Origin Housing Limited (202307848)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307848

Origin Housing Limited

29 May 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 concerns the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour.
2. handling of the related complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to the resident on 11 August 2014.
The property is a 2-bedroom house with a garden.
In 2021, the landlord carried out remedial works to several gardens on her road (the estate), including the resident’s due to problems caused by its removal of bamboo from a nearby property. On 11 May 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of bamboo in the garden of the neighbouring property and the length of time to the resolve the matter. This complaint exhausted the landlord’s procedure on 4 August 2021 which the resident referred to this Service. On 23 September 2023 we determined this complaint under reference 202123756. In this determination it was noted remedial works to the garden agreed by the landlord had not yet been completed as since January 2022, the resident declined access for the landlord to complete the remedial work.
On 28 January 2022, the resident reported that her immediate neighbour (the neighbour) had been parking vehicles across her driveway. She provided photos to the landlord.
On 9 February 2022, the resident made a further report of ASB from her neighbour including:
1. Threats that the rear fence would be set on fire.
2. Threats that bamboo would be grown by her fence to deliberately damage the garden.
3. Blocking in her vehicle with their cars and vans, and parking illegally on the dropped kerb every day which had caused damage to her cars’ suspension.
4. Deliberately playing their sound bar on high bass volumes.
5. Further to this, she had items stolen from the front of her house which had been reported to the Police.
6. This ASB has been happening since June 2021, with the landlord having been made aware of the issues but failing to act.
The landlord acknowledged the report on 11 February 2022, and opened an ASB case on 15 February 2022 recording the issues reported. Its ASB record shows it sent the resident information on its noise app and told her that she should report threats of arson directly to the Police.
The resident provided further details of the ASB in emails sent to the landlord on 15 February 2022. In its responses of the same date, the landlord told the resident that it had contacted the neighbour and asked them to refrain from parking over her drive as there was “ample parking availability and they should park somewhere else”. The resident replied that despite the landlord contacting the neighbour, they had continued to park across the dropped kerb, blocking the footpath and her vehicle. She provided further photos and said she hoped that the issues would be dealt with “immediately”.
On 16 February 2022, the resident told the landlord that she had reported the neighbour’s “deliberate ASB” the previous day to the Police and she provided the crime reference. The resident said she was “astounded” the landlord had allowed this to continue.
On 2 March 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint stating that the landlord had failed to acknowledge or respond to “ongoing” ASB. She reiterated that the neighbour had been parking their vehicles over her driveway causing her to have to drive her vehicle over the pavement, which she said she had made the Police aware of. The resident told the landlord that the Police would be knocking on the neighbours’ door to follow this up and said the Police had suggested that she inform the landlord of the situation.
In her complaint, the resident said the landlord’s officers had failed to deal with the escalating ASB which stemmed from the “failed gardening works” and that this was taking an extreme toll on her. She said she hoped this could be dealt with efficiently and timely given it had been ongoing and its serious nature.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same date. This Service has not seen this communication.
On 7 March 2022, the resident told the landlord that the Police had visited the neighbour on 3 March 2022 to tell them they could not illegally park across her driveway in front of the dropped kerb. She said that due to the ongoing ASB the Police advised her that the landlord ought to deal with the matter. The resident said she had provided the Police with its contact details when asked.
On 10 March 2022, the resident told the landlord she had to report 2 further incidents to the Police. She stated that was being “bullied” by the neighbour who was getting her friends and family to partake in their ASB. Furthermore, her housemate had contacted her GP as the incidents were affecting her mental health.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. In its response it:
1. Said it was sorry she had experienced issues with her driveway being blocked by the neighbour.
2. Stated it could see that when she first brought this matter to it, they discussed this unacceptable behaviour with the neighbour. It had also offered to accommodate mediation between herself and the neighbour.
3. It was pleased there had been no new incidents since the involvement of the Police.
4. Advised her that the neighbourhood manager (NM) for her estate was no longer employed by it but provided contact details for the new NM. It said they had visited the site that day and knocked on her door to introduce themselves but there was no answer. It said that a calling card was left with the NM’s contact details on.
5. In her email of 17 March 2022, she mentioned being agreeable to the offer of mediation. It said the NM would be contacting her this week to arrange this. The landlord said if she felt this was no longer required, as the problem had not continued, that she should let it know.
6. In conclusion there had not been any service failing in the handling of her neighbour nuisance case, therefore it was not upholding her complaint.
On the same date the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident stated:
1. The stage 1 investigation had not been carried out by the named member of staff as stated in its acknowledgement on 2 March 2022. She said that it was inappropriate for the manager of the team she was complaining about to provide the complaint response.
2. The stage 1 response was not provided within the landlord’s timescales, as it had taken 19 working days.
3. The landlord had not asked her for information to enable it to properly investigate the complaint.
4. The ASB experienced from the neighbour extended to more than them blocking her driveway, as discussed with the landlord’s Neighbourhood team (NT) since 2021, but this had not been acted upon.
5. The ASB had not stopped and in fact the Police did not deal with it, the local council took control. The landlord had not intervened or acknowledged emails which it was copied into.
On 11 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged the concerns raised by the resident in her stage 2 complaint and requested to visit her at the property to discuss the complaint or alternatively it said it would call her. Over the next few weeks, the parties were in communication regarding a suitable time for the landlord to visit the resident.
On 12 May 2022, the landlord visited and met with the resident at the property to discuss the complaint issues. This service has not seen any record of the parties’ discussions during its visit.
On 19 May 2022, the resident agreed to the landlord’s request to extend the deadline for the stage 2 response until 2 June 2022.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 final response. The landlord acknowledged that in 2021 it had agreed to re-landscape her garden and erect new fences due to drainage issues that had been caused by its work to remove bamboo from a neighbouring property. It said the resident had explained that these improvement works potentially further antagonised the neighbour and resulted in verbal abuse and threats to burn down the fence to her garden and neighbour gossip involving other neighbours with her being the target.
The landlord stated it had opened an ASB case, but it acknowledged that the ASB could have been better managed with a clearer plan towards resolution. It said mediation was offered but as discussed during their meeting, it accepted this was not the best course of action, particularly as tensions were “very high” at that time. It said it believed that the resident’s reports should have been taken more seriously, and that she needed the NM to listen, understand and act accordingly. It said the NM should have taken the time to talk and meet with her and the neighbour to assist with resolving the dispute at a much earlier stage.
The landlord stated that its investigation also found there had been a lack of empathy and understanding about her experience. The landlord acknowledged that the NT did not respond to external communications including to an email from the Police dated 8 March 2022. For these reasons it said it was upholding this part of her complaint.
It had met with its NT and contacted the local council and the Police to explore solutions to parking restrictions. It said the local council told it that they had managed past incidents by calling the perpetrator and asking them to stop parking their vehicle and informing them that enforcement by way of a Community Protection Warning (CPW) would be issued if not adhered to. The landlord also said the Police had confirmed they had warned the neighbour of Section 59 penalties in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002 (Section 59 order) penalties if they use their vehicle in an ASB manner and referred to a verbal warning delivered by the Police on 11 May 2022. It said hopefully this had the desired impact however the resident should report any new incident by calling 101.
The landlord said in regards to her request for allocated bays for second cars, it believed there was ample parking available to all that live and visit the estate and a suitable remedy for parking against the drop kerb (which is not permitted and was happening here) was the issue of a Section 59 order or CPW from the Police, depending on the circumstances. It may also consider enforcing bay-only parking at a later stage and this will require a full resident consultation and therefore something it did not feel was imminent at that stage.
In regard to when the garden work restarts, it agreed to the resident’s request for preventative measures. Its staff would be present during the garden works, and it would provide clear information with all neighbours ahead of the works.
To resolve her complaint, the landlord offered £400 in compensation made up of:
1. £150 for time and trouble.
2. £250 for its poor handling of ASB.
The landlord also agreed:
1. To monitor ASB case and the resident kept updated and procedure followed.
2. To contact the neighbour by telephone about garden reporting. It would update the resident within 5 days.
3. Mediation as an option to resolve dispute.
4. Parking issues to be resolved via enforcement/controls put in place via Section 59 orders or CPWs.

Events post the landlord’s final response

On 5 July 2022, the resident reported a further incident of ASB to the landlord concerning abusive comments from neighbours. The resident said she wanted to go on the housing transfer list.
On 8 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged her ASB report and said it would discuss her request to move with the head of housing and would call her about the ASB report after it had discussed with NT.
On 6 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord saying it had not upheld its action plan. She stated that she had told the landlord on 7 September 2022 that she was still experiencing ASB despite warnings, but she got no response.
In response to our further information request asking if actions agreed in the final response were provided, the landlord told us on 16 May 2024 that:
1. It had tried to call the perpetrator on 4 occasions following the final response however it was unsuccessful in reaching them.
2. It had not been able to complete the garden remedial works despite several positive attempts and approaches to the resident to resolve this issue.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

On 16 August 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports since around March 2023. This complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 30 October 2023. This timeframe has not been considered in this investigation however, as the resident has escalated her complaint to this Service, this will be investigated under case reference 202336406 once the casefile has been fully prepared in accordance with our process.

Handling of ASB

The main ASB reported by the resident concerned the neighbour (and their friends and family) parking across her driveway, causing noise nuisance and making verbal threats. During the timeframe considered, the landlord acknowledged the incidents reported constituted ASB. Therefore, the neighbour is hereinafter referred to as the perpetrator.
The landlord did not act promptly following the resident’s initial report of ASB on 28 January 2022. The landlord failed to acknowledge her report until 11 February 2022 and only after the resident made further reports on 9 February 2022. It took the landlord until 15 February 2022 to open an ASB case after calling the resident on 15 February 2022 to discuss the issues being experienced. By talking to the resident about her reports and opening an ASB case the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy, a quicker response would have reassured the resident it was taking her reports seriously.
While the landlord told the resident in its email of 15 February 2022 that it had contacted the perpetrator to ask that they stop parking over her driveway, this service has not seen any record of this contact. Keeping a record of actions taken in response to a resident’s ASB reports helps landlords monitor if the approach being followed was helping to modify the behaviour being complained of. Failing to record details of discussions with the alleged perpetrator in this case indicates poor knowledge and information management by the landlord and was inappropriate. There is also nothing to suggest that the landlord reminded the perpetrator of their obligations under the tenancy which makes clear residents must not to behave in such a way to cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm or distress, threaten harassment or any act in an anti-social nature to other people in the locality. On balance, such action would have been reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
Its ASB records show it sent the resident information about its noise app in response to her concern about the neighbour using a sound bar to play a “deep base”. Noise apps can be a useful to tool to assess if the noise being complained amounts to noise nuisance. It is noted that in her response the resident informed the landlord that due to the type of noise, the local council had told her this would not be picked up on the nose app, nonetheless, its action here, was reasonable.
In her communications to the landlord, the resident referenced earlier ASB reports she made to the landlord in 2021 concerning the same issue. This Service requested that the landlord provide details of these past reports for us to properly understand the context of the current ASB reports, however, this information has not been provided. This again is indicative of poor knowledge and information management by the landlord. This issue is considered further below.
Regardless of whether the resident’s reports were a continuation of reports made in 2021 or not, in accordance with its policy the landlord was required to formulate an appropriate action plan to manage and resolve the ASB reported since 28 January 2022. Although the landlord accepted that the incidents reported by the resident amounted to ASB, during the timeframe considered, it is clear that overall, it failed to take proper ownership of the situation rather it put the onus on the resident to report the issues to the Police and relied on solutions being provided by third parties.
When the resident reported the ASB to the Police following the landlord’s advice to do the same on 15 February 2022, the Police along with the local council’s Community Safety Intervention Officer (CSIO) contacted the perpetrators to warn them that further incidents of them using their vehicles in an ASB manner would result in them issuing either a section 59 or CPW.
Although the Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) contacted the landlord by email on 8 March 2022 requesting information about the parking controls that applied to the resident’s estate and terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord did not respond. Its failure to engage with the Police is clear evidence of the landlord not adhering to its policy which states multi agency partnership working including sharing information with third partes is necessary in order to effectively tackle ASB. Bearing in mind the resident at this stage had already raised a formal complaint regarding its handling of her ASB reports, its failure to take the opportunity to work with third parties shows continued poor handling of the issue and a failure to take her complaint seriously.
Although in its ASB policy the landlord is required to assess residents who report ASB, for their risk and vulnerability, there is no evidence to show the landlord did this at any stage. The resident told the landlord the situation was “taking its toll” on her and that her housemate had contacted her GP as the incidents were affecting her mental health, yet the landlord did not offer support or check with her to see if support was needed as per its policy. It acted inappropriately in this regard.
Following the resident’s stage 2 complaint however, the landlord met with the resident to discuss the situation with the ASB which was reasonable. Furthermore, after it received a further email contact from the Police on 11 May 2022, the landlord was in communication with them and the CSIO regarding dealing with the incidents reported by the resident. Its engagement with third parties as part of its stage 2 investigation was appropriate although not doing so at an earlier stage as per its policy was a clear failing.
In its final response, the landlord stated that since the perpetrator had received a verbal warning from the PCSO on 11 May 2022 and contact from the local council, there had been no new incidents which hopefully indicated such action may have had the desired effect. While no new incidents had been reported by the resident during the previous 3 to 4 weeks, we would still expect the landlord to set out what steps it intended to take to reduce the risk of further incidents happening as well as what action it would take in the event the ASB was ongoing.
The landlord suggested parking controls were not necessary as there was ample parking at the estate although said it may at a later stage consider enforcing bay-only parking, but this would require a full resident consultation. It said the most suitable remedy to the ASB was the issue of a Section 59 or CPW from the Police, depending on the circumstances and that the resident should call 101 to report any new incidents.
There is no evidence to suggest the ASB relates to an inherent problem with parking at the estate, as such the landlord’s position here was reasonable. However, its advice that the resident should call 101 to report any new incidents shows an unwillingness by the landlord to act on the resident’s reports itself. The landlord’s reliance on the Police and local council to issue a section 59 or CPW to stop any further parking obstructions as the only remedy to the issues reported, again shows it did not take any ownership of the resident’s reports. This Service is mindful that there is no evidence to suggest the landlord attempted to contact the perpetrator about any of the issues reported after 15 February 2022 despite the resident’s ongoing reports. On balance, its failure to raise the ASB reports with them or remind them of their obligations under the tenancy agreement, was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
The landlord also did not explore other routes to a resolution, for example using an acceptable behaviour agreement or issuing a verbal or written warning to the perpetrator. Such actions are set out in its policy yet there is no evidence to show the landlord considered these options. This is evidence of poor handling of the reported issues.
Although in its final response the landlord agreed to call the perpetrator, it said this was to discuss the resident’s involvement in the reporting of bamboo in her garden. To focus on historic events without setting out its expectations around the reported ASB represents a further missed opportunity. In any event, the landlord has since told us it was unable to get through to the perpetrator following its final response despite multiple attempts however, we have not seen any records to confirm these attempts.
The landlord told the resident in the final response that mediation remained an option however also stated that during its meeting with the resident they agreed that mediation was no longer the best course of action. Mediation can be a useful tool in resolving some types of ASB when used at the outset to prevent a situation escalating. This is echoed in the landlord’s ASB policy. However, in this case, it may be that because the resident’s relationship with the perpetrator had deteriorated due to the ongoing ASB, mediation was not appropriate. Nonetheless, the landlord’s confirmation to the resident that it remained open as an option, was reasonable.
Another action agreed in its final response was the landlord was to monitor the ASB and keep the resident updated. This Service is unable to consider events post the date of the landlord’s final response under this investigation, however we would expect the landlord to demonstrate it followed through with promises made in its final response. It is clear that the resident reported further instances of ASB on 5 July 2022 and later in the same year however there is no evidence of any meaningful action being taken by the landlord. This indicates the landlord did not do what it agreed in regard to monitoring or managing further ASB.
In its final response the landlord agreed to provide support and put “preventative measures” in place for when the garden remedial works recommenced, including its staff being present during the works and sharing clear information in advance of these works with all neighbours that may be impacted. When this Service asked the landlord if this had been provided, it told us it had not been able to complete the garden remedial works despite several positive attempts and approaches to the resident to resolve this issue. While we cannot consider the reasons for garden works not having been completed, it is appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with an action plan giving full details of the promised preventive measure it will take to manage/stop ASB while garden works are undertaken.
As mentioned above, the landlord has not provided this Service with complete records relating to the resident’s ASB complaint. Missing records relate to the previous ASB case opened in 2021, its contact and attempted contact with the perpetrator and visit to the resident on 12 May 2022. The landlord also did not provide its ASB policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint although supplied its current ASB policy which has therefore been used for the purposes of this investigation. The incomplete evidence constitutes poor knowledge and information management by the landlord and to some extent, has hindered our investigation into its handling of the ASB and related complaint. This represents an additional failing on the part of the landlord.
In summary, while the landlord opened an ASB case following the resident’s reports of ASB, it did not take appropriate action to manage or resolve the ASB. Instead, it relied too heavily on solutions being offered by third parties rather than acting on the resident’s reports itself and following its ASB policy to identify a suitable action plan to address the issues being experienced. It did not adhere to many of the promises made in its final response.
In its stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged and apologised for failings including the lack of clear plan towards resolution, not taking her ASB sufficiently seriously, not talking to neighbours and for not responding to external communications regarding the incidents. Whilst this suggests lessons learned by the landlord, its offer of compensation in the amount of £400 did not reflect the extent of distress and inconvenience caused because of its inadequate action. Due to this issue and as it did not adhere to actions promised in its final response, this Service considers that the redress offered did not resolve the complaint. The landlord is required to pay the resident additional compensation of £600. This amount together with the £400 offered during the complaints process, is proportionate to the impact caused by the failings identified above and is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint on 2 March 2022 which was acknowledged by the landlord on the same date. This is in line with its policy however the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint 19 working days later on 29 March 2022 indicating the landlord did not act within the 10-working day timescale stated in its policy. There is no evidence of it contacting the resident to explain why it could not meet the timescale, as required under its policy. This was inappropriate and the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this in its stage 1 response.
In her stage 2 complaint, the resident expressed that she was unhappy that the Neighbourhood Manager had provided the stage 1 response as she said that the complaint concerned the service provided by the neighbourhood team. There is nothing in the complaints policy which does not allow the Manager of the service complained about from completing the stage 1 investigation. On balance, it was reasonable to afford the Manager of the service complained about an opportunity to investigate the concerns raised at first instance. Therefore, this issue does not represent any failing by the landlord.
However, in its stage 2 response the landlord did not address the resident’s concern raised about this or her concern that its acknowledgement email had indicated that an alternative member of staff would be providing the response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes clear that landlords are expected to address all points raised in the complaint therefore the lack of acknowledgement of this concern or explanation as to why the respondent was from a different staff member from the one advised, constitutes a failing.
It is noted that the stage 2 review was carried out by a head of service not previously directly involved in the complaint investigation. This was in line with the landlord’s policy which requires the same so the landlord can review if the stage 1 investigation was carried out reasonably and in line with its policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy states at stage 2 that the landlord will provide a review response within 20 working days or if this is not possible it will contact the resident to explain why and the date for a full response may be extended by up to a further 10 working days.
The stage 2 response was provided on 7 June 2022 which was 46 working days after the resident’s escalation request of 29 March 2022. During this timeframe the landlord visited the resident to discuss her complaint. It was reasonable to give the resident an opportunity to fully explain the issues however as the visit did not take place until 12 May 2022, this is likely to have contributed to the delay in providing the review response. Understandably it took some time for the parties to find a mutually convenient date, however, it was inappropriate for the landlord to delay providing the response on this basis. It had the option of calling the resident to discuss the complaint to avoid such a delay.
On 19 May 2022, the resident agreed to the landlord’s request to extend the deadline by a further 10 days until 2 June 2022. On balance given that it had 35 working days since the escalation request (on 29 March 2022), its request at this point was inappropriate. The landlord then failed to meet this new deadline as it did not provide the final response until 7 June 2022. Its failure to meet the new deadline as agreed was unreasonable and is evidence of poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s delay in providing complaint responses at stage 1 and 2 prolonged the complaints process. The landlord did not acknowledge these delays indicating a failure to learn lessons. This and its failure to address all points raised by the resident constitutes maladministration by the landlord whilst handling the related complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:
1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident further compensation of £800 (in addition to the £400 offered during the complaints process) made up of:
  1. £600 distress and inconvenience, time and trouble for failings whilst handling the reports of ASB.
  2. £200 distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble for complaint handling failings.
3. Provide an action plan to the resident and this Service giving full details of the promised preventive measures it will take to manage/stop ASB when garden works recommence.
4. Contact the resident in regard to finding a suitable date for the garden remediation works to recommence.
5. If not already done so, the landlord is to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report Knowledge and Information Management and self-assess against these findings and provide this Service with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to take.
6. Provides this Service with evidence of compliance with all orders.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Review staff training needs and set out how it will ensure staff are trained to deal with reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy and procedure.