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

Stonewater Limited (202003545)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003545

Stonewater 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

  1. This complaint is about the resident’s former landlord’s handling her reports of Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour (Ms Y) prior to her tenancy being transferred to a different social housing landlord on 13 May 2019.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
  3. The resident made a previous formal complaint to the landlord sometime in 2017 about its handling of her reports of ASB by her neighbour (Ms Y); the landlord issued its final response on this complaint on 25 January 2018.
  4. In a letter to the resident’s MP on 14 August 2020, the landlord confirmed it had reviewed its historical contact with the resident. The landlord said that it accepted that there were shortcomings in its communication at the time of the resident’s complaint in 2017. It apologised and offered the resident £350 compensation for its failings.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in August 2020 to raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of her complaint about ASB in 2017. This was more than two years after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The resident had the opportunity to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the landlord’s final response dated 25 January 2018 and did not do so.
  6. It is evident the resident contacted the landlord via her MP about its handling of her historical ASB reports and the landlord used its discretion in August 2020 to review its communication with the resident from 2017.  The landlord’s response will not be considered in this investigation as it relates to historical matters that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 25 January 2018.
  7. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(d), any matters relating to the landlord’s handling of resident’s report of ASB, including its communication with the resident, up until the landlord’s final response of 25 January 2018 are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider and have therefore not be included in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an Assured Weekly Tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy commenced on 16 October 2000. The property is a one bedroom, 2nd floor flat. The neighbour complained about (Ms Y) lives in the same block as the resident.
  2. The block where the resident and her neighbour (Ms Y) live was transferred to a new social landlord on 13 May 2019. The complaint is about the former landlord of that block.
  3. It is clear that the resident has been distressed by what she considers to be the inadequate response of the landlord to her reports of ASB from her neighbour (Ms Y) and that level of distress has been exacerbated by the extensive period of time (approximately 20 years) during which she has reported the incidents.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. On this basis, this investigation will consider the period from 3 September 2018 onwards. Given the resident’s formal complaint was raised on 28 August 2019, the period covered, prior to the formal complaint being made to the landlord, is approximately 11 months.

Summary of Events

  1. On 3 September 2018, the resident reported an incident at Ms Y’s property two days previously. The resident said that the Police had knocked on her door to see if she had heard any screaming as someone from Ms Y’s flat had fallen out of the window. The resident said that when the Police left someone began banging and kicking on Ms Y’s door. In a call with the landlord later the same day the resident explained how she had been disturbed by loud male voices and banging of doors throughout night of 1 September 2018 until the following morning. The incident was also reported to the landlord by other residents in the block.
  2. On 19 September 2018, the landlord emailed the resident regarding the incident on 1 September 2018. The landlord said that it had been investigating the resident’s neighbour for some time but had been unable to gather sufficient evidence to take formal action against them. The landlord said that it had made ‘‘numerous’’ attempts to contact the Police but to date had received no response. The landlord said that it would call the resident back to discuss this with her further.
  3. On 24 September 2018, the resident called the landlord as no one had contacted her. In an internal email later that day, the landlord confirmed that it had spoken to the resident and several of her neighbours and had encouraged them to complete evidence gathering logs and to report any future incidents to the police. The landlord noted that the resident and her neighbours had previously been asked to complete logs but due to the lack of evidence it had had to close the case. The same day the landlord emailed the Police asking that they provide details of any new Police attendances. The Police said that the relevant ward officer would get back to the landlord when they were next on duty.
  4. On 2 October 2018, the resident sent the landlord sound recordings of ‘‘loud voices, music and singing’’ from Ms Y’s property between 1.37am and 3.40am that morning. The resident said she had also contacted Environmental Health. The landlord emailed the resident the following day to encouraged her to continue to report any future noise to Environmental Health as well as providing the landlord with her noise App recordings. The landlord explained that it could use any warnings or legal action taken by Environmental Health as evidence of ASB. The landlord also said that the resident’s noise App recordings from the previous day had provided a good example of the type and length of time her neighbour was causing a nuisance.
  5. On 4 October 2018, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that a warning letter had been sent to Ms Y regarding the noise on 2 October 2018. The landlord also advised that it would consider further measures if it continued to receive further evidence and that any substantiation of the noise nuisance by an Environmental Health Officer, together with the resident’s logs and noise recordings, would only strengthen its case against Ms Y.
  6. On 9 October 2018, the resident sent the landlord evidence logs reporting eight incidents between 28 August 2018 and 3 October 2018 of raised voices and repeated slamming of doors from Ms Y’s property. The following day the landlord emailed the resident to thank her for the logs and to say that it appeared that after receiving its letters Ms Y quietened down for a few days but could not sustain her behaviour for long. The landlord reiterated the importance of obtaining evidence, asking the resident to continue to send logs and/or noise app recordings through as soon as possible after any incident.
  7. On 15 November 2018, the resident emailed the landlord to say that the Police and Emergency services were again on site on 12 and 13 November 2018 regarding Ms Y. The resident said that her sending in evidence logs and Noise App recordings had made no difference to the situation. The resident ended by advising that she had been referred to a local mental health support service regarding the detrimental effect the situation was having on her health.
  8. On 20 November 2018, the landlord sent Ms Y a further warning letter, following further reports from the resident of nuisance and disturbance over three nights between 17 and 19 November 2018, and Police attendance at her property. The landlord also emailed the Police, asking that someone contact the landlord to discuss the reports of Police attendance at Ms Y’s property over the previous two weeks, including 17 to 19 November 2018. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day to advise her of the action it had taken.
  9. On 23 November 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that Ms Y had explained that the attendance of the Police between 17 and 19 November had been due to a combination of her and other professionals calling in the emergency services as she was currently unwell. The landlord said that whilst it understood that the repeated attendance of the emergency services was disruptive if the call outs were due to genuine emergencies and not as the result of ASB, it would be unable to take the resident’s reports any further. The landlord did however encourage the resident to continue to report any noise nuisance such as shouting and loud music.
  10. On 28 November 2018, the resident’s support worker emailed the landlord regarding the resident’s mental health issues which the support worker said ‘’were caused mainly by her neighbour’s ASB’’. The support worker said that the resident felt that she had been ignored and not taken seriously. The same day the landlord emailed the resident saying that as it had not heard from her since the previous week, it had presumed that all had been quiet with Ms Y.
  11. Following day, 29 November 2018, the landlord emailed the Police again saying that it had left numerous voicemails and sent several emails but had received no response. The landlord again said that it would like to discuss the situation with Ms Y further as it remained concerned about her behaviour and had been told by Ms Y’s neighbours that the Police had attended several times over the previous two weeks. The landlord also emailed another neighbour of the resident, having been advised by the resident that they were also being affected by the actions of Ms Y. The landlord provided the neighbour with Evidence Gathering logs and asked that they complete and return them.
  12. On 30 November 2018, the Police responded to the landlord. The Police said that they were aware of a number of calls concerning Ms Y and that they would be happy to work with the landlord to resolve this.
  13. The resident sent further evidence gathering log sheets to the landlord on 4 and 18 December 2018 reporting loud noise, shouting, screaming and banging from Ms Y’s property. On 18 December 2018, the landlord sent another letter to Ms Y regarding the reports made and to say that it would like to meet with her and her support worker and the police as the complaints were continuing and showing no signs of improving.
  14. The resident continued to send in further Evidence gathering logs on 31 December 2018 and both Evidence gathering logs and Noise App recordings on 10 January 2019.
  15. An appointment was arranged for the landlord, the Police and Ms Y’s support worker to meet with Ms Y on 16 January 2019. However this was cancelled by Ms Y the day before, 15 January 2019.
  16. On 16 January 2019, the landlord sought advice from its legal advisors regarding servicing Ms Y with a Notice Seeking Possession (NOSP). The landlord noted that it considered legal action against Ms Y to be ‘‘a balanced and proportionate action as all other methods and attempts to engage as well as referral to supporting agencies over the past 8 months have failed to adjust her behaviour or allow her to manage her tenancy appropriately and without disturbance to her neighbours’’. The legal advisors responded the same day saying that it would agree to a NOSP.
  17. On 23 January 2019, the resident reported further incidents of raised voices, loud noises, banging noises and Police attendance over the evening of 18 to 19 January 2019. The landlord advised the resident the same day that it would be issuing Ms Y with a NOSP. The landlord explained that it would only proceed with making a possession application were there sufficient evidence for a successful outcome and where it had exhausted all other avenues, as possession was the last resort. The landlord said that it hoped that issuing Ms Y with a NOSP may be sufficient to reduce or prevent her anti-social behaviour. The NOSP was served on Ms Y on 24 January 2019 citing Grounds 12 and 14 and describing behaviour amounting to a breach of those grounds, including noise nuisance, drunken behaviour, repeatedly slamming internal and external doors and emergency services attendance at the property on a number of occasions, often late at night. The Certificate of Service of the Notice Seeking Possession was issued by the Court on 29 March 2019.
  18. The resident submitted further Evidence gathering logs to the landlord on 30 January 2019 and 12 February 2019. The landlord emailed the resident to thank her for the new Evidence gathering logs and to say that it was important for her to continue to send in fortnightly Evidence gathering logs in order to evidence if the situation as improved or not.
  19. On 7 March 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to thank her for making the Noise App recordings in the early hours of that morning. The landlord confirmed that another warning letter had been sent to Ms Y to advise her that complaints and noise recordings had been received reporting extreme noise in the form of shouting and screaming coming from her property from midnight until approximately 3.45am that morning.
  20. On 22 March 2019, the resident called the landlord to say that she was not happy that the landlord was not proceeding with taking action against Ms Y. The resident said that she is unable to sleep due to the constant noise and Police attendance at Ms Y’s property.
  21. The landlord issued Ms Y with a Section 21 notice on 2 April 2019. The ‘Request for Authority to Serve Sec 21 form’ noted that warning letters had been issued but Ms Y had denied the allegations, that a NOSP had been served on 24 January 2019 but had resulted in no improvement in the ASB. The form also noted that Ms Y had failed to engage with external agencies.
  22. A Section 21 Notice Appeal Meeting with Ms Y was held at the landlord’s offices on 10 May 2019. As the block within which both the resident and Ms Y lived was due to be transferred to a new landlord on 13 May 2019, representatives from both the existing and the new landlord were present. Following the meeting it was agreed that the Section 21 would not be acted on at that time as the neighbour appeared to be making efforts to prevent the ASB happening. The records from the meeting note that the new landlord advised Ms Y that it would adopt a close management relationship with her regards her tenancy and that she would need to conduct her tenancy satisfactorily from then on if she wished to avoid future possession action.
  23. The property was transferred to the new landlord on 13 May 2019, at which point the new landlord became responsible for the handling of any further reports of ASB made by the resident.
  24. On 28 August 2019, the resident emailed her former landlord to complain about how it had handled her reports of ASB prior 13 May 2019. The resident said that over the years she had made numerous reports to the landlord about the Ms Y behaviour including continuing noise nuisance and harassment, slamming doors, frequent attendance by the emergency services and that Ms Y was allegedly using her home as a brothel. The resident said that other residents had also made reports and complaints to their former landlord about Ms Y’s behaviour.
  25. The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 13 September 2019. The landlord said that following its review it of its handling of the resident’s reports it had concluded that the case could have been handled differently and as such there were lessons to be learnt. The landlord said it had recently changed the way it approaches and investigates ASB, with the local Tenancy Services Officers now being the lead handlers of ASB cases but did not provide any details of the time period its review covered, what it had found nor what lessons had been learnt. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £650 compensation for the way it had handled her case, acknowledging that this had resulted in her having counselling sessions.
  26. On 13 November 2019, during a telephone conversation with the landlord the resident said that she was not happy with the landlord’s Stage 1 response. The landlord noted that the resident had said that the £650 compensation did not reflect what she had been through and wanted to know how the landlord had arrived at that figure.
  27. The landlord issued its Stage 2 (Review) response on 27 November 2019. The landlord said that it was satisfied that its Stage 1 response was acceptable, explaining that this was because it had acknowledged that it could have done better and had offered the resident £650 as an acknowledgment for the length of time she had been experiencing issues of ASB by Ms Y. The landlord said that it was satisfied that the amount was reasonable and in line with the Housing Ombudsman Remedies Guidance. The landlord apologised that, at Stage 1, the resident had not been told that she could request a Stage 2 review. The landlord said that it had spoken to the officer involved to ensure that this would not happen again.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy recognises that it has a responsibility to manage tenants’ behaviour in accordance with the responsibilities and obligations outlined within the tenancy agreement. The policy states that the landlord will:
    1. Make it clear that clear, detailed accurate information is paramount to taking effective action and that it may issue diary sheets or sound recording technology to support this.
    2. When assessing whether an incident amounts to ASB factors such factors as frequency, intensity and intentionality will be considered.
    3. Endeavour to identify root causes of behaviour and where the issue is as a result of an underlying vulnerability it will work with partners, referring or signposting to specialist organisations to access to appropriate support.
    4. Consider, where relevant, any rights the perpetrator may have in terms of the Equality Act 2010 or the Human Rights Act 1998 and where necessary will weigh up whether taking action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
    5. Where incidents warrant, take more formal actions against the perpetrator including Possession Action.
  2. On 3 September 2018, the resident reported an incident at Ms Y’s property 1 September 2018, which the Police attended. The landlord spoke to the resident the same day. The incident was also reported by other neighbours.
  3. The landlord then emailed the resident on 19 September 2018, providing her with more information about why it had not taken any formal action against Ms Y up to that point, explaining that it been unable to gather sufficient evidence to take formal action against Ms Y and had had difficulties getting a response from the police. The landlord said that it would call the resident back to discuss this further with her. The resident called the landlord on 24 September 2018 as she had not heard anything.
  4. During its call with the resident on 24 September 2018, the landlord advised the resident that it had contacted a number of her other neighbours encouraging them to complete evidence gathering logs and continue to report any future incidents. This was an appropriate step given other residents of the block had also reported the incident on 1 September 2018, was also in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, and necessary to gain evidence should the landlord seek to take future legal action against Ms Y. The landlord also encouraged the resident to continue to submit her own evidence gathering logs, to make sound recordings and to provide it with her App recordings, which she did. The same day the landlord also emailed the Police to discuss the case and to request details of the police’s attendance at Ms Y’s property. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take and shows that it was seeking to gain as much evidence as possible, from a range of sources, that might support any action it may need to take against Ms Y.
  5. Following further reports of incidents of ASB by Ms Y the landlord again acted in accordance with its ASB policy by sending Ms Y a warning letter advising her of the reports it had received and the potential threat to her tenancy if such behaviour continued. As there was no sustained improvement in Ms Y’s behaviour and following further reports from the resident, including reports of further visits to Ms Y’s property by the Police, it was appropriate for the landlord to write to Ms Y again on 20 November 2018.
  6. Following receipt of its letter Ms Y advised the landlord that the attendance of the Police over the three nights between 17 and 19 November 2018 had been due to a combination of her and other professionals calling in the emergency services as she was unwell. Whilst the attendance of the emergency services was understandably disturbing for the resident, where there is an underlying vulnerability the landlord is expected to weigh up whether taking action is a proportionate response. Given that the attendance of the emergency services at Ms Y’s property between 17 and 19 November was due to the Ms Y being unwell it was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident that it would not be able to take her report of that particular incident any further.
  7. The resident continued to report further incidents of loud noise, shouting, screaming and banging from Ms Y flat into December 2018, it was therefore appropriate for the landlord to write to Ms Y again raising its concern about the reports it had received about her behaviour. It was also in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy for the landlord to suggest a joint meeting with Ms Y, her support worker and the local Police, in order to try and seek a resolution to the issues that had been reported.
  8. The resident continued to report incidents of ASB by Ms Y. When it became clear that the warning letters did not result in an improvement in Ms Y’s behaviour and as the landlord had experienced difficulties engaging with Ms Y, it was appropriate for the landlord to seek legal advice regarding issuing Ms Y with a NOSP. The NOSP was then issued to Ms Y on 24 January 2019 and the resident advised that this had happened.
  9. The resident continued to provide the landlord with evidence gathering logs and sound recordings evidencing continued ASB by Ms Y through the remainder of January and into February 2019. Following the resident’s reports, on 7 March 2019, the landlord sent a further email to Ms Y warning her about her behaviour and that by failing to address her behaviour she was putting her tenancy at risk.
  10. Following further reports from the resident on 22 March 2019, the landlord sought the authority to serve Ms Y with a Section 21 notice. As it was apparent that there had been no improvement in the level of ASB by Ms Y, and as she had failed to engage with external agencies, the landlord issued Ms Y with a Section 21 notice on 2 April 2019. It is unclear why the landlord considered it necessary to issue Ms Y with a Section 21 notice when it had already served her with a NOSP just a couple of months earlier, on 24 January 2019.
  11. Ms Y appealed the Section 21 Notice and an Appeal meeting was held at the landlord’s office on 10 May 2019 which Ms Y, the landlord and the new landlord attended. During the meeting Ms Y’s vulnerabilities were discussed together with the support she was receiving and as a result the landlord to decide not to progress the Section 21 at that time. This was not unreasonable given that the landlord is required to balance its obligations towards both the resident and Ms Y under their tenancy agreements and its ASB policy.
  12. The resident’s property was transferred to another social housing landlord on 13 May 2019 at which point the responsibility for the management of any future reports of ASB by Ms Y passed to the new landlord.
  13. Having considered the evidence, this investigation has found no evidence of service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB between 3 September 2018 and 13 May 2019. This is because over the 11 month period covered by this report, the landlord took steps to investigate the incidents that were reported, encouraged the resident, and her other neighbours, to complete and return evidence gathering logs. The landlord also contacted the Police and other agencies in order to both gain information and to seek to resolve the issues. The landlord contacted Ms Y to advise her that it had received reports of ASB about her and sent letters to her on a number of occasions warning her of the risk to her tenancy should her reported behaviour continue. When Ms Y failed to change her behaviour the landlord sought to end her tenancy by issuing a Section 21 notice. Ms Y appealed the notice. The landlord and the new landlord considered Ms Y’s appeal and agreed that at that time they would not proceed with the action.
  14. Whilst this investigation has found no evidence of service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB between 3 September 2018 and 13 May 2019, in its response to the resident’s complaint of 28 August 2019 the landlord acknowledged that historically it could have handled the resident’s case better, explaining that it had recently taken steps to change the way it approaches and investigates ASB, with the local Tenancy Services Officers now being the lead handlers of ASB cases. The landlord apologised to the resident for its historic service failures and offered £650 compensation for the way it had handled her case, acknowledging that this had resulted in her having counselling sessions.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the resident’s former landlord in respect to its handling of her reports of Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour (Ms Y) prior to her tenancy being transferred to a different social housing landlord on 13 May 2019

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s actions between 3 September 2018 and 13 May 2019 demonstrated an appropriate and reasonable response to the resident’s allegations of ASB by Ms Y at that time. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy and procedure in response to the resident’s allegations, including issuing Ms Y with warning letters, a NOSP and a Section 21 notice.
  2. There is evidence that the landlord made the resident’s new landlord aware of the situation with regards to the ASB by Ms Y prior to the property being transferred to it, this included the resident’s new landlord attending the meeting to discuss Ms Y’s Section 21 appeal on 10 May 2019.

Recommendation

  1. Within six weeks of the date of this determination, if it has not done so already, the landlord pay the resident the £650 compensation it offered for its historic ASB handling service failures.
  2. The landlord is to advise this service what action is has taken with regards to the above recommendation by 10 June 2021.