Sanctuary Housing Association (202008268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008268

Sanctuary Housing Association

12 May 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 handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy began on 29 June 2020. The landlord has described the property as a first floor flat within a house conversion. There are three properties within the conversion with one flat below and one flat above the resident.
The tenancy agreement advises that the landlord ‘shall not tolerate behaviour which causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance or damage to neighbouring… premises or other people’. It lists an example of this type of behaviour as ‘excessive noise such as loud music which may cause a disturbance’ as well as violence or violent behaviour.
The landlord has a tenant’s handbook that says it will not accept any ASB by residents and will take necessary steps such as ‘working in partnership with other agencies to resolve ASB cases, including environmental health, council ASB units, local councillors, community groups and the police.’
The landlord has an ASB policy that says it will ‘look to modifying behaviour through support, persuasion and legal sanction rather than moving or displacing ASB through eviction or re-housing’. An accompanying ASB procedure requires it to:
1. assess the resident’s circumstances through a vulnerability assessment
2. categorise the ASB as personal, nuisance or environmental
3. interview the victim within five working days, ensuring the Police are involved if the complainant is in danger or the report is of violence
4. provide diary sheets to the complainant at the interview, sending them the agreed actions within three days of the interview and undertaking interviews with the alleged perpetrator and witnesses within 10 working days
5. contact the complainant at least on a weekly basis while the case progresses, reviewing the need for support (through signposting to support agencies and other means)
6. emphasise to the alleged perpetrator the need for compliance with tenancy conditions if there is no evidence of the ASB and consider early intervention methods such as mediation, visits, warning letters, referral of the case to the local authority environmental team and acceptable behaviour contracts; where there is evidence of the ASB, the landlord can warn of potential consequences such as possession action but formal legal action is described as a ‘last resort’
7. where ‘there is a threat of violence or actual violence’, it should give advice on emergency accommodation.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. The first stage is a front-line resolution stage with an aim to respond within 10 working days. The final stage is an investigation stage where it is required to respond within 20 working days of the complaint escalation.
The landlord has compensation guidance that allows for it to award compensation where there have been ‘clear mistakes’ on an issue that is ‘serious enough to warrant compensation’. It awards compensation for unreasonable delays and time, trouble and inconvenience caused with a range of £151-£400 for ‘high impact’ issues and up to £150 for poor complaint handling.
The resident’s complaint concerns a neighbour within the block who is also a tenant of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Summary of Events

The landlord noted that the resident called it on 29 June 2020 to advise that she had been advised by a neighbour at her new property that other neighbours were drug addicts. The landlord’s internal records show that it recorded it had completed the pre-tenancy sign up process on 30 June 2020 and that it attempted to call her to reassure her that the information she had been given about drug addicts was inaccurate but there was no answer.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2020 which she said followed a voicemail she had left. She advised that she had been informed, just after leaving the property following signing the tenancy agreement, by one of the neighbours of ‘very serious ongoing animosity’ between two sets of neighbours. She added that the neighbour had highlighted to her damage to her front door linked to ASB. She asked the landlord if the alleged perpetrator was to be moved or if she could be placed on a priority waiting list for a different property, otherwise she would have to return the keys.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2020. She said she understood there were data protection restrictions but she wanted to know what risk there was to her from the alleged perpetrator of ASB and asked why the previous tenant of her property had moved out.
The landlord replied to the resident on 2 July 2020. It advised that the previous tenant had moved because she wanted more than one bedroom and that ASB had been infrequent (with two or three reports over six months). It added that it would consider photographs it had taken of the front door damage and that the resident had already signed up as a tenant so would need to give written notice if she wished to end the tenancy.
The landlord’s records show the resident called it on 14 July 2020 to report music had been ongoing for 30 minutes – it noted that it had told her it could not log this as an ASB incident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 20 July 2020 to discuss noise issues. It noted that there were emails exchanged so it did not call her back.
An email was sent by a representative of the resident to the landlord on 22 July 2020. The representative advised that the property was unsafe for the resident due to continuous daily ASB from the neighbour which the landlord had failed to deal with – he described ‘intimidation’ in the form of music blasted out for long periods and noted that the resident was ‘not in the best of health’. A further email was sent to the landlord on 23 July 2020 that claimed the landlord had failed in its duty of care by placing the resident in a ‘toxic’ and ‘unsafe’ environment.
The landlord opened an ASB ‘Category 2’ case on 22 July 2020 and recorded that an assessment and discussion with the resident had been undertaken on 23 July 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 July 2020 as a follow up to a telephone call that day. It provided an incident diary for the resident to complete and said its ASB action plan was to:
1. speak to the alleged perpetrator to remind him of his tenancy responsibilities
2. issue a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator regarding noise
3. speak to a manager about potential use of the Noise App
4. log any further noise reports on the ASB case file that had been opened.
The landlord’s ASB case file notes show that it contacted the neighbour on 24 July 2020 to discuss the complaints received. The allegations of noise nuisance were denied but the landlord noted the neighbour was receptive to the landlord’s request that he be considerate of other residents.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 July 2020. She advised of her health having deteriorated due to ‘screaming loud music coming through the ceiling few times a day’, adding that there had been two events that day. She said she did not want to deal with diaries or apps, that the property was unsafe and £1200 would have to be written off for relocation and installation costs. She asked the landlord to accept the email as a formal notice to quit. She completed an online form on 27 July 2020 that set out similar information.
The landlord replied to the resident on 27 July 2020 and asked the resident to put the formal notice to quit in the form of a signed letter as an email could not be accepted for this purpose.
The landlord’s internal records show that it visited the property on 6 August 2020 and found the resident was still living there and she advised that the ASB she had experienced had gone quiet.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2020. It said that it had last spoke to the resident on 6 August 2020 when she informed it that the ASB situation had improved. It asked if this was this was still the case. The resident replied the same day to confirm it had been quiet.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported loud guitar being played into the early hours of the morning on 21 September 2020.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 5 October 2020 when she reported loud TV and music from her neighbour during 2-3 October 2020. It spoke to the resident again on 15 October 2020 and she reported loud music over a 10-minute period that day. The landlord noted that it asked the resident to return the incident diary when it was full and provide noise recordings if possible (it added that it could consider installing recording equipment when lockdown restrictions allowed).
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 28 October 2020 with an audio file attached (the landlord’s ASB case file noted receipt of audio files on 5 November 2020).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 October 2020. She complained that dozens of ASB incidents had been logged since July 2020 and her tenancy was untenable because the neighbour had ignored the landlord. She added that the landlord had not followed its policy by failing to take immediate action when tenancy breaches occurred.
The landlord’s records show that the resident telephoned it on 30 October 2020 to advise she was disappointed that it had decided the noise from the neighbour was general living noise with a second telephone call later that day to report an alleged assault incident for which the Police had been called. It noted the ASB case file that day to show it had contacted the neighbour (the alleged perpetrator of the assault incident) by telephone.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 October 2020 to confirm that her partner had suffered physical injuries due to the alleged assault. The landlord acknowledged the report on 1 November 2020 and asked for more details which the resident provided the same day, including a crime reference number.
The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident on 3 November 2020. It noted that the resident had passed the call to her partner who advised that the Police informed him they would not be taking further action. The call was subsequently terminated by the landlord which it said was due to the way the partner spoke to it.
The landlord made an information request to the Police on 5 November 2020. Information from the Police confirmed there had been an ‘altercation’ between two parties and both had reported minor injuries. It advised that neither party wished to provide a statement so reports made by both had been closed with no further action.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 November 2020 (it later advised that this was its stage one complaint response). It advised that:
1. there had been an incident reported on 30 October 2020 which it had advised the resident’s partner to report to the Police; the Police had advised the partner that no further action would be taken
2. it had raised the noise nuisance issue with the neighbour and asked him to be aware of other residents in the block
3. sound recordings had been passed to the environmental health team who would be in touch with their findings.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 November 2020. She said that the complaint response was insufficient and did not demonstrate the landlord had investigated her concerns. She complained that it did not address the ASB perpetrated by the neighbour, any of the evidence she had provided or why her property had been rented out given the landlord was aware of the ASB problems.
The landlord’s internal records noted on 19 November 2020 that it had listened to recordings and received incident diaries.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 November 2020, listing items as part of what she described as an advance notice of legal action to recover costs. These related to her relocation and moving in costs and amounted to £2099.50.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2020 in reply to a complaint escalation acknowledgement. She advised that her desired outcome from the complaints process was to live in a safe and secure home which she suspected was only possible by a move being secured to a new property albeit she wanted to recover her moving costs from the landlord to be able to afford to move again.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 1 January 2021. It listed ASB reports that the resident had made between 22 July 2020 and 31 October 2020 and how it had handled these, concluding that:
1. there was insufficient evidence of ASB to take enforcement action against the neighbour but it had discussed the alleged behaviour at length
2. there had only been sporadic ASB reports prior to the resident’s tenancy sign up and, given there was no evidence of what had been discussed at sign up, this aspect of the complaint was not upheld
3. the stage one complaint response was late and did not cover all aspects of the complaint for which an apology and £50 compensation were offered
4. it may be able to take informal actions to deal with nuisance if the local authority was unable to prove there had been statutory nuisance
5. it had failed to offer support to the resident in July 2020 for which an apology and £50 compensation were offered
6. it had failed to follow up with the resident on a weekly basis, occasionally failed to acknowledge correspondence and did not put the ASB action plan in writing for which an apology and £50 compensation were offered
7. it offered the resident further compensation of £50 for the time and trouble pursuing her complaint, bringing the total award to £200.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 January 2021 to confirm that it had processed the £200 compensation payment.
The landlord noted that it had attempted to contact the resident on 8 January 2021 but there was no answer so it left a voicemail. It recorded that it had wished to offer the resident feedback following information received from environmental health. The landlord noted that it received texts from the resident’s phone number on 11 January 2021 requesting that it not provide this feedback and that she would have to move to escape the noise.
The feedback from environmental health was subsequently passed to the resident’s MP on 26 January 2021 due to an enquiry from him dated 15 January 2021. This advised that:

‘Environmental Health stated that on one recording you could hear the music and the artist but there was no mention of date or time when the recordings were made. On other recordings you can hear a person walking up and down the stairs of the communal block.’

The resident advised this Service on 9 May 2021 that she is due to move to a new property on 19 May 2021 which she attributed to the ongoing ASB.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

ASB Reports

The evidence seen by this Service indicates that this situation has been distressing for the resident – she has reported feeling unsafe and that the noise has severely impacted her enjoyment of her home. It is acknowledged that this matter will have been a source of distress for the resident, particularly given that she had only recently moved into the property. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
It is not disputed that the resident raised concerns with the landlord about potential neighbour ASB issues from the date the tenancy was signed. The landlord advised her during the first week of the tenancy that the previous tenant vacated due to the property size and that there had been two or three reported incidents over the past six months. It also noted that it had discussed this with the resident verbally. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord was obliged to divulge information about past ASB at the block to the resident prior to her tenancy starting nor that it was aware the property was ‘unsafe’ or dangerous as the resident claimed. The landlord’s approach and advice during the time the resident signed up to the tenancy was therefore appropriate.
The resident began to report new incidents of potential noise nuisance by the neighbour from 20 July 2020. The landlord’s ASB policy required it to make a vulnerability assessment, categorise the incident and interview the resident within five working days. Although, it demonstrated that it categorised the report appropriately and interviewed the resident within three working days, it has not demonstrated that it completed a vulnerability assessment and there is no evidence of what support it considered offering the resident – this was inappropriate.
The landlord was also required to provide diary sheets (at the time of the interview), write to the resident with an action plan (within three days of the interview) and interview the alleged perpetrator (within 10 days of the report). The landlord met all these targets and has recorded that it requested the perpetrator consider the impact of his behaviour on other residents. The resident reported that the situation improved within two weeks of the original report (in early August 2020). The landlord followed up again in mid-September 2020 and the resident reported the improvements had continued – the landlord therefore met its obligation to attempt to modify behaviour through persuasion.
The resident made new noise nuisance reports in late September 2020. She made four reports between 17 September 2020 and 28 October 2020 when she provided audio recordings. The landlord has not evidenced that it took any further actions during this period in response to the resident’s reports – this was inappropriate as the landlord’s ASB policy required it to regularly review whether any further support could be offered to the resident and it should have considered whether further early intervention measures could be taken.
The resident and her partner made allegations of a physical assault by the neighbour on 30 October 2020. The landlord responded by recommending that the resident report the situation to the Police, interviewing the alleged perpetrator the same day, making follow-up contact with the resident within two working days and liaising with the Police that same week to obtain their feedback. The landlord was one working day late in contacting the resident but it did liaise with other agencies and interviewed the alleged perpetrator within an appropriate timescale. Given the feedback from the Police that no action would be taken and that counter-allegations were made by the neighbour, it was reasonable that the landlord did not pursue tenancy enforcement against the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord was provided with audio recordings on 28 October 2020 – it noted receipt of these on 5 November 2020 and passed the audio recordings to the local authority environmental health team on 18 November 2020. It also noted receipt of incident diaries on 19 November 2020. The landlord failed to offer further meaningful communication with the resident on the substantive ASB issue until it advised her within its final complaint response of 1 January 2021 that there was insufficient evidence to pursue further actions against the neighbour (it also attempted to advise her during the second week of January 2021 that the environmental health team had not established any statutory nuisance through its assessment of the recording). The delay of two months between the resident submitting evidence and the landlord advising her of the outcome of its investigations was unreasonable.
The resident has asked the landlord to pursue enforcement action against her neighbour. The landlord was not in a position to provide this outcome as a decision to take enforcement action must be evidence-based and legal action, such as eviction, cannot usually be undertaken except as a last resort where all other efforts at resolution have failed, and where a robust case has been built to present to the courts. Building a robust case requires a range of evidence to be obtained such as the landlord attempted in this case. The landlord’s approach to apply informal measures was proportionate given the evidence available to it.
The resident has also made a request for the landlord to assist her with re-housing. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that advice on emergency accommodation should be offered in cases where there is violence or a threat of it. Given the nature of this ASB was noise-related and the incident of 30 October 2020 was not followed up by the Police, it was appropriate that the landlord did not take steps to re-house the resident.
In summary, between July 2020 and January 2021, the landlord:
1. failed to complete a vulnerability assessment at the time of the original report
2. failed to meet its obligation to review support it could offer to the resident and review potential further early intervention methods between mid-September 2020 and late October 2020
3. delayed in advising the resident of the outcome of its review of evidence she provided between 28 October 2020 and 1 January 2021.
The landlord has awarded £100 compensation for poor communications and its handling of the ASB case, noting that it failed to offer support and did not initially handle the noise recordings appropriately. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends an award within this range for service failure which had an impact but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Given the service failure identified in this case did not extend over a long period of time and did not impact the outcome of the ASB case, this was a proportionate level of compensation.

Complaint handling

The resident made her initial complaint on 29 October 2020 – her concerns were primarily that the landlord had failed to act on her reports of ASB by the neighbour and that her property was uninhabitable as a result. The landlord should have responded to the complaint within 10 working days but it was issued almost a week later than this and the response failed to address the past ASB reports and how it had handled these. Instead, it focused on the alleged assault incident of 30 October 2020 – this was unreasonable.
The resident submitted a complaint escalation on 19 November 2020 on the grounds that the stage one complaint response was not detailed and that it had not addressed all her concerns. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that the stage two response should have been offered within 20 working days but it was not issued until two weeks after this – the delay was again unreasonable although the stage two complaint response was detailed and addressed each of the points of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response awarded £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This was in recognition of the delayed complaint response and the time and trouble taken by the resident due to the failure to answer all aspects of the complaint within the stage one response. This level of compensation was in accordance with the landlord’s own compensation guidance on complaint handling failures and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance on service failure over a short duration – it was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in response to the failures identified in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of ASB and
2. the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not conduct a vulnerability assessment when the resident initially reported ASB and failed to regularly communicate with, and offer support to, the resident during September-October 2020 and November-December 2020. However, the landlord has accepted and apologised for these service failures and its compensation award of £100 was fair given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord delayed in answering the resident’s complaints for between one and two weeks at both stages of its complaints process and its stage one complaint response was inadequate. The compensation award of £100 was fair given the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure all relevant staff are reminded of:
1. the requirement within its own ASB policy for vulnerability assessments to be completed when residents report ASB
2. the requirement within its own ASB policy for it to review victims’ support needs during an ASB case.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.