Platform Housing Group Limited (202328275)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328275

Platform Housing Group Limited

16 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom house.
3. The resident made a formal complaint on 23 August 2023. She said it was in relation to how the landlord had dealt with her ASB complaint. She said the officer dealing with it had visited her neighbour and issued them with a verbal warning, but she did not feel that was good enough.
4. The resident said she had evidence of the neighbour threatening to smash her head against the pavement. She said she had been using the noise app, but that the landlord said it could not hear anything on the recordings. She said her anxiety was through the roof and she did not feel safe in her own home.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 September 2023. It outlined that the issues begun approximately 3 months prior when the resident could hear the neighbour’s dog barking continuously. It referred to incidents where the neighbour had put their child over the fence into the resident’s garden to retrieve their toys. It said the resident raised the matters with the neighbour and the issues escalated from that point. It confirmed that the resident stated that the neighbour banged on the walls, played music, and made noise into the early hours. It confirmed that the resident felt threatened by the neighbour which had led to the resident calling the police.
6. The stage 1 response outlined the action the landlord had taken so far, which was:
   1. The resident was advised to use the noise app to gather recordings. It said it informed her that the recordings could not be heard clearly, and therefore there was no evidence of noise disturbance.
   2. The neighbourhood officer had instructed the neighbour to stop the dog from barking. However, the resident was still experiencing noise disturbances such as hoovering late at night and children playing later than she would expect.
   3. It said since the resident’s first report in June 2023, it acknowledged it could have done more to investigate her reports. It said it scheduled a visit but there was no evidence it took place. It apologised for that.
   4. It said it could have done more regarding the resident’s more recent report in August 2023. It said the case was still open and the neighbourhood officer would provide an action plan. The landlord confirmed the action plan would include timescales for contacting the resident, an investigation into why the noise app was not working, and for the officer to work with environmental health.
   5. The landlord upheld the complaint. It confirmed that its communication could have been better and it should have implemented an action plan sooner. It offered £100 in compensation.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day and raised concerns about the neighbourhood officer dealing with the case. The resident did not feel that speaking to the neighbour would have any effect on the situation. The resident said the landlord offered mediation but as the neighbour had threatened her, she did not see it as an option. She said her anxiety and stress levels were “through the roof” and the £100 was not good enough when the situation had been ongoing for months.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 October 2023. It confirmed the resident had agreed to an extension for its response following a large number of audio and ring doorbell recordings she had provided after 13 October 2023. It partially upheld the complaint and confirmed the following:
   1. The resident had 3 separate ASB cases opened that year. It found it did not manage the first case (opened on 27 June 2023) in line with its ASB procedure. The case was in relation to the neighbour’s dog barking, doors slamming, cigarette smoking, a lack of privacy due to the fencing, and shouting at 6am. It said there was no evidence that it contacted the resident within 3 working days, agreed an action plan, or completed a vulnerability risk assessment. It said it closed the case on 18 August 2024, but there was no evidence of any outcomes or that it had discussed the complaint with the neighbour.
   2. The second case (opened on 30 July 2023) was regarding a dispute over cameras in both gardens, ongoing noise nuisance, and the neighbour lifting their son over the resident’s fence. It said it contacted the resident on 31 July 2023 but there was no response. It said it called her on 2 August 2023 and a visit to her took place on 3 August 2023. The landlord stated that it closed the case on 7 August 2023 due to “early resolution” but there was no record of it sending a closure letter. It said it should have treated the 2 opened cases as one. The landlord acknowledged that it did not manage that case in line with its ASB procedure either.
   3. The landlord referred to the third case which it opened on 14 August 2023. This case was in relation to the neighbour playing music and being loud outdoors which led to the resident calling the police after midnight. The resident had also reported that she had a series of missed calls from a withheld number through the night which she believed to be from the neighbour. It said it found there were errors in the management of the case and it had outlined the outcome of that in its stage 1 response.
   4. It said all the recordings sent by the resident had been listened to and the noises were faint. It said the evidence would not enable legal action to be taken against her neighbour. It encouraged the resident to keep a noise diary to help identify patterns of noise. The landlord offered to arrange a meeting to listen to the recordings from the resident’s phone. It said this would be to ensure there were no issues with the way the recordings had been transferred between devices.
   5. The landlord also referred to a breakdown in communication between the resident and her neighbourhood officer. It outlined the actions the neighbourhood officer had taken. This included issuing a warning letter to the neighbour and communicating with the police and environmental health. It said the neighbour had agreed to have soft door closures fitted to their doors. It said the neighbour was also willing to take part in mediation and as the resident was willing too, it would be in touch with further details.
   6. It confirmed that the neighbourhood officer would remain her officer. It encouraged the resident to have a meeting with the officer and another officer or their line manager. The landlord said the officer had received additional ASB training and it would offer them additional coaching to assist with their cases over the next few months.
   7. It offered a total of £600 compensation.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said since reporting the ASB, the noise continued and her neighbour had only received a stage 1 warning. She said she had sent over 200 recordings but the neighbourhood officer claimed they could not hear anything. She said the landlord should have supported taking the matter to court and that the compensation offered was nothing compared to the stress she and her family experienced. The resident said that during the complaint, she felt alone on the matter, and that she had not been listened to.
10. The Ombudsman understands that the neighbour has since moved properties.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour.

11. The landlord’s ASB policy highlights the procedure and tools it should use to manage cases of ASB. This includes risk assessments, action plans and referrals to other agencies where appropriate. It describes reasonable and proportionate intervention as non-legal remedies such as visits, mediation, and warning letters. It also refers to legal remedies such as an injunction. It states that when it considers a case for closure, it will consult with the complainant to review the current circumstances and obtain their views.
12. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred, who is responsible, or if a room or property is uninhabitable due to noise. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint. We can also assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
13. In this case, the landlord accepts, and the Ombudsman agrees, that it did not initially do enough to support the resident. There were service failures in its handling of the noise and ASB reports, and it did not follow its policy. These failings have already been highlighted above. This assessment will therefore consider whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings in accordance with our dispute resolution principles, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
14. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the situation was likely distressing for the resident and that she wanted the landlord to take enforcement action against her neighbour. In order for a landlord to take action against perpetrators of ASB, it has to be sure that it would be a justified response and have the evidence available to it. In this case, there was a lack of clear evidence of a statutory noise nuisance, and no further action was taken by the police, or the environmental health team. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to start formal legal action against the neighbour for tenancy breaches. While the resident was unhappy with the decision, the landlord could only take action based on the evidence available to it.
15. While the evidence did not justify formal legal action, the landlord’s records showed that it continued to investigate the reports and monitor the situation.
16. In relation to the noise, it appeared that there were issues with the recordings provided in the noise app. The resident subsequently provided recordings via other means, which the landlord appropriately considered. The landlord also liaised with the local authority’s environmental health team who concluded that the noise did not constitute a statutory noise nuisance. While there was no indication that the door slamming was deliberate, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider what action it could take to mitigate the issue. Its suggestion of soft door closers was positive and showed a willingness to find a solution.
17. On 1 October 2023, the landlord confirmed it had contacted the resident and outlined the outcome of the police involvement. The police had visited the neighbour and given them advice about the reported indirect threats. The landlord said following that, it visited the neighbour, and they signed a revised action plan with new commitments to follow. It confirmed that the neighbour also signed an agreement to not intentionally slam doors, cause annoyance, and that they would smoke on the other side of the garden. The landlord noted that the smoking was not enforceable.
18. Upon reviewing the case as a whole, the Ombudsman finds the landlord should have contacted the police sooner in relation to the initial threats reported by the resident. This would have helped to inform its decision making from the date of the reported incidents. However, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and showed that it used the information provided to consider what steps it could take in line with its policy. The signed agreement by the neighbour was an appropriate next step and showed it was taking the resident’s reports seriously. An acceptable behaviour agreement highlights the behaviours occurring and encourages the party involved to recognise the effect their behaviours are having on a situation or others.
19. On 17 October 2023, the landlord recorded that the neighbour had made several steps to make things right. This included a willingness to participate in mediation, rehoming their dog, erecting a fence to stop their son from climbing over, smoking away from the resident’s property, ceasing communication with the resident, and being mindful of noise levels. The neighbour also agreed to the soft door closers to assist with the door slamming.
20. While the resident felt that she was not listened to, the above actions taken suggest otherwise. It is evident that the landlord’s initial failures in handling the case had a detrimental impact on the landlord tenant relationship moving forward. Having a clear action plan from the beginning would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
21. Another aspect of managing resident’s expectations is keeping them updated as the investigation progresses. The landlord recognised in its stage 1 response that it had failed to do this. Following the stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately contacted the resident on a weekly basis. While the resident was not always satisfied with the action taken, it was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident on its next steps and the reasons why it was taking those steps. An example of this was when it explained that it would be issuing a warning letter to her regarding the counter allegations received. This showed the landlord was acting fairly and in line with its policies.
22. In her stage 2 escalation, the resident stated that the neighbourhood officer had not dealt with her complaint in a professional manner and asked for another officer. Although it would not change the neighbourhood officer, the landlord took steps to attempt to repair the relationship. This included a visit from the neighbourhood officer and their manager to discuss the issues. In its final response, the landlord highlighted the further steps it would take such as further training and coaching for the neighbourhood officer.
23. The actions taken by the landlord in relation to the resident’s concerns about the neighbourhood officer were reasonable. Its remedies were in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, in which landlords are encouraged to learn from outcomes. The landlord’s assurance that it would commit to further training for its staff shows that not only did it learn from the outcome of the complaint, but that it was putting the relevant steps in place to ensure that the same mistake would not happen again.
24. The offer of compensation was slightly confusing. The landlord initially stated that it offered a total of £550 in compensation, this consisted of £150 for each ASB case and an additional £100 for stress and inconvenience. It then concluded the stage 2 by stating that it offered £600. It is unclear why the landlord added an additional £50 or whether this was an error.
25. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a compensation amount between £100 to £600 for cases of maladministration and where the failures adversely affected the resident. Thus, when considering the failings and the compensation offered, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the compensation amounts of £550 or £600 were reasonable in this case.
26. To conclude, following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord reviewed the noise recordings, created an action plan, and completed a vulnerability risk assessment. It issued a warning letter and acceptable behaviour agreement to the neighbour, and regularly communicated with both the resident and the neighbour. The landlord also liaised with the local authority’s environmental health team, the police, and arranged mediation. It noted that the neighbour had taken steps to change their behaviour and outlined what other practical solutions it could take to address the door slamming. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and followed good practice.
27. The Ombudsman finds that the measures taken by the landlord to remedy what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. Therefore, although there had been service failures during its initial handling of the ASB investigation, it made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB satisfactorily.

Recommendation

29. If it has not already done so, the landlord should reoffer the £600 compensation to the resident, as per its stage 2 response.