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

Beyond Housing Limited (202114018)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114018

Beyond Housing Limited

14 January 2022

 

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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Request for a transfer to another property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and commenced his tenancy on 29 March 2021.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 1 June 2021 that he had experienced people climbing over his fence and two weeks previously someone had shone a torch through his window. He said that he suspected that the perpetrator was one of his neighbour’s visitors and he had reported the incidents to the police.
  3. The landlord corresponded with the police between 1 and 8 June 2021 about the resident’s reports and asked them to update the resident on the progress of their enquires.
  4. The landlord called the resident on 8 June 2021 to update him on its contact with the police. It offered to carry out a joint visit with the police, but the resident declined this offer. The resident reported that he had experienced loud music from his neighbour’s property and they were causing a nuisance with their motorbike.
  5. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 8 June 2021 to inform them that the behaviour reported by the resident constituted ASB and that it would issue a warning letter if further reports were received about their behaviour.
  6. The landlord called the resident on 16 June 2021 in response to a text he sent to it about a proposed fence repair. He said that the fence repair was unlikely to prevent people cutting through his garden as the height of the fence would remain unchanged. The resident pointed out to the landlord that his neighbours had metal fencing and questioned why he did not have this. The landlord agreed to visit him on 22 June 2021 discuss his concerns.
  7. The resident reported to the landlord on 18 June 2021 that his neighbour had ridden his motorbike in an area where it was not permitted. He asked if he could be moved out of the property as he was experiencing mental health issues due to his current living conditions. The resident contended that the landlord was aware of ASB in the area as he said that other neighbours in the area had complained about ASB previously.
  8. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 28 June 2021. He complained about the housing officer who carried out the initial sign up with him for the property and the workers who carried out work on his fence that day. The resident relayed that the workers who repaired the fence had not taken away a saw or the old fence that had been removed. He reported that children had taken the saw and had played on the discarded fence.
  9. The resident said he had been misadvised by the housing officer at sign up as they had led him to believe that the area was quiet and that there was no ASB. He disputed this as he had since needed to report ASB to the police which involved criminal damage and trespassing, due to people walking through his front and back gardens to access his street from the street behind. The resident reported that this had caused his children to be woken up regularly and caused distress to his autistic child. He added that his partner felt intimidated by his neighbours.
  10. The resident felt that the housing officer had acted as if they were unaware of the fence repair despite them agreeing to repair this on the day when he signed up for the tenancy. He was also unhappy that it had taken so long for this repair to be completed despite him reporting within two weeks of moving in that people were using his gardens as a shortcut. The resident felt that the repaired fence would not deter people from accessing his property as he believed it was easy to climb over.
  11. The resident felt it was wrong that he was unable to transfer to another of the landlord’s properties within the first twelve months of his tenancy, despite the tenancy agreement not stipulating the length of the term before a transfer could be agreed.
  12. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 and 5 July 2021 to ask if any further incidents of ASB had occurred. It also informed him that it had issued a warning letter to the neighbour.
  13. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 9 July 2021 in which it noted that its repairs team had spoken to him about the items left after the fence repair and that he was satisfied with the outcome of this. It said that the housing officer had not been aware of the gap in the fence at the start of the tenancy due to the view being obscured by bushes. The landlord relayed that its housing officer had offered to visit the neighbour who was using the resident’s garden as a shortcut but he declined this. It confirmed that this gap in the fence had now been repaired.
  14. The landlord informed the resident that there were no previous reports of ASB other than those he raised and that the previous tenants of his property had not reported any ASB issues. It relayed that it would be issuing a warning to his neighbour as the reported motorbike ASB had continued and that the police would be considering if action could be taken against the neighbour in view of this.
  15. The landlord confirmed that the resident held an assured tenancy with no tenancy limit, however, it informed him that its policy only allowed for a transfer of property after 12 months from the tenancy start date. It confirmed that this did not prevent him from applying to other housing providers and offered to provide him with assistance on seeking alternative housing.
  16. Later, on 9 July 2021, the resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He contended that the reason why there had not been previous ASB complaints made was because the previous tenants were related to, or friends with, the perpetrators of ASB. The resident relayed that another neighbour had informed him that they made a complaint about motorbike-related ASB prior to him moving in.
  17. The landlord called the resident on 10 July 2021 to inform him that it had spoken to his neighbour and the police. It advised that the police had also spoken to the neighbour about the use of the motorbike. The landlord stressed to the resident the importance of reporting any new incidents of ASB.
  18. The landlord closed the ASB case on 20 July 2021 due to no new reports of ASB from the resident. It noted that he had mentioned two incidents but did not wish it to investigate these reports. The landlord also noted that it had been in contact with the police but the police had advised that they required video evidence of the ASB in order to take further action.
  19. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 9 August 2021, after speaking to him earlier that day. It confirmed that it had issued a warning letter to his neighbour and closed the ASB case on 20 July 2021 as it received no further ASB reports. The landlord reiterated that any further action to tackle ASB would require the resident to provide evidence of any breaches of tenancy by the neighbour. It acknowledged that he did not wish to be a “security guard” but stressed that evidence of ASB was required to ensure that it responded appropriately and proportionately. The landlord explained to the resident that he could provide evidence via email, incident diary sheets or its reporting app. It noted that he had declined its offer earlier that day of providing mediation.
  20. The landlord noted that the resident had been unhappy with the housing officer but asserted that they had acted correctly and in line with its policy and procedures. It acknowledged that it had previously advised him that he could not transfer to another property within a year of commencing his tenancy but said that under the circumstances it agreed to consider him for alternate properties if he was eligible for them. The landlord directed the resident to the relevant service to seek another property from the housing providers in his area and confirmed that, should he apply for a property managed by itself, it would consider his application.
  21. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 3 November 2021 that he continued to be dissatisfied with ongoing occurrences of ASB. He reported that these were affecting his family’s mental health which prevented him from keeping records of the incidents or reporting them. The resident said that the landlord should have informed him of the neighbour’s history of ASB and wanted it to offer him a management transfer out of concern for his family’s safety.
  22. As part of its response to the Ombudsman’s request for information to investigate the complaint, on 30 November 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had not received any reports of ASB about the resident’s neighbour before the resident moved into the property. It maintained that the area was generally quiet with no previous ASB issues reported.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it considers “conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person” as ASB. This also states that it will approach reports of ASB with “an emphasis on prevention and early intervention” and employ a proportionately use the range of ASB tools at its disposal, including working with partnership agencies such as the police. This policy states that, where there is a dispute between neighbours, the landlord will offer mediation between the parties involved. It will also agree on an action plan with residents and provide measures to ensure their safety.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy management policy confirms that it “will not normally consider a transfer to another property when [a resident’s] existing tenancy is less than one year old” unless there is a housing need and exceptional circumstances. If exceptional circumstances exist then it will consider the evidence.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage formal complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, it is to provide its response to the resident within an agreed timescale. At the final stage of this procedure, the landlord should provide a full response within ten working days of acknowledgement of the complaint escalation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The resident has maintained that the landlord was aware of ASB in the area and misled him about this while, in its response the Ombudsman on 30 November 2021, it asserted that it had received no previous reports of ASB in the area. There has been no evidence provided which has confirmed whether or not there was a history of ASB in the area so a determination cannot be made about this. However, it must be considered that the presence or not of historical ASB does not indicate whether ASB will or will not occur in future. Therefore, this investigation will consider whether the landlord took reasonable steps, in accordance with its obligations, to address the ASB that was reported by the resident.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it will employ early intervention methods to address reports of ASB and take steps to ensure the security of residents who are affected. The resident reported that others were accessing his property as a shortcut. the landlord responded appropriately to this by repairing the fence to deter trespassers. In line with the landlord’s commitment to partnership working with the police, it contacted the police between 1 and 8 June 2021 to discuss the resident’s ASB reports. It also contacted the neighbour on 8 June 2021, the same day of the resident’s report of ASB, to advise that they had behaved in an antisocial manner and issued a warning letter to the neighbour on 5 July 2021. These were reasonable and prompt actions by the landlord, in accordance with its ASB policy and, therefore, there was no evidence of a failure in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. It is noted that that landlord had offered mediation to the resident, confirmed in its final response to him on 9 August 2021. This was again a reasonable and proportionate measure for it to offer him to attempt to resolve the ASB. Mediation is strictly voluntary and both the resident and his neighbour were entitled to decline to participate. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation as it can be helpful in resolving ASB in some cases.
  4. The resident has mentioned that he has continued to experience ASB and has been unable to report these incidents to the landlord due to health reasons. For a landlord to be able to take action in respect of ASB, it must have extensive evidence to act upon. This may be based upon reports and incident diaries provided by the resident and is reliant upon him engaging with the reporting process. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for not submitting further ASB reports, but the landlord can only take action based on the evidence it is given and therefore the landlord cannot reasonable do anything further unless the resident submits reports and diaries of any further incidents.
  5. The landlord outlined the various channels through which the resident could report ASB, however it did not acknowledge any difficulty the resident may have in using these channels. It will be recommended to the landlord to continue engaging with resident about the reported ASB and for it to consider liaising with any support agencies used by him to assist him in reporting ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer

  1. It was reasonable for the landlord to say, in its stage one complaint response that the resident would not be able to transfer to another of its properties within the first 12 months of his tenancy as this was in accordance with its tenancy management policy.
  2. The tenancy management policy does, however, provide for a transfer in the event of exceptional circumstances. The landlord would be expected to consider a management transfer in the event of exceptional circumstances such as immediate risk to a resident’s safety due to ASB. In this situation, it would generally be expected that the police to be involved due to the severity of the situation and the landlord may require confirmation from the police that the resident’s safety was under threat, in order to agree a transfer.
  3. Although it is acknowledged that the ASB was causing distress to the resident and his family, there was no evidence that there was an immediate risk to the resident’s safety. It was reasonable for the landlord not to consider a management transfer on this basis. However, it was reasonable for the landlord, in light of the resident’s reports of ASB, to exercise its discretion to relax its policy to allow him to be considered for an alternate property from within its stock, should he apply for one through the home seeking service for his area.
  4. There was no evidence of the landlord’s failure to follow its policy or acting unreasonably in response to the resident’s request for a transfer of property. However, following on from the Ombudsman’s recommendation, above, the landlord will be recommended to continue engaging with the resident and any support service he uses to record and investigate his reports of ASB appropriately. If this results in evidence that he is severely impacted by ASB then it should consider a management transfer if appropriate.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Its response to the resident’s request for a transfer.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted promptly, reasonably and in line with its policy to address the ASB reported by the resident.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord not to offer a management transfer at the time, and it acted reasonably in using its discretion to allow the resident to apply for another property from within its stock within the first 12 months of his tenancy.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Engage with the resident and any support service representing him to investigate any further reports of ASB appropriately going forward.
    2. Consider a management move if warranted based on any subsequent ASB investigation.