Southwark Council (202127984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127984

Southwark Council

25 July 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of attempted break-ins to the resident’s property as well as the resident’s request for support.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. He lives on the eleventh floor of a purpose-built block in a one-bedroom flat. He is considered vulnerable and has mental health issues.
In 2016, the resident reported that he heard footsteps on the roof and that the ladder leading to the roof was down. The police attended and checked the roof as well as the communal hatches. They identified that one was slightly open but that the other was secure. The police asked the landlord to check if it had any contractors working who may have accessed the roof. They also asked the landlord to check the security of the hatches.
The landlord arranged for the hatches to be made secure. The landlord also arranged for a referral to the resident’s treating clinicians for his mental health.
In 2017, the resident raised further concerns about his neighbours trying to break into his home whilst he was asleep. The resident advised the landlord that his mental health had declined at that time. The landlord contacted the resident’s treating clinicians to support him. By 22 June 2018, the resident’s mental health was noted to have improved.
The resident raised further concerns in July 2020. He stated there had been two further occasions of someone trying to break in on 6 and 9 July 2020.
On 10 July 2020, the resident lodged a formal complaint. He said that he was not happy with the treatment he had received from the landlord and the police, regarding his concerns that someone was attempting to access his home. The resident stated he had issues with the security of the front door, and this had resulted in him having to change the locks five times. He further explained that the intruders were trying to gain access to his property by unlocking the front door. He informed the landlord that he had reported the incidents to the police and that he was seeking support and help with the invasion of his privacy. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the complaint.
On 10 May 2021, the resident’s clinicians contacted the landlord and informed it that the resident wanted help to move home. They also advised that the resident asked if anyone had complained about the behaviour of his neighbours. The resident’s clinicians recommended that the landlord contact the resident to follow up.
On 20 October 2021, the resident asked that his complaint be escalated. He stated that the landlord had not supported him when he had been the victim of a crime and that he wanted help and support.
The landlord provided a final response on 25 November 2021. It said:
1. That the resident first reported he had been a victim of an attempted break-in in 2017.
2. That the landlord’s resident services officer (RSO) had liaised with the resident’s care coordinator and the police at various times.
3. The RSO arranged for the locks to be changed on the resident’s property.
4. That the resident engages with his community nurse if he needs assistance.
5. The resident had the right to commence legal proceedings against his neighbour under section 82 of the Environmental Act and attached a leaflet to assist.
6. The resident had expressed an interest to be re-housed and the landlord signposted him to home hunt and explained it is free and how it works.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident feels that the landlord did not offer him support. The outcome the resident is seeking is compensation, and to be assisted to move outside of London.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of attempted break–ins to the resident’s property, and the resident’s request for support

The resident first raised his concerns in 2016. The actions the landlord took at that time were reasonable. It consulted with the police, conducted security checks on the door and the roof hatches and changed the resident’s locks. In addition to this, it worked in partnership with the resident’s treating clinicians. This service is unable to find fault with the landlord’s actions.
The resident raised further concerns in 2017. There is evidence to show that the landlord supported him with these concerns. It contacted his treating clinicians to make them aware of its concerns and a joint visit was conducted. Again, this service cannot fault the actions taken by the landlord. The evidence also shows that support continued in 2018 with joint visits to support the resident with his concerns.
The resident reported that someone had tried to break into his home on two occasions, on 6 and 9 July 2020. He believed there were security issues with the front door resulting in his locks being changed five times. The resident lodged a formal complaint on 10 July 2020.
The evidence shows that the landlord initially passed the complaint to Social Care to address, but that it was passed back to the landlord to deal with. The landlord has advised that due to a system change, it has no evidence other than what has already been submitted to confirm the actions it took to address the concerns. This is unacceptable and a significant service failure on the landlord’s part. It is expected that the landlord should maintain good records to evidence the actions it has taken, both in dealing with the complaint, and the communication it has had with its resident. This means the landlord cannot show it acted appropriately once the matter was passed back to it from Social Care.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord received a request from the resident’s treating clinicians stating the resident was asking if anyone had complained about the behaviour of his neighbour. At this point, those treating the resident had concerns for his well-being and asked the landlord to contact him. The landlord has been unable to provide any evidence to confirm if it did contact the resident to understand the nature of his concerns with the neighbour.
On 16 June 2021, the care coordinator contacted the landlord and asked it to attend a network meeting for the resident, which involved discussing the resident’s care. The coordinator explained this would allow the landlord to explain its role. The evidence submitted by the landlord does not confirm if it attended. There is evidence that the landlord responded to the coordinator, agreeing to attend and asking to be notified of the date and time. This was on 2 November 2022, which was over a year after the coordinator initially contacted the landlord. This is not acceptable.
On 19 September 2021, the police contacted the landlord to advise they had contacted social services for help and support due for the resident. As with the last two contacts detailed above, there is no evidence to show what, if any action, the landlord took regarding this report. This is not appropriate.
In cases where a resident is vulnerable, the Ombudsman expects landlords to ensure they take appropriate steps to ensure residents are safe. That would include following up on third-party agency referrals and consulting with them regularly. That did not happen in this case.
In summary, the actions the landlord took following the resident’s concerns in 2016, 2017 and 2018 were appropriate. It engaged with the resident and worked in partnership with other agencies to provide support and reassurance to the resident.
The failings occurred when the resident made further reports in 2020. There is no evidence to show that it responded to the external agencies promptly or contacted the resident about his concerns with the neighbour. There is a gap in evidence from when the complaint was raised on 10 July 2020, to when the resident’s clinicians contacted the landlord on 10 May 2021, which is ten months. This is unacceptable and a significant failure on the landlord’s part. There is also no evidence provided to show what action the landlord took following contact with it on 16 June 2021, and 14 September 2021. It is on this basis; the Ombudsman concludes that there was maladministration by the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies sets out when the Ombudsman should award compensation, and the factors to be considered based on the impact to the resident. In this case, the landlord has failed to evidence that they did anything following the concerns raised by the resident in July 2020. The landlord has advised that due to changes in record-keeping systems, it is unable to provide any evidence to show the actions it took at this time. The resident feels he was offered no help or support, and this has had an impact on him feeling safe in his own home. The landlord should pay compensation to the resident of £200 in recognition of this.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaint process is a two-stage process. It states when it receives a stage one complaint:
1. That it will acknowledge the complaint within three working days and investigate within 15 working days.
2. The stage 2 should be acknowledged within three working days and a stage two response provided within 25 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states:
1. (4.10) Landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide.
2. (4.15) A full record must be kept of the complaint, any review, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared.
The resident lodged a formal complaint on 10 July 2020. On 13 July 2020, the landlord passed the complaint to social care to consider, but it was returned the same day advising the landlord it would need to be dealt with under housing. There is no evidence to indicate what the landlord did after this, as it is unable to provide any records of any investigation, the actions taken, or a stage 1 complaint response. This is a significant failure by the landlord and does not comply with its policy, or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 20 October 2021. The landlord states that the delay in the complaint being escalated could have been due to the resident being away from home between the stage 1 and when he requested his complaint to be escalated. The delay in the request to escalate the complaint, therefore, is not down to the landlord.
In line with the landlord’s own complaints process, the stage 2 complaint should have been acknowledged within three working days. This service has not seen any evidence to show this was done. There is an internal email dated 28 October 2021, stating the resident has requested his complaint to be escalated, but no record of contact with the resident following this. This amounts to a service failure.
The stage 2 response was issued on 25 November 2021, this was over a month after the resident asked for it to be escalated. The landlord’s policy states it will respond in 20 working days, but it failed to do this.
The stage 2 response focussed on the actions taken in 2017 but did not reference what action it took following the resident’s reports in 2020. It, therefore, did not address the complaint fully. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy, or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
In summary, the landlord has been unable to evidence the action it took at stage 1 of the complaints process, as it no longer holds the information due to a change in systems. This service has not seen a stage 1 response to be able to determine what actions the landlord took, or if the complaint was addressed, this is not acceptable. The final response was not provided in line with its timescales, and the response did not address the concerns raised in July 2020 by the resident, this is maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of attempted break-ins to the resident’s property, and the resident’s request for support.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman order the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident £350 – which is made up as follows:
  1. £200 to recognise the failings to evidence what, if any support it offered the resident following his concerns in 2020.
  2. £150 for poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

This Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. That the landlord review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The report highlights the cost and consequence to both residents and landlords for poor record keeping. It also shows how information can empower staff and equip landlords with the knowledge they need to develop services.
2. That the landlord signposts the resident to housing options about moving home.