The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Swindon Borough Council (202109363)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109363

Swindon Borough Council

5 March 2024

 

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy.
  2. On 13 January 2021 the resident reported a neighbour’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the landlord. In July 2021 the resident approached this Service as she said the ASB had continued, and we contacted the landlord to raise a complaint on her behalf. No evidence has been provided by the landlord that it sent a written response to the complaint at this time.
  3. An injunction was obtained by the landlord in October 2021, however the resident continued to report ASB issues both during and after the injunction period.
  4. The resident contacted this Service again in May 2023 about her ongoing issues with ASB from the same neighbour. We advised her to raise a new complaint with the landlord, which she did on 8 July 2023.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 18 July 2023, in which it acknowledged that there was an ongoing police investigation but said there was not enough grounds for it to seek a possession order of the neighbour’s flat. It noted that the resident was progressing an application for a mutual exchange of her property.
  6. On 23 July 2023 the resident requested the complaint be escalated. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. It said that whilst it could conduct its own investigation, it had to be careful not to affect a criminal investigation. It did not set out clearly what it had done in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. On 26 August 2023 the resident contacted this Service to ask for the complaint to be investigated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Whilst the complaint that brought these issues into this Service’s formal remit ended in 2023, this investigation will also assess the previous complaint from 2021 and events relating to this. There is no evidence that the landlord responded in writing to this complaint, therefore it did not give the resident the opportunity to refer the complaint to this Service at that time, nor did it formally close off its complaints process correctly. It missed earlier opportunities to assist in resolving this.

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

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will, among other things:
    1. Listen to the complainant and offer the best ASB related advice for the circumstances.
    2. Offer to visit complainants to agree an action plan for tackling the problems and issue ASB log sheets to aid the recording of further incidents.
    3. Consider a wide range of approaches, for example using restorative justice/mediation and injunctions.
    4. Consider the security of the complainant/victim’s home and offer to support witnesses going to court.
  2. The landlord has provided evidence which shows this was not the first time this neighbour had been involved in ASB. Its records show that other neighbours had previously raised concerns about ASB as far back as 2017, and an injunction was in place between 5 January 2017 and 5 July 2017.
  3. The records show that during that injunction there were no reported breaches, however there were further reports during 2018 of the neighbour being abusive and aggressive towards other residents and playing loud music and making other loud noises late at night.
  4. The resident reported an incident to the landlord and the police on 13 January 2021 where she said that the neighbour had made threats of violence towards her on 6 January 2021. The landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour the same day, reminding them that this behaviour was not acceptable and it may consider taking enforcement action against their tenancy if it continued. Given that a few years had passed since previous reports of ASB, this was a reasonable first step for the landlord to have taken at this time, in line with its ASB policy.
  5. The resident reported further incidents on 27 January 2021, 5 February 2021 and 21 February 2021 which included threats of violence and the neighbour spitting at her car. No evidence has been provided by the landlord that it took any action at this time, despite it having warned the neighbour of the possible consequences of further ASB.
  6. On 9 May 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had banged her door at 1:20am and on 12 May 2021 she reported that they were playing loud music in the evening. On 18 July 2021 the resident reported that the neighbour had tried to provoke her partner into a fight and on 20 July 2021 she reported to the police the neighbour’s use of foul language and them making veiled threats to her.
  7. On 21 July 2021 the resident contacted this Service, and we raised a complaint to the landlord on her behalf. The landlord confirmed it had logged a complaint on 20 July 2021 and a stage 1 response was due by 3 August 2021. This Service has not seen any evidence of a complaint response being sent at this time.
  8. The resident reported that the neighbour had posted a photo of her car on Facebook on 26 July 2021, and the neighbour admitted this to the landlord when it visited them to discuss this. Whilst the landlord did act promptly in sending a warning letter in January 2021 when the resident first reported the issue, the reports of ASB had continued over a 6-month period with no evidence of the landlord taking any further action during this time. It was not reasonable for it to send the neighbour a warning letter but not follow this up when they failed to change their behaviour.
  9. On 30 July 2021 the landlord wrote to all residents in the building to let them know about the ASB and ask them to provide further evidence. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take before applying for an injunction, to ensure it had as much evidence to present to the court as possible. However, it is not clear why it did not take this action as soon as the behaviour continued after the warning letter was sent.
  10. The landlord’s housing enforcement officer made a statement on 9 September 2021 as part of its application for an injunction. The statement said that the neighbour’s behaviour, including intimidating and threating behaviour, and the strong smell of cannabis, had a detrimental impact on the community for a number of years. It confirmed an injunction had previously been granted for the same behaviours.
  11. The statement acknowledged that the neighbour had mental and physical health issues and said the landlord was not currently looking to seek possession of their flat and was willing to work with them to address the issues.
  12. A court hearing took place on 18 October 2021 and a 12-month injunction was granted which set out rules the neighbour must abide by. This Service recognises that the landlord did take action in line with its policy in obtaining this injunction. Had this been the first time this behaviour had occurred; it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have allowed some time for behaviour to improve before taking this step. However, given that the neighbour had been subject to a previous injunction for the same behaviour, and due the nature and extent of the reports coming from multiple sources, it would have been proportional for the landlord to have progressed things to this stage much more quickly.
  13. The resident told this Service that despite obtaining the injunction, the landlord failed to follow through with this when the neighbour breached the injunction. The landlord has provided evidence that at least 7 breaches of the injunction were reported. In an internal email of 14 February 2024, it acknowledges that the breaches were left too long for it to be likely anything could be taken further.
  14. In its stage 1 response of 18 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged that there had been breaches of the injunction but said that other parties did not engage in order to provide evidence to take matters to court. Whilst this Service appreciates that the landlord wrote to all residents asking for evidence/statements, it should be acknowledged that witnesses may be reluctant to get involved when the behaviour has involved intimidation and threats of violence. There is no evidence that the landlord offered any support to help those who might be reluctant to come forward, despite its policy setting out that it would do this.
  15. In this stage 1 response, the landlord said that it could not conduct its own investigation and propose enforcement when the police were investigating the same issue. In its stage 2 response of 24 August 2023, it changed its stance and said that it could conduct its own investigations but had to be careful not to affect a criminal investigation.
  16. The landlord’s ASB policy does not say that it will not carry out certain actions whilst a police investigation is ongoing. An ongoing police investigation should not prevent the landlord from following its ASB policy and the court documents from October 2021 show that the police had said that the landlord would be better placed to deal with ongoing issues. Therefore, it was not reasonable for the landlord to not exhaust all options available to it on the basis that it might interfere with a police investigation.
  17. At times the landlord did take steps to try to resolve the situation, however it was not consistent in taking action. There is no evidence that when the resident first reported ASB that it offered her any advice for dealing with it. There is also no evidence of it offering to visit her and agree an action plan, despite its ASB policy saying that it would do this. And, while it did eventually obtain an injunction, it did not appear to take the history of similar behaviour by this neighbour into consideration from the outset.
  18. The situation left the resident feeling unsafe and ultimately she proceeded with a mutual exchange and moved away from the area in October 2023. Had the landlord taken more swift action, and provided more support to residents who may have been able to provide statements, this move may have been avoided.
  19. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It did take some actions but often not soon enough. It failed to apply its policy consistently during the almost 3 years this matter was ongoing. This left the resident feeling that she had no choice but to move away from the property to resolve the situation.
  20. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 to reflect the distress caused to her by the landlord’s delays and inconsistent decision making that likely enabled the behaviour to continue unchecked for long periods.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint the first time it was raised, delaying the final outcome.
  2. The landlord first raised a complaint for the resident on 20 July 2021. It told this Service it would send a stage 1 response by 3 August 2021, however there is no evidence that it did this. Its system notes say that the complaint was discussed verbally with the resident on 26 August 2021, more than three weeks after it should have sent its stage 1 response. The notes from this conversation say that the resident told the landlord she had to call the police again the night before and that she was not willing to stay at the property.
  3. This note indicates that the complaint was closed as a result of this conversation, with no written response being sent. The notes make it clear that the resident is still not happy with the situation, and without a written response there is no evidence that she was provided with any information about how she could escalate her complaint. As the complaint was not progressed through the internal complaints process at this time, there is no evidence she was made aware of her right to use this Service.
  4. After speaking to this Service in May 2023, the resident’s daughter formally raised a new complaint on her behalf online with the landlord on 8 July 2023. She told the landlord that she was concerned about her mother’s state of mind and said that she was being terrorised throughout the night by the neighbour.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 July 2023, in line with the timescale set out in its complaint policy. The resident’s daughter responded on 23 July 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with the response. The landlord then sent its stage 2 response on 24 August 2023, 23 working days later. This was slightly longer than the 20-day timescale set out in its policy, however overall its handling of this complaint at this time was reasonable.
  6. However, it is important to recognise that the landlord should have dealt with the resident’s complaint appropriately in 2021, and this may have avoided the need for her to make a complaint in 2023. A correctly handled complaint in 2021 may have been able to resolve the issues with the landlord’s handling of the ASB at a much earlier stage, reducing the impact of this issue on the resident.
  7. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint. Whilst it handled the recent complaint within a reasonable timeframe, its failure to progress the original complaint through its internal complaints process led to the issue being protracted. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 to recognise the distress caused by the failures in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £500 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
    2. £300 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the impact these issues had on her.
  3. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 28 days of this report.