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

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202228820)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228820

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

23 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy of the property. She lives there with her daughter who was 13 years old at the time of the complaint.
  2. The resident first reported issues with noise coming from her neighbour’s property on 22 July 2022. The resident recorded the noise using the Noise App and diary sheets and also reported issues with suspected drug use within the property. From August 2022 to October 2022 the landlord took steps resulting in a Community Protection Warning being served on the neighbour on 11 October 2022. The landlord also referred the case to the local authority’s Environmental Health team for noise monitoring equipment to be installed at the property but this was never completed. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the situation and asked to be rehoused because of the ASB. She continued to report noise from the neighbour in 2023.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 21 February 2023. She was unhappy that the landlord had closed the previous ASB case in December 2022 without informing her and said that none of her previous contacts had been dealt with as complaints. The resident said that the issues with the neighbour had made her ill and she wanted to be rehoused or for the neighbour to be evicted. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 1 March 2023 and at stage 2 on 17 October 2023 outlining the steps it had taken and explained that it could not take further action without new evidence.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service on 31 October 2023. The resident wanted the landlord to apologise and to give her the chance to present all the evidence she had rather than restarting the process again.
  5. The resident has informed this Service that the neighbour is no longer living at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in contact with this Service, the resident has said this situation has had an impact on her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more suitable to be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts and will not be assessed as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the  neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
  2. In the complaint dated 21 February 2023 the resident said she was unhappy that the landlord hadn’t logged her contact in September 2022 as a complaint. The resident first reported issues with noise from the neighbour’s property to the landlord on 22 July 2022. The resident told the landlord that she had argued with the neighbour on 26 July 2022 and this had resulted in the police being called. The landlord spoke with both parties and agreed that no intervention was required at this time.
  3. On 2 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that the noise from the neighbour had continued. In response to this, the landlord asked the resident to begin recording the noise using the Noise App. The resident recorded 71 entries on the Noise App between 2 August 2022 and 19 August 2022. It is noted on occasion that the resident used the app to log activity other than noise. For example, on 11 August 2022 the resident logged an entry notifying the landlord that the neighbour had not been at home all day. The resident also kept some handwritten diary sheets of noise.
  4. After reviewing the Noise App submissions, the landlord opened an ASB case on 22 August 2022 and explained to the resident that it was unclear at this stage if the noise was a statutory nuisance. It interviewed the neighbour and issued a warning letter to them on 23 August 2022 in relation to the allegations. The landlord confirmed the action it had taken to the resident and asked her to continue submitting recordings through the Noise App. These actions are in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  5. On 21 September 2022 the resident told the landlord that the noise issue was ongoing and reported drug use and threats of violence from the neighbour and their family members. On 26 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord to rehouse her and said she had experienced suicidal thoughts as a result of the situation. In response to this, the landlord:
    1. Opened a new ASB case.
    2. Told the resident to report any suspected drug offences, threats or violence to the police.
    3. Contacted the police twice to confirm the outcome of any recent attendances at the neighbour’s property.
    4. Made a referral on the resident’s behalf to the local authority Environmental Health department for noise monitoring equipment to be installed at the property.
    5. Explained to the resident that the noise monitoring equipment was required to prove a statutory nuisance which, if proven, would allow it to commence tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour.
    6. Invited the neighbour to an interview about the allegations.
    7. Served a Community Protection Warning on the neighbour in October 2022.
    8. Contacted the resident by telephone on 24 October 2022 to confirm the steps it had taken and asked her to continue to submit recordings on the Noise App.
  6. It is unclear from the evidence whether the previous ASB case, opened on 22 August 2022, was closed before or after this new information was received and there is no evidence of this being communicated to the resident.
  7. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to have taken the above steps, the landlord failed to use all the tools available to it as set out in its ASB policy. The evidence shows the landlord failed to:
    1. Complete a risk assessment.
    2. Complete a safeguarding or similar referral to relevant support services when the resident told it she had experienced suicidal thoughts.
    3. Acknowledge or offer advice on her request for rehousing.
    4. Inform the resident what ongoing steps it could take to manage the neighbour’s behaviour while it waited for police or environmental health intervention.
    5. Confirm the next steps in writing in an agreed action plan.
  8. The evidence shows the resident recorded another 36 entries on the Noise App in September 2022 and contacted the landlord at least 4 times by email and text message by the end of October 2022. It is clear from the volume of recordings that the resident put a lot of time and effort into providing evidence in support of the case. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its policy and this left the resident chasing for updates throughout this period of time. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this in either of its complaint responses and this is a service failure.
  9. The resident was unhappy that the Environmental Health department did not contact her about installing the noise monitoring equipment until November 2022. The resident reported the neighbour was not staying at the property at that time and therefore there was no noise to record. For this reason, she refused the installation of the equipment and the Environmental Health team advised her to make contact again should the issue reoccur in future. There is no evidence of the resident contacting this team regarding the installation after this date.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2023 and said the noise had started again. The landlord confirmed it could not take any further action without more evidence. As there had been a period of time without incidents it asked the resident to use the Noise App again and explained that the referral process to Environmental Health had changed and it could no longer make referrals on behalf of residents. The landlord encouraged the resident to self-refer to Environmental Health in a telephone call on 17 February 2023 and reiterated this advice in both its complaint responses. The landlord provided the resident with the contact details for Environmental Health and the link to the online referral form on 25 August 2023.
  11. It is acknowledged that the noise monitoring equipment is provided by the local authority and the landlord has no control over how long it takes for them to make contact, nor over the referrals process. The landlord was aware of the serious nature of the resident’s concerns and the impact this was having on her. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated at having to seemingly start the process of recording the noise again. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it could contact the Environmental Health department on the resident’s behalf to see if there was anything that could be done to fast track the case. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to give the resident the contact information for Environmental Health in a timely manner and this is a service failure.
  12. In her complaint of 21 February 2023 the resident said the landlord had closed the ASB case without telling her. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord had closed the case based on a lack of new evidence when she had told the landlord that the only reason for the lack of new incidents was because the neighbour was not living at the property at that time. The landlord’s ASB policy says:
    1. It will close cases where action has been taken and the ASB has been resolved or where there is no evidence to support action.
    2. When closing a case, it will inform victims about the conclusions reached and the reasons why the case is being closed.
  13. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 November 2022 and said it had been informed by Environmental Health that the resident had refused the noise monitoring equipment because there were no current noise issues to monitor. The landlord advised the resident to contact Environmental Health if the issues started again. It is acknowledged that the landlord could not take any further action without further evidence of a statutory nuisance and it is not reasonable for landlords to keep ASB cases open indefinitely if there are no current ASB incidents occurring. It is appropriate that the landlord considered closing the case on this basis.
  14. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to call the resident on 6 December 2022 and 15 December 2022 to discuss the closure of the case. It then sent a letter to the resident on 15 December 2022 stating the case was closed and outlining the reasons why. The resident told the landlord she did not receive this letter and only discovered the case had been closed when she attempted to log a new entry on the Noise App in February 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord sending a copy of this letter by email even though the majority of its past communication with the resident had been by email. The landlord acted appropriately in closing the case based on the lack of new evidence and although it could have also made contact by email, overall the landlord acted reasonably in its efforts to communicate the case closure to the resident.
  15. The resident asked the landlord to rehouse her on 26 September 2022. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging this request. The resident then asked the landlord if it had properties in a different area in a text message on 3 October 2022. The landlord replied saying that she would need to contact the local authority about that. There is no evidence of the landlord offering the resident information on how to apply to the local authority or outlining her options for a mutual exchange.
  16. The landlord received an MP enquiry on behalf of the resident on 13 October 2022 which said the resident wanted to be rehoused by the landlord. In its response to the MP the landlord said it had advised the resident to bid for properties through the local authority housing system. It is misleading that the landlord told the MP that it had advised the resident of her options for rehousing when there is no evidence of it doing so.
  17. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it may offer support with increased bandings or management moves in some cases. The landlord acted inappropriately in failing to acknowledge the resident’s request to be rehoused and if the landlord did not deem the situation serious enough to warrant rehousing then it should have informed the resident of its decision. Furthermore, though the resident did not explicitly request to be rehoused in her initial complaint of 21 February 2023, she referred to contact in September 2022 where this request was clearly made. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to acknowledge this in either of its complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it may not consider matters relating to neighbour disputes, which can be dealt with under its ASB policy, as complaints. It also says that if a complaint is not accepted then a detailed explanation will be provided to the resident noting the reasons for this decision. In her initial complaint of 21 February 2023, the resident said she was unhappy that her contact in September 2022 had not been logged as a complaint. The evidence shows the landlord logged the contact in September 2022 as an ASB case. Given the contact related to noise nuisance and reports of drug use in the neighbours property, it was appropriate for the landlord to have logged this contact as an ASB case. However the landlord has not acted in line with its policy as there is no evidence of it clearly communicating this decision to the resident.
  2. The resident continued to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB and she contacted the landlord specifically mentioning that she had made a complaint on 10 October 2022 and 8 November 2022. Despite this contact, the landlord did not log the resident’s complaint until she made contact through its online complaints form on 21 February 2023. Though it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the contact in September 2022 as an ASB case, it is not reasonable that the landlord ignored the resident’s further requests for a complaint to be raised.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will ensure complaints are handled in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Paragraph 1.3 of the Code makes it clear that complaints do not have to include the word “complaint” to be treated as such. By failing to treat any of the resident’s earlier contacts as complaints, the landlord has failed to act in line with the Code.
  4. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response of 1 March 2023 as she felt the landlord was not doing enough in response to the ASB. She requested an escalation to stage 2 on the same day. The resident emailed the landlord specifically to chase the escalation request on 2 April 2023, 18 August 2023 and 24 August 2023. The evidence shows the landlord was in contact with the resident in June, August and September 2023, however the landlord did not acknowledge the escalation request until 21 September 2023 and did not offer an explanation for this delay in its stage 2 response of 17 October 2023.
  5. Throughout this time period, the resident continued to make reports to the landlord of ASB from the neighbour as well as informing the landlord of police attendances at the neighbour’s property. It is reasonable to conclude this would have been distressing for the resident and the resident made the landlord aware that she had suffered from a mental health breakdown from the stress of the situation on 5 September 2023. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge or apologise for any distress the delay in escalating her complaint may have caused is not in line with the dispute resolution principle of putting things right, as outlined in the Scheme. An order has been made below in relation to this.
  6. In conclusion to the complaints handling matter, the landlord failed to act in line with its policy by not informing the resident of its decision to handle the matter as an ASB case rather than a complaint. It then failed to log the resident’s complaint despite receiving a number of contacts from the resident and failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. When responding to the complaint, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for this delay in either of its responses. The delay in escalation also hindered the resident’s access to this Service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Issue an apology letter to the resident from a senior manager within the ASB team, ensuring the failings identified in this report are included.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation, comprising:
      1. £150 for the distress incurred by the resident from the landlord’s failures in its response to her reports of the ASB.
      2. £100 for the distress incurred by the resident from the delay in logging and escalating the complaint.
  2. The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that she may owe the landlord.