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

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202308683)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308683

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

29 May 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 response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour and her request to move.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced in 2004. The property is a 2-bedroom first-floor flat. The resident lives with her 2 sons and her youngest son has autism and ADHD, sensory difficulties and hypersensitivity to noise.
  2. Between September 2020 and March 2022 the resident reported issues with the neighbour and their partner to the landlord. This included reports of noise, derogatory comments about her family, sexual conduct in the car park, and breaking lockdown rules. 
  3. In response, the landlord: advised the resident to install and use its noise app; reviewed available CCTV footage; directed her to report criminal incidents to the police; listened to noise recordings; discussed the allegations with the neighbour; carried out unannounced visits to the neighbour; liaised with the police; and considered increasing lights and CCTV in the area. The landlord did not establish sufficient evidence of ASB to take further action and, having received confirmation from the resident in June 2022 that there had been no further disturbances, it closed the case.

Summary of events

  1. In May 2023 the resident reported non-residents gaining access to smoke and deal drugs in the building and using the trade button, and asked about the landlord installing CCTV to address this as a security concern. The landlord directed her to report immediate concerns of safety and suspected criminal activity to the police in the first instance.
  2. In June 2023 the resident raised her concerns to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. As an outcome to her complaint she sought to move to a more suitable property to accommodate her household’s needs. This Service directed the complaint to the landlord on 29 August 2023 and the landlord spoke with the resident on 6 September 2023 to understand her concerns.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 14 September 2023, it:
    1. Agreed to arrange for a block letter to be sent out to address reports of noise especially DIY noise late at night.
    2. Apologised for any restrictions on submitting evidence via the noise app, clarified that it would accept any form of recorded evidence, and offered support in setting up the app again if needed.
    3. Agreed to look into the new request for CCTV and repeated advice that the resident contact the police.
    4. Directed her to approach the local authority’s housing register to talk to them directly about any issues she has in registering, and signposted her on her options for mutual exchange.
  4. A block letter was issued that month, advising residents to be considerate of noise transference from tools and alterations late at night affecting other residents in the block, and detailing how residents could report this.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 September 2023, specifically in relation to her frustration with her housing situation. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 September 2023 and set out the process for the review panel hearing, which then took place on 9 October 2023. The hearing covered the reports of ASB and the impact of the resident’s housing situation on her household, as follows:
    1. The resident agreed to try mediation and to log noise reports as they happened so the landlord could investigate. She enquired about CCTV to address drug use by the rear of the building.
    2. The resident was most upset about the negative comments which were made about her son’s condition, who she accepted made noise as well, but she was open to talking to neighbours about this if it disturbed them. They discussed the landlord approaching the neighbour’s partner but the resident was fearful of escalating tension. Instead, she asked the landlord to write to the neighbours to tell them that her family had a member with special needs, and to therefore be mindful of the level of noise at unsociable hours.
    3. The resident was frustrated at being asked to submit a new housing application, as she already established her medical need to be rehoused. She was worried about losing her banding and having to resubmit medical evidence.
  6. On 16 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, as follows:
    1. Following the closure of the ASB case in June 2022 there were no new reports and it did not find service failure in its handling at the time. It set out the action plan to address any ongoing ASB.
    2. It confirmed the options the resident had to report ASB within its own teams and signposted to the police for drug and criminal activity. It would review the request for CCTV but this would depend on feasibility and cost. 
    3. It did not consider it appropriate to write to the neighbour and share personal details of any customers, such as her son’s special needs. Instead it offered mediation and set out the process to address any ongoing ASB.
    4. It addressed her concerns about the housing transfer and clarified that the resident did not need to resubmit medical evidence for a transfer. It would arrange for its team who manage transfers to get in touch about the process.

Events after the end of the complaints process

  1. The landlord’s housing team wrote to the resident about her transfer application in October 2023, when it explained that changes to its allocation process meant that all applicants had to reapply. It would then assess the banding and update residents and new properties would be advertised in April 2024. The resident did not need to resubmit medical evidence.
  2. In January 2024 the resident made further reports of ASB, but she did not wish to revisit this due to her fear of escalation and instead wanted to move. She chased the landlord about her housing later that month, and it updated her on the process as per its previous communication.
  3. In March 2024 the resident complained as she was told by the landlord that she had to resubmit medical evidence which conflicted with earlier advice and she had not heard back from the housing team. Following further exchanges, the landlord confirmed that it had the necessary details and the resident’s housing application was live in April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The events of 2020 to 2022 are noted above for context, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until the Ombudsman’s intervention in August 2023. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
  2. Therefore, we would reasonably consider events from August 2022 onwards. However, as there is no evidence of any reports being made by the resident between June 2022 and May 2023, the latter date is taken as the starting point for this investigation. This is when the resident began actively pursuing her reports more recently and asking the landlord to investigate and resolve her concerns.
  3. From January 2024, the resident raised concerns about the transfer application process. As these issues arose after the end of the complaints process under investigation here (which was focused on the ASB reports), they are not considered further in this report (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). If the resident remains dissatisfied with the application process or outcome, she may wish to raise a new complaint in that regard, which the Ombudsman could then consider in due course.
  4. Finally, there was some involvement of the police in this case, in terms of reports of criminal activity being made to them. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to comment on the actions of the police, as these matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Independent Office of Police Conduct (reflected at paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme). Instead, this investigation focuses on the actions of the landlord, including the reasonableness of its engagement with the police. 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and requests to move.

  1. The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour and Hate Crime Policy (‘ASB Policy’) states that:
    1. ASB is conduct that may cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or conduct that may cause nuisance or annoyance in relation to the occupation of the home.
    2. Hate crimes and incidents should be reported to the police and the landlord will work in partnership with them under a multi-agency approach to resolve ASB.
    3. Reports about noise nuisance or nuisance vehicles should be reported to the local authority, and the landlord will work in partnership with them under a multi-agency approach to resolve ASB.
    4. The landlord will take appropriate action where justified against perpetrators, ensuring that they are aware of consequences, and offer mediation where appropriate to resolve disputes.
  2. Following the resident’s reports in May 2023 the landlord directed her to the police, to engage their services and resources in respect of any suspected criminal activity such as non-residents dealing and using drugs in the area and in respect of any immediate security concerns. This advice was also appropriate for any reports of hate crime, which the resident reported in respect of the neighbour’s partner’s comments. This is in line with the ASB Policy which states that suspected crimes should be reported first to the police and that the landlord will work in partnership under a multi-agency approach towards resolving incidents of ASB.
  3. The landlord did not establish ASB from reviewing the CCTV footage and told the resident that its decision to increase CCTV would be based on cost and feasibility. There was no obligation on the landlord to provide additional CCTV, and no repairing obligation raised in respect of existing CCTV. The landlord ultimately had discretion over the request to add CCTV as an improvement, and it was entitled to base this on whether it thought it would be appropriate and proportionate.
  4. Following historic reports of dissatisfaction with the noise app, when the resident raised her complaint in 2023 the landlord took reasonable steps in adapting the method/format for the evidence it would accept. This provided the resident with more flexibility in capturing incidents of ASB. The landlord reasonably recognised the limitations the resident may be under and demonstrated a proportionate response to her concerns about the app not being sufficient.
  5. The landlord’s block letter demonstrated a resolution focused approach to manage a difficult situation, involving vulnerable residents, allegations which were at times disputed or met with counter allegations, and instances where the evidence has not always been definitive. Its final offer of mediation took into account the resident’s views and aligned with the intervention it could offer under its ASB Policy, which was appropriate.
  6. The resident’s desired outcome as the complaint progressed was to be moved, as she explained that the property was not suitable for her household. The resident’s medical needs were not disputed. During the complaint period, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident on her housing options beyond its own transfer list, such as the local authority or via mutual exchange, though it is acknowledged that the resident said these had not been successful in the past.
  7. The evidence seen regarding the Allocation Policy substantiates the landlord’s findings under its complaint investigation and advice given to the resident about the process of applying for a transfer with it. As a result, the landlord’s response at the time was appropriate. The events after the complaint process, including the landlord’s communication and the application process, have not been assessed as detailed above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of ASB by the neighbour and her request to move.

Reasons

  1. The landlord engaged with the resident’s complaint about ASB and housing request, by reviewing its records to establish whether there were any new reports of ASB, and then offering advice, intervention, and signposting in line with its ASB Policy and Allocation Policy.

  Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to consider updating block letters to include reference to the responsibility of tenants over the behaviour of their visitors, if it chooses to issue these for any repeat reports about the neighbour’s visitors, in future.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review the recommendations under Housing Ombudsman Spotlight Report on Noise: Time to be Heard and consider where it can integrate any of these into its existing practices for responding to future reports of noise.