Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Beyond Housing Limited (202306387)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306387

Beyond Housing Limited

9 May 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment by her neighbours.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in 2017. She lives in the property, a 3-bedroom terraced house, with her 2 children. The property is accessed via a shared front gate. The resident has mental health conditions known to the landlord, and her daughter has asthma.
  2. The tenancy agreement – which refers to a former housing provider, prior to a merger forming the landlord in 2018 – sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. The tenant’s responsibilities include ensuring that they, and every person living in or visiting their home, do not behave in a way that causes danger, nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to any other person residing in or visiting the locality. Examples of such behaviour include “playing ball games close to someone else’s home” and “doing anything that unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of any other person”. The tenant is also responsible for keeping their garden (including any plants, shrubs or hedges) in a tidy and well maintained condition, and for obtaining the landlord’s written permission before making any alterations to their home or garden. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will take action if the tenant is in breach of any of the conditions.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the definition of ASB used by the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014: conduct “causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to any person”, “capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to the person’s occupation of residential premises”, or “capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person”. The policy states that ASB includes verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation, threatening behaviour, drug misuse, damage to property, animal nuisance, and misuse of communal areas. It does not include family disputes, clashes of lifestyle, boundary disputes, or minor personal differences such as dirty looks, children falling out, or inconsiderate or thoughtless behaviour.
  4. The ASB policy states that the landlord does not tolerate ASB as it recognises the effect that such behaviour can have on the lives of individuals. It is responsible for ensuring that its tenants adhere to the terms of their tenancy agreement. In dealing with ASB, it will: ensure it is easy for customers to make reports; identify whether the reported nuisance is ASB; assess risk and vulnerability in order to provide appropriate support; record all reports; discuss next steps with the reporting party; gather evidence in the form of diary sheets and app reports; consider use of mediation; work with partner agencies; and monitor cases prior to closure. Action taken against perpetrators of ASB will be proportionate, effective and timely, and may involve non-legal or (as a last resort) legal remedies. The policy also states that abusive behaviour towards the landlord’s staff constitutes a serious breach of tenancy.
  5. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 2 working days, and respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If it cannot respond within these timeframes, it will agree a resolution date with the complainant. Complainants may request escalation of their stage 1 complaint within 28 working days, and stage 2 ‘appeals’ are carried out by a senior manager. The landlord defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. This aligns with this Service’s definition.
  6. The landlord’s complaints compensation procedure states that, where its service falls below its desired standards, it may make discretionary payments for time, distress and inconvenience, or complaint handling failures. Awards range from £25 to £125 for time, distress and inconvenience, and from £10 to £50 for complaint handling failures, depending on the level of impact.

Summary of events

  1. In July 2020 the resident reported issues with her next-door neighbours on both sides of her property to the landlord. The issues involved neighbours entering the resident’s garden without permission, peering over the fence, items thrown into gardens, and disagreements between children. The landlord offered mediation but the resident declined. The resident told the landlord she wanted to ignore her neighbours and did not want it to speak to them.
  2. Over a year later, on 1 December 2022, the landlord visited the resident to discuss mediation again following a community trigger (ASB case review). The resident mentioned several incidents over the past year and said she had been advised by the police not to open her door to her neighbours. The resident again asked the landlord not to speak to the neighbours, as she said the police had already asked them not to use her garden as a pathway. She also declined mediation, saying she just wanted a peaceful life and to be left alone.
  3. On 13 February 2023 the resident reported further issues with her neighbours, including jumping over her fence, verbal abuse, rude gestures, and a smell of cannabis. She said she was following the police’s advice and not answering her door. After speaking to the landlord on the phone the same day, the resident told it she wanted to make a complaint about its officer, who “was rude, wouldn’t listen, had me in tears and then put the phone down”. She said the ASB was causing her stress and affecting her mental health. She asked to speak to her housing officer’s manager.
  4. The landlord discussed the resident’s email internally on 13 February 2022 and its housing manager called the resident on 15 February 2023. It documented that this was a “very positive call”, during which a plan of action was agreed. The resident agreed for the landlord to contact her neighbour regarding the reported behaviour, and she also agreed to mediation. The landlord did not log a formal complaint. The neighbour later declined to take part in mediation as they were unaware of the resident having reported any issues.
  5. In March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions regarding her neighbours entering her garden to retrieve their ball, and also regarding a rehousing application she had made. The landlord agreed to increase the resident’s priority banding for rehousing on 5 April 2023, and sent a warning letter to the resident’s neighbour on or around 6 April 2023. It provided diary sheets, then later closed its ASB case following discussion with the resident.
  6. On 14 May 2023 (a Sunday), the resident informed the landlord that her close family member had taken their own life, which understandably caused great distress to the resident and her children. Following this, she said her neighbours repeatedly knocked on her door to ask for their ball back, and threw a beer can into her garden. The neighbours persisted in knocking even after the resident put a sign on her door stating that her family needed time to grieve and requested to be left alone.
  7. The resident then sent 22 further emails to the landlord between 14 and 18 May 2023. In these, she described further incidents of ball throwing, trespass, offensive comments, moving her hanging baskets, and a smell of cannabis. She also referred to some other historical incidents. She noted that the police had visited her neighbour and advised them not to throw any more balls into her garden, and that the police would be making a request for her to have her own gate. She provided police reference numbers. The resident’s distress and frustration were apparent from her emails and at times she used expletives.
  8. The landlord discussed the resident’s emails internally on 18 May 2023 and made enquiries with partner agencies. It noted that the resident had previously told it everything was quiet on 12 May 2023, and that it had closed its ASB case with her agreement. Its housing officer said they felt it was not “suitable” for them to call the resident due to some of the offensive and accusatory language used in her emails. Having received no response, the resident sent the landlord a further 7 emails on 18 and 19 May 2023.
  9. The landlord spoke to resident on the phone for over 90 minutes on 19 May 2023. During the call, the resident said her neighbour had threatened to kill her the previous evening. The landlord advised her to report the threat to the police and she said she would. She also agreed to a referral for floating mental health support. When the landlord suggested mediation, the resident became upset and the landlord eventually ended the call. It then liaised with the police and requested consideration of a welfare check.
  10. On 21 and 22 May 2023, the resident sent the landlord 14 emails in which she described further incidents of trespass and littering by her neighbours. She stated her intention to put barbed wire or carpet grips along the top of her fence. She referred to police attendance on 18 May 2023, during which the police told her neighbours to have no contact with the her. She also said that her neighbour had been “plotting” to get her out of her home so that their friend could move in, and that they had threatened to get their friend’s dog to “trash” the resident’s garden. The resident repeatedly asked the landlord to take action by speaking to her neighbours.
  11. The landlord discussed the resident’s case and her recent contact internally on 22 May 2023. It noted that it had returned all callback requests that she had made. After receiving a further 5 emails from the resident, it contacted her to confirm receipt of her emails and to confirm whether the threat was reported to the police. It also said it had arranged for more diary sheets to be sent. The resident declined an offer of family support arranged by the landlord, and sent it 14 more emails between 22 and 30 May 2023. In one of these, dated 30 May 2023, she said she wanted to make a complaint about her housing officer for not being compassionate. She said her neighbours were not supposed to be anywhere near her house or garden, and pointed out that trespass was against the law. She asked the landlord to “sort it out”.
  12. On 31 May 2023 the resident sent the landlord a copy of a note she had sent her neighbour. She also referred to contact with this Service and gave permission for the landlord to discuss her case with her local councillor, noting that “since you haven’t responded to my complaints I have taken it higher”. The same day, the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint internally and liaised with the councillor and police. It also acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.
  13. Following further internal discussion and a further email from the resident, the landlord called the resident on 1 June 2023. It then issued its stage 1 complaint response the same day. This stated:
    1. During its phone call with the resident that day, it had discussed the volume of contacts received from her. This had increased to several times each working day.
    2. The resident had stated in her emails that she had not received a callback following her report of neighbour problems on 18 May 2023. However, its stage 1 responder had phoned her on 19 May 2023 and had a long conversation regarding the alleged issues and their effects on the resident’s family and mental wellbeing.
    3. The notice placed by the resident on her front door – which discouraged anyone from knocking – made it difficult for her neighbours to approach her directly to politely ask to collect their ball with her permission, as it would expect them to do.
    4. On 19 May 2023 it had advised that the behaviour described by the resident was not ASB and was suitable for mediation. It appreciated that the resident had agreed to mediation and simply wanted to reside in peace in her home.
    5. It had strongly advised the resident to report a serious threat by her neighbour to the police, as this was criminal activity.
    6. It was unable to evict the neighbour without sufficient evidence to satisfy the courts that a serious breach of tenancy had occurred. With the exception of the alleged threat, there had been no breach of tenancy.
    7. Should the police charge the neighbour following a report by the resident, it would consider tenancy action.
    8. It had contacted the police on 23 May 2023 and had not received any confirmation that the threat was reported. It was therefore unable to verify that the threat took place. It had contacted the police again for an update.
    9. There was no evidence that a beer can in the resident’s garden was thrown by her neighbour, unless she had seen this or captured it on CCTV.
    10. It had met with the resident’s neighbour on 6 April 2023. They advised they did not speak to the resident. They confirmed that their children did climb over the resident’s fence to retrieve their ball, as this was the only way of getting the ball back. They were offered mediation and declined.
    11. The police had advised that they were unable to action reports of children accessing the resident’s garden to retrieve their ball.
    12. Having reviewed the case, it could see that it had been in regular contact with the resident since its current ASB case was opened on 2 March 2023.
    13. Its action going forward would involve its community safety officer, community impact team and the police. The resident was invited to attend a meeting at her local police station on 7 June 2023. It was important that she attended.
    14. Its community safety officer and community impact team would also contact the resident’s neighbours to discuss matters further, and all 3 households would be encouraged to accept mediation services as a positive way of resolving the breakdown in relationships.
    15. If the resident was unhappy with its response, she should reply within 28 days explaining why she remained dissatisfied and what she sought as an outcome. A senior manager would then review her complaint at stage 2.
  14. On 2 June 2023, the resident sent the landlord 3 emails in which she expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. She said that:
    1. She had followed police advice in not answering the door to her neighbours.
    2. She felt she had provided enough evidence of the ASB for action to be taken.
    3. She felt the landlord was not following its own tenancy agreement or taking threats of violence seriously.
    4. She wished to take her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process.
  15. The landlord discussed the resident’s escalation request internally and logged a stage 2 complaint the same day. It said it had considered dealing with the resident’s behaviour under its unacceptable behaviour policy, but as the resident had sent an email apology to her housing officer, it would monitor her behaviour rather than taking action in line with the policy. Later on 2 June 2023, a note by the landlord’s stage 2 responder stated that the landlord had resolved the resident’s issues and that she had asked to withdraw her stage 2 complaint.
  16. On 5 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to request that it install a new access path to her property with fencing at the side, as an alternative to the existing shared access. The same day, the landlord opened a new ASB case. On 6 June 2023 it informed the local councillor that, although it had received requests for a private access path from both the resident and the police, access was adequate for the properties and it was unable to provide a new route. It is unclear whether it directly informed the resident of this decision.
  17. On 7 June 2023 a meeting took place between the landlord, resident and the police at a local police station. During the meeting, the neighbour issues experienced by the resident were discussed. The landlord advised that the neighbour’s children had a right to play football in their garden, and that an incident of the resident’s daughter being watched while wearing a bikini was not a breach of tenancy. It also asked if the neighbours were causing a nuisance when they collected their ball from the resident’s garden, or if they simply returned to their own garden. The resident replied that they were “trampling over her stuff”. When the landlord and police questioned some of the things the resident said and asked about evidence, she became upset and eventually chose to leave the meeting.
  18. Following the meeting, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was “seriously not happy” with the outcome and felt she had been spoken to inappropriately by her housing officer and the police. She said she wanted to escalate her complaint. On 8 June 2023, the resident reported that a glass bottle had been thrown into her garden and repeated that she felt the landlord was not helping her. She also contacted it via social media. On 9 June 2023 the landlord asked the resident to remove spikes that she had put on her fence, although it noted these were not illegal. It then spoke to her on the phone and arranged to visit her on 14 June 2023.
  19. During its visit on 14 June 2023, the landlord agreed that the neighbour’s children climbing over the resident’s fence and cutting through her garden was “slightly annoying”. It agreed to speak to the parents about this, but as no damage had been caused, it said it would take no further action. It then reviewed video footage of the reported threat to kill, which showed 2 people arguing outside the resident’s property. As the resident was not present outside her property and had not been involved in the argument, the landlord thought it likely that the threat was not made towards her. It suggested that the resident considered bereavement counselling. She said she would think about this and removed the spikes from her fence as requested.
  20. On 12 July 2023 the landlord received further contact from the resident, including completed diary sheets, in relation to the reported ASB.
  21. On 8 and 9 August 2023, the resident made a second complaint to the landlord regarding a rat infestation. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, discussed it internally, and issued its stage 1 response on 9 August 2023. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 14 August 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 August 2023. The stage 2 response noted that the resident had raised concerns about her neighbour’s dog gaining access to her garden through holes in the dividing hedge, and that the landlord had arranged for its housing caretaker to visit and assist with filling in the gaps. It confirmed that this work would be free of charge. The caretaker visited on 1 September 2023 to assess what could be done.
  22. On 19 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to discuss ASB issues, and it advised her to complete diary sheets and report incidents to the police. On 22 September 2023 the landlord’s caretaker installed a netted fence between wooden posts along the length of the resident’s side of the hedge. However, on 23 September 2023 her neighbour cut down the hedge. The resident informed the landlord of this, commenting that she considered her neighbour’s actions to be illegal and that she wanted them “severely dealt with”. She was worried that if the hedge cuttings were burnt, this could cause her shed or house to catch fire. She asked the landlord to put up a fence.
  23. On 24 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she felt it was not doing anything to address the ASB or protect her privacy. Following a “heated” call with her housing officer on 25 September 2023, she again asked to escalate her ASB complaint. She said her neighbours could now see into her garden and house. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the same day and arranged to visit the resident on 29 September 2023. The landlord’s note from its visit stated that the hedge had been cut down to the height of the netted fence installed by the caretaker.
  24. On 2 and 4 October 2023 the resident expressed concern about the landlord’s ASB reporting app, asking “what’s the point of having a remote reporting app if no one actually takes notice”. On 2 October 2023 she also reported that her daughter had “been exposed in a sexual harassment way which is inappropriate”. She said her main concern was her request for a fence, which she was promised would be fast tracked. She also felt her neighbour should have been required to obtain the landlord’s permission before cutting down the hedge, as this was a major alteration.
  25. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 4 October 2023, stating:
    1. The resident had asked it for protection in her garden from her neighbour’s dog, which was able to gain access through gaps in the hedge. It had visited to ascertain what could be done to block the gaps. This was over and above the works it normally undertook, as such works would usually be the tenant’s responsibility. However, it appreciated that as a single mum with limited support and resources, keeping her young family safe was a priority for the resident and the situation was causing her anxiety.
    2. After it fixed some netting to the bottom section of the hedge, the resident phoned it to express her gratitude. She also advised that its caretaker had managed to free her access gate, which she had been unable to do herself for some time.
    3. The neighbour had since reduced the height of the hedge. The resident had indicated that this prevented her daughter from playing in her garden, and that the situation was affecting her mental wellbeing.
    4. It had advised that the neighbour was entitled to reduce the height of the hedge for ease of maintenance. It was unable to stop them from doing this, especially as the tenancy agreement required tenants to keep their gardens in a neat and tidy condition. This included trees and hedges.
    5. It was sorry that the resident felt it was not listening to her, and that she felt discriminated against due to her poor mental wellbeing. Having reviewed all actions taken and support provided, it was satisfied that it had treated the resident with respect, taken time to listen to her concerns, supported her, and accommodated requests she had made.
    6. In addition to installing a netted fence in her rear garden, it had:
      1. Provided some fencing to her front garden to complete gaps in the hedging;
      2. Allowed her to raise the height of another rear dividing fence by fixing trellis to the top;
      3. Assisted with the trapping and eradication of rats, including liaising with the local authority’s environmental health service;
      4. Agreed to instruct a pest control contractor if involvement by the environmental health service did not resolve the rat issue.
    7. As it was not responsible for dividing fences, the resident had indicated that she may consider erecting a permanent fence at her own expense. It understood she had completed an alteration request form which had been received by its asset management team. It would review the request and respond accordingly.
    8. It considered that it had taken the wellbeing of the resident and her family into consideration and made every effort to assist them where it could.
    9. It recommended that she liaise with her GP regarding how she was feeling, to enable professional and medical support to be provided.
    10. The resident’s complaint had now exhausted its complaints process, and she could contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied with its response.

 

Post complaint

  1. On 4 October 2023 the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response. She felt its position was that all the ASB she had reported “meant nothing”. She also believed she did not require its permission for a fence. In an internal email dated 13 October 2023, the landlord said it would not revisit the situation as the outcome remained the same. It noted that it no longer provided dividing fences, and directed the resident to this Service.
  2. On 6 and 7 November 2023 the resident reported further incidents of stone throwing and verbal abuse by her neighbours to the landlord. It opened an ASB case on 10 November 2023 and confirmed it had spoken to one of the resident’s neighbours – who agreed to mediation – on 14 November 2023. It also agreed for its caretaker to assist with putting up a fence, using materials supplied by the resident, on 17 November 2023. The landlord then made a mediation referral with the resident’s permission on 21 November 2023, and closed its ASB case on 22 November 2023.
  3. Between 27 November 2023 and 7 January 2024 the resident reported continued ASB issues to the landlord, including verbal abuse, a strong smell of cannabis, incidents involving a toy pellet gun, and a threat to rip her camera off the wall. The landlord opened a new ASB case on 2 January 2024 and completed follow-up actions on 5 January 2024. It then interviewed the resident’s neighbour and issued a warning to them on 8 January 2024. It informed the resident that it had done so.
  4. On 12 January 2024 the resident met with the landlord and signed an ASB contact agreement. This stated that she wished to be updated every week by email. The landlord also provided further diary sheets on this date. When the resident repeated her request for separate access to her property, the landlord agreed to carry out this work and also offered its caretaker’s assistance with removing some decking. On 16 January 2024 the resident enquired about installing CCTV, and the landlord replied that it had passed the request on to its relevant team. It advised the resident not to purchase any CCTV equipment until permission was granted, and noted that cameras that recorded audio and/or could be moved were not permitted.
  5. The landlord met with the resident on 6 February 2024, and on 12 February 2024 she reported concerns that a smell of cannabis from her neighbour’s property was seriously impacting her daughter’s asthma. Following a call with the landlord on 16 February 2024, the resident made a complaint about her housing officer, who she said had told her that her expectations in relation to the cannabis issue were too high. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 February 2024, and following an escalation request by the resident, went on to issue its stage 2 response on 7 March 2024.
  6. The resident has continued to report ASB by her neighbours.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While some details of complaints made by the resident in August 2023 and February 2024 have been included in this report by way of context, the focus of this investigation is on the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB complaint in May 2023. This is because the resident did not indicate she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaints about a rat infestation and a smell of cannabis. A telephone conversation with the resident on 29 April 2024 confirmed this position. The resident retains the option of referring her other complaints to this Service for investigation in future.

Reports of ASB and harassment

  1. The background to this complaint is one of allegations involving multiple neighbours and dating back to at least 2020. It is relevant for the Ombudsman to acknowledge at the outset that ASB cases involving allegations of the extent presented in this case can be among the most difficult and intractable for a landlord to resolve. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important that the Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
  2. The documentation provided indicates that the landlord responded promptly and appropriately when the resident reported ASB. It made effective use of a case management system which allowed it to set and track the necessary actions, such as contact with the resident, risk assessments and any action involving the alleged perpetrators. Of 20 actions for which evidence was supplied, 19 were completed in accordance with or in advance of the target timescale. Only 1 action was delayed (by 1 working day), resulting in no significant detriment.
  3. In addition, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s communication with the resident was usually sensitive, detailed, and appropriate in tone. While the impact of the reported behaviour on the resident’s family is not underestimated – particularly at a time when they were grieving – the records provided indicate that the landlord made decisions that took account of the available evidence and took steps to explain its decision making. It used diary sheets and app reports to gather evidence, and took positive action by offering mediation, signposting to other agencies for support, and using appropriate tools such as interviews and warnings. It therefore acted in accordance with its ASB policy in these respects.
  4. While the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports was reasonable in many ways, some issues and themes highlighted during the course of the current investigation are explored in more detail below.

Defining ASB

  1. The landlord’s references to whether certain behaviour was or was not considered ASB were at times confusing. This confusion pervaded its internal communications as well as communication with the resident. According to the landlord’s ASB policy, ASB is behaviour that causes harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance and annoyance. This includes verbal abuse and threatening or intimidating behaviour. Despite repeatedly opening ASB cases on its system, logged under the category “ASB – verbal/harassment/intimidation/threatening”, the landlord stated numerous times between 1 June 2023 and 25 September 2023 that it did not consider the reported behaviour to be ASB. It also stated this in its stage 1 response.
  2. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, frequent presence of uninvited individuals in the resident’s garden would understandably have caused alarm and nuisance to her. Such behaviour would have been particularly distressing after the resident made her neighbours aware of her bereavement and explicitly requested not to be disturbed. Other reported behaviour such as verbal abuse, while not necessarily sufficient to justify legal tenancy action, would no doubt have caused significant and cumulative distress to the resident. The landlord’s repeated claim that the behaviour she described was “not ASB” therefore had the effect of minimising and dismissing her legitimate concerns. This caused her to feel that she was not being listened to or taken seriously.
  3. Elsewhere, the landlord accepted (on 14 June 2023) that children cutting through the resident’s garden would be “slightly annoying”. It therefore confirmed that the behaviour met the definition of ASB set out in its policy. However, its assessment of the behaviour was based on its officer’s personal reaction rather than the resident’s individual feelings, circumstances and vulnerabilities. While it is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate the ASB itself or to challenge the landlord’s decision regarding tenancy action, its assessment did not always appear to be based on a consistent definition of ASB or a thorough understanding of the impact of the behaviour on the resident’s household.

Response to resident contact

  1. On occasions – such as 14 and 21 May 2023 – the resident sent large numbers of emails to the landlord within a short space of time. This reflected her level of distress, the impact of the reported behaviour, and her anxiety regarding what action would be taken, as well as the recent trauma of her brother’s passing. The correspondence provided shows that the resident’s emails contained expletives and what could be considered abusive language (as set out in the landlord’s ASB policy). It is therefore understandable that the landlord’s staff who received the emails may have found them upsetting and/or offensive.
  2. However, if the officer who received the resident’s emails between 14 and 18 May 2023 did not consider it “suitable” for them to respond, it would have been reasonable for another officer to have contacted the resident. Instead, after the officer in question advised internally that they would not respond, the resident sent a further 7 emails before she received a call from a manager the following day. While the landlord may have responded within its stipulated timeframes, it would have been an appropriate use of discretion for it to have contacted the resident promptly on 18 May 2023. This would have reduced demand on its resources as well as giving the resident some timely reassurance and support.
  3. In addition, when the landlord called the resident on 19 May 2023, it would have been appropriate for it to refer to the ASB policy’s statement that abusive behaviour towards staff constitutes a serious breach of tenancy. This would have helped the landlord to set clear expectations and demonstrate a fair approach. It documented internally that it did not get an opportunity to discuss the resident’s level and nature of contact on 19 May 2023, and that it would “hang fire” on applying its unacceptable behaviour policy due to the circumstances. As this was not discussed with the resident, she was unaware that discretion had been exercised and so was not given an opportunity to reconsider her future levels of contact.
  4. In fact, the landlord did not address the level of contact from the resident until 1 June 2023, by which time it said 70 emails had been received. It therefore delayed further in making the resident aware of how her behaviour contravened her tenancy agreement and the possible consequences. It also avoidably prolonged the impact on its resources. On being made aware, the resident immediately explained her behaviour and sent a written apology to the officer in question. It is apparent from the landlord’s records that this action – completed by the resident of her own volition and not as a result of any request – prevented the unacceptable behaviour policy from being applied. Had the landlord told the resident what remedial action it would consider acceptable at an earlier stage, this could have improved the relationship and aided communication, which may in turn have had a beneficial effect on the ASB investigation.
  5. The ASB contact agreement that was introduced in January 2024, which set out method and frequency of updates, was a helpful measure and would have benefited from being put in place earlier. Had this not been implemented, a recommendation for such an agreement and point of contact would have been made.

Police action

  1. In investigating the reported ASB, the landlord liaised appropriately with the police and other agencies. This was in line with its policy commitment to work in partnership. However, at times it appeared to place undue emphasis on the police response and to use the police’s lack of action as a reason not to act itself. For example, in its stage 1 response it told the resident: “Should the police charge your neighbour from the evidence and report you provide to them, we would look at action that can be taken against the tenancy.” Similarly, on 27 November 2023 it advised “Unless the police take action resulting in convictions we cannot take action as a landlord”, and on 28 March 2024 it said “It is extremely rare [for tenancy action to be taken] unless a conviction takes place.”
  2. This advice was misleading, as the landlord would be enforcing its tenancy agreement rather than the law. It would also be required to ‘prove’ incidents according to the civil burden of proof (on the balance of probabilities) rather than the criminal level (beyond reasonable doubt). The landlord may not have had sufficient evidence to commence legal proceedings, but it should have been transparent in its reasoning. At other times it did this more effectively: for instance, having initially told the resident it could not verify the threat made towards her as she had not reported it to the police, it later reviewed the video footage itself and concluded that it was unlikely the threat was made towards the resident. This was an example of effective investigation, whereby the landlord was able to explain the reasons for its decision with reference to the available evidence.
  3. The landlord also told the resident on 5 January 2024 that “actions by the police indicate the severity of an ASB matter” and “if the police are not taking action, this is an indicator that life is not considered to be at risk and no criminal activity has taken place”. It said it would therefore deal with such matters as “a neighbour dispute which is causing nuisance and disturbance”. This again caused confusion regarding the distinction between ASB and a ‘neighbour dispute’, as discussed above. It was also inaccurate advice, as police action would depend on various factors including the ability to identify the perpetrator and the wishes of the victim. There may be circumstances in which a crime has occurred, or the risk level is deemed high, but a police prosecution is not possible for evidential reasons. Since there had been other instances of conflicting information regarding the responsibilities of the police and landlord – such as in relation to cannabis smoking – it was particularly important for the landlord to describe its position in a detailed and accurate way. The inconsistent advice given to the resident caused her to lose confidence in the landlord’s ability and willingness to assist her.

 

Staff conduct

  1. On each of the 5 occasions the resident told the landlord she wanted to make a complaint between 13 February 2023 and 16 February 2024, she began by saying she wanted to complain about a particular member of staff. However, the landlord did not address her concerns about staff conduct in its stage 1 response (other than noting that its housing officer had been in regular contact). At stage 2 it explored this issue more directly, confirming that it had reviewed the action taken and support provided. It concluded that its staff had treated the resident with respect, listened to her concerns, supported her, and accommodated requests she had made. However, it did not demonstrate that it had carried out a thorough investigation of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct – for example, by discussing this with her, interviewing the staff and managers involved, or interrogating records beyond those produced by the staff themselves. Since it addressed the resident’s conduct within its complaints process, it would have been good practice for it to show that it had applied the same scrutiny to its own actions. It could reasonably have done so with reference to its unacceptable behaviour policy and/or guidance for staff – for example, to explain why staff had sometimes terminated calls or given certain advice.

Supporting actions

  1. The landlord’s ASB investigation was supported by other practical measures it took to improve the situation between the resident and her neighbours. These included its decision to increase her priority banding, its offer of assistance by its caretaker, and its more recent agreement to install a separate access route to the property. There is evidence that the landlord went beyond its responsibilities in offering such support, such as carrying out works free of charge, extending CCTV permissions, and taking calls at weekends. It is apparent that the resident was grateful for these actions, which reflected an appreciation of her financial circumstances. While the landlord was not always able to accommodate the resident’s requests, or reviewed its original position after an issue recurred, the Ombudsman finds that it took a positive and appropriately incremental approach to these requests.

Mediation

  1. There is reference within the documentation provided to mediation being a prerequisite of any legal action. For example, an action on the landlord’s system dated 1 December 2022 notes that a staff member “advised to consider mediation if [the issue] recurs in the future” as “court action requires mediation first”. On 19 May 2023, the resident became upset when the landlord advised that a situation “requires mediation”. During a conversation with this Service, the resident also mentioned her understanding that legal action by the landlord was conditional upon mediation having been attempted.
  2. While it was appropriate for the landlord to highlight the benefits and possible outcomes of mediation, its advice did not reflect the legislative position. It also did not reflect its ASB policy, which states that mediation is “available where both parties are willing” and something the landlord will “consider” alongside non-legal and legal remedies to ensure action is proportionate, effective and timely. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to address any misunderstanding with staff through delivery of training, to prevent incorrect or misleading advice being given in future.

Summary

  1. An overall finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports, as while it did many things well, it also fell short in a number of key areas as outlined above. Being clear and consistent regarding its definition of ASB, promptly addressing any excessive or abusive contact, giving accurate information regarding police action and mediation, and investigating the resident’s concerns about staff conduct more thoroughly, would have improved her experience of the reporting process. These improvements would also have reduced the disproportionate disadvantage caused to the resident as a result of her mental health issues.
  2. The finding that has been made takes account of mitigating factors such as challenges faced by the landlord and positive action it took, as well as the quantity and severity of the failures identified.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord failed to log a complaint when the resident explicitly requested this on 13 February 2023. She made this request 3 times, with separate emails stating “I will be putting [in] an official complaint”, “I wish to raise a complaint” and “I want to raise a formal complaint”. Despite noting in an internal email “this is not the first time [the resident] has put a complaint in about me for doing my job”, the landlord did not raise a complaint as the resident asked or contact her to confirm her intentions. While it is positive that it had a long call with the resident on 15 February 2023, there is no indication that it explored whether she wished to pursue a complaint at that time. Instead, it used its own judgement and past events to determine whether a complaint should be logged, which was unsatisfactory.
  2. It is acknowledged that, in ASB cases, the term ‘complaint’ may be used by landlords and residents to refer to a report of ASB. If the landlord suspected that the resident meant to raise a report, rather than a formal complaint, it should have clarified this and explained the difference. Instead its own communication was confusing, with internal emails on 5 April 2023 referring to both a “complaint of ASB” and the resident’s “complaint about discrimination”. This confusion was apparent from an email sent on 19 May 2023, in which the landlord queried whether or not it was logging a complaint. However, the internal reply on 22 May 2023 was that “it isn’t a complaint, but an ongoing situation with [the resident’s] neighbours”. The landlord was not qualified to make this assessment, and if it declined to accept the complaint, it should have informed the resident of this and why.
  3. The landlord went on to refer to support it was putting in place, and to say “if after all this action she wants to make a complaint then I agree”. It was unacceptable for it to obstruct the resident’s access to its complaints process, or to use support as a stalling tactic or bargaining tool. It also appeared to use the resident’s abusive emails as justification for not logging a complaint (as discussed above), whereas this was a separate matter and the resident was not party to its reasoning. Internal emails later revealed that the landlord had logged a complaint “in error” on 18 May 2023, but withdrew this when it was “told we will not be logging a stage 1”. This indicates that the landlord amended or deleted its records to disguise what happened, as no record of a complaint logged on 18 May 2023 was provided to this Service. This is concerning and calls the reliability of the landlord’s complaint records into question.
  4. When the resident again complained on 30 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged her complaint within 1 working day (although there was apparently some internal debate as to whether it should do so). It then issued its stage 1 response the following day. This response time was significantly shorter than the 10 days set out in its complaints policy, and in view of the resident’s preference for quick responses, constituted a reasonable adjustment. The stage 1 response contained a useful summary of events and explained the factors considered when making decisions about action in ASB cases. This was appropriate. It also contained evidence of proactive attempts to progress the case, such as seeking updates from the police and arranging intervention by its community impact team.
  5. Confusion then arose following the stage 1 response. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 2 June 2023; the landlord logged the escalation request the same day, which was satisfactory. There was also a reference within internal correspondence to the stage 2 responder having become involved on that date. However, an internal note also dated 2 June 2023 stated that, according to the stage 2 responder, “we have resolved [the resident’s] issues and she has asked us to withdraw the stage 2 complaint”. The note appeared to query whether the stage 2 responder had actually spoken to the resident, and this Service has seen no evidence that they did so. In any case, expectations seemed to be misaligned, as the resident requested to raise her complaint to stage 3 on 7 June 2023 and noted that “I’m currently at stage 2” on 8 June 2023. At the same time, emails by the landlord stated that “stage 2 hasn’t been undertaken yet” (7 June 2023) and “[the stage 2 responder] has the stage 2 complaint which is still within timeframe” (8 June 2023). However, at this point the escalation request had still not been logged. Given the landlord’s obvious awareness of the request, this was an inadequate response.
  6. The resident went on to make an unrelated complaint (about a rat infestation), which the landlord promptly acknowledged and responded to at both stages. While the subject of the complaint falls outside the scope of this investigation, the landlord’s response was an example of effective and solution-focused complaint handling. It is therefore unclear why the same efficiency was not applied to the ASB complaint. The stage 2 response referred to some actions taken by the landlord in relation to the ASB investigation, such as blocking gaps in the resident’s hedge, which had the confusing effect of conflating the 2 complaints.
  7. The resident expressed continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports on 24 September 2023, and on 25 September 2023 she asked it to “confirm you have received my stage 2”. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the same day, which was appropriate (notwithstanding the earlier delays). It then responded within 7 working days, which was in line with its target timeframe. The response was produced by an officer of adequate seniority and suitably detailed, but it repeated information from the rat infestation complaint and appeared to use this – at least partially – as a basis for concluding that staff had made sufficient efforts to assist the resident. It also addressed the reasons for escalation given by the resident on 25 September 2023 (the hedge and fence issue), but not the reasons given in her original escalation request on 2 June 2023 (the level of action taken in relation to the reported ASB and whether it took her concerns seriously). It therefore did not constitute a comprehensive response.
  8. It is noted that, as with the resident’s complaint about a rat infestation, the landlord responded swiftly to the resident’s third complaint (about a cannabis smell) in February 2024. It acknowledged the complaint the day it was made, and responded within 4 working days at stage 1 and 8 working days at stage 2. While the complaint again falls outside the scope of this investigation, this constitutes a further example of effective complaint handling, in contrast to the resident’s ASB complaint.
  9. A finding of maladministration has been made due to the landlord’s failure to log the resident’s complaint in February 2023, escalate her complaint in June 2023, and address all aspects of the escalated complaint in October 2023. Despite its prompt responses once complaints and requests were logged, the overall 8-month timescale (from the resident first expressing her dissatisfaction to receiving a final response) was excessive. It consequently prolonged the distress and anxiety of a vulnerable resident and delayed her access to this Service.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment by her neighbours;
    2. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. Despite taking appropriate action in line with its policy when the resident reported ASB, including some proactive and practical measures, the landlord appeared conflicted as to whether the reported behaviour constituted ASB. It also provided misleading information about its limitations with regard to police action, and about the necessity of mediation. It delayed in addressing the level and nature of contact by the resident in May 2023, and did not adequately respond to her concerns about staff conduct.
  2. The landlord did not log the resident’s complaint when she first expressed her dissatisfaction with its handling of her ASB reports. It also did not escalate her complaint until 3 months after she requested this. Its decisions regarding whether to accept or escalate a complaint appeared to be discretionary and subjective rather than led by its policy. Though its complaint responses were prompt and detailed, they did not adequately address all of the matters raised by the resident. Information was sometimes duplicated across complaints, and the landlord’s approach was inconsistent across the resident’s 3 complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its confusing communication during its ASB investigation and delays in logging and escalating her complaint. Its apology should be in writing and should acknowledge the effects that the reported behaviour has had on the resident and her family. It should also provide contact details for local and/or national ASB support services.

 

  1. Pay the resident £1,000, comprising:
    1. £600 for its failures in handling the resident’s ASB reports;
    2. £400 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. Meet with the resident to discuss any recent or ongoing ASB and agree a plan of action. During the meeting it should explain the possible consequences of further incidents of different types and the level of evidence required. It should also explore whether a move is still something the resident wishes to consider, and if so, provide information regarding rehousing options and any assistance it may be able to offer.
  3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its offer of training for frontline staff involved in ASB investigations and complaints, and considers arranging further training to address any areas of concern arising from this report (such as definitions of ASB and complaints, and the role of mediation in ASB cases).