Broadacres Housing Association Limited (202002804)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002804

Broadacres Housing Association Limited

29 April 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) by her neighbours.
The report will also address the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a two-bedroom property.

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident has referred to historic incidents of alleged ASB by her neighbours going back approximately five years. The available evidence shows that a previous complaint about ASB handling was dealt with by the landlord in September 2018 and a Stage 1 complaint response was issued at the time. There is no evidence that this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process at that time.
The landlord’s records show that the historic ASB allegations were part of a neighbour dispute involving a history of allegations by the resident and counter-allegations by her neighbours against her. According to the records the reports have been sporadic in nature over the last few years with the last report being in August 2019 (about the location of a neighbour’s CCTV camera) which was not pursued further by the resident at the time.
This Service will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst any historical events may be referenced for background purposes, this report will only consider the events from January 2020 (which is six months prior to the present complaint having been logged) up until the landlord’s final complaint response dated 30 October 2020.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

ASB policy and procedure

This defines ASB as including verbal abuse, intimidation, harassment, aggressive and threatening language, and behaviour.
It states that the landlord will categorise ASB cases in terms of priority:
1. Category 1 cases include criminal activities, physical assaults, threats of violence.
2. Category 2 incidents are likely to include the following: potential volatile and threatening situations; serious neighbour disputes and verbal abuse.
3. Category 3 incidents are typically tenancy and low level anti-social behaviour issues and likely to include things like neighbour nuisance, pets causing nuisance e.g. dogs barking or fouling premises, untidy and un-kept gardens.
The landlord’s overall aims for dealing with ASB cases are:
1. We will quickly and formally acknowledge every report of anti-social behaviour.
2. We will promptly investigate every report of anti-social behaviour.
3. We will interview all parties involved within prompt timescales.
4. We will maintain good quality information on anti-social behaviour.
The ASB procedure sets out what the landlord is required to do in response to an ASB report. This involves, contacting the tenant making the report within one working day. Arranging an interview with the tenant and ensuring that a record of this is logged. Formulating an action plan which is to be agreed with the tenant. The landlord is also required to interview the alleged perpetrator. If the alleged perpetrator denies the allegations and there is no other evidence to corroborate the complaint then both parties need to be advised that no further action will be taken but the situation will be monitored.
Officers should ensure that actions taken are commensurate with the problem being complained about. Any remedies should normally move in stages from informal actions such as advice and mediation through to formal action, such as warning letters, action plans, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, Notices, and finally to legal action such as Possession of the property.
The procedure states that mediation should be considered when there is a neighbour dispute e.g. disagreements about lifestyle, personal differences, arguments, noise/nuisance, boundary or hedge disputes, and low level ASB.

Complaints policy

The landlord has a two-stage complaints process:
1. Stage 1 – a response needs to be issued within 10 working days, but this can be extended if more time is needed to investigate the issues if it is complex).
2. Stage 2 – the policy that was in force at the time of this complaint does not provide a specific timeframe for the landlord’s response. However, the landlord’s present policy states that a response needs to be issued within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident has told this Service that she has experienced ASB since 2016 when new neighbours moved in next door. As explained in the ‘scope of investigation’ above at points 4 – 6, the historical incidents have been noted, but they will not form part of this report.
On 24 January 2020 the landlord’s records show that the resident reported that a neighbour, whom she was friendly with, told the resident that she had heard people in the field behind her (and the resident’s) property at night, and she thought they may have been trying to break into one of the properties. The landlord called the resident and took details of the incident and said it would look into this further.
On 11 February 2020 the resident sent the landlord CCTV footage which she said showed someone was in the field at 2:45am. The resident asked for a meeting with the landlord to discuss further. The landlord’s records show that it viewed the CCTV footage and it noted that the footage did not show any person near the property, and that the only movement noted was from a cat.
The landlord spoke to the resident and asked her to check if she had sent in the correct footage; the resident said that it was the correct footage and she maintained that it showed a ‘fleeting’ glimpse of someone. The landlord explained to the resident that, based upon this footage, it could not take any further action. However, it had contacted the Police about the incident and it would await any further information from the Police.
On 14 February 2020 the landlord’s file notes that it had received reports from other tenants that the Police had been called by someone in response to them walking their dogs in the field behind the resident’s property. The landlord agreed to liaise further with the Police.
A meeting was held on 26 February 2020 with the Police and the resident. It was discussed that the Police had spoken with the neighbour whom the resident was complaining about and he said that he did walk his dogs in the field behind the resident’s property, but he did so with the landowner’s permission and he had a gate from his garden to the field. The Police and the landlord were satisfied that no further action was necessary. The neighbour was advised not to shine his torch at the resident’s property when in the field at night.
On 4 March 2020 the landlord’s records suggest that there had been a further argument between the resident and a neighbour and the end result of the Police intervention was that both parties had now agreed to mediation.
However, on 17 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that mediation was no longer possible at this time due to the COVID19 restrictions. The landlord said that it would look into mediation again once everything was back to normal. The resident accepted this.
On 1 May 2020 the resident reported that a neighbour had verbally abused her from his car and she said she had reported it to the Police. She did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour without first liaising with the Police. The landlord called the Police to find out if it had any more information on this incident. The Police said it had simply logged the incident and it was not taking any further action at this time and it had made the resident aware of this.
On 4 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and said that it had spoken to the Police and they had advised no further action was being taken at this time. The landlord assumed that this was possibly due to the COVID19 restrictions. However, it was agreed that once the COVID19 restrictions had been lifted it would pick this up again. It also asked the resident if she would still like the landlord to speak to the neighbour regarding this matter. The resident responded and said that the neighbours had a ‘campaign’ against her but she was willing to wait until after COVID19 restrictions are lifted to discuss further.
On 2 June 2020 the Police wrote to the landlord following a meeting with the resident. They said that they had made it clear to the resident and the neighbours that the complaints brought to them were about ‘very minor acts of anti-social behaviour’ and that they could not take any action due to a lack of independent evidence. They had investigated various issues that had been raised by the tenants but ‘had achieved very little’ and they wanted to draw a line under it.
The subsequent emails exchanges show that both the Police and the landlord had spoken with the resident numerous times and they felt that the ASB reports were ‘a classic case of neighbour disputes’ with allegations and counter allegations being made by the resident and the neighbours.
The landlord’s records show that it tried to contact the resident by phone on two separate occasions to discuss the matter, but it was not able to get a hold of the resident. The case was then closed as no further action was deemed necessary.
On 22 June 2020 the resident reported that a few days prior the neighbour had forcefully cut down some plants/vegetation along the shared fence. The resident said that he may have damaged the fence and that he also swore at her. She said she was frightened by his behaviour.
The landlord acknowledged the report the next day and said it would speak to both parties and, as the resident had reported it to the Police, it would also make further enquiries with them.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the neighbour and they said they were merely cutting back the vegetation/flowers that were overhanging on their side of the shared fence – which they were allowed to do. The internal notes provided by the landlord show that the resident had said that she believed the neighbour was trying to throw himself over the fence and enter her property. However, the landlord was satisfied that this was not the case as its records showed that the neighbour had emailed the officer previously to notify the landlord that he would be cutting back the hedge and he did this so as to pre-empt the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s records show that it asked the resident what else it could do to try and resolve the matter. It was noted that the resident acknowledged that this was a difficult situation due to the history of issues between the neighbours which have resulted in them being unable to deal with a small matter such as this amicably, like normal neighbours would. It was agreed that going forward the neighbour would give the landlord more notice of any such works so as not to surprise or shock the resident and ease her anxiety.
The resident contacted this Service on 24 July 2020 to discuss ongoing ASB issues. She was advised to first complete the landlord’s complaints process. This Service also wrote to the landlord to enquire about the status of any present complaint. The landlord’s records show that it logged a formal complaint about ASB handling at this point.
On 3 August 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident’s daughter to confirm that a formal complaint had been logged. The notes show that the resident’s daughter acknowledged that the present situation may not be totally one sided and that her mother may have aggravated the situation at times.
The landlord’s records show that a complaint investigation plan was agreed and meetings were arranged with various staff members to try and get to grips with the case and review what had been done so far. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 August 2020 saying that it needed more time to investigate the complaint and that it would issue its response by the end of the month.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2020:
1. It acknowledged that the issues had been ongoing for several years and that the last complaint was dealt with in 2018.
2. It recognised that there had been a detrimental impact on the resident’s mental wellbeing, and it apologised and said that it should have reviewed the longstanding nature of her concerns on a more regular basis.
3. It agreed that the Tenancy Enforcement Manager would make contact and set up a meeting to review the case and look at the current issues and make a new action plan.
4. It said that it cannot get involved in any complaints about CCTV cameras and nor could it move the shared path at the front of the property.
5. It acknowledged that the resident felt that her meeting with the Head of Housing Services had caused the situation to escalate and it hoped that the meeting with the Tenancy Enforcement Manager will assist in moving forward with her concerns.
6. It apologised for not getting back to the resident about mediation in a neutral location and said it was now able to organise virtual mediation to ensure all parties remained COVID safe. It was happy to restart mediation if all parties were in agreement with this.
7. It had noted the resident’s wish to move to a different area and it said it would offer assistance with this where possible e.g. it can offer a supporting letter to the prospective housing provider to say a move to be closer to her family would improve her mental wellbeing. It had also offered a direct let to another of its own properties if one were to become available, and she could also consider a mutual exchange.
On 21 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to request that her complaint be escalated. She was unhappy that the landlord was still offering mediation, which she felt was inappropriate given the neighbour’s conduct. She said that the landlord had not carried out a risk assessment and nor had it considered the Community Trigger. Overall, she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns over the last five years.
On 2 October 2020 the resident reported that the neighbours were in the field next to her garden in the early hours of the morning. She said that the neighbour she was friends with had also noticed this and had been alarmed. The landlord contacted this neighbour to corroborate the incident and she said had heard voices and recognised who it was.
The landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator, and he denied the allegations and said that they did sometimes walk their dog in the field but not in the middle of the night. The alleged perpetrator told the landlord that the resident had made similar allegations in the past and that they had reported counter allegations against the resident to the landlord and the Police.
The landlord then contacted the resident and the other reporting neighbour and explained that the alleged perpetrator had denied the allegation, but hopefully now that he had been spoken to about it, it won’t happen again.
On 2 October 2020 the landlord contacted the Police with details of the allegations made against the alleged perpetrator. The Police responded and told the landlord that the resident had made numerous allegations against her neighbours and it considered most of the allegations to be ‘very trivial in nature’ and lacking in any evidence upon which they could act.
The Police said that they had tried to find a solution to the neighbour dispute but it was difficult to get the tenants to engage meaningfully about their actions. The Police suggested to the landlord that a joint meeting should be arranged to discuss a possible strategy going forward.
The landlord spoke to the resident and the landlord’s records show that the resident recognised that such allegations were difficult to prove. The landlord followed up again on 16 October 2020 and noted that there had been no further incidents.
However, on 20 October 2020 the resident reported that there had been further ‘nocturnal visitations’ in the field and she had heard noises at 3am and at 5am she woke up to hear a dog barking and the neighbour shouting at it.
The landlord responded on 23 October 2020 and said that it had raised this with the other neighbours and they denied all allegations and there is no independent evidence to substantiate the reports. It had also discussed the allegations with the Police who advised they have not received any recent reports and it reminded the resident that she needed to contact the Police if she had any concerns with regards to any prowlers near her property. It also reiterated that the offer of mediation was still available.
On 27 October 2020 the resident reported that a neighbour was using the shared path at the front of the properties to visit another neighbour. The resident wanted the landlord to restrict this neighbour’s use of the shared path. The landlord asked if the neighbour had acted inappropriately in any way whilst she was on the path, and the resident said that she had not, but even so, she did not want her there.
The landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response on 30 October 2020:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding.
2. Mediation offer – It had reviewed the contact from the Police and it was satisfied that no enforcement action was necessary against any of the households concerned. Therefore, the offer of mediation remained the most appropriate means of achieving a peaceful neighbourhood going forward.
3. It said that it had offered to carry out a Risk Assessment but the resident had declined this, and it did not consider that the Community Trigger was applicable in this situation.
4. It reiterated its offer of support to help the resident move into another one of its properties or to a new area.
5. As for the shared path, it said it would reinvestigate what options were available to provide separate paths to each property.
6. This was the landlord’s final complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the ASB reports

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably. Our role is to consider and assess the landlord’s response to the ASB report(s) it received and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its policies and its obligations.
It is acknowledged that the resident has said that the alleged ASB has caused her distress. She has said that the level of her distress has been exacerbated not only by the alleged ASB incidents themselves, but also by, what she feels is a lack of support from the landlord. The resident has said that as a result of the landlord’s inaction she has not been able to have her family visit her due to what she believes to be an unsafe environment.
Both the landlord and the resident have provided documentation to enable the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint. These include copy correspondence; the landlord’s records; and the landlord’s policies and procedures. It is noted that the resident has raised several issues about the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports, and whilst the Ombudsman will not be addressing each and every specific issue, it has carefully considered all the available evidence and it will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling.
The resident’s reports must be viewed in the context of a history of allegations and counter-allegations of ASB between the resident and her neighbours. It is clear from the resident’s correspondence that her relationship with her neighbours had become very strained. The landlord is required to ensure that it is fair to both parties and that it takes all allegations of ASB seriously, while bearing in mind the history of the case and both parties’ circumstances and actions.
In this particular case the evidence shows that the landlord responded in an appropriate manner to the various reports made by the resident and it took steps to investigate these reports in line with its ASB policy and procedure. It can be seen from the evidence that the landlord dealt with the reports in a timely manner and liaised, as required, with all parties involved, including the Police.
The available evidence shows that while there were numerous reports made by the resident to the landlord and the Police about the neighbours’ behaviour, the majority of these allegations did not amount to ASB. The reported incidents were considered by the landlord, and the Police, to be matters related to a neighbour dispute. As such, the landlord was reasonable in saying that it did not have sufficient evidence of any ASB that would warrant any tenancy enforcement action. This is also supported by the evidence from the Police, which too confirms that, in its view, the matters being complained about would not warrant any formal action against any of the tenants.
The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s inaction and has said that she does not feel supported by the landlord. While this is noted, the evidence from the Police shows that the landlord has been working with them closely for a number of years on this case and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident’s reports were not taken seriously or investigated properly.
The resident’s dissatisfaction is noted, however, the landlord is not being unreasonable when it says that it cannot pursue formal action against the neighbours unless it has sufficient evidence to do so. In its investigation of the various reports, and in its discussions with the resident herself, it has not been disputed by the resident that there is a lack of independent evidence and that in such situations it is often difficult for the landlord to take any action. This is even more so when there are counter-allegations made against the resident which it also needs to take into account. As such, overall the landlord has acted appropriately in its handling of this matter.
Looking at the facts of this case, and the available evidence, the landlord acted appropriately by offering mediation. The issues being complained about were deemed to be (both by the landlord and the Police) a neighbour dispute and a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and her neighbours. A useful tool to help try and mend that relationship is mediation, and whilst the resident has said that she does not think this is appropriate, the Ombudsman considers that this is a step in the right direction.
However, it is noted that when the offer of mediation was raised in March 2020, this was delayed due to the COVID 19 restrictions that were in place at the time. The landlord has acknowledged, and apologised, for not being able to restart the mediation again once the restrictions had been eased. The Ombudsman considers the delay to have been unavoidable and it also notes that the resident was happy to wait until the restrictions had been eased before considering mediation again.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it handles complaints and the timeframes for its responses. Looking at the available evidence, this suggests that the landlord did not progress the complaint efficiently or in line with its complaints policy.
The complaint was formally logged by the landlord on 24 July 2020 after the involvement of this Service. The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2020, which is six weeks after the complaint was logged. It is acknowledged that the landlord needed further time to investigate the complaint, and it acted appropriately by updating the resident accordingly. However, there is no evidence to show why it took six weeks to issue the response, and in the absence of such evidence, the Ombudsman considers this to be a service failure.
The complaint was escalated on 21 September 2020 and the landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response on 30 October 2020, which is almost six weeks later.
The landlord has acted appropriately by recognising its delay and it has apologised for this delay. However, it has failed to consider if compensation is warranted given that the delay was around six weeks. Whilst the complaints policy in force at the time did not specify a timeframe for the response, the Ombudsman considers that six weeks is unreasonable. It is also noted that the complaints policy was updated very shortly after this complaint had been logged and the new policy sets a timeframe of 20 working days. Overall, the landlord’s apology was not proportionate redress to the service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

With regards to the ASB reports, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord duly acknowledged the resident’s concerns and it has demonstrated that it responded appropriately to the various reports and it acted in a reasonable manner and in line with its ASB policy and procedure. Looking at the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s overall handling of the ASB reports, was proportionate and appropriate.
With regards to the complaint handling, the landlord failed to act appropriately and in line with its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord failed to escalate the complaint in line with its complaint procedure and unnecessarily delayed the completion of its internal complaint process.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £50 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure identified with its handling of the complaint.
Evidence of the payment of compensation to be provided to this Service within four weeks.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not already done so, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident and (subject to all parties being in agreement) arranges the mediation that was previously offered.