Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Havering Council (202116597)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116597

Havering Council

02 October 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour and noise nuisance by their neighbour.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
    3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord.
  2. Since 2017, there have been allegations, and counter-allegations, of ASB and noise nuisance by the resident and their neighbour. Between 2017 and 2020, the resident’s neighbour made multiple allegations of noise nuisance and harassment by the resident, including that they banged on the ceiling, entered her loft, tampered with her property, moved her bins, racially abused her, and dumped waste in her garden causing her to trip. During the same period, the resident reported to the landlord that their neighbour had made repeated false allegations about them, leading to visits by police in the middle of the night, installed CCTV in communal areas without permission, stared at their children, caused noise nuisance, and dumped rubbish on their property.
  3. In response to the reports of ASB and noise nuisance, the landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in both properties, provided diary sheets, liaised with the police and other agencies, arranged mediation, and considered formal action for breach of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. The landlord could find no evidence to support the allegations made against the resident and their neighbour was warned that further false allegations would be considered harassment. The resident’s neighbour sadly passed away on 5 July 2020.
  4. On 26 July 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the action it had taken in response to ongoing ASB by their neighbour over a 3-year period. The resident did not feel the landlord had done enough, as it had not taken formal action, and its communication had been poor. The resident noted that there had been police involvement and that the issues had had a considerable impact on the family’s health and wellbeing. The resident had requested a management move and asked the landlord to facilitate this before new tenants moved into their neighbour’s property.
  5. In its formal complaint responses, the landlord concluded that it had taken reasonable, appropriate, and proportionate action in response to the resident’s reports of ASB, in line with its policies and procedures, including providing adequate support to the family. The landlord acknowledged that there had been poor communication with the resident about their request for a management transfer. The landlord offered £951 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused, and for the delays identified in its complaints handling.
  6. The resident has stated that to resolve the complaint they want the landlord to move them to a 3-bedroom property in their preferred area and to compensate them for the years of stress and lack of adequate action. They would also like the landlord to provide training to its staff on dealing with perpetrators of ASB suffering from mental health issues.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which will usually be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  2. In this case the resident first contacted the landlord to raise concerns about their neighbour’s behaviour in 2017, although a formal complaint about its handling of the issues was not made until 26 June 2020. The Ombudsman understands that the impact of the ASB on the resident and their family was cumulative over time, and that the resident would have expected to see an escalation in the landlord’s response as the behaviour continued. However, it would not now be reasonable, or in accordance with paragraph 42(c) as detailed above, to investigate the landlord’s actions in relation to reports of ASB dating back to 2017.
  3. This investigation is focussed on the landlord’s actions in the period immediately before the resident’s formal complaint, dating back to the beginning of the 2020 calendar year, and whether its response to the resident’s concerns about its overall handling of ongoing ASB was reasonable in all the circumstances. However, in order to assess whether the landlord appropriately escalated its response between January 2020 and July 2020, the Ombudsman has referred to the historic issues and the actions the landlord took prior to January 2020.

Handling of reports of ASB and noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s Tenants Handbook states that tenants must be considerate towards their neighbours and not cause nuisance, harassment, or intimidation to any person. These conditions are also reflected at paragraphs 7, 8 and 11 of the resident’s occupancy agreement. Paragraph 14 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that where the tenant is a victim of anti-social behaviour the landlord will give them help and advice, respond to complaints within a reasonable time and keep them updated. The landlord “will investigate all complaints of anti-social behaviour and will use available legal powers to take action if appropriate”.
  2. In cases concerning ASB and noise nuisance, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the ASB or alleged nuisance occurred. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord took reasonable and appropriate action, in accordance with its policies, procedures, and the law, to investigate and respond to reports of ASB. The landlord must be proportionate in the action it takes and where legal action is contemplated, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to seek professional legal advice. It should also be noted that it is not the landlord’s responsibility to stop ASB from occurring and in some cases, despite the landlord taking adequate action, the behaviour may persist.
  3. Prior to January 2020, the landlord took informal action to investigate and address the resident’s concerns. This included installing noise recording equipment in March and May 2019 and reviewing the resident’s noise diaries. The landlord also arranged mediation, issued a formal written warning to the resident’s neighbour, and asked her to sign an acceptable behaviour contract, which she refused.
  4. In September 2019, the landlord compiled available evidence, including a witness statement from the resident, and approached its legal team to apply for an injunction against the resident’s neighbour. The landlord’s legal team advised against issuing legal proceedings, which the resident was understandably disappointed about. The landlord then sought additional evidence and re-approached the legal team in December 2019. They again advised against pursuing an injunction at that time. The landlord committed to keep the possibility of obtaining an injunction under review.
  5. On 18 January 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that their neighbour had installed night vision cameras pointing at their pathway. They asked the landlord to insist on their removal, as they felt this was harassment. The landlord requested further information about the location of the cameras and asked if the resident had reported the matter to the police. The landlord stated that it would discuss with police and arrange a joint visit to the neighbour’s property. It would also write to the resident’s neighbour, requesting she cease all direct or indirect harassment of the resident and their family, or the landlord would take legal action.
  6. On 27 January 2020, the resident reported that they had been visited by police as their neighbour had falsely claimed that they tried to smash her windows. The resident asked when the landlord and police would be visiting her neighbour. The landlord responded that it was awaiting confirmation of a date for a visit from the police. On 29 January 2020, the landlord produced a management transfer report requesting that the resident’s family be transferred to another property. The report noted that “despite many hours case managing the support and enforcement there is no other options available to resolve the continued harassment and intimidation”. This was approved by a panel on 5 February 2020.
  7. The resident’s neighbour made further allegations against the resident in March, April and May 2020 and the resident requested the landlord’s help, asking why police were still visiting their property when the allegations were known to be false. They also reported on 14 May 2020 that their neighbour was setting off her panic alarm in the middle of the night, and that they had recorded this on one occasion. On 23 June 2020 the landlord and police conducted a joint visit to the resident’s neighbour’s property and issued her with a verbal warning.
  8. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s email about the CCTV, requested further information and liaised with police, however, there is no evidence that it visited the resident’s neighbour as promised until June 2020. There is also no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour to issue a warning or asked her to remove the CCTV cameras. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was limited in the action it could take following the national lockdown on 23 March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the landlord has failed to explain why it did not complete the promised actions before that date.
  9. Once the lockdown was lifted, the landlord did take some action, in conjunction with the police, in relation to incidents that had occurred during the lockdown, however, it did not issue her with a written warning as it had committed to do. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s frustration that the landlord did not revisit the possibility of obtaining an injunction after December 2019, particularly as the behaviour was ongoing and it had previously committed to keep this under review. Having previously warned the resident’s neighbour about the consequences of making false allegations, there is no evidence that the landlord escalated its response or referred the latest evidence to its legal team. This left the resident feeling unsupported and increased their distress.
  10. Although the landlord made considerable efforts to investigate and address the resident’s reports of ASB prior to January 2020, it failed to maintain an adequate level of service after that time. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB after January 2020.
  11. The Ombudsman makes an award of compensation, in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance, in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. On this occasion, the Ombudsman will not make an Order that the landlord provide training to its staff on dealing with perpetrators with mental health issues, as the evidence shows that the landlord was sensitive to the vulnerabilities of the resident’s neighbour.

Handling of request for a management transfer

  1. The landlord has not provided a copy of its allocations or management transfer policies in use at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has provided a quote from its Housing Allocations Policy, regarding management transfers, which states that, if approved, “the size of the accommodation offered will be the same as their previous tenancy, or a size that meets their needs under the terms of this policy”.
  2. The resident’s request for a management transfer was approved on 5 February 2020. The documentary evidence provided by the parties shows that the resident provided medical evidence on 10 and 11 February 2020 in support of a reassessment of their housing need. The landlord then sent a medical questionnaire for the resident to complete, which they state they did. There is no further evidence that any action was taken to reassess the resident’s housing need at that time.
  3. The landlord explained in the stage 2 response of 20 July 2021 that when a management transfer is approved, it passes to the Housing Needs team, who will consider the suitability of properties as they become available. The landlord identified that management transfers should be reviewed every 6 months, which did not happen in the resident’s case. It apologised for this in a letter to the resident, dated 22 June 2021. It also indicated that had the resident’s case been reviewed, the landlord would have identified that they no longer qualified for a move, as the threat of further harassment and intimidation ceased at the time of the resident’s neighbour’s death on 5 July 2020.
  4. In the letter of 22 June 2021, the landlord stated that it had chosen to exercise its discretion by continuing to progress the resident’s management transfer, in recognition of the distress caused by the delay and family’s desire to leave the property. This was a fair and reasonable approach to resolving the resident’s concerns, as the landlord was not obliged to continue with the management transfer in the absence of an ongoing threat.
  5. The resident asked to be moved to a 3-bedroom property and the landlord advised that it could only offer a like for like transfer in the absence of reassessment of the family’s housing need. This response was in accordance with its policy, as quoted above, although the landlord should have identified and apologised for the fact that the resident had already submitted additional medical evidence in February 2020, which it had failed to assess. It is not within the Ombudsman’s power to Order the landlord to transfer the resident to a larger property, however, it notes that the landlord offered to review the resident’s housing need in its stage 2 response.
  6. The Ombudsman agrees that the landlord’s communication with the resident about their management transfer request was poor. Once approved, there was a considerable delay of approximately 16 months in progressing the resident’s transfer. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed medical evidence provided by the resident, and it failed to conduct 6 monthly reviews, as required under its allocations policy. Given that management transfers are approved in response to “imminent personal risk”, this was unacceptable.
  7. The landlord has paid the resident £901 compensation in recognition of the failings identified. It calculated this sum on the basis of a ‘medium’ impact on the resident’s household from the point that it agreed the management move until the point that the neighbour passed, with the calculation then reduced to a ‘minimum’ impact from that point, until June 2021, when it confirmed to the resident her options for moving. The landlord’s approach to calculating the compensation here presents as reasonable as it took into account the impact on the household throughout and acknowledged its contribution to the resident’s distress during this time. The reduction in the rate calculated was also appropriate given the landlord’s understanding that the source of the ASB against the resident had ended with the neighbour’s passing.
  8. In addition, this Service’s Remedies Guidance details awards of compensation in excess of £750 are only to be made in cases where the Ombudsman considers that there has been serious service failure or maladministration with a significant impact on the resident. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the compensation awarded by the landlord provides sufficient redress in relation to this aspect of the complaint as the amount offered exceeds this sum. This reflects the Ombudsman’s understanding that there were significant failures in this case.

Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy, as detailed in its Tenants Handbook, states that it will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. There is also a third stage of the process where an appeal can be made to Councillors. It is unclear if this was the Policy in use at the time of the resident’s complaint.
  2. There were considerable delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process, with it taking 6 months to provide a stage 1 response. The Ombudsman is mindful, however, of the disruption to the landlord’s services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the landlord’s resources. At stage 2 the landlord did make reasonable efforts to keep the resident updated on the progress of their complaint. The stage 2 response referred to a 3-stage complaints process, but also referred the resident to this Service if she was unhappy with the stage 2 outcome. The Ombudsman considers that this was unclear and may have led to confusion as to whether the resident had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 December 2020 contained inaccuracies about the works completed to the resident’s garden fence and failed to identify that the landlord had not reassessed the resident’s management transfer in light of her neighbour’s death. The landlord apologised that it had confused the information about the fence in the stage 2 response of 20 July 2021, acknowledging that it had merely granted permission for the fence to be installed and not arranged or paid for the works. Providing an apology for the error was a proportionate response, although the landlord should take care to avoid misrepresenting information in its complaint responses, as this undermines the integrity of its complaint investigations.
  4. The Ombudsman agrees that there were excessive delays in responding to the resident’s formal complaint. However, given the exceptional circumstances created by the pandemic, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has provided sufficient redress with its offer of £50 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between 1 January 2020 and 23 March 2020.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of their request for a management transfer.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following Order to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the failings identified in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.