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

Magenta Living (202000689)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000689

Magenta Living

3 February 2021


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 resident’s complaint is about how the landlord responded to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) which she made against her neighbour, as well as the counter-allegations made by her neighbour.

Background 

  1. The resident occupies the property under an assured non-shorthold tenancy.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that she must comply with various duties, including not committing any actions which amount to nuisance, violence or antisocial behaviour. Failure to comply with these duties can lead to possession action being taken against residencies and/ or injunctions/ ASB orders against residents personally.
  2. In accordance with its ASB policy, the landlord has a number of options available to deal with ASB or neighbour nuisance and will seek to use the most appropriate course of action. These options include the use of noise apps, tenancy visits, warnings and legal action against tenancies where appropriate.
  3. Complaints in relation to the landlord’s handling of ASB cases/ neighbour nuisance are dealt with in accordance with the ASB policy.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has made several complaints about her neighbour’s behaviour. Her neighbour has made counter-allegations about the resident and has reported a number of incidents to the police. The complaints from both parties include verbal abuse, intimidation and loud noise.  
  2. Landlord records of 3 March 2020 indicate that the resident was encouraged to use the noise app and report any further incidents directly to it.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 April regarding a complaint which her neighbour had made about her, which was that she had a hung a wind chime/bell up on her fence close to the neighbour’s window which was keeping her awake after her nightshift at work. It requested that she remove this. It also stated that it had no problem with the resident smoking in her bedroom, but requested she refrain from staring at her neighbour whilst doing so and then slamming her window with force. Clause 4 of the resident’s tenancy (prohibition of nuisance) was cited.    
  4. The resident replied stating that it was “harassing (her) with petty complaints” made by other residents. The landlord responded later the same day stating that it was its job to challenge her where it received complaints about her behaviour. It stated it was “disappointed to still be receiving complaints after the resident had “assured (it) things will improve.” It urged her to co-operate with landlord staff to reduce noise nuisance.
  5. The landlord emailed the resident about her behaviour again on 1 May. It referred to a complaint she had made that morning (a copy of which this Service has not seen). It stated that her neighbour had just prior to that complained that the resident was filming her on her mobile phone and via CCTV which she had put up which covered her neighbour’s driveway. The landlord confirmed that this was a breach of her tenancy and amounted to harassment, and that if she continued to harass her neighbour, action against her tenancy and/ or a civil injunction may be sought.
  6. The landlord records refer to the resident having called the same day to complain about being issued with a warning.
  7. Also on 1 May, the Tenancy Enforcement Team Leader emailed the resident confirming that a full case review had been carried out and the warning she had been issued regarding her behaviour would remain in place as the evidence justified it.
  8. Further complaints were made against the resident in May and the landlord reiterated its previous warnings to the resident about taking further action. A second formal warning was issued to the resident on 7 May.
  9. On 14 May the landlord emailed the resident about the complaints she had made against her neighbour on 10 and 11 May. The landlord referred to evidence obtained (CCTV footage) which showed the allegations she had made were “untrue and can be deemed as vexatious and malicious,” as her neighbour was not in her property when the incidents were alleged to have occurred. It warned her that any further incidents of ASB or vexatious complaints would lead to her being issued a final warning and potential civil or possession action. 
  10. The resident emailed the landlord later that same day requesting a meeting to show evidence which she stated showed her neighbour’s ASB. The landlord confirmed that it couldn’t arrange a meeting due to social distancing restrictions in place at the time, but that she could submit her evidence via email. She did not wish to do so.
  11. On 26 May a final formal warning was issued to the resident after additional complaints about her had been received. The resident was reported to have verbally harassed her neighbour, played loud music and maintained the wind chime on the fence despite the landlord requesting she take it down. Noise app recordings were stated to evidence the noise complaints. The landlord reiterated the resident’s tenancy obligations and its intention to consider further action against her if further complaints were received.
  12. The landlord obtained legal advice in relation to further action on 16 June.
  13. The landlord sent its final response to the resident on 22 June following their telephone conversation of 17 April and her complaint to this Service. The letter confirmed that the warning issued to the resident remained in place. During the telephone conversation of 17 April, the landlord’s officer had failed to end the call at the end of the conversation. The resident overheard a conversation between landlord staff in which the officer who the resident had been talking to complained of a headache after the phone call, which had lasted over an hour. The landlord apologised for this in its response. It confirmed that her neighbour dispute would be dealt with by another officer due to workload management.
  14. Complaints of noise and harassment continued to be made against the resident, which the landlord detailed in an email to her on 13 July. It stated that it had heard noise recordings which evidenced the noise complaints. The email referred to the resident’s upcoming court hearing for “harassment” (evidence of which has not been provided to this Service).
  15. The landlord was in communication with police during this time in relation to legal action which the police were considering taking against her.  
  16. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She states that she was given warnings on the basis of what her neighbour said rather than on evidence. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord considered both the allegations made by the resident and the counter-allegations made against her. It considered evidence from each party in relation to their respective complaints. There was insufficient evidence to prove the resident’s allegations. Where the resident requested a meeting to show evidence in May 2020, it was appropriate in line with national restrictions in place that the landlord requested instead for her to email the evidence. It was her decision not to do so. It was in fact proven by the available evidence that the resident’s allegations of 10 and 11 May were untrue. Conversely, the landlord confirmed on 26 May that the counter-allegations of noise ASB made against the resident had been evidence by noise recordings provided to it. The landlord acted appropriately in considering the available evidence.
  2. The landlord also acted appropriately in taking action in line with its duties to address ASB complaints. Its policy requires it to take the most appropriate course of action to resolve ASB. This it did when it issued a number of warnings to the resident before seeking further legal advice and communicating with police. The warnings given to the resident were justified on the basis of the available evidence. Its actions were therefore proportionate to the complaints made. Conversely, the resident’s complaints were investigated and found to be untrue, therefore the landlord acted appropriately in taking no further action in relation to these complaints.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB or the counter-allegations made against her.

Reasons

  1. On the basis of the landlord’s policies, ASB duties and the available evidence, the landlord’s actions were appropriate and proportionate.