Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Mansfield District Council (202225350)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225350

Mansfield District Council

1 October 2023


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since November 2017. The property is a semi-detached house.
  2. The resident first reported ASB by their neighbour in May 2021. Initial reports related to a dispute between the resident and neighbour about the location of domestic waste and recycling bins. The landlord responded by meeting with the resident and neighbour in May 2021. The landlord looked at different options to resolve the dispute about the bins.
  3. In June 2021, the landlord sent a warning letter to both parties reminding them of the conditions in their tenancy agreement and advising them that their tenancy could be at risk. The resident objected to receiving the letter. At the end of July 2021, the resident reported further incidents of ASB. The landlord offered mediation in August 2021. This was rejected by the resident.
  4. Between August 2021 and March 2022, the landlord engaged with the resident, neighbour, and police over further reports of ASB. It continued to look for a solution to the dispute over the location of the waste and recycling bins. Following an increase in reports of ASB and counter allegations by the neighbour, the police issued a community protection warning to both parties in April 2022.
  5. In December 2022, the resident and neighbour reported further ASB incidents. On 8 December 2022, the landlord told the resident that it considered the incidents to be low level. It reoffered mediation. The landlord said that if mediation was not considered, it would no longer be involved in the case.
  6. On 8 December 2022, the resident complained that the landlord had done nothing over the previous 2 years to resolve the problem. In its stage 1 response on 15 December 2022, the landlord repeated that the incidents were low level, and said it had addressed the issues with the neighbour. It offered mediation and said it had exhausted all options.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. In its final response on 18 January 2023, the landlord set out the actions it had taken to resolve the dispute over the bins and gave details of how it had responded to the resident’s reports of ASB. It apologised for an instance when the resident was not updated about an incident. The landlord reoffered mediation.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this service. She said the incidents were not low level and the landlord had not done everything it could to resolve the ASB. She said it had not responded in line with the timescales in its ASB policy. She wanted a formal apology, an explanation of why the neighbour had moved from an introductory to secure tenancy while ASB was being reported, an offer to be rehomed, and compensation for the loss of earnings and emotional toll the ASB had on her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In raising a complaint with this service, the resident has asked for an explanation of why her neighbour’s tenancy moved from an introductory to a secure tenancy while reports of ASB were being reported. In investigating the resident’s complaint, this service can only consider how the landlord dealt with the resident and whether it followed its ASB policy. This service will not investigate decisions the landlord made about the tenancy of another resident.
  2. The resident has said that she wants to be rehoused. This did not form part of the complaint she raised with the landlord. Because of this, this service will not investigate. The resident should make a request to the landlord if she wants to move property. In addition, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, this service cannot consider complaints about the assessment of housing priority needs (which usually fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman). Therefore, this complaint is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In general, this service does not order compensation to reimburse a resident for loss of earnings. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation for failure to follow its policy.

The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour reports

  1. It is not this service’s role to decide whether ASB took place. It is this service’s role to determine whether the landlord followed its policy and acted reasonably in the circumstances. For example, when the report was received, did the landlord carry out a risk assessment looking at any vulnerabilities, did it offer support, and did it liaise with other agencies?
  2. To investigate the resident’s complaint, this service requested a copy of the landlord’s ASB policy. This service has noted that the document provided by the landlord says that the policy will be reviewed in September 2020. This policy was out of date when the resident reported the first incident of ASB in May 2021. On 28 June 2021, the resident asked the landlord to provide her with a copy of its ASB policy. The landlord responded on 1 July 2021, signposting the resident to its website. This service has searched for the ASB policy on the landlord’s website. The version available to the public is dated January 2011 and was due for review in January 2013. This service has found that the failure to publish an up-to-date ASB policy is a service failure by the landlord. This failure is compounded by the landlord providing this service with another version of the ASB policy that is also out of date.
  3. The published version of the landlord’s ASB policy says its aim is to prevent ASB before it starts. It will intervene appropriately where it can and enforce tenancy conditions when required. It says it will take a balanced approach focusing on prevention, intervention, and enforcement.
  4. The policy says it will intervene to address ASB and will work with partners to deliver a range of interventions, including an early robust response and tenancy support. It says where all reasonable steps have been taken, careful consideration will be given to using enforcement powers. This includes warning letters and community protection warnings. It says eviction will be a last resort.
  5. The policy makes it clear that tenancy support officers will initially lead on reports of ASB and will refer complex cases to the ASB team. It says it will investigate all reported incidents and deal with them within its agreed timescales. The published timescales are: category 1, which includes threats and violence, within 24 hours; category 2, which includes intimidation and harassment, within 5 working days; and category 3, which includes verbal abuse, within 10 working days.
  6. The landlord’s policy says it will refer to the categories and use the timescales as a guide. However, it recognises that ASB can occur over time rather than in a single incident and that ASB can disproportionately affect one victim compared with another because of their circumstances. It says its approach, therefore, is to look at the effect of the ASB irrespective of the categorisation. It says this reflects a harm centred approach which includes a risk assessment that enables it to assess the impact of ASB on individuals and households.
  7. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that it logged the reported ASB and responded promptly in May 2021. Case notes show that the landlord’s tenancy management team had regular contact with the resident between May and July 2021. An officer carried out visits to establish what the concerns were. The officer also met with the neighbour to discuss the concerns raised. The landlord looked for solutions to resolve the dispute over the location of the waste and recycling bins and it worked with partners to resolve the issue. It is this service’s view that this was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take at that time.
  8. The resident told this service that she had no contact from the ASB team until July 2021. This service has noted that the initial reports of ASB were dealt with by the landlord’s tenancy management team. It is this service’s view that it is for the landlord to determine how it uses its staff resources to deal with reports of ASB. In July 2021, the landlord’s ASB team became involved with the reports of ASB. In August 2021, the landlord offered mediation to the resident and neighbour. It is this service’s view that, overall, the landlord’s initial intervention was proportionate and in line with its ASB policy.
  9. Throughout the time the landlord dealt with the reports of ASB, it said that the incidents were low level. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will carry out a risk assessment that enables it to assess the impact of ASB on individuals and households. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment following the initial report of ASB or during the time it dealt with the case. By not carrying out a risk assessment, the landlord was unable to be clear about the category of risk involved and could not clearly determine the impact on the resident. It is this service’s view that the landlord did not follow this part of its ASB policy, and this was a service failure.
  10. On 16 June 2021, the landlord sent a robustly worded warning letter to the neighbour and resident. This said there was an unjustified amount of time being spent by the landlord and police on the issue. The landlord reminded the resident and neighbour of their tenancy conditions. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this. However, the landlord’s language became heavy–handed when it said it would not restrict any legal action it takes for possession of the property because of the ASB. It said it would closely monitor the situation and it hoped it would not be required to take possession proceedings. As the landlord had said the ASB was low level, and the matter had only been going on for a month, this was a significant escalation by the landlord. This service finds that this escalation and use of heavy-handed language was not justified in the circumstances. This was a service failure.
  11. The landlord’s records show that it continued to take the reasonable position of liaising with the resident, the neighbour, and the police during 2021. It continued to remind the neighbour of their tenancy agreement and responsibilities, and it intervened when specific incidents occurred. Records show that as well as trying to resolve the ASB affecting the resident, the landlord was balancing this with trying to maintain the neighbour’s tenancy. It is this service’s view that this was a reasonable position to take.
  12. The landlord continued to say that the issues were low level and looked for solutions. The primary issue remained the dispute about the bins. To resolve this, the landlord went beyond its obligations and took action to install a fence to resolve the issue of bin storage.
  13. Following further incidents of ASB in early 2022, a community protection warning was issued by the police to the neighbour and resident. Although this was nearly a year after the first report, records show that the landlord had been working with the police, resident, and neighbour over the previous year to address the ASB. After the community protection warning was issued, records provided by the landlord to this service show a period until September 2022 when reports of ASB reduced, indicating that the warning had an effect.
  14. This service has noted that the police were involved at an early stage in this case and that they took responsibility for issuing community protection warnings and community protection notices. Records show that the landlord liaised with them throughout the period when ASB reports were being made.
  15. On 8 December 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and said the ongoing ASB continued to be low level. It said there was nothing it could do to resolve the situation. It reoffered mediation and said if it was not considered, it would no longer be involved. The resident complained about the landlord’s letter. She said the landlord had not supported her and the lack of action had a significant effect on her family’s wellbeing. In its complaint response, the landlord repeated that the ASB was low level. Because of this, it said further enforcement action was inappropriate, and it had exhausted all other options.
  16. The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had repeatedly failed to meet timescales set out in its policy and had done very little to combat incidents of ASB, other than phone calls to the neighbour. The resident said there were no consequences when the ASB continued, and the offer of mediation was inappropriate.
  17. Before the landlord responded, there was an incident, and the police issued a community protection notice to the neighbour on 14 January 2023.
  18. In its final response on 18 January 2023, the landlord set out the actions it had taken, including work to resolve the issue with the bins. It apologised for an instance when it had not provided the resident with an update following an incident. The landlord said there were issues on both sides and reoffered mediation. It said if the police acted over a breach of the community protection notice, it could issue a notice seeking possession against the neighbour.
  19. Taking everything into consideration, this service has found that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances when responding to reports of ASB. It initially followed its ASB policy by discussing concerns with the resident and neighbour. It engaged with the police. There were counter allegations from the neighbour. Because of this the landlord looked to take a balanced approach and maintain the tenancy of the resident and the neighbour. The landlord offered mediation, which the resident declined. It looked for solutions and went beyond its obligations by arranging for a fence to be installed to resolve the dispute over the bins. The landlord worked with the police and took appropriate action against the neighbour, taking into consideration her circumstances and the level of the incidents.
  20. However, the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment. This meant it was unable to be clear about the level of risk involved and could not clearly determine the impact on the resident. It is this service’s view that the landlord did not follow its ASB policy in this regard. This service has also noted that some of the language in its letter to the resident on 15 June 2021, where it warned of potential possession action, was heavy handed. Also, when the resident asked for a copy of the ASB policy, it signposted her to an out-of-date version on its website. It is this service’s view that the failure to carry out a risk assessment, the use of heavy–handed language, and not updating the ASB policy was a service failure by the landlord.
  21. In line with this service’s remedies guidance, service failure is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a minor failure. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £50 for not carrying out a risk assessment, £50 for using heavy-handed language in its communication with the resident, and £50 for signposting her to an out-of-date policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of ASB reports. This is because it failed to carry out a risk assessment, used heavy-handed language in its communication, and failed to publish an up-to-date ASB policy.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £150 in compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £50 in recognition of the failure to carry out a risk assessment.
    2. £50 in recognition of the use of heavy-handed language in its communication.
    3. £50 in recognition of the failure to publish an up-to-date ASB policy.
  2. The landlord is ordered to review its ASB policy and ensure that an up-to-date version is published on its website.
  3. The landlord is ordered to confirm to this service that the above order has been complied with within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider ensuring all relevant staff have refresher training to appropriately apply the ASB policy, especially risk assessments.
  2. The landlord should review the language used in its communications so that it is proportionate and fair in all the circumstances.