Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202337941)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337941

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

24 January 2025

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 (ASB) by his neighbour.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a first floor flat owned by the landlord.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 August 2022, to report that his neighbour who lived beneath him had been screaming and shouting abusively in the early hours of the morning, and the emergency services had attended. He continued to report further incidents over the months and throughout 2023. He said the incidents had increased in severity and resulted in police attendance on multiple occasions.
4. The date of the resident’s complaint is not known. However, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 February 2024. It said he had complained that it had failed to keep him informed, offer relevant support, or give him priority for rehousing. It said it had investigated and acted on the resident’s reports in line with its procedures, which included obtaining an ASB injunction against his neighbour. It had maintained regular contact with him and offered support such as referrals to other services and a video doorbell. It said it could not provide direct help with his application for rehousing as he had applied to a different local authority, but it could assist with an application for a transfer within its own area.
5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 22 March 2024. He said he was still having issues with his neighbour and wanted the landlord to rehouse them both.
6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 April 2024. It reiterated its findings at stage 1 and provided detail about its response to some of the specific incidents the resident had reported. It also provided an update on its progress regarding rehousing his neighbour, with his neighbour’s consent. It confirmed that it would arrange for its current Neighbourhood Relations Officer to contact him regarding any new reports of ASB.
7. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and its final response.

Assessment and findings

8. The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure references a range of legislation, including the Crime and Policing Act 2014. This Act defines ASB as conduct which has caused, or is likely to cause:
   1. Harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
   2. Annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
   3. Housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
9. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will respond to high priority reports within 24 hours, which it says might include racial harassment, domestic abuse, or physical assaults. It will respond to other routine cases within 5 working days, which might include neighbour disputes.
10. A landlord has 2 main duties when it receives a report of ASB. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord investigated the reports proportionately and whether it has taken all reasonable actions in accordance with its policy, in the circumstances of the case.
11. The landlord’s records show that it first spoke with the resident on 15 August 2022. He said there had been noise nuisance, from the neighbour who lived directly beneath his flat for several nights. Examples included shouting, screaming, and banging. He said the last incident was 13 August, 2 days earlier, and the police had attended.
12. The landlord called the resident again on 22 August 2022 to agree an action plan, which it confirmed by email that same day. Its plan stated that it was making enquiries with the police and other agencies and was due to visit the resident’s neighbour that week. The resident agreed to report any further incidents directly to the landlord. It said it would review the case regularly and update him every 2 weeks. The landlord’s response was prompt and in line with its ASB procedure, and its action plan was clear.
13. During this call, the landlord also asked the resident about a counter-allegation it had received that week. His neighbour had reported that the resident shouted homophobic abuse through the floor. He said the police had already made him aware of this and he denied the allegation.
14. According to the landlord’s records, it visited the neighbour at home on 24 August 2022. They refuted the noise complaints and repeated their counter-allegation. They also said the resident’s guests had been taunting their dog.
15. The resident called the landlord again on 31 August 2022 to report that a guest of his neighbour’s had approached him in the communal garden and made offensive accusations of a sensitive nature. There is evidence that the police had attended and raised a welfare concern for the resident, and Adult Social Care emailed the landlord on 2 September to pass this on. There is no evidence that the police chose to take any further action over the neighbour’s counter-allegation.
16. The landlord returned the resident’s call on 6 September, within 5 working days as per its procedure. He said he had been extremely upset by the incident and he suspected that his neighbour and their guest had tried to provoke him. It suggested that he use its noise app, which was appropriate considering his earlier reports, although it may have been helpful to have offered this sooner. However, it should be noted that he declined to use the app at this stage.
17. The landlord updated its records on 12 September 2022 to state that it called the resident to discuss his case, in accordance with its action plan. He said he had witnessed drug use at his neighbour’s property, which he agreed to report to the police. The landlord interviewed the neighbour in its offices on 20 September 2022 and visited them at home on 21 September and 4 October 2022. These were appropriate steps considering the nature of the allegations and were in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure.
18. The landlord’s timeline of events shows that the resident made a further 5 reports about his neighbour between 24 October 2022 and 9 January 2023. These concerned repeated noise nuisance, drug use, dog fouling, and 2 occasions where he said his neighbour had lit fires in the communal grounds. He said the police had attended on some of these occasions, and the landlord’s notes state that it contacted the police to discuss the incidents. It also wrote to the neighbour and visited them at home. It responded to each report by calling him either the same day or the next working day, and it took appropriate action by contacting the Police and his neighbour. In terms of its agreement to contact him every 2 weeks, the landlord’s records only show one update call during this timeframe, however this was reasonable given that it had been in frequent contact with him.
19. The landlord visited the resident at home on 11 January 2023. He played it a recording which it described in its notes as “constant screaming”. He agreed to register on the noise app and complete diary sheets to report further incidents. His son wrote to the landlord on 16 January to express his concern and to report an incident that weekend where the neighbour’s dog had been vicious.
20. The landlord issued a written warning to the neighbour on 17 January 2023, regarding noise nuisance and failure to control their dog. It highlighted the areas where they had breached their tenancy agreement and said it would monitor the situation. This is in accordance with its policy which requires it to issue warnings where it has evidence of ASB.
21. The next reported incident took place on 25 January 2023, when the resident and his neighbour had an altercation about the placement of the neighbour’s bins. The landlord made 4 calls in total to both parties that day. This shows that it made immediate efforts to prevent this from escalating any further.
22. The resident reported a more serious incident on 7 February 2023, when he alleged that his neighbour had turned his water off via the building’s only stopcock, located in the neighbour’s flat. The landlord sent an emergency plumber however the water had been restored by the time they arrived. The landlord contacted him again that day when it assessed him as ‘high risk’. He also said his neighbour had tried to force their way into his flat by pushing past him at his door. It noted that the resident did not feel safe, was struggling with his mental health, and had applied for rehousing in a neighbouring borough. The landlord said it would write to the neighbouring local authority in support of his application and advised him to pursue his GP for a referral to mental health services.
23. This is the first evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment, despite this being almost 5 months since his initial report. This contrasts with its ASB procedure which states: “We will also seek to identify vulnerability and reduce the risk of harm to all customers at the earliest point of contact…” It should have considered completing a risk assessment from the outset to assess his vulnerabilities and the effect the situation was having on him. However, it was still appropriate for it to complete one at this stage and its failure to do this earlier did not result in significant failure in handling the reports.
24. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 February 2023, 2 days later, to report that his neighbour had turned the water off again. The landlord’s notes say that it called the neighbour promptly that day to instruct them to turn the water back on. It then contacted its repairs team on 13 February to arrange for the stopcock to be isolated. It followed good practice by taking immediate steps to restore the water and prevent the problem from happening again.
25. The resident called the landlord on 14 February 2023 to report that his neighbour had been shouting, screaming, and smashing glass the previous evening and into the early hours of the morning. He said they had threatened to fight him and set a fire. He also said his neighbour had entered his flat again and stood at the bottom of the stairs staring at him. The police attended and removed his neighbour from the property. Its records note that other parties also reported the incident. The landlord contacted the resident later in the month to clarify that that it had no further updates.
26. The landlord has provided evidence which demonstrates that it was taking significant steps to address the neighbour’s behaviour. It is reasonable that a landlord cannot disclose the personal circumstances of an alleged perpetrator, and this will naturally limit the information that it can provide to the person reporting the ASB. This in turn can often lead to frustration and worry, and we recognise that this is difficult for a landlord to address. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have agreed when it would be in touch with the resident again, which may have alleviated some of his concerns and assured him that it was still monitoring the situation. Nonetheless, it is clear from the evidence that it communicated with him frequently.
27. The resident took part in an ASB case review panel (community trigger) on 28 March 2023. The landlord contacted him again on 2 May 2023 when it completed a referral to Victim Support and agreed to check whether a Community Link Worker could provide any extra help, which it said were agreed actions following the case review. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will “identify and signpost appropriate support” and “advise the complainant of other support that may be available”, so it could have referred or signposted the resident to other services prior to this point.
28. In the meantime, the landlord had reviewed the noise recording taken by the resident during the reported incident of 14 February 2023. In an internal email of 17 April, it said: “You can clearly hear shouting and swearing… only one voice can be heard.”
29. There is evidence that the landlord applied for an ASB injunction against the neighbour and an interim order was granted on 19 June 2023, which included a condition that they should not contact the resident. This was then extended for 12 months, to 19 June 2024.
30. The landlord called the resident on 29 June 2023 when it explained the terms of the injunction, and said he should continue to report any further incidents. It called him again on 11 July to ask whether he needed any further support. The resident confirmed that he had window alarms, a chain on the door, and a deadbolt, and said he had not seen his neighbour for some time. The landlord visited him on 13 July to deliver a video doorbell and confirmed that his neighbour’s injunction did not prevent them from returning to their property.
31. The resident made a further 6 reports to the landlord between 7 August and 16 October 2023, about the neighbour’s dog fouling the garden and further issues with the placement of bins. During this timeframe, the landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident 3 times in response. The resident did not make any further reports of noise nuisance. It also visited the neighbour at home when it reminded them not to touch the resident’s bins or make any contact with him.
32. At this point, the resident’s ASB case had been open for around a year. It is likely that this added to his frustrations. Not every reported instance of annoyance will fall within the definition of ASB or be something the landlord has the power to act on. The frequency of the landlord’s contact with the resident and his neighbour between August and October 2023 was appropriate.
33. According to its records, the landlord made a follow up call to the resident on 2 November 2023. He told it that his neighbour had poured bleach into his flowers and had made noises during the night. The landlord discussed that the neighbour had appeared to retaliate in the past when it had asked them to clear up after their dog. It updated the action plan that day to state that no warnings should be sent to the neighbour for the time being, to avoid potential repercussions.
34. The neighbour had given the landlord permission to disclose basic details about their application for a transfer to the resident. he had disclosed a concern that his neighbour might perpetrate a final, serious incident if they did move out. The landlord said that it would inspect the neighbour’s property before they left and would attend on the day of moving to collect the keys directly. This demonstrates that the landlord was making pro-active plans to avoid any potential problems and reassure the resident.
35. The landlord agreed to maintain weekly contact with the resident, and this was added to his action plan. The landlord did not make contact as planned in November 2023. Although there had been no material developments in the case, it should have contacted him as agreed or reached another arrangement.
36. The resident made 3 further reports about noise and the dog on 11, 18 and 23 January 2024. The landlord visited the neighbour at home on 7 February. It noted on its records that there was no evidence of further incidents which would constitute ASB or breaches of the injunction.
37. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that “the case should only be closed following consultation with the complainant” and it will “write to the complainant to advise them for the reasons for closing their case.” The landlord contacted the resident on 9 February 2024 to confirm that it was closing the case. He said he was concerned that the behaviour may repeat if the situation was no longer being monitored. The landlord explained that the injunction was still in place regardless. It wrote to him on 23 February 2024 to confirm that the case was closed and gave its reasons.
38. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated given that his case had been open for a year. The landlord’s ASB procedure states: “Conciliation rather than confrontation will always be the preferred approach because there is a much better chance of establishing good relationships if neighbours understand each other’s points of view and disputes can be settled without recourse through the Courts.” This is a good practice approach, and the landlord has provided evidence that it made concerted efforts to engage with both the resident and his neighbour to reach a resolution. The landlord took formal action at the appropriate stages, in line with its procedure resulting in an injunction.
39. The landlord’s ASB procedure also states that it will consider making referrals to independent mediation providers where disputes arise over noise, harassment, and pets. Its procedure further states that it actively uses Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABAs) to address ASB. There is no evidence that it considered either of these options. However, it did discuss with the neighbour how their actions may have been perceived by the resident, took immediate steps to speak to both parties, and gave specific written clarity to the neighbour regarding its expectations of their behaviour and the possible consequences if the ASB continued.
40. We recognise that the ongoing ASB has been distressing for the resident. The fact that the landlord was unable to disclose much about his neighbour left him with a sense of unease and the impression that it was not taking any tangible action. However, despite some of the issues highlighted in this investigation, the landlord’s overall handling of the case was reasonable and appropriate.
41. The resident has told the Ombudsman that his neighbour has now left, however they still return to the immediate area which is making him feel unsafe. We have therefore made a recommendation in relation to this.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB from his neighbour.

Recommendations

43. We recommend that the landlord gives advice to the resident if he experiences any further incidents with the return of his neighbour. This should include contacting the police, as well as reporting incidents to the landlord if the neighbour is still one of its residents.