Brentwood Borough Council (202106344)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106344

Brentwood Borough Council

27 November 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

1. The complaint concerns:
   1. How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The information given to the resident relating to rent arears in relation to her request for rehousing.
   3. The landlord’s allocation of the resident’s banding for rehousing.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord has not properly considered the medical information she has provided when assessing her application for rehousing and awarding her a banding for this.
5. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate complaints against local authorities when they are not acting in their capacity as social landlords. This includes applications for rehousing. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the awarding of points or banding are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). It is advised that the resident contact the LGSCO if she wishes to take this aspect of the complaint further. However, the Ombudsman is able to assess the information provided by the landlord as it relates to how rent arrears affect an application.
6. This is line with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
7. Although we cannot consider the resident’s concerns about her banding for rehousing, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s communication with the resident about any effect which her rent arrears would have on her housing application, as detailed below. This is because unlike the allocation of housing bandings, the management of rent arrears is part of the local authority’s role as a social landlord.

Background and summary of events

Background

8. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a maisonette in a communal building.
9. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 15 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

10. The resident reported to the landlord that she was experiencing ASB from her neighbour. The landlord visited the resident in September 2020 to discuss the ASB. As there were no further reports of ASB following this visit, the landlord closed its ASB case.
11. On 4 February 2021, the resident reported a water leak through a light fitting. An operative attended and isolated the light, and the boiler was shut off. This left her without heating for a week.
12. The landlord’s records show that work order was raised on 4 February 2021 to investigate a leak in the resident’s property. The electrics were isolated and could not be reinstated until the leak had been repaired. The resident was provided with temporary heaters on 5 February 2021. The source of the leak was identified as a pipe that had been pierced by a screw, and this was repaired on 10 February 2021.
13. On 16 April 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. She did not feel safe in her home due to the ASB she and her family had experienced. This situation had also had an adverse effect on her health.
    2. She was given incorrect information by the landlord as to whether her rent arrears would prevent her from being rehoused. This confusion was caused by a staff member being on annual leave.
    3. The damage to the ceiling when the light fitting was removed remained outstanding.
14. The landlord called the resident to discuss the issues she raised. It then wrote to her on 21 April 2021 and informed her that:
    1. Its records show that its ASB team visited the resident in September 2020. She was advised to report any incidents of ASB she experienced and also to contact her GP regarding the health issues she had described. A follow-up letter was then sent summarising the visit. However, the landlord had no records of any further ASB reports from the resident.
    2. It apologised for providing the resident with incorrect information regarding rehousing. It confirmed that its allocations policy states that an applicant must not have fallen into arrears by one month’s net rent liability in the previous six months. Therefore, the resident would not be eligible for an offer of alternative accommodation. It explained that there was an exception to this policy in exceptional circumstances, but that the resident’s current points status for rehousing made that option highly unlikely.
    3. The resident had been on the landlord’s transfer register since 4 August 2020 and a medical assessment was undertaken in September 2020 which awarded her 50 points and band C, which gave her a total of 100 points. If the resident believed her medical status had changed since that assessment, she could complete a change of circumstance form and provide evidence from a medical professional.
    4. The landlord apologised for the length of time it took to repair the light fitting and explained that this was due to the difficulty in locating the source of the leak and the complexity of the repair.
15. The resident replied on 21 April 2021. She explained that she had not made any ASB reports as she was concerned as to how her neighbours would respond, but that she would now report any further issues to the landlord. She disputed that a screw would be the cause of the leak as it had been at least 12 months since any work had been undertaken at the property. The resident also requested more information on how to submit a change of circumstances form.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 April 2021 to confirm that a formal complaint had been opened and that it aimed to provide a response in ten working days.
17. The landlord records show that an ASB case was opened on 11 May 2021 following an ASB report made by the resident.
18. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 14 May 2021. The landlord informed her that:
    1. It was not aware of any reports of ASB made by the resident since the September 2020 visit.
    2. It had examined its call logs and was unable to find any notes relating to the information given to the resident about rent arrears. It apologised for the confusion caused to the resident and confirmed the information provided to her on 21 April 2021 about its allocations policy and banding status was correct. It also informed the resident that it not aware of a staff member involved in her queries being on annual leave. It noted that due to its staff working remotely there was currently some difficulty in determining when staff members were available.
    3. A note was left on the landlord’s repairs logs on 6 February 2021 stating that leak was caused as a result of a tenant putting a screw through pipes. However, as there was no evidence to confirm this finding, the landlord had dismissed the note.
19. On 21 May 2021 the resident provided a list of incidents, this was acknowledged by the landlord which then looked to gather more evidence and, as the alleged perpetrator was not its tenant, work with their landlord to resolve the situation.
20. The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 May 2021. She informed it that she was satisfied that it had resolved the issues relating to the conflicting information given to her about arrears and the delays in repairing the leak. She then requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that:
    1. She had now sent in reports of ASB and had received no response.
    2. She did not believe that the landlord had taken her health issues seriously and that she had provided additional medical evidence to it in order to reassess her banding.
21. On 31 May 2021, the resident reported that the neighbour had made threats to a member of her family. The landlords records state that it called the resident on 3 June 2021 to discuss this and other issues raised by the resident. It explained what evidence it would require for it to be able to take further action.
22. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2021. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated and a response would be provided within 15 working days.
23. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 June 2021 to inform her that it had spoken with the police and a witness to the some of the ASB reported, although the witness had a different recollection of the events to the resident. It also explained that the police were investigating the allegation that threats that were made.
24. The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 22 June 2021. The landlord informed her that it was satisfied by its position as set out in its stage one response. It confirmed that following the stage one response, it had received ASB reports from the resident and that an ASB case had been opened. It also explained that any new evidence it received regarding the resident’s health conditions would be reviewed accordingly.
25. On 22 June 2021 the police wrote to the landlord to inform it of visits they had taken to the resident and other tenants of the building.
26. On 23 June 2021, the landlord undertook a door knocking exercise, where it went to every property in the building and talked with all residents who answered about any incidents of ASB they had experienced.
27. On 16 August the 2021 police issued a written warning to a resident of the building relating to an incident that occurred with the resident’s son on 21 June 2021.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB

28. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not; rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
29. In this case, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take against the neighbour because the neighbour was not its tenant. Landlords can take action against their own tenants for ASB such as issuing tenancy warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts or in severe cases, taking the tenant to court to secure an injunction or permission to evict them. Where the perpetrator of ASB is not a tenant of the landlord, the landlord cannot take these actions, although it should still assist its tenants who have experienced ASB by helping them to gather evidence to be used by the police and/or the perpetrator’s landlord (if they have one) so that further action can be taken to resolve the ASB, as appropriate.
30. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident reports of ASB was reasonable and it acted in line with its obligations as set out in its ASB policy. On receipt of the resident’s reports, the landlord opened an ASB case, met with the resident and worked with the alleged perpetrator’s landlord and the police in an effort to resolve the ASB. This resulted in the police issuing a written warning to the perpetrator in June 2021.

The information given to the resident relating to rent arears and rehousing

31. Page 43 of the landlord’s allocation policy relates to rent arrears. This, in part states that:
    1. “In cases of current tenant rent arrears, the application will remain suspended until such time as they have made a repayment commitment to clear the debt and are making regular payments of an agreed sum which they have maintained for a period of at least six months without missing a single payment; and the arrears have reduced to a figure that is equal to or less than 4 weeks payable rent.”
32. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord provided information from the resident’s rent account that showed that the resident had at that point not yet reduced her arrears to less than four weeks payable rent and that she had not been making regular payments in agreement with her repayment plan. This meant she was not currently eligible for rehousing, in line with the landlord’s allocations policy, as detailed above.
33. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled this element of the complaint. When the resident informed it of her confusion after receiving conflicting information; it provided her with the correct information from its allocation policy, explained in detail why this meant she would not be considered for rehousing and apologised for the incorrect information being provided to her when she called its customer service line.
34. As stated above, it is not within the remit of this Service to consider whether the resident has been awarded the correct points and/or banding based on her medical need.

Determination (decision)        

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of
    1. How it handled the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. The information given to the resident relating to rent arears and rehousing.

Reasons

36. The landlord has responded appropriately to the residents reports of ASB and has looked to work with outside parties such as the police in order to take further action. The landlord was limited in the actions it could take against the alleged perpetrator of the ASB as they were not a tenant of the landlord.
37. The landlord correctly described how rent arrears affected a rehousing application in its complaint response and apologised for the confusion caused to the resident by it giving the wrong information previously when she called its customer service line.