to enable them to gain access when in the area, which the police declined as not necessary. Due to the lack of physical evidence, and confirmation from the police that it was taking no further action, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not take enforcement action at that time.
19. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 February 2022. It explained the terms of an assured tenancy and that in order to end this type of tenancy, it would need a court order. It explained that to obtain a court order it needed physical evidence of cannabis use. It explained to the resident that tenant x smoked an e-cigarette containing CBD oil which she was permitted to do. The advice the landlord provided was reasonable under the circumstances.
20. The resident also suggested that tenant x could have a cannabis farm in the flat. The landlord asked if the resident had any evidence to support the accusation, which he did not. It was confirmed that the gas safety team had attended tenant x’s home and did not report a cannabis farm. The landlord confirmed it had also attended the property both announced and unannounced and found no evidence of cannabis or any smell of cannabis whilst there. This service cannot fault the actions and advice given by the landlord.
21. The resident’s councillor contacted the landlord on 9 March 2022. They asked if an ASB case had been opened, as the resident believed no action had been taken despite regular use of cannabis, which is a criminal offence. The landlord told the councillor that it had provided diary sheets, told the resident to continue to report instances to the police and that it had also liaised with the local authority on the issue, who had also reiterated the need for physical evidence.
22. The landlord contacted the police on 30 March 2022 about the complaint the resident had submitted and to discuss a possible joint visit. The police told the landlord that it could not take any action if tenant x was using cannabis in their own home and there were no other issues such as undesirables in the area or noise. The police explained it had set out the position to the resident. The police and the landlord agreed that a joint visit would not be appropriate at that time. This was reasonable action by the landlord.
23. The landlord visited tenant x on 11 April 2022. Tenant x made counter allegations against the resident about noise including ‘banging’ and ‘stomping.’ The landlord offered mediation to resolve the issues, but it was refused by the resident. Mediation has to be agreed by all parties in order for it to be effective. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation in line with its policy.
24. The landlord reviewed the resident’s concerns regarding the blacked-out windows. Tenant x explained that she had done this for privacy, as they were on the ground floor. The landlord confirmed it had no objections to this and updated the resident accordingly. The Ombudsman cannot find any fault with the landlord’s handling of the windows.
25. The landlord notes state that the case was closed on 7 July 2022 as there was no proof of cannabis use by tenant x.
26. In summary, there is an expectation on a landlord to explore the resident’s claims, it did this on a number of occasions by carrying out visits both announced and unannounced. It also responded to the concerns in a timely manner. It liaised with the police and the local authority about the allegations and kept the resident updated on its actions. It offered mediation and it provided both noise apps and diary sheets to enable the resident to gather evidence. The actions the landlord took were therefore reasonable and fair and in line with its ASB policy and tenancy agreement.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.