Peabody Trust (202212295)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212295

Peabody Trust

26 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

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

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in June 2021. The property is a ground floor flat within a block which is situated in an estate comprised of similar properties. The landlord has advised that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident but has reported having mobility issues and anxiety in her communication to both the landlord and the Ombudsman.
The resident had a rear fence with open panels; behind this is a public courtyard area and sports court. The resident has an adjoining fence with her neighbour to the right of her garden. The resident has reported ASB from her neighbours in the next door property and garden, tenants from other blocks, and people living in a nearby hotel.

Scope of investigation

The resident has commented as to how the ASB had impacted on her mental health and that she is seeking for her rent to be refunded due to the damage to her health from June 2022 onwards. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages in the same way a court might. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions. This is a legal process and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wants to pursue this option.
The resident and landlord have both provided evidence that the resident continued to report similar incidents of ASB from her neighbours following its stage 2 complaint response in January 2023. The resident has advised that the landlord “began to take her seriously” in September 2023 following further incidents.
While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident continued to report ASB incidents and action was taken following the landlord’s final response in January 2023, the scope of this investigation is limited to the events considered within the landlord’s complaints process. The Ombudsman is not able to adjudicate on the further events as the landlord needs to be allowed the opportunity to formally respond through its complaints process. If the resident remains concerned about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports following the complaint under consideration, she may wish to raise a separate complaint with the landlord to have her concerns addressed and resolved. If she remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s subsequent final complaint response, she may then approach the Ombudsman for further investigation.

Summary of events

The resident initially raised a webform complaint with the landlord on 3 June 2022. She had experienced rubbish being thrown in her garden on regular occasions. She had previously ignored this but her neighbours (who used the garden next door to hers) had now put dirty towels in her garden. She did not know the address as they lived in the adjoining block. She did not feel she could go and ask them to stop as she had health issues, including anxiety and mobility issues. She asked the landlord to request that the neighbours remove the towels and stop putting rubbish in her garden. She said that the situation was impacting her existing medical conditions and asked the landlord to inform the neighbours of this. She provided a photo of the towel hanging on her side of the adjoining fence.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 June 2022 and asked whether the resident knew which flat number was responsible. The landlord’s records note that it intended to send a letter to all residents and to identify and speak to the neighbour regarding rubbish.
Between 15 and 17 June 2022, the resident communicated with the landlord on 3 further occasions and submitted 2 further webform complaints where:
1. She reiterated her earlier concerns about her neighbours putting rubbish in her garden. She said that someone had put dirty cloths in the garden that week which were attracting flies. One of the neighbours had also started to point into her window and make gestures. She said that there were also other issues, including loud music, crying and barking dogs at night and loud screaming from the same neighbours.
2. She also raised concerns that some of the landlord’s staff had knocked on her door and rang her doorbell multiple times while she was working and in meetings. She felt disturbed as this had happened 4 times that week.
3. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of 2 photos, one was of a mouse in the garden, and one was of cloths in her garden.
4. She said she wanted the neighbours to stop physically entering the garden and placing rubbish there. She asked the landlord to fix the CCTV on the estate as she felt it was an unsafe environment. She had also noticed suspicious people looking into her windows.
The landlord’s records show that it had asked for a letter to be sent to all residents on the estate on 22 June 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the letter.
The landlord contacted the resident on 24 June 2022 and explained that its complaints process could not address issues involving a neighbour’s behaviour. It noted that its neighbourhood manager had contacted her regarding her reports via email. It asked whether she knew which neighbour looked and pointed at her window and the kind of gestures they were making. It also asked her to confirm further details about staff who had knocked on her door.
The resident continued to raised concerns in July 2022. Between 6 and 18 July 2022:
1. She reported that her next door neighbours were purposefully throwing food waste, liquids, used towels, dirty clothes, plastic bottles and cigarettes into her garden on a daily basis. She had hoped that the situation would improve with a letter but this was not the case. She had witnessed the neighbours enter her garden to leave rubbish on purpose and said she was experiencing pests in her garden due to the rubbish and needed to keep her windows closed at all times as a result.
2. She said that children entered her garden and looked through her windows. They had entered her garden on around 10 occasions to date and were related to the neighbours who placed rubbish in her garden. Her neighbours were also very loud at night which was causing disturbance. She said that they were extremely loud on 9 July 2022.
3. She provided a photo of the next door neighbour’s dog looking over the adjoining fence, a photo of children looking through the rear garden fence and pointing, and an audio recording following noise on 9 July 2022.
4. She asked the landlord whether it would be possible to install a roof above the garden to prevent rubbish entering and to install higher fence panels on the existing fence, especially between her and her neighbour’s garden. She also asked the landlord review the CCTV footage to check who had left the rubbish, and arrange for the rubbish to be collected as she was not able to do this herself.
5. She asked the landlord to pass the matter to a more senior member of staff and to consider moving the neighbours to another property. She reiterated that she had health issues which limited her from clearing the rubbish and that the situation was making her extremely anxious. The landlord’s records show that it intended to repair fencing and investigate with its neighbourhood team and the police as a resolution.
6. The resident continued to report rubbish and that the neighbour’s dog had broken her fence, making access to her garden easier for them. They had also purposefully thrown a ball into her garden and had instructed their children to scream and point into her property. She added that they often held parties at night and she was unable to open her windows due to the smell of drugs.
7. She said that she had called the police as she felt threatened and the police had said that the landlord was responsible for resolving these issues. She asked the landlord to take the situation seriously. She reiterated the impact the issues were having on her health and said that she did not feel safe in her property.
8. The resident advised the landlord that she only wanted visits to the property if she had been notified in advance in writing as she was working from home and did not want her doorbell to ring during a meeting.
On 18 July 2022, the landlord explained that it needed to confirm the neighbour’s property details and that a case was open with its neighbourhoods team. It had reviewed the images the resident had sent and said it was unable to take action based on the images provided. It was unable to take action against children playing. It attached diary logs and an ASB “pack”. It asked her to return the diary sheets after 2 weeks and added that drug usage was illegal and it was for the police to investigate this matter further (it encouraged her to report drug usage to the police via 101). It said that if action was taken by the police that could amount to a breach of tenancy, it would also be able to take action.
The resident responded on 19 July 2022 and expressed concern that the landlord had not seen her previous reports. She reiterated the issues she had previously reported and said she had already provided photos and recordings. She asked that the matter be passed to someone more senior as she did not feel safe in her property. She also asked the landlord to check its CCTV on the estate. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed that it needed to allow time for its neighbourhoods team to respond.
There was continued communication regarding the resident’s reports in August 2022. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of extensive communication from the resident between 2 and 15 August 2022. In summary:
1. The resident maintained that her neighbours threw balls into her garden on purpose and laughed. She experienced 3 teenagers looking into her window from their garden next door and someone had then entered her garden on purpose to frighten her. She attached a photo and said she had logged this with the police. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of a photo showing a person standing in the resident’s garden during the day.
2. She said that the neighbours smoked cigarettes, and threw them into her garden. They also smoked drugs which was impacting her respiratory health. She requested that the landlord ask her neighbours to stop doing this next to her garden.
3. She had experienced harassment on 2 August 2022 around midnight. The neighbours were having a party and teenagers looked into her windows in an offensive way and made gestures. She believed that their parents had instructed them to harass her and that they wanted to attack her. She provided a photo showing a person looking into her window from the garden next door at night.
4. On 3 August 2022, the neighbours had tried to enter her flat through the windows at 10:45pm. She asked the landlord to review the estate CCTV recordings so she could give them to the police.
5. She asked the landlord to assign her case to someone more senior who could evict her neighbours and not ignore her. She later asked when she could expect a response. On 4 August 2022, the landlord confirmed that it would arrange for its neighbourhoods team to contact her.
6. The resident continued to ask the landlord to contact her regarding her reports and that her case was passed to someone more senior. The landlord responded and apologised. It asked the resident to allow additional time until 11 August 2022 for a response.
7. The resident said that the teenagers were actually adults and she believed they wished to attack her. This caused her fear and she had visited her GP as a result who prescribed medication for her mental health.
8. She sked that a formal complaint was raised on 8 August 2022 about the neighbourhood manager as she did not feel it was appropriate for her to need to wait until 11 August 2022 to be contacted given the nature of her reports. She was dissatisfied that the neighbourhood manager had not responded to her since June 2022.
9. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s communication would be passed on and encouraged her to contact the police if she felt in danger or at immediate risk. It said it was not aware of who the people were or where they lived so it would need to investigate this further. It confirmed that if they were its tenants, it could take appropriate action but it could not take immediate action so the resident would need to report incidents to the police.
10. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had suggested that it had not established which flat number the neighbours lived in when she had highlighted the property next to hers on an estate plan. She confirmed that she had left her property and identified the flat number of the neighbours which she provided.
11. The resident reported that someone had stalked her at night on 10 August 2022 and called her flat number. She asked why her reports had not been prioritised. She had not called the police as the person was in their own garden and not on her property.
12. She said that a woman with 2 children lived in another (numbered) flat and that they were friends with her next door neighbour. The children constantly threw balls into her garden on purpose and entered her garden. They also often looked into her windows. The previous day one of the children was aggressively throwing the ball repeatedly.
13. She had ordered a camera as instructed by the police in order to obtain evidence.
14. The landlord confirmed that it had provided an update to its neighbourhood team and said it was due to have a meeting but did not yet have a date for this. It confirmed that its neighbourhoods team would liaise with the police.
15. The resident continued to pursue a response, noting that she believed her neighbours should be evicted due to the issues they were causing and the risk involved.
The landlord’s records suggest that there was further communication between the resident and it on 26 August 2022, regarding an unknown person in her garden looking into her windows. The landlord’s records note that the resident was unhappy with progress and that she was welcome to approach the Housing Ombudsman but that it would continue to work through a plan of action.
The resident emailed her local councillor on 5 September 2022 and copied in the landlord. She reiterated her previous reports and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not helped her since June 2022. She asked that this be taken seriously and reiterated the impact the issues were having on her health. She also asked that the landlord arrange for the litter in her garden to be picked up as she could not do this herself due to mobility issues.
Between 5 and 9 September 2022, there was further communication:
1. The landlord confirmed that it had received the resident’s recent emails and attachments and had added these to the active case. It maintained that the resident should contact the police if she felt threatened or at risk. It had asked the neighbourhood manager to contact her.
2. On 8 September 2022, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its formal complaints process.
3. The landlord confirmed that it had asked the neighbourhood manager to make contact with the resident before 23 September 2022. The resident said that she was seeking compensation and a rent refund as the situation had impacted her health and she could not live normally. She also wanted to be moved to alternative accommodation.
4. The landlord said that the matter was not being handled under its complaints process but was logged under communal area issues. It said it had previously resolved her previous complaint on 22 June 2022 and that she could raise a new complaint online if she wanted to.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 13 September 2022. She reiterated her previous concerns and said she had called social services as she believed the children were neglected.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 September 2022 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It had reviewed its records. It had been unable to view any CCTV images but was happy to do so if the resident could provide these.
2. It had been speaking to the neighbours regarding the behaviour of their children – they had advised that their children were not purposefully harassing her, and that they were simply playing outside. They said that a ball did land in the resident’s garden on rare occasions but this was not intended to harass her. They had also denied threatening or stalking the resident. The landlord said that if the resident could provide video or photo evidence, it could review this further.
3. It noted that a complaint of litter and balloons being thrown into the resident’s garden had been raised but said that this did not appear to be an ongoing issue. Without evidence to suggest that this was malicious, it could not assume that this was done purposefully to harass her.
4. It noted that the resident had made allegations of drug use by occupants of 2 properties. It advised the resident to continue to report drug use to the police as they would need to confirm that a crime was taking place before the landlord could intervene. It relied on the police to advise it on whether drugs were being used.
5. With regard to the resident’s allegations of child neglect, it said that these were serious allegations and would result in a visit to the family in question. It encouraged the resident to report this to the relevant authorities, but that she must ensure she had reasonable grounds to do so as there could be a counter claim of harassment made against the resident.
6. Regarding the resident’s claim that an occupant of a neighbouring flat was taking photos of her flat and that their mother had instructed them to do this, it would need further information in order to establish if this was intended to harass the resident. It offered to visit the resident to establish more of the details about the reported incidents and asked her to confirm whether she agreed to this.
7. It said it was only able to provide alternative accommodation or a priority move under circumstances such as serious ASB or domestic abuse. The resident did not currently meet this criteria and it was unable to offer a move. It said that the resident was entitled to seek a mutual exchange and said it was willing to provide more information. It was also unable to cover any costs associated with moving or reduce the resident’s rent as this was not something it would offer in relation to a neighbour dispute.
8. It did not find any service failures in the way it had handled the resident’s reports. It had acted on her concerns but had not found sufficient evidence to take any further action. It confirmed that it was willing to review further evidence if she provided this.
9. It offered the resident £50 compensation in view of the delay in responding to her complaint and confirmed that she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The resident responded on the same day and explained the following:
1. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, noting that the harassment had caused her health issues and that the landlord had victimised her by threatening that there would be action against her.
2. She believed the neighbours’ children were neglected as they were harassing vulnerable people with no reason. There were also several occasions when a resident of another flat had stalked her and allowed their children to drop balls into her garden on purpose. She said that she had evidence and asked the landlord to ask them to stop causing harassment. She also asked the landlord to advise her neighbours not to threaten her and that the police had instructed her to get alarms and cameras.
3. She asked the landlord to provide a final response so that she could approach the Ombudsman. She attached a table detailing the history of events between 3 August 2022 and 24 September 2022. The incidents included neighbours having parties, trying to get into her bedroom window, children throwing balls into her garden and threatening to come into her home, drug usage, inappropriate gestures, pictures being taken of her and her flat and throwing of rubbish into her garden. She also supplied an evidence folder to the landlord which included photos.
On 2 October 2022, the resident asked for a complaint to be raised about the neighbourhood manager (who was the stage 1 complaint handler) with regard to the threats they had made in their response. She reiterated the issues she was experiencing and expressed concern that the staff member had said they would do nothing to stop the neighbours’ behaviour. She said she had experienced harassment from another member of staff who tried to enter her home and repeatedly called while she was at work. She asked that this was actioned urgently and for it to issue its final complaint response so that she could approach the Ombudsman.
The landlord responded on 3 October 2022 and said it had not threatened her but had asked her to provide additional information. The resident maintained that she had sent the evidence previously and expressed concern that the staff member wanted to threaten her in person due to her health issues. She asked the landlord to provide CCTV footage from the estate and a final response to her complaint. The landlord responded and apologised that the staff member had turned up unannounced and explained that they saw the need to visit quickly before writing a letter. It asked the resident to refrain from accusing it or its staff of harassment. It said it had not previously seen the evidence as it was not on its drive due to the size and volume of the evidence.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 October 2022 to ask how the situation had been. It also said that it had agreed to replace the rear fences and slightly increase the height to allow more privacy. It was also going to visit all the neighbours to discuss the reports made. It would provide a further update in the next 2 weeks.
In response, the resident confirmed that the issues were continuing. She did not believe that increasing the height of the fence would prevent her neighbours from dropping rubbish and expressed concern that neighbours of the 2 flats she had reported and their children were often filming her. She had not heard back from the police yet as they needed to speak to the landlord. She again asked the landlord to provide its final complaint response and maintained that the issues were impacting her wellbeing. The landlord confirmed that it would send a letter outlining its action plan within the following week.
On 27 October 2022, the resident reported that the issues continued and that she was now experiencing issues with other people harassing and stalking her. The police had advised her that the people lived in a nearby hotel. She said she had attached photos and a letter from her doctor. She asked that the landlord issued a response as soon as possible.
Between 15 and 23 November 2022, the resident continued to communicate with the landlord regarding her concerns. In summary:
1. She was now experiencing stalking from occupants of another flat. She had not had issues with them before but noted that they spoke to her next door neighbours so believed this was related. They had entered her garden, breaking her fence, and looked through the windows with people from the nearby hotel. She had called the police. Her window was now broken which was causing concern as it was no longer closing properly. She said she would raise a repair for the window.
2. The landlord confirmed that it would speak to the neighbours in relation to her allegations. It asked what they were doing in her garden and said that the fence was due to be fitted soon. She said that she did not see what they were doing in her garden.
3. She said that all of the issues were continuing, including rubbish being thrown and placed in her garden, stalking, drug usage and children screaming next to her garden. She had reported drug usage to the police but had heard nothing further.
4. The landlord said that children playing during the day would not be considered ASB and it could not take action if they had not targeted her. It asked the resident to explain what the neighbour did when they stalked her. The resident confirmed that suspicious people continued to look through her windows at night which she felt was stalking.
5. The resident asked the landlord to provide a final response to her complaint on at least 3 occasions. The landlord confirmed that she could escalate her complaint, but that it was still working on the actions it agreed at stage 1.
6. On 22 November 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the complaint had not been escalated. The landlord confirmed that it did not have a follow-up response to the complaint as the fence had not been installed yet. It confirmed that it would escalate the complaint on 23 November 2022 and said that it was experiencing delays in responding to stage 2 complaints.
7. The resident said that she wanted the landlord to refund her rent for this period as she could not enjoy her property. She said that the issues were not just with her next door neighbours, but also other tenants and people living in a nearby hotel.
8. On 23 November 2022, the landlord said it and the police had visited the resident the previous day as they were on the estate, and despite seeing the resident in the property, she did not answer her phone or door. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had sent a staff member who had previously ignored her reports from May 2022. She said that she had been at home but could not leave work unannounced.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 5 December 2022 and confirmed that due to a high number of escalations, the response date had been extended to 5 January 2023.
Between 20 and 23 December 2022, the resident reported someone entering her garden; she said she did not know which flat they were from but did not feel they had the right to enter through her fence. She believed that the people were from the nearby hotel and were often on the estate. She asked the landlord to forward her CCTV footage as she was told by the police that if they did this again, they would be arrested.
The landlord accepted that people should not be entering the garden, but explained that because they were not its tenants, there was not much it could do other than contact the hotel. It had approved the work to make the fence taller and it was waiting for a start date. It said that the CCTV did not cover the gardens as it was not allowed to have CCTV in private areas. The resident reiterated the impact on her health while the landlord was waiting to increase the height of the fence at its own convenience. The landlord said it was doing what it could to make the estate safer.
On 29 December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that due to being out of the office between 3 and 10 January 2023, it needed additional time to complete its review. It said it aimed to respond by 17 January 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 12 January 2023 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that she did not feel that it had managed her reports of ASB and noise nuisance properly.
2. It said that it had investigated appropriately. It had interviewed the occupants of 2 properties about their childrens’ behaviour. They acknowledged that a ball occasionally went into the resident’s garden and the children retrieved it, but said this was not done to intentionally harass the resident, although they acknowledged that this may disrupt her.
3. It had explained that incidents involving rubbish being thrown into her garden, stalking, or children talking photos of her needed to be reported to the police which it understood the resident had done. It had asked for evidence within its stage 1 complaint response to corroborate the resident’s reports as without this, it was restricted in the action it could take.
4. It confirmed that it had visited the property alongside the police on 22 November 2022 to discuss the resident’s reports, however, the resident did not answer the door or calls despite it seeing her within the property.
5. It noted that the resident had made allegations of child neglect against her neighbour. It took these reports seriously and would investigate the matter with the appropriate authorities. It said that there must be reasonable grounds and evidence to ensure that action taken was proportionate otherwise the neighbours may assume that they were being harassed.
6. It said that it had not been able to take enforcement action as the resident expected. It could only take action where a breach of tenancy had taken place and it was responsible for ensuring that the progression of enforcement action was evidence-led.
7. It confirmed that there were security improvements being undertaken which it expected would reduce the issues the resident was experiencing. These included the installation of an electric pedestrian and vehicle gate (ensuring that only residents could access the estate), improved lighting and a complete fence replacement for the estate. It added that the CCTV was now working. It confirmed that the old fencing would be removed and replaced and it would also be made 12 inches taller. A section would be completed as a trial and it would then consult with tenants before rolling it out across the estate.
8. It noted that the resident had asked to be compensated for the costs she had incurred by purchasing a doorbell with a camera. She had also asked to be transferred to another property. It explained that it only provided priority moves where a resident was deemed to be at imminent high risk. As the resident did not meet the criteria of having experienced serious ASB, it could not move her as a priority. It said that the resident may wish to explore her housing options through a mutual exchange.
9. It had acknowledged delays in managing the complaint at stage 1 in its previous complaint response. It also identified a delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request between 3 October 2022 and 22 November 2022 for which it apologised. It had asked its staff to be mindful of following the complaints process correctly when escalations were requested.
10. It offered the resident £200 compensation, comprised of £100 for the delayed responses at each stage and £100 for the time and trouble she spent pursuing her concerns.

Post complaint events

The resident initially referred her complaint to this Service in January 2023 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and expressed concern that it said she had not sent evidence when this had been sent in writing and via email. She later advised that the issues from her neighbours continued and she was dissatisfied with the lack of communication from the landlord. She was also dissatisfied that it had not taken her medical conditions or vulnerabilities into account despite her providing a letter from her GP detailing the impact the issues were having. She was seeking her rent to be refunded from June 2022 onwards due to the impact on her health and living conditions, compensation to replace her flooring if she moved, and an alternative property where she would not experience ASB.
Following her formal complaint to this Service, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that:
1. The resident continued to report issues with her next door neighbours continuing the same behaviours as previously reported, people from the nearby hotel entering her garden and loud noise, including music and screaming in the early hours of the morning. She continued to reiterate the impact the issues were having on her health, wellbeing and work commitments.
2. The landlord noted the impact the resident said the issues were having on her mental health in February 2023 and offered for someone in its support team to contact her. It also offered to install extra security to her flat in view of her concerns.
3. The landlord installed a taller fence to the rear of the resident’s garden in March 2023 and she expressed concern that she had not been provided with advanced notice of when the work would take place. She expressed concern that that the landlord had not increased the height of the adjoining fence between her and her neighbour’s garden to prevent ongoing ASB. The landlord confirmed that there was already a fence between the resident and her neighbour’s garden and this did not need replacing.
4. She continued to report that her next door neighbours entered her garden and looked through her windows as well as dropping rubbish. The resident provided additional video footage of the neighbour littering and throwing balls over the adjoining fence in August 2023. She also reported them dropping animal waste into her garden and sewage on her windows.
5. The landlord asked for a quote for the adjoining fence to be raised in September 2023.
In communication with the Ombudsman in January 2024, the resident said that the landlord had begun to take her reports seriously in September 2023 and had intended to pursue an injunction against her neighbours to prevent them from causing ASB towards her. She has advised that the neighbours instead signed an undertaking, agreeing not to cause any ASB toward the resident. The undertaking is active for 1 year and was signed in December 2023. A copy of the undertaking has been provided to this Service by the landlord. It has also provided evidence that it increased the height of the fence between the resident and her neighbour’s garden in December 2023. She said that she has not experienced ASB from her neighbours since, but remains dissatisfied that the landlord took a long time to act on her reports.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that tenants agree not to cause, or allow members of their households or visitors to cause, nuisance, damage, or annoyance to other tenants or the general public. They also agree not to play, or allow, music so loud that it causes a nuisance or unreasonable annoyance to neighbours. The agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining boundary walls and fences.
The landlord’s ASB policy from the time of the resident’s complaint states that:
1. It considers behaviours such as verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation, loitering or misuse of public spaces, substances misuse, vandalism and damage, and criminal behaviour, as ASB. It would respond to reports of high risk ASB within 1 working day and lower risk cases within 5 working days. It would also agree an action plan with the complainant and keep them informed of the actions it takes.
2. Low level disagreements between neighbours, where there is no breach of tenancy, would not be considered under its ASB policy, but it may offer mediation or support to help neighbours resolve issues.
3. All residents who report ASB would be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support is provided and any safeguarding issues identified. It would provide support and advice to victims and witnesses of ASB, and refer them to external agencies where appropriate.
4. It would encourage and expect residents to collate evidence, liaise with other agencies and take part in mediation as necessary in an attempt to resolve personal disputes. Where the prime responsibility and power to lead an investigation lies with another service, such as the police or local authority, it would take any necessary supporting action.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. Reports of ASB would not be considered under the landlord’s complaints process but if the complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the ASB report, it can be accepted as a complaint. The landlord is expected to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether it responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Where a resident reports ASB, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that a landlord has taken all reasonable steps to gather evidence of the alleged behaviour and prevented issues from escalating through early intervention actions such as speaking to alleged perpetrators, asking a resident to complete diary sheets as a means to gather evidence and offering mediation to both parties where it is reasonable to do so. A landlord should also clearly explain the actions it is able to take, and any limitations it faces, when responding to a resident’s reports in order to manage expectations from the outset.
For a landlord to take formal action regarding ASB, such as injunctions or eviction proceedings, it would require extensive evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. A landlord should generally only consider taking formal action if informal attempts, such as warnings or mediation, have not successfully resolved the issues. The landlord would also be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally, such as through mediation or tenancy warnings, before taking legal action.
It is noted that the resident remains dissatisfied as she feels the landlord took too long to formally act on her reports. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s concern and has seen the photos she supplied to the landlord as evidence between June 2022 and January 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen documentary evidence that would likely have supported the landlord in taking formal action against the resident’s neighbours, such as an eviction or an injunction, over the course of her reports and complaint between June 2022 and January 2023. This is because the evidence provided does not specifically show the neighbours exhibiting ASB. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated effectively with the resident or sufficiently considered the other steps it was able to take to support her during this time.
In this case, the resident initially reported that she had experienced rubbish being thrown into her garden and that her neighbours (who used the adjoining garden) had left a dirty towel on the adjoining fence on 3 June 2022. These issues can be considered low-level but, given the impact the resident had said this was having on her and her concern that she did not feel she could approach the neighbour about the issues due to her vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had considered the early intervention measures available to it.
It was reasonable for the landlord to write to all residents on the estate in response to the resident’s reports of rubbish being thrown in her garden as there was a lack of evidence to confirm that a single individual or household was responsible. It is however noted that this was not sent until 22 June 2022, following further reports from the resident, and a copy of the letter has not been provided to this Ombudsman for review.
In view of the resident’s reports that a towel had been left on the fence and that she did not feel she could approach the neighbours herself, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord sought to contact the neighbours to inform them of the resident’s concerns. While the landlord’s records confirm that it intended to identify and contact the neighbours, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm it did so at the time.
While it is evident that the resident did not initially know the relevant flat number, she had confirmed that this was the garden next door. The landlord should have sufficient knowledge of its estates to be able to identify which garden belonged to which property and whether the occupants of the property were its tenants. It is of concern that, despite the resident alleging that her next door neighbours were exhibiting ASB on a number of occasions following her initial reports, the landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate that it sought to pro-actively identify the property number or speak to the neighbours regarding the allegations from the outset. There is also no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed that the landlord had spoken to the neighbours until the time of its stage 1 complaint response on 30 September 2022.
Despite the resident continuing to report ASB, including loud music and dogs barking excessively at night, litter in her garden, and people entering her garden and looking into her windows, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord explained the importance of keeping diary logs of incidents or confirmed its position in relation to reports of ASB until 18 July 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained the importance of collating evidence of the behaviours to corroborate her reports at an early stage in order to manage her expectations effectively.
In its communication with the resident on 18 July 2022, the landlord acted reasonably by explaining that the pictures the resident had provided were not sufficient for it to take action. At this time, the landlord’s position was considered reasonable as it would not be able to take action against children playing as this is not considered to be ASB. In addition, the images provided to the landlord at the time did not show that the next door neighbours were responsible for putting rubbish in her garden, or the other ASB she had reported. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it confirmed its position in relation to the audio footage she had provided which allegedly evidenced loud music and a party from the next door neighbours garden.
The landlord acted reasonably throughout the course of the complaint by informing the resident that issues of drug use needed to be reported to the police and that she should contact the police if she felt at immediate risk. This was reasonable as the police would be responsible for investigating criminal matters such as drug usage and the landlord would not be in a position to take immediate action against perpetrators of ASB.
However, it is of concern that despite the resident repeatedly raising concerns about the impact the situation was having on her health, the landlord did not offer the use of its support services to her. While it is noted that the landlord offered its support services in February 2023, it would have been appropriate for it to have offered this from the outset given the reported impact. In addition, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord took steps to assess or review the risk to the resident in line with its policy. As the nature of the ASB reported by the resident escalated from litter being dropped to more serious concerns about people entering her garden and looking into her windows, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the risk assessment was revisited on a regular basis.
On 6 July 2022, the resident asked the landlord whether it would be possible to install a type of roof over her garden and to install higher fence panels on the existing fences, especially between her and her neighbour’s garden. She also commented that the neighbour’s dog had broken the rear fence which made access to her garden easier on 18 July 2022. Despite the landlord’s internal records noting “fences to be repaired” as a resolution description at the time, there is no evidence to suggest that it responded to the resident’s request for higher fence panels to be installed at the time, or took steps to repair the fence reported as broken in line with its obligations to repair boundary fencing under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord informed the resident that it agreed to replace the rear fence with a higher fence on 14 October 2022, approximately 3 months following the resident’s request for this to be completed and her report that the fence was broken. Given the resident’s continued allegations that people other than her next door neighbours regularly entered her garden and looked at her through the fence panels into her property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have prioritised the repair and communicated clearly with the resident to demonstrate that it was taking her concerns seriously. Given her concerns about the security of her garden, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether it was able to take any temporary measures to prevent people from accessing the garden through the broken fence panels.
The rear fence was replaced in March 2023, approximately 5 months after the landlord initially agreed to replace the fence and 8 months following the resident’s request for the fence to be raised. This timeframe is significant and there is a lack of evidence to show that the resident was given a clear timeframe of when the landlord was likely to carry out the work. It is noted that she continued to report people entering and looking into her garden and property during this time. While there may not have been sufficient evidence for the landlord to take formal action against people entering the resident’s garden, it did not demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s security concerns seriously. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that it had responded or confirmed its position in relation to her request that the adjoining fence between her and her neighbour’s garden was increased – this was likely to have caused frustration, as demonstrated in her communication following the landlord’s final complaint response.
Several of the other requests made by the resident over the course of her reports and complaint were not addressed. This included her request that the landlord arrange for the rubbish in her garden to be collected as she was not able to do this herself due to mobility issues. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to this, especially given her reports and photos of mice in her garden as a result of the rubbish. The resident also asked the landlord to check the estate CCTV for any relevant evidence. The landlord confirmed that the CCTV was “now working effectively” in its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. However, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that the resident was informed that the CCTV on the estate was not working, that it had responded to her requests that it check the CCTV, or that it had taken steps to review evidence that may have been available to it.
The Ombudsman has seen little evidence that the landlord’s neighbourhoods team responded to the resident regarding her reports of ASB between June 2022 and its stage 1 complaint response in September 2022. While the landlord often advised that it had updated the resident’s case and had asked the neighbourhoods team to contact her, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that it followed through with this action. There is also no evidence that the resident was provided with a clear plan of action. This evidently caused frustration to the resident who spent time and trouble pursuing a response, requesting that the matter was passed to someone else, and asking the landlord not to ignore her. Despite raising her concerns that no one from the neighbourhood team had responded to her within her formal complaint, the landlord failed to comment or acknowledge its communication failings within its complaint responses. This inevitably led to a breakdown in the landlord and tenant relationship.
While the landlord advised that it had spoken to the next door neighbours within its stage 1 complaint response on 30 September 2022, the Ombudsman has not seen documentary evidence to confirm when this conversation took place or details of what was discussed. The landlord advised that the neighbours had said that they did not intend to harass the resident but that balls did enter her garden on occasion and their children went to retrieve them. There is no evidence to suggest that the neighbours were informed of the other allegations made by the resident or that any informal advice was given to the neighbours against such behaviours or the consequences if it received further reports or evidence of such behaviours. While there may not have been sufficient evidence for the landlord to take formal action, the evidence provided does not demonstrate that it made all reasonable informal efforts to discuss and document the conversations it had with the neighbours regarding the allegations, or asked them to avoid entering the resident’s garden as a result of her concerns. There is also no evidence to suggest that the resident had been informed that the landlord had spoken to her neighbours until the time of its stage 1 complaint response.
Given that the resident’s concerns predominantly focused on the actions of her next door neighbours, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had considered offering mediation to both parties in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Either party would be entitled to refuse to participate in mediation, however, given that the resident said she did not feel she could approach her neighbours herself, this course of action may have been beneficial to facilitate an open channel of communication about how the alleged incidents were impacting her.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to visit the resident alongside the police following its stage 1 complaint response, it is noted that this was not planned in advance and occurred due to the landlord and police being on the estate. The landlord was evidently aware of the resident’s request for any visits to be arranged in advance and that she worked from home. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged a mutually convenient appointment to discuss her concerns from the outset. It would have also been reasonable for it to have taken into consideration the resident’s concerns about the staff member’s failure to respond to her concerns before arranging for the same staff member to visit.
It should be noted that it is beyond the remit of this Service to order the landlord to offer alternative accommodation to the resident. The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint responses by informing the resident of her moving options, such as through a mutual exchange, and explaining why she did not meet the criteria for a priority move. The landlord’s explanation in this regard was reasonable.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. While we have not seen evidence that would likely have supported the landlord in taking formal action against any individuals, it has not demonstrated that it effectively communicated with the resident in relation to her reports. It did not address or acknowledge its communication failures or the time and trouble the resident had spent seeking a response from its neighbourhoods team within its complaint responses. In addition, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the risk to the resident was assessed or reviewed, or that it offered support to her in line with its policy. This would have ben appropriate given the impact she said the issues were having on her mental health. There were also delays in it taking steps to repair or replace the fence and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed this within a reasonable timescale given the nature of the resident’s reports.
In her communication to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that she is seeking for her rent to be refunded given the delay in the landlord taking action, and the impact on her health and living conditions. It is beyond the remit of this Service to order the landlord to refund the resident’s rent for this period as we are unable to award damages for the impact on health, and there is no evidence to suggest that she was otherwise unable to live in the property. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation is warranted for the distress and inconvenience caused and the time and trouble spent by the resident as a result of the service failures identified within this report. Several orders have been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident initially raised a number of complaint webforms with the landlord when reporting her ASB concerns. It should be noted that a complaint about ASB from neighbours (or others) will not be considered under the landlord’s complaints process in the first instance but should be handled under the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be provided the opportunity to investigate and respond to a resident’s reports. However, a landlord should accept complaints about ASB if they relate to its handling of those reports. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining this to the resident on 24 June 2022 following her initial ASB reports via its complaint webform in June 2022.
The resident initially began to raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports in August 2022. Specifically, she asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 8 August 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the delayed contact from the landlord and the lack of response since June 2022. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have accepted the resident’s complaint at this stage under its formal complaints process.
It is of concern that the landlord’s records from 26 August 2022 note that the resident was unhappy with progress, and that it had informed her that she could approach the Ombudsman if she wished but that it would continue to work through a plan of action. While the Ombudsman can provide support to residents, we are unable to investigate a complaint until the matter has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. At this stage, the landlord should have raised a formal complaint for the resident given that it was aware she was dissatisfied with its handling of her reports.
Despite the resident expressing clear dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports on 5 September 2022, it is of concern that the landlord advised on 9 September 2022 that the matter was not being dealt with as a formal complaint. The resident spent significant time and trouble pursuing a formal complaint with the landlord and expressing dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports. The landlord missed the opportunity to treat the matter formally at an earlier stage and prevent unnecessary time and trouble to the resident.
Following contact from the Ombudsman on 8 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 September 2022 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 September 2022. This was issued outside of the landlord’s response timescales and almost 2 months from the date the resident had initially raised her concerns about its handling of the reports. While the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 within its response, this is not considered proportionate given the time and trouble spent by the resident.
The resident initially expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on the same day, 30 September 2022, and asked it to provide a final response so that she could approach the Ombudsman. At this stage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the complaint to stage 2 or explain why it would not yet do so. The resident continued to pursue a “final response” from the landlord on at least 5 occasions between October and November 2022. It was not until 21 November 2022 that the landlord explained that the resident could escalate the complaint but that the matter had not been escalated as it was still working on actions agreed at stage 1.
The landlord ultimately failed to escalate the complaint for approximately 2 months and did not explain why it had not escalated the complaint at an earlier date. In addition, there is no evidence that the actions to replace the fence or speak to neighbours had been agreed as part of the stage 1 complaint response and its explanation for not escalating the complaint was not reasonable.
The landlord acted fairly within its stage 2 complaint response by acknowledging the delay in accepting the resident’s escalation request between 3 October 2022 and 22 November 2022, and the delay in issuing its response until 12 January 2023. It also took steps of learning from the complaint by confirming that it had asked its staff to be mindful of following the complaints process correctly when escalations were requested.
Despite this, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not fully acknowledge the delay in accepting the complaint at stage 1. It also failed to address aspects of the resident’s complaint, including that no one had contacted her about her reports since June 2022, and failed to confirm its position in relation to both her request for her rent to be refunded or to be reimbursed for the camera she had bought. As such, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation is not considered proportionate and several orders have been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord acted in line with its policy by completing a risk assessment to determine the resident’s support needs, or considered the impact she said the issues were having on her health. There was also a lack of communication from the landlord and it failed to provide regular updates to the resident on the actions it was, or was not, able to take in response to her reports and the evidence provided. It also unreasonably delayed in repairing or replacing the resident’s rear fence in line with its obligations and failed to demonstrate that it had considered all preventative measures available to it.
The landlord’s offer of compensation did not sufficiently take into account the delay in accepting the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The landlord also failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about a lack of contact from its staff, her request for a refund of rent, or her request to be reimbursed for a camera she had purchased.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings outlined in this report. It should also confirm the steps it will take to prevent similar failings in future.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £500, comprised of:
1. £400 in recognition of the inconvenience caused and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her ASB concerns with the landlord in view of the failings identified.
2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failings. This is in addition to its previous offer of £200 which should be paid if it has not already done so.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Reviews its policies and procedures for handling reports of ASB and ensures that expectations regarding the frequency of contact with the resident are set from the outset. It should ensure that there is a clear expectation of its staff to keep accurate records of actions taken and communication in response to reports of ASB.
2. Reviews the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Attitudes, respect and rights (January 2024) in relation to its current practices to identify points of learning in its approach to communication and resident vulnerabilities.
The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm its intentions in respect of the above within 4 weeks.