Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Greenwich Council (202101671)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101671

Greenwich Council

8 December 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour, including noise nuisance and drug activity.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39i of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request and its banding decision are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. While the Ombudsman is able to consider the landlord’s responses in relation to its housing activities, as a local authority, its wider functions which include assessments of the resident’s housing priority, including medical need, is a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), as it has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about the wider obligations of a council. As such no further comment will be made on this matter.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a second floor, 1 bedroom flat and has been since 2009.
  2. Within the tenancy agreement, it notes that in responding to Anti-social Behaviour (ASB), the landlord will take formal action where there is sufficient evidence for a court to award possession.
  3. The Ombudsman is aware that following the landlord’s final response, there have been further issues. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman’s consideration of complaints is limited to matters that occurred up to the final response. As such matters following this have not formed part of this investigation.

Summary of events

  1. Between July and September 2019, the resident raised concerns about noise nuisance and illegal drug taking from her neighbour, neighbour A, including finding a needle on the communal stairs. The landlord visited neighbour A to investigate the claims but noted that there was no evidence of drug taking and neither could it ascertain who the needle belonged to.
  2. There were no further reports until October 2020 when the resident reported that  neighbours A continuously argued and misused the communal doorbell. The landlord provided neighbour A with a new communal door key, however there were still reports of excessive pressing of the doorbell, including pressing other residents’ doorbells, especially in instances where neighbours A argued, and one would not let the other in.
  3. In November 2020, the landlord wrote to neighbour A warning them of the misuse of the doorbell. It also attended the block and hand delivered letters to all residents reminding them of its position in relation to illegal drug activity. It spoke to neighbour A who denied being involved with drugs. The resident requested a copy of the report of the 2019 needle incident, and this was provided. A formal complaint was also logged.
  4. In December 2020, the landlord contacted the Noise team requesting copies of reports it had received from the resident. The team advised no reports had been received. The landlord then requested information from the police.
  5. On 10 December, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It noted it was making every effort to prevent ASB in the block. It reiterated that its tenancy enforcement team patrolled the block in order to witness any ASB and deter perpetrators. It explained that it had been liaising with the police to share information and would take action where there was sufficient evidence to do so, but at present there was not. It requested that the resident continue reporting any illegal activity to the police and explained that it would advise her if any video footage provided was insufficient to take formal action and why.
  6. In January 2021, the resident made further reports of ASB and requested her concerns be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  7. In February 2021, the resident reported further issues, including arguing and smoking by neighbour A. The landlord spoke with the resident and its officers carried out several visits to the block, visiting multiple times in one day. It was reported that there was no ASB or evidence of drug taking, though there was some rubble in the car park, but this was not of concern. Neighbour A denied the allegations. The landlord sent a further letter to neighbours A regarding the allegations of drug activity, but they continued to deny this.
  8. On 24 February, the landlord provided its final response. It noted that its tenancy team had patrolled the block on numerous occasions in order to identify and investigate the reports of ASB. It advised it had also liaised with the police, but there was insufficient evidence to take more formal action. It requested that the resident continue reporting issues and it would continue to prioritise the block in its patrols.

Assessment and findings

  1. In general, ASB means behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. In resolving issues of ASB, good practice is that landlords should always seek to resolve the causes of ASB and prevent reoccurrence. Often landlords will explore informal resolutions as the first option and give an opportunity to those causing problems the chance to stop the behaviour being complained about. However, in occasions where the issue is still complained of, the landlord is expected to continue its investigation and take formal action where evidence permits.
  3. In addressing reports, landlords are expected to speak with the alleged perpetrator, updating the individual who has made the report. Landlords should also use tools such as warning letters, patrols of the areas and liaising with external partner agencies, including the police.
  4. It is clear that following the resident’s reports the landlord’s tenancy team attended the block to patrol the area on numerous occasions. The landlord also interviewed the perpetrator following the reports and provided a warning letter. The landlord liaised with the police and the Council’s noise team, who both advised there was no further action to take. As a result, the landlord was limited in the action it could take.
  5. While this is the case, the landlord made clear that it would continue patrolling the block in order to witness any issues and also deter perpetrators. It kept in contact with the resident and following reports acted accordingly, this was reasonable and in line with general good practice.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39i of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request and its banding decision are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour, including noise nuisance and drug activity.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s banding and transfer request are functions it provides as a local authority and complaints about this are better suited to the LGSCO.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, interviewed the alleged perpetrator, issued warning letters, and liaised with police in order to take more formal action. Where there was insufficient evidence, it adequately explained this and advised it would continue to monitor the situation.