Vivid Housing Limited (202304389)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304389

Vivid Housing Limited

16 October 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 resident’s:
1. Historic reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports of ASB which were the subject of a complaint in 2023.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
For context, the resident has been experiencing ASB for a number of years and historically there has been extensive reporting by the resident to the landlord about the noise and conduct of the occupants of the property above hers (the neighbour), and the impact of this on the resident’s household. The resident has made previous complaints to her landlord, which have been investigated been the Ombudsman and are detailed below.
The resident complained about the landlord’s response to ASB with reference to an incident in November 2021. This completed the landlord’s complaint process in April 2022 and was determined by the Ombudsman on 30 November 2023 (our ref. 202115511).
Following a change in housing staff around April 2022 the resident and landlord discussed the resident’s ongoing experiences of ASB, and she raised a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of the situation. This completed the landlord’s complaint process in July 2022 and was determined by the Ombudsman on 12 April 2023 (our ref. 202212640).
The landlord’s handling of historic reports of ASB fall outside of our jurisdiction as the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which it has already decided on, as stated in paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme. The remaining scope of the investigation below looks specifically at the resident’s formal complaint of 2023, which reference reports from May 2022 which the resident remained dissatisfied with and raised to the landlord. Communication outside of this timescale may be included in the summary to provide context.

Background and summary of events

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a split level house, beneath the neighbour. The tenancy commenced in 2014.
The resident has mental health vulnerabilities and attempted suicide in October 2022. There have been at least 2 safeguarding referrals raised by the landlord and external agencies, in response to the resident’s communications.
As previously detailed, this report does not investigate the full period of the ASB experienced by the resident. The complaint is set against a history of ongoing ASB reported by the resident and her household to the landlord.

Summary of events

In March 2022 the landlord was advised by the mediator to re-offer this if future reports arose and did not meet the threshold for statutory action.
From May to July 2022 the resident submitted new reports of ASB, with video footage or written accounts of incidents, to the landlord. The ASB included: shouting and swearing, banging noises, drug use, movements of the neighbour by the resident’s house and in the communal space, throwing keys from their property to the ground, parking disputes and kicking items.
The landlord logged the ASB reports within 1 to 2 days following each report, adding them to the existing records and discussing them in fortnightly catch ups with the resident, or sooner depending on the severity of the reports. Its catch ups ranged from face to face meetings, written communication, and telephone conversations.
From May to July 2022 the landlord raised allegations to the neighbour and advised them to stop, as their behaviour could be seen as incitement. It directed the resident to the police in respect of some of the reports and explained that it did not consider some reports to be ASB but would ask the neighbour to take consideration as the resident found this to be unacceptable (such as throwing keys from their floor). It told the resident of its limitations in managing all of the conduct, such as reports about parking disputes on the public road.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord raised a safeguarding referral due to communication from the resident threatening self-harm and suicide, it also carried out a welfare check the same day and noted the resident’s appointment to see her doctor on 13 June 2022.
In back and forth correspondence, the resident reported that the neighbour did not listen to the landlord or the police and she found it difficult to keep sending footage and evidence, which the landlord had directed her to do when it was just added to the case without action. The police visited the resident in June 2022, however the resident states that she was visited in April and August 2022, noted that issues were settled for the time being. The resident wanted them to discuss the ongoing ASB with the landlord to see what they could do.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 July 2022 to raise new reports of noise by the neighbour; she reported doors slamming, stomping, and banging on the walls. The landlord liaised with Environmental Health (EHT) which had been engaged separately with the noise reports since February 2022. The landlord encouraged the resident to continue submitting her reports and recordings to it, as it said without these it could not progress investigations. The EHT agreed to meet with the neighbour, as the noise was causing an annoyance, though it explained it was not a nuisance by its standards.
The landlord decided to close the ASB case, although the resident states she was not informed of its closure. The landlord how the resident could make further reports to itself, the police, and the EHT if she experienced further issues. It continued its regular meetings with the resident and met with the neighbour when more allegations were made, but explained to the resident that the reported ASB would be unlikely to result in the neighbour’s eviction.
In July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report a missed response to her evidence submission. She also reached out on social media and included reference to self-harm. The landlord said the resident did not raise this in their regular catch up, invited her to confirm what it had missed and made a safeguarding referral. It also warned her that it could take legal action if she sent malicious content online. The resident told the landlord she felt it was threatening her, and they resumed their regular communication but the landlord noted the change in the resident’s level of engagement.
On 18 August 2022 the resident reported that groups of teenagers were coming in and out of the neighbour’s property, making noise, and the neighbour was making loud intentional impact noises, causing the resident’s sleep to become disrupted. There were also reports about tampering with the electricity box/wires and strange behaviour by the neighbour towards the resident. The landlord logged the reports and added them to the open ASB case. It directed the resident to report incidents or strange behaviour to the police, so it could rely on them to substantiate crimes. It said it would discuss the allegations with the neighbour.
In October 2022 the resident told the landlord she was submitting evidence to it and the EHT which only had conversations with the neighbour, without doing anything about the ASB. On the one hand, she was told that none of the reported ASB would result in court action, while on the other hand she was encouraged to make detailed reports about the incidents she was witnessing. As a result, she reported that the landlord was carrying out ‘box ticking’ exercises as nothing would change, and she was becoming distressed at reporting things without action. During this period, the resident’s daughter reported an incident involving the neighbour’s household being verbally abusive towards her, to the police, who subsequently liaised with the landlord. Tragically, in October 2022 the resident attempted suicide.
On her recovery, the landlord regularly engaged with the resident, but she did not accept or believe that it was concerned and supporting her, as she stated that it did not evidence this by its actions. She was dissatisfied with the mental health support from the landlord’s wellbeing team as it signposted her regularly to health services, stating that they could not offer clinical help, and she explained that it was her housing circumstances, and housing officers, who were causing the mental health concerns.
In November 2022 the resident reported more noise from the neighbour to the EHT including door impact noise and shouting, loud TV, and being kept awake and unable to resume her normal sleeping pattern. She reported repeat behaviour by the neighbour of throwing keys out the window, to the landlord. The landlord did not consider throwing keys to be ASB; it continued to have regular communication with the resident towards the end of 2022 and early 2023, about various issues, including the resident moving.
A new ASB case was opened in February 2023 following the resident’s reports of intentional noises of banging and music being heard. The landlord logged the resident’s report, signposted her to her doctor, and clarified the extent of its role in investigating noise nuisance, with reference to the EHT’s role. It explained the limitations they were under in addressing reports which were not considered to be antisocial, such as reports of general living noise. The resident subsequently left the property and is no longer a tenant of the landlord.

Formal complaint

On 21 April 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord regarding: years of service failure; its lies and not providing evidence of the actions it took over the past few years; bias by its staff; that it relied on external agencies and downplayed the situation to them and did not explain how they were involved; and that its ASB policies were open to interpretation.
The resident and landlord subsequently discussed the points at length, in writing and by telephone, in May 2023. The issues were broad in nature and covered dissatisfaction from historic staff conduct as well as the landlord’s response to her specific evidence of ASB including the neighbour throwing keys from the second floor, and generally going onto the resident’s pathway or kicking the bins despite being asked not to.
The landlord disputed the allegations of bias and explained that it typically worked with other agencies as part of joint working to address ASB. It also advised that it was not suited to provide medical assistance for mental health but it would signpost to relevant agencies, which it had done in the past (its wellbeing team and signposting to medical health services).
The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 7 June 2023, as follows:
1. The staff followed the same procedures when dealing with ASB, so it did not find that there was bias against the resident.
2. It apologised for the resident’s experience with housing staff and explained that they were trained to be professional and caring, though it accepted that this was subjective to the customer.
3. Policies offered guidance on how to deal with ASB, rather than being exhaustive in covering every kind of situation of ASB. It would consider any feedback if the resident provided this.
4. The resident had varied contact preferences and this caused confusion for it, but it would consider how it meets customer expectations when working with third party agencies.

The resident escalated her complaint from 16 June to 5 July 2023 in further exchanges with the landlord. She asked for a face to face discussion about the stage 2 complaint which the landlord accommodated within its capacity and spoke to the resident about her concerns from 22 to 24 July 2023. In addition to her original concerns of bias and dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to ASB, the resident highlighted that the landlord failed to acknowledge her original complaint of April 2023.
The landlord considered the outstanding complaint to be about the resident’s concerns that mediation was not effective, camera footage of ASB and noise level recordings using the Council’s equipment was not used by the landlord, the multi-agency approach was ineffective, and dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 26 July 2023, as follows:
1. It did not find bias and had followed its multi-agency approach for noise and ASB though it understood the resident did not find that this was effective, so it would review this and also review when it would offer mediation.
2. It apologised for the resident’s decline in mental health when she was living at the property; it explained that it had signposted her to relevant organisations and reiterated that any intervention would be for clinicians.
3. It confirmed its learning from the complaint as follows: to consider offering mediation early on in an ASB case, provide signposting to specialist agencies when managing mental health and victims of ASB, and review its partnership working on ASB with police and the local authority.
4. In response to the missed communication in April 2023, it apologised and offered £50 compensation.
5. It also introduced contact arrangements citing its unreasonable behaviour policy now that the resident was no longer a tenant and it had concluded the stage 2 investigation.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

As part of the resident’s complaint, she has detailed how the landlord’s actions have affected her health, however it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident.
This is not a reflection of the seriousness of the resident’s experience, however, matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with 42f of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response.
The resident has also raised some concerns about the local authority’s actions in relation to the management of the safeguarding referrals and the EHT. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on these matters as they fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (reflected at paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme). As a result, they are not addressed further in that report. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the local authority’s involvement, she may wish to contact the LGSCO for advice in that regard.
In addition to the above, it is important to note that an extensive amount of evidence has been provided in relation to this complaint. This has been reviewed, but not all events will be referred to as part of the Ombudsman’s report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the circumstances of this case have been challenging. The resident has had a difficult and distressing experience due to the issues she has been reporting and her mental health.
The landlord’s ASB Policy states that:
1. It will log reports and respond the same day for emergencies or the end of the next working day. Following reports, the landlord will assess the case and contact the people involved.
2. ASB involves noise nuisance and criminal activities but excludes normal living noise such as doors or vacuum cleaners, people talking, clashes of lifestyle or parking issues, and personal disputes. In such cases (of non-ASB disputes) the landlord will talk to the parties and offer advice and guidance.
3. It will work partnership with other agencies to tackle ASB.
Initially the landlord took reasonable steps in its management of the resident’s reports of ASB, in line with its ASB Policy, as follows:
1. It logged the reports within policy timescales on the same or next working day, depending on the severity of the report, as per the ASB records. For example, on the resident’s reports of cannabis use on 9 May 2022 the landlord logged the ASB case and discussed this with her at a home visit on 10 May 2022, which had been previously arranged.
2. It arranged regular and frequent meetings with the resident to listen to her concerns and advise on the actions it would take, and with the neighbour to discuss the allegations against them.
3. It acted in line with its policy terms to engage with external agencies, such as the police and the EHT, to establish crime or noise nuisance, respectively. This is reasonable as the EHT can establish if reports of noise trigger enforcement action, and the landlord could rely on this to take necessary tenancy action. It was open to reviewing its approach when the resident reported dissatisfaction with it, which was resolution focussed.
4. It told the resident when it did not consider conduct to be ASB, such as with respect to the neighbour throwing keys down to the ground or walking by the resident’s areas when they were parking. It also highlighted its limitations in taking tenancy enforcement action over these kinds of reports but offered to discuss them with the neighbour. This was resolution focused.
However, after reviewing the evidence and case from 2022 onwards, it is apparent that the landlord’s approach was limited in managing the repeat reports, despite having conversations with the parties about the allegations. Though some of the reported conduct was not established as ASB, there was no dispute about the level of distress and alarm some of the reports were causing the resident. Furthermore, the reports about direct harassment and intimidation were not fully engaged with, despite the landlord having different intervention tools available, such as mediation, under the ASB Policy. This was a failing and was a missed opportunity for the landlord to utilise the tools it had available when dealing with such reports.
External agent reports demonstrate a shared awareness by the parties about the resident’s vulnerable state of mind and that she felt intimidated and harassed by the neighbour even where the conduct may not have been typically seen as severe, such as the neighbour approaching her door and making comments to her. The landlord accepted that such conduct could be seen as incitement and asked the neighbour to stop.
In addition to the above, it told the resident to continue logging reports and evidence, which was reasonable to an extent as it required evidence of ASB to engage with the reports meaningfully. However, after repeated reports it would have been appropriate for the landlord to review its handling of the evidence and how much of a difference its actions were making and explore how it could offer greater intervention which was proportionate to the level and nature of the reports it was getting. This was a failing and caused the resident additional distress.
Though the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations, by giving its view on whether it would move the neighbour, it failed to take reasonable steps to provide the resident with an action plan detailing alternative measures it could take. It further failed to clearly explain what it was doing with the evidence that she was submitting, despite her requests for clarification on this, in the context of joint working with other agencies.
The landlord explained the likelihood of eviction and how the courts would assess the situation, but by focussing on this, it missed the opportunity to make use of the non-legal intervention tools, or tools which had a lower threshold for action, to manage the continued behaviour as reported and evidenced by the resident. This was a failing and caused the resident additional distress.
The landlord’s policy states that it may adopt non-legal measures such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, Mediation, and warning letters. The landlord accepted its failure in not offering mediation earlier in the process, after it was advised in early 2022 to explore this option, but it also failed to engage with other non-legal remedies listed under its policy to address the ASB.
It failed to provide the resident with a clear action plan to explain how her reports of ASB would be used, beyond talking to the neighbour, and focused on the high threshold needed to evict the neighbour. This was unreasonable and an additional failing.
While the outcome of alternative interventions is not guaranteed to solve the ASB reported, it would have been resolution focused for the landlord to explore such measures, particularly for those reports where the behaviour was considered to be agitative or threatening such as reports of provocation or verbal assault. The landlord’s failure to explore such options was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to show the resident that it was taking her reports seriously.
The resident also reported dissatisfaction with the landlord’s support for mental health, as part of her complaint into its handling of the ASB. It was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to its wellbeing team, carry out a welfare check, and engage in safeguarding referrals in response to concerns about her safety.
However, the landlord failed to fully engage with the resident’s communication about her mental health. Although its advice was accurate (that it was not a clinician) it did not address her point that her housing situation was causing distress, and specifically that the fact the landlord was unable to evict the resident left her feel unsupported.
In conclusion, the landlord did not take reasonable and proportionate steps to manage the resident’s continued reports of ASB. It further failed to take action in response to the increasing impact of repeated reports of behaviour conduct. This is something that the landlord also did not dispute. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”. The landlord offered £50 compensation within its stage 2 complaint response; however, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
The Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures identified. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been a failure
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident, payments of over £100 are recommended. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that there were multiple occasions of where she requested update from the landlord and that she was affected by the poor communication. In light of this, the landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident for the service failures highlighted in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(l) the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of historic ASB is outside of jurisdiction, as this has already been decided on by this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB which were subject to a complaint in 2023.

Reasons

The resident’s complaints regarding the landlord’s handling of historic reports of ASB have previously been determined by the Ombudsman and we will not revisit those same matters.
The landlord initially engaged with the ASB Policy to manage the resident’s reports of ASB and regularly met with her, and the neighbour, to discuss the allegations. However, given the cumulative impact on the resident and reports of repeat conduct, despite verbal warnings, the landlord did not take proportionate measures by engaging with the full breadth of tools available to it, to address the ASB, and manage the resident’s expectations fairly.
Though the landlord’s advice about mental health was accurate it missed the opportunity to provide a cohesive response to the resident’s reports about mental health which linked with its response to the ASB issue.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with this Service of the following orders:
1. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, in association with the failures identified in this report.
2. Consider updating its action plan when addressing reports of ASB where there is report of: repeated issues, unsuccessful intervention, and/or mental health vulnerability.
3. Review the recommendations under Housing Ombudsman Spotlight Report on Noise: Time to be Heard and consider where it can integrate these into its existing practices for responding to future reports of noise.