ForHousing Limited (202344987)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344987

ForHousing Limited

14 October 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:
   1. Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Decision to remove a padlock on a communal gate.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. There is a communal garden with shared access between the neighbours. He has lived at the property alone since September 2020.
3. In November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord threats of violence from his neighbour who lived above. After interviewing the resident, the landlord issued a warning to the neighbour and the case was closed. The resident reported a further incident of threats of violence and assault from the same neighbour on 14 July 2022. Upon receipt of the report, the landlord interviewed the resident and took statements from him and a witness. It applied for a without notice injunction on 18 July 2022, which was granted on 19 July 2022. The landlord returned to court on 24 August 2022 where a full ASB injunction with power of arrest was granted. After speaking to the resident on 7 October 2022, it noted that there had been no new incidents and closed the case.
4. In March and April 2023, the resident reported noise nuisance, threats of violence, and an assault by his neighbour. The incidents had been reported to the police, who attended but made no arrests. The landlord interviewed the resident on 24 April 2023, recorded concerns about his mental health and made a safeguarding referral to adult social care.
5. In May 2023, the resident made further reports of loud music and threats of violence from the neighbour. The police were called to the address and statements were taken for a breach of the injunction. There was further incident on 10 June 2023 and the neighbour was arrested on 12 June 2023. The neighbour was bailed to stay away from their own property. The landlord reviewed the evidence provided by the resident, interviewed the neighbour, and spoke to other witnesses throughout June, July, and August 2023.
6. On 7 December 2023, the crown prosecution service (CPS) informed the landlord that they were not pursuing criminal charges against the neighbour. They said that they had no realistic prospect of prosecution. The neighbour was able to return to their property. The landlord informed the resident of the outcome.
7. In January 2024, the landlord called the resident and asked that he provide his neighbour with a key to a padlock on the communal gate. The resident did not want to give his neighbour a key as he feared further ASB incidents. The landlord set out the conditions of his tenancy and said that he must not restrict access to the communal garden. On 19 January 2024, the landlord gave the resident 14 days to remove the padlock from the gate, or it would remove it itself.
8. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of ASB and decision to remove the padlock on 24 January 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024. It summarised the actions taken, gave the resident until 16 February 2024 to remove the padlock, and did not uphold the complaint.
9. The court discharged the ASB injunction on 12 February 2024.
10. The resident sought to escalate his complaint on 11 March 2024. He disagreed with the landlord’s decisions and remained unhappy with its handling of his reports of ASB. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024. It did not uphold his complaint. It said that it had acted in accordance with its policy and procedures. It removed the padlock on 16 February 2024 and kept this at its office. It referred his case to the local authority for an ASB case review. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s complaint responses and asked the Ombudsman to investigate in April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

11. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will conduct a victim risk assessment on each case of ASB. It will acknowledge and triage a report within 2 working days and where the incident includes threats of violence it will meet with the complainant within 1 working day. It will take reasonable and proportionate actions to deal with ASB. Where legal action is required, it aims to do this while keeping the need for evictions to a minimum.

Handling of reports of ASB

12. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman will assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint. We consider whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
13. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict and improve the experience of its residents. ASB cases are often challenging as options available, or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case, may not be the resident’s preferred outcome. It can become difficult to manage expectations. In this case, the resident sought an outcome from the landlord that it was unable to provide.
14. The evidence shows that the landlord’s response to each of the resident’s reports of ASB reflected the seriousness of his allegations. In November 2021, the resident reported threats of violence from the neighbour. The landlord triaged the case and allocated it for investigation within 1 working day. It interviewed the resident, risk assessed his report and completed an action plan with terms agreed with the resident. It attempted to interview the neighbour within 2 working days and issued a warning after 2 failed attempts. A case closure letter was sent to the resident outlining the action it had taken. This was good practice and reflected the seriousness of the allegations.
15. The landlord’s actions were also appropriate in response to the resident’s second report of threats of violence in July 2022. The landlord categorised the incident as urgent immediately. It interviewed the resident within 1 working day and began legal proceedings against the neighbour the same day. Its application for an ex-parte ASB injunction was good practice and afforded protections to the resident. The landlord had gathered statements from the resident and witnesses within 3 working days and served the interim order within 4 working days of the initial report. Its correspondence with the resident was clear.
16. The landlord kept the resident informed of its progress and how it could evidence breaches of the order. It progressed the application to the court for a full order on 30 August 2022, using the further reports made by the resident. The landlord issued a case closure letter which appropriately set out its actions and how it would progress new reports. Throughout this case, the landlord’s actions were in line with good practice in the sector. It took reasonable and proportionate action in a timely manner.
17. When the resident alleged breaches of the injunction in March 2023, the landlord investigated the reports made. It reviewed the evidence provided by the resident and sought appropriate legal advice. Its decision not to progress the application was reasonable as the evidence given by the resident was more than 3 months old. It recorded how it assessed the risks to the resident and was clear with him how it made its decision.
18. The resident alleged further breaches of the injunction in April and May 2023. He also reported these allegations to the police. The records show the landlord worked in close partnership with the police and other agencies when investigating these allegations. It conducted complainant interviews and risk assessments and contacted other neighbours who substantiated some of the allegations. It made a referral to adult social care following a risk assessment based on comments the resident made about his mental health during its interview with him. The landlord reviewed the video evidence of the allegations and supported an application for a breach of the ASB injunction. Each of these actions was reasonable and done within timescales set out in its policy and procedures.
19. The neighbour was charged with criminal offences related to this case in June 2023. The landlord allowed the police and CPS to lead on the application. Its decision to do so was reasonable as the application was related and was being made to a higher court. The court also introduced bail conditions for the neighbour to stay away from the property which meant additional protection was in place for the resident.
20. Between June and December 2023, the landlord maintained regular contact and provided case updates to the resident and other witnesses. Its records show that it conducted regular ASB case reviews and consulted with its partners to determine whether its actions were reasonable and proportionate.
21. The landlord received a decision from the CPS in December 2023 that it was not progressing its criminal charges against the neighbour. The landlord reviewed the evidence it had been provided and determined that it had low prospect of success at court for breach of the injunction. It noted that it had conflicting evidence from the neighbour, who was defending the application at court. Once it made this decision, it shared its findings with the resident. It was fair to explain its decision making in correspondence with the resident. It used its communication with the resident to manage his expectations.
22. When the ASB injunction was discharged on 12 February 2024, the landlord informed the resident. It was clear on how he could report new incidents. Its complaint responses at stage 1 and 2 provided an accurate summary of its actions. Its offer to refer the case to the council for an ASB case review in its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024 was good practice. This would have allowed an independent party to review the landlord’s actions and make recommendations on how it could progress reports of ASB. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the resident chose to progress this offer with the council.
23. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident who faced difficult circumstances. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress this situation would have understandably caused to the resident. The ASB was serious and had a significant impact on him. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available to this Service, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its procedures to try to help the resident. The landlord triaged the reports effectively within 2 working days. It allocated a case and interviewed the resident within 1 working day of the triage. It conducted risk assessments and action plans for each case. It regularly reviewed the risk assessments and made referrals for support in response to issues raised by the resident. It maintained regular contact with the resident, the neighbour, and other witnesses.

Decision to remove a padlock on a communal gate

24. The tenancy agreement sets out conditions which the resident must abide by over the course of his tenancy. Tenancy condition 7.1.1 of that agreement states that the resident must not obstruct access to and from any neighbouring property or other land. The garden at the rear of the property was a shared garden between the resident and his neighbour. Throughout the timeline of the complaint, the landlord was clear with the resident that by installing a padlock he obstructed access for his neighbour.
25. The issue of restricted access was first raised by the neighbour on 18 May 2023 after they lost their key to the communal gate. The resident agreed to have a spare key made but was apprehensive and asked the landlord to restrict their access. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s questions and explained its reasoning. It appropriately said that the garden was a communal facility and it could not restrict access to the neighbour. The landlord demonstrated good practice. It was clear with the resident regarding its reasoning and provided clarification in writing to the resident.
26. The resident raised the issues again in May and June 2023. The landlord’s records show that it responded to each request within 1 working day. During this period, the neighbour was arrested and bailed to stay away from the property. The landlord collected a key from the resident in June 2023. Afterwards, the resident raised concerns that the landlord would give the key to the neighbour and there would be further confrontation in the communal garden. The landlord sought to allay the resident’s concerns and said that it would keep the key while the court proceedings were ongoing. Although the resident was unhappy with its decision, the landlord was clear in its decision making. The landlord sent clarification by email and arranged for its legal officers to call the resident at his request. The evidence shows that its legal team made 4 attempts to speak to the resident in June 2023.
27. On 23 June 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would keep the key. It believed the issue of restricted access would be raised in its civil proceedings against the neighbour. It said the gate belonged to the landlord, so it needed to be able to review the access during proceedings. If the resident refused access, it would remove the padlock altogether.
28. After the CPS dropped its charges in December 2023, the neighbour was able to return to their property. The correspondence between the landlord and resident in December 2023 and January 2024 show that the resident had changed the lock on the gate. During this period, the landlord asked for access to be granted to the neighbour. The resident refused saying that he felt unsafe and wanted to wait for the civil proceedings to be resolved in an email on 18 January 2024. The landlord’s response to these concerns was reasonable. It highlighted the tenancy conditions requiring the resident to allow access on 19 January 2024. It then gave the resident 14 days to provide a key or change the lock. This was a reasonable period in the circumstances, given that it raised the issue throughout May and June 2023.
29. In its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024, the landlord addressed the concerns raised by the resident. It reasonably explained the shared use of the garden. It was sympathetic to the resident’s circumstances but maintained its position and was clear in its decision making. Its request for the resident to remove the locks by 16 February 2024 was reasonable.
30. In its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024, the landlord said the resident had not removed the padlock when asked. It recognised the resident’s reasons but said he should not restrict access as the garden was communal. The court had discharged the ASB injunction on 12 February 2024. Therefore, it removed the padlock and returned one of them to the resident as the other could not fit through his letterbox. It kept the second padlock at its office for the resident to collect.
31. The landlord was obliged to take action to restore access to the garden in line with the tenancy agreements of the affected residents. It was appropriate that it allowed a reasonable timescale for the resident to remove the lock and permit access before it took enforcement action and that it did not take such action until the outcome of the police investigation was known. Given the landlord had not obtained evidence to show that the resident was at risk if the neighbour had access to the garden (as per their tenancy agreement), there was no basis for it to restrict or alter the terms of the neighbour’s tenancy which is what it would have been doing by allowing the resident to lock the gate.
32. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to remove a padlock on a communal gate. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s concerns that prompted him to install his own lock on the gate in June 2023. The resident’s apprehension about providing access was understandable. He had clearly set out his concerns to the landlord in response to its requests. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask for access to be granted in accordance with the tenancy conditions. It gave the resident clear advice, information and its reasoning why it could not allow the resident to restrict access to the neighbour. Its decision was supported by the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s decision to remove a padlock on a communal gate.