Sovereign Network Homes (202321279)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321279

Sovereign Network Homes

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 the residents reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and the associated request to be rehoused.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 11 May 2023. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom mid terraced house. The resident lives with her 3 children.
The resident spoke to the landlord the week after she moved into the property and said she was having issues with children in the street who were throwing rocks and swearing at her and her children. She requested a house move and the landlord explained the process for a mutual exchange, as that was all she would be eligible for.
On 6 June 2023, the resident raised again that she was unhappy living in the property due to the use of inappropriate language by others on the estate and excessive noise. The landlord instructed the resident to complete diary sheets over a 2-week period to decide if further action was necessary, under its ASB processes.
The resident raised a further issue on 7 July 2023 when she said she had arrived home to find rubbish in her garden. She believed that a neighbour was responsible, but was unsure which neighbour was responsible. She asked the landlord if it could move her to another property. The landlord said the resident would need to do a mutual exchange or reapply with the local authority to move.
On 8 September 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the alleged perpetrator, her neighbour’s partner, had smashed her car windscreen following an argument with her partner and that she had reported this to the police. She further said that someone had thrown rubbish in her garden and that offensive drawings and words had been drawn on her car. She told the landlord she did not feel safe and wished to move. The landlord reiterated its position that she could apply for a mutual exchange or speak to the local authority. It also recommended for the resident to contact the police for supporting evidence to find if they agreed that it was not safe for her to remain in the property. No further actions were discussed.
The landlord confirmed the police had provided a recommendation that the resident be rehoused. A band approval meeting was held on 15 September 2023. The landlord decided that the resident did not meet the criteria for band 1 and the case could be managed better with tenancy action against the neighbour and by providing security items to the resident.
On 5 October 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the alleged perpetrator had moved out of the neighbouring property in September 2023 and therefore it could see no reason why the resident could not return to the property. The resident responded on the same day and reported that she still saw the person at the property every day. In its response, the landlord advised as they were no longer a tenant it could take no action and advised once a security assessment of the resident’s property had taken place, her case would be closed.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 October 2023 to make a complaint. Subsequently, the landlord was asked to raise a formal complaint on 1 November 2023. It provided its stage one response on 14 November 2023. It did not uphold the complaint as it said the ASB had been effectively dealt with. The key points were as follows:
1. The resident had reported rubbish in her garden and that her neighbours were using bad language in June and July 2023, but the landlord had not acted upon this as there was no evidence provided.
2. On 8 September 2023, the landlord opened an ASB case after the resident’s windscreen was smashed.
3. On 13 September 2023, an ASB officer visited the resident. The officer offered cameras and other safety equipment. The resident declined this as she did not consider it would prevent further incidents. The landlord confirmed, on the same date, that the police had recommended a house move.
4. On 15 September 2023, the banding assessment panel hearing took place. Band 2 was awarded to the resident meaning an internal transfer was not possible.
5. On 6 October 2023 the landlord confirmed it would take no action against the alleged perpetrator. The person was allowed to visit the property even though they were no longer living at the property. The landlord closed the ASB case.
6. On 11 October 2023 the landlord visited the resident and offered further security items which the resident had declined as she was no longer living at the property.
7. Following communication with the resident on 25 October 2023, the landlord sent the resident diary sheets to complete if further incidents occurred.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on the same date as she did not agree with the decision for the landlord not to help her with moving.
On 15 November 2023, the resident reported that someone had slashed her tires. However, there was no evidence to confirm who was responsible. The resident informed the landlord that she did not feel safe at the property and reiterated that she had not been living there as a result.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 28 November 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. The landlord said the banding process came with guidance but was subjective according to the reviewing manager and the decision made was based on risk.
2. The landlord received an email from the police on 13 September 2023 which supported a move based on the resident’s concerns. The landlord said this was not indicative of serious risk to life. Therefore, its banding assessment was fair.
3. The landlord visited the alleged perpetrator in October 2023; however, the person had since moved and so the visit did not go ahead. It said as the person was no longer living at the property the risk was reduced. Therefore, it was not going to follow up with any tenancy breaches or potential next steps.
4. It confirmed that it had offered the resident security items, but the resident had declined these. The resident had asked for a video doorbell. The landlord said these were reserved for high risk cases.
5. On 23 November 2023 the resident confirmed in a conversation with the landlord that she was unable to occupy the property due to the risk of ASB from the alleged perpetrator whom she regularly saw in the area. The resident had said to the landlord the issues only occurred when she was in the area.
6. The landlord confirmed it did not uphold the complaint as it had investigated the ASB and offered support. It confirmed it was unable to move a resident as part of managing ASB unless it was an extreme circumstance.
Following contact between the resident and the police, the police requested an emergency decant for the resident due to the ongoing issues with the alleged perpetrator. The police said the resident felt “dreadfully unsafe” and asked for a permanent decant for the resident. The resident was decanted between 2 and 19 December 2023. Following this the landlord said it had not seen enough evidence that would change the resident’s current rehousing band. The decant was ended and the resident was expected to return to the property.
On 23 January 2024, the resident reported a further incident with the alleged perpetrator whereby they had made threats to kill, in the presence of her children, to their father while at the school gate.
During a home visit on 5 February 2024, the landlord told the resident, while discussing returning to the property, that some families are victims of domestic violence but still must live in their property. It said it could make the home safer, but people must stay in the home. It advised the resident that if she did not move back into the property, it would begin tenancy action to get the property back.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has not returned to the property due to feeling unsafe in the property. On 1 May 2024, the landlord removed the resident’s band 2 priority as she had not been living in the property since September 2023 and there had been no further evidence of incidents happening in or around the property.
In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident said that she wished to be moved to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement stipulates that they are responsible for the behaviour of every person living in or visiting the home, including in the locality around the home. The agreement also assigns responsibility to residents for addressing ASB. The landlord expects residents to try to resolve disputes directly and to show tolerance for different lifestyles. Additionally, residents are encouraged to use mediation services available.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will communicate with victims regularly. It will investigate and respond to reports of ASB quickly and thoroughly and assess the harm and its impact upon residents. It will take time to meet everyone involved and understand each party’s view. Depending on the circumstances, the landlord may undertake a risk assessment.
When investigating ASB, the landlord will offer early intervention and resolve the matter quickly and rebuild relations between neighbours.
The policy states that in exceptional cases the landlord may move residents to alternative accommodation but will normally need support from the police.

ASB

Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
Upon moving into the property, the resident reported issues with her neighbours during the first week. She also requested a house move at that time. Although the landlord discussed a mutual exchange with the resident and explained the process, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to provide diary sheets to monitor the reported behaviour and outline its expectations and processes following an ASB report. Not doing so demonstrated a disregard for the resident’s concerns.
The resident reported on 6 June 2023 that she was still unhappy living in the property due to inappropriate language by others on the estate. At this stage the landlord advised the resident to complete diary sheets over a 2-week period so it could assess if further action should be taken. This was appropriate given the general nature of the reports of the ASB and given that at this stage there was no evidence that the issues were targeted directly at the resident. No evidence has been provided to show that the resident did fill in the diary sheets. While without evidence it was reasonable that the landlord took no action in relation to the resident’s report of ASB at that time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained the implications if it did not receive any evidence from the resident.
On 7 July 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that rubbish had been thrown into her garden and reiterated that she wished to move. The landlord appropriately explained that without evidence it was unable to take further action. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have set out clearly the evidence it required to investigate the ongoing issues and linked that to a policy. Doing so would have better managed the expectations of the resident.
With regards to the request to move the landlord reiterated that the resident could apply for a mutual exchange or apply to the Local Authority for rehousing. While this was appropriate, the landlord could have taken the time to explain this further to the resident to ensure she understood the process of applying for a mutual exchange given that she had reported 3 times that she was unhappy in the property. Doing so would have helped support the landlord and resident relationship.
The resident advised the landlord on 8 September 2023 that her neighbour had smashed her windscreen and the police had been informed. She told the landlord she felt unsafe. While the landlord reiterated its point of applying for a mutual exchange, there is no evidence that following this incident the landlord undertook a risk assessment to assess the risk or impact on the resident, in line with its policy. The Ombudsman would expect to see the landlord thoroughly investigate the issues especially given that the neighbour was also its tenant.
On 13 September 2023 the landlord’s ASB officer visited the resident and offered cameras and safety equipment to the resident. While the resident declined these, it was appropriate of the landlord to offer these and showed a commitment to the resident to make her feel safer in the home.
However, the Ombudsman has not received any evidence to indicate that the landlord considered additional actions. These actions could have included offering mediation or engaging in a conversation with the resident in question to discuss interim measures, such as warning letters or an injunction. The landlord could also have considered sending letters to other residents in the street or carrying out a door knock round the street as part of its investigations. These would have been appropriate actions given the damage and the verbal abuse reported. Failing to do so demonstrated a disregard for the serious nature of the incident and the impact on the resident.
On the same day as the incident when the windscreen was smashed, the landlord informed the resident that she needed to provide evidence from the police to support a move. The police provided this evidence on 13 September 2023. However, despite the police evidence, the landlord did not consider the resident eligible for a band 1 emergency move. The resident was advised that if the police agreed she needed relocation, a banding assessment meeting would be held, raising her expectations that a higher band would be awarded. Given the meeting’s outcome, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to communicate precisely what evidence it needed to support a move, especially since the evidence it had specifically asked for did not meet the criteria. The landlord inappropriately raised the resident’s expectations and then failed to communicate its reasoning to the resident or link it to its policy.
Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated the specific requirements for assessing her as a band 1 priority after this incident or that it explained why it did not agree with the police assessment. While the police are best placed to assess risk, the landlord decided that the advice given did not fulfil its policy requirement. While that may have been a reasonable decision for the landlord, it did not explain its reasoning fully to the resident. Not doing so would have likely left the resident feeling helpless.
On 5 October 2023, the landlord informed the resident that the alleged perpetrator had moved out of the property in September 2023 and that the resident could return. However, despite this assurance, the resident continued to see the person at the property daily. The landlord’s response—that they could no longer take action because the individual was not a tenant—was incorrect and inappropriate. The neighbour would have been bound by a tenancy agreement in the same or similar terms which would have outlined their responsibilities around ASB, and they would have been responsible for their visitor’s behaviour also. Therefore, there were actions the landlord could have taken. Yet there is no evidence that the landlord sought to remind the neighbour of these responsibilities. Therefore, it was inappropriate for the landlord to close the case down, especially given the resident’s assertion that the alleged perpetrator was still around.
resident continued to see the person at the property daily. The landlord’s response—that they could no longer take action because the individual was not a tenant—was incorrect and inappropriate. The neighbour would have been bound by a tenancy agreement in the same or similar terms which would have outlined their responsibilities around ASB, and they would have been responsible for their visitor’s behaviour also. Therefore, there were actions the landlord could have taken. Yet there is no evidence that the landlord sought to remind the neighbour of these responsibilities. Therefore, it was inappropriate for the landlord to close the case down, especially given the resident’s assertion that the alleged perpetrator was still around.
The landlord closed the residents ASB case, as there was no further risk to the resident. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident why it considered the alleged perpetrator not to be a risk and link that explanation to a policy. The resident had already informed the landlord that she was not living at the property, which meant there would be no evidence of continuing ASB and, therefore, no present risk. At this stage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inquire with the resident about her present living situation and discuss why it did not feel it was an ongoing risk for her to return. Not doing so and enforcing that the resident return without further exploration of her reasoning showed a disregard for the resident’s feelings.
On 15 November 2023, the resident reported that her tyres had been slashed. While there was no evidence to show who did this, the resident believed that it was the same person who had smashed her windscreen. While the landlord appropriately encouraged the resident to ask the police to inform them if they believed there was a threat to life, there is no evidence to show that the landlord took any action with regards to this. This would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to have undertaken a risk assessment and offer support to the resident. Not doing so showed a disregard to the situation the resident found herself in.
On 23 November 2023, the resident reported further incidents and reiterated to the landlord that the police had recommended that she move away from the area due to a serious risk to life. While the Ombudsman understands that the resident needed evidence directly from the police, confirming its position, there is no evidence to show that the landlord liaised with the police following this. Not only was this a further missed opportunity to conduct a risk assessment, but the landlord’s lack of action in communicating with the police or considering tenancy-related steps further highlighted a disregard for the resident’s situation.
Additionally, since the resident reported further incidents involving the same perpetrator, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider its decision about a move at this point and undertake a further assessment of the resident’s situation. However, no evidence shows that the landlord fulfilled these expectations. This lack of action was inappropriate, particularly as the police had assessed the risk to the resident and her family as being significant.
On 2 December 2023 the police requested an emergency decant for the resident. When the landlord inquired about the reasoning behind this, the police asked that the resident to be decanted permanently because she felt “dreadfully unsafe.” However, the landlord disagreed with the police assessment, did not extend the decant, and informed the resident that she must return to her property. There is no evidence that the landlord opened a further ASB case or discussed with the resident the ongoing issues and threats she had reported. This deviation from its policy was inappropriate. Given the police’s request that the resident be decanted due to the ongoing risk, it was unreasonable for the landlord to seemingly ignore this and decide without undertaking its own risk assessment that the resident was not at risk.
On 18 December 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it would not extend the decant due to a lack of evidence. This would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to clearly explain why the evidence it had did not meet the policy requirements for a move. Providing this reasoning and linking it to a policy would have helped the resident understand the landlord’s position and enabled her to obtain further evidence to support her move. Additionally, given the involvement of the police, the Ombudsman would expect a multi-agency approach to be taken to resolve the situation.
Following a further incident at the resident’s children’s school in January 2023 whereby the resident alleged that threats to kill were made, the school contacted the landlord to discuss the incidents. The school said the children were feeling “shaky” at school due to seeing the alleged perpetrator. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord took this into consideration. Given this further evidence, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken a further risk review and reiterated its reasoning for not supporting a move to the resident. This would also have been a further opportunity for the landlord to have considered a multi-agency approach to resolve the situation.
The landlord has a duty of care toward its residents, but there is no evidence to show that it offered support to the resident or her children during this time. The resident consistently reported that both she and her children were scared, and she expressed the negative impact the issues had on her children. While no causal link can be made between the incidents and the impact on mental well-being, the Ombudsman can consider the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord did not demonstrate that it ever considered signposting the resident and her children to support from outside agencies. It also did not discuss what support she might need to move back. Although the Ombudsman understands that the resident did not want to return, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explore solutions beyond security items that might have enabled her to move back to the property.
Further to this, given that the resident did not wish to return due to being scared for her safety and this was backed up by supporting evidence from the police and the school, it was not appropriate for the landlord to seemingly disregard this. Instead, it chose to pursue tenancy enforcement action against the resident. Doing so showed a lack of regard and empathy for the situation the resident and her children found themselves in.
However, it’s important to note that the landlord did offer security items to the resident on many occasions. It was right for the landlord to consistently present this option as a solution. However, considering the resident’s consistent refusal of these items, it would have been helpful for the landlord to explain their potential usefulness for evidence gathering. While the items would not prevent an incident, they could have provided evidence to support enforcement actions and may have gone someway to act as a deterrent to the alleged perpetrator.
Further to this, while the landlord consistently informed the resident she could apply for a mutual exchange, it also consistently told the resident she would be unable to do this due to the arrears she was in. While this is correct advice and managed the resident’s expectations, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored with the resident any support she may have needed in reducing her arrears. Doing so would have highlighted a commitment by the resident to support the resident in her quest to move.
On 5 February 2023, the landlord conducted a home visit to discuss tenancy issues with the resident, who had consistently admitted not living at the property. The landlord’s memo from that visit shows that the landlord told the resident that victims of domestic violence remain in their properties, implying that the resident should do the same. It is concerning and inappropriate that the landlord used such a phrase with a distressed resident. While the Ombudsman recognises that landlords do not have unlimited housing options and that securing a move can be a lengthy process, the landlord’s comment lacked empathy for the resident’s situation and perceived risk.
In summary, the landlord initially informed the resident about completing diary sheets and provided security items. However, its subsequent actions fell short of the standards which the Ombudsman would reasonably expect, and it deviated from its own policy. The landlord did not adequately consider police assessments recommending the resident’s relocation on two occasions. Additionally, it disregarded evidence from the school about the impact on the resident’s young children. Opportunities for risk assessments were missed, and communication with the resident lacked clarity about move support requirements. Despite consistent reports of intimidation and the alleged perpetrator’s presence at the property, the landlord did not address the alleged ASB from a visitor to the neighbour’s property. Instead, it prioritised a breach of tenancy over supporting the resident’s return. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the ASB situation lacked empathy and a victim-centred approach.
Taking into account the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.

Determination

In accordance with section 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s report of ASB and the associated request to be rehoused.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £1000, made up of the following:
1. £200 for not undertaking a risk assessment.
2. £200 for the lack of clarity around the evidence needed to support a move.
3. £400 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
4. £200 for the time and trouble taken in pursuing a response.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff at the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must review of its handling of this case. The Landlord must also ensure it provides refresher training to its staff who investigate ASB to ensure increased knowledge and awareness of its procedures is followed in practice. The landlord should consider the statutory guidance as set out in the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 when undertaking a review and implementing any learning. The above must consider the following but is not limited to:
1. Ensuring timebound action plans detailing regular updates to the resident using an agreed method and frequency are implemented.
2. Ensuring risk assessments are completed in ASB cases, detailing actions arising from the assessment outcomes and appropriate review timescales for the assessment.
3. An offer of relevant support to residents in ASB cases either directly or via a referral.
The landlord must share its findings from the above review with this Service.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.