East Riding of Yorkshire Council (202320791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320791

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

25 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

This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s:
1. Request for a transfer to another property in the block when it became available.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed first floor flat. The resident is partially sighted and lives with PTSD.
The resident reported ASB by her downstairs neighbours from 20 March 2022 onwards. On 9 September 2022 she made a complaint to the landlord. She said she had discussed the ASB with her housing officer, who she alleged had agreed that she could move into a neighbouring property, and she was dissatisfied with the outcome. She said the landlord had taken no action save for asking if she had reported the behaviour to the police.
The landlord responded on 23 September 2022. It said it had spoken to the housing officer and its customer service staff, and found no evidence that it had promised a specific property to the resident. It said it apologised if the housing officer had given the impression that she would be allocated a specific property. It explained that all allocations are handled in line with the local authority’s allocations policy, and confirmed the status of the resident’s transfer application. With regard to the ASB, it said it was satisfied with the way it had handled the reports, and asked her to complete 4 weeks’ worth of diary sheets.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 29 September and 5 October 2022. She said she had repeatedly reported bullying and harassment by her neighbours, as well as noise nuisance. She was dissatisfied with the outcome of her reports, and said filling in more forms was not the solution. The landlord has not provided any evidence of escalating the resident’s complaint at that time.
On 5 July 2023, the resident raised a complaint through solicitors. The complaint said:
1. It was inappropriate to ask the resident for the police response in March 2022, as the police did not have the authority to rehouse her.
2. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s letter of 25 March 2022.
3. The landlord entered into a verbal contract to move her to the other property when it became vacant, and then moved somebody else in.
4. By the time of her letter in September 2022, the ASB had been ongoing for 6 months without resolution. It was inappropriate for the landlord to request diary sheets.
The resident then raised a further complaint on 3 August 2023. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to either the July or August 2023 complaints.
On 2 October 2023, after being contacted by the resident, the Ombudsman referred the complaint to the landlord. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 20 October 2023. It said:
1. It had spoken to the housing officer about the reported conversation. They said they remembered talking to her about an upcoming vacancy, but did not remember agreeing any allocation.
2. All allocations were completed in line with the local authority allocations policy. No housing officer or senior housing officer has the authority to allocate properties outside of that policy.
3. The resident said at the time that she had wanted to move because of issues with ASB. However, with hindsight she confirmed that the move would not have been the right thing to do.
The resident escalated her complaint on or around 11 February 2024. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 30 April 2024. It said all allocations were carried out in line with the local authority’s allocations policy, and that it would not move a resident as a result of ASB. Instead, it would expect a housing officer to manage the reports in line with its ASB policy. It said it had received no reports of ASB since October 2023, and asked her to complete diary sheets for any incidents. It explained that reports of ASB would not result in her being moved.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Scope of the investigation

The landlord is a local authority. Paragraph 5 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme gives the Ombudsman the power to investigate local authority social landlords only as far as the issues relate to the management or provision of social housing. Any action taken (or not taken) by the landlord in its role as a local authority, rather than its role as a landlord, would not fall within the Ombudsman’s remit, and would be for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to determine.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This means the Ombudsman cannot look into the way the landlord handled any further reports made after the landlord’s stage 2 response to the complaint, or any other issues which were not included in the resident’s complaint.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says that intimidation, harassment, aggressive and threatening language and behaviour, and noisy or rowdy behaviour (other than everyday living noise) would be considered ASB under the policy. The policy says the landlord will take the following steps to deal with ASB:
1. It will carry out an investigation into the reports promptly, and must collect sufficient evidence before any formal action can be taken.
2. If it finds the complaint is justified, it will agree a plan of action with the resident. This may include completing diary sheets, contacting the police, or providing witness statements. The landlord will interview the alleged perpetrator, and if there is strong evidence it would use early intervention tools such as a warning or acceptable behaviour contracts before trying to take any legal enforcement.
3. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to the reports, they can initiate the community trigger.
4. If the alleged perpetrator is a tenant in one of the landlord’s properties, it will take the lead in liaising with other agencies where appropriate.
The landlord’s ASB policy does not create any provision for a management move. Rather, it sets out the limited circumstances in which ASB will affect priority banding for rehousing.

Assessment and findings

Transfer request

The resident says that her housing officer promised her a transfer to another property in the block in March 2022, and then did not offer her the move when that property became vacant. She believes the landlord was legally obliged to move her to that property, and the failure to do so was a breach of contract. The landlord said housing officers did not have the authority to make any promises about allocation of a particular property, and all properties are allocated in line with its allocations policy.
The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident believed she would be offered the property in question. However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine matters of contract law, or whether the landlord acted reasonably when offering the property to another applicant. Decisions regarding the allocation of property and priority banding for any transfer applications would fall within the landlord’s local authority function rather than its function as a landlord. As such, those decisions would fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, rather than this Service. This Service can only consider whether the landlord acted reasonably in not arranging an internal transfer as part of its landlord function.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord has an internal transfer policy for its residents, or any provision for management moves within its ASB policy. The landlord has confirmed in its complaint responses that all transfer requests are managed in line with its allocations policy. This would be part of its local authority role, and not part of its role as a landlord. In the absence of any other internal transfer process, the landlord had no obligation as part of its housing management function to offer the resident a move to another of its properties. However, the Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s communication in this regard.
When the resident contacted the landlord in September 2022 to raise her concerns about her belief that the property had been promised to her, the landlord investigated those concerns. It spoke to both the housing officer in question and the customer service staff who were present in March 2022. The housing officer confirmed that they remembered having a conversation about the forthcoming vacancy, but did not remember promising the property to the resident. The customer service staff confirmed that they had spoken to the resident after her conversation with the housing officer, but did not hear the conversation itself.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether or not the housing officer did tell the resident she would be offered a particular property. Rather, it is the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns. The evidence provided shows that the landlord did investigate those concerns by speaking to any potential witnesses. It then explained the outcome of its investigations to the resident, as well as how its allocations process worked. While the Ombudsman notes that the resident disagrees with the conclusion reached, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show the landlord did not appropriately investigate her concerns on receipt of her initial complaint.
However, the resident has provided evidence of an email sent by the landlord’s customer contact centre to her housing officer on her behalf. The email says that the property in question had become vacant, that she was helping to empty the property, and she wished to accept the offer of a tenancy when the property became available. This email was also referenced in the resident’s letter of 29 September 2022. This email should have made it clear to the landlord that the resident was under the impression that she had been offered a move to the property in question, and the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to clarify its position at that point. The landlord has provided no evidence that it did so, or that it made any attempts to clarify the position until the resident made a complaint in September 2022. This was unreasonable.
Overall, in the absence of any policy or process for internal transfers or a management move for ASB, the landlord had no obligation to offer the resident a transfer as part of its role as a landlord. However, its failure to respond to the June 2022 email was an example of poor communication, and a missed opportunity to clarify its position regarding her transfer request.
However, while the landlord’s response was unreasonably delayed, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence which suggests the overall outcome would have been different had the landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns sooner. This is because while its response was unreasonably delayed, the landlord did carry out an investigation in September 2022. It has also consistently maintained its position that properties are only allocated in line with its allocations policy, and that housing officers are not authorised to make any offers of a specific property. As such, any detriment to the resident would be limited to the distress and inconvenience of having to pursue her request with the landlord. Any concerns the resident has about contract law or the priority given to her transfer application do not fall within the remit of this Service.
The Ombudsman therefore finds there has been a service failure by the landlord.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should apologise to the resident, and pay her £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its communication. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which have adversely affected a resident, but which have not significantly affected the overall outcome.

ASB

The resident said she had reported ASB and noise nuisance from her downstairs neighbours on a number of occasions. She said the landlord did not respond appropriately to her reports, and she felt the only solution was for the landlord to move her. The landlord has not accepted any shortcomings in its handling of antisocial behaviour. It said it would not look to move a resident as a result of antisocial behaviour, but would manage the ASB in line with its policies.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether any reported antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance took place as alleged, or at all. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the reports made, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
When a landlord receives reports of antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance, it is required to investigate those reports. This may include speaking to both parties to gather their version of events, speaking to any witnesses, reviewing diary logs or noise recordings, and liaising with the police or other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then need to determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case of noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour can be extremely limited, and may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore important to consider whether the landlord has acted in line with its policies and good industry practice.
The resident reported antisocial behaviour by her downstairs neighbours on 20 March 2022. This included reports of shouting, threats, and the neighbours putting waste through her door. Such behaviour would fall under the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy. The landlord responded to the reports by asking what action the police were taking. While this was a reasonable enquiry, the landlord has not shown that it acted appropriately at this stage. For example, it has not shown that it opened an ASB case, carried out any risk assessment, or took any steps to gather evidence beyond asking what the police would be doing. These are some of the most basic and essential steps in investigating reports of ASB, and it is of concern that the landlord has provided no evidence of taking those steps.
The resident replied to the landlord on 25 March 2022, and explained that she had not called the police, but would do so the next time the behaviour occurred. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded or took any further steps to investigate the reports, despite internally noting that the resident had requested a transfer as a result of violence or threats of violence. This was not in line with either its ASB policy or standard industry practice.
The next report the Ombudsman has seen evidence of was when the resident sought to raise a complaint on 9 September 2022. However, the landlord has not disputed the resident’s comments that she had reported ASB in person between March and September 2022. In its response on 23 September 2022, the landlord sent the resident 4 weeks of diary sheets to complete, and said it would review what action it could take once it received the completed diary sheets from her. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to complete diary sheets, as it needed to ascertain the level, times, and frequency of the reported ASB and noise, as well as the impact on her, to assess what action, if any, it could take. However, it again failed to open an ASB case or carry out any risk assessment. This was unreasonable.
On 29 September and 5 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to report bullying and harassment by her neighbours, as well as noise nuisance. The landlord’s contact logs show that it spoke to the resident on 6 October 2022, and told her it would look into her reports. It has provided no evidence of taking any further action after that conversation, which was inappropriate. It was not until 9 December 2022, almost 9 months after the resident’s initial reports (and in response to a further report on 25 November 2022), that the landlord opened an ASB case, carried out a risk assessment, or made any attempt to contact the alleged perpetrator. This was a serious and significant delay, for which the landlord has provided no reasonable explanation.
Following the resident’s 25 November 2022 report, the landlord took a number of reasonable steps. It opened an ASB case, completed a risk assessment, sent the resident diary sheets to complete (together with additional copies to pass to other neighbours), and wrote to the alleged perpetrator. It told the resident it had written to the alleged perpetrator, and that if it did not receive diary sheets from her by a certain date, it would assume the issues were resolved and close the ASB case. These were all reasonable and appropriate steps to take, albeit significantly delayed.
The resident sent her completed diary sheets to the landlord on 23 January 2023. These included reports of excessive noise every day, in part due to a lack of soundproofing, and her neighbours shouting at her through the walls. She said she had to use headphones and ear plugs because of the noise. The landlord reviewed the diary sheets and wrote to the neighbour to arrange a home visit. The landlord’s logs say that the resident then reported on 3 February 2023 that the issues were resolved. The available evidence demonstrates that the landlord appropriately reviewed the resident’s diary sheets, and spoke to the neighbour. However, it has not shown that it spoke to the resident after receiving her diary sheets, or to confirm it was closing the case. As such, while its handling of the ASB improved at that time, there were still failings in the way it handled the reports.
The next report the Ombudsman has seen evidence of was on 19 May 2023. The resident told the landlord that her neighbours were continuing to harass her, and had cut the power to the property. She reported the same on 5 June 2023, and sent a rehousing application on 13 June 2023. On the application, she told the landlord that her neighbours were threatening and harassing her, and that she was partially sighted with PTSD.
The landlord discussed the May 2023 report with the resident. It said it had sent operatives to check the power, and that the reports did not indicate anything suspicious. It advised her to monitor the noise again, as the previous visit had been successful. It was reasonable for the landlord to look into the resident’s concerns, and to seek further evidence. However, it has not shown that it opened a new ASB case (or reopened the previous case), carried out a new risk assessment to take account of her reported vulnerabilities, agreed an action plan, or made any attempt to interview or visit the neighbours. This was not in line with its ASB policy or standard industry practice.
The resident then contacted the landlord through solicitors in July 2023. They said the resident had been reporting ASB for months with no resolution. The landlord has provided no evidence of responding to that letter. However, the Ombudsman has seen internal emails from 2 days after that letter asking if an ASB case should be open. It has provided no evidence of taking any further action following that email, or following a further letter from the resident regarding the ASB on 3 August 2023, which was unreasonable.
On 14 September 2023, the resident returned completed diary sheets to the landlord. The landlord wrote to the resident to advise it would speak to the neighbour. However, it has provided no evidence of doing so. In the absence of that evidence, the Ombudsman can only reasonably conclude that the landlord failed to take any steps to contact the alleged perpetrator, or to take any appropriate steps to gather further evidence.
On 2 October 2023, following a further report from the resident, the landlord completed a risk assessment. However, the risk assessment indicated the resident had no vulnerabilities, which was incorrect. Its notes also show it discussed the case, and determined that all reports were historical. This was despite the resident having reported ongoing issues with her neighbour, and that she was awaiting a police visit. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that it carried out an appropriate and accurate risk assessment, or appropriately assessed the nature of the reports. It also made no attempt to contact the police to take a multi-agency approach to the reports, despite the resident’s report that the police were involved. This was not in line with either its ASB policy, or standard industry practice.
On 31 October 2023, the resident reported harassment from her neighbour. She said the police had recently visited, but the behaviour was ongoing, and she felt that nothing was being done about it. The landlord’s notes say it declined to reopen the ASB case, as it needed further evidence. However, it has not shown that it explained this to the resident, requested any further evidence, or took any steps to contact the police for information. It has also not shown that it considered any other methods of evidence gathering such as contacting other residents in the block, the installation of noise recording equipment or CCTV, or referring the noise reports to Environmental Health. Given that there were multiple alternative evidence-gathering options left unexplored, it was not reasonable for the landlord to refuse to reopen the ASB case.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that there had been no ASB reports since October 2023. The Ombudsman notes that the resident disputes this. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any further reports between 21 October 2023 and 17 April 2024. As such, the Ombudsman cannot conclude either way whether or not there had been any further reports in that time.
Overall, there were a number of failings in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB. It failed to open an ASB case, carry out a risk assessment, or take appropriate steps to gather evidence for a significant length of time after the resident’s initial reports. While there were then improvements in the way it handled reports from December 2022 until February 2023, it failed to take appropriate action when the resident made further reports from May 2023 onwards. It also failed to appropriately take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities in its later risk assessments, or to act in accordance with its ASB policy.
Furthermore, given the resident’s multiple reports of ASB and reported dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the reports, it is unclear why the landlord did not advise the resident of her right to request an ASB case review using the community trigger under the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The resident has a right to request a multi-agency case review where a local threshold is met, and it was unreasonable that the landlord did not inform the resident of this when she raised concerns about the way her reports were handled.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. It has therefore considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
The resident believes that the only solution to the ASB is for the landlord to move her. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to order a landlord to move a resident and, as noted above, the landlord’s ASB policy does not include any provision for a management move as a result of ASB. As such, it was not required to consider moving the resident as a result of reported ASB.
However, given the landlord’s failure to properly assess or investigate the resident’s previous reports, and the resident’s confirmation that as of May 2024 the reported noise and ASB was ongoing, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should contact the resident to determine the current situation so it can deal with any ongoing ASB or noise issues appropriately. An order to that effect has been made below.
The Ombudsman also considers that, in addition to an apology for the failings identified in this report, the landlord should pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the way it handled her reports.
It is apparent that the reported noise and ASB has caused the resident a significant amount of distress, and she felt that nothing was being done to help her. The landlord is not responsible for the reported actions of the resident’s neighbours, and is only responsible for its own actions surrounding the reports. As such, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to compensate a resident for the actions of their neighbours, but for distress and inconvenience directly caused by any failings in how it handled the resident’s concerns.
Taking into account all of the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failures which adversely affect a resident, and where a landlord has not acknowledged its failings or done enough to put things right.

Complaint handling

The resident first raised a complaint on 9 September 2022, and the landlord responded on 23 September 2022. The resident then replied on 29 September 2022 to dispute the contents of the complaint response, and again sought to escalate the complaint on 5 October 2022. The landlord told the resident on 6 October 2022 that it would look into the contents of her letter, but it has provided no evidence that it did so. In the absence of that evidence, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord failed to appropriately escalate the complaint. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The resident then raised further complaints on 5 July 2023 and 3 August 2023. The landlord has provided no evidence of responding. This was inappropriate, and not in line with either its complaints policy, the Code, or standard industry practice.
As a result of the above, the landlord has not shown that it handled the resident’s complaint appropriately. Its lack of response to the resident’s complaints and escalation requests caused unnecessary delays. As a result of those delays, the resident had to contact the landlord to try to raise the complaints again, and was prevented from bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman until the landlord’s complaints process was exhausted. The Ombudsman therefore finds there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Taking into account all of the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident a further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration in complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which negatively impact a resident, but which have no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been a service failure with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer to another property in the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Write to the resident to request details of any ongoing ASB and noise nuisance.
3. Pay the resident £600 compensation for the failings identified in this report. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her request to transfer to another flat in the building.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her reports of ASB.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her complaint.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.