London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202004540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004540

London & Quadrant H T

18 December 2020

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 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of her personal data in relation to a GP letter.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a verbal warning she received from the Police about an ASB incident in August 2019 involving her neighbour.
3. The landlord’s handling of an ASB report made in August 2019 against the resident by her neighbour.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of her personal data in relation to a GP letter.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a verbal warning she received from the Police about an ASB incident in August 2019 involving her neighbour.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident is unhappy that the landlord was unable to confirm that it had received a letter from her GP. She was given information by the landlord which initially led her to believe that it had been lost. The resident considers this to be a breach of the landlord’s obligations under Data Protection legislation to safeguard her personal information.
Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the:
1. ‘Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion (…) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about potential breaches of confidentiality and/or data privacy. As the ICO is the proper complaints-handling body that deals with such matters, the complaint about the handling of the GP letter is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme because such complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the ICO.
The resident has also made a complaint to the landlord about a verbal warning she received from the Police in relation to an ASB incident in August 2019, which she says was issued based upon false information provided by the landlord. The resident has said that that a landlord staff member had a personal grudge against the resident and had unduly influenced the Police to take action against the resident by providing false information which resulted in the resident receiving a verbal warning from the Police about her conduct.
It is noted that, in cases involving ASB allegations, the landlord is entitled to share information with third parties (such as the Police) and its ASB policy expressly allows for information sharing and it has information-sharing protocols in place for this. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine complaints about how a third party, such as the Police, uses any information provided to them. Nor can we assess the decision taken by the Police to issue a verbal warning to the resident. If the resident is unhappy with the decision taken by the Police, she may be able to raise a complaint directly with the Police force involved in the matter.
This report will therefore only address the complaint about the landlord’s handling of an ASB report made in August 2019 against the resident by her neighbour.

Background and summary of events

By way of background, the landlord’s records and correspondence shows that there had been reports of ASB made by the resident against her neighbour dating back to 2017. The types of ASB reported were verbal abuse, threatening behaviour, harassment, and noise nuisance. This Service has previously dealt with a complaint from the resident about these issues. This present complaint relates to events from August 2019.
The records show that on 24 August 2019 there was an incident involving the resident’s visitor(s) and the neighbour. There was an argument and/or altercation and it is alleged that the visitor(s) verbally threatened the neighbour with violence.
The landlord’s correspondence shows that it spoke to the neighbour about the allegation and took a statement from her. It also viewed video footage of the alleged incident provided by the neighbour.
On 27 August 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to raise her concerns about harassment by her neighbour. She gave her statement on the incident on 24 August and stated that the neighbour had behaved in a very aggressive manner towards her in order to get a reaction out of her and had been stalking her the following few days.
The landlord’s case file notes show that the case was reviewed, and it was agreed that a manager would meet with the resident on 11 September 2019 to assess the case and agree way forward due to the resident being unhappy with how her case had been handled in the past and the conduct of the current caseworker.
The case file notes also show that the Police had informed the landlord that it had decided to issue the resident with a verbal warning in respect of this incident.
On 29 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the outcome of the ASB report:
1. I have taken a witness statement from your neighbour and also witnessed a recording…of a male that you were with on the day threatening to “trip her up”, this resulted in your neighbours bike being removed from the communal area and damaged.
2. I understand that a female visitor to your home on the 24th August also attempted to aggressively approach your neighbour and had to be retrained by you.
3. As the tenant you are responsible for the actions of visitors to your home and this behaviour is unacceptable and a breach of your tenancy conditions. As you are aware there is an ongoing anti social behaviour case and all incidents are being recorded.
4. I have requested a disclosure from the police, if the information received from them confirms you or your visitor as the instigator of the incident that occurred. We will consider taking tenancy action against you.
5. This email serves as a formal warning.
On 29 August 2019 the resident responded to the warning email and disputed the neighbour’s version of events and the evidence the landlord had relied upon. The resident then logged a formal complaint on 30 August 2019. This complaint was primarily about the conduct of the caseworker and the allegations around the handling of a GP letter and the caseworker’s communications with the Police and false information having been provided to the Police.
A meeting was held with the resident on 11 September 2019 to discuss her complaint and her concerns. This was followed up with a complaint response on 27 September 2019:
1. It addressed the issues of the GP letter and apologised for any misinformation provided by the caseworker around the handling of the letter, and it confirmed that the letter had been received by the landlord.
2. It noted the issue regarding the communication with the Police and said it had found no evidence of any wrongdoing and it would consider this further if the resident could provide evidence.
3. With regards to the written warning, it stated that it had not yet had a chance to review the video footage and once this had been received it will confirm whether or not the decision to issue the warning was warranted.
4. It confirmed that her case had been assigned to a manager to oversee until the transfer to the new property was completed. It was agreed that the manager would monitor the case and update the resident every two weeks. Any further ASB reports should still be reported to the call centre in the first instance and followed up by an email to the manager.
5. The landlord apologised for the delays and any miscommunication and reconfirmed its commitment to working with the resident on a positive resolution.
On 11 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord as she remained unhappy about some aspects of the complaint, namely the GP letter and the information provided to the Police, and she wanted the warning removed from her records.
The landlord responded on 14 October 2019 and stated that the complaint had been escalated to the next stage in its process, which was a gateway review, to see if anything further needed to be done. With regards to the written warning, it stated that:
1. The warning letter issued remains, as explained at our meeting warning letters are issued in line with our policies and procedures and are to warn residents when we have a reported issue that could result in a breach of tenancy. No further action will be taken if no further incidents or reports of the same nature occur. I am satisfied that […] issued the warning letter following a reported incident and did so in line with our policy.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 5 November 2019 shows that the case was reviewed again and the landlord was satisfied that the written warning was issued correctly and took into account not only the 24 August incident but also previous incidents reported by the neighbour against the resident and the conduct of the resident’s visitor.
On 7 November 2019 the resident logged another complaint with the landlord about essentially about the same issues as in the complaint that was logged on 30 August 2019. This new complaint was about the same issues to do with the caseworker, the GP letter and the information provided to the Police by the caseworker. The resident requested that this be dealt with by a more senior manager.
This new complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 8 November 2019 and it stated that, as the issues raised were essentially the same as the previous complaint, her concerns would be addressed in the gateway review.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 November 2019 with the outcome of the gateway review and stated that it had concluded its investigation of the issues raised in the compliant dated 30 August 2019 and it did not consider that an escalation to Stage 2 of the complaints process was warranted. It reiterated its position with regards to the GP letter and apologised for any misinformation. It also confirmed that it was satisfied that the written warning was issued correctly.
As the resident remained unhappy, the landlord issued another complaint response on 29 November 2019 which was in response to the complaint that was logged on 7 November 2019. This response reiterated its stance on the same issues again. As the resident remained unhappy, this complaint was also escalated to a gateway review.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that, as both the complaints were very similar, it was agreed that one final review would be carried out of both complaints and a single final response would be issued addressing both complaints.
The resident moved into a new property on 2 December 2019.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 10 January 2020 and explained the actions it had taken. It apologised for the historic failures (which had been subject to a previous complaint with the Ombudsman) and it concluded:
1. In summary and following this review of your case and your correspondence, I was satisfied that despite initial failures, since inception of the complaint your reports about ASB were handled appropriately and in accordance with [the landlord’s] standards and values. All issues raised have been answered, [the landlord] has responded to you appropriately, lessons have been learnt and appropriate compensation provided via rent adjustment.
2. On this basis escalation of the complaint or further review will have no influence on the outcome. The matters you brought to L&Q’s attention have been answered and there is nothing further L&Q can add. You have completed L&Q’s complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Tenancy agreement:

This sets out the rights and obligations for the landlord and tenant. In terms of ASB it states that the tenant agrees:
1. Neither to cause, nor to allow members of his or her household or invited visitors to commit any harassment, or threat of harassment…

ASB policy:

In terms of Case Management, the policy sets out that the landlord will treat both ASB victims and the perpetrators sympathetically and sensitively and take into account any vulnerabilities and/or support needs.
In the investigation and management of ASB L&Q will:
1. Keep in regular contact with the complainant/reporting party or as agreed.
2. Where necessary, arrange an interview at the place of choosing of the reporting party, victims and witnesses, and identify any particular circumstances or needs that should be factored into the handling of the case…We may also, arrange support from other parties who can help, including the police and local authorities.
3. Provide advice and support. This could include making referrals to other agencies that can provide assistance and, where appropriate, empowering the reporting party, victims and witnesses to take positive action, e.g. support to gather evidence, and identifying any appropriate security measures to ensure that residents are safe in their property, or taking other necessary measures.
4. Agree an action plan with the reporting party, victims and witnesses, and keep them updated throughout the case. The action plan will be updated to reflect new information or new incidents related to the case. The action plan will show decisive actions (e.g. police disclosure, interview the other party) and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery.
The policy states that ASB case managers will be trusted to use their skills, experience and judgement when assessing cases and agreeing on actions with the reporting party, victims and witnesses, but will also be supported (and monitored) by their managers, including ensuring that cases are progressed in a timely manner and in accordance with this policy and the related procedures.
L&Q will close ASB cases in the following circumstances:
1. Where we have delivered the actions that are appropriate and we believe there is no further action necessary.

Landlord’s handling of the ASB report:

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the ASB itself or to apportion ‘blame’. Our role is to consider and assess the landlord’s response to the report(s) it received and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.
With regards to the incident on 24 August 2019 this must be viewed in the context of a history of allegations and counter-allegations of ASB between the resident and her neighbour. It is clear from the resident’s correspondence that her relationship with the neighbour had become very strained. The landlord is required to ensure that it is fair to both parties and that it takes all allegations of ASB seriously, while bearing in mind the history of the case and both tenants’ circumstances and actions.
The information made available to the Ombudsman shows that the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s report. The correspondence shows that it took a statement from the neighbour and also viewed video footage of the incident provided by the neighbour. It acted appropriately and in accordance with its ASB policy by investigating the allegation, speaking to the neighbour, and liaising with the Police.
However, the landlord has not provided a copy of the interview notes or the statement taken from the neighbour. The lack of supporting evidence in this regard is not helpful and does not allow the Ombudsman to properly assess the complaint.
A landlord’s record-keeping is a crucial aspect of its overall service delivery. It has a responsibility to maintain clear records of its actions and the findings of its appointed contractors. This not only helps it to provide an efficient and timely service and comply with its legal obligations as a landlord, but this also provides an audit trail of its decision-making process, which can help in resolving complaints and learning from complaints to improve services. The landlord is therefore reminded that good record-keeping is crucial to ensuring that complaints are properly investigated and addressed and its decision-making is fully substantiated.
Ultimately, the landlord has taken the view that it had enough evidence to warrant issuing the resident with a written warning about her future conduct. The landlord has explained to the resident on several occasions the basis for its decision to issue the warning. The landlord’s records show that a senior manager also viewed the video footage that the original caseworker had relied upon to issue the warning, and confirmed the following:
1. I can confirm I have viewed the recording supplied to…which formed part of the reported incident, as informed in my email of 14 October 2019 I am satisfied that the warning email sent to you was warranted.
The landlord has explained its rationale for the decision by the caseworker, and it has also reviewed the evidence and the decision again in light of the resident’s concerns, which was appropriate. As such, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has responded in a reasonable manner to address the resident’s concerns. The Ombudsman has also seen the internal correspondence from the landlord which states that the decision to issue the warning was not only for the incident on 24 August 2019, but it also took into account previous incidents raised against the resident by the neighbour and it also provides confirmation from the senior manager that looking at all the circumstances together, the warning was warranted.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s ASB policy allows a caseworker to use their use their skills, experience, and judgement to decide on what action to take on a case. The resident has said that the caseworker had a personal grudge against her and that this had influenced the decision to issue the warning. As explained above, this is not something the Ombudsman can address. However, looking at the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the ASB report was handled appropriately.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to learn from complaints and following the previous complaint that was dealt with by this Service, the landlord has acknowledged that its handling of the ASB reports prior to August 2019 fell below its service standards. It reiterated its apologies for this and took steps thereafter to address this. The steps included, amongst other things, periodic updates and manager oversight of the case. It can be seen that the landlord has endeavoured to assist the resident and has taken appropriate action to address her concerns, ultimately culminating in the resident moving to a new property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of an ASB report made in August 2019 against the resident by her neighbour.

Reasons

The landlord’s investigation of the ASB report in August 2019 was appropriate and proportionate and its decision-making with regards to the outcome was reasonable. The landlord is however reminded of the need to ensure good record-keeping so that its decision-making can be fully substantiated.