Leeds Federated Housing Association Limited (202213689)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213689

Leeds Federated Housing Association Limited

31 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced on 1 December 1997.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Landlord obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy states following a report of ASB:
1. It would open an ASB case file and write to the resident and include diary sheets and a summary of how the case should progress. It would also risk assess the impact to the resident. The resident would also be encouraged to collate evidence of further incidents. The landlord has scope to offer the noise app, noise recording equipment and CCTV, should it be reviewed as necessary.
2. Following a report of ASB, it would write to the perpetrator and advise that reports of ASB had been received and these need to be discussed. Following discussion, the landlord would follow up the appointment with the alleged perpetrator in writing using either the letter for positive engagement, a reminder of tenancy terms, or a formal tenancy warning. It would then update the resident on the actions taken.
3. It would review further incidents and any associated evidence and will advise whether the incidents and evidence constitute ASB and require further action, such as formal tenancy warnings, mediation, antisocial behaviour contracts, further meetings, or gathering evidence for legal action.
4. When the landlord does not consider the behaviour was ASB, the landlord would advise the resident it was normal residential behaviour, household noise or something the resident would expect neighbours to resolve amongst themselves. If appropriate, it would offer an incident diary for the resident to monitor the incidents and their impact. It would not escalate incidents of this nature. It would, however, offer mediation if appropriate.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the scheme) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. Were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
This Service understands the resident’s complaint concerns historic events which have occurred since 2017. This Service is unable to investigate the historic events. This is because the resident did not formally complain to the landlord until 2 August 2022. This investigation will therefore consider the events which occurred after 23 February 2022 when the resident reported a neighbour for littering cigarettes and until 16 September 2022 when the landlord provided its stage 2 response.
Whilst this Service cannot assess the events before 23 February 2022 and after the internal complaint process (ICP) was completed, this Service can ensure this is considered and will inform any remedies made. Any reference to events after the ICP and outside of the scope of this investigation are included for context and will not be assessed.

Previous events

On 13 October 2021:
1. The resident reported his neighbour continued to play loud music and throw cigarettes out of their window into the communal garden.
2. The landlord asked the resident to download the noise app and he agreed to start using this to record noise going forward. The landlord also explained how to take pictures on his phone to record evidence. It also sent diary sheets to the resident so he could record dates, times and the impact the behaviour had on him.
On 23 November 2021, the resident reported his neighbours moved a sun lounger around in the communal garden and it was now placed near his windows. He asked the landlord to request the neighbours to stay away from him. The landlord explained he should speak with the neighbours as they may not realise it had impacted him. The resident agreed to do this.
On 1 December 2021, the landlord called the resident for an update. The resident explained he did not speak to his neighbour about the previous issue. He also confirmed he would download the noise app and use it going forward.

Summary of events

On 23 February 2022, the resident reported cigarette butts were building up outside of a neighbour’s windows and he believed it was a deliberate act.
On 2 March 2022, the resident reported his neighbour had a CCTV camera which was pointed towards the bin area near his property. The landlord confirmed it requested this be inspected.
On the same date, the landlord wrote to the neighbour to inform them they were aware she had video footage of an incident which happened looking over the flats opposite. It explained CCTV should not be pointed beyond the boundary of their property.
On 22 March 2022, the resident asked for an update about his neighbour dispute. The landlord advised it had spoken to the neighbour about leaving rubbish outside of the resident’s bathroom window.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord sent a formal letter to each resident at the block of flats. It warned residents about a build-up of litter around the block in the front communal garden and discarded cigarettes.
Between 9 May 2022 and 8 June 2022:
1. The landlord wrote to the neighbour following a visit to inspect a CCTV camera. It acknowledged the safety reasons for why the resident had the CCTV and permitted them to keep it. However, it reminded the neighbour the camera should be positioned looking onto their boundary only. It also explained the data protection laws they must follow by having CCTV.
2. The landlord wrote to the neighbour about their CCTV. It said it would come to their property to look at the CCTV camera and inspect its position. It explained a concern was raised by another neighbour who wished to be anonymous. It was required to inspect the camera positioning further.
3. The landlord attended the neighbours property to inspect the CCTV. The neighbour explained there was criminal damage to their car previously and that was why the CCTV was pointed at the car park. The landlord appreciated the neighbour’s reasoning however, it explained it did not give her permission to point the camera in its current position and it must be pointed at her property boundary only.
Between 17 July 2022 and 20 July 2022:
1. The resident contacted the landlord twice to report his neighbours had littered on his side of the communal garden. He believed it was deliberately aimed at him. The resident submitted photographs and had contacted the police.
2. He also explained the same neighbours left the gate opposite his flat open but they would close other neighbour’s gates.
3. He also reported CCTV was pointed at his property from one of the neighbours.
4. The landlord advised it would write to both neighbours to warn them of an alleged tenancy breach and would also inspect the CCTV.
5. It offered mediation to resolve the disputes however, both the resident and the neighbour were not prepared to engage in this.
On 24 July 2022, the landlord wrote to both neighbours (the resident reported) to warn of their behaviour:
1. It asked them to be mindful of the impact their actions could have on the resident. It explained the resident’s view that he felt targeted by the neighbours behaviour and reminded them whilst things may appear small, the culminating actions painted a bigger picture to the resident.
2. It explained the previous incidents which had been reported by the resident:
  1. littering onto the communal grounds near the resident’s property whilst moving the bins and leaving his gate open
  2. loud talking in front of the resident’s property which the resident believed was done on purpose
  3. disposal of the sunbed and other items around the back of the block, directly outside the resident’s bathroom window, which the resident felt was done deliberately
  4. the CCTV camera was pointed at his property and he felt watched. It reminded that the camera should be pointed at their own boundary, although it had previously inspected the camera and found it could not see the resident’s front door or window
  5. a number 8 was scratched onto his meter cupboard door which he felt had defaced it and was done by these neighbours.

c. The landlord explained it was disappointed the neighbours and the resident did not agree to mediation previously, as each party wanted the same thing, to be left alone. It also explained, the actions of the neighbours had led the resident to feel he was not being left alone. It reminded them the offer of mediation was always available should they change their minds and agree to this.

On 29 July 2022, the resident reported he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB. He did not feel the letter to the neighbours was enough.
Between 2 and 3 August 2022:
1. The resident complained to the landlord.
2. The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with him, to clarify his concerns. The resident explained:
  1. his neighbours were dropping litter on his lawn however, when he reported this, the landlord did not issue an official warning to the neighbours. As a result, he felt the landlord was not taking appropriate action to try and resolve the issues
  2. he wanted an acknowledgement from his neighbours they have acted inappropriately towards him. He wanted his neighbours to stop littering on his lawn, stop leaving his gate open, stop intimidating his female visitors by sitting on their front step and watching his visitors approach his front door
  3. he believed his neighbour scratched his door number onto a gas meter cupboard door
  4. the landlord explained it would review all reports, correspondence and discussions relating to the associated parties and it would reply to this within its complaint response.
Between 4 August 2022 and 15 August 2022, the resident reported further issues relating to his neighbours:
1. putting another neighbour’s bin out for collection leaving no space for the resident’s bin.
2. closing another neighbour’s gate whilst deliberately leaving the resident’s gate open
3. listening to music in their car in clear view of the resident’s property
4. admitting to another neighbour that they had scribbled a number 8 on the resident’s meter cupboard after a gas check
5. encouraging another neighbour’s grandchild to open the resident’s gate and go past his door on their scooter
6. adjusting CCTV camera position to face the resident’s property
7. leaving a chair left in the communal garden adjacent to the resident’s property while he was away
8. the resident overheard neighbours using offensive and racist language.
On 15 August 2022, the landlord called the resident to explained it would not be able to provide its stage 1 response as it required a further 2 weeks to review matters with board members and its solicitor.
Between 18 August and 19 August 2022, the resident provided the landlord with photographs to support his reports of recent incidents.
1. More litter was thrown onto the communal garden area near his property, including 2 feathers. He believed this was used to signify cowardice.
2. A chair had been fly-tipped into the area he uses to smoke whilst he was away from home.
3. Children belonging to the neighbour scootered on the communal garden, past his living room window, when there was ample space for them to play outside of the neighbour’s property.
4. His flat number was scratched onto the utility box.
5. A neighbour’s relative parks their car in view of the CCTV camera, the neighbour does not park their car there.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:
1. Due to the nature of the resident’s complaint about a staff member, it was agreed an independent review of the complaint made would be investigated by a solicitor.
2. It reviewed the photographs sent by the resident on 18 August 2022, the residents phone calls with the landlord and the reports he made during a 4 week period between 17 July 2022 and 15 August 2022.
3. It found there was no evidence the incidents reported between 17 July 2022 and 15 August 2022 amounted to ASB. It considered those matters as unwanted contact and were not for a landlord to deal with. It explained residents should be expected to show a degree of tolerance and not expect the landlord to resolve every dispute they had with their neighbours.
4. It found there was no evidence the staff member acted with racial bias. It believed its handling of matters was reasonable and it took appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports.
On 1 September 2022, the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2. On 7 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. It aimed to provide its stage 2 response on 29 September 2022.
On 16 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
1. Following a board member panel review, it concluded the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
2. It agreed with the findings at stage 1, and the evidence presented was a low-level neighbour dispute. There was also no evidence of allegations of racist behaviour by a staff member.
3. Mediation was unsuccessful and panel members felt this would have been a good option in the circumstances to resolve the issues.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. put things right,

c. learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation, and followed good practice when reaching decisions. This Service also recognises the resident explained some of the ASB was discriminatory. This Service is unable to investigate whether the reported ASB amounted to ASB or was discriminatory, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB and whether it was appropriate and reasonable.
The resident’s complaint concerned matters which the landlord did not classify as ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy states when the landlord does not consider the behaviour was ASB, the landlord would advise the resident it was normal residential behaviour and something the resident would expect neighbours to resolve amongst themselves. If appropriate, it would offer an incident diary for the resident to monitor the incidents and their impact. It would also offer mediation if appropriate.
In response to the resident’s reports of the disputes with his neighbours, the landlord evidenced it provided the resident with diary sheets to record incidents which he completed and submitted in August 2022. The landlord also followed up the resident’s reports by writing to neighbours on 2 March 2022 and 29 March 2022. The landlord reminded the neighbours about their tenancy responsibilities in respect of litter and CCTV. This was in line with its policy position.
The landlord also actively followed up further concerns the resident raised in regards to the CCTV angle between 9 May 2022 and 8 June 2022. The landlord inspected the neighbours camera and ensured it was not facing at the resident’s property. The landlord’s handling of these concerns was reasonable and showed willingness to follow up matters the resident reported.
It also acknowledged the impact the issues were having on the resident. It showed good practice to write to the neighbours on 24 July 2022, to raise the additional issues the resident had reported. It explained to the neighbours how the issues had impacted the resident. It asked the neighbours made attempts to be mindful of their actions. The landlord also reminded the parties the offer of mediation was still available, which it believed would help to resolve the issues. Whilst the resident disagreed with the landlord’s handling of his reports and he wanted the landlord to take a higher degree of action, where the issues were not considered ASB, the landlord was limited with the options it could take if the parties were unwilling to agree to mediation. The landlord was proactive and evidenced it made genuine attempts to bring the parties together to resolve their differences, where the reports did not meet its ASB threshold to take further action. This was reasonable and was in line with its policy position.
Whilst the landlord considered the incidents did not amount to ASB and therefore could not be progressed further in line with its ASB policy, there is no evidence the landlord explained this to the resident regularly throughout the case. It seemed to only confirm this within its complaint response. Additionally, the landlord has also not provided evidence it sought to explain to the resident what type of behaviour amounted to ASB and what would allow it to escalate matters under its ASB policy. This Service would expect the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident following each report and explain why it would not progress these, and what would amount to ASB. The landlord’s communication was not appropriate in these circumstances and failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It also failed to uphold its policy position. This is evidence of a service failure.
Whilst this Service notes the landlord considered all the reports to be low-level neighbour disputes, the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour’s car and also hearing neighbours using racist language suggests a more robust approach should have been taken in response to these incidents.
This Service is aware the landlord previously advised the resident about the evidence gathering process, completing diary sheets and recording noise with the noise app. However, these were new reports of potential ASB and required the landlord to open a new ASB case for the reports to be investigated and monitored, in line with its ASB policy. There is no evidence the landlord took steps to investigate these reports or satisfy itself there was no hate element to avoid further escalation. The landlord should have provided the resident with a further explanation of its evidence gathering process and what evidence it required to investigate further, support the resident in gathering evidence and provide the resident with an action plan explaining how the case would be monitored and progressed.
An action plan is a living document which should be updated and reviewed following each report. It is useful as it sets out the various steps the landlord will take to investigate and provides timescales. Whilst the landlord had responsive email communication with the resident, by failing to produce an action plan, the landlord failed to provide the resident with information on the specific steps it could take to investigate future instances of neighbour noise or racist language to manage his expectations effectively. This was not appropriate and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is evidence of a service failure.
The landlord’s ASB procedure also explains that once it has received a report of ASB, it should carry out a risk assessment of any vulnerabilities the resident may have. This Service has not seen evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment. This is something that the Ombudsman would expect to see in its records. This is relevant, particularly as the landlord was aware of the impact the situation had on the resident and he was struggling to live in the community with children and other daily activities of his neighbours. While the outcome of its risk assessment may not have altered how the landlord handled the case overall, it meant that the landlord missed opportunities to offer tailored support, assistance or signposting to the resident to support him through the life of the case. This was not appropriate and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not treat the resident reasonably.
This Service recognises the landlord was managing a longstanding neighbour dispute where all involved parties were unwilling to engage in mediation to resolve their differences. This posed significant challenges to the landlord where the reported incidents were considered low-level and could not be progressed under its ASB policy. Whilst this Service appreciates the difficulties it faced, the landlord missed opportunities to communicate effectively with the resident and manage his expectations in line with its ASB policy. It also failed to show it robustly investigated more serious reports and provided the resident with an action plan. Additionally, it has not provided evidence it completed a risk assessment with the resident and missed an opportunity to refer him to support services. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations where it considered the reported ASB to be low-level and would not be escalated under its ASB policy. It also failed to appropriately investigate more serious concerns of ASB and provide an action plan. It also did not risk assess the resident and refer him to support services.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of the reports of ASB.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its ASB process and handling of noise complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s report ‘Spotlight on: Noise Complaints’ published October 2022.