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

Citizen Housing (202300277)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300277

Citizen Housing

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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a flat on the first floor. The issues raised by the resident related to a number of different properties in the block. For the purposes of this report, and to maintain the resident’s neighbours’ anonymity, the properties have been referred to as flats X, Y and Z.
  2. The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) regarding flat X on 6 December and 8 December 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 December 2022 advising him it had opened an ASB case in response to his reports. The landlord provided the resident with the reference number for the case and asked him to keep submitting evidence. On 30 January 2023 the resident reported concerns about flat Y in relation to nuisance parking and their visitor who he alleged was obsessed with him. The resident had also reported noise nuisance from flat Z which was the flat above his property.
  3. On 1 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident after having reviewed all the incidents the resident had reported about his neighbours. It said it had visited and spoken to the neighbours to investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord found several of the resident’s reports to be inaccurate when it investigated. It stated that the resident’s reports lacked the required detail and often contained derogatory and abusive language regarding his neighbours. The landlord advised counterclaims about verbal abuse, graffiti, noise and aggression were made about the resident by a neighbour. It asked the resident to stop this behaviour immediately.
  4. The landlord found noise from the property above was reasonable and from normal use of the property. It said it would work with this neighbour to minimise any noise. The landlord stated it would act in a proportionate and appropriate manner in line with the seriousness of any corroborated, accurate and timely reports. It asked the resident to complete diary sheets as per the guidance given and provided direction on how to report different types of ASB. The landlord was unable to consider the resident’s request for a move as he had not provided the evidence it had requested and reminded him to submit this.
  5. On 3 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the letter he had received. The resident was unhappy with the content as he felt it was inaccurate and bullying. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. On 24 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had tried to call the resident as part of its process but had not been able to contact him. The landlord was sorry about the dissatisfaction the resident had with his housing officer and had raised this with her manager. It said it appreciated the efforts of the resident to report ASB but had found no indication that his reports had been ignored. The landlord acknowledged the resident felt the actions it had taken so far had not met his expectations and explained action was taken in line with its policy. It reminded the resident of the correct way to report ASB and it could not respond to every report without evidence. The landlord told the resident the language he used about the housing officer was not acceptable and it would not tolerate it.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 February 2023 as he believed there were lies in the stage 1 response. The resident wanted compensation, an apology, a housing transfer, a new housing officer, and confirmation when the neighbours he had reported were moving out.
  7. On 6 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It was sorry the resident was unhappy with the communication he had received but said he had been contacted about his reports of ASB. The landlord stated it took ASB seriously and will always investigate but there were some instances where it had limited powers to take enforcement action. The landlord offered to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property and said it would remind all residents about ASB by visiting them all. It said it would change the access code to the block to prevent youths from entering the building. The landlord said it could not offer compensation as it had acted upon the reports and had tried to support the resident. It provided the resident with information about a community trigger. It could not support the request for rehousing as the resident did not meet the criteria.
  8. On 19 April 2023 the resident advised this Service that he was not happy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. He felt he had been “left to drown” by his landlord. The resident stated the resolution he is looking for is compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy states “It is accepted that people will have different tolerances to sound/noise and in flat living, a degree of noise is to be expected. Not all reports will therefore merit action against the alleged perpetrator”. The policy lists what is not deemed ASB which includes “footfalls, light switches being switched on or off, general talking, toilet flushing, babies crying, children playing” and states “Issues around the parking of vehicles is not considered as ASB”.
  2. The evidence showed the resident made numerous reports of ASB to the landlord about several different neighbours between December 2022 and February 2023. These reports were sometimes made by phone and sometimes by email to individual members of the landlord’s staff. The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets to ensure a consistent approach in reporting ASB. The landlord explained to the resident that diary sheets were needed to ensure the correct information was recorded so matters could be investigated, and evidence was available should enforcement action be needed. This was an appropriate response from the landlord in line with its ASB and hate crime policy which states residents are expected to “respond to requests for information and to carry out any actions requested, in order to support any investigation for example by providing diary sheets, witness statements or attending mediation or court”.
  3. The resident was reluctant to complete diary sheets and the evidence showed he needed reminding of the importance of diary sheets on several occasions. Residents should be informed of the need to provide diary sheets to support their claims as early as possible. The evidence showed the resident had been advised about diary sheets on 11 February 2022 and 13 October 2022 when making previous reports of ASB. Guidance on diary sheets was also given to the resident in writing on 1 and 24 February 2023, in person at a visit on 1 March 2023 and over the phone on 4 April 2023. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord as it ensured the resident would understand the importance of collating the required evidence and learn about diary sheets in a way that best suited him. The landlord offered to collect the diary sheets from the resident, so he did not have to post them or email them. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take to support the resident.
  4. The resident reported that he was dissatisfied with how the landlord responded to his reports of ASB. However, the evidence showed that the landlord had responded appropriately. It had opened many ASB cases for the resident’s reports and had responded to these in a timely manner. When the resident made reports on 6 December and 8 December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident on 9 December 2022 to acknowledge the reports and opened an ASB case for the matters the resident had raised.
  5. The evidence showed that the landlord took appropriate action regarding the resident’s reports by speaking to and visiting the neighbours he had complained about. The landlord’s letter dated 1 February 2023 had advised the resident this contact had taken place and the outcomes of this. The landlord advised the resident that the noise he had reported from the flat above was “caused by reasonable and normal use of the property”.  This was because the resident had reported the neighbour was “floating or hovering” above him and the landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy states “footfalls” as not being ASB. Despite this not being deemed ASB, the landlord was resolution focused and said it would work with the resident’s neighbour above to minimise any noise from the property. This was reasonable.
  6. When the resident continued to report ASB the landlord took further action. On 1 March 2023 the landlord advised the resident it would change the door entry access code to prevent unauthorised access to the block because the resident had expressed concerns about youths carrying out ASB in the communal areas. In a telephone call on 4 April 2023 and in the landlord’s stage 2 response issued on 6 April 2023 the resident was offered noise monitoring equipment to be installed in his property. The landlord advised it would also issue a communication to each resident in the block about ASB and stated it would arrange to visit every resident too. This was a resolution-focused approach from the landlord.
  7. The evidence showed that the landlord had reviewed all the reports of ASB the resident had made and in its letter of 1 February 2023 had tried to manage the resident’s expectations of what it could and could not investigate and its timescale for responses. On 21 March 2023 the landlord reminded the resident that “There is day to day household activities that we will not consider as antisocial behaviour. Not all noise is anti-social, those noises that arise out of the ordinary and reasonable use of a property are not breaches of tenancy and cannot be subject to enforcement action”. This was appropriate as it was in line with its policy which states “footfalls, light switches being switched on or off, general talking, toilet flushing, babies crying, children playing” as examples of what is not deemed ASB. The landlord continued to try to manage the resident’s expectations in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses which was reasonable.
  8. When the landlord was not able to act on the resident’s reports, it appropriately signposted the resident. On 1 February 2023 the landlord advised the resident to report criminal matters to the police. On 21 March 2023 the landlord advised the resident to contact the police and his car insurance provider if he had damage to his car. On multiple occasions the landlord signposted the resident to its wellbeing service and helpline which offers free counselling and advice. The landlord repeatedly provided the resident with information about its tenancy sustainment team which it said could support the resident with ASB cases, wellbeing, and housing options. It offered to arrange for an officer from that team to contact him if he wished. On the 4 April and 6 April 2023, the landlord told the resident that he was able to request a formal review of his reports of ASB through the community trigger. The landlord provided the details of where he could request this. This was a customer-focused approach and provided appropriate and reasonable advice.
  9. It was clear from the evidence that the landlord had made many efforts to communicate with the resident. In addition to writing to the resident, the landlord had visited him on 1 March 2023. The landlord had called and spoken to him on 10 March 2023 and 4 April 2023. It had also tried to call the resident on 23 February 2023, 30 March and 31 March 2023 but there had been no answer. The communication the landlord made with the resident was appropriate and proportionate to his concerns.
  10. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. The landlord acted in line with its ASB and hate crime policy, took appropriate action where it could, and provided appropriate and reasonable signposting.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.