Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202212956)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212956

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

11 December 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The landlord’s handling of a managed move.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

3. In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a managed move is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
5. The resident asked to be moved (a managed move) from her property because of ASB. This request to be rehoused would be dealt with under the landlord’s transfer management process, which operates under its allocation scheme.
6. Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Housing Ombudsman complaints about a local authority’s choice based letting service are matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
7. The remaining complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and complaint handling are assessed below.

Background

8. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 10 December 2001. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor of a block of flats.
9. The tenant representative for the block, emailed the landlord on 5 September 2021 raising concerns about ASB from a particular neighbour in the block. The email included reports of:
   1. Regular incidences of fighting.
   2. Persons from outside being called to support the perpetrator in disputes with other neighbours.
   3. Group of men kicking a door in.
   4. A planned party in the communal gardens causing worry to the residents.
10. Between the 5 September 2021 and 6 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and police to report people associated with the alleged perpetrator banging on her door and talking about a firearm. She also reported threats against her and her family. On 7 September the tenant representative contacted the landlord again to raise residents’ concerns about the planned party. The landlord asked for the party to be cancelled but the party went ahead on 8 September 2021.The landlord issued her with a written warning the same day.
11. The landlord’s records show it received a call from the resident between 6 September 2021 and 13 September 2021. The exact date of the call is unknown but the call record shows:
    1. ASB category high.
    2. The resident has been harassed since the alleged perpetrator moved in.
    3. The alleged perpetrator has been kicking the door of her flat all day.
    4. The alleged perpetrator has gathered a group of people outside the resident’s property and threaten violence.
12. The resident signed a completed ASB risk assessment on 10 September 2021. The risk assessment outlined the instances of ASB, identified those affected and the impact it was having on the resident and her family.
13. The resident contacted the police on 13 September 2021 to report on going ASB. The police attended the property.
14. On 17 September 2021 there were several emails between the police and the landlord about the instances of ASB reported by the resident.
15. The police referred the resident to victim support. After speaking to the resident, they wrote to the landlord on 20 September 2021 highlighting her experiences of ASB. The landlord attached the letter and referred the case to its housing allocations team, adding further comments about the impact of the ASB incidents.
16. The police emailed the resident on 21 September 2021 to confirm the contents of a telephone conversation they had on the same day. The email detailed calls to the police by the resident on 5 September 2021 and 13 September 2021 to report ASB.
17. After threats to its staff on 1 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the alleged perpetrator on 12 October 2021 informing her it intended to end her occupancy agreement due to numerous reports of severe ASB. The alleged perpetrator was moved to a hotel on 14 October 2021 until 17 January 2022. Vacant possession of her property was obtained 7 February 2022.
18. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 July 2022 and she made a formal complaint about:
    1. A lack of response from her neighbourhood team when she contacts them.
    2. ASB by the alleged perpetrator.

A new complaint was raised on 19 July 2022. A stage 1 acknowledgement email was sent to the resident on 20 July 2022.

19. The landlord did not date the stage 1 response correctly but did send it within the required timescales. In the response it confirmed:
    1. There was regular communication, however there were instances of a delay in response which meant the resident had to chase updates. The landlord apologised for the delays.
    2. The landlord understood all evidence of ASB had been assessed. The police conducted a risk assessment and deemed it safe for the resident to remain in the property.
    3. As there were no further incidents of ASB it was not possible to put the resident forward to the panel for a management transfer.
20. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 31 July 2022. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 19 August 2022. The complaint was not upheld. It said:
    1. It had previously apologised for the communication lapses in the stage 1 response. There had not been any communication lapses since.
    2. The police risk assessment stated it was safe for the resident to remain in the property and the landlord had not received any further reports of ASB. The management transfer was refused on these grounds.
21. The resident’s complaint was referred to this Service by her MP on 15 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

22. The landlord’s ASB policy acknowledges the right of everyone to live in a safe environment that allows them the quiet enjoyment of their home and community and outlines its approach to addressing antisocial behaviour affecting or caused by tenants. The policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person and lists a range of non-legal and legal actions it will take to resolve ASB. It will individually assess all cases and those persons experiencing/reporting ASB will receive a personalised support plan.
23. The landlord’s ASB procedure lists the steps it will take when it receives a report of ASB. It grades the risk of cases from grade 1 – grade 4, with grade 1 being the most serious. Regardless of the grade, the person reporting the ASB will be contacted the same day. The grade also determines the timeframe in which the landlord must complete the action plan. This ranges from 1 day for grade 1, to 7 working days for grade 4. The procedure also requires:
    1. Officers to maintain electronic records of all actions throughout the case including, interviews, action plans and referrals etc.
    2. The officer receiving the report will log the case, conduct an initial risk assessment, determine the risk grading and agree an initial action plan.
    3. The case is then referred to the relevant Neighbourhood Service Co-ordinator (NSC) who will write to the complainant to confirm the outcome of the interview and priority of the case.
    4. Both the alleged perpetrator and the complainant will be advised of the outcome of the initial interview, within the required target timescale, as per the grading table.
    5. The NSC will take appropriate action if the ASB allegations are accepted.
    6. The neighbourhood officer to speak to the complainant before the case is closed.
24. The landlord’s submissions in this case contain very little evidence on how it processed the resident’s ASB reports. There are notes from one telephone conversation between her and the out of hours service. It is not possible to know when she made the call because the call notes have no date. The call handler assessed the ASB category as high and told the resident the duty manager had been made aware and the issue would be logged with the day office. Other than this call record there are no other records of any telephone conversations, interviews, actions or visits with the resident.
25. The landlord has not provided evidence to show: 
    1. It contacted the resident the same day (or next working day) after the report.
    2. If the ASB report received the risk grading required by the ASB procedure.
    3. It conducted an interview with the resident
    4. If it wrote to her regarding the outcome of the initial interview.
    5. It produced an action plan to manage the ASB.
    6. It spoke to her before closing the case.
26. The resident completed and signed a risk assessment form on 10 September 2021. The form is missing a case number and there is no risk score entered. It is not clear if she completed this form on her own or if someone assisted her.
27. The stage 1 and stage 2 response both mention a police risk assessment, which assessed that the resident’s life was not at risk. The landlord did not provide a copy of this risk assessment. In their communications, the police do not mention a risk assessment. The email from the police on 17 September 2021 refers to a report put on their system on 13 September 2021. The landlord specifically asks: “just to clarify the report does not say she is in threat of her life? And the police suggest for her to be rehoused away from the area” Please confirm, as I want to shut this case down if no further action will be taken? The police response is: “No it does not say that she is in threat for her life, just that she is frightened. The police have not suggested for her to be rehoused. It just says that she is finding emergency accommodation herself through the council.”
28. At no point in the emails do the police mention a risk assessment, neither do they say the resident is safe to remain. In the last email when the police advise they are closing their case, the landlord response is, “Thank you so much! Oh gosh Brilliant, I’ll close this case down.”
29. Whilst the police do say they will be closing the case they also confirm the resident is frightened and seeking emergency accommodation from her landlord. It appears from the emails the landlord was eager to close the case even though it was only 4 days since the last report of ASB to the police on 13 September 2022. In that report the resident told the police that her neighbour was drunk and causing damage to her front door and had threatened to bring “40 blokes down”, which the resident felt was a credible threat of violence. The officer referred to a conversation they had with the resident on 14 September 2021, stating: “During our conversation I recall you were extremely upset and you explained that you were afraid for your safety if you stayed at the venue. I advised to leave as soon as possible and stay elsewhere whilst you seek emergency accommodation.”
30. The letter from victim support sent to the landlord on 20th September 2021 referred to a conversation with the resident where she stated that “her emotional wellbeing has been greatly affected by the abuse she has experienced which has result in her experiencing ongoing alarm and distress”.
31. The landlord’s own internal email on 20 September 2021 referring the case to the housing allocations team stated: “the resident is in fear for her life following a number of death threats and intimidation” … “She has temporarily left home to feel safe but has great fear about returning” … “She is suffering from great anxiety and fear.” In another email a member of staff reported the resident telling her: “she is in fear of her life as her daughter and grandson have received threat against their lives. They believe they will be shot or knifed by associates of the neighbour.”
32. There were further instances of ASB after the signed risk assessment on the 10 September 2023, there is no evidence the case was reassessed to consider these events. It is also clear the resident was fearful and distressed due to the incidents she had experienced with the neighbour.
33. It is not clear why the landlord decided to close the ASB case on 17 September 2021. The ASB incidents had been serious and it had acknowledged the resident’s fear and distress. Although the landlord was taking steps to evict the neighbour, they were still in occupation at that point. The landlord’s decision to close the case was inappropriate and contrary to its ASB policy.
34. An internal email sent on 3 October 2021 outlines a visit by the alleged perpetrator to the landlord’s offices telling the landlord if someone didn’t deal with the resident someone will get shot. The landlord took this as a threat against their staff and notified the police. It was after these threats to staff the landlord began eviction proceedings. The alleged perpetrator’s behaviour towards the landlord’s staff adds weight to the feelings expressed by the resident to the police, victim support and the landlord.
35. The risk assessment was incomplete and inadequate. There is no evidence to show the landlord followed its ASB policy or procedure. Given the reports of ASB started on 16 July 2021 it could have considered other actions such as an injunction or target hardening after the initial threats of violence. The landlord should have taken a victim centred approach and considered if the resident was at risk of harm instead of relying on the police assertion that her life was not at risk. Ultimately, the resident did not feel supported, which left her feeling unsafe in her home. Due to these failures and the impact this has had on the resident, the landlord’s handling of the ASB amounts to severe maladministration.

Complaint handling

36. The landlord recorded the resident’s complaint as: “not just her re-housing, but the issues of antisocial behaviour. She alleges that a resident in the neighbouring flat below, has been perpetrating ASB against her.”
37. The stage 1 response to the resident did not demonstrate the landlord’s handling of the ASB had been investigated as part of the complaint. In referring to ASB it only said that it understood all evidence had been assessed. The stage 2 response did not make mention of the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
38. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for its decisions. This service would expect the landlord to review the case and explain to the resident if it had or had not complied with its policies and procedures and to identify if there had been any failures. This is a significant omission from its complaint handling and amounts to maladministration.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
41. In accordance with paragraph 42 k of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the managed move falls within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

42. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
43. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to
    1. Carry out a review of the resident’s case and her complaint to determine what action the landlord should take to ensure the failures do not happen again. The review should include:
       1. How it takes a victim centred approach on ASB cases.
       2. What information must be considered before a case is closed.
    2. Carry out a review of this complaint and advise this Service how it intends to learn from its failings in relation to its complaint handling of the case.
44. The landlord must ensure that its staff are fully trained in its ASB policy and procedures.
45. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.