Face the facts about antisocial behaviour

Feeling that her housing association had failed to provide a reasonable response to her allegations of noise nuisance, harassment and assault by a neighbour, a tenant complained to the ombudsman.

Her allegation spanned a number of years and involved the behaviour of a tenant in the flat beneath. Two incidents of severe nuisance – caused by loud amplified music – were witnessed by a council representative and a statutory notice was served against the neighbour on the second occasion.

The police also issued a harassment warning notice against the neighbour’s partner because she persistently and deliberately banged on the complainant’s floor.

Shortly after contacting the ombudsman the complainant had to move out of her flat following an incident during which her neighbour allegedly assaulted her.

The ombudsman’s investigation found that the association had not taken adequate steps in response to the reported problems. The landlord had served a notice of seeking possession on the neighbour after the first nuisance incident, but totally ignored the second, despite being notified by the council. Nor did the landlord contact the police, despite having been informed by the complainant on numerous occasions that the police had comprehensive information.

The association offered mediation, but the complainant felt she could not take part, given the violent behaviour of the neighbour and his partner. The association interpreted her refusal of the offer as lack of cooperation. It interviewed the neighbour twice, but kept no record of the interviews.

It was also found that the association gave undue weight to the fact that the neighbour made counter-allegations against the complainant. In the main, these were that she was complaining unreasonably about him.

The ombudsman said that, in the circumstances,the landlord should have recognised that the complainant’s allegations were much more serious than those of her neighbour.

Not a neighbour dispute

The problem was also inappropriately labelled a “neighbour dispute” by the landlord, despite there being corroboration from the local authority and the police of the gravity of some of the incidents reported. Responding to enquiries from the ombudsman, association staff said the complainant had an “axe to grind” with her neighbour while he was “more than willing” to resolve matters.

As they waited in vain for the RSL to evict the attacker, the victims continued to live in fear of reprisals for having complained

But this conclusion was most unjust, given the evidence from third parties, and misrepresented the real nature of the case.

The ombudsman decided there had been maladministration and criticised the association for failing to pursue obvious lines of enquiry, its poor record keeping and lack of objectivity. He awarded the complainant a total of £600.

In another case involving antisocial behaviour, two residents said their landlord failed to take appropriate action against a neighbour who had assaulted one of them after waging a campaign of harassment and nuisance in their block over several years.

The ombudsman could not investigate the alleged campaign of harassment that preceded the assault because there was no evidence the complainants had raised concerns with the association. But the investigation established that, after the assault, there was so much worry about the risk the attacker posed to neighbours that the police called a meeting with the association and other agencies to try to find a solution.

It also issued panic alarms to residents. Eventually, the police charged the attacker who was later convicted.

The police advocated possession action against the perpetrator and the association agreed it would start proceedings immediately. It was clear the association had considered eviction on a number of occasions, but had never taken action – even though evidence indicated it shared the police view that eviction proceedings were appropriate after the assault.

But in the end, for reasons that it was later unable to justify, the landlord failed to serve a notice seeking possession.

Several months passed during which the complainants continued to live in fear, which was compounded by anxiety that the neighbour would attack them again because they had been involved as witnesses in the criminal proceedings against him. The perpetrator eventually moved out of the area through a mutual exchange for which the association gave its approval.

The investigation found the association’s failure to adhere to its agreement to take possession proceedings was based on inaction and lack of a clear approach, not on a considered assessment of circumstances. There was criticism of how the perpetrator’s mutual exchange was handled, which took place only because the landlord failed to take decisive action to deal with the bad behaviour. Tenants were left feeling that the culprit had been let off the hook. Also criticised was the landlord’s insensitive approach to communications with the complainants. The ombudsman awarded £1000 to the assault victim and £500 to the other complainant.