Darlington Borough Council (202209963)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209963

Darlington Borough Council

24 August 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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and harassment.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs in readiness for, and after, letting.
3. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and her husband had a joint secure tenancy with the landlord local authority that began on 18 January 2021. The property was a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The couple lived there with their 2 children.
The family moved into the property following a transfer by the landlord. Their previous home was also let to them by the same landlord. The resident explained the move followed a very difficult period for their family during which they faced local bullying and intimidation. The impact on the resident’s daughter was reported as particularly acute and she was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after making multiple attempts on her life. The resident explained the experiences also took a toll on her own mental health. A move to a new area was said to be supported by the landlord’s social care services.
The landlord said it became aware the resident’s household had vulnerabilities in June 2022. The records considered by this Service show reference to her daughter’s complex needs and their mental health conditions at early stages of the tenancy.

Scope of investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called this Service’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s allocation of their particular property and how it handled their request for rehousing. The Ombudsman has not reviewed these matters within its investigation as they fall outside of its remit. Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that this Service may not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The allocation of housing under the Housing Act 1996 by the local authority is a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO). The resident may wish to seek independent advice about her options to progress her concerns with the LGSCO.
The resident informed this Service that the landlord’s handling of their reports had a significant impact on their health and wellbeing and that of their household. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
Under the rules of the Scheme, this Service may not investigate matters brought to its attention more than 12 months after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The resident’s complaint about how the landlord handled repairs when the property was empty, and from the tenancy start, was decided by the landlord’s final stage 2 response on 8 July 2021. Although the resident brought this issue to the Ombudsman outside of the 12 months, this Service has exercised discretion to consider the complaint about these repairs in the context of the resident’s cited vulnerabilities. Further, the referral to this Service was not significantly outside of the relevant timescale. This is deemed appropriate and fair in these circumstances.

Summary of events

The landlord completed an inspection of the property when empty on 5 October 2020. It noted over a hundred items of work required to bring the property to standard, including repairs to electrical sockets, internal water damage and the clearing of debris and waste items from the garden. The replastering of walls, and parts of walls, was noted as required in many rooms throughout the property due to the level of internal damage.
On 7 December 2020, the landlord’s internal correspondence records a list of outstanding work to the property following a ‘post-inspection’. This included plastering and electrical safety repairs and debris in the external areas. The landlord also completed a viewing of the property with the resident in December 2020. A list of outstanding works were reported back by its attending officer.
The landlord’s repair log recorded 22 jobs being raised on their system before the resident’s tenancy began, between the end of December 2020 up to 14 January 2021. The log noted completion of the majority of this work, including the plastering of holes in the walls. A number of electrical repairs were not completed. The operative logged that it did not have a description of works or power supply at the property.
The resident’s tenancy began on 18 January 2021. The landlord’s repair records showed a number of repair jobs raised the following day, including to radiators, with an all day appointment made for 20 January 2021. Some gas, plastering and carpentry repairs were completed on 22 January 2021.
This Service has seen emails exchanged between the resident and landlord during the last week of January 2021. The landlord provided the resident an update of repair appointments. The resident raised concern about outstanding work and costs they had incurred to do remedial work to walls and ceilings, increased heating costs due to the outstanding issues and cleaning products needed. The resident explained how the problems impacted her mental health. She supplied photographs and requested the landlord’s help. Following receipt, the landlord requested internally the prioritisation of works and that the resident be compensated. It described the condition of the property as ‘horrific’.
In early February 2021, the landlord’s repair systems noted the need for ‘additional works to property after inspection’. Many repairs subsequently recorded in the early stage of the resident’s tenancy mirrored work identified by its void inspection, for instance repair of electrical sockets and holes to walls. A significant proportion of the list was noted as completed by the early part of April 2021.
On 22 April 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord by phone. She raised concern about the condition of her home on letting and the landlord’s delay resolving the issues. She said she had to frequently chase the landlord for progress. The resident explained the impact of the poor condition of letting as:
1. Disruption to her family from having to live around the work. The family at one stage had to all sleep in one bedroom.
2. Being unable to fully unpack or decorate her new home.
3. Having to use the landlord’s decoration allowance on repair and other associated items to bring the house to standard – for instance, damp block, tap fitting, rubble sacks, cleaning products.
4. Negative impact to her mental health and that of her daughter. The resident’s respiratory condition was described as being exacerbated by dust.
The landlord’s internal records show further gas and electrical repairs were identified as required at the end of April 2021. The landlord stated that an inspection was carried out on 30 April 2021. The work logged was noted as completed in early May 2021.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged making a number of errors and poor communications between departments. It accepted a failure to provide the resident quality housing. It admitted its service to have been ‘completely unacceptable’ and offered an apology. It advised it would conduct further remedial work to put the property condition right and offered compensation of £500, noting it had already provided £650 for decoration costs. It promised to learn by improving internal communications and its process for inspecting and ordering work.
The landlord’s internal complaint records noted the need for immediate improvements in its void inspection process, internal controls and approvals. It highlighted the need for staff training covering void standards and inspections.
On 6 May 2021, the resident made a request to escalate her complaint. She raised issue with the level of compensation offered by the landlord at stage 1. She said it was insufficient in consideration of the impact to the family and the costs they had incurred. She requested financial redress at the rate of rent payable and payment of their expenses to date.
A number of further remedial items to the property were logged as required and completed in June 2021/early July 2021, including the removal of ‘rubbish’ and plumbing work to radiators.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 8 July 2021. It apologised that its response was delayed. It accepted the resident’s proposed financial redress and agreed to pay 4 months’ rent ‘refund’ for the period her home was in an unacceptable condition. It also offered £200 to consider the time and trouble to which she was put and incurred expenses of refuse bags. The total offer was £1,694.09. It apologised for the impact caused.
At the end of September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to report nuisance from loud noises from next door and regular fires. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report within 3 days and spoke to her by phone. The resident added reports of noise from children’s parties. The landlord provided advice about reasonable and unreasonable conduct. It advised the neighbour to give notice of gatherings and be mindful of impact on others from fires. The neighbour subsequently reported facing shouting and swearing from the resident in the evening during a children’s party.
In early October 2021, the resident reported ongoing drilling noises and loud arguing next door. The landlord visited the neighbour and gave advice about expected consideration for the impact to others. It discussed giving notice of gatherings, reasonable noise and the possibility of mediation. The neighbour denied causing unreasonable noise. The landlord updated the resident immediately after the visit and a written action plan confirmed the neighbour’s agreed steps. It advised finding the noises reported as ‘living noises’ and that lifestyle differences would not be enforced.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 April 2022 to report continued noise from next door consisting of loud arguing, swearing, parties and doors slamming. She had kept diary logs and submitted noise app recordings. She advised reporting a late party to police on 17 April 2022 and, after they left, facing abuse from the neighbour captured on attached footage. The resident described the issues causing distress and sleep deprivation to the family. She reminded the landlord her autistic daughter was particularly impacted by loud noises and vulnerable due to her mental health history and past suicide attempt. The resident explained suffering from anxiety related seizures and the situation making her unwell. She described the family being unable to enjoy their garden due to next door noises and feeling a ‘prisoner’ in her home. She requested noise monitoring equipment.
The resident’s video footage of 17 April 2022 at just before 11pm showed a woman marching in the direction of the resident’s home and stopping outside. A male voice is heard encouraging the woman to return home and not make matters worse. The woman is seen shouting in an irate manner, swearing and raising concerns about losing their home.
On 29 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said her family continued to experience loud noise from screaming, shouting, gatherings and music next door. She advised of reporting the matters to police and submitting recordings via the noise app. She said distress was caused to her children and her anxiety worsened.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour service contacted the resident on 4 May 2022 to advise it had been assigned her case and to provide a point of contact. The landlord’s officer spoke with the resident by phone and noted her reports of noise nuisance and abuse from next door and impact to the wellbeing and health of her household. It contacted the police the same day to request details of the reported incidents.
The police responded to the landlord to advise its log showed when it attended next door, the occupant had apologised and turned down the music. The landlord sought further information.
The resident sent further emails and videos to the landlord’s officer on 7, 8 and 9 May 2022 to add detail to her reports. She advised of further loud screaming, singing, music and late night shouting and having submitted noise app recordings.
The landlord’s records noted its officer conducted enquiries at nearby homes on 9 May 2022. Other local residents told the landlord they experienced no noise or other issues. The following day, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour by appointment. The neighbours denied causing unreasonable noise and advised they were due to hold a party that weekend. The incident of abuse of 17 April 2022 was put to the neighbour, who apologised and told the landlord it would not occur again. The landlord’s officer noted, ‘I have no concerns regarding this family and believe the activities are daily family life.’
Immediately following the visit to the neighbour on 10 May 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s home in the company of a police officer. The landlord advised the resident it did not consider the noises were anti-social behaviour and this was confirmed by other residents. The resident told the landlord of another local resident who experienced noise. It advised to tell them to make a complaint. The landlord noted putting allegations to the resident about her conduct concerning parking vehicles and the resident’s agreement to mediation.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord’s officer emailed the resident and advised it had viewed video footage and had not found evidence of any threats. The resident replied to give details surrounding the footage extract and highlight the abuse in April 2022. The landlord replied to say it had spoken to the neighbour about the volume and language used and was assured it would not occur again.
Later on 11 May 2022, the resident supplied CCTV recordings and raised complaint to the landlord that:
1. Described the experience of disruption from loud noises and gatherings and suffering verbal abuse from the neighbour and their relative.
2. Expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of her reports in that:

i. Mediation was insufficient to resolve the issues facing her family.

ii. The home visit of 10 May 2022 was poorly handled with a lack of empathy. She had been left feeling the landlord had no regard to her previous experiences and that her concerns were minimised.

iii. It failed to properly investigate her reports by not reviewing her footage and taking relevant available accounts. It had wrongly relied on denials by the neighbour and their friends.

The resident reported by email to the landlord further noise disturbances on 14 and 15 May 2022 from next door including from loud shouting, foul language, a party and chanting in the street. The noise was said to have occurred at times that caused the family to lose sleep and the resident advised impact to her mental health. She expressed concern that the behaviour amounted to bullying and hate crime. The resident advised of reporting the disturbances to police. She said she was no longer willing to engage in mediation but would support evidence to take action.
The landlord’s officer replied to the resident on 16 May 2022, seeking evidence of allegations and by adding comments or questions below her email. These included:
1. It was ‘impossible’ to address children playing. It offered to speak to the neighbours about swearing but cautioned it would not take action due to this taking place within someone’s home.
2. It agreed the conduct of visitors leaving next door was unacceptable and would address this incident but denied hearing chanting on the provided footage.
3. A question was put to the resident as to why she thought she was a victim of hate crime.
4. A statement was made that a lot of the behaviour described was general family life and the resident had not provided any ‘proof’ the conduct impacted her privacy.
5. In response to the resident’s explanation of the impact to her health and lost sleep for the household, it stated 8pm was not an unreasonable hour.
6. The landlord asked if it could allow her neighbours to listen to her noise recordings and asked what action was desired by the resident.
On 16 and 18 May 2022, the resident and her husband separately emailed the landlord. They expressed dissatisfaction at the manner and content of the response received from the landlord’s officer. The resident said they felt like the officer was defending the neighbours and considering them liars. The resident’s husband provided background information about the issues experienced. They advised that allowing the neighbours to listen to their recordings would likely cause further issues. The resident reported a worsening of their anxiety and concern for the impact to their daughter. They requested to liaise with a different officer.
On 18 May 2022, the landlord’s officer advised that the resident’s complaint would be responded to in due course. They confirmed the opening of the anti-social behaviour case on 5 May 2022, that they would be revisiting the neighbour to discuss the further issues raised and would be in touch once a week for any updates.
On 19 May 2022, the resident reported further disturbances in the evening from a group of children in the next door garden.
On 23 May 2022, a different landlord officer visited the resident. The resident detailed incidents experienced from next door and the impact of frequent loud noise. The resident was advised their complaint would be investigated by the anti-social behaviour officer and noise equipment installed.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord’s officer updated the resident by email that their neighbours had been visited and advised to request visitors be mindful of noise. The email relayed the neighbour’s apology for swearing and their promise to address this. The landlord passed on a message from the neighbour that they would be having jubilee and birthday parties. The resident replied, referring to previous incidents. The landlord’s officer replied with responses within the body of the resident’s email. It asked she consider that it received the case in early May 2022 and could not respond daily due to their caseload.
The resident replied on 26 May 2022 and expressed concern the investigation was limited to after 19 April 2022. She described the ongoing impact to her mental health and lack of sleep to her husband.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord provided its response to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It appropriately investigated the resident’s reports by its local investigations, liaison with police and review of CCTV. There was insufficient evidence to confirm the reports or support legal action. The reports remained under investigation and it would install noise monitoring equipment.
2. It kept in regular contact with, and updated, the resident. It noted the resident had been ‘unresponsive’ to certain matters requiring clarification.
3. It accepted visiting her home unannounced when in the area with the police. This was to provide an update and discuss a counter complaint about the resident’s use of CCTV. It was aware the police officer said ‘tit for tat’, however it was unable to respond to this comment made by the police. It did not find the meeting had been poorly handled.
On 1 June 2022, the resident requested escalation of their complaint. They raised to the landlord:
1. The level of noise and length of time experienced was unacceptable. The landlord ignored some of their reports and failed to take appropriate action.
2. The investigating officer’s conduct was unreasonable, including their handling of the unannounced home visit. The resident felt her words were twisted and the approach was not empathetic. This caused distress.
3. The landlord inappropriately gave important updates and put matters to her unannounced and verbally only.
4. The landlord relied on the accounts of persons who were lying. She had CCTV evidence of a party less than a week after the landlord’s home visit. Other local neighbours had begun making jibes and she felt victimised.
5. Her family continued to deal with traumatic stress from their past experiences and lived with multiple vulnerabilities, some of which were impacted by noise. The landlord failed to consider or address these issues.
On the same date, the landlord emailed the resident setting out a response in segments within the body of their email of 24 May 2022. This included the landlord putting to the resident an allegation she had instigated a confrontation at Halloween and asking for footage to support their account. They advised the previous complaints dealt with were closed and would not be reopened. The resident was asked to consider where they would like the noise recording equipment to be installed.
On 5 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord’s officer and said she would no longer reply to their emails and would not be made out as ‘liars’ or belittled. She raised concern that evidence and medical needs were not being considered. The resident requested that the officer did not reply to their email.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord received information from the police. The same day, the landlord conducted an unannounced joint visit to the resident with the police. The landlord informed her of a counter allegation concerning use of CCTV and gave advice about compliant use. The landlord’s notes refer to the resident beginning to ‘rant’ about the situation. The landlord noted the resident expressed impact on her health.
On 13, 15 and 17 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. They referred to their health being ‘severely affected’ and the impact to their household being disregarded. The resident requested oversight of their concerns by an officer with whom they had previous contact. The resident supplied a letter from a GP dated 13 June 2022. This explained the resident was a lady living with depression and anxiety. They stated a view that her housing circumstances were causing the resident significant stress.
Noise monitoring equipment was installed at the property on 21 June 2022 and removed on 6 July 2022. The landlord noted checking the equipment was in working order.
The resident sent emails on 3, 4, 12, 14, 17 and 19 July 2022 telling the landlord that:
1. The noise equipment had been difficult to use. During the period of installation, it was largely quiet, however on the evening of 3 July to the early hours of 4 July 2022 there was loud noise from arguing, swearing and shouting next door.
2. There had been an escalation of the situation on 9-10 July 2022; they had suffered abuse, intimidation and a physical confrontation and other local residents (friends of the neighbours) were also involved. The abuse included was reported to include hateful language and swearing. The resident raised concern of disability discrimination.
3. Noise nuisance had continued from next door and their friends’ adjacent homes preventing sleep and causing distress to the children. One of the neighbour’s friends had been making strange noise in the direction of the family when seen in the street. The resident found this intimidatory.
4. The family wished to be rehoused. The resident described hating returning home due to the frequent noise and the family’s life as a ‘misery’.
5. The resident sent to the landlord further video footage and advised their awareness of other CCTV cameras in the street that may also have captured incidents.
On 20 July 2022, the resident and her husband emailed the landlord. Further disturbances were reported. They provided diary sheets and raised issue with the lack of urgency of response. The resident’s husband raised concern that his wife’s health was exacerbated and his family victimised by local residents. The lack of complaint response was also raised.
Between 21 and 25 July 2022, the landlord’s officer liaised with police. The police confirmed it was investigating a potential offence by the neighbour’s relative by their shouting abuse at the resident. It updated having provided words of advice to the neighbours following a report of excessive noise and as officers were leaving, witnessing one of the group heading over to the resident’s home. An argument ensued. The police were reviewing the resident’s CCTV footage. The landlord advised the police it was also due to assess CCTV and had received counter allegations.
On 6 August 2022, the resident reported to the landlord by email that noise issues were ongoing. She expressed frustration at a lack of action by the landlord. She described negative impacts to the family’s day to day life and her mental health.
The landlord’s records show that in mid-August 2022, the local authority’s social services department began a voluntary multi-agency assessment process to consider the wellbeing of the resident’s children. Concerns about the reported impact of behaviour by neighbours on the children was raised. It is noted that a social worker was supporting the family to seek a move.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 14 and 23 August 2022, explaining the impact to the family’s health and wellbeing. A doctor’s letter of 13 August 2022 was supplied. This explained the resident’s mental health conditions and one of their effects being epilepsy-like attacks at night during periods of heightened stress. The issues with neighbours were a cited stressor taking the resident to ‘tipping point’.
On 24 August 2022, the landlord replied to the resident’s escalated complaint. It apologised for its delay completing the stage 2 complaint investigation and stated:
1. It found the landlord had investigated and handled the resident’s reports in line with its policy and procedure.
2. The resident’s further recordings of 7, 17 and 19 July 2022 did not show evidence of unreasonable noise. On 4 June 2022, there had been a party and noise was ‘a little louder’ than normal but the resident was not at home. House to house enquiries failed to gather any further evidence of anti-social behaviour. The noise equipment had failed to capture evidence sufficient for enforcement. It would continue to investigate reports.
3. It was entitled to conduct the home visit in line with the tenancy agreement. It found no fault on the part of the landlord from the handling of the visit. The comment ‘tit for tat’ was made by police.
4. Advice was given concerning the resident’s use of CCTV and rehousing options.
5. The resident had been offered, and refused, mediation.

Post-complaint

The resident reported further incidents of noise nuisance and harassment from her neighbours with some frequency up to their moving out of the property end of April 2023. She provided further CCTV footage to the landlord. The resident continued to raise concern about the handling of her case by the investigating officer. Multiple emails were exchanged between the resident and officer.
The landlord issued a tenancy breach warning to neighbours in November 2022. This relied on incidents in August 2022.
The resident was supported by the charity Shelter to request a community trigger review. The review was determined in September 2022 by police with the conclusion that partner agencies had taken sufficient and reasonable steps to resolve issues raised.
A multi-agency assessment process and meeting was conducted, led by social services, to consider the children’s wellbeing. The officer investigating the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour supplied information about the steps being taken to seek to resolve issues with the police. The resident said that the officer’s presence at the initial meeting was defensive in tone. The officer did not attend the subsequent meeting.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The standard tenancy terms used by the landlord at the start of the resident’s tenancy required it to keep the property in a ‘good’ state of repair. Its tenants handbook at the time set out the expected timescales for repair responses as 24 hours where the issue presented an immediate health or safety or similar risk, 5 working days where the risk was less immediate and 20 working days for repairs presenting no health and safety risk.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implied a term into the resident’s tenancy requiring the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of property and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
A further obligation was implied into the resident’s tenancy by law by the operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 that the landlord must ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The existence of any ‘hazard’ as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm and include excess cold, hygiene, electrical safety and falling elements.
The landlord’s standard tenancy terms required that the resident give access at reasonable hours for inspections or works. The landlord was required to make reasonable arrangements for access and only in an emergency was permitted to enter their home without notice.
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the Act’) defines anti-social behaviour as behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress. The accompanying statutory guidance requires that when the landlord is deciding whether the threshold is met and if it is appropriate to exercise its powers, it is to consider proportionality, harm and the cumulative impact of any repeat incidents. The act also provides complainants the right to request a multi-agency review of action taken in response to their reports of anti-social behaviour by way of a ‘community trigger.’
The statutory guidance accompanying the Act required the landlord to have a clear focus on the impact of reported behaviour and expected good practice of risk of harm assessments to include regard to potential vulnerabilities. It further underlined the need to keep a complainant ‘well informed of progress’ after their report(s).
The landlord was also required to have regard to a complainant’s disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must consider, when making decisions and providing a service, whether its decision making/actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord is also required to make appropriate reasonable adjustments.
The landlord’s then housing services anti-social behaviour procedure defined anti-social behaviour to include playing loud music. It stated anti-social behaviour would be taken ‘seriously’ and it would offer those reporting incidents advice and support, including by specialist referral(s). It gave an expected response time of 15 working days from receipt of complaint. The tenants handbook at the relevant time set out the landlord’s aim of a multi-agency approach to taking action against local nuisance or harassment. The landlord’s records refer to an anti-social behaviour policy in force during the period of investigation. No copy of the policy was produced for this Service’s consideration.
The landlord did not supply this Service with a copy of its complaints policy or procedure from the relevant period. This Service has not seen copies of acknowledgments to ascertain the proposed timescales for responses.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) set out expected good practice for landlords when dealing with a resident’s complaint. It recommended a 10 working day response at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It advised that should an extension be necessary, the landlord should provide a clear timescale with explanation for delay. The landlord was expected to keep the complainant regularly updated and when responding, address all points raised with clear reasons for its decision.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

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

This Service is not able to make findings of fact as to the incidents reported by the resident concerning the neighbours. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether anti-social behaviour or harassment occurred or who is responsible. This Service will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. This includes whether the landlord appropriately and fairly investigated her complaint based on available information, followed proper procedure and took reasonable steps to respond in a way that was fair in all the circumstances.
The landlord was made aware the resident’s household had complex needs and in particular, that the resident and her daughter reported severe adverse effects to their mental health linked to previous experiences. The landlord was told this included residential psychiatric care and suicidal attempts of a child. These matters were very clear and severe potential risk factors, amongst others, requiring careful consideration by the landlord when determining a suitable approach to the resident’s reports. Multiple developments that reasonably had the potential to impact these risks occurred during the period of investigation. The resident reported worsening impact to the wellbeing of the family and incidents that escalated in nature such as abuse and discriminatory language.
There is no record that the landlord completed a risk assessment at commencement of the case or at any further stage during its handling of the resident’s reports. This is contrary to statutory guidance and best practice to ensure victim-centred handling of anti-social behaviour allegations. The landlord’s lack of appropriate risk assessment(s) in this case was likely to have contributed to the other failures of sensitive handling considered below. Appropriate ongoing risk assessments would have provided the landlord the opportunity to assess the ongoing potential for increased harm arising from the household’s complex needs and nature of certain alleged incidents, as well as potential specialist support that may have been appropriate. The lack of regard to the risks presenting, including the potential for harm to the resident’s household, was a failure by the landlord to adhere to good practice in accordance with statutory guidance.
The landlord took reasonable investigatory steps in response to the resident’s reports. The landlord is noted to have liaised with police appropriately and in a timely manner to obtain an understanding of the force’s investigations to help inform its approach. This was in line with the multi-agency working promised by its tenants handbook.
The allegations made were put to the neighbour at appropriate stages and within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s supplied recordings and footage were kept under frequent review. Other correspondence supplied shows the landlord taking steps to obtain other recordings from the resident. It made prompt local enquiries of adjacent residents to gain an understanding of the potential local issue. It arranged for noise recording equipment to be installed within weeks of the case being opened and reviewed the recordings. It showed reasonable partnership working to investigate the resident’s reports and use of available tools to seek to understand the situation arising.
However, it is noted the resident presented the landlord with suggestion of further evidence that may have been relevant to its investigation. The resident advised the landlord another local resident was impacted by the same noises and on a separate occasion, informed the landlord their awareness of other local CCTV. There is no evidence the landlord took proactive investigatory steps to obtain the potential further evidence these sources may have offered. There is evidence enquiries were made with 2 other local residents but not the person suggested by the resident. It is unclear why this was not considered or pursued; the view of another local resident in particular may have provided a wider understanding of the local picture.
The landlord communicated its view to the resident that the majority of incidents reported, together with the associated evidence reviewed, did not present as anti-social behaviour. The landlord responded to a number of the residents’ reports, advising that the conduct described was ordinary family life and day to day reasonable activities by their neighbours for which it could and would not taken action.
It was reasonable that the landlord managed expectations as to its role, approach and communicated a proportionate view as to what behaviours could be enforced as anti-social behaviour. While this approach was reasonable in the circumstances of numerous reports and certain incidents in isolation, this Service noted the landlord being on notice of multiple gatherings occurring next door. Further, it was made aware of loud offensive language being heard frequently from the next-door garden. It is not shown by the landlord’s records that it had regard to the possibility that frequent gatherings and loud offensive language were behaviour capable of causing a nuisance and impacting the resident’s enjoyment of their home. Gatherings were likely to lead to increased levels of noise. The landlord largely considered the incidents in isolation and showed no exercise to review the potential cumulative impact of repeat gatherings.
While the conduct reported was at a low level and it is unlikely appropriate regard would have lead to serious enforcement action, the result was to leave the resident feeling unheard and unsupported. Had the landlord completed an initial, or any subsequent, risk assessment as noted above, it would have given opportunity for it to take account of potential harm by cumulative events.
Further opportunity to review the known conduct and arising harm was missed by the landlord’s absence of case reviews or action planning. There is no evidence of this good practice case management envisaged by statutory guidance. Even as the nature of reported incidents escalated, there is no record that the landlord sought to review its overall position and determine appropriate next steps.
Although the landlord did not deem that the majority of behaviours reported amounted to anti-social behaviour, it appropriately recognised, in line with statutory guidance and its policy, that early intervention tools were appropriate and that it had a role to support efforts at community-based resolution. It offered mediation and provided verbal warnings as to expected behaviours. Its interventions were timely and proportionate to the incidents addressed. It showed appropriate regard for its obligation to act proportionately when assessing enforcement action. A landlord must show it has considered and attempted all other reasonable courses of lower-level action before initiating legal steps. It was reasonable that the landlord was understandably cautious about taking serious enforcement action in view of the evidence available to it and the nature of the incidents considered.
While the resident repeatedly expressed their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach and what it deemed as inaction, the landlord failed to make her aware of the community trigger process. This would have been reasonable in all the circumstances, particularly given the resident’s household vulnerabilities.
The landlord was informed of the resident’s household’s significant history of complex needs. It was repeatedly reminded and updated of these matters and the worsening of their health and wellbeing during the period of investigation. The resident provided medical evidence confirming her mental health conditions and cited adverse impact. Apart from the landlord making a note of what the resident told it, there is no evidence the landlord considered or responded to the household’s cited vulnerabilities as relevant to its approach in the case. This was a failure by the landlord to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord was required to give consideration as to whether the resident had a disability as defined by law and consider whether it was required to make any reasonable adjustments taking these into account. It failed to identify household vulnerabilities as a relevant factor when assessing the reasonableness of the steps it had taken. It also did not consider whether it could have communicated with the resident in a way that took account of any additional support needs she may have had nor whether any other adjustments to its service may have been appropriate to prevent undue detriment. There is no evidence it considered, offered or signposted support that may have been available to better respond to the resident’s needs.
Its lack of regard is of particular concern in consideration of the reported nature and level of vulnerability of the resident’s child. There is no evidence that the landlord staff handling the reports had regard for the needs of the resident’s daughter, potential harm occurring and associated risks. This is a serious failure to have regard to its legal obligations in consideration of their health condition(s) or safeguarding duties. It is apparent safeguarding concerns were highlighted by its social services department a couple of weeks before its final complaint response but this had no meaningful impact on how the landlord responded to the ongoing anti-social behaviour reports.
The landlord was aware from at least the early stages of the resident’s reports, if not earlier, of the family’s cited past trauma from anti-social behaviour and complex needs. It is reasonable to anticipate that the landlord should therefore have adopted a particularly sensitive approach to the case and its victim-handling. The landlord is noted to have complied with the resident’s request for a visit by a different visiting officer. This was a reasonable adjustment to make in consideration of the circumstances arising. However, there is little other evidence the landlord had regard to the totality of the resident’s experience to show careful handling.
There are noted multiple instances of insensitive handling on the part of the landlord. The resident’s explanation of serious health related impacts and risks stated in correspondence was left unacknowledged or responded to, whereas her other statements prompted responses such as advising her that her experience was not anti-social behaviour. The landlord visited the property unannounced and in company of a police officer despite its awareness that the resident was living with severe anxiety. There is no reasonable evidence showing why it was not able to conduct the visit on notice.
The landlord’s failure to consider the reported impact to her family and their vulnerabilities was raised by the resident as part of her complaint. This presented an opportunity for the landlord to seek to begin to put matters right and learn. The landlord’s responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 show no such review occurred. The only potential insight into the reported impact is the landlord’s signposting to its housing options service. Its complaint response did not in any meaningful way to remedy its failure to consider, and respond to, the household’s cited vulnerabilities in line with legal obligations and guidance.
In respect of the landlord’s communications with the resident, there is evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s reports within its stated service timescales. It acknowledged the resident’s reports and provided her with timely updates concerning the steps it had taken to consider evidence and speak with her neighbour. It kept the resident updated of progress in line with statutory guidance. However, whilst the resident was kept appropriately updated, the tone and manner of the landlord’s communications was at times insensitive to the experience of the resident.
The emails produced by the landlord’s investigating officer were in parts dismissive in tone. While it may have had the aim of showing it had covered matters raised by the resident, the tone used in the communications, together with the absence of response or regard to reported personal impact, gave an overall presentation as defensive and unsympathetic. The resident and her husband expressed immediate concern as to the nature of these replies but the landlord continued to offer its response in this manner and format.
The landlord attended the resident’s home without any prior notice in company of police with no evidence of an emergency or other reason for it failing to give advance notice. When the resident raised the distress caused by this incident, the landed failed to reflect that such experience was reasonably likely to cause fear or that the presence of an officer may induce pressure to allow entry, particularly in view of known vulnerabilities. It instead simply recited rights of access that were both inapplicable to the circumstances (non-emergency) and without regard to the resident’s right of quiet enjoyment.
While the landlord was not responsible for the characterisation by its accompanying police officer on 10 May 2022 of the resident’s reports as ‘tit for tat’, the comment was made as part of its joint visit. It showed no recognition of the likely detriment to the resident from this comment or impression that may have given of its handling given this was a multi-partner approach. The landlord in particular was aware of the severe impact cited by the resident to her household and the family’s previous reported trauma. Once the resident raised their understandable concern at the use of this phrase, it is reasonable to anticipate an empathetic response by the landlord and effort to assure it was taking her concerns seriously in line with policy. The landlord acknowledged the comment but simply deferred responsibility. This showed a lack of empathy to the resident’s experience and was out of step with the victim centred approach underlined by statutory guidance.
It was the same visit that led to the resident expressing concern that her reports were being belittled and dismissed. This Service has considered the landlord’s notes of the meeting, including the investigating officer’s observation ‘I do not see anything from preventing her using her garden at any time’. There is no evidenced regard to the psychological distress and anxiety of which the resident had made the landlord aware or the known previous trauma. The comment is representative of a lack of care to the resident’s experience that is unreasonable handling by the landlord.
Overall, the evident lack of risk assessment(s) by the landlord contrary to statutory guidance and its failure to give due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 during the period of investigation are serious failings. It is further representative of an overall approach by the landlord that was not consistently victim-centred and was at times unsympathetic and defensive. This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports.
This Service orders the landlord to pay compensation to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failings. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests an award of between £600 to £1,000 where maladministration is found and the redress needed to put things rights is substantial. The resident’s household’s reported vulnerabilities and the landlord’s lack of associated regard are aggravating factors.
Subsequent to the complaint period, the landlord initiated a new anti-social behaviour policy that provided greater guidance to its staff as to the provision of support for victims and a victim centred approach to case management. While this Service noted the landlord’s involvement post-complaint in multi-agency process, the tone its correspondence by the investigating officer continued to display in parts an inappropriate and defensive tone. For instance the landlord’s email of 3 October 2022 from the manner of denial of the resident’s expressed concerns at parts and advice, ‘I have a high case load and your case is not the only case I’m dealing with.’

The landlord’s handling of repairs in readiness for, and after, letting

The records provided to this Service by the landlord were limited and this has impacted the assessment of the landlord’s handling of the repairs. This Service was not given a copy of any void policy/procedure(s) in force during the relevant time or any relevant lettable standard to which the landlord was operating. It has seen no records of the landlord’s contact with the resident about the condition of the property, or repairs, apart from a very limited number of emails. Despite these limitations, it is clear from the minimal records alone that the property was not let in a standard that was reasonable or in accordance with the landlord’s legal obligations.
Consistent with the landlord’s subsequent admissions, the records show it identified significant work required to bring the property to a lettable standard but failed to complete this before the tenancy start. The landlord unreasonably signed off the property as completed at management level when it was not ready and despite a number of officers flagging up outstanding issues, the work was not completed or the property re-inspected before the resident moved in.
The landlord failed to operate an effective process in respect of work needed to the resident’s home to ensure it was fit for human habitation. It missed multiple opportunities when the issues were flagged by its staff to prevent the detriment subsequently suffered by the resident and her family from living in poor conditions. These failings were accepted by the landlord when it responded to the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged its handling of the issues as ‘completely unacceptable’, that it made errors and failed to provide quality housing.
It is unclear why remedial items arising from the void period were completed as late as June 2021. The landlord’s records from January 2021 show it was fully aware of the hazardous living conditions experienced by the family. Although multiple repairs were completed over the course of the next few months, some remained outstanding as at the point of the resident’s complaint. This delay was unreasonable. The landlord was on notice as to the vulnerability of the family and the impact of the issues. Further, it was conscious this was work that should have been completed months earlier. A significant number of remedial items were completed outside of its ‘normal’ repairs timescales despite being work outstanding from tenancy start and those presenting health or safety risks.
The landlord by its complaint responses offered profuse apologies to the resident for its failings. It also conducted the remedial work required to the property. It offered compensation of £1494.09 (the rate of 16 weeks’ rent) and £200 to reflect the time and trouble to which the resident was put and expense of rubble bags. This was in addition to £650 decorating costs provided (£350 greater than the standard allowance). The landlord reflected upon its failings and appropriately identified steps it needed to take in the short and medium term to prevent recurrence of the resident’s experience.
The landlord’s failure to provide accommodation to the resident at the start of her tenancy in a safe and habitable standard and its delay in completing remedial work was serious. The impact to the resident and her family was equally so. The landlord’s own internal correspondence referred to the conditions experienced by the family as ‘horrific’ and the resident articulated very clearly in her complaint the negative effects to their wellbeing, health, day to day lives and finances. The level of failing by the landlord and seriously detrimental impact to the resident would ordinarily have resulted in this Service making a finding of severe maladministration. However, the remedy offered by the landlord’s complaint response must be assessed to consider whether this reasonably put matters right.
This Service considers that the landlord’s admission of errors, its apology, completion of works and offer of compensation represented a reasonable remedy to address its failings and their impact. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests an award of over £1,000 where severe maladministration is found. Considering the impacts were experienced by a family acknowledged as vulnerable, for a period of some months and costs incurred, it was reasonable that the landlord reviewed its compensation at stage 2. It offered a sum reflective of severe maladministration and the level of detriment caused in this case. Further, the landlord showed insight on review of the complaint as to what caused the errors and what changes it needed to make internally to prevent another resident experiencing the same issues.
While this Service found serious failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs in readiness for and after letting, the remedy offered to the resident by its complaint response reasonably put matters right. This Service therefore finds that there was reasonable redress by the landlord in recognition of its failings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about its response to reports of anti-social behaviour was subject to slight delay, however there is evidence it extended its deadline appropriately. Its stage 2 response was however significantly outside of a reasonable timeframe as expected by the good practice guidance set by the then Code. The stage 2 request was made on 1 June 2022 and the landlord’s response provided on 24 August 2022, 58 working days later. It is inappropriate that there is no evidence the resident was kept informed of progress, provided an updated timeframe or an agreed extension requested.
While the stage 2 response provided an apology for delay with explanation of a backlog, this did not reasonably put right the detriment caused to the resident from waiting such a lengthy period for response. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in early August 2022 to raise concern about the lack of response from the landlord. It was shortly after intervention by this Service to the landlord that the stage 2 reply was issued. It does not appear the reply was prioritised up to this stage despite the resident’s complaint detailing severe impact to a vulnerable household. The wait of 58 working days for reply was contrary to good practice complaint handling and represented unreasonable delay by the landlord.
Reviewing the contents of the stage 2 response, this Service noted the landlord’s cover letter was written in a clear and accessible manner. However, the accompanying investigation report detailing its findings was significantly less customer friendly or clear. It read in parts as being in the form of notes. It quoted lengthy sections of policy and tenancy provisions without setting out clearly how these provisions were applicable. This had an overall impact on the clarity of the reasons behind the landlord’s decision.
As part of her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the nature of contact with the landlord’s investigating officer that she found to be unprofessional and dismissive. The landlord offered a visit from a different officer to take account of her request concerning contact.
However, the landlord’s officer is noted to have sent the resident correspondence refuting points made during the complaint investigation. The tone of the response was defensive as noted above. These were reasonably matters for separate investigation and response by the complaint handler, both to ensure a fair investigation and give the appropriate impression as to her concerns being fully reviewed. Although the landlord did assign separate officers to consider the complaint, its officer’s comments gave likely gave the impression that the matters under review were not independently reviewed. This was inappropriate and accordingly unreasonable handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaint handling was subject to maladministration owing to the intervention by the investigating officer outside of appropriate process and the lack of clarity of reasons but principally its unreasonable delay and failure to provide updates at stage 2. The landlord is ordered to provide compensation to the resident for the detriment caused by its lengthy delay that led to distress and time and trouble to the resident from seeking recourse via this Service to prompt a reply.
The landlord supplied to this Service its current complaints policy. While this is evidence the landlord now has a framework for response timescales, it is unclear if the landlord continues to provide responses within an ‘investigation report’ format. The landlord is ordered to review its complaint response format to ensure that it fulfils the requirement to provide clear and accessible decisions to complainants.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and harassment
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves satisfactorily the complaint about its handling of repairs in readiness for, and after, letting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

While some of the landlord’s investigations were appropriate, it failed to conduct a risk assessment during the lengthy period of anti-social behaviour reports and this meant that it did not provide the resident’s household with sufficient support and communications.
The landlord did not let the property in a suitable condition prior to the resident’s tenancy and delayed unreasonably in completing repairs once she moved in. However, its compensation award and service improvement measures offered sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in providing the resident with its stage 2 response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,050 compensation comprised of:

i. £850 to reflect the distress caused to her by the failings identified in its handling of her reports of anti-social behaviour and harassment.

ii. £200 to address the avoidable detriment by distress and time and trouble to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour and harassment reports to determine what action it should take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. The review should include but is not to be limited to assessment of:
1. Whether its current policies and/or procedures provide for sufficient regard and response to customer vulnerabilities.
2. Its handling against this Service’s Spotlight on Noise, in particular the section ‘Respect’.
3. Whether the format and style of its complaint responses by ‘investigation report’ are sufficiently clear and accessible.

The landlord should provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman with any proposals within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the compensation it offered through its complaints process related to the property condition aspects of this complaint.
2. Review the internal training it delivers on its obligations in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that staff are clear about their responsibilities to vulnerable residents.
3. Review any potential Equality Act 2010 considerations as a matter of standard procedure when considering a resident’s complaint.
4. Assess its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.