Harlow District Council (202109828)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109828

Harlow District Council

29 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 is about:

a)     the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

b)     the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident’s tenancy began on 11 July 2011. The property is a first floor flat and the alleged perpetrators of the ASB were the resident’s former downstairs neighbours.

Summary of events

3. On 24 February 2021 the resident says he was approached by his neighbour who asked why the resident had been looking out of his window at the neighbour and his family a couple of days previously, to which the resident replied: ‘it’s my flat’. The neighbour then knocked on the resident’s door at 8pm, saying that he wished to discuss their earlier conversation, but the resident asked him to go away. The neighbour then knocked on the resident’s door on three more occasions that evening. The resident rang the police, who attended.
4. The resident reported the incidents to the landlord on 25 February 2021, saying that he thought it was bullying or even a possible disability hate crime due to his stammer. The landlord contacted the resident the same day and it was agreed that this would be logged as an isolated incident at this time. The landlord’s note says that the resident had been spoken to by the police and told to contact the landlord if anything else happened.
5. On 6 March 2021 the resident says he heard an object smash against his lounge window at 9.30pm and this happened a further four times. The resident looked outside his bedroom window and saw the neighbour out front. The neighbour, on seeing the resident, walked up to the flat and started filming the resident on his phone. The resident called the police who attended on 8 March 2021.
6. On 11 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and said he had been advised by police to keep a log of incidents. He said he had also been advised to attempt to film incidents of harassment towards him.
7. The landlord contacted the resident on the 12 March 2021 and recorded that he did not want to take matters further at that time and was happy to make diary notes although things had settled down currently.
8. At 5.15pm on 14 March 2021 the resident says there was an incident where he looked out of his kitchen window and saw the neighbour’s wife looking up at him. Minutes later the neighbour himself was looking up at him. Then the neighbour came up and was hammering on the resident’s door. The neighbour knocked on his door again at around 9.20pm and, according to the resident, was pushing the door trying to gain access.
9. On 15 March 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and agreed to send him an ASB reporting form to complete. On 19 March 2021 the landlord has a note saying it had a long conversation with both the resident and the neighbour and it seemed to be a big misunderstanding. The neighbour had said he had no intention of harming the resident but just wanted to try and resolve the issues that had been reported. The landlord noted that it had also spoken to the police who agreed with this. The landlord said it had agreed to monitor the situation and to liaise with both parties moving forward and consider a good neighbour contract if things did not change.
10. On 3 April 2021 the resident says he was at the bus station when he was approached by the female neighbour’s brother, who said not to look at him and that the resident had been warned about looking at his sister and that the resident would be in trouble if he did it again.
11. On the evening of 10 April 2021, the resident said he twice heard an object smash against his lounge window. On opening the curtains, he saw the neighbour outside. The resident called 999.
12. The resident reported further incidents of the neighbour or his wife approaching him to make accusations of him looking at them, and swearing at him 25, April and 3 May 2021. Another incident of 13 May 2021 resulted in the resident filming the neighbour’s wife as she approached. He states that the police requested him to do so. The neighbour hammered on his door three times that evening and he called 999 and the police attended.
13. On 14 May 2021 the resident made a stage 1 complaint saying that he had been subject to harassment since February 2021 but that the housing officer had not responded to his last few emails.
14. The landlord informed the resident on 17 May 2021 that the housing officer was currently off sick, but the resident should have got the housing officer’s out of office message. He had been on election duty and then on leave prior to this time. It discussed events occurring since the call on 15 March 2021 when it had been agreed it was all a misunderstanding. The resident said that the neighbours might have said that but that he had not agreed to that, and matters were now getting serious. He could not leave his flat without going past the neighbours’ flat and, could not live like that. He had been concerned on one occasion that the neighbour was trying to break in. The resident talked about how the neighbour had tried to force his way into his flat.
15. The resident told the landlord that the police said they could not do anything without evidence but that the neighbour was angry that the resident had videoed his wife. There was then a discussion about why and when the resident was videoing the neighbours. The landlord suggested that this might be antagonising the situation but the resident did not agree and said it was just evidence gathering as advised by the police. The resident said he had found out from the police that the neighbours were moving. He said the housing officer had therefore told him that things would be resolved in a matter of weeks, however that was over a month ago and the neighbours were still there. Since he had last spoken to the housing officer there had been eight more incidents. The landlord advised that it would speak to the police and to the neighbours.
16. The landlord’s internal note of 18 May 2021 records that a data share from the police showed that the resident had rung the police three times but that there was nothing about possible break ins. The landlord had information that the neighbours were indeed moving on their own arrangements, which was due to happen on 29 May 2021.
17. The female neighbour assured the landlord, on 20 May 2021 that they would not approach the resident or his property, although she was becoming increasingly concerned about the resident filming her.
18. In its stage 1 complaint response, of 27 May 2021, the landlord recounted its understanding of events up to the 15 March 2021, at which point it was agreed that the situation would be monitored. It noted that the resident’s complaint listed five further incidents taking place between 3 April 2021 and 13 May 2021 but that it could find no record that he had reported these to it in the same manner. However, it understood that the resident had sent emails to the housing officer who was absent at the time and that the resident says he did not receive the housing officer’s out of office messages.
19. The landlord noted that the police had previously offered mediation but that the offer had not been accepted. With regard to the resident’s filming of the neighbours, it had checked with the police who confirmed that the resident had the option to film if the neighbours attended his property, or confronted him, or behaved in a way that was causing him alarm or distress. However, the police had confirmed that the resident should not be filming his neighbours for any other reason as it might antagonise or escalate the situation. The landlord requested that the resident abide by this clarification. It confirmed that the neighbours had been spoken to and that they had denied the allegations, although they had confirmed that they would not approach the resident or his home.
20. Also, on 27 May 2021 the resident says that someone was hammering on his door at 10.40pm. This happened again at 11.20pm and 11.40pm, with the resident seeing the neighbour through his spyhole on the final occasion. He called the police who did not attend. The resident reported the incident to the landlord on 28 May 2021 and the landlord then rang the neighbours who denied responsibility. The landlord had also spoken to the resident and asked if anything had happened to prompt the knocks at the door. He said that he had seen the female neighbour’s brother in town the previous day but that no words had been exchanged. He had not been filming on that occasion but was holding his camera in his hand.
21. The landlord explained that someone would assume that they were being filmed in that scenario. However, the resident disagreed but said that he was allowed to film them anyway. There was a discussion about counter allegations that the neighbours had made and the difficulty of investigating issues when it was one person’s word against another. However, the landlord said it was trying to gather evidence and would be talking to other tenants in the block to ask if they heard anything the previous night and that it would also be speaking to the police again. The resident said that he would not engage in mediation or in a good neighbour agreement.
22. The resident’s response to the stage 1 outcome was that he would open the door next time the neighbour knocked and attempt to film him for the purpose of evidence. He highlighted that, since the neighbours had given assurances that they would not approach him, there had been two incidents. The resident later made a stage 2 complaint request, asking what the point of obtaining assurances was if no action was taken when they were breached.
23. The landlord contacted other tenant in the block to find out if they had heard any loud banging on the night of 27 May 2021. None had heard anything, even though one tenant said that they would have been up and awake between 10pm and midnight.
24. On 2 June 2021 the landlord spoke to the police who said they had not attended on 27 May 2021 as it was categorised as a low priority as it was not reported that the alleged perpetrator was attempting to gain access to the resident’s home. The police said that, due to lack of evidence, it had now filed the criminal investigation and that the resident had been given general safeguarding advice.
25. On 4 June 2021 the landlord rang the resident to update him on its investigations. It said that the police had confirmed there was no damage to the resident’s front door and that none of the other tenants in the block had heard any disturbances, therefore there was very little it could do without corroboration of his allegations. The resident said there had been no further incidents since the neighbours had moved the previous week and that he had been told by the police that the neighbours had moved to a different area. He expressed surprise that he had to hear this from the police, but the landlord explained that it could not talk about someone else’s tenancy. The landlord stated that any further incidents would have to be reported as usual, but it was not taking the current case any further.
26. On 11 June 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It said that the claims and counter claims of ASB had been investigated in accordance with its procedures which requires it to investigate all allegations impartially. Possible outcomes of ASB cases include mediation, voluntary behaviour agreements and good neighbour contracts, with legal intervention only being considered where there was sufficient supporting evidence to warrant that level of action. It clarified that, though the housing officer remained off work, the resident was contacted within ten working days of his initial email to the housing officer, which was within the landlord’s target response time. It concluded that the case had been handled appropriately and the resident could log any further incidents via its formal contact team channels.
27. The resident reported another incident similar to the previous ones on 16 June 2021. On 18 June 2021 the landlord tried unsuccessfully to contact him. Then on 21 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to express his doubts that the neighbours had left the area police as he had been told by another tenant that they were still local. He speculated whether the landlord had told the police so.
28. On 22 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord saying he wished to make a new stage 1 complaint about a staff member because she had given him the impression that the neighbours had moved away from the area when in reality they had only moved around the corner. He asked whether the landlord really thought that moving the neighbours around the corner would resolve matters and whether it thought he would not find out. The staff member rang the resident, on 2 July 2021, to ask if there had been any further incidents. He stated that it would not be appropriate to talk to her and that the landlord had lied.
29. In its stage 3 complaint response, of 5 July 2021, the landlord said that it had sought to obtain independent evidence to support the resident’s allegation of ASB, including speaking to the police and other tenants in the block, however none was forthcoming. In the absence of evidence, mediation was offered and refused and neither party had been prepared to sign a good neighbour contract. It reiterated what the resident had previously been told by the staff member – that even if it was proved that the neighbour had breached his verbal assurance and knocked at the resident’s door, it would not be considered proportionate to evict any tenant based on that occurrence alone.
30. The landlord also explained that there were clear legal requirements for it to demonstrate to a court that such legal sanctions were necessary and that other less judicial measures had been tried. The resident was asked to reconsider the offer of mediation. The staff member had advised that at no point had she stated where the neighbours had moved to or given any indication in that regard. The landlord noted that the resident had previously said that it was the police that had told him that the neighbours had moved out of the area. It also clarified that it was not it that had moved the neighbours as it could only end tenancies by legal action and on this occasion, there would have been insufficient evidence for such action. It concluded that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports.

Following the stage 3 response

31. On 9 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say that it was behaving in a discriminatory fashion, including a refusal to accept justified complaints. He said that the staff member had called him, which was inappropriate and that he requested this stage 1 complaint be processed and that he wanted to make another stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s refusal to accept the original complaint. The resident also made several other complaints and ended by saying he would bombard the landlord with emails.
32. In its response, the landlord stated that the staff member had contacted him as part of the ongoing ASB case to check how he was and to find out if there had been any further incidents. She had not contacted him to discuss any current complaints. It reiterated that he should escalate his case to this Service.
33. The landlord further said that it had received a substantial number of emails from the resident, including numerous posts made on its Facebook page. It advised that it would not respond to any further correspondence. It later clarified that it would not enter into any further correspondence about the issues dealt with in the stage 3 response. The resident could contact it about other issues and that, for example, it had logged his issues relating to repairs. However, he should direct all his correspondence to its main contact email address.
34. On 19 August 2021, the landlord interviewed both neighbours at their new property, in which they repeated their counter allegations that the resident would watch and stare at them and appeared at times to be filming them. Both neighbours indicated that they would agree to mediation and to sign a good neighbour contract.
35. On 27 August 2021 the resident contacted this Service to say that there had been further incidents with the neighbours but that two letters he had hand delivered to the landlord about that had gone unanswered. Following contact from this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 October 2021 to set out its current position. It narrated visits to the resident on 30 September 2021 and 5 October 2021 during which he had been reluctant to discuss the issues. The landlord advised the resident to log any further ASB as previously advised.
36. As a result of the home visit, during which the resident disclosed a number of health issues, the housing officer made a referral to the tenancy support team in relation to the resident’s living conditions. A referral was also made to social services. The resident subsequently provided the landlord with recordings from his Ring doorbell that showed the former neighbours walking through the pathway beneath his flat. Whilst the resident considered this to be intimidation as he felt they should not be using that route, the landlord advised the resident that this was not considered to be ASB and that no action would be taken.

Assessment and findings

37. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of ASB and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
38. The Ombudsman will usually only consider events up to the point where the landlord has made its formal complaint response, because the landlord has not had the opportunity to formally respond to any later issues. In this case that is the stage 3 response dated 5 July 2021. However, in relation to this case, some of the issues beyond that point relate very closely to the original complaint and therefore the ombudsman considers it appropriate to address them as part of this report. Furthermore, this service has already confirmed to the resident that his complaint about being called by the TTL after he had complained about her, would be looked at.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

39. When the resident initially contacted the landlord about alleged ASB, it responded to him on the same day. It was also in regular contact with him about the ongoing situation. This demonstrates that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and was mindful of its obligations to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreements and its ASB policy.
40. In this case there was no independent evidence to support the resident’s reports. This was despite the landlord contacting other parties who might have been able to corroborate his version of events, such as the police and other nearby tenants.
41. The former neighbour has admitted that he did knock on the resident’s door at times. However, he says that he just wanted to talk things through with the resident and did not bang on the door in an aggressive way or try to gain entry. The police confirmed that there was no damage to the door.
42. The resident is aware that there have been counter allegations regarding his behaviour. It was essential that the landlord did not take sides in such a situation to ensure that everyone was treated fairly.
43. The resident’s view was that, if he could prove that the neighbour had been knocking at his door, that should be enough to evict them. However, any action taken by the landlord has to be reasonable and proportionate. Legal action would be a last resort, if other types of intervention had failed, and would need to be based on solid evidence of significant ASB.
44. Although there was no independent evidence of the alleged ASB, it was clear that there was a dispute between the resident and the neighbours, and the landlord continued to try to resolve this via other means. For example, it suggested that the parties stay clear of it each other, that they might sign a good neighbour contract, and it also offered mediation. It was right to consider mediation as an option to try and bring the parties together and this is often the most effective route to resolving a situation such as this. Although both parties originally declined mediation, more recently the former neighbours have agreed to it, whilst the resident continues to refuse it. With that in mind, it should be noted that the landlord cannot be expected to resolve issues such as ASB unilaterally (particularly where there are allegations and counter-allegations), or to manage residents’ behaviour on a daily basis. Instead, the cooperation of both parties is required to find a mutually agreeable solution which can be effective in the long term.
45. The ASB case played no part in the neighbours’ move as the landlord was still trying to gather evidence at that point. The neighbours arranged the move themselves without any input from the landlord. The landlord is therefore not responsible for the neighbours remaining in the local area.
46. There is no evidence that the landlord’s staff member told the resident that the neighbours had moved out of the area. Her own notes record that she declined to discuss details of the neighbours’ move and that the resident had expressed surprise that he had heard the news from the police. Furthermore, the resident said himself in an email dated 21 June 2021 that it was the police that had told him the neighbours had left the area.
47. The landlord has made referrals to its tenancy support team and to social services, which shows that it is concerned about the resident’s welfare and has taken appropriate action to try and help.
48. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB in a reasonable and proportionate way that was in accordance with its obligations under its ASB policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

49. The resident had emailed the landlord on 22 June 2021 to complain about the staff member telling him the neighbours had moved out of the area. He therefore felt that it was inappropriate that she rang him on 2 July 2021. Ideally it would be more reasonable if a staff member that had been complained about was no longer involved in dealing directly with the complainant, especially if the allegations were of a serious nature. However, in this case, the resident had already previously stated to the landlord, both over the phone and in an email, that it was the police who had provided the misinformation. Therefore, in the context of the wider ASB case and complaint, this was a relatively minor sub issue. The landlord was also trying the maintain communications with the resident and continue to provide him with a service whilst experiencing staff shortages due to long term sickness. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s view that he should not have had to deal with that particular staff member. However, overall, the Ombudsman considers that, whilst not ideal, it cannot conclude that there was any maladministration by the landlord in this respect.
50. In the stage three decision, the landlord addressed the issue of the staff members call to the resident and provided an adequate reason for the call. There would have been no merit to it considering a further complaint on the issue.
51. Landlords have competing demands and limited resources and therefore they need to have ways of dealing with such occurrences as they cannot be expected to utilize additional time and resources in reinvestigating old issues. Therefore, whilst they should look into any genuinely new complaints, it is perfectly legitimate for landlords to manage matters by refusing to deal with any issues that have already fully exhausted the in-house complaints procedures.
52. The resident’s contacts had become problematic to the landlord due to their frequency and volume. Again, it is entitled to put systems in place to try and manage the flow of communication. In this case it asked the resident to get in touch only via its contact team email addresses and phone number. Although it is a restriction, it does not negatively impact on the resident in any way. In fact, it should prove beneficial to both the resident and the landlord. The landlord would be confident that it has captured all of the resident’s contacts in a central place, which would then be allocated to particular staff member and ensure there was no duplication of work. The resident, having early on experienced a lack of response from a particular officer due to him being off sick, would have the confidence of knowing that his emails were not sitting unread in an individual’s inbox. The resident has complained that two letters that he hand–delivered to the landlord had not been responded to. In hand–delivering letters, the resident failed to abide by the landlord’s instructions about how he should make contact, which is the likely reason he did not receive a response.
53. In summary, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has acted reasonably in stating that it will not respond to issues that have been previously dealt with and by requiring the resident to correspond with it only via its contact team. This has been clearly explained to the resident and he can be in no doubt about the way in which he needs to approach the landlord in order to receive a response about any new issues.

Determination (decision)

54. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to:

a)     Its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

b)     How it subsequently dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

55. The landlord took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously and investigated the issues as far as was practicable. However, without independent evidence it has so far been unable to take any action against the former neighbours. The landlord has also ensured that the resident is able to provide information about any further incidents if he chooses to do so.
56. With regard to complaint handling, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably in its dealings with the resident. The landlord is entitled to put conditions on the way that it will communicate with the resident, whilst still offering a service to the resident in relation to any genuinely new issues.