Lambeth Council (202012280)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012280

Lambeth Council

21 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports;
2. a warning letter it sent to the resident;
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and the property is a terraced house on an estate that has garages and parking bays to the front of the properties. The landlord is a local authority.
The tenancy agreement obliges the resident not to cause nuisance or harass others. Behaviour such as illegal parking and being abusive or threatening to others in the locality are mentioned as examples of nuisance.
The landlord has a tenancy enforcement policy that shows that:
1. it defines ASB as including neighbour problems such as intimidation and harassment and crime such as hate related incidents
2. it will work with other agencies where necessary to tackle ASB
3. it will attach a risk rating to ASB reports, noting that racial incidents will be classed as high risk which means it will respond within one working day
4. it will use prevention and intervention measures such as mediation and acceptable behaviour agreements with legal action possible where other types of intervention have failed
5. where there is evidence of tenancy conditions being broken, tenancy enforcement officers can take informal actions (such as verbal warnings or sending letters) or legal actions (such as demoting tenancies)
6. it will not close an ASB case until it has been thoroughly investigated and can close cases where there have been no reports for three months or all reasonable actions have been exhausted.
The landlord has a disciplinary policy and procedure that sets out how it will investigate and address staff misconduct.
The landlord has a formal two-stage complaints process – responses are required within 20 working days (at its ‘local resolution’ stage) and 25 working days (at its final ‘review’ stage) respectively.
The landlord has a compensation policy that sets out that it should consider applying a remedy where there has been service failure that has had an adverse impact on a resident and that this remedy may include financial redress.
The resident’s complaint partly concerns a neighbour who is also a tenant of the landlord and is the alleged perpetrator of ASB. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Summary of Events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 August 2020 as follows:
1. she forwarded a copy of correspondence that she exchanged with the Police in October 2019 which showed that the Police had told her there was insufficient evidence to secure a charge against an alleged perpetrator albeit they had acknowledged ‘disputes over parking and music’ and advised they would not bother the resident in future
2. she said she had reported ASB and hate crime by the neighbour in July 2019 and this had been reported by a different household in September 2019 too
3. the ASB had re-commenced in August 2020 with late night parties and vehicles blocking access.
The landlord’s internal records show that it received reports on 27 August 2020 from the resident of racist abuse against her from a neighbour and of children banging against her car. It wrote to both parties as follows:
1. it acknowledged the resident’s reports, asked her to complete incident diary sheets, said it had written to the alleged perpetrator and offered mediation
2. it put the allegations to the neighbour (of verbal abuse and children banging on vehicles and garages), reminded her of her tenancy conditions and signposted mediation.
The landlord recorded the following actions on 28 August 2020:
1. it wrote to the resident, asking her to contact it as it wished to speak to her about her case and agree an action plan
2. it spoke to the resident on the telephone, noting that she advised that her neighbour’s children were causing a nuisance by bouncing balls on cars, there were constant parties, this was beyond mediation and the neighbour had admitted to hate crime
3. the resident added that the neighbourhood officer was biased and she would send evidence showing the neighbour had admitted to the hate crime
4. it noted that it had submitted a Police disclosure request
5. it spoke to the alleged perpetrator who denied the resident’s report.
The landlord recorded that it attempted to obtain information on 2 September 2020 about whether the resident was receiving support from social services.
The landlord’s records show that it noted speaking to the Police on 4 September 2020 who informed it that the neighbour had admitted shouting but not at the resident and that she said she had actually been asking other neighbours to tell her if there were any concerns with her children playing outside. It added that there was no evidence to allow it to pursue action.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2020, advising that the neighbour had admitted causing serious harassment and intimidation and that this was motivated by racial hatred. She asked what legal action it had taken.
The landlord’s records show that it attempted to speak to six households on 8 September 2020 but only one address answered and they said they had heard an incident but not witnessed it and that the resident had issues.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the same date, acknowledging her ASB reports and noting that the Police had closed the recent case due to insufficient evidence and that it had similarly not been able to establish evidence after speaking to other neighbours and the housing officer. It decided that it could not therefore progress the case for legal action.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 September 2020, advising it had received allegations against her of abusive behaviour towards neighbours. It reminded her of her tenancy conditions and invited her to make contact if she disputed the report. It also included a leaflet about a local mediation service.
The landlord noted receipt of correspondence from the resident on 18 September 2020 that complained that her case had not been investigated and there had been no response to her email 10 days earlier.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 September 2020, replying to its letter dated 12 September 2020 which she said was biased and judgmental. She asked what evidence there was for it to accuse her of harassment.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2020, confirming the allegations that it had spoken to the resident about on 28 August 2020 (parties, parking on double yellow lines by her garage, ball games, lack of social distancing and racist verbal abuse). It noted that the Police had told it that it had closed the case due to lack of evidence, no neighbours had corroborated the hate crime allegation and it would not pursue legal action.
The resident passed on a Police report to the landlord on 17 December 2020. This alleged continued hate crime and ASB by her neighbour as they had used their vehicle to block her garage entrance. She added that she had received no response to a previous report on 28 November 2020.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it attempted to speak to the resident on 17 December 2020, made a Police disclosure request and interviewed the alleged perpetrator. It noted that the neighbour had denied parking in front of the resident’s garage and made counter-allegations.
The landlord conducted a site visit on 18 December 2020, taking photographs that it said showed a car parked in front of a property but not in front of a garage.
The landlord wrote a letter dated 18 December 2020 to all estate residents, raising health and safety concerns about nuisance parking in front of garages and front doors.
The Police confirmed to the landlord on 27 December 2020 that it had previously arrested the alleged perpetrator of racist verbal abuse in August 2020 but she had denied the report and there was no evidence so it took no further action.
The Police also advised the landlord on 2 January 2021 that it had attended in response to reports submitted to it on 28 November 2020 and 17 December 2020 but it did not establish any ASB in the first instance and gave advice about parking in the second instance.
The landlord sent an ASB case closure letter to the resident on 4 January 2021. It advised it had obtained no evidence to support her allegations, the neighbour had denied them and it would now close the case.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 12 February 2021, asking it to progress a complaint from the resident. This was following contact from the resident who approached this Service advising she had been deliberately targeted as a victim of harassment over three years by her neighbour. She complained that her landlord had failed to intervene or put preventative measures in place
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 10 March 2021. It decided not to uphold the complaint and said that:
1. it provided a chronology of events to the resident which it said demonstrated actions it had taken to respond to the ASB, including contacting the alleged perpetrator
2. the tenancy enforcement team could not find any substantive evidence that her neighbour had carried out ASB such as harassment and racial abuse
3. the case was closed on 4 January 2021 but it offered for the resident to contact it with any further development.
The resident submitted a complaint escalation request to the landlord on 16 March 2021 on the grounds that:
1. it had not identified that it closed her ASB case on 27 August 2020 not 4 January 2021
2. it had not investigated emails she sent to it on 8 September 2020 (and subsequent diary sheets), 21 September 2020 (including her concerns about her housing officer being deceitful) and 23 September 2020 (including concerns about the conduct of various staff members)
3. it had allowed ASB to continue despite its warnings, Police warnings to her neighbour and the neighbour’s admission that she had committed a hate crime
4. it had not properly investigated her concerns about its handling of eyewitness reports and was biased against her.
The landlord issued a complaint acknowledgement email to the resident on 31 March 2021, advising it would respond by 23 April 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 March 2021, complaining that a member of staff had breached data protection by contacting five other households. She included a witness statement signed by her and a neighbour who denied that they had told the landlord on 8 September 2020 that the resident ‘has issues but has no idea what’. The resident alleged that the member of staff fabricated this evidence.
The landlord’s internal emails show that a housing officer reviewed the complaint on 20 April 2021, noting that letters had been sent to the neighbour about parking in 2018 but that she had not witnessed inappropriate parking during several estate visits.
The resident chased the landlord for a complaint response on 25 April 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 April 2021, advising it had received no recent reports or completed incident diary sheets so it concluded that the nuisance had been resolved.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 28 June 2021. It concluded that:
1. it had received a report via the Police of incidents on 18 August 2020 but had been unable to corroborate the events through its interviews with other neighbours and feedback from the housing officer and Police
2. its review of Police information did not demonstrate a record that the neighbour had admitted deliberate ASB or hate crime in October 2019
3. it had nevertheless informed the resident on 27 August 2020 that it had written to her neighbour but added on 22 September 2020 that it did not have sufficient evidence to pursue legal action
4. it approached the resident on 12 September 2020 due to an ASB report against her and its letter had offered to consider comments from her
5. the Police had records of receiving reports in November 2020 (about children approaching and coughing at her) and December 2020 (about the neighbour parking across her garage access)
6. in response, it had written to all neighbours on 18 December 2020, advising them to park responsibly, and the tenancy enforcement officer had written to the resident on 4 January 2021, advising that her case had been closed
7. it had offered mediation but the resident had refused this
8. on the matter of staff conduct, ‘actions that may arise following a complaint against a member of staff are confidential and any information related to any such matters form part of the council’s HR process and procedures’
9. it was satisfied that its housing team had acted in accordance with its ASB policy.
The resident approached this Service in July 2021, expressing continued dissatisfaction on the grounds that:
1. her neighbour had on two occasions made admissions of causing ASB and committing hate crime
2. the landlord had not fully investigated her concerns and had overlooked her witness statement of 31 March 2021
3. she had told the landlord that mediation was not possible due to the intimidation she experienced
4. on 21 September 2020, she had disputed the allegations made against her but the landlord had not addressed this
5. there were dates omitted from the chronology the landlord had given her
6. she had not received a letter dated 4 January 2021 that told her that her case had been closed
7. landlord staff had used third parties to illegally request personal information about her.

Assessment and findings

ASB Reports

The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The resident’s dispute with her neighbour has intermittently occurred over several years according to evidence submitted by the landlord. It initially became aware of the resident’s reports that ASB had re-commenced on 21 August 2020 when she alleged noise nuisance and inappropriate parking and referred to incidents in 2019. This was added to by a further report on 27 August 2020 that the resident had been subjected to a racial hate crime.
Over the following 24 hours, the landlord took the following actions:
1. wrote to the resident on a couple of occasions and spoke to her on the telephone
2. wrote to the neighbour to remind her of her tenancy conditions and interviewed her
3. submitted a Police disclosure request
4. offered both the resident and neighbour to engage in mediation.

The landlord’s tenancy enforcement policy shows that racial incidents will be regarded as high risk, meaning there will be a response within 24 hours and that it will use prevention and intervention measures such as mediation or legal action where there is evidence of a tenancy breach. The landlord’s approach to initially suggest mediation and to address the reports with the neighbour within 24 hours once the high-risk nature of the allegation was known was therefore appropriate.

Over the subsequent month, the following additional actions were taken by the landlord:
1. it checked with its social services colleagues if the resident had any additional support needs
2. it spoke to the Police who advised there had been insufficient evidence for them to take any further action
3. it attempted to obtain corroborating evidence from other neighbours in the area
4. it advised the resident in late September 2020 of the work it had undertaken but advised that legal action would not be pursued due to a lack of evidence.

These actions demonstrated that the landlord took reasonable steps to try to investigate the resident’s concerns and check whether additional support was required.

The resident has also advised the landlord on a few occasions that her neighbour had already admitted to the Police that she had committed a hate crime. However, the landlord’s Police disclosure requests have not established this and the copies of correspondence that the resident forwarded only showed that the neighbour acknowledged to the Police that there had been disputes over music and parking. There was therefore no service failure on the part of the landlord in this regard as it made reasonable attempts to obtain evidence from the Police and considered the resident’s submissions, none of which included an admission by the neighbour that there had been a hate crime.
A further ASB report was received from the resident on 17 December 2020 when she alleged that her neighbour had used their vehicle to block access to her garage. Over the subsequent week, the landlord took the following actions:
1. made a Police disclosure request (about this incident and one in November 2020 that the resident had referred to)
2. interviewed the alleged perpetrator (who denied the allegation)
3. sent a member of staff to the estate who took photographs but was unable to establish that the resident’s garage was blocked
4. wrote to residents on the estate, reminding them of the need not to obstruct garages and property entrances.

These actions were reasonable efforts on the part of the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s report, liaise with other agencies, attempt to evidence the allegations and take preventative action to reduce the likelihood of further parking problems.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 January 2021, advising that it would close the ASB case as it had no evidence of the allegations made and had received no recent reports. Given the landlord had exhausted all reasonable actions and investigated the allegations, it was appropriate for it to close the case at this time.
In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to ASB reports made by the resident in August 2020 and December 2020. It contacted the resident within 24 hours when it became aware that the allegations were high risk, investigated the hate crime and parking reports by liaising with the Police, conducted a site visit and interviewed potential witnesses, put the allegations to the neighbour, warned them not to breach their tenancy, offered mediation to both parties and told the resident in January 2021 that it would close the ASB case. These actions were all in line with the landlord’s tenancy enforcement policy and reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector as appropriate actions to take when managing neighbour disputes.

Warning letter

During September 2020, the landlord recorded that it had received counter-allegations from the neighbour about the resident’s behaviour, writing to the resident on 12 September 2020 to remind her of her tenancy conditions. It was reasonable for the landlord to issue a warning letter to the resident in light of these counter-allegations, particularly given it also offered her the option of commenting if she disagreed with the allegations. This was also consistent with the approach it had taken in writing to the neighbour in August 2020 when the resident had made allegations that had similarly not been corroborated.
The resident responded to the landlord on 21 September 2020, raising concerns about its warning letter, querying the allegations made and claiming that this demonstrated that it was biased. The landlord failed to respond to these questions from the resident. Although it wrote to the resident on 22 September 2020 about her own ASB allegations, it did not answer her request for more information about the counter-allegations and how it had dealt with these. This was unreasonable as it will have left the resident uncertain as to the nature of the allegations against her despite the landlord offering to consider any comments she had on the matter when it wrote to her on 12 September 2020.
In summary, there was no service failure in the landlord’s decision to issue a warning letter to the resident due to counter-allegations it said it had received about her. However, it was unreasonable that it did not respond to her subsequent enquiries and comments on these allegations, particularly given she had expressed concern that it was biased.

Complaint handling

The landlord originally logged a complaint from the resident following contact by this Service on 12 February 2021. The landlord’s complaints policy required it to issue a complaint response within 20 working days and it sent this on 10 March 2021 which was therefore within an appropriate timescale.
The resident submitted a complaint escalation to the landlord on 16 March 2021. She advised that this was partly due to the conduct of members of its staff with particular reference to the landlord’s decision to send her a warning letter in September 2020. She also provided additional evidence on 31 March 2021 which she claimed demonstrated that a member of staff had falsified evidence collected during its investigation of her ASB reports during August-September 2020.
The landlord’s complaints procedure required it to respond to the escalated complaint within 25 working days but it failed to offer its final response until 28 June 2021, more than three months after the complaint was escalated. This was inappropriate and meant that the resident had to chase the outcome of her complaint in April 2021 and will have been left her uncertain as to how the complaint was being investigated.
Further, when the landlord did respond, it was silent on the issue of staff conduct except to say that such matters were for consideration through its internal disciplinary procedures. Although it was accurate that there is a separate process for investigating staff misconduct, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to confirm whether this process had commenced in this instance and that it did not advise whether it agreed that evidence had been falsified or not. Neither did it address the resident’s claim that she had not given the member of staff permission to contact other neighbours during its investigations. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not demonstrate that it had investigated these concerns.
In summary, the landlord delayed by two months in providing its final complaint response and, when it did respond, it failed to address some of her central concerns about the way that members of staff had investigated ASB reports.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. a warning letter it sent to the resident;
2. the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s ASB reports in August 2020 and December 2020 were proportionate and in accordance with its obligations.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about how it had come to issue a warning letter to her in September 2020.
There was unnecessary delay by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s escalated complaint and its response did not address all of her areas of concern.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. answer the questions raised in her letter of 21 September 2020 about how it came to issue the warning letter of 12 September 2020;
3. answer the concerns raised in her complaint escalation letters in March 2021 that she did not give it permission to speak to other neighbours and that one of her neighbours has denied the comments attributed to them.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300, made up of:
1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the service failure in its handling of a warning letter it sent to her;
2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling service failures.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to signpost the resident as to the correct recourse for her to raise any continued concerns she has about the handling of her data.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.