Southampton City Council (202100164)

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.

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. H andling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour ( A SB ) .
    2. H andling of the resident’s request to be moved to a new property.
    3. Complaints handling.

    Background and summary of events

    1. The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority landlord. The property is a ground floor bed sit. The landlord is aware that the resident has reading and writing difficulties and experiences mental health issues.
    2. The landlord’s ASB best practice procedure says that :
      1. A ll non-urgent allegations of ASB should be acknowledged within three working days of receipt .
      2. All referrals to m ediation should be made within 24 hours of agreement with the resident to this course of action .
      3. If the case is referred to m ediation, a response, from the assessor, should be received within fifteen working days .
      1. She thought the landlord hadn’t compl ied with the tenancy agreement when she complained about noise in the block.
      2. She believed that the landlord and her neighbours were trying to evict her because she complained too much.
      3. The landlord had incorrectly referred to her ex- boyfriend as her current partner.
      4. T he backdoor to the shed area was left wide open and this would encourage, people to break into sheds and was a breach of the security rules.
      5. The landlord needed to send letters to residents about dogs and other animals in the building.
      1. 11 November 2020 : 6 pm :banging in the block.
      2. 14 November 2020: 10:08 pm: upstairs flat moving furniture.
      3. 16 November 2020 : 7:3 3 pm: banging from upstairs flat.
      4. 5 December 2020: 7:35 pm :loud music in the block.
      5. 5 December 2020: 10:30 pm singing in flat upstairs.
      6. 5 December 2020 :dog in the block.
      1. It was unable to install cameras or recording devices within the communal areas as it did not have the resources and, it was unable to record internal areas.
      2. Although the noise was unpleasant the landlord w as unable to take any enforcement action as the noise was not of an unacceptable nature.
      1. It had visited the resident on 10 February 2021.
      2. Mediation had not been possible due to the resident demanding no contact with the neighbour.
      3. The outcome was therefore “No further action.”
      4. If further ASB reports were received the resident could be reoffered mediation.
      1. The resident had learning difficulties a n d could not read or write well.
      2. He understood that the resident was experiencing significant difficulties at the property and wanted to move .
      3. T he resident had described many incidents of ASB concerning one of her neighbours involving noise, abuse and breach of Covid 19 rules .
      4. The resident felt stressed and told him that she wasn’t sleeping or eating because of what she was going through.
      5. The resident admitted that she didn’t always cope with things in the be st way but her learning differences had a lot to do with this.
      6. H e would be grateful if the landlord could help the resident with her request to move.
      1. It had received the letter from her GP. The resident had no current application to transfer properties and so it was unable to pass th e GP’s letter on to the allocating team.
      2. The resident need to re-apply to the housing transfer list and then supply any evidence such as this recent letter from your GP to the allocations team.
      3. A s a single person, she would be deemed adequately housed in the current property.
      4. She could look into a mutual exchange as a way to move.
      5. As per the recent referral to m ediation, there wa s no current basis for further action and any further reports made by her would only be referred to full mediation as discussed with her by the assessment officer
      1. T he resident w anted the shed door to be locked to pre v ent fly tipping and a no ball games sign to be installed to prevent ball games against the outside wall of the block.
      2. It partly upheld the complaint and had been able to find a solution to the points she had raised , apart from her concerns about the ball games.
      3. It had been in regular contact with the resident and had recently spoken to her about her concerns on 9, 21 and 30 April 2021 and on 4 May 2021.
      4. Its warden had checked the block twice in April 2021 and the shed entrance was kept locked. Any rubbish had been removed.
      5. Each month it carried out a health and safety check inspection and cleaned the inside of the block and bin areas. It invited the resident to inform it of any specific issues with the condition of the block and it would follow up.
      6. No ball games sign s were not enforceable and aggravated conflicts .
      7. It suggested she report incidents related to ball games to the police by calling 101 so that a police community support officer could visit the resident’s block when on patrol. It acknowledged that the young people who were reportedly playing ball games were unknown and that the police could possibly engage with them.
      1. S et out the respective rights and responsibilities of the resident and other residents under the tenancy agreement, as well as its internal guidance on supporting vulnerable tenants and guidance on unreasonable behaviour .
      2. C onsidered the resident’s reports of ASB from May 2020 to June 2021.
      3. It found that when the resident contacted the landlord about the issues with neighbours it had referred the resident to mediation within its policy timescales.
      4. T he mediation could not take place as the resident requested no contact and the resident did not wish to consider alternative mediation.
      5. Following the resident’s reports of dogs in the block, t he landlord emailed its warden service to investigate and t he warden also told the resident when the dog had been removed.
      6. Whilst t he resident had reported noise , she was unable to identify the source of the noise or unable to provide recordings with details of when or where the noise took place.
      7. The landlord had attempted to call the resident, but she had declined. The landlord asked for the source of the noise, but the resident could not say where the noise was coming from, so the landlord could not send a warden to assess the noise.
      8. The l andlord had directed the resident to contact Environmental Health and the resident ha d accepted on some occasions that she declined to report noises to E nvironmental Health .
      9. The resident had not made any reports of ASB to the police.
      10. It was not responsible for enforcing social distancing measures and instead the resident was directed to report incidents to the police.
      11. It had explained why it could not carry out the request to install cameras. ( ie due to resources and data protection) and informed the resident.
      12. It found that the records showed that the resident’s behaviour was challenging and so the landlord was entitled to serve a tenancy breach letter.
      13. T he resident was adequately housed despite a letter of support from the resident’s GP that she be rehoused. It explained that it had informed the resident of her options to be rehoused and reiterated these ( i.e. mutual exchange or private sector).

      Assessment and findings

      1. In reaching decisio n s about the resident’s complaint s, 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

      1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour’s children amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
      2. In its responses to the resident’s reports of ASB and the formal complaint the landlord:
        1. Contacted its dog warden s e r v ice who monitored dog activity in the block and issued instructions to the relevant party.
        2. Informed the resident that it was unable to install cameras or recording devices within the communal areas as it did not have the resources.
        3. Advised that a lthough the noise was unpleasant it was unable to take any enforcement action as the noise was not of an unacceptable nature.
        4. Advised her to report noise disturbance to Environmental H ealth.
        5. Referred the resident’s case to mediation .
        6. Discussed various strategies and options with the resident to help improve the situation, including avoiding and ignoring the neighbour and removing herself from any situation involving conflict with any neighbours.
        7. D eclined to p ut up no ball games signs and explained that such signs were previously removed due to them not being enforceable
        8. Sent a letter to all residents in the block and reminded them not to prop open the communal doors or the shed entry doors . The landlord also encouraged residents to dispose of rubbish correctly in the meantime.
        9. P laced a copy of the letter to all the residents o n the notice board in the block .
        10. S uggested that she report incidents related to ball games to the police so that a police community support officer could visit the resident’s block when on patrol and the police could possibly engage with the children .

        The landlord’s h andling of the resident’s request to be moved to a new property

        1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved to a new property was reasonable as:
          1. It explained to the resident that she would need to open a transfer request and build up points to be able to move within its housing stock , and that having opened the transfer request she could provide evidence such as her GP’s letter.
          2. It explained to the resident other options to move, for example by mutual exchange or renting in the private sector.
          3. As set out in the landlord’s management transfer best practice procedure, management transfers are a tool available to housing staff to remove a tenant from an exceptional and dangerous situation. Whilst the resident’s situation was causing her distress ultimately there was a lack of conclusive evidence that the noise and behaviour reported reached the threshold of an exceptional and dangerous situation where the landlord would consider a management transfer.
          4. It considered whether her recorded vulnerabilities required it to refer her for assistance with apply for a mutual exchange or private rented accommodation.

          The landlord’s complaint handling

          1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling as:
            1. The landlord’s complaints procedure says that its response time at stage one of the complaints process is 20 working days. This is in breach of the provisions of paragraph 5.1 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code that landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
            2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord, via this Service on 7 April 2021. The landlord issued its stage one response on 7 June 2021, 41 working days later and 31 working days outside the 10 working day response time set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
            3. The landlord only issued stage one complaint response after be ing chased by this Service on 25 May 2021 and 2 June 2021.
            1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its :
              1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
              2. R esponse to the resident’s request to be moved to a new property.
              1. The landlord’s actions were an appropriate response to the resident’s allegations of ASB .
              2. The landlord was not required to move the resident under its management transfer procedure and it explained to the resident her options for moving.
              3. The landlord delayed in issuing its response to the complaint and the response times set out in its complaints procedure w ere not compliant with the provisions of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code.
              1. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation of £ 2 00 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures. .
              2. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
              3. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review its complaints procedure to ensure that it complies with paragraphs 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
              1. It is recommended that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord ensures that all staff dealing with mediation referrals are reminded of the timescales set out in its ASB best practice procedure .
              2. It is recommended that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord contact the resident to discuss her options for moving and consider what support she might need in applying for mutual exchange, private rented accommodation or a transfer application.