Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202304894)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304894

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

12 June 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 the landlord’s handling of reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 3 bedroom mid-terraced house. She lives with her partner and 2 children. She has lived at the property since September 2020. At times her partner contacted the landlord on her behalf. For readability they have both been referred to as the resident throughout.
The resident shares a path and alleyway with her neighbour to access her back garden. On 6 February 2023 she told the landlord that visitors to the neighbour were riding motorbikes along the shared alleyway. The motorbikes and the neighbour’s scooter were being left to block the access. The landlord replied the same day and asked if the resident would consider mediation with her neighbour, which she refused. She said the neighbour was aggressive and she felt unable to approach them herself about the issues.
The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 8 February 2023. It updated the resident the same day and agreed to provide further updates the following week. The resident asked for updates on 9 and 15 February 2023. The landlord responded on 20 February 2023, it apologised for the delay which was caused by some employees leave. It said that it spoke to the neighbour and asked for the alleyway to be kept clear.
On 26 February 2023 the neighbour’s son was in a fight with his partner outside the property. He had a knife in his hand during the incident and the police were called. The incident was recorded on the resident’s CCTV. The landlord called the resident on 3 March 2023 to discuss the incident and arranged to review the footage she had. The resident was worried about sharing the footage, fearing reprisals from the neighbour and her son.
The landlord interviewed the resident on 8 March 2023 and reviewed the CCTV evidence. She provided details of the incident and raised other issues regarding items left in the alleyway and fires in the neighbour’s back garden. The landlord completed a risk assessment and prepared an action plan. It agreed to provide regular contact. It recorded that no additional support agencies were required.
In March 2023 the landlord discussed the incident with the police. It interviewed the neighbour, issued a breach of tenancy warning, and made appropriate referrals. It provided an update to the resident on 24 March 2023 and said it would pursue the other issues relating to the alleyway and fires separately.
On 20 April 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour’s son continued to ride motorcycles in the alleyway. She felt intimidated by the neighbour and had been verbally abused. She did not want the landlord to use the footage of incidents that she had, fearing further reprisals from the neighbour. The landlord used alternative reasons to interview the neighbour and there was further correspondence between it and the police during April and May 2023. The details of this correspondence could not be shared with the resident.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord interviewed the neighbour and amongst other issues raised the concerns about the misuse of the shared alleyway and the fires in the garden. The neighbour agreed to clear some of the items from the alleyway and made counter allegations about the fires in the garden. The resident said on 17 May 2023 that the neighbour verbally abused her after the interview on 9 May 2023.
The landlord was unable to address all allegations made by the resident to the neighbour because she was making her complaints anonymously. It shared these concerns with the resident during its contact with her in May 2023.
The resident erected a 6ft fence along the shared pathway at the front of the property in June 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 July 2023. She said:
1. She had reported incidents of ASB since November 2021.
2. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She felt that it had been “rude” and dismissive of her concerns.
3. She highlighted issues including:
  1. The access to the shared alleyway.
  2. Motorbikes being ridden along the shared path and alleyway.
  3. The neighbour had verbally abused her.
  4. Her neighbour’s son had attacked people outside the property.
  5. She believed the neighbour participated in drug dealing. The neighbour and visitors were using drugs in the property.
  6. Visitors to the neighbour had intimidated her and her family. She felt unsafe and at times had stayed away from the property.
  7. She felt the landlord was giving excuses rather than dealing with the ASB.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 July 2023. It said:
1. It was unable to find evidence of rude or unprofessional responses. It asked the resident to provide further evidence.
2. It had not seen evidence of motorbikes being ridden along the alleyway. It had asked the neighbour to clear all items from the shared access and understood that this was resolved.
3. The neighbour accepted responsibility for some fires and made counter allegations. It directed the resident to the fire service and local authority to make future reports.
4. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by visitors to the neighbour’s property. It acknowledged the allegations of drug dealing and directed the resident to the police to report suspected criminal offences. It recommended that if she wished to submit anonymous reports, that she uses Crimestoppers.
5. It was sorry that the resident felt intimidated and harassed. It highlighted the need for evidence to address the allegations with the neighbour. It had relied on evidence from police for the warning issued previously and continued to protect the resident’s identity.
6. It said some of the evidence the resident had provided could not be used to address the behaviour without the resident’s consent for it to be shared. It offered to review any new evidence and reiterated the need for consent to be able to act on reports made.
7. It suggested that the resident consider mediation or a good neighbour agreement.
8. It suggested that the resident may be eligible for priority on its housing register.
9. It did not uphold the complaint. It determined that officers had followed correct procedures when investigating reports of ASB. It had made appropriate recommendations and suggestions.
On 19 July 2023 the neighbour said that some of the items had been cleared from the shared alleyway. The landlord discussed the issues with the resident, who remained unhappy as there were other items (a shelving unit) that she wanted to be taken down.
On 21 July 2023 the landlord discussed the ASB with the resident. She said that both of her children had vulnerabilities and were affected by the ASB. She was unsure whether she wanted to give permission to use the CCTV footage she had of incidents involving the neighbour. The landlord explained the necessity of evidence in any action it could take. The resident asked for an action plan on how the footage would be used. The landlord agreed to provide an action plan and offered counselling to the resident, which she declined.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 24 July 2023. She felt the landlord had overlooked parts of her complaint at stage 1. She set out her reasons and highlighted parts of the landlord’s tenancy conditions and guidance from its tenant handbooks. Amongst other issues she said:
1. It took around 7 months to resolve the issues with the misuse of the alleyway.
2. There had been no change in the number of motorbikes being ridden along the shared pathway. She had evidence of these issues. The shelf was still attached to her wall.
3. Complaints regarding the neighbour and visitors to the property had been ignored. The issues with drugs and alcohol were ongoing. Visitors had been seen using drugs on the path and playing loud music from their cars.
4. She asked for the video evidence not to be shared with the neighbour, fearing reprisals. The neighbour’s son had been seen with knives in public and had slashed people’s tyres. She wanted to remain anonymous. She wanted to be given advice on how this could be resolved while she remained anonymous.
On 8 August 2023 there was further correspondence about the misuse of the shared alleyway. The landlord recommended mediation for the resident, which she agreed to.
On 21 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. Residents are accountable for the actions of visitors to their home. It sought to address all instances of ASB appropriately. Its ability to do this was dependent on the strength of evidence available. When complaints were anonymous it became difficult to challenge complaints and progress any court action.
2. It had issued a formal tenancy warning based on evidence sent by police, not based on evidence provided by the resident.
3. It agreed the shelf should not have been left in the alleyway. It arranged for this to be removed and monitored by officers.
4. It recognised that substantial evidence was submitted. It had been unable to progress action while the evidence provided by the resident was anonymous. It encouraged the resident to also report incidents to the police. Without evidence from the police, it would be unable to take further action.
5. It suggested that the resident meet with its solicitor to review the evidence and discuss why it had been unable to progress the case.
6. It noted that the resident recently gave consent to share video evidence with the neighbour. It was concerned that this situation would escalate and suggested that the resident consider mediation.
7. It recognised that living with ASB can be extremely stressful and detrimental to a persons wellbeing. It was essential to maintain regular contact agreed between the parties. This would be covered with all staff involved in this process.
8. It partially upheld the complaint. It determined that it had taken as much action as possible based on the evidence available. It agreed that communication could have been better. There were occasions when the resident’s messages were not responded to. It said this was being addressed with the officers concerned and would be improved in future.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She contacted the Ombudsman on 28 August 2023. She reported incidents broadly set out above. She said she felt the landlord had not acted appropriately to reports of ASB and had not maintained regular communication.
Both parties agreed to mediation on 11 September 2023 and a referral was made to an external agency.
On 20 September 2023 the resident said she wanted to meet with the landlord’s solicitors to discuss the evidence she had before mediating with the neighbour. The landlord discussed this request with the mediator who suggested that this happens after mediation. The landlord confirmed this recommendation to the resident on 22 September 2023.
The mediation went ahead on 4 October 2023. Both the resident and her neighbour signed a mediation agreement and decided to “draw a line under what has happened”. The mediators confirmed this in writing to the landlord on 17 October 2023. The ASB case was closed shortly afterwards.
In December 2023 the resident’s neighbour passed away. Their family members were left in occupation at the property.
On 8 February 2024 the landlord met with the resident after receiving new reports of ASB involving the neighbour’s family and visitors. The allegations related to loud music, late night parties, and a parking dispute. The landlord spoke to the neighbour, who denied the allegations.
On 28 February 2024 the landlord called the resident. She said that the family of her former neighbour were regularly partying and playing loud music until 3-4am. The family had placed their house number on the shared gate and began to restrict access. She believed that the neighbour and visitors were misusing drugs at the property. She reported the drugs use to the police and had shared CCTV footage with the landlord. The landlord arranged a complainant interview for the following day.
On 29 February 2024 the landlord conducted a complainant interview with the resident. She reiterated her concerns raised the day before and said that she had tried to speak to the neighbour unsuccessfully.
The landlord called the neighbour on 1 March 2024 and arranged to interview them at its office.
On 6 March 2024 the resident called the landlord and asked them not to pursue her reports of ASB. The landlord agreed to stop the ASB case and encouraged the resident to report any new incidents.
The resident requested an ASB case review from the local council on 11 March 2024. She asked the landlord to reopen the case on 13 March 2024. After some discussion around what it considered actionable ASB it arranged to interview the resident in its office.
The local authority determined that the threshold was met for an ASB case review in March 2024.
On 21 March 2024 the landlord conducted a further complainant interview. The parties discussed the evidence provided by the resident and the landlord set out what it considered actionable ASB. It recommended one to one support for the resident and an independent dispute resolution service. It agreed an action plan that included a meeting with the local authority and police. It asked the resident to report new incidents and agreed to provide fortnightly updates.
The landlord provided an update on 27 March 2024, after being contacted by the resident. It said that it was waiting for a date for the ASB case review meeting.
On 3 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say that there had been more incidents involving:
1. Visitors blocking the driveway and being aggressive to the resident.
2. Motorbikes were being driven along the shared access path.
3. Cannabis was being used.
4. People were urinating in the back garden.
5. Rubbish had been thrown into her garden.
6. The neighbour was knocking on the adjoining wall and laughing.
The landlord replied the same day and asked for copies of the footage. It asked if the resident was happy for it to address the issues of ASB with the neighbour. It advised the resident to report issues with possible drug dealing/misuse to the police.
The landlord interviewed the neighbour on 10 April 2024. The records show that it addressed the allegations with them and they agreed to mediation with the resident.
The local authority held the ASB case review meeting on 15 April 2024. The resident attended the panel hearing to present her case. The panel determined that the following actions were required by the landlord:
1. By 3 May 2024, the resident should be invited to a meeting with the landlord and police. This was to explain what actions would be classed as offences that could be dealt with and agree how they were progressed. The parties would identify the best ways for the resident to report incidents and what should be included in reports for possible action to be taken.
2. By 26 April 2024, a new referral for mediation for the resident and her neighbour to be made.
3. By 26 April 2024, one to one support would be offered to the resident and her family.
4. Arrange for its victim support officer to contact the resident when available.
5. A single point of contact to be provided to the resident.
On 17 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that she made an allegation of stalking/harassment by the neighbour to the police. This was agreed to be monitored by the police as the responsible agency. There had been an incident where the resident and neighbour had shouted at one another. The resident alleged this was because her partner tried to use the shared path. The landlord reoffered the one to one support and mediation.
On the same day the landlord spoke to the neighbour, who continued to agree to mediation.
On 18 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had challenged the neighbour regarding each of the allegations. It said if there were further issues it would challenge them again and issue a formal warning. It reiterated that the issues with stalking and drug misuse were police matters. It would submit the referral for mediation and one to one support. It asked to meet with the resident again.
On 25 April 2024 a mediation and one to one support referral were submitted by the landlord. It emailed the resident to set out the actions it took to resolve the allegations made. It arranged to meet with the resident on 3 May 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 April 2024 regarding the delay to make the referral for mediation. She also said that the landlord was not impartial in its investigations into ASB.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the new complaint on 15 May 2024. It partly upheld the complaint. It broadly reiterated the assertion that mediation was the most suitable tool to resolve the ASB. It found that it had pursued investigations in line with its policy. It set up a contact plan to manage communication and offered to refer the resident to its tenancy support service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

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 and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The resident’s most recent complaint on 30 April 2024 has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from February 2023 to May 2024. Any new issues can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed through its complaint procedure if required.

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it takes a risk-based approach when responding to reports of ASB. It will provide an action plan, a named point of contact, and risk assess the reports dependent on severity. It defines ASB in the following 2 categories:
1. Category 1 incidents include:
  1. Physical violence, threats of violence or significant harm.
  2. Safeguarding to protect vulnerable persons from abuse or neglect.
  3. Drug manufacturing/dealing.
2. Category 2 incidents include:
  1. Vernal abuse.
  2. Use or supply of any illegal substance.
  3. Excessive noise.
  4. Shouting and arguing.
The landlord responds to category 1 incidents within 1 working day. Where incidents in this category are reported directly to the landlord it will encourage residents to report them to the relevant statutory agency. It responds to category 2 incidents within 3 working days. It will attempt to discuss the allegations with the alleged perpetrator within 10 working days.

Handling of reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB).

In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather it is to assess how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received, and whether it has reasonably followed its policy and good practice, considering all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB, and that it has adequate and effective procedures in place for doing so. Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB the landlord needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its policies and procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts. The landlord’s policy 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 partly upheld the resident’s complaint that there had been failings in its communication. The records show that communication with the resident was improved following the landlord’s final response. Additionally, the landlord regularly sought to manage the resident’s expectations and was clear with the resident about its evidential thresholds throughout. It was fair to acknowledge its failings, and it demonstrated learning in its responses to the resident following the complaint.
The records show the landlord took reasonable action in response to new reports by the resident. It frequently sought to address incidents of ASB with the neighbour and provided updates of the actions taken to the resident. This shows the landlord treated the resident fairly and had intention to resolve the ASB.
Following the serious incident in February 2023, the resident was understandably apprehensive about the landlord using her evidence to pursue action against the neighbour. This made pursuing her reports more challenging for the landlord. The landlord took a balanced approach and used evidence from the police to address the incident with the neighbour. It was reasonable to take this approach and use the reports by the resident to deal with the less severe tenancy management issues. Its decision to issue a breach of tenancy warning was reasonable in the circumstances. It kept the resident informed of its progress and shared the information that it was able to. This shows that the landlord assessed the situation as being serious and was seeking to address the ASB while accepting the resident’s concerns about repercussions.
The landlord conducted a risk assessment once a case was allocated to its ASB team. The assessment was done in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy and it recorded that appropriate referrals were offered to support the resident. Once the resident escalated her complaint in August 2023, the landlord reviewed this assessment and made further offers of support to the resident. This demonstrates that the landlord had regard for the resident’s welfare.
When the resident told the landlord that she felt unsafe in the property it offered appropriate advice about rehousing. Its response was fair and reflective of the impact reported by the resident.
The landlord was clear with the resident about the thresholds in place to pursue civil action against the neighbours in both of its ASB cases. Its actions were reasonable and proportionate. Wider circumstantial evidence suggested that there was a breakdown of relations between the resident and her neighbour. Furthermore, there were counter allegations being made by the neighbours which the landlord could not ignore. When combined, it was fair for the landlord to consider other tools and powers available to resolve the dispute.
It should be noted that the landlord cannot be expected to resolve issues such as ASB without considering all allegations and evidence available. This is particularly the case where there are allegations and counter-allegations. In this case the landlord often suggested strategies that the resident and neighbours could use, such as not speaking to each other and attending mediation. In response to particular events the landlord was more direct in instructing the parties in what they should and should not do. It addressed breaches of tenancy by issuing appropriate warnings. It was clear in its instruction to the neighbour about clearing the shared accessway and managing the visitors behaviour. It was reasonable to determine that mediation was a suitable tool to resolve the ASB.
The landlord interviewed both the resident and neighbour to allow them the opportunity to respond to allegations. It set out action plans during the interviews and pursued reasonable action where it was able to.
Following the incidents in February 2024 and the allegations made about the neighbour’s wider family, the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the ASB. It continued to be clear with the resident about what action was available, it reviewed the evidence that was provided each time. The resident reported that she submitted most of her reports by a messenger app to the landlord. The messages were not all recorded on its case file. It is important that the landlord keeps clear and accurate records. However, it was evident from the records available that it provided regular updates to the resident and sought to manage her expectations.
Following the resident’s application for a community trigger the landlord offered referrals for one to one, tenancy and victim support services. The Ombudsman has considered that the landlord did not have a victim support service in place before April 2024. However, the landlord made wider offers of support to the resident at the initial risk assessment and at subsequent reviews throughout the timeline. The evidence shows that the landlord complied with its policy and procedures about offering support. It was fair to make the offers throughout the timeline and to revisit this following the community trigger.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate. The resident was in a difficult and often distressing situation. She was understandably apprehensive about pursuing some of her reports of ASB with the landlord. However, the landlord took the resident’s reporting of ASB seriously and acted in accordance with its ASB policy. It sought solutions involving relevant agencies to minimise the situation. As soon as there was independent evidence of the neighbours being threatening towards the resident, the landlord offered to assist the resident to find alternative accommodation. It issued appropriate warnings to the neighbour. It learned from its earlier failings and improved its communication with the resident. Its response to the community trigger was reasonable and it sought to comply with the recommendations made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it maintains the commitments set out in its second stage 1 response of May 2024. This includes the referrals made for one-to-one, victim, and tenancy support services.