Croydon Council (202004576)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004576

Croydon Council

13 July 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 response to:
1. allegations made about the resident by his neighbours and the landlord’s staff;
2. the resident’s reports of harassment and discrimination by its staff.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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.
The Ombudsman has considered previous complaints from the resident in relation to the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and allegations made against him (case ref. 201812419 determined on 22 October 2019 and case ref. 201911910 determined on 31 July 2020). These cases considered events up to December 2019.
Paragraph 23(o) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon’. As a result, this investigation will not consider events which took place prior to January 2020, although reference is made to the previous cases were appropriate and relevant to the current complaint.

Background and summary of events

In an email to his Tenancy Officer (TO) on 2 January 2020, the resident confirmed that the police had visited his home that day following false allegations from a neighbour who said he was taking photos of her child. He explained that the police officer was satisfied he was not taking photos as alleged and he believed she was doing this because he had previously served her with a harassment warning. He confirmed that the police checked his CCTV camera and said that it was legal. Lastly, he stated that taking photos of other residents in the courtyard was legal as it was classed as a public area, despite the landlord stating otherwise. However, others taking photos of him inside his flat was illegal. The landlord acknowledged the email stating that it, and not the police, determined the rules and use of CCTV cameras on its premises. In respect of the other issues raised, it would not object to police views.
On 6 January 2020, the resident acknowledged the landlord’s block letter dated 2 January 2020, which stated that smoking on landings was against tenancy conditions. The resident said he had been raising this to the landlord for some time but it had not enforced it and he referred to specific residents that continued to ignore this warning. He had witnessed a neighbour smoking on the balcony so had taken a photo of him, which provoked a reaction and the neighbour proceeded to ‘bash down’ the resident’s front door. The police had been called. In addition, on 1 January 2020, the same resident had stood in his way by the block entrance and verbally abused him. He stated that this was ongoing harassment and intimidation and attached photos of the other residents smoking on their balconies. He said the landlord could have a copy of his CCTV showing the neighbour banging on his front door. He then sent further emails stating that another neighbour was smoking by their front door and was taking photos of him inside his kitchen, which was an invasion of his privacy and human rights and amounted to ASB.
On 9 January 2020, the TO emailed the resident addressing a number of issues. They said the attached pictures the resident had sent were of no relevance, they would rely on witnesses to corroborate his allegations, and they were relying on landlord staff to patrol and report back to them. They did not believe the neighbours smoke was causing him distress or that this was being done as a vendetta against him. If the resident felt that the smoke was going into his property, they could visit his property to verify this. There was reference to the resident’s gate and that residents could take pictures at their own convenience – which was not a breach of tenancy conditions. The TO advised that the resident’s refusal to allow it to inspect his CCTV footage following complaints from his neighbours was a breach of his tenancy agreement as was smoking on the communal landing. It was the TO’s role to ensure that all residents complied with the tenancy conditions.
The resident replied the same day highlighting the section of the block letter which stated ‘equally you may take pictures of residents that you feel are breaching the conditions of tenancy or the law’. He felt the landlord’s response amounted to bias and that this was another example of it not investigating his complaints about his neighbours but focusing on complaints about him. He explained that he never said the neighbours smoking on the landing was affecting him but rather that this conduct was a breach of the tenancy conditions and that their smoke was getting into his property.
He explained that the CCTV was initially installed for his protection and the neighbours’ complaints about this was malicious and had no merit. The cameras had been checked by both the landlord’s staff and the police and permission was granted for him to have them. He said the cameras were in exactly the same place and had not been moved or amended in any way. He asked the landlord for evidence that his cameras had changed and said that its requests for him to attend its offices for a meeting were discriminatory. He, his advocate and the local ward councillor had already explained why he could not attend the office.
The landlord acknowledged this email the same day, stating that not engaging with it was a breach of his tenancy conditions and that other residents felt the CCTV was intrusive and was monitoring them. The landlord’s staff also felt they were being watched when visiting the block to carry out official duties. They would continue to look into this as well as his concerns about his neighbours’ smoking. The resident replied asking the landlord to provide him with evidence of the allegations made about him and where it says he must allow the landlord entry to his property and to inspect his CCTV.
Further emails were sent between the parties with the landlord asking the resident to attend its offices for a meeting where the above issues would be discussed and the resident repeating that he would not attend for reasons previously stated. He also asked it to send the information he requested in line with a subject access request or he would report the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’). He also stressed that the landlord’s actions amounted to harassment and discrimination on the grounds of mental health.
In the landlord’s response of 13 January 2020, it provided a number of dates that neighbours had raised concerns about the resident, referred him to the relevant tenancy conditions regarding entry to his property, and said that it would be attending on 16 January 2020. It also provided photos of his CCTV cameras, explaining its concerns and noting that there were now two cameras. The same day, the resident sent the landlord a Cease and Desist Notice due to its unwarranted harassment. This asked the landlord to stop all forms of harassment including illegal unannounced visits to his home, fabricated and malicious accusations via email and letters, discrimination on the grounds of mental health, continued nit picking, bullying, and accusations that he was invading his neighbours’ privacy with his CCTV cameras.
On 11 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s Operational Manager (OM), copying in the ASB team, about further issues with his neighbours, particularly the neighbour who he had previously reported was taking photos of him in his flat. He said there was an incident on 23 February 2020 when she made a threat to kill him and the police were called and advised him to get an injunction against her. He was told by the court to serve the papers on the neighbour which led to an altercation between the parties and other neighbours. The police were called. The resident explained what had happened and that he was trying to serve an injunction on her as directed by the court. He said he had all the events recorded as evidence of what took place. The police recommended that he did not go back to the neighbour’s house and let the court know what had happened. On 10 March 2020 there was a further hearing, which the neighbour failed to attend, and the Judge determined that the injunction should stay in place for one year. The resident attached a copy for the landlord. This email was acknowledged by the OM who confirmed that she would forward it to the ASB team.
On 20 March 2020, the landlord’s ASB officer explained that he had been on leave but would be in contact with the resident to arrange a meeting as there had also been allegations made against him. In the resident’s response he reiterated that he would not be attending any meetings as he had no advocate, he was finding it difficult to locate one, and he was unable to travel alone. He stated that, in 2017, the landlord confirmed he was not committing any ASB or breaching his tenancy conditions and this Service had issued two determinations which found maladministration and discrimination by the landlord for its failure to investigate his reports of ASB by his neighbours. There had been continuous allegations made against him from 2016 to date with no grounds or merit to them. He referred to recent events where he had video footage of the altercation with his neighbours showing them breaching their tenancy conditions. He felt the landlord continued to fail to investigate his reports but persisted with contacting him about reports made against him.
In the landlord’s response of 23 March 2020, it highlighted the role of an advocate at any meeting to be had. It queried how the resident had attended the court recently to obtain the injunction and asked for medical evidence confirming that the resident was unable to travel alone. It highlighted that the previous meeting was in 2017 and further allegations and complaints had since been made about the resident which needed to be investigated. Due to the current lockdown as a result of the covid-19 pandemic, face to face interviews were not taking place so as soon as it could, the landlord would write to him with an appointment date. It also confirmed that it would be contacting the resident’s care coordinator to attend this meeting and to make a request about the resident’s capacity.
Further emails were sent that day in which the resident stated that he was under no obligation to provide medical evidence that he was unable to travel alone and that the landlord had no right to contact his care coordinator. As confirmed in the Ombudsman’s previous determination, such actions amounted to the landlord’s ongoing discrimination and he would escalate this further if it did. Also, the landlord was still failing to investigate his reports of ASB, despite recent events.
The resident then reported a further incident with a neighbour on 8 April 2020 to the OM. He felt the ongoing harassment from his neighbours was being overlooked by both the police and landlord. The ASB officer replied asking that the resident contact him going forward, as previously requested. He also asked if the incident had been caught on the resident’s CCTV or if anyone else had witnessed it. The resident said that he would continue to email the OM, no one else had witnessed the incident and, although it could be seen on his CCTV, there was no audio recording. He stressed that the police had warned this neighbour before about his conduct towards the resident but it was still continuing. The ASB officer said the CCTV should support the resident’s allegations and therefore asked for a copy, but the resident said he would need to make a formal request under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
In further emails the same day, the ASB officer confirmed that he would respond to this when COVID-19 legislation had lifted and he was able to carry out his investigations, meetings and interviews using normal policy and procedures. He clarified that the courtyard was not a public space and said that he would be writing to the neighbour regarding the incident on 8 April 2020. He asked the resident to keep him updated regarding any complaints and allegations. Following this, the resident reported that his neighbours were not adhering to social distancing rules which put other residents at risk. The ASB officer asked that he report this to the police as it had no authority to enforce social distancing under the COVID-19 rules.
The resident then raised a formal complaint on 14 April 2020, which detailed his concerns about: particular members of landlord staff; the false allegations that had been made against him; the landlord’s failure to investigate his own reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB); his CCTV cameras; discrimination and harassment by the landlord (both historic and current); and the Ombudsman’s previous determinations.
In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 1 May 2020, it explained that it was limited in the extent to which it could investigate the resident’s ASB reports during lockdown, but it had written to the alleged perpetrators regarding his allegations. It noted that, in the past, it had been criticised for focusing on his mental health but it found that this was a subject the resident continued to raise as a reason for his engagement with the tenancy and ASB teams. It acknowledged his difficulty in securing an advocate and that he was unable to travel alone to attend a meeting with the ASB team. Therefore, to assist him, the ASB officer sought evidence to confirm this from SLAM and obtain an overview of the resident’s capacity and mental health. It did not agree that this was discriminatory and said the ASB Officer informed the resident that he was going to do this.
The landlord noted that the evidence showed the resident had been discharged back to his GP and did not suggest any reason why he would not be able to attend an interview regarding the allegations made against him and by him. It felt that, if the evidence from SLAM had confirmed that the resident was unable to travel on his own but it had persisted with this, that might amount to a breach of the Equalities and Disability Discrimination Act. However, it did not believe this was the case. It said the injunction was taken out by him and therefore any breaches of this would need to be dealt with by the police or courts. It would then become involved if the neighbour was found by the police or the court to be guilty of breaching the injunction. It reiterated that breaches of social distancing by his neighbours was a matter for the police.
With regard to the resident’s report of the incident on 8 April 2020, the landlord noted that it had taken place in an area covered by his CCTV but he had declined to provide a copy of the footage. Without this evidence or any independent witness statements, it was one person’s word against another so it could not take any further action. Should the resident feel threatened or concerned for his personal safety, he should contact the police in the first instance.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had sent further photos of the neighbours smoking on the balconies outside their flats, but the TO had reviewed them and did not find that it constituted ASB. As this matter was a subject of the Ombudsman’s investigation at that time, it could not comment on this further. However, it clarified that smoking was prohibited in enclosed communal areas but smoking on balconies was not an enclosed internal area. As the resident had said the smoke was going into his property, the TO had offered to visit to witness this.
In respect of his concerns that the neighbours were taking photos of him, the landlord was inclined to believe that they would continue to do so long as the resident was also doing the same. It felt there were ongoing issues between the resident and several of his neighbours. With regards to the resident’s request that it stop harassing him, the landlord could find no evidence of its staff discriminating against or harassing him. It was bound to investigate reports made against him and it could not simply take his word over another resident’s when he made allegations about his neighbours. It was keen to see matters resolved between the resident and his neighbours but believed that this would only happen when the resident engaged with it as previously requested.
The resident responded the same day expressing his dissatisfaction. He felt there was continued bias and discrimination and that he had provided the landlord with evidence to support his concerns about his neighbours. He requested that the matter be escalated to Stage 2.
On 15 April 2020, the resident reported a further incident with a neighbour who then threw a cup of coffee at his bathroom window. He attached photographic evidence and stated that the neighbour was monitoring his movements. He felt that the neighbour he had obtained an injunction against was continuing to take photos of him which was a breach of her injunction. He had reported this to the police who said it was not a criminal matter and asked the landlord to investigate this continued harassment. The ASB officer acknowledged this the next day, asking whether anything happened to trigger the neighbour’s reaction and said due to lockdown he was unable to conduct any meetings or interviews. However, he would write to all parties involved. He confirmed that he had also received complaints from the resident’s neighbours about him taking their pictures and those of their children, intimidation and continuously playing loud music throughout the day and into the night.
In further emails, the resident maintained that he was doing as the landlord had told him by taking photos of residents breaching their tenancy conditions. He again raised concerns to the landlord about his neighbours’ conduct and its lack of investigation into this. He confirmed that the Environmental Team had visited in the past and confirmed his music did not amount to a nuisance. The landlord acknowledged his emails repeating that, due to lockdown, it was unable to carry out a full investigation but confirmed that letters had been sent. It explained that taking photos of others would create tension and anger which is why it was wrong to do so and that constantly taking photos of others would amount to harassment.
Lastly, the Environmental Team had different legislation for noise nuisance than the ASB team and the landlord considered that continually playing loud music which could be heard outside his property would constitute ASB. It also recommended that he use headphones if he needed to listen to his music and asked that he send any video evidence he had so it could review it.
The resident responded the same day asking that the matter be escalated. On 14 May 2020, the landlord sent the resident a ‘Final Warning’ letter about his taking photos of other residents and stated that this was considered to be harassment, nuisance, annoyance and ASB. It explained that it would take further enforcement action if he did not cease this behaviour. The resident responded by serving a Cease and Desist on the landlord for its fabricated accusations and asked that it refrain from sending him further correspondence. If it wanted to take him to court then it should do so as a matter of urgency so the matter could be resolved before a Judge.
On 28 May 2020, the ASB officer responded to the resident’s reports about his neighbours’ conduct. It referenced the incidents on 8 and 16 April 2020 and explained that it had written to the individuals concerned and that this would be investigated when COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted. It confirmed that the neighbour involved in the incident on 16 April 2020 had her own version of events as to what happened that day and this was different to the resident’s account. It also addressed the resident’s other reports and confirmed that all parties had been written to. It would continue to monitor the situation and asked the resident to keep him updated about further incidents. The resident responded, reminding the landlord that he had served a Cease and Desist but also challenged the neighbours’ responses and attached video evidence of the incidents.
There was a further incident on 3 June 2020 when the landlord visited the block to hand deliver another Final Warning letter to the resident about his loud music. He raised a concern about this the same day, stating that the landlord was making fabricated accusations about the level of his music. The landlord responded that the Cease and Desist was not legally binding and that it considered the video footage showed him ‘goading’ the neighbour by taking her picture and that he swore and verbally abused her.
On 4 June 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 2 response. It acknowledged that the matter had been ongoing for some time and confirmed that it was keen to meet with the resident to discuss his allegations and those of his neighbours. It felt that, in order to find long term solutions, it needed to meet with him and hoped he would be willing to work with it to achieve this. It explained that the ASB officer had written to his neighbours about meeting with them separately and would send a response to him with the outcome. It then detailed its response to the complaint as follows:
1. The OM and ASB officer had been trying to arrange for him to visit the office for some time as was normal procedure, unless there was a specific reason that would prevent this. It was noted that the resident had attended the office in 2017 [1] and more recently attended court in February and March 2020 when he made the injunction application. Therefore, the ASB office was unclear why he could not attend the meeting as requested. He was told the ASB officer would contact SLAM as it had an information sharing protocol with various agencies and, had SLAM told it the resident could not travel, they would not have continued to ask him to do so. It then referred him to a website for advocacy services in the area;
2. It had written to the neighbour about the incident on 8 April 2020 and had asked the resident for his CCTV footage, as he said this had been caught on camera, but it had not received this from him. It asked him again to send this. It was confident that all comments and allegations to the ASB team and tenancy team made by him and other residents regarding each other had been taken seriously and looked into;
3. With regard to the Cease and Desist notice he had sent to the ASB officer, it noted that the officer said he would not observe the notice and the resident responded that he would block all emails and return letters that were sent to him. The landlord explained that, when allegations are raised, it has a duty to look into them and follow a process to resolve the problem. Part of this process was contacting the parties involved to either obtain evidence, conduct interviews or send correspondence regarding the outcome. If he continued to block the ASB officer, he would not be able to do his job properly and would look to commence enforcement action;
4. The ASB officer had followed the correct process and a meeting should be facilitated to try to resolve the ongoing issues. If the resident did not attend as requested, adhere to the conditions of his tenancy agreement as previously advised, and follow the requests made to stop taking photos of other residents and stop playing loud music the council would have to unfortunately start enforcement action. It then referred him to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
On 8 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident stating that a member of staff had attended the resident’s home to hand deliver a letter. As the resident had opened the door by the time he arrived, he had to drop the letter inside the property. The resident was reported as shouting at the staff member ‘you don’t listen do you’ and swore at him. The landlord confirmed in a subsequent letter that it would not tolerate abuse towards its staff.
The landlord hand delivered a further letter on 25 June 2020, confirming that it would be attending the resident’s home on 3 July 2020 to inspect the CCTV camera. The resident responded the same day referencing another ‘unannounced visit’ by the ASB officer and fabricated allegations regarding his camera having been changed. He confirmed that the camera had been changed due to spiders and bugs entering the old one, but the field of view remained the same. He was told by the police that the front of the block and the courtyard were public spaces so he was free to record these areas and this was a civil matter. Lastly, he stressed that, due to a heart condition and a hiatus hernia, he was classed as high risk and was shielding. Therefore, he asked for the visit to be rescheduled to a later date after his appointment on 31 July 2020 with his consultant.
In the landlord’s response of 2 July 2020 it explained that there had not been an ‘unannounced visit’ but rather it was delivering mail to the resident’s home. Other residents had raised concerns about the field of view of the resident’s CCTV and it was noted that he did not inform the landlord about changing the camera. It confirmed that previous permission had been given after a staff member visited to inspect the CCTV monitor and field of view. It reiterated that the courtyard was not a public space and reminded the resident of the orders it could make in order to enforce the tenancy conditions. Lastly, the landlord explained that it could withdraw its permission for the resident to have CCTV at any time and would wait until after the hospital appointment.
Further emails were sent by the resident stating that the ASB officer was not to handle his case due to the ongoing harassment and defamatory accusations made by him and that he would continue to block his emails and letters. In an email dated 17 July 2020, an ASB Manager apologised that he had cause for complaint and addressed a number of his concerns. The resident responded by raising a Subject Access Request. He has reported further incidents about his neighbours, to which the landlord responded and confirmed it would write to the specific neighbours about the issues raised.
In the resident’s email to this Service on 14 August 2020, he has said that the landlord continues to contact him about false, fabricated and fictitious accusations made against him by his neighbours and the landlord’s staff and that these have no merit or evidence to support them. The landlord is once again claiming that he has changed the camera type and field of view of the cameras but has provided no evidence of this. They keep pestering him on a regular basis to access his property to inspect the CCTV camera, which he feels is harassment. Further, the landlord has refused to provide him with evidence of the additional accusations made against him. Lastly, he considers that the landlord has breached legislation by contacting SLAM regarding his capacity.

Policies and procedures

The Conditions of Tenancy confirm the terms and obligations of the resident’s Tenancy Agreement. They state:
1. where a tenant or any member of their household or any visitor fails to comply with any part of the tenancy conditions, they will be in breach of the agreement (clause 7);
2. the landlord has the right to enter for any purpose that ensures the conditions of tenancy are being adhered to, provided it gives the resident at least 24 hours’ written notice. In the event of an emergency, the landlord may enter the property without notice by any necessary means (clause 14);
3. the landlord will not tolerate ASB and it will investigate all complaints of ASB and take all complaints seriously. It will take such action as it deems appropriate in each case, including using such legal action as detailed in this clause. This would include asking the court to make an order for possession, making an application for a civil injunction, or other action should a tenant cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, intimidation or distress to anyone else (clause 25);
4. all residents are entitled to enjoy the peace, comfort and convenience of their home and local area (clause 25);
5. examples of what the landlord considers to be ASB include playing loud music in the property, smoking within internal communal areas of blocks of dwellings where smoking is prohibited, fly-tipping, name calling, demeaning or insulting comments, using or threatening to use violence or encouraging others to use or threaten violence (Schedule 1);
6. a tenant or any member of the household or any visitor to the property must not hinder nor in any way prevent its officers or any of its representatives from carrying out their authorised duties (clause 28).
The landlord’s ASB Policy states that;
1. 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. There are many other forms of ASB that are not listed but which cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm and/or fear to which this Policy will also apply’;
2. The landlord’s ‘intention is always to seek to resolve the causes of ASB and prevent reoccurrence. We will often explore informal resolution as the first option and give an opportunity to those causing problems the chance to stop the behaviour being complained about. In some cases where this proves ineffective, we will take formal action, including enforcement action to stop the behaviour’;
3. ‘Officers will decide what the appropriate actions should be based on the information / evidence they have when their initial investigation is complete’ (section 3);
4. the landlord will acknowledge every complaint it receives from either a complainant, partner agency or other party in connection with ASB within 3 working days. Also, that it will contact complainants regularly to update them on the progress it is making with their case (section 4);
5. the informal, formal and legal remedies the landlord may use include mediation, restorative justice, informal warnings, warning letters, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, injunctions as well as possession action (section 5).

Assessment and findings

Reports of ASB by the resident

The accusations made about the resident mainly concerned the level of music coming from his home, his use of CCTV and taking photographs of other residents. Whilst this assessment is only considering events from January 2020 onwards, it is noted that these are longstanding issues.
The landlord has received complaints about the resident’s use of CCTV, namely that his neighbours and landlord staff feel they are being watched. As a result, it would not be unreasonable for the landlord to inspect the cameras when investigating those ASB reports and complaints, and it has the right to access the property in order to do so (see paragraph 38(b) above). The landlord has written to the resident about planned visits to inspect his CCTV and gave him more than 24–hour’s notice. Due to the resident’s request that he have an advocate present, lockdown due to COVID-19, and the resident shielding, these visits have been reasonably postponed by the landlord. However, it does need to carry out this inspection as soon as reasonably possible.
The resident submits that his CCTV was previously checked by the landlord in 2017 and was found to be acceptable. However, the landlord’s letter to the resident of 25 October 2017 explained that permission was granted on the proviso that the camera’s must not be added to or their field of vision altered at any time. It confirmed that, if this changed, permission would be withdrawn and the resident would be required to remove them. Notably, the resident has confirmed in his email of 25 June 2020 that the cameras have changed from the one/s that were initially installed. Whilst the resident submits that the field of view and position of the camera have stayed the same, it is for the landlord to inspect and verify this as it is the one that initially granted permission for the resident to have them.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that it would be frustrating for the resident to have the same concerns raised repeatedly. However, the same request to carry out an inspection has been ongoing for some time as the resident has not allowed the landlord to do this and this is a breach of paragraph his tenancy (see paragraph 38(f) above). The landlord is entitled to inspect the resident’s CCTV and, until it has done so, it is not unreasonable that it write to the resident about this or take further action.
In respect of the landlord’s response to allegations of noise coming from the resident’s home, there have been complaints about him playing loud music since January 2020 and, again, it is noted this has been ongoing prior to this date. Other residents are entitled to enjoy their homes in peace (see paragraph 38(d) above) and playing excessively loud music would be classed as ASB (see paragraph 38(e) above). The landlord is required to investigate complaints about ASB and it commits to taking such reports seriously (see paragraph 38(c) above). Therefore, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the other resident’s reports and to contact the resident about the allegations.
As complaints about the noise continued, the landlord carried out two visits to the block. The Ombudsman considers this fair to all parties as the staff could then verify whether loud music was heard from the resident’s home and whether this would affect the neighbours, as alleged. The landlord’s staff witnessed loud music being played by the resident on both occasions. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord issued the resident with a Final Warning letter, asking him to cease playing loud music and advising that, if it continued, further action would be taken.
Despite this warning, the evidence indicates that the landlord continued to receive reports about the resident’s music but has not taken any more robust action to pursue the matter further. Therefore, rather than unfairly and disproportionately targeting the resident, the landlord could have been expected to do more to tackle the ongoing issue which continued to upset other residents.
Lastly, there have been complaints about the resident taking photographs of his neighbours and their children, with the police being called and several altercations stemming from this issue. The resident has maintained throughout that he has only been taking photographs of his neighbours breaching their tenancy conditions, as requested by the landlord in its block letter.
This Service has not seen a copy of the block letter sent to the residents on 2 January 2020. However, it is accepted that residents taking photographs of each other has contributed to the tensions between them, which has resulted in heated incidents and police involvement. In order to resolve this matter, the landlord has written to the resident asking him to cease taking photographs of others and issued a Final Warning letter in that regard. The resident responded that his neighbours were also taking photographs of him and that he has been reporting this to the landlord to no avail. In the landlord’s response of 17 July 2020, it acknowledged the resident’s concerns and asked the ASB Officer to monitor the situation carefully.
The Ombudsman cannot see that any action has been taken towards the other residents about their conduct following the resident raising his concerns about them taking photographs of him. It is noted that, throughout the majority of this period, there has been a lockdown and this will have affected the landlord’s ability to fully investigate matters or take further action as it usually could. Nonetheless, the resident’s concerns about others taking photographs of him do need to be addressed, as noted by the landlord, and a Recommendation to that effect is made below.

The resident’s allegations of harassment and discrimination by the landlord

Whilst the Ombudsman can consider the reasonableness of the actions taken by landlord staff in communicating with the resident and responding to his concerns, this Service is unable to make a legal finding of discrimination in that regard. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be interrogated and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. If the resident believes he has been unlawfully discriminated against or harassed, he may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on his options in the circumstances.
The resident raised concerns about the landlord sending him repeated correspondence about the same allegations and arriving unannounced at his property to post letters, despite him serving a Cease and Desist notice. He feels this amounted to harassment. However, as stated above, the landlord was entitled to inspect the resident’s CCTV and, as he had not allowed it to do so, it needed to contact him repeatedly about this. The same principle applies to other allegations made about him, where he has failed to engage with the landlord’s efforts to investigate them.
It would be unreasonable for the landlord to take further action against the resident without first writing to him about the concerns raised (see paragraph 39(b) above) so it was appropriate for it to do this in the first instance. The landlord then intended to move the matter forward, and avoid the need for further correspondence, by inviting the resident to meet with it to discuss the situation further. However, this has not yet taken place for the reasons detailed above. In the absence of that opportunity, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to continue writing to the resident when further reports were received (from both parties).
The resident has raised concerns about the landlord carrying out unannounced visits to his home but the evidence indicates that this was only done to visit the block in line with its duties as a landlord or to hand deliver letters to the resident (because he told the ASB officer that he would block his emails and return letters he sent following the Cease and Desist notice). It is not unreasonable for the landlord to hand deliver important letters to ensure they have been received by the resident and this would not constitute a right to enter his property. Ultimately, as the resident’s landlord, it is entitled to send correspondence to him about issues that affect him and it would be unreasonable for it to cease doing this and then take further action against him.
The landlord contacted SLAM for information about the resident’s capacity as he had made it clear no meetings would take place without an advocate present and that he was finding it difficult to locate one. Also, due to his mental health, he was unable to travel on his own. In order to verify this information, the landlord contacted SLAM. There is little information on file about what was discussed with SLAM other than the landlord repeating what the resident had told it and receiving confirmation that he had been discharged back to his GP. In the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about this, it said that it was allowed to contact third parties as the ASB team had an information sharing protocol with various agencies for the prevention and detection of crime and ASB. However, the issue raised is one of a reasonable adjustment request in line with the Equality Act 2010. If the landlord was unsure about agreeing this request it was reasonable for them to ask the resident to provide supporting evidence. There was not reasonable justification for them seeking this information directly from other agencies without permission. If they felt this meant they did not have sufficient evidence to agree the request they could have explained this to the resident and the consequences of non-engagement. While this was an error by the landlord (and a Recommendation has been made below) there is no evidence that this was a failure in respect of the resident’s reports regarding discrimination and harassment. And as mentioned above, this is legal terminology and a matter for consideration via legal process.
Lastly, the resident has raised a number of allegations against his neighbours and feels the landlord has not looked into these, rather that it just focused on the allegations made about him. However, the evidence demonstrates that letters were sent to other residents about the allegations made by him and these confirmed that an investigation would be carried out once COVID-19 regulations had been lifted. As the landlord has done the same by writing to the resident, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be treating the residents differently. The landlord then addressed the allegations raised by the resident and the outcome of its investigation in its letter of 28 May 2020, when it said it would continue to monitor the situation.
In July 2020, following the resident’s reports that two of his neighbours were filming and taking photographs of him, the landlord visited their homes to carry out an inspection. It was satisfied that they could not take photographs of the resident while he was inside his home and that there were no cameras monitoring him. The police had also visited one of the neighbours the same day and confirmed no cameras could be seen at this neighbour’s house. There is little information on file to say whether this was communicated to the resident, as it should have been. The resident also reported noise coming from another neighbours’ home in October 2020 and the landlord again wrote to this resident. The landlord has looked into the resident’s concerns and raised the issues with the particular residents so there is no evidence that the landlord is not looking into the ASB allegations raised by the resident. However, as above, the Ombudsman is minded that the landlord does need to fully investigate the ongoing issues once the COVID-19 lockdown has ended.
It is acknowledged that, due to the ongoing COVID-19 situation, the number of actions available to the landlord when investigating complaints at this time was limited. Therefore, it reverted to methods such as writing to the parties, as a way of managing the situation until it could adopt the other measures available to it (see paragraph 39(e) above). However, if the landlord feels there is merit to the concerns raised by the neighbours, it needs to justify the reasons for this to the resident and explain what action it intends to take in line with its policy. The resident should then be given an opportunity to respond and can seek advice from a free advice service, such as Shelter or the Citizen’s Advice Bureau. The landlord should assist the resident with sourcing an advocate if meetings are proposed. This should help end the ongoing uncertainty for all involved.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. the allegations made about the resident by his neighbours and its staff;
2. the resident’s reports of harassment and discrimination by its staff.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
1. contact the resident to confirm what action has been taken to investigate and resolve his allegations of other residents taking photographs of him;
2. consider how best to investigate and address any ongoing ASB reports from the resident when the covid-19 restrictions are lifted;
3. ensure requests for reasonable adjustments are dealt with appropriately.

[1] The resident disputed that a meeting took place in the office in 2017 though confirmed that one took place at his home.