Waltham Forest Council (202006852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006852

Waltham Forest Council

30 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a tenancy with the landlord since April 2014. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The neighbour who was accused of the ASB is a leaseholder.
On 15 October 2019 the resident emailed the landlord reporting that his neighbour had attacked his property’s front door using a hammer on 20 September 2019 and 14 October 2019. On 16 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide him with diary sheets to record further incidents of ASB. On 17 October 2019 the resident emailed the landlord stating that he had been advised that the ASB would be dealt with by the tenant management organisation rather than a particular housing officer. On 20 October 2019 the landlord emailed the resident stating that it was sorry he had been a victim of criminal damage and harassment. It advised him to contact the police if he felt at risk, while noting that it had been in contact with the police and was carrying out an investigation.
On 21 October 2019, the neighbour attacked the front door again and called out to the resident “I heard you have been making calls”. The resident reported this to the landlord. On the same day, the landlord’s staff attended both the resident and the alleged perpetrator’s properties and left calling cards. The following day, 22 October 2019, it again attended the neighbour’s property and spoke to them about the reports as well as giving advice instructing them not to continue the behaviour.
On the same day, 22 October 2019, the landlord had a meeting with the resident. He was advised that if he considered himself to be at risk of harm and wanted to seek emergency temporary accommodation, he needed to contact the housing allocations team. It was noted that any risk to his family should be reported to the police and further ASB incidents should be logged in the diary. On the same day the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour, and the resident was advised of this.
On the same day, 22 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he had contacted the allocations department who had advised they were unable to assist him with a possible transfer request and advised him to contact his housing officer for assistance. He noted that he was requesting an emergency move on the grounds that the neighbour had come to the property on three occasions with a hammer, trying to break the door down and causing damage to the door on two of those occasions. He had also contacted the mental health department about the neighbour who advised him to log the issue as an ASB incident. He requested that the door with the glass panel to the property be changed to a more secure door with a peep hole.
On the same day, 22 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident acknowledging his concerns. It noted it was liaising with the community safety team which had visited him and given advice, and would contact the allocations team to ask for advice about a potential transfer. It advised that the police had interviewed the neighbour as had the community safety team. It noted that it had also written to her to instruct her to cease the ASB immediately. It noted it would not be upgrading the door as this was a solid timber door. It asked the resident to continue to complete the diary sheets recording any noise or ASB as requested and stated it would continue to investigate if it could offer the neighbour support.
On 29 October 2019 the landlord attended the property to post diary sheets to the properties for the recording of noise nuisance and ASB, and spoke to the landlord’s wife in the communal area. The resident believed the staff member was following the family up the stairs in contravention of the agreement to arrange appointments beforehand, but the landlord has stated that they were attempting to deliver the documents to various properties.
On 31 October 2019 the landlord drafted a report which outlined questions which had been put to the neighbour, in which the neighbour admitted having attacked the door with a hammer.
On 1 November 2019 the police emailed the resident noting that it had interviewed both he and the neighbour and were satisfied that the case should be closed on the basis of the limitations of the available evidence.
On 5 November 2019 the landlord met with the resident and his advocate. The latter advised the landlord that the incidents were going to be reported as hate crimes. The landlord explained that further agencies would be involved in an attempt to find a solution once the case was presented to the Anti-Social Behaviour Risk Assessment Conference (ASBRAC). On the same day, the landlord made a referral to ASBRAC and Victim support.
On 20 November 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it would be presenting his case to ASBRAC on 27 November 2019 which would result in statutory agencies putting together strategies and an action plan to safeguard and facilitate support for the resident.
On 22 November 2019 the landlord’s ASB victim support manager spoke to the resident to discuss additional security options for the property. The resident agreed that a ring doorbell would provide the family with some reassurance and that he would collate evidence of the issues to substantiate the complaints.
On 27 November 2019 an ASBRAC meeting took place. On 2 December 2019 the landlord emailed the resident’s representative noting that the matter had been referred to a problem–solving advisor. The resident had given permission for an electronic spy hole at the property to be installed after previously refusing this. He had also consented to shuttle mediation once the electronic spy hole had been fitted. A social needs panel referral was also completed.
On 18 December 2019 further diary sheets were sent to the resident and the landlord’s notes recorded “on-going door knocking exercises” at the block. On the same day, the landlord presented the case to the social needs panel where it was considered. The panel report included photos of the damaged door and a letter from the resident’s representative dated 28 October 2019 referring to a hammer attack and a copy of the ASBRAC meeting minutes referring to the same. A note of the panel meeting records set out that the neighbour “strongly denied” hitting the door with a hammer. The landlord stated in an email of 6 November 2019 that the neighbour had admitted to it that they had carried out the attack, but that police records did not contain this admission.
On 19 January 2020 the resident signed a mediation agreement and returned it to the landlord. The resident agreed to shuttle mediation only, on the grounds that he was concerned about attending in the same room with the neighbour.
On 21 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it was not awarding additional priority to his housing application. The letter set out that:
1. It had been alleged that there were a number of incidents relating to harassment from the neighbour banging on his front door. It noted police had attended the property and spoken to both parties, advising them not to attend around other people’s properties and to contact the TMO or landlord should further issues arise. While the circumstances were unpleasant, it considered the details of the alleged incidents were not of a serious enough nature to demonstrate that the resident and his family were at risk as a result of remaining in their current property. There was a “severe” lack of evidence to support details of the alleged incidents and the fact that these were perpetrated by the neighbour. Priority for an urgent move would only be considered as a very last resort if there was a serious risk and the family’s well-being was seriously threatened, but the resident should continue to pursue transfer options.
2. It noted its standard approach would be to take action against the alleged perpetrator as a first step rather than moving a potential victim. There did not appear to have been any additional incidents that could be evidenced. CCTV had since been installed which should act as a deterrent to any further incidents taking place and would provide evidence for further reports.
3. It had asked the tenant management organisation (TMO) to continue monitoring the situation and recommended that they contact the resident with a view to arranging mediation between the parties. It also advised the resident that he may wish to consider taking out an injunction against the neighbour if mediation failed and resulted in any ongoing difficulties.
4. It noted that the TMO could consider instigating legal action with a view to seeking eviction of a perpetrator, subject to available evidence.
On 29 January 2020 an ASBRAC meeting took place. The panel decided to close the case as there had been no further incidents reported since 21 October 2019. The landlord noted that door-knocking exercises at the block were ongoing to remind residents of their responsibilities not to harass their neighbours or interfere with their neighbour’s properties.
The neighbour was contacted again on 4 February 2020 with a request to participate in mediation, however she refused to sign the form. On 7 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that the neighbour had not yet signed and returned the agreement, though it had that day sent a reminder to them. On 13 February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord who offered him independent one-way mediation as an alternative option, in the hope that the neighbour might engage at a later date.
On 6 March 2020 a meeting took place between two community safety officers, the landlord’s staff, the resident and his representative. At this meeting the resident stated that the battery in the ring doorbell device had died but he had not previously informed the landlord. The landlord noted that a report had been drafted on 31 October 2019 following input from the neighbour who had admitted banging aggressively on the resident’s door, with the resident questioning why he had not been made aware of this admission before. The resident was again advised to register for mutual exchange and bid for alternate accommodation.
On 15 March 2020 the neighbour’s partner attended the property and knocked continuously on the door for two minutes and requested that the resident’s children stop making noise. The resident’s wife was at home with her children and contacted the police to make a report. On 18 March 2020 the resident’s representative conveyed this information to the landlord.
On 20 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the report and asked if he was continuing to follow its previous advice to complete the diary sheets. On 23 March 2020 the resident’s representative responded requesting a digital copy of the diary sheets, confirming he did not have any.
On 23 March 2020 at 7:30pm the resident heard a loud and continuous banging from the floor below, which was the ceiling in the neighbour’s property. This occurred again at 11:50pm that evening, on 24 March 2020 at 10:30pm and midnight, on 29 March 2020 at 5:40pm, on 1 April at 7:10pm and 2 April 2020 at 9:05am. On the latter date the neighbour’s partner also attended the property and shouted abuse through the letterbox. On 7 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to report these incidents.
On 15 April 2020 the landlord visited the neighbour’s property before interviewing them with their partner at the landlord’s office. On 16 April 2020 the landlord emailed a warning letter to the neighbour.
On 21 April 2020 the resident raised a stage one complaint via his representative in which he set out the following:
1. The neighbour had attacked the property’s front door using a weapon on three separate occasions which it considered to be Islamophobic harassment. This had caused great distress to the resident and his family. The landlord had ignored his request to schedule appointments beforehand when it spoke to the resident’s wife on the communal stairs on 29 October 2019.
2. The resident had been given incorrect information about contacting particular departments for assistance when in fact the issues were the responsibility of the referring staff member. Once the correct enquiries were made by the staff member, she declined to provide information regarding the steps taken in regards to the neighbour’s mental health on the basis of data protection.
3. The letter received on 24 December 2019 caused distress to the resident given he assumed the neighbour received the letter at the same time and could have undertaken reprisal behaviour while the landlord’s office was closed, thereby avoiding immediate repercussions.
4. The outcome letter from the landlord’s social needs panel demonstrated that the landlord’s housing staff had given incorrect information to it, including that:
  1. The property was only attacked on one occasion, when it had been three.
  2. CCTV had been installed at the property, which was actually only a doorbell which captured still photographs.
  3. The social needs panel had suggested that the TMO investigate legal action against the neighbour, though the landlord had stated on numerous occasions that this would not be successful given they were a leaseholder.
  4. The resident did not witness the incident, when he did in fact open the door and see the neighbour holding the hammer.
  5. The letter classed the incidents as not serious, but the resident had experienced continuous harassment for five years.
5. The resident felt the landlord had encouraged another neighbour who he previously had good relations with to raise a noise complaint about him. The resident had repeatedly requested another member of staff manage the case.
6. At the multi-agency meeting on 6 March 2020, the landlord had disclosed that a report was drafted on 31 October 2019 in which the resident had admitted banging aggressively on the door and “overreacting in her response”, but this was not presented to the resident until this time. The resident had also provided the landlord with an audio recording of a conversation with the neighbour which the landlord had not acknowledged.
7. The landlord had conveyed to the resident that the neighbour had agreed to mediation when this was not the case, given it never received the form back.
8. The neighbour had not faced any repercussions for their actions. The landlord had advised the resident that legal action could not be taken against the neighbour, however retracted this statement at the meeting. The landlord had not informed the resident until the 6 March 2020 that the neighbour had received a formal warning. The landlord dismissed the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s partner at the meeting, who had then attended the property on 15 March 2020 and caused distress to his family.
9. There had been further incidents on 23, 24, 29 March, 1 and 2 April 2020. He noted that the resident had been instructed to complete a noise complaint record form but stated that the landlord had not taken into consideration the difficulty faced by the resident in accessing printer facilities.
On 2 June 2020 set out the following in its stage one complaint response:
1. The landlord’s staff member had complied with the request not to visit the property unless there was a scheduled appointment, but was not aware this request included not approaching members of the household outside their home. As a result, upon entering the block the staff member saw the resident’s wife on the stairs and simply explained the reason for her visit.
2. The staff member should not have advised the resident to contact the Housing Allocation Team if he needed emergency accommodation because this was the wrong team. However there was no evidence to suggest that the staff member told the resident to contact the Mental Health Team, given the landlord had told the resident there were privacy considerations regarding the discussions. On this basis the complaint was partially upheld.
3. There was a misunderstanding that the shuttle mediation would be offered by a particular staff member, which was not corrected until the following ASBRAC meeting on 18 December 2019. Following this a letter was promptly sent to the resident, although it acknowledged this coincided with the Christmas period on 24 December 2019. It apologised for the delay and noted this element of the complaint was upheld.
4. Regarding the information the resident considered to have been inaccurately presented to the SNP, it stated:
  1. Although the landlord’s housing report presented to the panel was brief, evidence was provided of the other ASB incidents including in a police disclosure form so each of the incidents had been considered.
  2. The staff member should have made themselves aware of the capabilities of the technology which took a photo when the doorbell was activated rather than being CCTV, before it made a statement to the SNP.
  3. It should have clarified what enforcement action could be taken and what threshold would need to be met to justify this. The resident had suggested a NOSP be served on the neighbour, which the landlord clarified was not possible given the neighbour was a leaseholder. It could have clarified by explaining the legal action that could be taken when there was sufficient evidence. It did not consider legal action after the incidents in October 2019 because there was insufficient evidence to warrant this given:

(1) The neighbour was given a police warning but was not charged.

(2) The landlord sent the neighbour a warning letter on 22 October 2019, which the resident was made aware of on 5 November 2019.

(3) No further incidents were reported between 21 October 2019 and 15 March 2020.

It acknowledged that the resident had witnessed the neighbour’s attack on the door on 21 October 2019, and that this should have been commented on though stated it would not have changed the outcome of the meeting.
It stated that although the letter of complaint mentioned continuous harassment over a period of 5 years, no evidence had been provided to substantiate this up until the reports made on 15 October 2019. It acted in accordance with the evidence available to it at the time.
There was no evidence that the landlord had pressured another neighbour into raising a report against the resident, and this neighbour had declined to be part of the investigation on this point.
Regarding the point that the landlord had failed to notify partner agencies that the neighbour had admitted in an interview with a housing officer to hitting the door “hard with objects”, the landlord was made aware of this based on discussions on 5 and 6 November 2019. The initial referral by the landlord to ASBRAC did not contain the above admission, however the subsequent ASBRAC meeting on 27 November 2019 requested the attending police officer look into the investigation, and at the following meeting on 18 December 2019 it was made aware of the admission via the police. Because of these later steps, the decision not to advise ASBRAC of the admission via the landlord’s referral did not impact on the decision.
The resident had not provided details of the alleged audio recording to the landlord, and so it had been unable to investigate its response.
It did not uphold the complaint that failings in the landlord’s process had led to another incident occurring on 15 March 2020. Though the staff member had initially failed to provide full disclosure in respect of the neighbour’s admission that she had hit the resident’s door, this would not have changed the outcomes as this evidence was later considered. The landlord had investigated and progressed the case as far as it was able based on all of the available evidence. ASBRAC had closed the case in January 2020 as no further incidents had been reported. The landlord had explained to the resident on 6 March 2020 the need to keep evidence of any incidents.
Several further incidents on 23, 24 and 29 March 2020, and 1 and 2 April 2020 were reported to the landlord on 7 April 2020. The landlord subsequently contacted the neighbour and issued her with a warning letter on 15 April 2020. The case was reopened by ASBRAC and continued to be discussed and monitored. It reemphasised that the specialist members of the team who were experienced in resolving ASB had reinforced the need for the resident to continue to complete diary sheets and report incidents to the police if he believed them to be hate crime or harassment.
The landlord had maintained consistent communication with the resident and his representatives. It concluded that it had largely followed it processes, though there had been some service failings. It noted however that these did not impact on the outcome of the ASB investigation, though they were likely to have impacted on the resident’s trust in the landlord. It offered its sincere apologies to the resident and noted that it would be meeting with the TMO and previously discussed staff member to discuss learnings from the case.

On 29 June 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated:
1. Given the landlord was aware of how easily sound travels in the building, the staff member should not have approached the resident’s wife in the communal areas given the sensitive nature of the complaint. Furthermore, it was a “common sense” point that the resident’s request extended to talking to the family in any location without an appointment being arranged beforehand.
2. The staff member should have presented more than a “brief” housing report to the SNP so as to give a holistic overview of the case particularly given the resident had a number of lengthy meetings with the staff member.
3. The resident had been left distressed as he was under the impression that no legal action could be taken against the neighbour, and to date he had not been informed of the possible future avenues that could be pursued.
4. The neighbour was continuing to harass the resident’s family and a chronology of all incidents had been provided to the landlord.
5. The staff member had withheld information including the 31 October 2019 report with the neighbour’s admission that she had attacked the door.
6. The fact that the staff member had not advised the SNP that the neighbour had previously admitted attacking the door and failed to submit the evidence to the first ASBRAC meeting showed lack of precision and attention to detail. The staff member should have kept the resident updated on the fact that the neighbour had not refused to engage in mediation, rather than the resident having to chase the issue. It disagreed that the resident had been advised that a warning letter was sent to the neighbour, noting this was not recorded in the resident’s minutes of the meeting of 5 November 2020.
7. The resident informed the landlord on 18 March 2020 that the harassment had begun again, and no steps were taken in response other than advising the resident to complete the diary sheets. The landlord did not keep the resident informed of steps following this, specifically the 15 April 2020 warning letter and the reopening of the case with ASBRAC. It noted the neighbour had disregarded all warning letters, and it requested copies of these.
8. The resident requested that the complaints each be upheld so as to acknowledge the failings in the management of the reports, though acknowledging this may not result in much being changed regarding the result of the ASB investigation. It noted there had been no mention of any potential disciplinary action being taken against the staff member.
On 21 July 2020 the landlord responded to a subject access request and provided the resident with copies of the warning letters it had sent.
The ASBRAC meeting on 29 July 2020 noted that there had been no ASB incidents since April 2020.
On 10 August 2020 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response:
1. The TMO employed the staff member and was responsible for their management and supervision. As a result it could not comment on potential disciplinary action. It had met with the TMO to discuss the resident’s loss of confidence in the staff member: as a result the TMO had outsourced management of the case to a community safety officer.
2. It upheld the decision regarding the staff member greeting the resident’s family in the communal area, given they were appropriately carrying out the delivering of diary sheets. Nevertheless it apologised for any distress caused.
3. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration that he was not told of the possibility that legal action could be taken against a leaseholder. It set out that a court would expect all other remedies to first be exhausted by a landlord, and that the incidents would have to be of a serious level with sufficient evidence to be considered. The landlord would not usually tell a resident what legal action might be taken at the early stages of ASB management before other resolutions were explored. Action in relation to breach of a lease was a long and complex process that could take years to complete.
4. To date there had not been enough robust evidence available to commence legal action. It noted that further incidents had occurred during the Covid-19 lockdown period. It stated that it had kept the resident up to date regarding the negotiations with the neighbour about mediation and the warning letters.
5. The SNP had taken into account all of the relevant information supplied to them, not just the report summarising the issues. It had noted that the review of the decision which took the staff member’s email into account did not change the SNP’s decision. It acknowledged however that this had caused a breakdown of trust between the parties and so upheld this element of the complaint. The staff member responsible for reviewing the initial SNP decision had personally apologised to the resident for the error and delay.
6. Regarding more recent incidents, the resident had been instructed to continue filling out diary sheets and was provided with these on 23 March 2020 at which time the pandemic lockdown commenced which delayed immediate action being taken. The resident had advised the landlord on 7 April 2020 that further incidents had occurred involving the neighbour’s partner. The neighbour and partner were interviewed and a warning letter was issued in line with the ASB policy. Additionally, the case was referred back to the landlord’s ASB team and ASBRAC which had an ongoing investigation into it.
On 30 September 2020 the ASB case was again closed as the landlord’s internal notes stated that there had been no incidents for several months.
On 18 January 2021 the landlord was provided with legal advice that no legal action should be taken against the neighbour on the grounds that there was not enough evidence to support enforcement action and no indication that the neighbour’s actions were grounded in racist attitudes. It also noted that the police had not treated the allegations as a hate crime or otherwise racially motivated.

Policies and Procedures

The lease sets out that the leaseholder should not cause a nuisance or annoyance to the other occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring premises, and they should not harass or intimidate any other resident on the grounds of their religion, sex, colour, race, ethnic or national origin or any other grounds.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out three categories of risk for various types of ASB. Harassment, threats, hate related incidents, domestic violence and other criminal behaviour are classed as high risk, while noise and vandalism are considered medium risk. The policy sets out that it aims to reduce the need for legal action by offering support services in all appropriate cases, though legal action can and will be taken where the complaint is sufficiently serious and all informal remedies are inappropriate or have failed.
The landlord will write to a resident within five working days of a complaint to let them know what it plans to do, contacting them at agreed frequencies and as a minimum every four weeks to keep them updated. It will take appropriate action against those responsible where it has evidence. Staff should always ask residents to complete diary sheets to ensure evidence is clear, concise and legally acceptable. Where residents are not able to complete diaries, the landlord should discuss other means of logging incidents and agreed timescales on when these should be provided to the landlord.
A formal case must always be opened for high risk ASB and the resident should be contacted within one day. A letter should be sent to the alleged offender within ten days of receiving the report to arrange an interview and following this a first warning letter should be sent within three days of the interview. Further enquiries can be made with other partner agencies such as the police and social services depending on the type of case. Further early prevention such as carrying out door–knocking exercises, organising case conferences and providing support to both parties can be utilised.
ASBRAC meetings will consider particular high–risk cases above a certain threshold of risk and will draw up action plans which must be adhered to by the landlord and other partner agencies. Non legal remedies can be utilised if the early preventative methods do not result in curbing and stopping the ASB, such as an acceptable behaviour agreement and mediation. A final warning letter can be sent if reports continue to come in, at which point legal enforcement such as a Notice of Seeking Possession can be initiated.
Following an initial interview or discussion with a reporting party, the need to report any further incidents via diary sheets must be stressed. CCTV can be installed to gather evidence of ASB, however there must be a vast amount of evidence to support this action. If action has been taken to resolve the issue, or there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations, the case should be closed.

Assessment and findings

The role of the Ombudsman is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB made by the resident or other witnessing parties. Considering the timeline of this complaint, it is apparent that the landlord instigated its ASB procedure when it was first made aware of the ASB on 15 October 2019, being the date when the resident reported the 20 September and 14 October 2019 incidents. The landlord responded promptly in line with its policy by writing to the resident the following day and providing him with diary sheets which he was instructed to fill in so as to gather evidence in support of his reports. Given he raised concerns about his access to printing facilities, it delivered these to him as an alternative when necessary over the following months.
Within the week, the landlord had contacted the police to discuss the allegations and advised the resident to contact the police himself if he felt he and his family were in immediate danger. It also spoke and wrote a warning letter to the neighbour on 22 October 2019 about the reports, and the latter was also interviewed by police at some point during the week following the report. It engaged with the resident’s request for a transfer in response to safety concerns about the ASB and provided him with further diary sheets on 29 October 2019. Advice was received from the police on 1 November 2019 that it considered the case should be closed. Nevertheless, a meeting was held with the resident on 5 November 2019 where it was agreed to present the case to ASBRAC to investigate what other steps should be taken to provide a resolution, and further security options were discussed and agreed to on 27 November 2019. ASBRAC monitored the case in the months following the reports and advised the resident of potential private legal action that he may wish to take against the neighbour.
These steps demonstrated an adherence to the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure which required it to respond to a report of a high-risk behaviour within one day, and to engage with partner agencies such as the police to establish the best approach to dealing with the reports. It discussed the issues with the resident and advised him to take particular steps to contact police in an emergency which was appropriate. It also commenced an investigation in an attempt to verify the reports by seeking evidence from each of the various parties involved. It offered mediation to the resident as an alternative form of resolution, while stressing that it could not take significant enforcement action against the neighbour without evidence to support the allegations. As set out in its complaint responses, the fact that the ASB ceased after the initial letters and visits for six months meant that it would not have been justified in taking further enforcement action against the neighbour according to its policy.
The landlord has set out in the complaint response that the completion of diary sheets by the resident recording the anti-social behaviour is essential. When another report was made in mid-March of an arguably mid-level potential ASB incident which consisted of the neighbour’s partner knocking loudly on the door and telling the resident’s family to stop making noise, the landlord again responded promptly by reopening the investigation and requesting the resident fill out diary sheets as he had been instructed to previously. Following further reports in March and April 2020, it again sought to gather evidence by meeting with the neighbour and their partner, before setting out a formal warning in line with the ASB policy. In this way it responded appropriately to the reports as and when they arose in a proportionate and measured way.
The resident has stated that the neighbour had disregarded all warning letters which demonstrates that the landlord was not taking appropriate steps in responding to the reports. However the evidence indicates that following the landlord’s sending of a warning letter to the neighbour on 22 October 2019, there were no recorded instances of ASB again until 15 March 2020. This would indicate that despite the ongoing communications between the resident and landlord about his dissatisfaction with the latter’s conduct, the steps taken had been effective in providing a resolution to the substantive issue for a number of months. When the ASB recurred, the landlord again took steps to contact the neighbour and sent a formal warning to her. After this there were no further incidents which supports the landlord’s position that it took reasonable steps in the circumstances to address the issue.
A major element of the resident’s complaint was the fact that it did not make the resident aware of the document dated 31 October 2019 which recorded an admission by the neighbour that she had attacked the door, until the meeting on 6 March 2020. As a result, he was concerned that the admission had not been properly considered when the complaint was investigated in November and December 2019, as well as complaining that he was not told directly. The landlord has acknowledged that this information was not conveyed to ASBRAC and apologised to the resident for this, but also noted that this did not negatively impact the investigation and resulting actions taken in the case. It took the reasonable position that due to investigation from the police this evidence was nevertheless brought to the attention of ASBRAC and the relevant parties and factored into their decision-making, as were the details of the number and nature of incidents reported. As a result it was satisfied that the ASB response actions of meeting with the resident and neighbour, sending warning letters and attempting to gather more evidence were appropriate in light of all the circumstances having been considered, and that this had not caused detriment to the investigation. The evidence supports this position.
The resident was also unhappy that the landlord did not keep him updated on the fact that the neighbour had refused to participate in mediation, leading him to wrongly believe that progress was being made on resolving the ASB issues. However the landlord was proactive in attempting to arrange mediation between the two parties and gave updates to the resident of its own volition and in other instances when the resident requested these, despite a minor delay early in December 2019 when it was unclear which team would be arranging the mediation.
While the resident has expressed frustration that he wrongfully believed the parties were moving towards mediation that did not happen, this did not negatively impact the progression of the ASB case. The landlord kept the resident updated on the fact that the neighbour had not yet consented to the mediation by signing and returning the form. Though it may have given the impression that it still expected the neighbour to agree, this was not a significant issue given it kept the resident updated and provided him with alternative individual mediation options in light of the neighbour’s lack of engagement.
The resident was directed to the wrong department by the landlord in communications with the resident when he sought information on emergency housing. The landlord acknowledged this fault, and the landlord subsequently provided updated and detailed advice to him about his application and other options he could consider given he was not eligible for an emergency move. These were appropriate steps to take, and there was no significant detrimental effect to the resident as a result of the initial mistake beyond some inconvenience to the resident given he was then redirected to the correct staff to contact.
This was also the case where one of the landlord’s submissions was incorrect regarding the technical capacity and function of a doorbell that took photographs installed at the property. The resident acknowledged this mistake and the fact that the staff member should not have made the statement they did speaking to the capacity of the piece of equipment, while also acknowledging that the consequences were minimal in that they would not have changed the approach ultimately taken to the ASB by the landlord. Considered in light of the other circumstances of the case, this did not affect the way the ASB case was handled, nor did it cause a significant detriment to the resident. Nevertheless, the landlord took the appropriate step of changing the staff member who was in charge of dealing with the case, having recognised that the resident had lost faith in their handling of the issues. This was a valid attempt at providing some form of resolution to the dispute and to address the concerns held by the resident.
The landlord has stated that it should have clarified with the resident both the available avenues for and the limits of potential enforcement action against the neighbour. It recognised that there had been some confusion resulting in the resident wrongly believing that there were no possible legal options to pursue regardless of the severity of the ASB and apologised for the distress that resulted from this. It explained however that it had relied on its procedure which would not normally involve it discussing potential future legal actions with a reporting resident when other avenues to resolve ASB had not yet been exhausted, which was appropriate. Given it did not need to make use of these options, the lack of information provided to the resident did not amount to service failure. The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure was also available on its website for residents to access, which included details of potential legal avenues and the circumstances in which these would be pursued.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to reports of Anti-Social Behaviour.

Reasons

The landlord took steps promptly to resolve the issue of ASB following its receipt of reports from the resident. These involved interviewing the resident and alleged perpetrator, providing the resident with diary sheets to record evidence, sending a formal warning to the neighbour and engaging with the police who also spoke to the neighbour. Though there were some errors in the way it handled its submissions to the panels investigating the reports, these were acknowledged and addressed, and they did not cause any significant detriment to the resident or impact on the decision regarding how to address the ASB. The response by the landlord was proportionate and in line with the appropriate policy, and involved ongoing monitoring of the situation with the aim of stopping the ASB from recurring.