Amplius Living (202311863)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311863

Longhurst Group Limited

18 February 2025

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 anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom house, from 14 July 2017.
3. On 4 November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had been verbally aggressive towards her, and visitors to her property. The landlord opened an ASB case, which was subsequently closed in February 2023 after no further reports were made.
4. On 1 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord, reporting further ASB from the same neighbour. The landlord contacted the resident the following day to obtain more details. On 6 March 2023 the landlord completed an ASB risk assessment and action plan. On 8 March 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the police were now involved, and the behaviour was continuing.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 May 2023 that she was unhappy with the way it had dealt with reports of ASB. She said despite the involvement of the police, the landlord had failed to put safety measures in place. The resident said she had not been updated throughout the process and the ASB had continued.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 26 May 2023 and apologised for the service the resident had received. The landlord said it had investigated her complaint and had found:
   1. The ASB case had not been reviewed as often as it should have been, and a single point of contact had since been assigned.
   2. It had contacted the police on several occasions to obtain further information, but no response had been received. It required further information from the police before any formal tenancy action could be taken.
   3. It had reviewed the Ring doorbell footage supplied by the resident and had noted the viewing angles were intrusive onto the neighbour’s property. It recommended the resident altered the angle of the camera to prevent footage being captured outside of her property boundary.
   4. It would arrange a face-to-face meeting with the resident and ensure the case was progressed in line with its policy.
7. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord the same day. She said the landlord had showed no compassion towards her and had made her feel like a perpetrator. The resident said she wanted the landlord to support her by placing a fence between her and the neighbour to reduce some of the behaviour she was experiencing.
8. On 16 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it had met with the resident and agreed a list of actions, which included speaking to the neighbour. The landlord summarised its current position:
   1. The neighbour had made a counter allegation against the resident.
   2. The resident had been advised to provide the landlord with a list of crime numbers so it could pursue the matter with the police.
   3. It was unable to install a fence as the shared path was not wide enough to facilitate this.
   4. The resident had agreed to mediation and a Good Neighbour Agreement, and the landlord would pursue this if the neighbour agreed.
   5. It would continue to review the ASB case with the resident at agreed times.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service. She stated the ASB had continued, and the landlord’s interventions were ineffective and affecting her quality of life.
10. On or after April 2024, the resident moved to a private rented property. The resident told this Service that she felt she had no other way of escaping the behaviour she was experiencing.

Assessment and findings

11. Paragraph 53.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that, “The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has made an offer of redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.”

The Ombudsman’s intervention

12. This Service contacted the landlord on 3 February 2025 and provided it with a summary of the Ombudsman’s understanding of events. This included the Ombudsman’s provisional comments as to what the landlord could do to resolve the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s offer of redress

13. On 3 February 2025 the landlord provided this Service with evidence that it had acted on the Ombudsman’s provisional comments which would involve paying the resident a further £750 compensation.
14. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she is satisfied with this as a resolution to his complaint.
15. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied, following the intervention of this service, that the landlord has now taken actions to remedy the matters raised which resolve the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 53.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.