Town and Country Housing (202424042)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424042

Town and Country Housing

30 May 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 response to the resident’s.
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Request to be moved.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began via a mutual exchange on 16 October 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the third floor of a block. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident which include chronic migraines, depression and anxiety. It has also been made aware during the complaint that she suffers with PTSD.
The resident had reported issues with 2 different neighbours. For the purpose of this report and to provide clarity the resident’s previous neighbour will be referred to as neighbour A and the current neighbour will be referred to as neighbour B. Both neighbour A and neighbour B were tenants of the landlord for the period of this complaint.
On 21 July 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said:
1. She had been reporting ASB and harassment to the police and her landlord for 9 months from 2 neighbours since she had moved in.
2. Her GP had sent a letter to the landlord recommending that she was moved. She wanted to be moved closer to her family, so she felt safe and had support.
3. She considered it was the landlord’s responsibility to re-house her as it had allowed matters to escalate.
4. She was scared and her life was in danger. She had been given a personal alarm by victim support.
On 13 August 2024, the landlord sent is stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. The resident had reported issues with her neighbour on 4 consecutive days in July 2024. The landlord responded on the 4th day and visited the resident 2 days after that.
2. During its visit it provided advice and an action plan to address the noise nuisance. It advised the resident to report matters to the police if she felt harassed. It also provided additional advice and information on how she could move and what assistance it could provide. She was also given advice about mutual exchange and applying to the local authority for housing.
3. It was sorry that the resident considered this advice was insufficient and that it should be responsible for moving her. It was also sorry that she felt the property was unsuitable because it was not near her family and friends. It noted that the resident had advised it that she was being supported by medical and mental health professionals.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it was satisfied that it had provided sufficient advice about being able to secure another property.
5. It had contacted the police who had advised it that they were not taking any further action in relation to his reports of harassment. The police advised that they would not support her request to be rehoused. It advised the resident to continue to report any harassment to the police.
6. It had opened a noise nuisance case, and it would continue to support the resident if the noise continued. It asked the resident to ensure that she continued to provide diary sheets as evidence of the noise would be needed.
On 15 August 2024, the resident called the landlord and requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She said she felt that the response was inconsiderate.
On 20 September 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It disagreed that its stage 1 complaint response was inconsiderate. It considered that it showed an understanding of the resident’s case and the impact. It also detailed the support which it could and could not offer.
2. It could only provide homes in specific areas that were outside the areas the resident wanted. It had no control over property allocation outside of the areas which it operated in. It could not therefore assist the resident to find a new home in the areas she had specified.
3. It suggested that the resident may wish to consider another mutual exchange. It provided the link to the relevant website for her to register.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She said the ASB was continuing, and the landlord had not taken any action to try to resolve the issues.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. The policy states residents will experience the impact of ASB differently, depending on numerous factors.
It was committed to recognising the different needs of both victims and perpetrators. To assist it in making decisions it may complete a risk assessment with the resident. It will also complete an action plan for each case where it is appropriate to do so. The purpose of the action plan is to clearly set out the intentions of the caseworker.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The evidence provided shows that the reports of noise relating to the flat below were first raised on 7 November 2023. The resident said that she felt harassed by neighbour A as he had knocked on her door about a leak shortly after she had moved in. She said that neighbour A was now banging on his ceiling every time the resident moved around.
An ASB case was opened on the day the report was received. The case was assessed as a medium priority case. An action plan was agreed and sent to the resident. The landlord also contacted neighbour A to discuss the issues and advised the matter would be monitored. This action was in accordance with its procedure and appropriate.
The landlord received 3 diary entries from the resident on 7 December 2024. Further diary sheets were then sent to the resident. The records show that the landlord continued to regularly contact the resident to try to obtain further evidence. The recordings it received it said did not provide much evidence of any noise. In February 2024 it suggested to the resident that they requested noise monitoring equipment from the local authority. The resident was reluctant for the landlord to do this.
On 5 March 2024, the case was then formerly closed as neighbour A had moved out of the property and the property was empty. This Service considers that the landlord’s handling of this particular ASB case was appropriate and in accordance with its own procedure.
In July 2024, the resident reported issues with neighbour B. In summary she reported noise, ringing of her doorbell and banging on her walls. She believed that the noise was deliberate, and she felt scared and harassed. She said that the issues had been reported to the police, and they were investigating.
The landlord assessed it as a medium priority case. The landlord’s version of events within its stage 1 complaint response matches the records that it has provided this Service. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports was in accordance with its own procedure and appropriate. It also offered the resident referrals to appropriate support agencies and provided details of other agencies she may wish to contact. This was also appropriate given the resident had expressed her concerns about the impact the issues were having on her.
When we consider the response to a report of antisocial behaviour we take account of the recommendations in the statutory guidance for frontline professionals. The guidance requires that agencies must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the lives of those subject to it. The harm, or the potential for harm to be caused to the victim, is an important factor for the landlord in determining its approach.
This is because those who are vulnerable can be significantly more affected by anti-social behaviour, when compared to those who are not. The guidance promotes the use of risk assessments. While they cannot provide a definitive assessment of someone’s needs, they can assist in determining an appropriate response based on the likelihood and severity of harm.
In this case the resident was vulnerable. Her description of the impact of the behaviour was that she felt scared and harassed. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to evidence a detailed risk assessment of the impact on the resident and how this had determined the action it would take. That it had not was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. It is noted however that since this complaint the landlord’s records show that risk assessments have been completed.
The landlord continued to keep the resident updated throughout August 2024. It monitored the diary sheets received and sent more to the resident. It also confirmed that it would now investigate the noise nuisance. It advised the resident to report the harassment to the police. Its stage 1 complaint response also confirmed that it had been in contact with the police to see what action they were taking. It said it would contact neighbour B and the local authority. The resident however said that the landlord needed to move her and nothing else would resolve the issues. This would have made it difficult for the landlord to progress matters.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 September 2024. The resident said that she had not logged any diary sheets as she was finding it stressful. The landlord explained the importance of the collection of evidence to enable it to try to resolve cases which was appropriate.
As the landlord had not heard from the resident by 13 September it sent a closure warning letter. It then closed the case on 23 September 2024. This did not seem appropriate given that the resident was vulnerable and had informed the landlord that she was finding the situation stressful. It is however acknowledged that the landlord quite quickly re-opened the case shortly after this which was appropriate. It is also acknowledged that the resident is continuing to report issues, and the landlord still has an open ASB case in respect of the noise.
The landlord’s overall handling of the reports of ASB in this case was appropriate. The records failed to show a detailed risk assessment in response to the reports made in February 2024. However, the initial action taken by the landlord was in accordance with its policy and appropriate. The evidence also shows that detailed risk assessments have been completed since the initial reports.
The landlord cannot take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB such as an injunction or eviction without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. Therefore, it would be appropriate to request diary entries to be used as evidence if necessary. In this case it appears that the landlord is struggling to obtain the necessary evidence.
The landlord would also be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally such as through mediation or tenancy warnings before taking legal action. It has been difficult to implement this type of resolution in this case because of the lack of evidence of the impact on the resident. The landlord has continued to try to gain evidence and has continued to communicate with the resident.
The landlord has worked with other agencies such as the police. It has also considered and offered various support agencies for the resident. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved.

The landlord’s letting policy states most of its lets are via local authority nominations. It also states that it can let its homes to its existing tenants in the following circumstances:
1. Where there are exceptional social needs that can be better met by a move to alternative accommodation.
2. To address local management issues.
3. Tenants who wish to move to another area but who do not qualify to join the relevant local authorities housing register.
It states that urgent internal transfers may be recommended by staff or an external agency. The circumstances they can be requested are where a resident is at risk of violence, harassment or abuse or hate crime that seriously threatens their health or wellbeing. It will carry out all reasonable enquiries to determine the severity of the threat or risk to ensure that a move will eliminate or minimise the risk before accepting an application. A police disclosure or recommendation will generally be required.
Where all other moving options have been exhausted it may consider an internal transfer to address local management issues. This may include significant neighbour nuisance which cannot otherwise be resolved or where the resident has severe medical difficulties or requires to move to be able to receive care and support.
The resident first raised a request to move in July 2024 when she reported the issues with neighbour B. The landlord visited the resident on 12 July 2024 and provided advice about her housing options. It confirmed this advice in writing on the same day. It clearly explained that it was unable to assist with re-housing in the specific area that the resident required to be close to her family and friends. It explained that this was because it did not own any housing stock in this particular area. It appropriately provided advice on how she could apply to the local authority within that area and other options such as mutual exchange.
The landlord also reiterated its position in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It appropriately provided advice on the residents options to move to the areas she desired. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
The resident has since informed this Service that she is willing to move to other areas now where the landlord has some housing stock. She said that the landlord was advising her on how it can assist her with this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved.