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

Bolton at Home Limited (202306520)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306520

Bolton at Home Limited

6 June 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against him.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began on 1 February 2021. The resident has ADHD, emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) and generalised anxiety disorder. The landlord recorded these vulnerabilities at the start of his tenancy.
  2. The property is a 1 bedroom second floor flat in a new build block of 9 properties. The resident lives there alone but has 2 young children who visit.
  3. Between June 2022 and May 2023, the landlord received numerous complaints about the resident. These concerned shouting, screaming and arguments coming from the resident’s flat. The resident denied these allegations. He said he was not even at the flat on some of the dates the noise had been reported. On 10 May 2023, the resident came home to find that the police had forced entry to his flat and boarded up the front door. This was due to a report of a domestic incident going on inside the resident’s flat.
  4. The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 10 May 2023. He said the landlord had failed to protect him from the “harassment and false allegations” against him. He said he no longer felt safe or comfortable living at the flat. He asked the landlord to accept responsibility for all the damage to the flat and to compensate him for the distress and embarrassment caused.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 May 2023. It said that it had been unaware of the police forcing entry to the resident’s flat and could not accept responsibility for this. However, it confirmed that it would cover the costs of replacing the resident’s front door. The landlord acknowledged that it could have done more to “seek independent corroborative evidence” of the complaints about the resident. Especially as it had not received any complaints from others within the block. It apologised for this and offered the resident compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 1 June 2023. He asked the landlord to arrange an “antisocial behaviour case review” as the police had now charged the neighbour with harassment against him. He claimed the landlord had “disregarded” his disabilities when dealing with the case. He said its staff were not appropriately trained to deal with vulnerable residents.
  7. On 17 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it provided its staff with ongoing training to help them work with tenants with “complex support needs”. The landlord said it had recorded the resident’s support needs and its case officers had been aware of these. However, residents having a disability or support need did not prevent it from investigating allegations of ASB against them.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide if the allegations of ASB against the resident were false or whether the neighbour’s conduct amounted to harassment. Criminal proceedings were ongoing at the time of this investigation and will determine this. This investigation will assess the landlord’s handling of the allegations against the resident and if this was fair, reasonable and in keeping with its policies.
  2. The landlord’s ‘ASB and enforcement policy’ says that it will “fully investigate” reports and these “will be treated seriously and dealt with professionally”. The policy claims that the landlord will deal with ASB “firmly, fairly and with an evenly balanced response”. This involves using “appropriate early intervention and prevention strategies e.g. polite letters before opening an ASB case and carrying out an investigation”.
  3. On 6 June 2022, the landlord sent the resident a ‘polite letter’. This informed him that it had received reports of noise nuisance from his property and asked him to “take practical and sensible steps to address this”. The letter advised that the landlord did not intend to investigate at this time as it hoped the matter could be resolved with the resident’s cooperation. This was an appropriate first step upon receiving noise complaints, in keeping with the landlord’s policy.
  4. Over the next 8 months, the landlord sent variations of this letter to the resident on a further 4 occasions. Having sent the initial letter and continued to receive complaints, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have adapted its approach. Such as by speaking with the resident directly or commencing an investigation. Instead, its repeated letters left the resident in uncertainty for an extended period.
  5. The resident has said that this caused him considerable anxiety and discomfort in his home. He later told the landlord that “every time I got a letter from yourselves I felt like it was an eviction notice”. He described telling his children they had to remain quiet whilst in the property and disrupting both his and their routines to minimise daily living noise. This led to him trying to stay away from the property at his partner’s and relatives’ homes as much as possible.
  6. The landlord has a ‘customer vulnerability policy’. This says that it will consider known vulnerability factors in making decisions. It lists when “assessing tenancy management issues and taking enforcement actions” as an example.
  7. The landlord’s tenancy support service worked with the resident when he first moved into the property. As such, it was aware of his vulnerabilities which include EUPD and anxiety. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise the potential impact that sending these repeated letters, with no further discussion or context, may cause due to these.
  8. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for its “failure to investigate the ASB reports thoroughly”. It said that “more could have been done to seek independent corroborative evidence to support the claims made against [the resident]”. It acknowledged that “the source and validity of the reports should have been looked into more closely”. This was especially pertinent considering the neighbour was 2 floors below the resident and no other occupants of the block had complained.
  9. The landlord has advised that, because of this case, caseworkers now check its systems before sending out ‘polite letters’. If it has sent a previous letter, a manager will review the case to decide whether another letter is appropriate or other action is required. Taking such learning from the complaint is good practice which is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  10. On 15 February 2023, the landlord opened an investigation into the ASB allegations against the resident. It carried out the following actions
    1. Interviewed the resident at its offices on 3 March 2023 about the allegations.
    2. Wrote to all residents of the block on 22 February 2023 asking them to report any ASB they may be experiencing.
    3. Proposed mediation to the neighbour reporting the noise nuisance.
    4. Installed noise recording equipment in the neighbour’s property for a period of 2 weeks from 27 March 2023.

These were appropriate steps which enabled the landlord to determine that there was no evidence to support the allegations.

  1. However, on 28 April 2023 the neighbour made another report of ASB against the resident. The landlord then wrote to the resident arranging a second interview. This was despite the landlord recording in the call notes that the neighbour had said “she does however think that she wouldn’t hear him and there would not be ASB issues relating to him if there was adequate soundproofing”. This indicated that the ASB being reported was actually daily living noise. The landlord had previously concluded this based on its investigation.
  2. It is, therefore, unclear why the landlord thought it necessary to interview the resident for a second time on 4 May 2023. It was the invite to this interview which prompted the resident to contact the police and raise a crime report for harassment. He described the allegations as “causing me significant distress and impacting my disabilities”. He said that “I feel my life is being invaded since this and I need to explain my every move to you [the landlord]”.
  3. On 10 May 2023, the police forced entry to the resident’s property following reports of a domestic incident. The resident was away from the property at this time and had advised the landlord of this in advance. However, as the landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response, the police had not made any enquiries with it which enabled it to pass this information on. This Service does not dispute the severe distress and inconvenience this event caused to the resident. However, it is not something the landlord could have reasonably foreseen or prevented – even if it had started its investigation of the allegations in a more timely manner.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord committed to covering the cost of replacing the resident’s flat front door. This was appropriate as the landlord’s tenancy agreement says that it will recharge for “any work resulting from you breaching a condition of the agreement”. There was no evidence of such a breach in these circumstances.
  5. The police later charged the resident’s neighbour with harassment, alleging that she had been making false reports against him. Whilst it is not appropriate to detail them within this report, the landlord identified that the neighbour had vulnerabilities that it needed to consider. Due to this it decided against taking enforcement action and instead supported her with a move of property. This was reasonable under the circumstances and in keeping with its vulnerability policy referred to above.
  6. On 1 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. He asked the landlord for an “antisocial behaviour case review between all agencies”. A complainant of ASB can apply for an ASB case review if they feel one or more agencies has failed to manage their reports appropriately. This is usually done via the local authority.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to acknowledge the resident’s request, or appropriately signpost him to the local authority. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it did this outside of the complaints process.
  8. Within his escalation email, the resident also claimed that the landlord’s staff were not appropriately trained to deal with vulnerable residents. He said the landlord had “disregarded” his vulnerabilities in its responses to both the ASB and his complaint.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that its staff received ongoing awareness training to help them work with residents with complex support needs. The landlord informed this Service that it has since arranged additional “Equality Act training” for ASB case handling staff. It said this is in response to an increase in ASB cases involving vulnerable complainants and alleged perpetrators.
  10. The stage 2 response stated that the landlord’s staff had been aware of the resident’s support needs and had asked him about these during the interview on 4 May 2023. It said that had the ASB case remained open then it would have completed an ‘equality act review assessment’ to ensure it accounted for any vulnerabilities prior to taking legal action.
  11. The interview on 4 May 2023 was the second time the landlord had met with the resident. This was also after it had completed its initial investigation of the allegations against him. The landlord missed the opportunity to gather this information during its first interview with the resident on 3 March 2023, which would have enabled it to consider it during its investigation.
  12. The landlord has also not provided any evidence that it offered support services to the resident. The resident had previously worked with the landlord’s tenancy support service in the early months of his tenancy and consideration of a further referral to this would have been reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted that input provided for the stage 1 complaint response by the landlord’s ASB manager included the line “if you have any questions or require any further support, please do not hesitate to contact us”, However, this was amended in the response itself to refer only to the resident contacting the landlord “if you require any further advice”.
  13. The landlord has informed this Service that it updated its letter templates following the resident’s complaint. All letters sent out from its ASB case management system now include a line asking residents to inform it of any support needs or vulnerabilities so that it can consider these. This is a further example of the landlord taking learning from this complaint.
  14. The resident has said that the landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities in keeping with the Equality Act 2010. However, the Ombudsman is unable to identify any such adjustments which would have been appropriate. The resident has said that the landlord refused to allow him to bring someone to support him in the 2 interviews it held. Whilst the Ombudsman does not dispute whether this happened, there is no record of him requesting this or the landlord declining it.
  15. The landlord’s records do show that the resident requested to record the second interview on 4 May 2023. The landlord made internal enquiries as to whether it should allow this but was unable to obtain advice in time. It appropriately offered to reschedule the interview so that it could clarify its position, but the resident agreed to continue as scheduled without recording.
  16. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £150 for its “failure to investigate the ASB reports thoroughly”. This amount falls within the bracket suggested by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of maladministration.
  17. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this figure does not offer sufficient redress. It is clear the resident has experienced a high level of distress and inconvenience. This was contributed to by the landlord’s failure to appropriately manage the case between July 2022 and February 2023, and it unnecessarily interviewing him for a second time on 4 May 2023 – when it should reasonably have established the complaints were unevidenced. Due to this, a finding of service failure is made and an additional £150 compensation ordered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation composed of:
    1. The £150 offered during its internal complaints procedure, if not already paid.
    2. A further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the allegations against the resident.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service.