星空传媒

The complainant lived in a small self-build housing development owned by a housing association where the tenants had formed a management co-operative. She asked the ombudsman to investigate the association鈥檚 actions after a neighbour was charged with downloading child pornography from the co-op鈥檚 computer and was subsequently convicted on that charge.

She claimed that the association failed to respond promptly to her requests to evict the neighbour and to keep her informed about what was being done. She said the neighbour鈥檚 continuing residence caused anxiety and distress to her and other tenants, who regarded him as a risk to their families. His flat overlooked a playground and they felt their children were vulnerably exposed to a convicted sex offender.

She also claimed that the association failed to respond reasonably to her reports that her neighbour caused nuisance to her and her family directly. She said he used his lawyers to accuse her teenage daughter and other children in the co-op of harassment following his conviction.

Crime and punishment

The ombudsman鈥檚 investigation established that the association sought assistance from solicitors shortly after learning of the charges being brought. The advice it received was that it should liaise with the police before taking any action of its own. The solicitors said the police might request that the association did nothing against the accused at that time, on the basis that any action could prejudice the criminal case.

In the event, the police did take that view and the association decided to wait for the outcome of the criminal trial before giving further consideration to what action to take, including eviction.

The neighbour was convicted just over a year after being charged. The association鈥檚 initial decision following the conviction was to look into the possibility of him being rehoused away from the co-op voluntarily and, if that proved unsuccessful, to issue a possession summons against him.

The rehousing option did not work out. As soon as that was clear, and within three months of the conviction, eviction proceedings were initiated on ground 14(b)(ii) of schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. This is used when a tenant is convicted of 鈥渁n arrestable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling house鈥�.

The case was adjourned on a number of occasions for, among other things, the filing of a defence and the preparation of expert evidence. A further year went by before the association obtained an outright eviction order, with possession being postponed by nearly nine months. The court ordered the neighbour to search for a suitable mutual exchange or a transfer during that time, and asked the association to use its best endeavours to facilitate his rehousing.

Harassment allegation

The association couldn鈥檛 reasonably be criticised for its refusal to divulge details of its actions, given the tensions involved

In the months preceding the eviction court hearing, the association decided that the validity of the allegations of harassment made against the complainant鈥檚 daughter and other children, and the counter allegation of nuisance against him, was not a matter it could reasonably resolve.

The association responded to the complainant鈥檚 several expressions of concern in the period between charges being brought by police and the possession order being made. It acknowledged the difficulties she and other residents were experiencing and informed her that it was pursuing a course of action, the details of which it could not discuss with her or others for reasons of confidentiality. The complainant later acted as a witness for the association in its eviction proceedings and therefore became fully aware of its actions at that point.

No maladministration

The ombudsman found that the association was not responsible for maladministration. His investigation established that the association鈥檚 actions in response to the charges and conviction against the neighbour were both reasonable and responsible. In all the circumstances, it acted prudently in postponing action for eviction pending the criminal proceedings.

Contemporaneous records showed that it gave the case due consideration throughout the period of over two years from the initial involvement of the police until obtaining the possession order, and that its decisions on the case were at all times reached at an appropriate level within the association.

The association could not reasonably be criticised for its refusal for some time to divulge details of its actions to the complainant and other residents, especially given the considerable tension that had developed within the co-op as a result of the case. Nor could it reasonably be criticised for the delays caused through adjournments of the possession proceedings.

Ultimately, it acted in the best interests of most of the residents without unnecessarily breaching its tenant鈥檚 confidentiality. The ombudsman also found the association鈥檚 stance, in respect of the neighbour鈥檚 allegations of harassment, was a reasonable one. Receiving a letter from solicitors was not in itself a nuisance, and there was no evidence the neighbour approached anyone living in the co-op in an untoward manner.

The ombudsman commended the association for arranging and funding mediation between the neighbour and other residents, including the complainant, during the period pending the possession hearing. It clearly did its best to limit the damage caused to the co-op by the incident and find a fair solution to a very difficult situation.