East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202332731)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332731

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

18 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the property owned by the landlord. He has mental health difficulties for which he has received medical treatment.
3. The property is a flat in a converted house. Another of the landlord’s tenants, (the neighbour), lived in the flat below the resident.
4. In June 2022, the resident made allegations of ASB by the neighbour to the landlord and the police. These included verbal abuse, threats and suspected damage to the resident’s property. The landlord interviewed the resident and communicated about the matter with the police. There was a build-up of incidents towards the end of 2022. Many of these incidents were handled by the police. After October 2022, the resident made no further reports of ASB to the landlord for a year though he says that the incidents continued throughout 2023.
5. On 9 October 2023, the resident complained formally about the landlord’s failure to respond adequately to his reports of ASB. He said he had hand-delivered a letter to its office which set out his concerns and requested to be moved in August 2022 and had received no response. In his complaint, he asked the landlord to move him to another property, as the dispute was affecting his mental health.
6. In its stage 1 response on 2 November 2023, the landlord said that it had checked its files and it had not received a letter from the resident in August 2022. It said it had a record of bags of rubbish being left outside the property in October 2022. It had worked with the police on the dispute but had received no recent reports of ASB by the neighbour. It would reopen the case if the resident wanted but would not move him to another property as he was not at immediate risk of harm.
7. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint to stage 2. He explained that the letter he had delivered in 2022 had included a letter from his GP explaining his need to move. He had been contacting the police over the last year. He sent a letter from his psychiatrist supporting his request to be moved in early December 2023.
8. On 15 December 2023, the landlord sent a stage 2 response in which it reversed its findings from stage 1. It said it had reinvestigated the complaint and now realised that it had failed him. It had failed to communicate with him between July and October 2022. It had received contacts from the police about the dispute in January 2023 and had failed to respond. It accepted it had communicated with him poorly. It offered him £300 in compensation and said it would consider moving him to a different property.
9. The dispute with the neighbour became worse in early 2024. The landlord offered the resident a different property in April 2024 which he accepted. At the date of the decision, he has not yet moved though the neighbour has recently passed away.
10. The resident complained to this Service as he believes that the compensation offered is inadequate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The resident has said that his mental health has been affected by the ASB he suffered and the landlord’s failure to deal adequately with it. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by complainants and the actions, or inactions of landlords. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which these events may have caused.

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

12. In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord handled any reports of ASB it received and to determine if it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, taking into consideration the issues being reported. 
13. The landlord’s ASB policy (the policy) defines ASB as “conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person”. The policy says the landlord takes a “harm-centred approach” to ASB which considers both the behaviour and the impact it has on those it is directed at. It says it will work to recognise victim vulnerability and take the appropriate steps to reduce any risk.
14. With regard to disputes between neighbours, the policy says “It is inevitable that we are sometimes going to live next door to people that we do not have a good relationship with. We believe that this is something that the parties should try and resolve themselves and therefore we are unlikely to categorise this as ASB. Exceptions would occur where there is a clear victim in the situation, or where the behaviour of the parties in dispute is affecting the wider community. We may refer parties in dispute to mediation services, as a way of ensuing the matter does not escalate into something more serious.”
15. The policy says that, on receiving a report of ASB, the landlord should decide whether it amounts to ASB and commence an investigation. It should interview the person reporting it within 5 working days or within 24 hours if they have “high levels of vulnerability”.
16. The policy says that residents must not use or threaten to use menacing, abusive or violent behaviour towards other residents and, if they do, it will respond within 24 hours. It says that it will work to identify and address victim vulnerability at various states throughout its casework.
17. The policy sets out the powers, methods and actions the landlord has and can use to manage ASB in and around its properties. It says that it will try to avoid taking action with minor issues such as loud music and may encourage residents to deal with these matters themselves. Its stated preference is to seek to prevent ASB in the first place. But, if this fails it says it will use non-legal remedies such as mediation, advisory letters, warning letters and acceptable behaviour contracts before it takes legal action against perpetrators.
18. The landlord also says it will work with the police and other responsible organisations to combat ASB. The policy says it will share information, respecting confidentiality where possible. It also says it will monitor the performance of its ASB service to ensure standards are met.
19. The resident’s concerns about ASB fell into 2 main categories. The first type involved noises the neighbour made in his flat by shouting throughout the night. The neighbour had mental health issues and, according to reports from the resident and other local people, the shouting happened frequently. As the resident lived above the neighbour, this must have been particularly troubling for him. The second type of ASB reported by the resident was more aggressive and targeted in nature and involved threats, shouting and criminal damage aimed at the resident. For example, He reported in the summer of 2022 that the neighbour had posted refuse through his letterbox, was rude and intimidating and that he believed they had slashed his car tyres.
20. The landlord completed a safeguarding incident form in June 2022 which referred to “ongoing alleged minor property damage over the last 3 months which is now escalating”. It said the resident was scared of the neighbour who he believed had a criminal past. It also recorded that the resident was a vulnerable adult.
21. However, the records show that the landlord did not call the resident until 5 days had gone by. When it did contact him, it got no reply and called him again 4 days later. This, then, was a breach of the policy. The landlord seems to have treated the resident’s concerns as a “low-level” problem or a neighbour dispute and therefore did not prioritise responding. Given the vulnerability of both the resident and the neighbour, this was not appropriate. This Service has seen no evidence that it considered any of the powers and tools it had to attempt to control the neighbour’s behaviour until early 2024.
22. In July 2022, the situation seems to have deteriorated, and the resident began to contact the police about his concerns rather than the landlord. The landlord shared information about the ASB reports by the resident with the police. It was reasonable, given that these reports of ASB involved allegations of criminal acts, which would be for the police to take the lead in investigating.
23. On or around 28 July 2022, the police made the landlord aware of the resident’s report of an incident when the neighbour shouted and screamed through his door. The police attended but the neighbour refused to admit the police and they left. Even though the police made the landlord aware of this incident, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident about his concerns or considered using any of its informal powers such as warnings against the neighbour at that time. There is little evidence of any consideration of the problem.
24. In November 2022, the police contacted the landlord and asked whether it had taken any action about the resident’s concerns about noise-related ASB. The landlord did not respond to this query.
25. While the resident was in contact with the landlord, there is no record of it taking any meaningful steps to address his concerns. Even if the police were taking the lead on the ASB reported by the resident as being aggressive, the landlord retained responsibility for the noise-based, housing-related ASB. This involved the neighbour allegedly shouting through the night. There is no evidence that it took any action, or considered taking any action, to control the neighbour or to solve the problem for the resident. It could, for example, have spoken to the neighbour and warned him about his behaviour and, if it continued, issued a warning.  There is no evidence that it did so. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB and to the police’s requests for information at this time was poor and did not meet the criteria set out in its policy.
26. The landlord accepts that there was a further report of ASB which the police passed on to it in January 2023. It accepts that it took no action after receiving this information and that is clearly a further breach of its policy.
27. The landlord’s files contain no further reports of ASB between January 2023 and October 2023. That is not to say that the problems had ceased, and the resident says they had not. However, as the evidence does not indicate further reports of ASB during that period, it could not have been expected to take any action. The police closed their file in July 2023. In October 2023, he complained formally to the landlord at the suggestion of this Service.
28. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 decision that its stage 1 complaint response was inadequate. It did not address the resident’s concerns and did not carry out a meaningful investigation of the facts behind the complaint. This resulted in the landlord being unaware of the failures in its own ASB service. While it offered to open an investigation into any ongoing concerns about ASB, which was appropriate, the stage 1 response was not based on a proper investigation of the facts and was therefore inadequate.
29. The resident sent a detailed response to the stage 1 response on 9 November 2023 in which he set out facts which contradicted the landlord’s stage 1 version of events. When it received this, the landlord investigated appropriately and recognised its previous failings. It accepted that it had failed the resident and offered him financial redress which is broadly in line with its own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
30. One point the resident raised in his response of 9 November 2023 was his claim that he had hand-delivered a letter to the landlord’s office in August 2022. He said this letter contained a request to be moved and a letter from a doctor, which asked the landlord to consider the impact the ASB was having on him. The landlord denied having received this letter at stage 1 and, while it reversed many of its other findings at stage 2, it did not reverse this one. It said that it still had no evidence of receiving this letter.
31. The resident said he handed the letter to the receptionist at the office. The landlord said that there was no receptionist at the office. The 2 versions of events are contradictory, and this Service has seen no conclusive evidence that the landlord received the letter and therefore cannot find it responsible for failing to act upon its contents.
32. The resident said, in his response to the stage 1 complaint response, that, because of his disappointment with the way the landlord had dealt with his concerns up until October 2022, he chose not to contact it again after that and to deal only with the police. For that reason, the landlord received no direct contact from the resident from October 2022 onwards, and this meant that it lacked day-to-day evidence of the dispute and so could not be expected to act on the resident’s concerns. It also meant that it did not know before October 2023, when the resident complained, that he had sent a request to be rehoused or a medical letter in support in August 2022.
33. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that its policy on managed moves stated that it would “usually only consider moving customers if there is evidence to suggest an immediate risk of harm”. It therefore suggested that he should apply to his local council, as the housing authority, to rehouse him. In his response to the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident said that he was at immediate risk of harm because he had spent 18 months living next to the neighbour and had vulnerabilities. He sent a further doctor’s letter to the landlord in support of his request for a managed move.
34. However, this doctor’s letter did not ask the landlord to move him to a different property. Nor did it say that the resident was at imminent risk of physical harm. It asked the landlord to “provide a resolution” to the problems with the neighbour to “prevent him from going back to the mental health problems which he has suffered in the past”. On a fair reading, this letter does not say that the resident’s problems were so acute as to justify a managed move under the landlord’s policy which required “immediate risk”. Nonetheless, it said that it would seek alternative accommodation for him. This commitment went beyond what was required by its policy and was, therefore, an example of good service.
35. It has taken time to find the resident a suitable place to move to because of his requests which included a garden. While this Service accepts that this would be frustrating for the resident, given the pressures on social housing, the landlord’s approach was not unreasonable. The landlord has reported that it found a suitable property in April 2024 which he accepted but it needed renovation before he could move in, and works are ongoing to prepare it for the move.
36. The resident said the ASB continued and became worse in early 2024. On 1 March 2024, the resident reported that the neighbour assaulted him and, on another occasion, threatened him and his partner. On this occasion, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy by issuing the neighbour with a warning letter which told him that his actions were a breach of the tenancy agreement and could, therefore, lead to eviction. Since then, the resident has told this Service that the neighbour has died. Clearly, this has brought a sad end to the resident’s concerns of ASB and there is no longer any need to rehouse him although as the landlord had already made an offer of housing, it may choose to do so in any event.
37. In summary, the landlord partially remedied its failings with an offer of compensation which was appropriate in the circumstances. This is because while the resident complained that the ASB went on for more than 18 months from its beginning until the stage 2 response, he did not make reports of ASB to the landlord between October 2022 and October 2023. It was therefore unaware of his concerns for much of that time. Further, while the resident states that he delivered a letter to the landlord requesting a managed move in August 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord received that letter or request. That being the case, this Service cannot find it failed him in failing to respond. Therefore, we consider £300 is a suitable offer of compensation in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
38. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had examined its own actions or learnt from its failures in relation to how it responds to reports of ASB. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code, (the Code) states that landlords should use their complaints process to encourage a learning culture. There is no evidence that it did so, and this was, therefore, a failure which has not been remedied. If the cause of the landlord omissions is not ascertained it is possible that other vulnerable residents may experience a similar situation to what has happened in this case. This Service has, therefore made an order which seeks to ensure that the landlord investigates the underlying issues in its handling of the matter and considers how it can be avoided.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

40. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure that similar failures in its ASB processes should not occur in future.
41. The prevention of future incidents is addressed by identifying any current weaknesses in the landlord’s ASB response practices which might affect vulnerable people in future.
42. The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

43. The landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay directly to the resident the £300 it previously offered him.