London Borough of Barnet (202127278)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127278

London Borough of Barnet

15 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:
   1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. The complaint.

Background.

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a sheltered housing block. The tenancy began on 11 April 2016.
3. For the purposes of this report the neighbours will be referred to as neighbour A and neighbour B. Both neighbours are tenants of the landlord. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will provide advice and assistance to help if reports of ASB are made.
4. The resident reported 2 incidents of ASB by neighbour A and neighbour B. The incidents occurred within the shared communal areas in the block. The resident reported that neighbour A had shouted “rude nasty hate.” Neighbour B had shouted at her and told her to “move out of her flat.” When she did not receive a response from her landlord, she contacted our Service. We contacted the landlord on her behalf. The landlord advised that it had not received the reports of ASB but as it had now been made aware it would contact the resident. It confirmed to the resident that the reports had been passed to her housing officer who would contact her shortly.
5. The resident contacted our Service to advise that she still had not received a response. She also said that the landlord had advised neighbour A to stay away from her, but it was unknown how the landlord was managing her neighbour’s behaviour. A stage 1 complaint was raised on this basis. The landlord advised that it only became aware of the 2 reports about neighbour A and B on 29 March 2022. It had tried to call the resident on 3 separate occasions and messages were left. The landlord said as the resident had not responded it closed the contact. It said that on reflection it should have attempted to contact the resident by letter or email following the lack of response by telephone.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response about how it handled the reports of ASB. A stage 2 response was provided by the landlord on 14 April 2023. It agreed with its findings in its stage 1 response and said it was sorry this was not followed up in writing and it had addressed the issue internally. It went on to state that it had not received any further reports of ASB but if the resident continued to be suffering ASB she should contact its customer contact centre. The call would then be triaged and if necessary, referred to its ASB team.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she considered the landlord had failed to take any action in response to her reports of ASB.

Assessment and findings

8. It is not disputed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for her. Nevertheless, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to prove whether events took place as alleged but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately. This Service will also consider whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
9. Our focus in this case is therefore on how the landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns and their complaint and whether this response was reasonable and fair in all the circumstances. This includes consideration of whether the landlords’ actions were in accordance with the landlord’s relevant policies and procedures.
10. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy states it will investigate ASB reports as soon as possible and will prioritise serious incidents. Following a report of ASB, an initial triage assessment, which includes a vulnerability assessment, will be completed. At the point of contact, an assessment will be carried out to determine if the incident is a ‘low’ or ‘high’ risk. If an incident is classified as ‘high’ risk, the individual reporting the incident may be advised to report it to the police. ‘High’ risk incidents may include hate crimes, harassment, and aggressive behaviour. Its policy also states that it may close a case where the resident fails to engage during a case investigation, and this impedes its ability to address the issues raised.
11. The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. This was clearly not in accordance with its policy as set out above. It acknowledged it had failed within its stage 1 response. It said it should have sent a letter or emailed the resident when it became evident it was unable to contact her by phone.
12. It is noted that there were no recorded vulnerabilities by the landlord. However, given that the resident was in sheltered accommodation it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to take further steps to assess whether she had any vulnerabilities. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident and to have been more proactive to show that it had considered its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. The landlord was aware of reports where it was alleged the resident had behaved aggressively when under pressure. In light of this knowledge the landlord should have been more proactive. That the landlord was not demonstrates poor record keeping.
13. The landlord did not consider how it could put matters right. The complaints process would have been a good opportunity for the landlord to establish how it could communicate with the resident moving forwards to avoid any further reports being missed. This would have evidenced that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and that it had sought to put matters right. These failings and the need to put matters right have been considered in the order made below.
14. In summary this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord was unsupportive and failed to show that it had regard to any vulnerabilities and potential duties set out in the Equalities Act 2010. The resident, as a result of these failings had to live with the uncertainty of what action the landlord was taking for almost a year after her initial report. She also had to spend further time pursuing her complaint with the landlord and with this Service.

Handling of the complaint.

15. The landlord’s policy sets out that it has a two-stage process. It is required to issue its Stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
16. Both complaints were raised by this Service on behalf of the resident. The evidence provided to this Service shows that communication between the landlord and the resident had broken down. It is not clear why the landlord was not receiving the communication from the resident. An order has been made to try to resolve this moving forwards.
17. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked empathy. The landlord said within its stage 2 response that it had already acknowledged its failing and apologised. This was incorrect as although it acknowledged it could have done more it did not apologise for this within its stage 1 response. This again highlights poor record keeping and information management.
18. The landlord also failed to explain what had gone wrong and show any learning outcomes within its complaint responses. By not investigating what had gone wrong it was unable to put matters right. It was also not clear what records the landlord referred to during its complaint investigations as the information regarding its efforts to make contact does not appear in the records that have been provided to this Service. This demonstrates poor record keeping and is a further failing.
19. The comments within the stage 2 response that it had addressed the issue internally did not show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred. It failed to consider its actions against policy and good practice. It also failed to consider appropriate redress after consideration of its failures. It was silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its complaint handling. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, without receiving a detailed response.
20. This Service considers the complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The landlord’s record keeping, and information management was poor. Its responses lacked empathy. It also failed to show a meaningful assessment of its failings. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of ASB.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

23. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:
24. Provides a written apology to the resident for the service failings identified in this report.
25. Pays the resident £600 compensation broken down as follows:
    1. £350 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to the residents by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
26. The landlord to write to the resident to determine whether there are any on-going issues of ASB and confirm how it will ensure that contact is effective moving forwards. A copy should be sent to this Service also within 28 days.
27. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 8 weeks:
    1. Carry out training of all staff involved in the management of ASB with a particular focus on vulnerability and older persons. The landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service that this has been completed also within 8 weeks.
    2. Considering the complaint handling failings in this case, the landlord should take steps (in the form of a refresher course or workshop, based on the contents of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code) to remind its relevant staff of their complaint handling responsibilities and the best practice approaches. The landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service that this has been completed also within 8 weeks.
    3. Considering the communication and record keeping failures in this case. The landlord should review how it will improve its service. Reference should be made to the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information report (KIM) May 2023. The landlord should share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation

28. The landlord to review and share with all staff the Ombudsman’s report on attitude, respect, and rights – relationships of equals which was published in January 2024.