Black Country Housing Group Limited (202111364)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111364

Black Country Housing Group Limited

25 May 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

The landlord’s handling of reports of:

A pest infestation at the neighbour’s property.
Antisocial behaviour from the neighbour.
The related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a two bedroom house. The tenancy was assigned to the resident on 8 July 2013. The property is one of seven on the resident’s close (the estate).
The resident’s tenancy ended when the landlord re-housed her on 24 October 2022.
The resident’s adult daughter is disabled. The landlord’s records note that she has “learning disabilities” and that the resident is her full-time carer.
The resident’s contact with the landlord during the timeframe reviewed was often made through third parties including advocates, councillors and MPs as such reference to contact from ‘the resident’ in this report may include those acting on her behalf.
The neighbour who is the subject of the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) complaint is referred to as “the perpetrator” throughout this report. The parties’ communications refer to historical ASB complaints raised by various neighbours from the resident’s estate against the perpetrator. However, as this Service has not been provided with evidence of these, this review will focus on events from 24 July 2020 when the resident raised concerns about ASB, which is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s formal complaint raised with the landlord in May 2021.

Summary of events

The landlord’s internal records note that on 24 July 2020, the resident advised she was concerned about rats in the neighbouring garden. She stated that the perpetrator was feeding birds in the garden and that there was rubbish in the garden that was attracting rats. Further, she stated that lighting in the perpetrator’s back garden was very powerful and affecting hers and her daughter’s sleep. She also raised a concern about CCTV. The landlord opened an ASB case on the same date and took the following action:
1. Called and texted the perpetrator and asked him to stop feeding birds in their garden and to remove the rubbish. Its records refer to a previous visit made on 19 July 2020 when it took photos of rubbish in the garden which consisted of piles of cooking oil cans, broken garden chairs and rubble.
2. Called Environmental Health (EH) about the rat issue who advised they were not carrying out visits at that time due to the pandemic but based on photos provided by the landlord of the perpetrator’s garden, they did not believe the rubbish would encourage rats as they were hard materials.
3. Advised the resident during a recent visit, the CCTV was checked and was not found to be filming her front door. It provided details of the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) in regard to her complains about CCTV.
On 21 August 2021, the landlord contacted the Council’s Adult Social Care (ASC) after receiving reports from the resident that her daughter was suicidal due to the noise and ASB from the neighbour. ASC confirmed there was an active case, they were already providing support the resident and her daughter and that they had called the resident and spoken to her about the suicidal comments.
Its records show the landlord was in communication with EH in August 2020 regarding an appointment to bait the perpetrator’s garden on 2 September 2020.
On 7 September 2020, the resident complained about residents parking cars in the visitor’s parking bay in the estate’s car park.
The landlord was in contact with EH who visited the estate on 10 September 2020, but was unable to bait the perpetrator’s garden as he had gone abroad. On 25 September 2020, EH advised the landlord that they did not believe that the type of rubbish in the garden would encourage vermin, however, as a precaution, they put down bait for the rats in the resident’s garden.
On 22 October 2020, the resident reported that the perpetrator had turned his CCTV towards her property and asked why he had not cleared his garden. The landlord’s notes of the call suggest it told the resident it would terminate the call after interactions between them became difficult. Its record referred to the resident shouting and then terminating the call.
The landlord contacted EH on 13 October 2020 and 13 November 2020, regarding visiting the perpetrator to investigate the rat and light issues reported, however EH advised it had not yet been able to visit.
On 8 December 2020, the landlord carried out a “wellbeing” visit to the resident.
On 7 January 2021, EH advised the landlord that they had visited the neighbouring property and seen the lights in question. They provided advice to the perpetrator about how the lights could be adjusted or shaded to reduce glare and he agreed to adjust them. It said that no statutory nuisance had been found in relation to the lighting in the perpetrator’s garden.
In January 2021, the landlord engaged a contractor to attend the perpetrator’s property to remove rubbish from the garden as a precaution, however, access was refused by the perpetrator on at least two occasions in January 2021.
The landlord’s internal record dated 12 March 2021 referred to preparing to serve an injunction against the perpetrator due to ASB. They also indicated the landlord had received a complaint about the lights from another resident and that EH had agreed to visit the perpetrator again to adjust the angle.
On 12 March 2021, the landlord sent out letters to all residents about “misuse” of the visitor’s parking bay on the estate.
The landlord attended a multi-agency meeting on 26 March 2021, at the request of ASC and the resident’s concerns about rats in neighbouring garden, lighting, parking and CCTV were discussed as well as a report made by the resident about being stalked. The actions raised for the landlord following this meeting were to:
1. Add extra security to the property (change door lock and look at installed window locks) and.
2. Follow up on rubbish removal.
The landlord contacted EH on 26 March 2021, asking for an update on the outcomes of its investigations into rats at the neighbour’s property and asked if they were intending to take any further action in relation to the lighting.
The landlord visited the estate on 1 April 2021 after receiving a report from the resident’s social worker (SW) that the perpetrator had installed new lights and CCTV cameras. The landlord notes confirm additional lights and CCTV had been installed and when challenged by the landlord during a phone call, the perpetrator advised it was up to him how many cameras he had. The landlord’s records refer to it contacting the ICO for advice.
On 11 April 2021, EH carried out a further inspection and reiterated there was no causal link between rubbish items in neighbour’s garden and rats.
The injunction hearing took place on 30 April 2021. The terms of injunction required, amongst other things, that the perpetrator:
1. “Should return the garden to a clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish, within 4 weeks”.
2. “Is forbidden…from engaging in conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person living in or visiting” the resident’s estate.
3. “Parking or leaving any vehicle in a manner that blocks access to or exit from any other property…or from parking in any parking space that is let to, any other resident in the estate”.
4. “Making any noise, however made, so loudly as to her heard outside of his property” and “playing…any car stereo so loudly as to be heard outside of the vehicle anywhere in the estate”.
On 22 April 2021, the landlord provided the following update to the resident:

Rats in neighbours’ garden. EH had inspected and did not consider the perpetrator’s garden being a causal link and no intervention was required although it had put down bait for the rats as a precautionary measure.
Lighting. EH had advised there was no statutory nuisance due to the positioning of the light.
Parking. A letter had been sent to all residents regarding the use of the visitor’s parking bay and reminding them of their responsibilities on parking matters. It said that ‘a last resort’ was the removal of the visitor’s bay, which would depend on whether complaints continued.
CCTV. The police had previously checked the perpetrator’s CCTV and they had no concerns. The landlord said if, however, the resident felt that the angle of the CCTV was inappropriate, she should re-contact the police. In addition, it advised that it had contacted the ICO, and they advised that there was no action they would be taking.
Added security. It had changed the locks to her property and installed window restrictors as recommended, due to a separate matter she raised with her SW concerning a stalker.

The landlord served a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP) on the perpetrator in April 2021 for rent arrears and ASB.
On 27 April 2021, the resident’s SW advised the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. It provided them with an update on the injunction application and emphasised the need for the resident to complete diary sheets to prove the lights and CCTV amounted to a nuisance.
On 11 May 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint however addressed it to the council’s ‘complaint department’. She felt that she was not being taken seriously by the landlord and other agencies and that the system was “failing” her. She stated that her ongoing concerns regarding:

Her garden was not a safe haven for her daughter as rats were there due to the rubbish in the neighbouring garden and her neighbour still putting food out.
Parking, both neighbours permanently park in the visiting bay and her visitors were unable to deliver food as they cannot park close enough to drop it off.
CCTV, the wires were “open and running up the front of the house”. This had not been done professionally and “had green tape all over them”. Also, there was lighting in the parking bays that was unacceptable.
Her daughter was constantly wetting herself, crying and hysterical, this was not normal behaviour for her.
A lot of different departments have been trying to deal with these issues, but nothing was being resolved.

The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 18 May 2021, addressed to its CEO. Within her complaint she reiterated her concerns about seeing rats in the neighbouring property and the impact this was having on her daughter. She stated that the neighbour had refused the landlord access to remove the rubbish.
The resident stated the perpetrator had now installed three cameras at the front of the house and there were several solar lights at the rear, front and in the parking bay, all of which was intimidating and upset her daughter. To date she had not received a response to her 11 May 2021 letter.
On 21 May 2021, the landlord visited the resident’s estate to investigate the complaint issues raised in her 11 and 18 May 2021 communications which it had logged as a formal complaint. It advised that it had visited the property as part of their investigation into the issues raised. Whilst it was still in the process of undertaking a full investigation, it could offer the following initial response:
1. Rats – it had recently obtained a legal injunction against the neighbour. This required him to remove and clean anything that was likely to attract rats and stop feeding animals. It is expected that this would be done by 28 May 2021 and the consequence of not complying was a fine or imprisonment.
2. Parking – The same injunction also made clear that his parking habits must not cause any nuisance or annoyance and comply with code expected from all tenants. During it visit that day, it had witnessed the use of the visitor bay for parking. A warning letter from its solicitor was being sent to the neighbour regarding this issue. It intended to carry out a consultation with resident’s regarding ongoing problems with the visitor bay was ongoing.
The landlord stated that it needed more time to consider and investigate the CCTV and light issues. It noted her advice about the impact this was having on her daughter. It assured her it was taking her complaint seriously and it aimed to get back to her about the two outstanding issues by 31 May 2021.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord sent out letters to residents about parking on the estate.
On 28 May 2021, the resident thanked the landlord for replying to her concerns and outlined her views on the parking options referred to by the landlord in its 21 May 2021 response.
On 8 June 2021, the council ASB team contacted the landlord regarding ASB by the perpetrator and it replied that it was in the process of collating evidence of ASB to forward to its solicitors with the intention of returning to court as it believed he had breached the injunction. The landlord asked the council to assist it with carrying out a parking consultation with residents at the estate to which they agreed.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord contacted the perpetrator to advise it would be carrying out an inspection of the garden on 15 June 2021 and reminding him that the court injunction required him to remove the rubbish within four weeks of the order. Its record of the visit on 15 June 2021 stated that the rubbish had been cleared. The landlord’s record also indicates it inspected the lights and spoke to him about removing lights in “the parking bay and tarmac”. It followed up its request in writing. Its notes refer to calling the resident to discuss “ongoing issues”.
On 17 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident detailing the actions it had taken to address the rat sightings, sensor lights and CCTV.
On 30 June 2021, the resident agreed with the landlord’s request to take part in ‘restorative justice’, a police initiative which the landlord hoped would improve relations between them. Its notes indicate that after making a referral, the resident changed her mind.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her advocate. On 22 July 2021, the landlord confirmed in writing the actions it was taking including a request to the perpetrator to remove two smaller lights and additional CCTV cameras that he had fitted. It said appropriate action would be taken if he failed to follow this instruction. The landlord advised it had passed evidence of the perpetrator parking in the visitor’s bay to its solicitor as it believed this illustrated a breach of the injunction.
On 5 August 2021, the landlord advised the resident to complete diary of ASB incidents to help build the case against the perpetrator.
On 13 September 2021, the resident asked for an update in relation to the ASB she had been experiencing. She advised the lights and CCTV had not been removed and parking remained an issue.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord replied, advising removal of lights and CCTV were not included in the injunction as it did not have sufficient evidence on how this was causing a nuisance at that time. It advised however that it had since asked her and other residents to complete diary sheets to record the time and impact this was having although none had been provided by the resident.
On 16 September 2021, the landlord visited the perpetrator and on 23 September 2021, it attended a multi agency meeting to discuss the resident’s ongoing concerns about the perpetrator.
On the same date it advised the resident’s advocate of the outcome of the meeting. It referred to advice from the police and ICO that all residents had a right to install CCTV as long as they don’t capture images beyond their property. The landlord advised that when it last visited the property, this was not the case therefore it was agreed no further action would be taken.
On 29 September 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman advising that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaints about a pest infestation and ASB, particularly noise nuisance.
On 1 October 2021, ASC contacted the landlord advising that the resident had told them the ASB was getting worse causing high levels of ongoing anxiety, deprivation of sleep and severe impact on their emotional and psychological well-being.
On 3 October 2021, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord asking it to consider the resident’s complaints under its complaints process.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident regarding her concerns however, she advised that she no longer wished to communicate with it.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord contacted EH advising of the resident’s continued reports of a rat infestation asking if they had received any further reports from her about this issue. EH replied on the same day confirming they had not and reiterating the reasons for closing the case regarding rats on 10 June 2021.
On 15 October 2021, EH told the landlord that there was an open case regarding the lights, but the resident was not the complainant. However, this was being investigated.
On 24 November 2021, the Ombudsman reiterated the request for the landlord to provide a formal response to the concerns raised by the resident.
On 29 November 2021, the landlord provided a stage two response to the resident’s complaint raised regarding its response to pest infestation and ASB, particularly noise nuisance.
The landlord reiterated it was keen to work with her to re-build trust and referred to the option of the restorative justice initiative which it felt could help achieve this. It asked the resident to let it know if she wanted to take this further.
It summarised the contact it had with her advocate since 13 September 2021 when they contacted it asking for an update in relation to the ASB.
Regarding the pest infestation, it reiterated the outcome of the investigation by EH and detailed actions taken as a precaution. It advised since they closed the case on 10 June 2021, no further reports from her regarding this issue had been received.
Due to reports of noise nuisance and other ASB, legal action was instigated on 30 April 2021, which was currently being pursued through its solicitors and the county court. The landlord stated it relied on robust evidence from resident’s including diary sheets, photos, and recordings. To date it had not received the evidence it required from her directly and had relied on her neighbours for this. It said it had listened to her issues and whilst it acknowledged her view that further action should be taken, it had been working to resolve issues and it had taken appropriate actions with the involvement of agencies including court action.
Within its response, the landlord confirmed that it had received her transfer application form on 29 November 2021, and it had accepted her onto its waiting list for a two-bedroom house in the area.

Post final response.

On 10 February 2022, the landlord made a referral to ASC due to risk ASB was affecting the resident’s mental health and wellbeing.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage three of its complaints process on 22 February 2022.
On 4 March 2022, the landlord provided an update to the council’s ASB team advising it was applying to court for a breach of the injunction and also submitted an application to court for ASB and non payment of rent.
On 11 March 2022, it advised the resident that a hearing would take place on 17 March 2022.
The landlord offered two-bedroom properties to the resident on 2 and 16 March 2022 however these were not accepted by the resident due to the location.
Following the stage three complaint hearing, on 14 April 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the decision made by the independent panel was for it to take the following action:

It should again refer her to safeguarding. This would be made to the council’s ASC that week.
It should speak to the council’s housing team to discuss an agreement to offer her a 2-bed house on the street she had requested. It confirmed the council had agreed a reciprocal arrangement and a property on the street requested would be offered when the development was completed in June 2022.

On 14 April 2022, the landlord made a safeguarding referral to ASC and offered the resident new two bedroom property that she accepted.
On 24 June 2022, the resident advised us that the landlord offered her £1,500 in compensation including £1,200 towards removals and fittings and £100 for delay in the stage three panel meeting. The resident advised that she refused offer. The landlord increased its offer to £1,750 on 27 June 2022, which was declined by the resident on the same day.
In response to our evidence request, on July 2022, the landlord advised that the injunction against the perpetrator had been extended to October 2022 and the hearing had been set for later that month regarding breaches of the injunction. It also said the resident had not provided it with any evidence to support its legal application despite its requests.

Tenancy Agreement and the landlord’s policies

Whilst the landlord offers different types of tenancies, it is usual to include expectations around ASB in the tenancy agreement. This is reflected in the resident’s tenancy which states behaviour that causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance will not be tolerated. This includes excessive noise that can be heard outside of the property.
The landlord’s ASB policy (up to March 2021) states it will take a balanced approach in tacking ASB focusing on four strategies: preventive measures, self-help, intervention and enforcement. The policy states under ‘preventative’, it will develop strong links with partner agencies so that residents have a wide range of support available to them. Under ‘self-help’, residents are required to work with it to resolve issues, for example by providing evidence of ASB, giving witness statements, attending court hearings etc.
Further, under ‘intervention’, the landlord’s policy state it will respond early by way of verbal and written warnings and adhere to multi agency working. Under enforcement, the landlord will work in partnership with other agencies and where appropriate and proportionate it will take legal/ enforcement actions including obtaining civil injunctions. Eviction remains a last resort and can only be used in the most serious cases.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the neighbour’s property.

The resident’s adult daughter has learning disabilities and the resident is her full-time carer. It is acknowledged that the rat sightings had caused significant distress to the resident and her daughter as it affected her daughter’s use of the garden which she had previously considered a ‘safe space’. However, overall, this review found that the landlord treated the resident’s reports of rat sightings in the garden sufficiently seriously and took reasonable and proportionate action in response to the issue raised.
After receiving initial reports from the resident in July 2020 of rat sightings whilst in her garden that she believed were coming from the neighbour’s garden, the landlord inspected the neighbouring garden and took photos of rubbish that the resident suspected was attracting the rats. It also and asked the neighbour to remove the rubbish as soon as possible and to stop feeding birds in case this was also encouraging them. The steps taken by the landlord were reasonable.
The landlord also contacted EH who advised in July 2020 that they were not carrying out visits at that time due to the pandemic. However, following further contact from the landlord and resident, EH confirmed they would send a pest control officer to bait the neighbour’s garden and an appointment was made with the neighbour to do this on 2 September 2020. As EH are able survey an area for pest infestations and assist with getting rid of the same, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact EH regarding their assistance with the issue.
Although the perpetrator then cancelled this appointment, after further contact from the landlord, EH attended the property on 10 September 2020 to put down bait boxes in the resident’s garden. By continuing to contact EH and liaise with them regarding progressing a resolution to this matter, this indicates the landlord was taking the issue seriously.
Despite the landlord having received advice from EH that the rubbish was unlikely to be the cause of rats, due to further sightings reported by the resident, after the perpetrator returned from abroad, in January 2021, the landlord engaged a contractor to remove the rubbish in his garden. As he then refused access to the contractor to remove the rubbish, the landlord took the decision to include in the injunction it was applying to the court for, an order for the perpetrator to remove the rubbish within four weeks. This is further evidence to demonstrate the landlord was proactive in taking action to resolve the resident’s reports.
After the court granted the injunction, in its stage one response, the landlord advised the resident of this and explained this required the perpetrator to remove the rubbish and stop feeding animals by 28 May 2021 and it explained the consequences of him not complying.
On 15 June 2021, the landlord inspected the perpetrator’s garden and noted that the rubbish had been removed. Around the same time EH confirmed it closed the case as at its last inspection, it found no evidence of rats or waste in the neighbour’s garden that it considered to be a problem. By checking the perpetrator had removed the rubbish and also updating the resident of its actions, the landlord acted reasonably.
Following contact about the same issue from the resident in September 2021, the landlord contacted EH again advising of the resident’s further reports however EH confirmed they had not received any further reports from the resident but advised she could raise a new request. In its final response the landlord set out the previous actions taken and said EH had confirmed her case regarding the rat issue had been closed since 10 June 2021. This was reasonable. However, there is no evidence of the landlord relaying EH’s advice for her to raise a new pest control request if the issue was unresolved which would have been appropriate in the circumstances. As there is no evidence of it doing so in its final response or elsewhere, this is a failing by the landlord albeit it is minor.
In summary, it investigated the resident’s reports of rat sightings in the garden by reporting this to EH and inspecting the neighbouring property itself. It also asked the perpetrator to stop feeding birds in his garden to reduce the risk of attracting rats and then took steps itself to remove rubbish. Therefore, the landlord has shown it took the resident’s reports of rat sightings in the garden seriously and thoroughly investigated the report which was reasonable particularly given the resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities and the distress the caused by the reported rat sightings. Ultimately, the landlord took out an injunction against the perpetrator which required him to remove the rubbish, showing a commitment to resolve the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports regarding the neighbour.

The majority of the resident’s ASB reports concerned the perpetrator with the main issues being noise (mainly loud music), outdoor lighting and CCTV. During the timeframe reviewed, the resident also reported issues with parking and a concern about being stalked (by an unknown individual). As such this report includes our findings on the landlord’s handling of these matters also.
Overall, this review found that the landlord took appropriate and decisive action to tackle the ASB by the perpetrator, including obtaining a civil injunction and issuing a NSP to prevent the continuation of ASB, although there were instances of its communication with the resident not being as effective as it could have been and one instance of it not following up on an agreed action.
As mentioned above, the resident’s daughter has vulnerabilities and the resident made the landlord aware that the perpetrator’s actions had led to her daughter threatening suicide, self-harming, screaming and wetting herself. The resident also told the landlord that she herself was experiencing on going anxiety and sleep deprivation. Therefore, the landlord was obliged to take their vulnerabilities into account whilst handling the ASB reports and also ensure the resident and her daughter were receiving appropriate support.
Throughout the period we investigated, the landlord was in regular contact with ASC regarding supporting the resident. When it initially made a referral to them in August 2020 due to reports that the resident’s daughter was having suicidal ideation, ASC advised they were in contact with the resident and that there was an active case and it subsequently carried out a “wellbeing” visit to the resident. The landlord later attended multi-agency meetings arranged by ASC to discuss the resident’s case in March and September 2021, with the landlord following all recommendations raised during the meetings. The landlord made further safeguarding referrals to ASC on 10 February 2022 due to its concerns about the ongoing ASB affecting the resident’s mental health and wellbeing, and again in April 2022 in accordance with the stage three complaint panel’s recommendation.
Therefore, the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure the resident had access to support if needed and it worked throughout with relevant third parties and support agencies to find a resolution to the issues. As such, the landlord met its obligations in this regard. Additionally, when relations with the resident broke down, it showed a willingness to work with her to re-build this via the police’s restorative justice scheme. Whilst this does not appear to have led to improved communications, its action in this regard was reasonable.
In relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports, prior to the resident’s formal complaint in March 2021, it applied to the court for an injunction against the perpetrator in respect of ASB which was granted on 30 April 2021. The landlord took this action partly as a result of the resident’s complaints since July 2020 but also because of historical ASB reports it received from other residents in the estate, concerning his noise, abusive/threatening behaviour and also in relation to him parking inconsiderately despite letters being sent out to all residents informing of them not to park in the visitor’s parking bay.
It is clear that the landlord’s decision to take legal action came about because of the length of time some elements of the perpetrator’s ASB had being ongoing and because of the perceived impact on multiple residents. This approach taken by the landlord was appropriate in the circumstances. The injunction prohibited the perpetrator from, amongst other things, engaging in conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance including noise nuisance as well as parking in a manner that blocks access and from parking in any space that is let to another resident.
In her formal complaint, the resident raised concerns including regarding the misuse of visitor’s bay by both the perpetrator and one other resident. The landlord visited the resident’s estate within a few days to investigate her complaints, including parking. During this visit it saw that the perpetrator had parked his car in the visitor bay. In its stage one response, it acknowledged the perpetrator’s continued use of the visitor’s bay and advised that it would send a warning letter to him in regard to this issue. It also advised that it would be carrying out a consultation on parking on the estate. The landlord’s inspection and subsequent actions raised as a result of issues identified during its visit, were reasonable and indicate it was taking the complaint seriously.
The landlord engaged the council to carry out a consultation on parking with residents in the estate as promised and this was completed by the end of June 2021. This showed two out of four residents favoured an enforcement agency. However, whilst the landlord contacted two parking enforcement agencies to monitor and control the parking at the scheme, this was considered as unfeasible because of the small size of the car park as it only served seven properties. Nonetheless, this step taken demonstrates the landlord was willing to explore different options in order to resolve the parking issue complained about.
Due to the landlord receiving further reports of a) the perpetrator continuing to park in the visitors bay and b) noise nuisance, from June 2021 onwards, the landlord was in communication with its solicitors regarding the perpetrator’s perceived breaches of the injunction with a view to further legal action. In its final response in November 2021, the landlord advised it was in the process of gathering evidence such as dairy sheets, photos, recordings and witness statements to support an application but said it had to rely on evidence provided by her neighbours as despite its requests, these had not been provided by the resident. This is something the landlord reiterated to this Service and the evidence indicates that although the landlord explained to the resident the importance of her providing such evidence to help demonstrate the injunction had been breached, its records confirm it did not receive such from the resident.
Whilst this Service is unable to investigate events after the landlord’s final complaint response, in response to our evidence request in July 2022, it told us that the injunction against the perpetrator had been extended to October 2022 and the hearing had been set for later that month regarding breaches of the injunction. Overall, this Service found that the actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaints about anti-social noise and parking, were appropriate, including its decision to pursue further legal action when it deemed his continued ASB amounted to a breach of the injunction, despite a lack of evidence supplied by resident to support this.
In regard to the complaint about excessive lighting in the perpetrator’s back garden and behind his parking bay, in the first instance the landlord contacted EH to assess if the lighting was a statutory nuisance. This was in line with its ASB policy which advocates a multi-agency approach. However, after EH confirmed that the lighting did not constitute a statutory nuisance, as the resident continued to raise concerns about the lights and the impact of this on her and her daughter, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to consider other solutions to this issue in order to minimise the impact of this. The landlord continued to work with EH and following further inspections, the perpetrator was asked to adjust the angle of the light fitting, so it was pointing downwards, and he was also advised how to shade the lights. The evidence indicates that the perpetrator adhered to these requests, however, when the resident reported that the perpetrator had installed additional lights, the landlord provided an assurance to the resident on 22 July 2021 that he had been asked to remove the two of the smaller lights and this would be checked at the next inspection however, there is no evidence of the landlord following up on this.
When resident complained in September 2021, that the lights had not been removed, in its response the landlord only referred to the need for the resident to keep diary sheets of the times and impact of the lighting. It did not clearly explain if it had followed up on its previous request for him to remove lights what further action it intended to take, if any. As such the landlord’s communication regarding this issue to the resident at this stage was insufficient and indicates a failing.
In regard to her complaint about the perpetrator’s excessive amount of CCTV, the landlord was in communication with various agencies including the council’s EH and ASB team, the police as well as the ICO to establish what action, if any, it could take regarding this issue. The police and the landlord visited the estate and whilst no evidence of the CCTV capturing images beyond the boundary of his property was found, it made the perpetrator aware of his duty not to point his cameras at other properties. By engaging with other agencies and informing the perpetrator of the law around this issue, it acted appropriately and in line with its ASB policy.
However, after reports from the resident that he had installed additional cameras, the landlord told the resident on 22 July 2021 that it asked him to remove the extra cameras and it will monitor this. There is no evidence of it following up on this or providing any update to the resident until after she contacted the landlord on 13 September 2021, at which point it inspected the CCTV again. After discussing this issue at the multi-agency meeting on 17 September 2021, it advised the resident that it would not be able to take any further action in regard to CCTV as during its last visit it found the perpetrator’s CCTV was not capturing images beyond his property. As there is no evidence to show the perpetrator had removed additional CCTV as per its previous request. Its advice provided on this occasion contradicts what it previously told the resident it would do. This would have caused the resident confusion and distress.
Whilst unrelated to her ASB complaint, on 13 April 2021, the landlord changed the resident’s front door lock and installed window restrictors to improve security at her property in accordance with request from ASC raised at the 26 March 2021 multi-agency meeting due to concern she raised with the police in regards to a suspicious parcel she received from a suspected stalker. As the landlord raised and completed the work within a reasonable timeframe, it acted appropriately in this regard.
It is noted that in accordance with the stage three independent panel’s recommendation, the landlord offered to move the resident to a two-bedroom property at the location she requested. The resident has since moved into the new property.
Whilst after the complaints process, the landlord also offered the resident £1,750 in compensation primarily to help her with moving costs, as this review finds no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s ASB, its offer has not been assessed as redress in respect of the complaint reviewed however an appropriate recommendation has been included below.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a three stage complaints process which requires the landlord to resolve stage one and stage two complaints within 10 working days. Its complaints policy states that at the third stage, a designated body, usually the Tenant Scrutiny Panel reviews the landlord’s decision at stage two.
In its first complaint response dated 18 May 2021, it did not respond to all of the resident’s concerns raised but advised it would provide a further response addressing the remaining concerns before 31 May 2021. This response did not make clear this was a stage one complaint response. Whilst the landlord sent further response to the resident on 17 June 2021, addressing most of remaining points, again this response did not make clear it was a stage one response and no details were provided in regard to escalating her complaint to stage two of its process. (Did not update of recent visit, include above)
Therefore, it did not provide the full complaint response within the timescale stated in its policy at stage one. Its failure to label this or include its escalation details is further evidence of poor complaint handling by the landlord.
On 3 October 2021, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaints under its complaints process. It provided a stage two response on 29 November 2021 as such this was not provided within the timescale stated in its complaints process. Furthermore, this response did not address all the different elements of ASB. The Ombudsman’s Code requires that landlords address all points raised in the complaint.
The landlord logged the stage three complaint on 22 February 2022, and the panel hearing took place on 17 March 2022. As the landlord only advised the resident of the outcome of this on 14 April 2022, this indicates an unreasonable delay. It is acknowledged that the landlord subsequently offered the resident £100 (included in the £1,750 mentioned above) in recognition of the delay at stage three of its complaints process. Nonetheless, due to the number of complaint handling failures identified in this report, this amount is not sufficient to put right its complaint handling failings.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes clear that two stage landlord complaint procedures are ideal so as to ensure that the complaints process is not unduly long. In this case, this service is mindful that the resident’s escalation of her complaint to stage three prolonged the process by approximately four months, meaning the overall the complaints process was unduly lengthy. Therefore, a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to review whether this additional optional stage is needed or beneficial to the resident given that it extends the duration of the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the neighbour’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord thoroughly investigated the resident’s reports of rats in the neighbouring garden and took decisive action to eradicate any risk of rats being attracted to the neighbour’s garden.
Whilst there were some minor communication failings at times, overall, the landlord’s actions taken to address the resident’s ASB reports were reasonable and proportionate, and it took her household needs into account and provided appropriate support.
There were delays by the landlord in providing its complaints responses and it did not make clear under what stage these were being provided. They also did not fully address all the resident’s concerns.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. pays the resident an additional £200 in compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures (£300 in total).
2. Show compliance with this order within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. pays the resident the compensation offered of £1,650 post final response, in relation to moving costs (£1,750 minus the £100 offered for complaint handling), if it has not already done so.
2. reviews whether the additional optional stage in its complaints process is needed or beneficial to the resident given that it extends the duration of the complaints process.