Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202400656)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202400656
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
21 February 2025
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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident’s neighbour.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord at the time of the complaint. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has physical and mental health conditions which the landlord is aware of. The neighbour lived directly above him and was a tenant of the landlord.
- Between 14 August and 17 October 2023, the resident made 3 separate reports of ASB about his neighbour. This included instances of animals barking, fighting and arguing late into the night, noisy sex, visitors trespassing into his garden, cigarettes being thrown out of their window and children screaming and banging. On 6 November 2023 the resident told the landlord that his neighbour had assaulted him and provided it with police crime reference numbers. On 16 November 2023 the resident formally complained to the landlord about its handling of his ASB reports and its lack of response.
- The next day the landlord interviewed the resident. He repeated his concerns about the noise coming from his neighbour’s property. He also said that on 4 November 2023 his neighbour banged on his door and window and was verbally abusive. He added that he had video evidence of this. On 18 December 2023 the landlord interviewed the resident again. It agreed to interview the neighbour and contact the police. The landlord contacted the police the same day. They said that the assault incident had been ‘filed’ and explained that the resident did not want them to take any further action. The landlord interviewed the neighbour on 15 January 2024. Although they denied the allegations, they agreed to mediation which the landlord arranged the next day.
- On 30 January 2024 the neighbour declined mediation. The landlord subsequently proposed that the resident and neighbour agree to a good neighbour agreement (GNA). The landlord also issued the neighbour a formal warning letter concerning the 4 November 2023 incident. On 31 January 2024 the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s actions. He felt insulted that the landlord had asked him to sign a GNA as he said he had done nothing wrong. He also felt the landlord was discriminating against him and requested that it take further formal action against his neighbour.
- The landlord subsequently treated this as a complaint and responded to his concerns at stage 1 of its complaints process on 20 February 2024. In summary, it said:
- Following the resident sending footage on 24 January 2024 of the neighbour banging on his windows and shouting it issued them a formal warning.
- Mediation was an effective prevention tool, however, it could not compel people to attend.
- GNAs were not about assigning blame, rather they were used to repair relationships or resolve disputes.
- It was satisfied that it had taken all the proportionate and necessary action based on the evidence received.
- The resident continued to report many of the same issues to the landlord and asked to escalate his complaint on 28 February 2024. In summary, he repeated that he felt the landlord was discriminating against him and treating him unfairly. He asserted that it had failed to act despite clear evidence of ASB. In addition, he said that the landlord had made him agree to a GNA under duress.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 21 March 2024. It provided an extensive response to the resident’s concerns and reiterated and clarified its stage 1 position. It explained why it had taken the action it had and concluded that there was no evidence it had discriminated against the resident. It explained that his ASB case would remain open and be investigated. It added that the neighbour had made a counter-allegation, and was also investigating this.
- In the resident’s referral to this Service, he said his mental health had suffered due to the landlord’s lack of action and he felt the landlord had not considered his vulnerabilities. He also felt the landlord had dismissed evidence that showed a pattern of behaviour. He said the landlord had acted unprofessionally towards him and added that the landlord’s offer of mediation was inappropriate given the neighbour’s behaviour towards him. As an outcome, he wanted the landlord to take appropriate action to stop the ASB. In February 2025 the neighbour moved out of their property.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident advised that this situation has been ongoing for a number of years. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months) of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions and handling from August 2023 when the resident began to make regular reports of ASB, up to the landlord’s March 2024 final response.
- The resident also advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in his mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
- In his landlord complaint, the resident asserted that he felt discriminated against. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense in terms of alleged breaches of the Equality Act, as this is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB fairly and appropriately and whether there is any evidence that the resident was treated less favourably than others in the same situation.
- During the complaint the resident’s neighbour made counter allegations against him. Although the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about this in its stage 2 final response, this was not part of the resident’s original complaint or escalation request. Additionally, the resident raised further concerns about the landlord’s handling of this matter after its final response. The resident informed this Service that he has an ongoing complaint about this, which is currently going through the landlord’s complaints process. In view of this, the resident can bring this complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation upon receipt of the landlord’s final response. This will ensure that this assessment does not prejudice any future investigation about the landlord’s handling of these counter-allegations.
The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB about the resident’s neighbour
- When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the reported ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. Rather it is to assess the landlord’s response to the reports with reference to its own policies as well as our own assessment of what is fair, given all the circumstances of the case.
- The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its tenants within a reasonable timescale. In this case, the evidence indicated that following the resident’s initial 14 August 2023 report the landlord invited the resident to its offices to discuss the situation. Although this was an appropriate approach from the landlord it is unclear from the landlord’s records exactly when this invitation was sent. In any case, it responded in August 2023 to the resident’s report by offering an appointment to discuss his concerns. This was within a reasonable timescale.
- The resident made a further report of ASB on 1 September 2023. He highlighted many of the same issues from his August 2023 report. This included children banging, cigarettes being thrown out of windows and abusive and threatening behaviour. The landlord has provided this Service with a timeline of events from 1 September 2023 that suggested it attempted to contact the resident at various times during this month, however, there is no evidence to reconcile this. Further, the timeline said that although it had recorded the 1 September 2023 report this was not acknowledged until 24 October 2023.
- The resident reported similar issues to the landlord again on 17 October 2023 and highlighted that he felt it was ignoring him. On this occasion, the landlord attempted to call him on 24 October 2023. The resident responded on 30 October 2023 and attended the landlord’s local office on 6 November 2023 where he informed it that his neighbour had assaulted him and provided it with 2 police crime reference numbers.
- The landlord interviewed the resident on 17 November 2023, over 2 months after his September 2023 report. This was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s ASB procedure which states that it will respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner and seek to complete initial enquiries within 20 working days. In this case, there was no evidence that the landlord took any meaningful action in response to his initial reports. This was despite the landlord’s records showing it created an ‘incident’ on its internal systems for each of his reports. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely thought his concerns were being ignored. Further, it caused him time and trouble as he had to chase the landlord for a response on more than 1 occasion.
- Following the 17 November 2023 interview the landlord encouraged the resident to record any noise via its noise app. It also asked him to provide the video evidence he said he had of the incident in November 2023 for it to assess. In addition, its ASB team carried out another interview with the resident on 18 December 2023 where it formulated an action plan. It also carried out a risk assessment which showed that it had appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
- The action plan said it would contact the police and interview the neighbour. In addition, it proposed mediation to which the resident agreed. The landlord’s response and subsequent actions were reasonable and proportionate. Further, it acted in line with its policy by working collaboratively with other agencies. Nonetheless, the landlord should have acted sooner following his initial reports and it is unclear why the landlord did not agree on these actions following its November 2023 interview. Its failure to act sooner caused an unnecessary delay, contrary to its ASB policy.
- After the 18 December 2023 interview the landlord contacted the police the same day. In response, they advised that the resident did not wish to pursue any action regarding the alleged assault and they had ‘filed’ the case. The landlord then tried to contact the neighbour on 22 December 2023 to discuss the allegations, however, it was unable to get hold of them. At this point, the landlord should have updated the resident, however it did not do so. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for an update on 10 January 2024. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that left the resident unsure of what steps the landlord had taken.
- The landlord subsequently informed the resident that it was trying to get hold of them and would update him when it had. It interviewed the neighbour on 15 January 2024 where they denied the allegations and made counter-allegations. Nevertheless, they initially agreed to mediation and the landlord acted appropriately by updating the resident the next day and arranging mediation immediately afterwards.
- On 24 January 2024 the resident provided video footage to the landlord of the neighbour banging on his windows and doors and being verbally abusive in November 2023. The landlord acted promptly and sent a warning letter to the neighbour about this incident on 30 January 2024. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it had considered the seriousness of the incident. Further, it acted in line with its policy which lists written warnings as a tool available to it. This Service acknowledges that the resident believed this action should have been taken sooner as he asserted that the landlord had already seen the footage at an earlier interview. While this may have been the case, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the resident to provide this footage so it could properly review the evidence and take appropriate action.
- The landlord subsequently advised the resident that the neighbour had declined mediation. The landlord acted fairly by exploring other options and offered a GNA. This Service acknowledges that the resident was unhappy that the landlord did not take further enforcement action against his neighbour for the other matters he had raised such as throwing rubbish out of windows, blocking the communal path, and particularly the noise of children banging and screaming.
- However, the landlord’s records showed that it considered the evidence provided, such as noise recordings and video footage. Having done so, it concluded that it was appropriate to try and mediate a solution by offering mediation and subsequently a GNA. In assessing the most proportionate steps to take the evidence indicated that it had also considered the neighbour’s circumstances and their version of events. This was reasonable. Furthermore, an email from the police to the landlord at the end of February 2024 advocated for a GNA where they said they felt the issues reported were a lifestyle conflict.
- Additionally, having offered mediation as a solution it would have been disproportionate for the landlord to then pursue enforcement action against the neighbour. As such a GNA was a reasonable proposal and demonstrated that it had adequately considered all the circumstances of the case and the tools available to it in line with its policy.
- Throughout February 2024 the resident reported similar incidents to those already outlined and provided video footage of the neighbour beeping her car horn with them repeatedly shouting, ‘love ya babe’. In response, the landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the communal pathways and updating the resident on its findings. In addition, the landlord reviewed the video footage promptly and concluded that it did not consider this ASB. It said this was an isolated incident and the neighbour was going about their day. This was a reasonable response, and the landlord acted fairly by reviewing the video footage and trying to manage the resident’s expectations. Nevertheless, it said it would still be prepared to continue with a GNA. This demonstrated a victim-centred approach and willingness to find a solution.
- It is recognised that the actions taken by the landlord in the period covered by this report did not ultimately result in a satisfactory solution to the issues raised by the resident. Nonetheless, this Service is satisfied that during the period covered by this investigation, the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to resolve the issues between both parties. It did this by liaising with the police, interviewing the neighbour, assessing the evidence provided and seeking to mediate a solution. Moreover, there was no evidence that the resident was treated less favourably than others in the same situation, nor was there any evidence that the landlord acted unprofessionally towards the resident when responding to his reports. In fact, the landlord responded to these concerns extensively in its stage 2 response. In doing so it showed that it had fully investigated these claims.
- However, whilst the landlord’s actions were, overall, reasonable, it should have acted sooner and there was an avoidable delay in interviewing the resident. This amounts to service failure and orders are made below for remedy. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests compensation of up to £100 should be considered where a failure caused distress and inconvenience to the resident but may not have affected the overall outcome.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however, made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual”. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to treat the resident’s 31 January 2024 concerns about its handling of his reports of ASB as a formal complaint.
- However, the landlord’s records showed that the resident first complained to it on 16 November 2023, over 2 months before this. He specifically said he wanted to make a ‘formal complaint’ about the landlord’s handling and lack of response to his ASB reports. Yet the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to this. This was contrary to its complaint policy which states that it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 3 working days and respond within 10 working days. This would have caused frustration to the resident who experienced a considerable delay in getting a formal response to his concerns.
- Furthermore, although the landlord’s formal responses adequately addressed the resident’s concerns about its actions in response to his reports it failed to respond to the delays he had experienced, both in response to his ASB reports and his November 2023 complaint. Its failure to acknowledge or apologise for this demonstrated a lack of learning on the landlord’s part. As such the Ombudsman has determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and an order of compensation is made below for remedy.
- Additionally, the evidence suggested that the ASB team who dealt with his January 2024 complaint were likely unaware of his original November 2023 complaint. This highlights the importance of having a person or team assigned to take responsibility for complaint handling as outlined in the Ombudsman’s April 2024 Complaint Handling Code. In light of this, a recommendation is made below.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of ASB about the resident’s neighbour.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
Orders
- The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
- Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
- Pay the resident compensation of £125 comprised of:
- £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in acting in response to reports of ASB.
- £50 for the frustration caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.
Recommendation
- The landlord should ensure there is a person or team responsible for complaint handling and that its complaints policy adequately reflects this.