Places for People Group Limited (202206878)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206878

Places for People Group Limited

20 December 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. The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about inappropriate parking and the implementation of a car parking scheme
3. The landlord’s complaint handling

Background and summary of events

Background and Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s ASB Policy and Procedure states:
1. “We will not always get involved in everything that is reported to us as causing a nuisance. Whether or not we consider an activity to be anti-social will depend on a number of things and the evidence to prove the anti-social behaviour is taking place. We will consider how severely the activity or behaviour is affecting others, how regularly it is happening, and whether the behaviour is considered unreasonable.”
2. “Except in serious cases, where urgent action might be needed as quickly as possible, we use a step-by-step approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour.”
3. “In many cases we will need to speak to the other party usually at his/her home. We will discuss the reports that have been made and who has made the reports.”
4. “We will act upon a report of anti-social behaviour in order to prevent it escalating to a more serious level. Interventions we will use to try and resolve the anti-social behaviour as quickly as possible include visits, warning letters, restorative meetings and asking the perpetrator to agree to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract which sets out the behaviour which will not be tolerated and the consequences of continuing anti-social behaviour.”
5. “We operate a formal complaints procedure for customers who are dissatisfied with the service we provide.”
The landlord’s Estate Management Policy states that “Parking arrangements are often unique to the scheme and area and will be managed at a local level in this context”.
The landlord’s complaints policy for Affordable Housing states that it has a 2 stage complaints procedure. If the landlord is unable to resolve a complaint within 24 hours, it should register a complaint and send an acknowledgment within 5 working days. It should then send the Stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2 it should acknowledge the complaint within 3 days then respond within 20 working days.
The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy commenced on 21 December 2020. The resident has described herself as having autism and a personality disorder with emotion regulation, sensory problems, cognitive issues and mobility struggles.
The resident has complained about one neighbour in particular parking in a turning point. She has stated in correspondence to the landlord that this means anyone who wants to use 3 close parking spaces must do a 4+ point turn, or reverse in from the end of the road, or find a way to turn around before the turning point. She also states that parking in the turning point can lead to cars being forced to mount the pavement.

Summary of Events

On 31 July 2021 the resident reported that her neighbour had burnt fence panels in communal ground between the properties causing smoke to enter her property.
On 30 September 2021 the resident completed incident diaries of ASB since she moved into property. She noted the incident of her neighbour burning fence panels in July 2021 and also that the neighbour dumped fence panels between properties in summer, parked in a turning point and on the kerb behind which could block her in, and let her dog be off the lead and aggressive. She also provided video evidence of the neighbour shouting at her front door with a witness statement from a visitor after the resident had posted her a note. The landlord according to its date stamp received the information on 25 October 2021 and created an ASB case.
The landlord has provided the Service with an internal statement on the resident’s case dated 15 July 2022 which notes that it spoke to neighbour about her dog being off her lead and barking. The neighbour explained that the dog had jumped out of her arms when walking home and that it would bark when anyone knocked on the door. There is no contemporaneous record of the conversation.
On 8 November 2021 the landlord’s Tenancy Enforcement Team wrote to the resident stating that having spoken to her and her neighbour, it believed no action was appropriate at that time due to different accounts of incidents. It suggested mediation as the neighbour did not want letters posted through her door.
On 13 November 2021 the resident complained that it was “unfair of the housing association to take no action, or state both parties would receive a warning when I myself have no history of anti-social behaviour. We may have different accounts, but I have provided hard evidence and a witness statement from a neutral third-party workwoman on site at the time and forwarded to yourselves, with numerous logs showing various occasions of ASB”.
On 17 November 2021 the landlord’s Tenancy Enforcement Team informed the resident that it had seen a video she had provided but did not witness evidence that the neighbour’s dog had bitten her cat’s tail as she had stated. It stated parking issues would be dealt locally with by the Place Manager and there were no reported issues other than parking incidents since early October. It further noted that the resident, as advised by it, had contacted the local authority about noise nuisance and the neighbour’s dog. It asked for the case handler’s details, but the local authority did not act on the resident’s reports to it.
In exchanges of correspondence in November and December 2021 the resident reiterated her concerns about her neighbour parking in the turning point and her partner on the curb behind. She advised she did not want mediation due to the effect on her health and wellbeing. The landlord advised that it was considering a parking permit scheme which would incorporate turning area; however, the resident said that there were enough parking spaces for all vehicles on the estate and the issue was that the neighbour did not park in a space. The resident also reiterated that the dog was noisy and not on the lead and that there was rubbish between the properties.
On 30 November 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it had viewed a video she had sent of her neighbour banging on her door. It had spoken to the neighbour but as she did not use foul and abusive language, it did not warrant formal action.
On 12 December 2021 the resident submitted a complaint (complaint 1) in which she outlined incidents involving her neighbour and her partner. She said that she had submitted evidence through videos, photographs, witness statements and incident diaries, but nothing had been done.
On 21 December 2021 the landlord’s Tenancy Enforcement Team sent the Stage 1 response.
1. It had considered diary sheets sent on 25 October 2021, looked at a video which it thought did not show violent behaviour and spoken to neighbour as requested.
2. Some reports of car parking issues, the fire on the communal land, fly tipping, being locked out of the communal area, and the dog being left off its lead were made prior to the ASB case and were being dealt with by the Place Team. The Place Team were looking to install a parking permit scheme.
3. It did not see from the video provided by the resident that the neighbour’s dog had bitten the resident’s cat’s tail.
4. Should the local authority serve notice for statutory noise and fire nuisance in respect of the neighbour shouting at her dog and lighting a fire, it could then take action against the neighbour.
5. It considered mediation was the appropriate course of action and would make the referral if the resident agreed.
6. In conclusion, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it had signposted the resident to the relevant departments and offered mediation.
On 10 March 2022 the resident made a further report of the neighbour’s dog locked outside and constantly barking and of the neighbour’s vehicle in turning point. The landlord advised her to call Environmental Health and sent out diary sheets to be competed for 2 weeks.
In further correspondence in March 2022 the landlord confirmed that it was introducing a parking permit scheme with parking in marked bays, but that there would be no permits for visitors. There was to be 10 permits for 10 properties for 10 parking spaces.
On 21 April 2022 the landlord dropped off the resident’s permit After being contacted by residents on the estate, on 13 May 2022 the landlord suspended the parking scheme. It wrote to residents to consult about how parking should be managed at the estate, if at all.
On 17 May 2022 the resident complained about the management of parking (complaint 2) stating that the parking permit scheme had been revoked and it remained that her neighbour still parked in a turning point. She stated that the neighbour had become hostile which impacted her mental health. The resident also stated that she no longer completed incident diaries as nothing was ever done. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised it would respond by 1 June 2022.
The landlord sent the Stage 1 response to complaint 2 by letter. Although the copy provided to the Service is undated, the landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it sent the letter on or around 30 May 2021. It did not uphold the complaint explaining that it had introduced a disc parking system without full consultation. The majority of the residents did not have a parking issue but did have concerns about use of spaces from outside. Therefore, it had suspended the parking enforcement pending consultation.
On 14 June 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord, copying in its Customer Focus Team, disputing that the consultation about parking issues had been fair. She stated that 50% (5 of 10) residents voted either way, half for permits half for no permits. She suggested 2 per house or better enforcement of consequences of residents parking inconsiderately. The landlord’s internal emails state that it considered the email as an escalation request and that it escalated complaint 2 on 20 June 2022.
After another report of the neighbour swearing at her and parking inside, the landlord asked the resident to complete incident diaries for 2 weeks. The resident completed and sent several diary sheets dated 5 July 2022. She detailed incidents at the time involving her neighbour and family members swearing at her, putting her wheelie bun in front of her car, mocking her mental health condition and parking inconsiderately.
On 7 July 2022 the Service wrote to the landlord informing it that we had been contacted by the resident. We asked it to respond to her complaint about its handling of ongoing ASB in relation to a neighbour dispute. The landlord decided to escalate complaint 1 to Stage 2 and because matters overlapped with complaint 2 it would send a joint response.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord phoned the resident to discuss her complaints, but the resident advised that she did not wish to talk, therefore the landlord reviewed the written correspondence.
On 18 July 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaints.
1. It confirmed it did not proceed with the proposed communal car parking permit restrictions as 5 of the 7 responses to the customer consultation did not want any communal car parking restrictions.
2. It was monitoring the parking situation with the police, but the communal parking bays came on a first-come first-served basis.
3. It had explained in its letters of 8 November 2021 and 21 December 2021 why it could progress her reports of aggressive behaviour and nuisance. The resident’s concerns about parking were referred to the Place Manager to investigate further.
4. In February 2022 the police informed it that it was closing her case.
The police issued a warning to the neighbour. The landlord after considering a video sent by the resident wrote to her on 22 September 2022 stating that it had spoken to the neighbour who advised that the resident was making comments to her prior to the start of the recording. It stated it was unable to determine who was at fault as a visitor to the resident had threatened to set his dog on the neighbour. It reminded the resident of her tenancy obligations and asked the resident to accept the letter as a written warning. It also asked the resident to reconsider mediation. The landlord also sent the neighbour a written warning.
After the resident complained about the warning, on 10 November 2022 the landlord clarified that the resident’s video clearly showed on at least 2 occasions she went inside the property only to come back out to continue remonstrating with the neighbour. Whilst the police did indeed issue a first harassment warning to the neighbour it had taken no further action
On 9 November 2022 the landlord wrote to residents on the estate noting that it had asked them to ensure that visitors did not park on the road after parking enforcement was rejected. However, visitors were parking on grassed areas and on the pavement, which was causing damage. The resident has since made periodic reports of visitors to her neighbour obstructing parking and breaking flagstones. However, in an email sent on 6 October 2023 she advised that there had been no further ASB incident with her neighbour since the police warning.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has forwarded to the Service correspondence with her landlord about issues occurring after the Stage 2 response of July 2022. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate a formal complaint and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. However, the new issues have been summarised to place the complaint in its current context and to inform the orders made.

The handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports

The Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have caused distress to her. It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for this Service to determine if the behaviour evidenced here constituted ASB or who is responsible, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It should also be noted that a resolution which suits all parties may not be possible in cases where there are lifestyle differences or personality clashes, resulting in neighbour disputes rather than ASB, for example. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received, and assess whether it has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord has a responsibility to take appropriate and proportionate action to resolve reported ASB, and to have adequate and effective procedures in place for doing so. Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB the landlord first needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts. It is therefore important that a landlord has in place procedures to ensure reports of ASB are appropriately and effectively responded to. The landlord’s policy and procedure for addressing ASB was comprehensive and appropriately structured. It allowed for the prioritisation of reports and provided several measures that could be taken either in isolation or in conjunction, depending on the severity and urgency of the reports.
The landlord’s letter of 8 November 2021 indicate that its Tenancy Enforcement Team investigated the resident’s initial reports about her neighbour by interviewing her and her neighbour. It is reasonable for the landlord to approach an alleged perpetrator of ASB to put an allegation to them to enable them to respond and, where appropriate, to take steps to change their behaviour and to put things right. In speaking with an alleged perpetrator about a matter reported, the landlord is not making a finding of fact but facilitating an open dialogue and a reminder of tenancy responsibilities, where relevant.
The ASB’s Team initial offer of mediation was reasonable given that there were different views of incidents and in line with its ASB policy. Mediation is a commonly used tool for resolving low level disputes at an early stage and stopping them from escalating. Mediation can enable the parties to understand each other’s view and arrive at an agreed solution how to best live in proximity with minimal impact of any mutual dislike.
However, there is no contemporaneous note of the conversations with the parties. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of an ASB service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling obligations with regards to the management of ASB Cases. Accurate and complete records, which includes noting counter-allegations, ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the case at any given time including the position of the parties, and enable agreed actions to be monitored and managed. It is therefore not evident that the landlord took adequate steps to manage the situation at this point.
The landlord referred some matters raised to its Place Team including the neighbour fly tipping and lighting a bonfire in the communal space. However, again there are no contemporaneous records confirming that the landlord raised the resident’s specific concerns or sought to ensure there was a common understanding about the use of communal spaces and lighting bonfires. As such the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve this aspect of the resident’s case.
The resident provided videos of an altercation with her neighbour during November 2021. Whilst the landlord’s correspondence indicates that it viewed the videos and spoke to the neighbour, again there is no contemporaneous evidence of the conversation. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that it took appropriate action to prevent further incidents occurring and the escalation of the case.
Thereafter, the resident’s report of ASB by her neighbour were intermittent. However, the resident reported upsetting and unpleasant behaviour by the neighbour and her family members, including several incidents in her diary sheets of 5 July 2022. The landlord was required to investigate additional reports. Even where it considered it unfeasible to commence formal action against the neighbour, it should have made clear to the parties the behaviour expected of them as tenants in order the manage the situation. It did not take this action which was particularly unreasonable given the resident was reporting the elevated impact on her from her vulnerabilities.
The landlord referred the resident to the local authority to confirm whether there was a statutory nuisance in respect of her reports of noise and the neighbour’s dog. While it was reasonable to seek corroborative evidence the landlord has a different role to the local authority. The referral did not prevent the landlord from making its own investigations and seeking to prevent incidents occurring. However, again there is no evidence that it contacted the neighbour about the further reports.
In summary, prior to December 2021, due to the lack of contemporaneous records, it is not possible to confirm what advice the landlord provided to the resident’s neighbour. Therefore, it is not possible to confirm that the landlord took appropriate steps to manage the ASB case at this point. Thereafter, the resident’s reports were more intermittent; however, the landlord did not adequately investigate the reports or take action to prevent the recurrence of incidents.
The landlord also decided that its Place Team should address some of the issues of concern raised by the resident including fly tipping and lighting a bonfire in the communal space. However, there is no evidence that the Place Team acted on these issues.

The response to reports of the car park being misused, and a request for parking enforcement

The resident reported parking difficulties caused by the neighbour in particular parking in a turning point. After the issue was referred to its Place Team the landlord in response considered introducing a parking permit scheme for the residents on the estate. Consideration of a parking permit scheme had merit in its own right, in particular regulating who could park on the estate. However, the scheme did not directly address whether the turning point could be used for parking. Nor did the scheme address parking on the kerb/pavement which the resident had reported.
The landlord also did not provide clear guidance to residents about parking, for instance whether or not parking should only be in the marked bays, and whether it could take enforcement action. A common understanding of parking arrangements can potentially prevent disputes arising.
An internal noted dated 7 October 2022 noted that other drivers apart from the neighbour parked in the turning point. It also noted that the area was not in fact designated as a turning point but in any case, a driver could still get their car out without undue difficulty. However, it is not clear that the landlord made clear that this was its position to the resident. The landlord did not therefore address the particular concerns raised by the resident about parking or manage her expectations.
With regards to the parking permit scheme, it was reasonable that the landlord consulted with residents as the scheme affected their living arrangements. It also communicated the outcome of the consultation appropriately by detailing the number of votes counted. Whilst the resident queried the vote tally the landlord made clear that there a majority of residents did not wish to retain the scheme, therefore it would not retain the scheme.

Complaint handling

After the resident submitted a formal complaint on 12 December 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response within 10 working days, meeting the timeframe of the complaints procedure. The resident did not escalate the complaint at the time therefore it was reasonable that the landlord did not escalate the complaint until being contacted by this Service on 7 July 2021.
With regards to complaint 2, the landlord’s initial response was in the required timeframe of 10 working days according to the landlord’s internal correspondence. However, it is important that all complaint responses are dated so that there is a clear audit trail.
It was pragmatic that the landlord’s Stage 2 complaint combined both complaints 1 and 2 as they were both being pursued at that time and related. The Stage 2 response was sent on 18 July 2022. This response was in line within 20 working days of complaint 2 being logged as a Stage 2 complaint on 20 June 2022, and therefore in line with the timeframe in the complaints procedure.
With regards to the content of the Stage 2 complaint response, the Service’s Complaint Handling Code in operation at the time stated that residents should be “given the opportunity to explain their point of view and the outcome they are seeking before a decision is reached” and that it should “consider all information and evidence carefully”. It was appropriate that the landlord sought to discuss the complaint beforehand so that it could gain a clear understanding of the complaint. The resident did not wish to speak according to the response. Nonetheless, the landlord failed to identify and address the issue of inconsiderate parking, including parking in the turning point, which the resident had written about in her correspondence. The response also failed to acknowledge the resident’s further reports of ASB and difficulties with her neighbour, by stating that it had received no further reports since February 2022. The landlord therefore did not consider all relevant information when responding to the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the handling of the resident’s reports about inappropriate parking and the implementation of a car parking scheme.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect its complaint handling.

Reasons

In summary, prior to December 2021, due to the lack of contemporaneous records, it is not possible to confirm what advice the landlord provided to the resident’s neighbour. Therefore, it is not possible to confirm that the landlord took appropriate steps to manage the ASB case at this point. Thereafter, the resident’s reports were more intermittent; however, the landlord did not adequately investigate the reports or take action to prevent the recurrence of incidents. There is also no evidence that the landlord investigated other issues raised by the resident including fly tipping, lighting a bonfire in the communal space, and use of a gate.
The landlord did not directly address the resident’s substantive concerns which was a turning point being used for parking, parking on the kerb/pavement and whether there was significant obstruction to other drivers. The landlord also did not provide clear guidance to residents about parking, for instance whether parking should only be in the marked bays, and whether it could take enforcement action.
With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, it failed to identify and address the issue of inconsiderate parking and acknowledge the resident’s further reports of ASB and difficulties with her neighbour.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. send an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. pay the resident compensation of £600 comprising:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her ASB case.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconveniences caused by the failings in its handling of her reports about parking and the implementation of a car parking scheme.
  3. £100 for the shortcomings in the Stage 2 complaint response.
seek an update from the resident about current ASB issues involving the neighbour, then devise an action plan to be shared with the Service. If it considers that there are any issues where it does not need to intervene in, it should outline them and the reasons why.
seek an update from the resident about current parking issues, then devise an action plan to be shared with the Service. If it considers that there are any issues where it does not need to intervene in, it should outline them and the reasons why.