Halton Housing (202015876)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015876

Halton Housing

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident began her tenancy on an Assured Shorthold (Starter) tenancy on 20 November 2017. This was converted to an Assured Non-shorthold Tenancy on 20 November 2018.
The property is a two-bedroom flat located on the first floor.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 17 January 2019 the resident reported that her neighbour had been smoking cannabis on the balcony below her daughter’s bedroom. The resident was advised on the same day that the information would be passed on to the Tenancy Enforcement Team to be dealt with and it appears that an ASB case was opened.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that it undertook an interview of the alleged perpetrator on 29 January 2019. It is unclear whether any further action was taken at this time.
A second report was made by the resident on 9 April 2019. The resident advised that she had knocked on the neighbours door to address the matter, only to be sworn at. The resident advised on 15 April 2019 that she had begun discussing this with an ASB officer and creating a diary of these issues, however had lost the diary. She therefore requested new diary sheets.
The landlord’s notes indicate that it opened a new ASB case for the resident on the following day, and sought to contact the resident in a weeks’ time to establish whether there were any further incidents. It noted that it had posted further diary sheets to the resident.
It appears that on 24 April 2019 the landlord and resident discussed a plan of action. It was advised that if there were no further incidents, the case would again be closed. It appears that this was done on 7 May 2019.
On 18 May 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that there were strong smells of cannabis inside her flat and in the corridor. A further report was made on 20 May 2019.
The landlord’s records show that it advised the police of the issues reported on 20 May 2019 and visited the resident and the alleged perpetrator at their homes on 28 May 2019. It is unclear what was discussed / agreed during these visits.
A letter was sent to all residents on 24 May 2019. It highlighted that there had been complaints about cannabis use and advised residents that this was a breach of tenancy. Residents affected by cannabis use were encouraged to contact the police and advised that the landlord would follow up on any of the police’s findings.
This Service can see that later, on 11 July 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it had again spoken with her neighbour and raised the allegations. It would provide further diary sheets for the resident to complete. It stated that it would monitor the case for four weeks and seek to obtain any evidence of the allegations. The resident was asked to provide as much detail as possible.
On 26 July 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that a party was being held at her neighbours property and that there was still the smell of cannabis. She reported that there were a lot of people present. The landlord’s records show that a further report of cannabis use was made to the landlord on the following day via Facebook. The resident reported that as well as this, her neighbour’s dog had been howling, the neighbour had been slamming doors, and playing music. The resident advised the landlord that the incidents had been reported to the police (via 101).
On 8 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it would visit her at her home to discuss her report of ASB. The Ombudsman can see that this meeting took place on 14 August 2019. It appears that the landlord also attempted to interview the resident’s neighbour, however was unable to.
A further report of cannabis use was made by the resident on 26 September 2019. The landlord agreed to monitor the case however with no further action or reports, the case was again closed on 16 October 2019.
The landlord advised the resident on 12 December 2019 that further visits had been made to the block by both itself and the police, and no evidence of cannabis use could be smelt. The resident was advised that reports still needed to be made to the police, nonetheless.
The Ombudsman cannot see that there were any following reports of ASB until 9 April 2020. At this time, the resident reported both the smell of cannabis use and that her neighbour had not been isolating. She stated that she was concerned for her safety as her neighbour brought people home who might potentially pass on the coronavirus. A report of noise nuisance was also made on the following day.
On 15 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident advising her that she needed to contact the Environmental Health (EH) Department in respect of her reports of noise nuisance. Noise diary sheets would then be sent to the resident to complete. Within this letter, the landlord stressed that this was necessary as without evidence, noise monitoring equipment would not be provided.
On 7 and again later on 9 June 2020 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She explained:
1. She had reported several incidents to her housing officer who insisted nothing more could be done, despite taking no action in the first place.
2. Various people were coming in and out of the building and her neighbour’s property for the purpose of smoking cannabis. There were also several house parties. Another resident had voiced a similar concern.
3. She had reported several incidents via 101, but found that in the current climate, it was often engaged, and she found it difficult to report all matters with a small child to look after.
4. When she had reported the matter to the police, and that a visitor had been dealing drugs, she was simply told that this would be dealt with by its intelligence team.
5. Her neighbour also had a small child, who was frequently left to fend for herself while the neighbour smoked cannabis.

The resident asserted that the landlord needed to do more to assist and support residents. She stated that she did not want to become sick from second-hand cannabis and therefore requested that the landlord deal with the matter. She did not want her daughter around this sort of behaviour.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 June 2020 and offered its complaint response on 19 June 2020. It noted:
1. The resident had first reported issues of cannabis use within the block on 17 January 2019. On 26 January 2019 the Tenancy Enforcement Officer (TEO) approached the alleged perpetrator who denied cannabis use. The TEO then approached the resident who confirmed that there had been no further incidents, although she could still smell cannabis in the block. The Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) were asked to give the block of flats attention and a general drug letter was sent to all residents.
2. On 8 February 2019 following the resident’s report of cannabis use in the block, she was advised to make this report to the police via 101. Diaries had been sent to the resident and other tenants in the block who had confirmed that they had also smelt cannabis. As no diaries were returned by the resident or the other tenants, the TEO had spoken with the resident who explained that the issue had died down. It was agreed that the case would be closed on 6 March 2019.
3. Following the resident’s report of cannabis use in the block on 9 April 2019, diary sheets were given to the resident, and she was contacted on 7 May 2019 to establish whether there had been any more issues. She confirmed that there had not been, and so the case was closed. No diary sheets were returned.
4. A report was made by the resident on 20 May 2019 of cannabis use and so on 23 May 2019 a letter was sent to all tenants in the block and the TEO arranged to attend the resident’s address on 28 May 2019. During this meeting, the resident identified the property she believed the cannabis was coming from and was advised that she needed to report this to the police so that evidence could be gathered to take court action. On 11 June 2019 the police attended the address where the resident had reported cannabis, however no evidence of this was found.
5. On 18 June 2019 the TEO made a further visit to the resident to discuss the resident’s ongoing concerns. The alleged perpetrator was interviewed following this and rather than converting their start tenancy to an assured tenancy, their starter tenancy was extended. The resident was again contacted and confirmed no further incidents.
6. A report was made on 9 April 2020 of cannabis use and a breach of COVID-19 guidelines. The alleged perpetrator was subsequently sent a letter advising of government guidelines and of reports of smoking cannabis. The neighbour was advised that tenancy action would be taken if evidence of this was found. This was again denied. A request was made, nonetheless, for the police to give the block extra attention.
7. The resident was advised on 4 May 2020, 20 May 2020, 3 June 2020 and 8 June 2020 to contact the police regarding concerns of cannabis use and drug dealing.
8. On 10 June 2020 a report was made that the neighbour was smoking cannabis and a picture was sent. This showed a hand, out of the window, smoking a cigarette. The resident also reported that the neighbour was having a party. She was advised to contact EH regarding noise nuisance and it was explained to her by the police that it was only empowered to remove people from an address who were causing a major disturbance. The police were again asked to give attention to the block. Another letter was sent to the whole block.
The landlord subsequently concluded that there was no evidence of a service failure and disagreed that its staff appeared to be doing nothing. The resident was advised, however, that evidence was needed in order to enable further enforcement action. She was advised, in respect of her concern for the resident’s child’s safety, to make reports to the appropriate services if she had concerns.
On 8 July 2020 the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process. She explained:
1. She confirmed that a PCSO had attended her property in January 2019. She expressed, however, that the officer was unable to smell cannabis during the hours she had visited. This was as the cannabis was mainly used in the evenings and while the officer had tried to attend at several different times, they had all been outside of the hours specified as being troublesome.
2. She had completed a diary however this was unfortunately lost. She was advised by the landlord to contact 101 to back up her reports. She noted that it had previously been upheld that she was the only resident complaining and so this was difficult to prove. The landlord’s letter evidenced, however, that other residents had acknowledged the use of cannabis and therefore the landlord had several accounts yet did little to chase this up.
3. She had been threatened by a friend of the neighbour and since this incident, the person had been abusive several times. She stated that she had witnessed the neighbour smoking cannabis rather than simply suspecting it, however the landlord consistently took the word of the nuisance neighbour.
4. She disputed that dairy sheets had been sent on 9 April 2019 or that she had agreed for the case to be closed. She explained that she complied with the landlord’s desire to close the case as she had been told that nothing more could be done.
5. The PCSO did attend the address on 11 June 2019, 10 days after the complaint. It was not unsurprising that it was subsequently unable to smell cannabis. A neighbour had seen the officer poke her head through the door and walk off without even entering the building.
6. Sending letters did not deter the neighbour from using drugs, being abusive, or having parties during the pandemic. She stated that another neighbour was now going into the property to use cannabis while the perpetrator’s child wandered the building. She stated that the neighbour was never going to admit cannabis use but had admitted it to her before.
7. The neighbour had breached several government guidelines, and nothing had been done about it. She stated that she had pictures of a bouncy castle outside of her neighbours property and had reported to 101 / taken pictures when people had visited the neighbours property during a time when this was illegal. She did not believe that a letter was proportionate.

The resident believed that the landlord should be dealing with the issue for the benefit of the children in the block. She stated that these issues were escalating.

On 20 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord explained that it would not progress the resident’s complaint to stage two of its process but in response to her points, noted:
1. She had been advised that she needed to call the police when she smelt cannabis in order to accrue evidence. It was the police who needed to take action.
2. As it had explained at stage one, it had chased up the other tenants who had made reports and a PCSO was asked to call out to the property. They were also advised to contact the police.
3. There had been no previous mention of being threatened in the stage one complaint. It did take into account the views and responses but also relied on the police to gain evidence and take action on drug use.
4. It had taken the residents compliance for the case to be closed as agreement.
5. In respect of the PSCO’s investigation, and the times that it visited the property, this was outside of the landlord’s control.
6. Any further incidents which had occurred since the complaint had been made would not form part of the stage two request.
7. It had fully responded to her concerns regarding COVID-19 breaches and in respect of any concerns relating to the safety of the neighbour’s child.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

It is not disputed that upon the resident’s initial report of ASB, and on several occasions following this, the landlord made contact with the police and requested that it patrol the block. This was an appropriate response given the nature of the reported ASB. While the landlord would be responsible for taking tenancy action, as the use of drugs would have breached the conditions of tenancy, this was ultimately a criminal matter and therefore required the involvement of the police.
It was subsequently also appropriate that the landlord advised the resident to share her reports with the police, to ensure that the matter was responded to at the time of the incident, and in order to accrue evidence. While the Ombudsman has been unable to see when the landlord signposted the resident to the police, or that it advised of its intention to liaise with the police to support its own investigation, this was included in its communication to all residents in May 2019.
The Ombudsman appreciates the residents concern that despite reporting that the ASB occurred during a specific time, the police had not patrolled the block during this period. This, however, was not an issue which fell within the landlord’s control. While it might have been reasonable for the landlord to have encouraged the police to undertake patrols during the troublesome period, it was ultimately down to the police to decide how it planned to offer the resource and when it would attend. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord explained this to the resident, in its final response.
In a similar respect, while the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the extent of the PCSO’s investigation on 11 June 2019, this too was not a matter which the landlord was responsible for. Complaints about the service provided by the police, including any inaction as the resident suggested in her stage one complaint, should have been directed to the police service’s own complaints department.
As well as relying the police as a resource (which reported no evidence of cannabis use), this service would expect to see that the landlord also took steps of its own, to follow up on the resident’s reports. The Ombudsman recognises that the level of action taken would have been based on the evidence provided by the resident. It was therefore reasonable that after a further ASB report in February 2019, the landlord shared diary sheets with the resident and encouraged her to detail the incidents. The Ombudsman can see from the resident’s own admission that she had begun completing this diary but had not provided it to the landlord as she had lost this. While this was unfortunate, it was not unreasonable that in the absence of this record, the landlord closed the ASB case in March 2019, having interviewed the neighbour, discussed the matter with the resident, and (allegedly) written to all residents. As per the landlord’s ASB policy, cases will be closed where incident diaries have not been returned in the agreed time.
The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether more diary sheets were offered to the resident (in April 2019) as both the landlord and the resident have offered differing views and no evidence has been seen. In any case, it is clear that upon receiving a further ASB report from the resident and opening an ASB case in April 2019, no further reports were made, and no evidence was accrued. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord subsequently acted in accordance with its policy, and again closed the resident’s case. Although the resident has suggested that she did not agree to this being closed, she has confirmed that the landlord had explained that nothing further could be done (in the absence of evidence).
It was appropriate that upon receiving further reports of ASB from the resident, the landlord undertook further visits to both the resident and her neighbour’s homes, as well as writing to all residents to remind them of the expected behaviours under the conditions of tenancy. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord put the allegations of drug use to the neighbour (which she denied). It was therefore appropriate to set out, again in the absence of evidence and given that the allegations had been disputed, the expectations of tenants before any further steps could be taken.
In the landlord’s stage one response it was recognised that other tenants had also reported cannabis use. The Ombudsman therefore would have expected the landlord to have sought information from these parties, to corroborate the resident’s reports and to inform the landlord on the next steps required. In review of the evidence, however, the Ombudsman is unable to confirm that the landlord did this. Despite the landlord’s assertion that it chased matters up and provided tenants with diary sheets to complete, it has been unable to demonstrate that it took any such action. It has been seen, however, that the landlord sent a letter to all resident’s in May 2019 encouraging anyone affected by cannabis use to contact the police and explaining its role in such scenarios. This was reasonable.
Additionally, with allegations that the resident’s neighbour had breached the COVID-19 government guidelines, it was also fair that the landlord wrote to the neighbour. Although the resident has expressed that she did not believe this to be proportionate action, issues pertaining to compliance with the guidelines should have been reported to the police. The landlord did have a responsibility to protect its residents and to encourage them to act in accordance with the guidelines, however enforcement of this was ultimately the responsibility of the government. The Ombudsman has therefore considered the landlord’s letter to the resident to have been a reasonable approach.
This Service is unable to confirm whether the landlord extended the resident’s neighbour’s starter tenancy, as it said it did, however this would have been a reasonable step to take in light of the reported ASB.
In respect of the resident’s neighbour’s child, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to raise any concerns she had with his care via the appropriate services (including the police). As there was no evidence provided to support the resident’s allegations, the Ombudsman cannot see that it would have been proportionate for the landlord to have taken any further action.
Moreover, where reports of noise nuisance were concerned, it was appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to EH in order for the necessary evidence to be accrued. The Ombudsman can see that with the correspondence, the landlord emphasised the importance of evidence in obtaining noise monitoring equipment. This was reasonable.
For completeness, the Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord refused to consider the resident’s report that she had been threatened by a friend of the neighbours. This was as it stated that the resident had not raised this in her initial complaint. As the landlord’s stage two process seeks to review its handling of matters at stage one and any potential oversights, it was not unreasonable that it took the decision not to comment on new issues. Given the nature of the report however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the matter outside of the complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Under the landlord’s complaints process, where the resident requests for matters to be escalated to stage two, the landlord should assess whether the reason for escalation is clearly set out and whether it is provided within 20 working days of the stage one response.
If these requirements are met, the landlord should undertake a stage two review, producing a stage two response with its final position and responding to each point raised by the resident. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord offered the resident a response to each of her points, and that this was done in good time.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord should not have declined to consider the resident’s stage two complaint at stage two of its process, and should have provided a full review as its policy suggests it would. This would also have provided the landlord with the opportunity to consider whether anything further could have been done previously, or in the future, to improve the resident’s situation.
It is unclear why the landlord took the decision to reject the resident’s stage two request, but this was contrary to good practice. The Ombudsman has not considered this to be a service failure, given that a response was issued, but has made a recommendation below to improve the handling of future complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

a. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

b. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The above determination has been arrived at as in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord took proportionate action in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The Ombudsman appreciates that the steps taken did not resolve the matter for the resident and that several ASB cases had to be opened and closed. This would have been frustrating for the resident. With limited evidence, however, the Ombudsman cannot see that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken more aggressive action. It was appropriate, nonetheless, for the landlord to encourage the resident to share her reports with the police (as well as itself) and to encourage the police to patrol the property to support its investigation. The Ombudsman has been unable to conclude that there was a failure in the landlord’s service.
In respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, while the landlord failed to fully employ its process, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord provided the resident with satisfactory responses at each of its stages.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord must ensure that all complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy and that complainants are given full and fair treatment, in line with its process. The landlord may wish to review the Complaint Handling Code, available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website, to remind itself of the Ombudsman’s expectations.