Ocean Housing Limited (202224259)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224259

Ocean Housing Group Limited

30 April 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 antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’), including:
1. The landlord’s categorisation of the incidents.
2. The level of support the landlord offered her.
3. The landlord’s decision to ask the resident to moderate her communication with it.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord which began on 9 May 2011. She lives in a one-bedroom bungalow. The resident told the landlord she has a chronic long-term health condition that has left her with mobility problems. The landlord said its records stated the resident uses a wheelchair.
The resident reported the following incidents between 4 September 2022 and 4 January 2023:
1. Her neighbour was watching her when she left the property and as she was being attended to by the ambulance service.
2. The neighbour had been shouting and banging on the adjoining walls and knocking on her door within anti-social hours.
3. She had received an unsigned Christmas card and her keyhole had been tampered with.
4. Her neighbour had been peering through her windows, putting their face up to the window, standing under the window, and banging on her gate.
5. Her neighbour had been stalking her at the front of her property. This was after the resident had put up a fence at the rear of the property, which she said was to stop the stalking within the vicinity of the back garden.
6. Her neighbour had been encouraging other neighbours to verbally abuse her.
The resident explained she wanted the landlord to deter the behaviour because it made her feel vulnerable and harassed. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 October 2022 and said it did not consider the incidents to meet the threshold for ASB and it would not open a case. It said that because the resident considered the incidents to be stalking and harassment, this was a criminal matter for the police and if they decided to take it further it would work with them.
The resident was dissatisfied with the way the landlord handled an incident on or around 7 December 2022 where she reported noise nuisance from her next-door neighbour in the early hours of the morning. She later reported that another neighbour had incited the others to harass and verbally abuse her. She called the landlord at the time of this altercation, and it recorded the call. In close succession, the resident also reported her door lock had been tampered with.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 9 December 2022, and it said it would share the voice recording with the police. It also asked her to moderate her communication with it because she had been reporting historic events repeatedly. The resident went on to make three further reports of noise nuisance and stated that her neighbours were joining in together to harass her. The resident said the landlord delayed responding to her reports. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 December 2022 and said it would provide an update in the new year and enclosed diary sheets for her to complete.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 January 2023. The main reasons for this were:
1. The stalking and harassment were not being dealt with and the landlord had evidence of this in the recording it took in December 2022.
2. She felt the incidents had occurred because of her disability and that it was a hate crime.
3. She had been left over Christmas by the landlord and the issues continued.

She asked the landlord to respond in appropriate timeframes and deal with all the issues.

The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 January 2023. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint because it had delayed in providing an update on her case in December 2022. It apologised for this and said this was due to staff illness. It also confirmed it did not consider the incidents the resident had reported were ASB or that they were actionable. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 January 2023. The main reasons were because:
1. The incidents were continuing, and the landlord and police had not categorised or dealt with them appropriately.
2. The landlord had not considered the impact of the incident on the resident and that she felt vulnerable.
3. She felt ignored when she made her report on or around 7 December 2022.
4. The landlord had requested she moderate her contact with it and that it had threatened her tenancy.
5. The landlord had not made reasonable adjustments for her to make reports.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it agreed with the findings at stage 1 because of its delay in updating the resident in December 2022. However, it felt it had responded reasonably to the resident’s reports. It said it had provided the resident with support and reasonable adjustments to make reports. It also said it had made its request to moderate her communications in “good faith” and clarified it was not threatening her tenancy, but the increased volume of contact could be assessed against its reasonable behaviour policy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that, during her communications with the landlord, she felt secondary abuse from how it handled her reports. This was linked to the conduct of specific staff members and her communications with them. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate specific staff members and will refer to any actions taken by them as being taken by the landlord.
The resident has also explained to the Ombudsman that she has been reporting the issues with her neighbours for several years. Whilst the Ombudsman accepts this, we have focussed on the most recent incidents leading up to the resident making her complaint. In particular, the Ombudsman has focused on the landlord’s handling of the ASB from 4 July 2022. This is because this is what the landlord responded to as part of its complaint procedure.

The reports of ASB

The landlord adopts the legal definition of ASB set out in the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person or relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
The landlord’s ASB policy states that harassment is “the feeling of extreme upset or annoyance caused by being tormented, or antagonised. When the word is used in a legal context, it refers to behaviours that have been proven to be threatening to another individual.”
The policy also states that the landlord will communicate clearly with customers and explain its ASB approach to residents so that they understand what they can expect from it. It says it will ensure customers can easily report incidents and keep them informed of its response. It says it will take the following steps in response to reports:
1. Risk assess the level of harm the ASB causes to individuals.
2. Resolve cases using a range of legal powers available to it.
3. Work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB.
4. If there is criminal behaviour it will expect residents to report this to the police.
5. If there is noise nuisance it will expect residents to report this to environmental health.
6. Gather evidence and provide diary sheets.
7. Develop an action plan with the complainant to try to resolve the problem, this will include the frequency of contact.
8. Ensure cases are updated and reviewed regularly, with outcomes and timescales recorded.

The landlord’s categorisation of the incidents

The resident explained that she felt the incidents she reported were stalking and harassment. She expressed that she was disappointed the police had not taken any further action. The evidence shows the police had categorised the incidents as a neighbour dispute in its communications with the landlord and that it had received counter allegations when it had investigated. In its communications with the resident, the landlord explained it did not feel the incidents met the threshold for ASB.
It wrote to the resident on 9 January 2023 and said:
1. It had reviewed the voice recording from December 2022 and found the resident had made loud comments that had provoked a reaction from the neighbours.
2. It detailed the reports of the resident’s neighbour staring in her direction, an unsigned Christmas card, neighbours pointing and talking in a public space and encouraging children to stare at her. It said the police had investigated the same reports and had not taken further action. It also said it could not open an ASB case based on these types of reports.
3. It said it noted there were historical complaints she had made about her neighbours and most matters the resident had reported did not constitute ASB. It also said that if they had, there was no evidence of who was responsible, so it was unable to open a case.
The landlord is responsible for carrying out its own investigations as an agency separate from the police and is accountable for explaining its own findings. Although the landlord told the resident the incidents were not ASB, it did not tell the resident how it had come to its conclusion. The alleged incidents, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, clearly met with the definition of ASB. The landlord ought to have opened an ASB file to obtain evidence and asked the resident to create and maintain a diary of incidents. In addition, there is no evidence of a risk assessment being carried out to quantify the level of harm being caused to the resident. Overall, there was maladministration with the landlord’s approach to the resident’s reports.
The resident’s reports were consistent and also described the impact of them as being harmful and distressing. The Ombudsman considers the landlord had the discretion in its policy to consider the resident’s reports further, but it chose not to. Therefore, even if the behaviour did not amount to ASB, it would have been fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to have provided the resident with an explanation about why it decided not to do this. This was maladministration because the landlord failed to explain why it did not apply its policy.
Overall there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint because:
1. It incorrectly stated that behaviour did not amount to ASB In any event, it should have exercised its discretion to open an ASB file.
2. It failed to clearly explain why the behaviour if proven, did not amount to ASB.

The landlord’s response to the incidents and the level of support offered to the resident

The resident reported incidents to her landlord as detailed above.
The landlord responded to the incidents reported to it between 4 September 2022 and 4 January 2023 as follows:
1. Recorded the resident’s reports on its system. These were accompanied by notes for no further action unless the resident said she wanted to speak with a member of staff.
2. On 7 October 2022 it signposted the resident to her GP for support with her mental health.
3. On 12 December 2022, the landlord asked environmental health if they had any received reports of noise nuisance. The Environmental Health Department confirmed it had not. The landlord also asked for information to help it investigate the noise nuisance the resident was reporting on 3 February 2023. The Environmental Health Department confirmed it had sent a warning letter to the resident’s neighbours but that she should report anything further to them.
4. The landlord liaised with the police on 9 December 2022 about the recording of the incident in December 2022 and the resident’s further reports. The police did not take further action on this matter.
5. It called the resident on 9 December 2022 and explained there was a meeting between the police and her neighbour, but it could not confirm the outcome of this visit. The notes did not state the landlord’s intended action.
6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 January 2023 to explain it would not be taking further action because the incidents did not meet the threshold for ASB. However, it offered the resident mediation with her neighbours.
Although the landlord recorded the resident’s reports on its system, there was no evidence of the landlord:
1. Conducting a risk assessment to assess the level and impact of the incidents.
2. Considering a joint visit with the police to discuss the resident’s reports. There is evidence the police recommended this approach on 29 September 2022 if the reports continued to prevent escalation. There is no evidence, despite reports continuing, of the landlord agreeing to this.
3. Providing the resident with an action plan with details of what it would be willing to do to help mitigate the impact of the incidents on the resident.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have shown how it had assessed the resident’s reports to explain why it did not intend to take further action. The landlord could have validated the resident’s concerns by acknowledging the impact she was describing when she was reporting the incidents. The landlord could have agreed to monitor the situation and have given the resident an action plan to show that it would use the tools it had available to support her.
The resident told the landlord during a call on 9 December 2022 that she needed support with reporting the incidents because of the effects of her disabilities. Specifically, she asked to contact the landlord in alternative ways at different times, depending on how she was coping at any given time. She said this would mean it was easier to call to report incidents and at other times dictate these into her Chromebook and email them to the landlord.
The landlord said during the call that it clarified the resident’s need for extra support when reporting incidents. It noted that it would make sure its ASB diaries were available to fill in and compatible with her preferred software or post them to her. It also said she could report incidents in a variety of ways such as by telephone and email. The Ombudsman considers this an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns.
In addition, the resident asked the landlord not to contact her early in the morning or late in the afternoon due to the impact of her vulnerabilities. The landlord said it created an alert on its systems and there is evidence of it sharing this between colleagues to ensure they were aware. The Ombudsman considers this was an appropriate response to the resident’s request.
The resident’s written reports were often in capital letters and large font. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 February 2023 to ask her to refrain from using capital letters in her emails because this was “the email equivalent of shouting.” The resident responded to this on the same day explaining that the large font settings were because of the way her software produced her dictation. She said she felt the landlord was not considering a reasonable adjustment for this because she needed to use the dictation software because of her additional needs when making reports.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it made its comments in “good faith” because it did not know this was linked to the resident’s additional needs. It then apologised and said it would create an alert on its system so its staff would be aware of this in future.
The landlord’s handling of the matter was not as sensitive as it could have been – given it knew the resident was using dictation software. However, the Ombudsman considers the landlord tried to put this right because it acknowledged and apologised for its action and alerted colleagues to ensure it had considered the resident’s comments.
When the landlord liaised with the police on one occasion it forwarded the resident’s report and said, “Here we go again.” This was maladministration because the landlord was unprofessional and ultimately gave the impression that it was not taking the resident’s concerns seriously. It also lacked care and empathy. This was at a time when the resident felt the landlord was trivialising her reports and the impact they had on her.
Overall, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint because:
1. It delayed responding to the incident in December 2022.
2. It failed to evidence it carried out its investigations into the incidents separately from the police.
3. It failed to evidence it assessed the risk of harm to the resident by undertaking a risk.
4. It sent inappropriate emails which appeared to trivialise the resident’s reports.
5. It did not take up the police’s offer to conduct a joint visit.

The landlord’s decision to ask the resident to moderate her communication with it

The landlord told the Ombudsman it had received high levels of contact from the resident and provided evidence of the resident being at the top of its list for frequency of contact.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 January 2023 and asked her to moderate her communication because it had received “numerous emails containing repetitive communication.” It asked her to refrain from doing this in the future. It also said it was happy to take calls from her if there was new or relevant information, otherwise, it had instructed its call handlers to politely end the call. It said if the resident continued it would consider whether she was in breach of its reasonable behaviour policy.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s reports were similar to historic incidents previously reported. However, the very nature of harassing and stalking behaviour and noise nuisance is often repetitive and similar in nature. It is not clear that the landlord asked when the incidents occurred to clarify if the incidents were historic. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained to the resident why it believed the events being reported were historic and managed the resident’s expectations about its approach to her reports.
It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the landlord could have done more to manage the contact of the resident if it felt that she was overusing its resources. It could have done this by agreeing on specific intervals or timeframes for the resident to send information or agreeing on a specific point of contact.
Overall, the landlord was responsible for maladministration in the way it handled this element of the resident’s complaint on the basis that:
1. It did not explore the resident’s needs in relation to her dictated emails despite being aware she needed reasonable adjustments to enable her to report incidents.
2. The landlord warned the resident of unreasonable behaviour without seeking clarity on when the incidents reported occurred.
Taken together, whilst the landlord did not act under its ASB policy, there is ultimately no evidence that the resident would have been in any different position. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord responsible for the distress and inconvenience caused only, as well as a breakdown of trust and confidence.

Complaint handling

There were small delays in the landlord’s response to the complaint, in particular:
1. The resident raised her formal complaint on 4 January 2023. The landlord responded with its stage 1 response within 11 working days. It is noted the delay was small and would have had a minimal impact on the resident.
2. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 January 2023. The landlord responded with its stage 2 response within 21 working days. Again, the delay was minimal and would have had a limited impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that because the delay and impact was minimal there was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the ASB, including:
1. The landlord’s categorisation of the incidents.
2. The level of support the landlord offered her.
3. The landlord’s decision to ask the resident to moderate her communication with it.
In accordance with paragraph 52, the Ombudsman considers there was no maladministration with the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Write to the resident and:
  1. Explain how it will handle any new reports moving forward. It should detail how it will deal with this under its ASB policy. In doing so, the landlord may wish to ask the resident to detail:

(1) The date and time of the incidents complained of.

(2) The details of any potential witnesses.

(3) The names of the perpetrators.

(4) Details of what happened.

Explain why it did not consider the events she reported between 4 September 2022 and 4 January 2023 to meet the definition of ASB. What amounts to ASB and what evidence the landlord will need to take action.
Apologise for the errors identified in this report.

Pay the resident compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience of its failure to follow its ASB policy.
Provide evidence of compliance with the orders of this service.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider contacting the police and arranging a joint visit to the parties should the reports continue or escalate.