54North Homes Limited (202109465)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109465

54North Homes Limited

27 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of a general needs house owned by the landlord, a housing association. She lived in the property with her husband and children, until she moved via mutual exchange in March 2022.
The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour around 7 times between 31 March 2021 and 18 July 2021. She made a formal complaint on 19 July 2021, stating that her neighbour’s partner was swearing at her and smoking cannabis. She said the smell from the cannabis went into her children’s bedroom and the living room.
Following intervention from this Service the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 12 November 2021. It said it had visited the resident and her neighbour on multiple occasions and arranged a joint visit with the police on 5 July 2021 to address her reports of ASB. It said it discussed the issues reported at length and offered solutions including mediation. It believed it had managed the resident’s reports of ASB properly.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023, stating that she was unhappy with how it responded to her complaint and requested for it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 its complaints process.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 June 2023. It reiterated its stage 1 decision. It said its communication with the resident could have been better and offered her £25 in compensation for the length of time it took to pursue her complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident reported that her neighbour assaulted her husband on 10 December 2021. The neighbour subsequently pleaded guilty to the assault when charged by the police, on 16 June 2022. She requested for this Service’s assistance in getting justice for her family. Paragraph 41.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given. This event is therefore outside the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate.
In her escalation requests to the landlord, the resident raised new issues in relation to the landlord not moving her to a different property when she made her initial ASB report. The request to move was not part of the resident’s initial formal complaint.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service. This Service is therefore unable to comment on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move.
The resident has stated that she considers that the landlord’s actions and omissions had an impact on her partner’s mental health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. She may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that its actions affected her partner’s health. This is a legal process and she should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. We can, however, consider any likely distress and inconvenience caused as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, she could consider this via the courts.

Antisocial behaviour

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.
The Crime and Policing Act 2014 states that ASB is conduct which:
1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
2. Can cause nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Can cause housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it aims to strike a balance between enforcement and prevention. It will try to address causes of ASB as well as supporting the victims of ASB. It states further that:
1. It will be clear about its expectations that residents should own the resolution of low-level problems.
2. It will record and monitor all ASB cases.
3. It will keep victims and witness fully informed of progress until it closes the case.
4. It may require support from other agencies in dealing with ASB and it will refer all criminal activity, including threats or acts of violence to the police in the first instance. This may delay what next steps it may take but it would keep residents updated.
5. It will promote the use if mediation services where practical to do so.
ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that there was a history of complaints made by both the resident and her neighbour against each other from March 2021 until June 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2021. She stated that her neighbour threatened her, her neighbour’s partner smoked cannabis, she felt watched by her neighbour’s security cameras, her neighbour’s cat brought dead rabbits to her house and her kids were loud, screaming and swearing all day. This Service notes that the resident’s neighbour made an allegation of ASB on 24 March 2021, a week prior to the resident’s counter allegation against her.
The landlord informed the resident and her neighbour that there would be an investigation into the allegations and advised both to keep a diary with dates and times of any further incidents. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
The resident contacted the landlord 3 times between 8 April 2021 and 12 April 2021. She reported that she was unhappy with the location of the neighbour’s cameras, the neighbour and her partner were occupying all the parking spaces, and they were waking her up by 7:00am by slamming car doors and honking car horns.
On 12 April 2021, the resident made a further report of the neighbour and her partner waking her up by 7am by slamming the patio door. She stated that the police had attended her property the previous day because the neighbour’s partner accused her husband of damaging his van. The police advised her to report any ASB by her neighbour so she was letting it know about the neighbour banging the door and swearing at her.
The landlord contacted the resident the same day and asked her if she would consider mediation. It said it would provide further details about the process if she would be happy to go ahead with it. This was reasonable as mediation is one of the interventions it can offer to resolve ASB issues and in line with its policy.
The landlord contacted the police on 14 April 2021 stating that the resident and her neighbour were making counter allegations against each other. Its records show the following:
1. It asked the police for information on the outcome of the meeting they had with the resident and her husband to discuss the issues she was having with her neighbour.
2. It wanted to know what actions the police would be taking if any.
3. It wanted to get clarity on the situation and to discuss any actions it needed to put it place.
4. It asked for guidance regarding whether the neighbour could have a camera attached to her property and wanted the police to clarify if it was an invasion of other residents’ privacy.
5. It said the resident and her husband had declined mediation and it requested assistance in resolving the issue.
It was reasonable for landlord to contact the police as the allegations from both parties involved reports of criminal damage, threats and drugs use which the police would have been better suited to manage.
The landlord conducted home visits to both properties on 24 May 2021. It discussed the issues raised with each resident. On 27 May 2021, it wrote a follow up letter in which it asked them to continue recording further incidents that occurred. It advised them to contact the police if there were further incidents and to provide it with an incident number for its records. It asked them not to get involved in any issues that did not impact their families, said it would continue to investigate the matter, and promised contact them towards the end of June 2021 due to annual leave.
The landlord’s action in conducting home visits was reasonable, it showed it took the allegations from both parties seriously. At this stage, it did not have proof of ASB occurring, other than allegations. There was, therefore, nothing further that it could have done other than advise them to keep a record of any events and to inform the police if things escalate. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, it requires corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. In this case, it was evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the issues in line with its policy.
On 30 May 2021, the police informed the landlord that it had visited the resident to discuss the issues she had with her neighbour. It said that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a harassment case, but there might be enough to support actions of ASB. It offered to collaborate with the landlord to resolve the issues. It explained that it could take action if the neighbour were in possession of cannabis, but its powers were limited if there was only a smell.
The correspondence from the police further highlights that the allegations from both parties were not straightforward to resolve and would require the landlord and the police to work together to create an action plan to resolve the issues.
The resident reported 4 more alleged incidents of ASB by the neighbour on 8 and 21 June 2021. The landlord was proactive in responding to her reports and informed her that it was arranging a joint visit with the police. It completed the visit on 5 July 2021. It is understandable that there were delays in arranging this meeting as all parties would have needed to agree on a date that was convenient to them. Furthermore, the landlord’s ASB policy states that the involvement of other agencies might delay its investigations into ASB reports. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 July 2021, stating that it would continue to investigate the issues, and encouraged her to report any further concerns.
There were over 4 allegations and counter allegations between the resident and her neighbour from 19 July 2021 until 14 August 2021. The police contacted the landlord on 18 August 2021 stating that it had suggested mediation to the resident, but her husband had refused to take part in mediation. Both parties continued to make reports accusing each other of ASB.
The police informed the landlord that it attended on 14 October 2021 and spoke to both parties. It said there were no clear offences to deal with and it advised both parties that if the issues continued it may interview both under caution rather than one being treated as a victim and the other as an offender. It said there was no independent evidence as to who was at fault.
On 22 October 2021, the police wrote to the landlord including a summary of all the reports made between the resident and her neighbour from 31 March 2021 until 15 October 2021. It stated that the allegations were low level, apart from the neighbour’s allegation of criminal damage against the resident’s husband. It said the resident seemed to have multiple complaints about her neighbour over things which did not really impact her. It had offered mediation which the neighbour agreed to but the resident declined. It had no further solutions and was concerned that the situation might escalate to violence or further criminal damage if left unattended. It said it was happy to work on a joint acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) to manage the situation.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord responded to all the concerns the resident reported to it. It stated that:
1. The neighbour’s boyfriend did not reside with the neighbour and it could not disclose personal information about him.
2. In relation to the issue of cannabis, it confirmed that the neighbour did not smoke cannabis in the property.
3. The neighbour parked their cars in the correct spaces and was not encroaching in other people’s spaces.
4. 7am starts for working people and school times were acceptable, but it had reminded the neighbour to be mindful that others can hear noise between properties.
5. The neighbour fitted cameras to provide security to their parked cars and it did not encroach on other people’s property.
6. It was difficult to manage the cat leaving dead animals in the garden but it had suggested that other people do not feed the cat.
7. It discussed at length what the resident could do to improve her mental health. It reiterated that she should report matters of a serious nature to the police but should try and ignore incidents that did not directly affect her family.
The landlord stated that it should have sent her a letter summarising the joint discussion it had with her and the police. It apologised and said it would improve its communication.
The landlord sent the resident a letter on 17 November 2021 with a summary of the joint meeting with the police. It said that it would keep the case open and encouraged mediation between both families to improve home life. It also said both parties should consider the possibility of an ABC that they would both agree to as this would show commitment from them to live peacefully in their homes.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was reasonable considering the circumstances. It is evident that the case was complex and difficult to manage as there were counter allegations and no evidence to prove or disprove the allegations. This would have restricted the landlord in terms of what it could do to resolve the issue. An ABC is a useful tool used by landlords to get both parties to agree to undertake or restrict specific behaviours. This was, therefore, a reasonable option as a resolution to the issues.
The landlord’s records do not show that the resident reported any further incidents of ASB after its stage 1 response on 12 November 2021 until she moved out of the property on 28 March 2022.
The resident informed this Service on 24 July 2022 that her neighbour pleaded guilty to assaulting her husband at a plea hearing on 16 June 2022. This hearing was after the resident had already moved out of the property. She then made an escalation request to the landlord on 16 January 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 June 2023. In summary it:
1. Reiterated its stage 1 response in relation to how it managed the resident’s reports of ASB. It said that it found no evidence that she was not listened to or believed.
2. Stated that the evidence, which included interviews with residents in surrounding properties, was not sufficient to warrant taking enforcement action against the neighbour.
3. Agreed that its communication was poor and there were no timescales given to her. It had not arranged follow up meetings to ensure resolution of the issues. It apologised for its poor communication and said it would learn lessons to improve its service in future.
4. Stated that the resident requested £5,000 compensation to cover the costs of installing carpets in her previous property. It said it was unable to grant her request because such its compensation policy did not provide for this.
5. It offered £25 compensation for the length of time she spent in pursing the complaint.
There were some failings in relation to the landlord’s communication, however, it acknowledged and apologised for these failings in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It sent the resident a summary of the joint meeting with the police 2 days after its stage 1 response. It arranged joint meetings with the police, and it offered mediation. It also took meaningful actions to correct its communication failures. It indicated that it had learned lessons and outlined how it would improve its communication in future.
In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was reasonable given the complex circumstances of the case. This Service concludes that it mostly adhered to the requirements of its policy in its efforts to resolve the issue.

Complaint handling

At the time the resident raised this complaint, the landlord operated a 3–stage complaints policy. Stages 0, 1, and 2. Its policy stated that stage 1 and 2 responses would be issued within 5 working days. This Service notes that since this complaint it has amended its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), which sets out this Service’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices.
The Code states that complaints should be responded to within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Paragraph 6.4 of The Code states that landlords must decide whether they require an extension to this timescale when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
The resident made her formal complaint on 19 July 2021. This Service sent the landlord 2 requests for action on 30 August 2021 and 3 November 2021 before it issued its stage 1 response on 12 November 2021. This was almost 4 months from when she made her formal complaint. This was a failing and not in line with its complaints policy.
The resident requested for the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 16 January 2023. This was more than one year after the last report of ASB and ordinarily should not have been considered as an ongoing matter. The landlord contacted this Service on 17 January 2023, advising that it was unwilling to escalate the complaint due to the length of time that had elapsed between its stage 1 response and her escalation request. This Service advised the landlord to issue a stage 2 response to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 24 January 2023. It said it would respond within 20 working days.
The resident informed this Service on 1 April 2023 that the landlord had requested an initial extension until 17 March 2023 and a second extension until 31 March 2023 but it had still not responded. This Service contacted it on 24 April 2023 and 1 June 2023 and asked it to respond by 8 June 2023.
Failure to adhere to time limits for responses is a service failure. This failure is further exacerbated by the fact that the landlord had given an extended target time limit to the resident, yet it exceeded this time limit by a considerable amount of time.
This Service acknowledges that on occasion there will be circumstances that means that the landlord cannot provide a complaint response by the initial time it gave for a response. This is usually to be expected when complaints are complex and further investigation is required or, as in this case, where some time had elapsed between the stage 1 and stage 2 escalation requests. It must also be considered that the resident had also moved by this time, thus, making it more difficult for the landlord to investigate properly in the timescale and with the lapse of time.
However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised time limit. It issued its stage 2 response on 7 June 2023. This was almost 5 months from when the resident made her escalation request. This was a failing and not in line with its policy.
In its complaint responses the landlord offered £25 compensation for the delays the resident experienced in pursuing her complaints. However, it did not specifically acknowledge or apologise for its complaint responses being out of time at stage 1 and stage 2 of its process. Neither did it provide any explanation for these delays or show any learning in terms of improving its response time at stage 2 of its process. It is also of concern that this Service had to intervene at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process before it issued its responses. The £25 it offered was not sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience these delays would have caused the resident. Thus, although this Service finds a failing with the landlord’s complaint handling, the increased compensation order has considered the lapse of time before the stage 2 escalation request as a mitigating factor in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £50 broken down as follows:
  1. £25 it previously offered for delays in its complaint’s response.
  2. Additional £25 in relation to its complaint handling failures.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.