Guinness Housing Association Limited (202113169)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113169

Guinness Housing Association Limited

29 October 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;
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Request for a management move to a different property.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord until May 2024. At the time of the complaint, the landlord was aware that the resident had suffered a spinal injury which caused her physical difficulties. The resident had also disclosed that she suffered with poor mental health.
3. On 4 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for a management move to a different property due to ASB from her neighbour. She also said that she had suffered a spinal injury, which meant she required significant support from family who lived out of the area. The landlord asked the resident if she could provide medical evidence to support her application. It also provided advice about mutual exchange.
4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 24 May 2023 and requested a management move. On 7 June 2023, the landlord reminded the resident about providing medical evidence to support her request.
5. On 6 July 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She said that the landlord had ignored her requests to move, despite her informing it that she needed to be rehoused close to family for support. She also said there were long standing ASB issues with her neighbour. The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 July 2023 and said that the property was overcrowded and unsuitable for her family.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023. The landlord said that it had addressed all reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures and advised the resident to continue liaising with the tenancy enforcement team. With regards to a management move, the landlord said that it had been unable to locate any management move requests. To consider the request, it said the resident would need to submit supporting evidence. The landlord offered £25 compensation for its delayed response to the complaint.
7. On 14 August 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She was dissatisfied as the landlord had failed to acknowledge her long standing requests to move property. She also remained unhappy with the ongoing harassment and ASB by her neighbour. She said that she had sent supporting evidence in the post.
8. Between 18 and 30 August 2023, the resident reported her neighbour for obstructing her parking space. The landlord has also advised this Service that the resident reported noise nuisance by the neighbour. It said that it provided the resident with information about gathering evidence of noise nuisance. However, due to a lack of evidence, the landlord was unable to take any further action.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 September 2023. It reiterated that it had dealt with the reports of ASB in line with its policies. The landlord said that it had not received the supporting evidence that the resident said that she had posted. However, to prevent further delays, the landlord would arrange to meet with the resident to take copies of the evidence. It would then review the evidence and confirm if the resident met the criteria for a management move.
10. The resident remains dissatisfied as the landlord failed to rehouse her, despite her spinal injury. In communication with this Service, the resident said she had been requesting to move since the start of her tenancy, and the property was not fit for purpose for her family due to being too small. She also said that the landlord had not dealt with the ASB and left her vulnerable to further harassment and ASB by her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

ASB

11. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it would not consider low-level neighbour disputes and day to day living noise, which is not excessive or unreasonable, as ASB. It states that it would take proportionate and timely action to deal with the ASB. The action would be proportionate to the severity, impact and frequency of the ASB and the evidence available to support the case.
12. The evidence is limited regarding the resident’s reports of ASB. This does not appear to be due to a landlord failing, but rather appears to be reflective of the circumstances relating to the complaint. Throughout her communication with the landlord, the resident refers to being the victim of long standing, ongoing ASB. This Service is aware that the resident has made previous complaints about ASB, which the landlord had responded to, and the resident had not raised continued dissatisfaction.
13. However, in the context of this complaint, there is a lack of reports and evidence related to ASB incidents on specific dates and times. On the one occasion that the resident had reported an incident of ASB, the landlord referred to a lack of evidence to corroborate the resident’s report and it closed the case. Given the report appears to be an isolated incident and the evidence proved inconclusive, this was fair. It was also in accordance with the landlord’s policy. We have not been provided with evidence of any further reports that were made to the landlord during the period in question.
14. A key element to investigating and taking action following reports of ASB is reviewing the reports and associated evidence. It is reasonable that a landlord would require a detailed explanation of the reported ASB and supporting evidence to corroborate the resident’s account, such as (but not limited to);
    1. Diary sheets evidencing a pattern of ASB.
    2. Evidence gathered on noise monitoring equipment/apps.
    3. Witness accounts.
15. Following an initial report of ASB, this Service would expect the landlord to provide advice regarding what evidence it required to act and how the resident could gather such evidence. In this case, the landlord did, which was appropriate.
16. For a landlord to take action against a tenant for ASB, it must be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. In the absence of such evidence, this Service recognises the difficulties faced by the landlord in taking action, even though this may be frustrating for the resident.
17. Our role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures. Based on the evidence that is available, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in the timeframe of the complaint was reasonable and therefore we have found no maladministration in relation to this complaint. We do acknowledge that there has been a longstanding issue with ASB. However, we are satisfied that the landlord’s handling of the matters relating to this complaint were proportionate and appropriate in all of the circumstances.

Management move

18. The landlord’s allocations policy states that a management move is when the landlord agrees to move an existing tenant to another property outside of its standard bidding process. For it to approve a management move, exceptional circumstances must apply which are;
    1. A tenant needs to move due to the threat of or actual violence or harm. This applies when there is an imminent risk to them or a member of their household if they remain at that property.
    2. There is evidence of a significant and insurmountable problem associated with the tenant’s occupation of their current home.
19. The resident’s request was based upon the impact that a physical injury had on her, and the need to move out of area to receive family support. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was at imminent risk of harm. However, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the resident’s physical injury constituted as a significant and insurmountable problem associated with the occupation of her property at the time.
20. This Service has seen evidence of the resident requesting a management move on several occasions. In response to each request, the landlord informed her that it required supporting evidence. This was reasonable and demonstrated its willingness to meaningfully consider her request to move in line with its policy. Positively, it also managed her expectations about the availability of suitable properties and advised her of other options such as mutual exchange. This was appropriate.
21. There is no evidence that the landlord received the required evidence in the timeframe of the complaint, so it offered to collect the evidence from the resident. This was reasonable and the landlord evidenced that it was proactive in resolving the resident’s complaint.
22. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it was unable to locate any management move requests. As above, the resident had communicated with the landlord on several occasions about a move, and the landlord had responded. The basis for the landlord’s comments was therefore unclear. The landlord’s comment could have caused the resident confusion and frustration, and undoubtedly contributed to her complaint escalation. The landlord may wish to reflect on this and ensure its responses accurately reflect previous communications with residents and ensure that its language does not cause avoidable confusion for its residents.
23. Despite this, the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests appropriate. The evidence shows that the landlord clearly explained its position at each stage and effectively managed the resident’s expectations by confirming that it could not facilitate a management move without supporting evidence, in accordance with its policy. The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident of her housing options and explaining that she could seek a mutual exchange to potentially expedite the moving process.
24. While we understand that the resident wishes to move from the property, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its allocation policy.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s;
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Request for a management move to a different property.