Lambeth Council (202101047)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101047

Lambeth Council

11 March 2022


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 it about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
    2. The associated record keeping.

Background and summary of event

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has not provided ASB records for the period leading up to the events in this complaint. Because of that, much of the background information is taken from the landlord’s complaint responses.
  3. According to the landlord’s stage one complaint response, the resident made an ASB report on 18 November 2020, stating that her neighbour had harassed and intimidated the resident’s daughter. The landlord opened this as a high-risk case.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 November 2020 acknowledging her ASB report. It said it had written to her neighbour about the report, but had not disclosed its source. It sent the resident diary sheets to document any further instances of nuisance and asked her to provide specific details to “enable us to speak to your neighbour and for them to identify what they were doing at these times”. It said if it did not receive the requested information within two weeks it would “assume that the problem has ended and close the case”.  It advised a certain level of household noise is to be expected.
  5. The landlord emailed the resident’s MP on 25 November 2020, in response to a query it received on 16 November 2020 (we have not been provided with a copy of this). It said it did not have a current ASB case open, and the last case was closed in January 2020, so it had opened a new case upon receipt of the MP’s enquiry. It said it would contact the resident to interview her and conduct a risk assessment, request information from the police, and would take further enforcement action based on the information received from the police. It urged the resident to complete diary entries for future ASB incidents. It outlined the priority levels for housing and said the resident was currently not placing high enough to be shortlisted for properties but it encouraged her to make as many bids as possible to secure a property. It advised that due to the shortage of housing, it could be years before she was able to move. It said due to the resident’s ASB concerns it would refer her to a panel to assess whether she could be awarded higher priority for rehousing and suggested mutual exchange as an option for her to consider.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident on 25 November 2020 to review the case, but she told it she did not want to be contacted until the landlord had responded to her MP (who had also written to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 16 November. A copy of the landlord’s email has not been provided). It then carried out a vulnerable victim assessment and categorised the case as low risk.
  7. The landlord emailed the police on 27 November 2020, stating that as the police were still investigating an incident, it had halted its ASB investigation to not compromise the police’s investigation. It requested to be informed of the outcome “in order to decide the best course of action”. This email appears to be in response to a police disclosure sent on 19 June 2019. The police responded on 28 November 2020 and said they had had insufficient evidence to proceed with its investigation. It’s not entirely clear whether the police are commenting on events in 2019 or the resident’s report on 16 November 2020. 
  8. The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 5 December 2020, forwarding a message from the resident’s advocate from Citizens Advice. It said that the landlord’s response had not offered a “real remedy” other than the “potential” of raising her housing priority banding. She added the resident had already completed many diary entries over several years which had not led to effective action by the landlord.
  9. There is no evidence of further correspondence until the landlord sent letters to the resident on 12 March 2021 and 26 March 2021 stating if she did not contact it within seven days the ASB case would be closed. It said it “assumed that there has been a positive outcome from our intervention”.
  10. Following communication from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 19 April 2021 and asked it to contact the resident regarding her complaint of its handling of her ASB reports involving “harassment, racial abuse and an assault” and provide a written response. We informed it the resident had asked to be rehoused as a complaint resolution. 
  11. According to the landlord’s stage one response the ASB case was closed on 21 April 2021.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 29 April 2021.
  13. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 May 2021 and asked for an update as she had an appointment with her MP. She said she had not received an update regarding the panel since the last correspondence she had received from the landlord in November 2020. 
  14. This Service emailed the landlord on 10 May 2021 asking it to issue its stage one response as it had exceeded its response timeframe.
  15. The landlord sent its stage one response on 11 May 2021. It reiterated the actions it had taken and said it had reopened the ASB case in light of the complaint. It asked the resident to “engage positively with the case manager in order to resolve the matter”. It said it had outlined in its response to her MP that to assess her application for emergency priority for rehousing, it needed to investigate and have substantial evidence for the ASB. It said it was “unable to commence this, or offer other solutions, without your input”. 
  16. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 May 2021 asking for her complaint to be escalated. She said she had already completed diary entries in the past, which had not helped the case.
  17. The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 1 June 2021.
  18. In an internal email on 14 June 2021, the landlord stated the resident was not cooperating with the case manager, refused to engage with the risk assessment and told the case manager not to contact her. It therefore closed the ASB case.
  19. The landlord sent its stage two response on 2 July 2021. As in its stage one response, it reiterated the actions it had taken. It said it understood the resident was unhappy with it asking her to complete diary sheets, however it required evidence to “assess the extent and nature of the problem and set out the next steps required in accordance with our procedures”. It signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states:
    1. It will respond to high-risk cases within one working day.
    2. It classifies intimidation and hate crimes as ASB.
    3. It will use a variety of prevention and mediation methods including mediation, good neighbour agreements, and referrals to support organisations.
    4. It will close a case if there have been no reports in three months, the case has been resolved or if it is an unsubstantiated complaint.
    5. It will take a multi-agency approach to tackle ASB.

Handling of ASB reports

  1. The resident informed this Service she has been experiencing ASB since 2012. The Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not raised as formal complaints with a landlord within a reasonable timeframe, usually six months (as per paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme). There is no evidence to suggest that the resident raised any earlier complaints, therefore this report will focus on the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports since the receipt of the resident’s MP enquiry on 16 November 2020, as this was the substantive issue in the complaint. Any other information has been provided for context only.
  2. Upon receipt of the resident’s MP’s enquiry, which the evidence suggests was regarding her report of harassment and intimidation by her neighbour, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy by opening a high-risk case and contacted the resident within one working day of opening the case. It also provided her with diary sheets and advised it had written to her neighbour regarding the report. The resident then said she did not want to communicate with the landlord until it responded to her MP, which it then did the same day.
  3. In order to proceed with investigating an ASB case, it is standard for the landlord to require evidence of the reported ASB in order to proceed and take action against the alleged perpetrator. In this case, the landlord asked the resident on several occasions to complete diary sheets for evidence, and asked to discuss the case over the phone, which she declined. In the absence of details about the incident the resident had report it was reasonable for the landlord to contact the police to ask whether they had obtained further evidence, which they did not. Prior to closing the case, the landlord sent two letters to the resident advising the case would be closed if it did not receive any contact from her, which she did not respond to. As such, the landlord did not have sufficient evidence on which to act, and it was therefore appropriate for it to close the case. This was also in accordance with its policy that states it will close an ASB case if it has not received any reports in three months. In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with its request to complete diary entries but explained why it needed such information if it was to take any action.
  4. In its letter to the resident’s MP, the landlord said that it would refer the resident’s case to a panel to assess whether her priority for a house move could be increased due to the reported ASB. Following that the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations regarding the likelihood of success. It explained the process, and the actions it could take to support her, explained how long the process typically takes, and explained alternative options, including mutual exchange. However, there is no indication in the information provided for this investigation that the panel took place, and in its later stage one complaint response the landlord explained it would require evidence of the ASB in order to proceed. The landlord’s efforts to obtain that evidence from the resident and police were appropriate, as such information was essential for any case to be made to the panel. Given that no significant evidence was gathered, there was nothing the panel could consider.

Record keeping

  1. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint, specifically evidence of the ASB case it referred to in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of ASB records and its contact with the resident, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case, as we have not been provided with key records supporting the landlord’s explanations. This includes the resident’s MP’s original enquiry, and the ASB case the landlord said it subsequently opened. We require this information to ensure that the landlord is acting in accordance with its policies and the actions it took were proportionate to the resident’s report of ASB. As a result, the landlord has demonstrated service failure in this element of the complaint. However, as the landlord provided a comprehensive timeline of events within its complaint response, there was enough evidence to conclude that the landlord acted appropriately in the substantive issue of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the ASB reports.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its records handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In light of its poor record keeping and the difficulties it created in identifying the landlord’s actions, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100.
  2. Evidence of this payment be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping ensuring that appropriate records are maintained to demonstrate that it has met its obligations.
  2. In its final complaint response, the landlord incorrectly referred the resident to the LGSCO, rather than to the Housing Ombudsman. It is not apparent if this caused confusion or delay on the resident’s part, but the landlord should take steps to ensure that it always provides the correct escalation information.