Hackney Council (202203358)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203358

Hackney Council

12 May 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder residing in a one-bedroom flat in a communal building. The landlord is the freeholder of the communal building. She has reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour (the perpetrator) on the floor above hers, who is a tenant of another leaseholder (the leaseholder). The resident is not the main complainant, and other tenants in the building have made similar but separate reports to the landlord about ASB by the same perpetrator. Only the resident’s case is being considered in this investigation.
  2. In 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the perpetrator was playing loud music. The landlord opened an ASB case. It spoke to a witness, who confirmed the music, but only until 11pm at the latest, and also cannabis smoking. The landlord contacted the leaseholder who said they would speak to their tenant about the music and smoking. On 11 June 2021, the resident advised the landlord that since it had spoken to the leaseholder the noise level and frequency had decreased. Its records state she was happy for it to close her ASB case.
  3. In February 2022, the landlord contacted the leaseholder again, having received more ASB reports from the resident and other tenants. The leaseholder explained they had applied to evict the perpetrator due to the ASB and rent delays. However, covid was causing delays in having the case heard at court.
  4. The resident continued to report loud music between February and April 2022, as did other tenants in the building. She advised this Service that she raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 April 2022, but had not received a response. We forwarded her concerns on to the landlord, explaining that she did not believe the landlord had acted in line with its ASB policy, and wanted it to maintain appropriate communication with her. She also wanted compensation for the stress and inconvenience she said she had experienced. We asked the landlord to investigate the complaint.
  5. The landlord advised the leaseholder about the continuing ASB on 26 May 2022, and on 8 June 2022, it advised the leaseholder that they was at risk of receiving a formal warning due to their tenant’s ongoing ASB.
  6. The landlord issued its first-stage complaint response to the resident on 26 June 2022. It apologised for the delay and explained what had caused it. It explained to her that as part of its investigation into her ASB reports in 2021 it had: spoken to witnesses and other complainants; installed noise monitoring equipment in another complainant’s property;attempted multiple times to visit and speak to the perpetrator;tried to arrange mediation; and sent written warnings to the perpetrator.
  7. It advised her that the leaseholder was taking legal action against the perpetrator. It informed her that it was in regular contact with the leaseholder and would provide updates as soon as it had them. It stated that it was doing everything that it could to ensure that the leaseholder resolved the matter as quickly as possible.
  8. The landlord continued to chase the leaseholder, who informed it on 20 July 2022 that the court case had been adjourned until 3 August 2022. The landlord informed the leaseholder they were in breach of their lease agreement due to the ASB by their tenant (the perpetrator). On 25 August 2022, the leaseholder informed the landlord that the court case would be heard at trial, but no earlier than 30 November.
  9. The resident contacted this Service again on 19 July 2022. She said she had escalated her complaint with the landlord on 1 June, but had not received a response. She said that her complaint remained the same as previously. We wrote to the landlord on 28 August and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint.
  10. On 9 September 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it was limited in what information it could share with her, because the leaseholder was a third party and therefore it could not provide full details of what was/had taken place due to data protection.
  11. In its final-stage complaints response on 29 September 2022, the landlord stated that it had acted in line with its ASB policy. It noted that the leaseholder had taken the appropriate legal action against their tenant (the perpetrator) by taking them to court. It advised her that it would inform her about the outcome of the trial. It acknowledged its delays in responding to her complaint, offered her £75 compensation for the time and trouble, and advised her that it had told its staff what to do when a complaint response was delayed.
  12. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she was unhappy with the level of contact that she had had from the landlord. She did not believe that it had kept her regularly updated as it had said that it would. She wanted the landlord to communicate with her regularly, for it to investigate the ASB in line with its policy, and to compensate her for the stress and inconvenience that she had suffered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that once the landlord had receivedan ASB report from the resident, it would discuss the concerns with the resident, and would work with them to create an action plan.Section 3(d) of its ASB policy states that an action plan would include anything that the landlord would need to do to meet the resident’s support needs. The plan would give timescales for the action that it planned to take and how often it would review progress; update the resident on developments and how it would communicate with the resident.
  2.  The resident’s complaint to the landlord was that it had not followed its ASB procedures, and it had not provided appropriate updates to her about its actions to resolve the ASB. There is no evidence of the landlord creating an action plan with the resident in response to her reports in late 2021 and 2022, which is what its policy states it should do. Part of the purpose of the action plan is to agree how and when to provide updates. As the plan was not created, the update arrangements were also not agreed. Accordingly, the landlord did not act in line with its policy, and did not provide appropriate updates. That was a service failing.
  3. The landlord explained to the resident (in its final complaint response) that she was not considered the main victim of the ASB, which is why not as many updates were provided. However, it is apparent that there were multiple residents making ASB reports, including the resident, and nothing in the landlord’s policy differentiates between a primary or secondary victim. Because of that the resident’s concerns should have been dealt with in line with the relevant policy and procedure, including setting the action plan and providing updates in an agreed fashion.
  4. Apart from failing to create the action plan and provide reasonable updates, the landlord’s actions in response to the ASB reports appear to be proportionate to their nature and scale, and in line with both its policy and procedures and basic good practice. It attempted to contact the perpetrator, contacted other witnesses, sent warning letters to both the perpetrator and the leaseholder, ensured the leaseholder was fully aware of the problems their tenant was causing, offered mediation, and liaised with the leaseholder and their legal representatives in relation to their court actions. It is evident that its actions were unsuccessful in reducing the ASB, and so formal legal action to evict the perpetrator was a suitable final course of action. As that action was already well underway by the leaseholder, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to allow it to proceed rather than take the same action itself. The eviction process is commonly a lengthy and drawn out one, as has been the case here. Nonetheless, nothing in the evidence seen here indicates the landlord had any direct control over the court process, such that it could have been expedited.
  5. Overall, while the actions taken in response to the ASB reports were reasonable, the landlord failed to take the initial steps with the resident which its policies and procedures call for, i.e. creating an action plan, part of which would have been agree the frequency and manner of updates.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. There were delays by the landlord responding to both the resident’s first and escalated complaints, and both complaint stages required intervention by this Service. In response, the landlord acknowledged the delays, and accepted that it had not handled the complaints in line with its policy. It explained how the delays had occurred, apologised, and offered £75 compensation.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaints was poor. However, the remedies it offered in light of its failings were proportionate and appropriate, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In line with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its poor complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings found in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation within four weeks of the date of this report.
    2. Pay the resident the £75 compensation that it previously offered her, if it has not done so already.
    3. Either confirm to this Service that the ASB issue has now been resolved; or, if it has not been resolved, contact the resident to create and agree an action and update plan, in line with its ASB policy and procedures.
  2. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.