Places for People Group Limited (202123879)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123879

Places for People Group Limited

31 July 2023

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. how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. the landlord’s decision to change the age restrictions on the scheme.

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’) sets out what complaints the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”

In this case, part of the resident’s complaint relates to issues that occurred between 2018 to 2020. In case the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident raised a complaint in November 2019. However, there is no evidence that she pursued this through the entirety of the complaint procedure. Under paragraph 42(c) the landlord expects complaints to be brought and pursued with the landlord promptly.
This means issues dating back to 2019 will not be investigated by the Ombudsman.
Whilst providing important context, the Ombudsman will not investigate these issues. This investigation will focus instead on what happened up to and including the date of the resident’s last complaint in February 2022. The investigation will refer to events that preceded this for context and to assess the landlord’s response.
When the resident contacted this service on 28 January 2022, she explained that the landlord reduced the intake age threshold for the properties from 65 to 55.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”

The issue regarding the age designation of the scheme was not put through the landlord’s internal complaint procedure so is out of scope under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme. As such, it will not be investigated.

Background

The resident lives in sheltered housing provided by the landlord and has reported antisocial behaviour from other residents since 2018. The complaints relate to noise nuisance by banging doors, banging bins, and talking loudly. The resident also alleged a neighbour stole her keys and that another neighbour had assaulted her by pushing her into a brick wall.
The resident made reports between February 2021 and February 2022. On 2 February 2022, the resident made a formal complaint stating that she had never had a satisfactory response from the landlord regarding the behaviour of a specific neighbour. The resident reported that she received daily anger directed at her by this neighbour.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said that the threshold for a stage 1 complaint was not met. It offered to contact her to see what other support was available. It stated:
1. It could not stop other residents from gossiping about her and the resident needed to ignore any comments made.
2. If the resident was concerned about passers-by looking into her home, she could close her curtains.
3. The landlord had previously installed noise monitoring and CCTV equipment at the resident’s property but neither provided any evidence.
4. The neighbours denied reports of anti-social behaviour and the police had not had any complaints since September 2021.
5. It had offered to look at transferring the resident, but she did not want this.
6. The resident needed to contact the police to raise the issue of the police forcing entry into her property whilst she was away.
7. It would investigate any further incidents reported where there was evidence.
The resident remained unhappy, so the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s response on 12 April 2022 stated:
1. Since 2018, the resident made 11 reports of antisocial behaviour, but it had to close the cases on review as there was insufficient evidence to act.
2. The diary sheets provided insufficient evidence to support further action. However, the landlord had offered mediation.
3. It installed a door camera and noise recording equipment. The resident did not want to use them and unplugged the noise recording equipment and removed the batteries from the door camera.
4. The landlord made referrals to support services, but the resident did not engage with them.
5. It reiterated that it could not prevent gossip and that the resident could close her curtains to stop neighbours from peering in.
6. It had not received any complaints directly from the resident about the open complaint against one of her neighbours.
7. She could continue to report anti-social behaviour and the landlord would investigate any reports. The resident would need to complete diary sheets.
8. The resident should inform the police about the historic alleged assault by a former resident who had moved out. The landlord indicated it had a good working relationship with the police and would take all reports of antisocial behaviour seriously.
9. It had reviewed the available evidence provided but it did not consider there was enough to take further action.
10. It tried to mediate between the resident and her neighbours. It had met with the resident and her neighbours on several occasions.
11. It had provided advice on what the resident could do to help the situation, and it had made referrals to several support agencies for her.
The resident informed the landlord she was still experiencing issues on 22 April 2022 and 27 May 2022. The resident told the landlord that the neighbours were still gossiping about her, had been looking through her windows, had made inappropriate comments towards her, and were being noisy.
The resident remained unhappy as she felt the landlord had not taken her concerns about the antisocial behaviour seriously and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour from when the resident submitted diary sheets in February 2021.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that:

“In instances where the complaint relates to noise issues the customer will be asked to complete a diary/incident log detailing the issues over a 2-week period.”

It also states that:

“If the anti-social behaviour reported involves the use or threatened use of violence, domestic abuse or hate crime we will advise the customer to contact the police, if they have not already done so.”

It adds that where the police close their investigation without any action against an individual, it would not normally take any additional action or investigate the matter further. The policy goes on to state:

“We will carry out a risk assessment of a customer if the anti-social behaviour they are reporting involves the use or threatened use of violence, domestic abuse or hate crime. This will be done as part of the initial investigation of the case.”

“We expect customers to report incidents that involve possible criminal behaviour to the Police to investigate.”

The landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour

The evidence shows that the resident provided diary sheets to the landlord in early 2021. She reported that her neighbours had been harassing her and were ‘in it together’. In response, the landlord wrote to the resident on 9 February 2021 to say it had contacted the police, who were taking no further action. It explained that if the resident had evidence of the harassment, she should provide it so the landlord could take action. It further explained that the resident should raise instances of violence with the police.
Following this, the resident report another neighbour exposing himself on 17 June 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed this allegation or contacted the police.
The landlord has not produced evidence to show that it undertook a risk assessment which it was required to do under its antisocial behaviour policy. This assessment would have identified the risk to the resident, her vulnerabilities, and any potential adjustments required to investigate her claims. As this step was a key requirement of the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy it was unreasonable that the landlord did not complete it.
The landlord has also not provided the Ombudsman with copies of the diary sheets that the resident completed for the period January 2022 to May 2022. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy required it to “record and monitor incidents of anti-social behaviour on our housing management recording system.” The landlord has not demonstrated it has done this.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that the landlord contacted the resident within the timescales required by its policy. For example, the policy requires residents to be contacted within one working day by a community safety specialist if the report relates to the use or threat of use of violence, domestic abuse or hate crime.
The evidence indicates the landlord responded to the complaint the resident made in February 2022 by addressing actions it had taken in the past. The landlord’s response in March 2022 focussed on how it handled the anti-social behaviour from 2019 to 2021. The landlord’s response did not comment on the specifics of the alleged perpetrator or events from 2022. This was unreasonable as the issues that were commented on were historic and did not directly address the ongoing issues the resident experienced.
The resident, according to the stage 1 response in March 2022, had complained about five different neighbours either looking through her windows or gossiping about her. The advice offered by the landlord to the resident (namely to ignore the neighbour’s gossip and to close her curtains) was not necessarily unreasonable. However, the behaviour complained of could have been evidence of ongoing harassment.
Under the landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy, the resident was required to report violence or threats to the police and allow them the opportunity to lead an investigation. In the Ombudsman’s view, whilst it is appropriate to wait for the outcome of any police investigation – the evidence required for criminal prosecution is not the same as for civil proceedings. Therefore, the outcome of any police investigation should not fetter the landlord’s discretion.
The landlord’s stage 1 response indicated that the police had received no reports since September 2021. The landlord has not provided its police request or the response to the Ombudsman for consideration.
On 12 April 2022, the resident notified her landlord that residents at three different properties were all in the garden shouting threats at her through the window. However, there is no evidence the resident informed the police. Whilst the resident was required to report threats to the police, this did not stop the landlord from asking the neighbours for their version of events. The landlord was at fault for failing to conduct a risk assessment and investigate the reports.
When the resident contacted this service on 28 April 2022, she complained of noise from neighbours, but it is unclear when and what was notified to her landlord. This is because the landlord has not provided any diary sheets for the period January to May 2022, so it is not possible to assess whether its response was reasonable. Nor has the landlord provided any explanation why these are not available. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep accurate records.
What is clear from the evidence is that the landlord assessed that there was insufficient evidence to support further action. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it claimed the resident had refused the noise monitoring equipment in 2020. However, there is no evidence that the landlord re-offered noise equipment which would have been appropriate to allow the noise to be monitored in 2022. Nor is there evidence the landlord interviewed any alleged perpetrators or issued any warnings relating to noise. This was an action it could have taken and there is no explanation for why it did not do this. The lack of any evidence of action combined with no explanation means it is not possible to assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions.
The Ombudsman acknowledges this is a complex case and has caused the resident a significant amount of distress. Landlords need evidence to be able to take formal action against alleged perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. However, landlords also need to demonstrate that they have fairly applied their antisocial behaviour policies.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord conducted a satisfactory investigation into the allegations made by the resident in 2022, including liaison with the police. There is no evidence that the landlord reoffered noise monitoring equipment or what inquiries it made with the police or the resident’s neighbours in 2022. The anti-social behaviour policy supports both these courses of action but compliance with its policy cannot be evidenced. There was no risk assessment provided to this service or evidence of diary sheets for January to May 2022. The Ombudsman cannot, therefore, be satisfied the landlord took appropriate action or complied with its antisocial behaviour policy based on the evidence available to it.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about anti-social behaviour.

Orders

It is ordered that within 28 days of this determination that the landlord must:
1. pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience identified in this determination.
2. complete a risk assessment with the resident based on her current circumstances.
3. conduct a review of the evidence from the last 12 months and write to the resident to explain its position, including whether it proposes to interview any alleged perpetrators. It should also consider a referral to the local authority for an ASB review (community trigger).

Recommendations

It is recommended that the resident be re-offered noise monitoring equipment and CCTV.