Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202221373)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221373

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

14 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 is about:
1. The landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant. The tenancy started in June 2021. The resident accepted a management transfer and moved out of the property in early March 2023.
The property was a mid-terrace house. The adjoining property was occupied by a freeholder, who will be referred to in this report as the neighbour. The landlord was not in a landlord tenant relationship with the neighbour.
It is understood that the resident lived at the property with her children. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable by virtue of her mental health diagnosis.
The landlord received multiple complaints from the neighbour about the resident’s behaviour between October 2021 and February 2023. Multiple counter complaints were made by the resident about the neighbour between January 2022 and February 2023. There was an escalation in the severity of the incidents reported by both parties over these timeframes.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 21 September 2022. The resident stated that her living conditions were detrimental to her health and safety. The neighbour’s behaviour was impacting upon her family. She had been advised to make a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 September 2022. On finding that it was unable to issue its response within 10 working days, the landlord agreed an extension with the resident on 7 October 2022.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 14 October 2022. The landlord:
1. Noted that the resident had reported nuisance and harassment from the neighbour. It clarified that it did not have a direct relationship with the neighbour, as they were a freeholder. The neighbour had also raised counter complaints about the resident.
2. Set out the action that it had taken:
  1. Liaised with the police, although no charges had been made against either party.
  2. Contacted the local authority crime and enforcement team.
  3. Contacted the resident’s family social worker to discuss options.
  4. Arranged for its own environment team to remove substances and graffiti off the property.
  5. Made a referral to the local authority housing options team to secure temporary accommodation for the resident, which was refused.
  6. Supported family child services with a referral to the local authority emergency rehousing panel.
3. Did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that it had been in regular contact with the resident and had been working with children’s services to help her move.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 14 November 2022. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of ASB from the neighbour and said that the landlord had issued its stage 1 response late. As a remedy, the resident wanted the landlord to apply for an injunction, apply for an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO), or repossess the neighbour’s property. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 14 November 2022 and committed to providing a full response by 12 December 2022.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 6 December 2022. The landlord:
1. Stated that it had opened an ASB case to investigate the resident’s reports of nuisance and harassment from the neighbour.
2. Repeated that it did not have a direct relationship with the neighbour. It set out the actions that it had taken, as stated in its stage 1 response.
3. Referenced an ongoing police investigation, following an incident between the parties on 25 October 2022. It committed to reviewing the implications of any action taken by the police once the police investigation had concluded.
4. Said it had consulted with its solicitor, but there was insufficient evidence to take enforcement action against the neighbour. It noted that neither the police nor the local authority crime and enforcement team were looking to take further action following their involvement in the case.
5. Clarified that it had no power to seek possession of the neighbour’s property or seek an ASBO as the neighbour was a freeholder. It suggested that the resident contact the local authority, to see if they would apply for an ASBO.
6. Said it would let the resident know the outcome of the referral for emergency housing made by children services once this was known.
7. Stated that it would like to offer the resident a management transfer to another suitable property, subject to agreement with social services.
8. Asked the resident to consider mediating with the neighbour in the interim, as a way of resolving their issues.
9. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint in view of its complaint handling delay. As a remedy, it offered £50 in shopping vouchers.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 December 2022, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling and response to her reports of ASB about the neighbour. According to the landlord, there have been no further reported incidents of ASB between the parties since the resident moved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour.

The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported occurred or not. It is to establish whether the landlord’s handling and 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.
The landlord’s ASB strategy states that the landlord will take a zero-tolerance approach to ASB. In responding to reports of ASB it will:
1. Arrange an interview with anyone reporting ASB within 1 working day for emergency cases and within 5 working days for other cases.
2. Carry out a risk assessment with all residents who report ASB. It will consider the physical risks to a complainant as well as the effect the ASB is having on the complainant’s mental health, their perception of the risk, and their vulnerability.
3. Put an action plan in place, which outlines the actions the landlord will take and will keep complainants updated.
4. Work with its partners and will apply best practice techniques to find solutions that resolve the ASB.
5. Consider the causes of ASB and will provide support and engagement to tackle it. It will work with residents to consider their actions and the actions of their household or family members on others.
6. Review ASB cases monthly to ensure that cases are progressed appropriately and that relevant actions are taken swiftly and are documented.
The resident and landlord have both provided evidence to the Ombudsman, which indicates prolonged conflict between the resident and her neighbour between October 2021 and February 2023. The landlord would have been limited in the action that it could have taken against the neighbour, given that they were a freeholder. Nevertheless, there were steps that the landlord was able to take to support the resident in resolving her difficulties with the neighbour.
It is understood that the resident first contacted the landlord on 7 January 2022, expressing concern about the neighbour’s behaviour. The resident reported that the neighbour was recording her without consent, was calling the resident names, was parking inconsiderately, and was carrying out works at unsociable hours. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord committed to investigating the resident’s reports about ASB, issued diary sheets, and opened an ASB case file within 5 working days. However, contrary to its ASB policy, there is no evidence that the landlord completed an initial risk assessment. This is of concern given the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Since the landlord’s response was likely to be restricted by the neighbour’s occupancy status, it would have been helpful had the landlord clarified the level of support that it and other agencies were able to offer, at the beginning of its investigation. Offering transparency about this from the start would have helped the landlord better manage the resident’s expectations. It may also have encouraged the resident to seek support from external agencies at an earlier stage, such as the police and the local authority.
The landlord left a voice mail for the resident on 13 January 2022, asking her to get in touch to arrange a face-to-face meeting. The landlord clarified that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the resident’s reports of ASB about the neighbour, and counter reports of ASB received about the resident. When the resident did not respond, the landlord contacted the resident again and left a further voice mail. This shows that the landlord was endeavouring to progress the ASB investigation in a timely manner.
The landlord states that it discussed the case with the resident briefly on 18 January 2022. Although the resident agreed to meet with the landlord at its offices on 19 January 2022, the resident did not attend. This was unhelpful and would have prevented the landlord from completing its investigation and agreeing a course of action.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 January 2022, upset that the neighbour had installed a video doorbell between the properties. The resident also expressed concern that the neighbour was parking outside the resident’s property. The following day, frustrated by the video doorbell, the resident told the landlord that she “wanted to punch her neighbour in the face”. The landlord responded by making an appointment for the resident to attend its offices on 31 January 2022. In taking this course of action, the landlord was trying to work with the resident to address her concerns, while also encouraging the resident to consider how her actions were affecting her neighbour. This was in line with its ASB policy.
After the resident did not arrive for the meeting on 31 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to find out her whereabouts. The resident replied a few hours later stating that she was too depressed to leave the property due to the neighbour’s cameras and she was having suicidal thoughts. The resident suggested that people with mental health issues were not heard.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email 2 days later. It has not been possible to determine if the landlord could have responded earlier. The landlord reassured the resident that it did take mental health concerns seriously. It showed empathy for the resident’s situation, suggested that the meeting be rescheduled, and asked the resident to explain how the cameras were affecting her health. However, since the resident had expressed thoughts of low mood and suicidal ideation, the landlord ought to have considered whether there was a safeguarding issue to be addressed. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this, which is a concern given the resident’s known vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s records indicate that the landlord arranged to meet the resident during the week commencing 7 February 2022. It is understood that the resident did not keep the appointment. Again, this was unhelpful and would have hindered the landlord’s investigation and attempts to help the parties find a resolution.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 March 2022, asking her to attend its offices on 21 March 2022, to discuss the ongoing difficulties between her and her neighbour. At the same time, the landlord took the opportunity to remind the resident about her own behaviour and her obligations under the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s approach was reasonable and proportionate in view of the resident’s lack of engagement, the ongoing complaints from the neighbour, and the resident’s previous threat to punch the neighbour in the face.
The resident and neighbour both contacted the landlord between 15 March 2022 and 20 March 2022, about a broken dividing fence belonging to the freeholder, which had caused further dispute between the parties. The landlord met with the resident on 22 March 2022. Although the landlord has not provided contemporaneous notes from the meeting, it is understood that the landlord suggested the resident have no further contact with the neighbour. It took a pragmatic decision to remove the broken fence at its own cost. The resident expressed her appreciation to the landlord, for listening to her side of the story. This was encouraging and suggests that the landlord was building trust with the resident. However, having met with the resident, it ought to have put in place a proper action plan, setting out the support that it could give and the action that the resident could take to resolve the wider dispute between the parties.
Following this, the landlord contacted the neighbour in a timely manner to arrange a meeting to discuss the counter complaints made by the resident. It is understood that the neighbour refused to attend the landlord’s offices and agreed to only communicate with the landlord in writing. The landlord obliged by detailing the allegations that had been made in an email. The neighbour responded by refuting the resident’s allegations and asking the landlord to provide its evidence. The neighbour’s position was unhelpful and was likely to have further restricted the landlord’s endeavours to support the parties in finding a resolution. The Ombudsman does suggest however, this might have been an opportune time to have offered the parties third–party mediation.
The landlord’s case notes indicate that the resident attended the landlord’s offices on 20 April 2022, “following an altercation with the neighbour”. It has not been possible to determine from the evidence seen what was discussed or how the landlord responded. The landlord’s internal notes suggest that the landlord may have met with the resident’s support worker, but the landlord has not provided evidence of this. The landlord’s record keeping has restricted the Ombudsman’s ability to assess if the landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate. However, in view of the escalating behaviour, the landlord ought to have considered carrying out a new risk assessment.
Over the course of May 2022, there were multi-reports from both parties about nuisance and ASB, which resulted in involvement by the police. This included confrontations, threats of violence, and damage to property. Concerned for her own mental health and wellbeing, the resident asked the landlord to support her in moving. In response, the landlord:
1. Drew the case to the attention of its housing manager. This was positive in view of the escalating nature of the dispute. It also provided opportunity for its housing manager to review the action that the landlord had taken and to consider appropriate next steps.
2. Made arrangements to remove items obstructing the resident’s door, put there by the neighbour. It also arranged repairs to a downpipe after the pipe was removed by the neighbour.
3. Provided the resident with advice and support. This included encouraging the resident to report new incidents to the police and local authority community safety team.
4. Reached out to external partners to support the process of resolution, including the resident’s social worker and the police. It is understood that the landlord also wrote to the local authority community safety team, asking them to make contact with the resident.
5. Made a referral to the local authority housing options team to consider providing temporary accommodation for the resident.
The landlord’s actions shows that it was mindful of the escalating nature of the dispute, it was taking into account the resident’s mental wellbeing, and also her preference to move. It is unfortunate that the local authority housing options team did not respond.
The landlord continued to receive complaints and counter complaints from both parties throughout June 2022. The landlord’s actions in response to these complaints show a continued commitment to supporting the resident. In summary, the landlord:
1. Met the resident with her social worker to discuss the ongoing dispute and decide next steps. In view of the detrimental impact on the resident’s mental health and her children’s welfare, it was agreed that the case would be discussed with social services.
2. Provided practical support to the resident by arranging to remove substances smeared over the resident’s door and graffiti.
3. Contacted the local authority safer community team again to see if it was able to provide additional advice or support. Although the community safety team offered the landlord general advice, they offered no practical support or intervention, which might have been expected considering the occupancy status of the neighbour.
4. Instigated a meeting with the police, after sending them video evidence of the neighbour’s behaviour.
5. Sent 2 further referrals for temporary rehousing to the local authority housing options team, which was supported by the resident’s social worker. The local authority refused the landlord’s referral on the grounds that the matter should be managed by the landlord.
The landlord received complaints and counter complaints from the resident and neighbour in July 2022, which were of a serious nature. The landlord’s response suggests that it had taken into consideration the evolving risk to the resident, even if this was not formally documented. The landlord’s actions in response to these complaints show a continued commitment to supporting the resident. In summary, the landlord:
1. Asked the local authority rehousing team to reconsider their position on its referral for temporary rehousing. This was supported by the family’s social worker, who described the family’s living situation as an unsafe environment for the resident’s children. The local authority did not change their position.
2. Made arrangements to clean up a toxic substance, possibly ammonia, that had been thrown at the resident’s front door. It is understood that after coming into contact with the substance, the resident and one of her children required hospital treatment. It also removed a headless dead bird from the resident’s doorstep, believed to have been put there by the neighbour.
3. Endeavoured to interview the neighbour, which the neighbour rejected.
4. Advised the resident to report new incidents involving the neighbour to the police, in view of the severity of the reports.
The landlord attended a local authority ASB community trigger meeting on 24 August 2022, which had been requested by the neighbour. The landlord advocated for the resident at this meeting. It is understood that a community trigger meeting to hear the resident’s case was convened for 10 September 2022. Although the resident’s case was not heard, this was not within the landlord’s control.
The landlord continued to receive complaints and counter complaints from the resident and neighbour in September 2022, which were of a serious nature. The landlord’s actions show that it was putting pressure on partners to assist in finding a resolution. In summary, the landlord:
1. Asked the police to attend a joint meeting with the neighbour if this could be arranged. This was in response to video evidence captured of the neighbour:
  1. Banging on the resident’s door at night, causing alarm and distress to the resident and her children.
  2. Throwing ammonia on the resident’s doorstep, which resulted in the resident needing medical assistance.
2. Supported the social worker with a referral for emergency housing, via the local authority emergency housing panel.
The landlord continued to receive complaints and counter complaints from the resident and neighbour in October 2022, which were of a serious nature. The landlord’s actions show that it continued to put pressure on partners to encourage them to take action, while also taking practical measures itself where possible. In summary, the landlord:
1. Met with the resident and her social worker to discuss next steps, and what support the resident and her children required. The resident repeated that she wanted to move.
2. Provided the local authority safer communities team with video evidence demonstrating the neighbour’s behaviour. In response, the safer communities team indicated that it would progress a community trigger review.
3. Encouraged the resident to report a serious attack on the resident by the neighbour and their mother, following the neighbour hitting the resident’s car. It is understood that following the attack the resident required medical treatment for a bite to her arm and injuries sustained from a baseball bat.
4. Arranged an urgent lock change and the installation of a fireproof letterbox, after the neighbour’s father was captured on video trying to get into the resident’s property and then removing her letterbox.
The landlord continued to receive complaints and counter complaints from the resident and neighbour in November 2022, which were of a serious nature. The landlord:
1. Continued to keep in contact with the resident. The landlord reinforced its earlier advice for the resident to stay away from the neighbour and to contact the police as incidents arose.
2. Continued to liaise with the police and social worker. It attended a partnership meeting arranged to discuss the impact on the resident’s children. It submitted a police disclosure form to the police and invited them to attend a meeting to discuss the action they were taking. The police suggested the resident be moved.
3. Approved a management transfer for the resident.
There were no complaints made in December 2022, by either party. However, the landlord suggested that it would be willing to arrange a third-party mediator at its own cost, while it was looking for suitable alternative accommodation. While it is possible to mediate at any stage, such intervention was unlikely to have offered great merit given the severity of the situation by this point. The landlord claims to have offered mediation verbally prior to this, but it is unclear when this was. The landlord recognises that it should have committed its initial offer of mediation in writing. Likewise, when the parties refused to mediate, this also should have been followed up in writing. The Ombudsman would agree that this is best practice.
After the landlord issued the stage 2 response, there was a further serious incident reported by the resident, which involved the neighbour assaulting the resident’s young child. It was positive that the landlord was able to offer a management transfer to the resident soon after this. The case was resolved by the resident moving.
Since this investigation focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB about the neighbour, the neighbour’s allegations about the resident have not been fully referenced in this report. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident’s own behaviour did not always seem focused on securing an amicable resolution. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman recognises that the effects of perceived ongoing, persistent, and distressing ASB cannot be overstated. In view of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it is likely that the resident acutely felt the cumulative impact of this.
The Ombudsman does not underestimate that this was a challenging case for the landlord to manage, given that the neighbour was a freeholder, who was also making serious counter allegations about the resident. It is further noted that at the time the resident moved, the police had brought no charges and no action had been taken by the local authority community safety team against either of the parties.
The landlord has provided evidence that it was keeping the case under regular review, it was providing support where it was able to, it was working with external partners, and it was adapting its approach as the situation evolved. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
While evidence shows that the landlord was keeping in regular contact with the resident, the landlord itself identified that this was sometimes reactive. The landlord also recognised that it did not always give the resident a clear plan of how it intended to handle her reports of ASB, which would have left the resident uncertain of how the matter would be resolved. The landlord’s self-reflection of its own case handling in this matter was encouraging and showed a willingness to learn.
While there are learnings that the landlord can take from this case, when taking into account all of the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports of ASB about a neighbour.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord had a 2-stage formal complaint process. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and issue a full response by a service manager within 10 working days. This could be extended by a further 10 working days, in agreement with the resident. The landlord’s expected timescale for acknowledging stage 2 complaints was unclear. The landlord aimed to issue a full stage 2 complaint response by a director within 20 working days. It was unclear if the landlord could extend these timescales if needed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within expected timescales. Unable to issue a full response within 10 working days, it agreed an extension with the resident, in line with its complaint policy. It is unlikely that the resident was caused significant detriment by the landlord issuing the stage 1 response a day late.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has expressed concern that the stage 1 response was issued by its housing manager, not a service manager. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a complaint may be allocated to another person with appropriate complaint handling skills and no conflicts of interest. The Ombudsman does not necessarily find fault that the matter was investigated by its housing manager, although landlords should try to adhere to their policies where possible. However, it is noted that its housing manager had been involved in monitoring the progress of the case and advising staff prior to the resident raising her complaint. While the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support a view that the stage 1 complaint was handled without impartiality, the resident’s concerns about this are understandable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint in 20 working and the landlord’s director provided the stage 2 response 22 working days later. The landlord accepted that there had been delays responding to the resident’s complaints, apologised, and offered the resident £50 in shopping vouchers. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the remedies offered were proportionate to the failings the landlord itself had identified.
The landlord has shown its commitment to learning from complaints by carrying out a review of the case and of its complaint handling prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation starting. It has committed to addressing identified failings through training. This is evidence of a positive complaint handling culture, which is to be commended.
Overall, in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports of ASB about a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the £50 shopping voucher it previously offered to the resident, in recognition of delays in complaint handling if this has not already been issued to the resident.
The landlord should ensure that it has adequate mechanisms in place for documenting assessments of risk carried out by it.