Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202303369)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303369

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

4 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Legal and policy framework

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She moved to the property via a mutual exchange on 3 December 2018. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident shares the property with her 3 children.
The resident’s eldest son has ADHD and PTSD. The landlord has shared a screenshot of its housing system on which it has recorded that there is a vulnerability in the resident’s household.
The tenancy agreement contains a section headed ‘nuisance’. This sets out that the resident agrees “not to do anything, or let [your] visitors or people living [with you] at the property do anything, which annoys or causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance to other tenants [of the landlord], people who live with them, [the landlord’s] staff, people living in adjoining properties or anyone going about their lawful business in the locality”. This section goes on to set out that the resident also agrees not to harass, threaten or be violent to other tenants and “not to play … any audio equipment or instruments … so loudly that they can be heard outside your home.”
The tenancy agreement further sets out that the resident requires written permission from the landlord to keep any pets.
The landlord’s ASB and Hate Crimes Policy sets out “what [the landlord] will do about ASB prevention and management”. It further sets out the purpose of the policy is to have a framework for the landlord to comply with its legal and best practice obligations, providing staff and residents with a “flexible but clear range of requirements, expectations and tools”. It sets out in broad terms that it “requires its customers and those living nearby its properties to act in compliance with the law and the spirit of the law in terms of their behaviour toward others, in general to act in a neighbourly fashion”.
Section 5 of the policy sets out the types of nuisance that are widely reported to social landlords. The landlord has grouped these into 4 priority categories depending on nature and severity. This establishes the urgency with which its staff will respond and the remedies that it may consider. The categories are:
1. Category A+ – covering instances of Hate Crime, Domestic Violence or Abuse. These are to be responded to within 1 working day.
2. Category A – covering instances involving cultivating and/or dealing drugs, the use of Class A drugs, children at risk or any other serious criminal behaviour. These are to be responded to within 3 working days.
3. Category B – includes instances of persistent noise nuisance, neighbour disputes, intimidating behaviour, and children creating a nuisance. Minor assault and the suspected use of Class B drugs. These are to be responded to within 7 working days.
4. Category C – includes untidy gardens, dumping of rubbish, complaints about dogs or noisy animals, minor or occasional noise nuisance, abandoned vehicles, graffiti (except racist graffiti which is to be removed the next working day). This will be responded to within 10 working days.
Section 6 of the policy covers the range of tools and remedies available to the landlord, including the use of the mandatory ground for possession. The landlord sets out that it believes that prevention is more effective that enforcement and focuses on a range of options in terms of developing local partnerships and networks, including information sharing protocols with the police and crime reduction partnerships. The landlord says that it will provide “target hardening measures” increasing security to properties and will provide referral to supporting organisations for victims of ASB.
This policy was revised and updated on 1 November 2023. This includes additional detail around the actions that the landlord will take to work with complainants through the provision of an action plan. This will set out the actions that both the landlord and the resident should take. It further provides guidance on gathering evidence to support the investigation and what is required for any legal proceedings. It says that its “response will be reasonable and proportionate to the alleged breach. It will utilise all appropriate tools at its disposal and seek the assistance of other appropriate agencies when required”.
The landlord has a dedicated Community Safety Team to address reports of ASB.
The landlord’s complaints procedure dated 1 October 2022 sets out its approach to complaints. It operates a 2 stage procedure and says that it will investigate and respond at each stage within 10 working days. Its compensation policy from November 2023 aligns with the Service’s guidance on remedies.

Summary of events

The resident first reported ASB caused by one of her neighbours (neighbour A) in May 2022. The landlord opened a case on its ASB system on 16 May 2022, within which it recorded its contact with the resident and her neighbour. The landlord provided the resident with an action plan and spoke directly with her neighbour about the reports that her dog was constantly barking. The landlord put in place regular follow up calls with the resident.
The landlord opened a separate ASB case record on 26 May 2022 following a report from neighbour A that the resident’s son had damaged her car. The resident accepted her son’s responsibility for the damage and offered to cover the cost of the repair. She told the landlord that neighbour A had been playing very loud music which her son found distressing and he had reacted negatively to this. She said that her son was sensitive to noise because of his disability. The police were also involved.
After this incident, the landlord’s records capture further reports from the resident about the behaviour of neighbour A towards her and reports of excessive noise, both the dog barking and loud music. The landlord asked both neighbours to sign acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC). Further it issued both with tenancy warning letters relating to the issues complained about. It also made an offer of mediation, but this was declined by neighbour A. On 6 July 2022, a referral was made by the police to the community safety partnership. It is further recorded that neighbour A was issued with a community resolution order by the police.
The resident continued to report incidents with neighbour A and was seeking action by the landlord to remove her neighbour from the property. She reported that her neighbour continued to play her music very loud and that she was leaving rubbish in the alleyway at the back of the resident’s home. The resident also provided recordings using the Noise App to demonstrate the noise being caused by her neighbour. On 27 July 2022, the landlord visited the resident at her mother’s home. She advised that she was staying there as she did not feel safe to return to her own home and highlighted the impact of the noise on her son.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 29 July 2022. In this it noted that the resident’s complaint was about the actions of the landlord’s ASB officer as she felt that he had been “incompetent” in dealing with her complaints about neighbour A. The landlord recorded that it had spoken with the resident about her complaint and asked her to expand on her concerns. It said that:
1. It had been present during a recent meeting with the resident and had received regular updates from the ASB officer. It said that it had no evidence that its officer was dealing with the issues in anything other than a professional manner.
2. It believed her complaint was based on a belief that the landlord should be taking immediate legal action against neighbour A. It said that this was “not feasible at this time”.
3. Its investigation was complicated by the serious breaches of tenancy carried out by members of the resident’s family.
4. It did not uphold her complaint. It was continuing to investigate incidents reported to it but was not taking further action at that stage.
On 25 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report an incident with neighbour A blocking her bin. She further asked for a call back as she wished to escalate her complaint.
The landlord met with the police on 7 September 2022 to discuss the complaints that were being received and review the evidence provided. The landlord’s record of this meeting showed that it reviewed evidence of incidents reported between 27 June 2022 to 3 September 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 September 2022. It thanked the resident and her mother for speaking with it on 1 September 2022. It said that:
1. It had considered the ASB officer’s response to her reports of ASB. It had reviewed the updates provided to the manager, the actions taken and the case management that remained underway. Through this it had found no evidence that the officer had failed to take her complaints seriously or that they were incompetent.
2. It understood that she had made complaints about noise nuisance and had provided some recordings to demonstrate the nuisance. She had also provided evidence of “what you believe are threats” captured on CCTV. These have been reviewed by the landlord and the police. Both agencies did not find that the evidence provided supported her reports.
3. The landlord had received counter reports from neighbour A. These included damage to her car wing mirror and further vandalism to the car. It noted that the police were investigating these matters, together with a public order offence and had interviewed the resident’s son.
4. Both residents had received warnings about their conduct from the landlord and had been asked to enter into a good neighbour agreement. As neighbour A had declined to engage in this process both had been asked to sign an ABC. It concluded that it was satisfied that action had been taken which was both reasonable and proportionate in response to the complaints made by both residents.
5. The resident had activated a “community trigger”. This would ensure that there was an independent review of the case and said that the landlord would act on any recommendations made.
6. It acknowledged the resident’s obvious frustration but that it could only take legal action where this was evidentially supported, and it was reasonable and proportionate to do so. It further said that its focus on the allegations against the resident’s son was, if these were proven, because they were acts of criminal damage. It considered these to be more serious that noise nuisance and “unsubstantiated allegations of threats made”.
7. It understood that she felt that her request to move home had not been considered as a priority. It explained that moves through its transfer list could take time due to the availability of suitable accommodation. It noted that she had also registered on the local authority’s waiting list and suggested that she may wish to approach it about increased priority if she gained support from the police.
8. While it had hoped to be able to progress this matter further, it acknowledged the difficulty in dealing with neighbour complaints where counter allegations have been made.
The landlord continued to engage with both the resident and neighbour A. The landlord closed its ASB case record of the complaint against the resident on 10 November 2022.
The resident and members of her family continued to raise complaints with the landlord about the behaviour of neighbour A. This included the disposal of rubbish and the placement of bins, reports of a dog barking, blocking of the resident’s car parking space and a smell of cannabis from the property. The landlord began legal action to obtain an injunction against neighbour A. At a hearing on 31 January 2023 neighbour A gave an undertaking to the court. The landlord explained that a failure to adhere to this undertaking could lead to neighbour A being returned to court where she could be fined or arrested.
On 15 February 2023 the landlord opened a new ASB case record following complaints from the resident regarding a different neighbour (neighbour B). These related to parking issues, a dog barking and shouting coming from the address. This case was closed on 2 March 2023 following feedback from the resident that the issues had been resolved.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 3 March 2023. This was in response to a complaint raised by the resident about her ASB officer. The resident had complained that she believed that the ASB officer was not doing his job properly and that she was unhappy that he was not proceeding with action following a breach of an injunction by neighbour A. She further provided copies of Noise App recordings provided to the ASB officer. The landlord reviewed these, together with those provided by her mother alongside its case notes in investigating her complaint. In its response it said that:
1. It did not have an injunction in respect of neighbour A. It had been agreed at the hearing on 31 January 2023 that the court would impose an “undertaking”. This was in effect a promise to the court by her neighbour to abide by certain written conditions. It had reviewed the evidence provided by the resident and concluded that it was appropriate for it to make an application to the court for possible breaches of the undertaking. To support this it would be seeking sworn statements from the resident and her mother.
2. It acknowledged that this was different to the advice previously provided by its ASB officer. It did not however believe that this reflected on their ability to do their job, noting the complexity of such matters. It explained that it had a duty to always act proportionately and that there was a strong burden of proof required for legal proceedings.
3. It had not found anything inappropriate in the officer’s discussion with her neighbour about the use of the Noise App. It said that it was appropriate for him to warn her neighbour about her behaviour.
4. It had spoken with the resident about the possibility of possession action being taken against neighbour A. It explained that mandatory possession action was only possible where there was a proven breach of an injunction. As it had not obtained an injunction it was unable to take such action. It had agreed that it would seek legal advice on taking possession action alongside the breach application.
5. It stressed that such action was likely to take a number of months. Further it said that this should not be “viewed as being a short term solution to your current living arrangements”.
6. It did not uphold her complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 March 2023 to obtain sworn statements to enable it to proceed to court for a breach of the undertaking given by neighbour A. It appears from the landlord’s notes that it was unable to obtain statements from other residents in support of its action.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 March 2023 to escalate her complaint. She asked to “speak to someone higher” and said that she felt that she had been discriminated against. She further said that she felt that the ASB officers had believed neighbour A over her despite the evidence provided. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 18 April 2023. In this the landlord said:
1. It had reviewed its stage 1 response and felt that it had appropriately explained that “in all ASB cases it can be very difficult to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in escalating a complaint”. While it aimed to support any ASB complaint, it had to be clear about its chance of success in any court action.
2. It further supported the advice given that it would contact “any perpetrators of noise nuisance to explain that it could monitor the noise they make”. This was essential to it evidencing where noise had occurred when taking action but also its primary intention was to stop the noise nuisance.
3. It said that its ASB team had acted correctly in considering the amount and quality of evidence needed to progress the case to court. It said that it was not planning any further action.
The resident initially contacted the Service on 23 April 2023. She said that there were issues with the neighbours either side of her regarding noise nuisance, primarily dogs barking and loud music. Further there had been police involvement following an assault on her sister. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She felt that the landlord had not listened to her and was not considering the impact on her and her family, particularly her son. She wanted the landlord to take appropriate action against her neighbours, listen to the evidence she had provided and resolve the issues.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 24 May 2023 the landlord noted that it was processing the documents required for a breach of undertaking with the aim to obtain a full injunction against neighbour A. On 19 September 2023, the landlord noted that it had spoken with the resident and her mother and that they were unwilling to attend court. They wanted the landlord to obtain an eviction order. The landlord explained that this would not be the outcome at this stage and set out what the injunction would mean and sought to reassure the resident by setting out the penalties to any breach. The landlord took advice from its solicitor on 25 September 2023. It was advised that it should not proceed with the application at that time as there was a risk of it losing.
The landlord then met with the resident and followed this with a letter dated 24 October 2023 setting out its current position. It acknowledged that the resident’s mother who was to have acted as a witness had now declined to do so. It confirmed that without her evidence the case was weaker as there was no direct testimony as to the disturbance caused. The case would be based on evidence provided by the ASB officer alone and that its solicitor did not believe that this would be successful. It said that there was no further legal action it could take and recommended mediation. It said it would keep its case open to record any future incidents and would consider legal action if witnesses changed their mind.
The evidence provided to the Service shows that the resident has continued to report concerns about ASB, and the landlord’s response to her concerns. It is also acknowledged that the landlord has opened a new complaint to investigate the resident’s new and ongoing concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As above, it is noted that the resident has reported new concerns. It is also acknowledged that the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of ongoing matters. However, the scope of this investigation is limited to assessing events up until April 2023 – when the landlord issued its final response in respect of this complaint. Matters beyond this date have been taken into consideration for the purpose of context, but have not been investigated. If the resident remains unhappy after the landlord has investigated her second complaint, she may refer it back to this Service as a new complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

It is acknowledged that the ASB the resident has reported has had a profound impact on her and her family for a long time. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether they have occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action based on the evidence that was available and followed good practice.
The landlord has provided copies of its ASB case records which relate to reports of ASB raised by and involving the resident. It opened a total of 8 separate cases between 16 May 2022 and 19 December 2023. These record reports of noise nuisance, primarily dogs barking, disputes around parking and damage to vehicles, together with allegations of verbal abuse, harassment and drug taking. While the resident is captured as the complainant in most of these, they also capture reports made by the resident’s mother and sister. It is noted that the resident was not residing at her property throughout this period having advised the landlord that she was staying at her mother’s home as the noise nuisance was having a negative impact on her son.
The initial reports raised by the resident in May 2022 were about noise nuisance caused by neighbour A, through her dog barking and loud music. There was then an incident where the resident’s son caused damage to the neighbour’s car. The resident acknowledged his responsibility and took steps to put this right. However, it is noted that this appears to have led to a significant deterioration in the relationship between the 2 neighbours. The landlord continued to maintain regular contact with both parties. It put an action plan in place, agreed regular contact and undertook a risk assessment. It also engaged with the police. This was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.
As the landlord continued to receive reports of ASB caused by neighbour A from the resident, her family members, and other neighbours it took appropriate action by pursuing an acceptable behaviour contract and then progressing the matter to court. When the court accepted neighbour A’s undertaking, the landlord advised the resident of this. It is acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with this outcome as she wanted the landlord to obtain an injunction that had a power of arrest and for her neighbour to be evicted. The landlord’s actions were appropriate in the circumstances and in line with its procedure. Having presented the case to the court it was reliant on the judge to make a decision, based on the evidence presented.
Following the resident’s complaint the landlord further reviewed the evidence it had of neighbour A’s behaviour. It considered that she had breached the undertaking given to the court. It therefore agreed to return to court to seek an injunction. It is not clear from the records provided if the landlord also took steps to commence possession proceedings alongside its injunction application. It took steps to gather evidence and sworn statements about the breaches that had occurred and referred this to its solicitors. It is noted that this took a number of months to progress. When the resident’s mother declined to act as a witness the landlord acted on the expert advice of its solicitors that the case would not be successful and did not progress with the court action. It is understandable that the resident was disappointed with the landlord’s decision. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its solicitors in the circumstances.
In considering the landlord’s approach to the resident’s reports of ASB, the steps it took in terms of regular contact, the use of good neighbour agreements and ABC’s combined with its consideration of legal action, the landlord acted in an appropriate and proportionate manner. There were opportunities for it to act quicker in progressing the matter to court for the breach to the undertaking given by neighbour A, but without the support of residents who were directly impacted by the nuisance caused it acted on the expert advice of its solicitors in not proceeding. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
As an element of the complaints made related to the behaviour of dogs and persistent barking, there was an opportunity for the landlord to consider its approach to pet ownership. Its tenancy agreement sets out that pets are only allowed with the written permission of the landlord. It is expected that such permission could be revoked if there are significant complaints about the animal’s behaviour which causes disturbances to other residents. It is recommended that the landlord considers a review of this element regarding this neighbourhood.
Through its complaint responses and in its closure letter the landlord set out clearly the reasons for the actions it had taken. The resident was unhappy with its focus on the actions of her son and felt that the landlord had been discriminatory in doing so. It was important, given the nature of the complaint against her son, that the landlord highlighted this and in doing so it demonstrated that it had taken a balanced approach in dealing with the complaints it had received.
The landlord has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures when addressing the resident’s reports of ASB and this service has found no maladministration in this case. Recommendations have however been made both about its response to pet ownership but also in terms of future engagement with the neighbourhood.

Complaint handling and record keeping

The landlord has provided no evidence of the resident’s complaint when raised at stage 1 and only notes of her contact with it when requesting her complaint be escalated. It is therefore unclear when these were initially raised with the landlord. Without sight of the resident’s original complaint the Service is not able to assess whether these were responded to within a reasonable timeframe and if the landlord responded to all aspects of the resident’s complaints. We have therefore made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s record keeping. It is important that landlords maintain clear complaint records and that there is an accurate audit trail of all concerns that have been raised and how they have been responded to. An order in relation to record keeping has been made accordingly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord acted in line with its ASB procedures and took appropriate and proportionate actions at each stage of the case.
The landlord did not provide the Service with evidence of the resident’s original complaints. An assessment could not be made as to the timeliness and completeness of the landlord’s response.

Order

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should undertake a review of its complaint handling in this case and ascertain why copies of the resident’s initial complaint communication have not been retained or made available to the Service. The landlord should confirm the outcome of the review with the Ombudsman and confirm any steps that have been identified to enhance record keeping practices in relation to complaints.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider its policy on pets, as outlined in the report. As its tenancy agreement requires the resident to have the landlord’s written permission, it should consider the circumstances in which it would revoke such permission.
It is further recommended that the landlord work with the all the occupiers of the resident’s neighbourhood to build cohesion and find ways to mediate in resident disputes. It should also continue to keep its position on legal action under review.