Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (202224767)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224767

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

28 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s request for rehousing.
3. Concerns about staff conduct.
4. The associated complaint.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s request for rehousing.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme sets out that 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. The issues relating to the housing register that the resident raised would fall to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Paragraph 42 (j) states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints about local authorities in England which relate to their provision or management of social housing. This does not include complaints about applications for rehousing – including assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference. These matters fall within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.
The LGSCO can consider complaints about the administration of housing applications to a local authority. If a resident believes there have been failings and has exhausted the relevant complaint procedure (as in this case) they can contact the LGSCO regarding the complaint. Information about this process can be found here: Housing applications – Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Background

The resident is secure tenant. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat in a low rise block. He lives alone with his dog. He has lived at the address since January 2017. He has some vulnerabilities in regard to his mental health, which the landlord was aware of.
The resident reported racist abuse, verbal abuse and threats of violence from his neighbour (who lives below him) since December 2022. On 5 December 2022 he alleged that his neighbour (the alleged perpetrator) and visitors to their home used racist language to verbally abuse him. Another neighbour had witnessed some of the incidents, so the resident asked the landlord to contact them. He had also called the police.
The landlord began an investigation into the allegations of ASB the same day. It provided an action plan that included contacting the police to report the incident and an interview with the alleged perpetrator. It assessed the resident to be at high risk of harm. It sent a copy of the action plan to the resident by email.
Between 6 and 12 December 2022, the resident sent audio recordings from his phone to the landlord. He said that the alleged perpetrator had been shouting things about him in the communal areas. He felt unsafe in his home, fearing violence from the alleged perpetrator and visitors to their home. The landlord reviewed the evidence but was unable to substantiate the allegations made by the resident. It shared the evidence with the police and agreed to visit the alleged perpetrator. It asked the resident to continue recording incidents. It referred the resident to its homelessness team because he was at risk of violence and a victim of hate related incidents.
On 12 December 2022 the resident gave a statement to the police. He was referred to victim support. He was concerned about returning to his property.
The landlord, acting in its statutory function as a local authority, assessed the resident’s homeless application on 13 December 2022. It offered him temporary accommodation nearby. The accommodation was not suitable for pets. The resident refused the offer because he had no one who could care for his dog. The landlord decided to pursue permanent rehousing and began a medical assessment to assess his housing need.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord called the resident. He said that he was very anxious because of the ASB. He shared his crime reference numbers with the landlord, who said that it would have to contact the police before awarding priority. The resident was unhappy and visited the landlord’s office to speak with the officer in charge. The officer was unavailable in person, so he called and spoke to them while in the landlord’s reception area. He said that the officer terminated the call after being rude and dismissive towards him.
The resident complained the same day. He said that he was unhappy with the officer’s behaviour and the time taken to process his application.
The landlord issued its first stage 1 response on 10 January 2023. This was around 11 working days after the complaint was made. It set out its understanding of the complaint. It did not uphold the complaint, saying that there was no evidence that it acted inappropriately. It said:
1. It discussed the complaint with the officer. The officer apologised if the resident found their manner to be “rude or condescending”. The officer denied the allegations by the resident and any intention to upset him.
2. The call was not recorded as it was not made through the landlord’s contact centre. It was therefore unable to listen to the call.
3. There may have been some miscommunication when the resident was placed on hold. This could have caused the resident to believe the call had been terminated.
4. It assessed the residents application in accordance with S184 Housing Act 1996 Part 7. This formed it part of its statutory function as a local authority. It was required to conduct investigations to satisfy itself that the resident was threatened with homelessness because he was at risk of harm. It had been liaising internally regarding the ongoing investigation into the incidents with his neighbour.
5. It determined that its actions had not delayed his application from being processed.
6. In its call to the resident on 9 January 2023 he said that the police had closed his case because the landlord told them the resident had refused temporary accommodation. It disputed this, saying that it had not shared this information with police. It directed the resident to contact the police for more information.
The landlord discussed the offences from December 2022 with the police on 10 January 2023. The police planned to interview the alleged perpetrator but were unable to give a date for this to happen. The police advised that there was no immediate risk posed to the resident.
In January 2023 the resident made 4 reports of drilling coming from the alleged perpetrator’s property. He provided recordings of the noise to the landlord by email. The landlord responded to the reports. It added the details to the ASB case and agreed to interview the alleged perpetrator.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 11 January 2023. He reiterated his concerns in his initial complaint. He said:
1. There should have been a recording of his conversation with the officer on 21 December 2023.
2. The CCTV from the landlord’s office should have been reviewed.
3. He felt the landlord was biased and defending its officer.
The landlord replied on 24 January 2023 to acknowledge the request. It provided a response to the residents additional queries and agreed to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
On 26 and 31 January 2023 the resident reported further incidents of verbal abuse from the alleged perpetrator and visitors to their home. He also reported threatening and intimidating behaviour from visitors to the alleged perpetrator.
In February 2023 the resident made 2 further reports of drilling noise from the alleged perpetrator’s property. He did not want the landlord to contact the alleged perpetrator, as he feared reprisals. The landlord decided that it would gather evidence from other witnesses.
On 22 February 2023 the landlord called the resident. He said:
1. He felt let down by the landlord and police.
2. The landlord had offered him temporary accommodation that he felt was unsuitable.
3. He was unhappy that the police had taken so long to interview the alleged perpetrator.
4. He agreed for the landlord to interview the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord explained that:
1. It was limited to the temporary accommodation available.
2. It planned to interview the alleged perpetrator after it had an outcome from the police.
3. It offered to send a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator (which the resident did not approve of).
4. It would interview the alleged perpetrator on 27 February 2023.
The landlord interviewed the alleged perpetrator on 27 February 2023. It visited the resident the following day and provided him an update. It said the alleged perpetrator had denied the allegations. Afterwards it spoke to other neighbours, one of whom said that they had heard drilling on and off at random times. Another said that they had heard screaming, shouting, and arguing from the alleged perpetrator’s home constantly.
On 2 March 2023 the resident said he was verbally abused by the alleged perpetrator. They had also put up a sign with racist language and called him a “grass”. He tried to record the incident unsuccessfully. He reiterated that he felt unsafe and that the alleged perpetrator was trying to provoke him into a physical altercation.
The landlord called the resident on 6 March 2023. It updated him on the information it had gathered from other witnesses. It said that there had been no evidence on the recordings sent by the resident on 2 March 2023 of ASB. It suggested that he “stopped using the rear comm[unal] area with his dog” because he would always be in front of the neighbour’s window. He was unhappy with this suggestion, saying that it was unfair. He reiterated his concerns that the alleged perpetrator’s actions were racially motivated. The landlord said that as the police had not dealt with the offence as racially motivated it could not pursue this either. It required evidence to substantiate these allegations. It would address the issues with drilling in a letter to the alleged perpetrator. The resident remained unhappy.
The landlord sent a case closure letter on 8 March 2023. It set out the details discussed with the police, other neighbours and the alleged perpetrator. It said the alleged perpetrator had denied the allegations and the evidence provided did not prove a breach of tenancy. It reiterated its suggestion that the resident stopped using the communal garden to take his dog out. This was to reduce the contact he had with the alleged perpetrator. He should keep his dog on a lead and it was not allowed to foul in communal areas. It had issued an advisory letter to the alleged perpetrator, which said:
1. Only drill during the daytime and to keep this to a minimum.
2. Not to “become involved” with the resident or allow any visitors to the property to do so.
The landlord called the resident on 16 March 2023, who said that the drilling had stopped but the racist abuse was ongoing.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 March 2023. This was around 40 working days after the resident had escalated his complaint. It said that it had spoken to the resident on 24 February and 10 March 2023. It had agreed an extension to provide the response so that it could conclude its investigation. It said:
1. The CCTV footage was stored for 14 days. The resident had asked it to review the CCTV on 13 January 2023, which was more than 14 days after 21 December 2022. There was no sound recorded on its CCTV, so this would have had no evidential value anyway. It had begun improvements to the CCTV system since the resident’s complaint.
2. It had interviewed the alleged perpetrator and other witnesses to resolve the ASB. During the call on 10 March 2023 the resident said the ASB was ongoing. It opened a new case for investigation and recommended that the allegations of racial abuse were reported to the police also.
3. The resident’s application had been registered and he was able to apply for alternative properties. It suggested that he consider a mutual exchange, which he chose not to pursue. It was investigating other means to assist him with rehousing. It was in the process of assessing his medical needs and how they were affected by the property.
4. It had discussed the case with each officer involved. It did not believe that there was any bias or malice directed towards the resident. Each officer apologised to the resident if he felt they had been biased or difficult in any way during their contact.
The resident called the landlord on 25 April 2023. He said that he had been verbally abused by the alleged perpetrator. The drilling had started again and had been going on for around 20 minutes at a time. The alleged perpetrator had also started using his bin instead of their own. The landlord said there was insufficient evidence to take any action. It asked the resident to complete an incident diary for it to consider. It would send letters to all residents about the appropriate use of the bins. He said that he felt the landlord was not taking his reports seriously. The landlord said it sympathised with his situation but was realistic about the actions available to it.
The landlord delivered the letters to all residents about the use of bins on 28 April 2023.
On 17 May 2023 the landlord’s records show that it was continuing to monitor the case, but there had been no new incidents for around 3 weeks. It noted that the resident was registered for and seeking alternative accommodation.
The landlord sent the resident a case closure letter on 28 June 2023. It said the case had been open since March 2023 for monitoring. As there had been no new incidents since March it would close the case.
A GP wrote to the landlord on 15 July 2023 to recommend that it rehouse the resident using its medical priority. The landlord awarded its medical priority to the resident’s housing application on 21 July 2023.
The resident reported a new incident on 27 July 2023. He said that visitors to the alleged perpetrator had shouted at him while in the communal garden. Shortly afterwards more visitors came and started pointing at his window. He said that the incident had been reported to the police also. The landlord called the resident the same day. It reopened his ASB case and assigned it for investigation. It explained that it was not an emergency service and was unable to protect him from immediate threats. It sent some advise about the alternative accommodation available and some guidance on the bidding process. It agreed to chase the police regarding his recent reports.
The resident called the landlord to report an incident on 29 August 2023. He said that he had heard the alleged perpetrator arguing with visitors in the communal areas.
On 28 September 2023 the landlord issued a 7 day letter to say it would close the ASB case as it had received no incident diaries from the resident.
Between 9 and 11 October 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss the ASB. He asked it to correspond by email only. The landlord sent more incident diary sheets for him to complete. He replied to say that there had been more incidents of the alleged perpetrator swearing at him in the communal garden. The incidents were causing him anxiety. The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident and explained what it considered actionable ASB.
On 8 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident. It said that it had asked the resident to submit incident diary sheets for evidential purposes. It set out its process and the requirement of evidence to investigate reports of ASB. It asked for more information regarding the allegations about drilling and explained that it could consider installing noise monitoring equipment.
On 13 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. He said:
1. He had recordings of the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour on his phone. The diary sheets had been filled in and brought into the office and he was told that the incidents are spread out and not consistent.
2. He had been told that the complaint he was making about the alleged perpetrator was a noise complaint rather than ASB. Afterwards all his complaints were filed.
3. He was continuing to record issues. These included racist language, the alleged perpetrator spreading lies about him, and shouting racist insults at him.
4. The alleged perpetrator had also been using his bins and bringing all the bins back to the gate except his.
5. He felt bullied by the alleged perpetrator. He felt that they were racist in their behaviour. He involved the police because of the racist abuse. This was not taken seriously. He had no evidence of them saying the racist language. It was not taken seriously by the landlord. He felt like the landlord was saying it was “OK” for the alleged perpetrator to act like this and it did nothing to stop the behaviour.
6. He felt that no action was being taken because he was “not complaining correctly”.
The resident sent incident diary sheets and videos of the alleged perpetrator to the landlord on 14 December 2023.
On 23 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. He said that he had tried to complete diary sheets but had been stressed by the situation and would just leave the property for walks instead.
The landlord replied to the resident on 12 February 2024. It said it had reviewed the footage and diary sheets he sent. It accepted that the noise must have been “extremely frustrating” but was unable to evidence constant or daily nuisance. It asked if things had improved, else it would write to the alleged perpetrator to address the issues for the resident.
On 13 February 2024 the resident reported that the windows at the back of the alleged perpetrator’s property had been smashed. The windows on their car were also smashed. The resident felt uncomfortable living at the property while the alleged perpetrator was bringing this trouble to the area. He was still receiving comments from the alleged perpetrator, but the relationship with their visitors had improved.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 February 2024. He said that he had no response from the landlord following his reports of smashed windows.
On 1 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say that he had no response to his reports of the broken windows. He said that visitors to the alleged perpetrator had also been blocking the communal doors and someone had spat on his front door.
On 5 March 2024 we wrote to the landlord asking it to issue a response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of ASB.
The resident told the landlord that he was not aware of his medical priority on 15 March 2024. The landlord reviewed his application and found that it did not show his medical priority. It amended his application to reflect the priority awarded on 15 July 2023.
The landlord issued its second stage 1 response on 22 March 2024. It said the complaint had been recorded following contact from the Ombudsman on 5 March 2024. It considered the complaint to be about its handling of reports of ASB. It had unsuccessfully tried to call the resident and discuss the complaint on 16, 18, and 19 of March 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It set out a chronology of the ASB case reflective of the above timeline. It said:
1. There had been no new actionable incidents of ASB, therefore it would close the ASB case.
2. The resident was registered for a transfer and awarded medical priority. He should be using his application to bid for alternative accommodation. It offered to give some advice and support to help with his rehousing.
3. It believed that it had investigated the reports of ASB in line with its policy. It had been unable to act on many reports, outside of issuing warnings to the alleged perpetrator.
4. It considered the severity of the risk of harm had reduced.
5. It recommended that the resident consider mediation with the alleged perpetrator.
The resident replied on 28 March 2024. He was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response. He said that he felt the landlord was patronising. That support had only been offered for his mental health because of the involvement of the Ombudsman. He disagreed with the landlord’s offer of mediation, saying that the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour had been unacceptable.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s housing application on 10 May 2024. It noted that he had not placed a bid on another property. It issued its stage 2 response the same day. It said:
1. There was a lack of credible and admissible evidence of actionable ASB. It asked the resident to report any new information.
2. It apologised that the resident felt patronised in its correspondence about his housing application. It reviewed the correspondence sent and the context was to provide support to place bids on his behalf.
3. It apologised that the resident felt it was wrong for the landlord to enquire about his mental health support. Its intention was to check that he was receiving all the necessary support and offer additional options through the landlord’s support services.
4. It recommended mediation as there was a lack of credible evidence and to help resolve the problem. It was reasonable to offer mediation.
5. It had not ignored the reports he made about the alleged perpetrator. Each report had been investigated throughout the ASB case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During contact with the Ombudsman in June 2024, the resident said that he believed the landlord’s action had been punitive towards him after complaining. He felt that applications for other services provided by the Council had been refused as a result. He also said he was treated differently by staff members and felt they were dismissive of his reports afterwards. The Ombudsman has been unable to consider these allegations as part of this investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The resident may wish to pursue his complaint with the landlord separately.

Policy and procedures

The landlord has adopted the definition of ASB as set out in the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or;
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord categorises different forms of ASB dependent on the severity of the incident. It considers all hate related incidents as serious and provides specialist training to its staff on how to deal with them. It will contact a victim of hate related incidents within 24 hours of the report and agree an action plan.
Upon receipt of a report of ASB, the landlord will assess the complainant’s vulnerability. It will conduct a risk assessment for all vulnerable residents. It may make referrals to the relevant support service where vulnerabilities are identified.
The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint policy. It sets out timescales to respond to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 3 working days, and requests to escalate within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.

Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

The resident first reported ASB to the landlord on 5 December 2022. In this report he told the landlord that there were other neighbours who had witnessed the incidents. The landlord’s initial response was appropriate. It interviewed the resident the same day that the report was made. It provided an action plan and assessed the risk to the resident. Its response was in line with its policy.
It was good for the landlord to assess the evidence provided by the resident during the initial investigation stage. It was fair to be honest about the evidential value of the recordings it received. It was appropriate to ask that he continue to provide evidence of ASB and ask that he complete an incident diary to substantiate his allegations.
It was appropriate for the landlord to share details to the police. The allegations made by the resident included serious criminal offences, therefore the police would have been a lead agency in this investigation. However, the landlord placed an overreliance on the police investigation. The police require a higher burden of proof to act than the landlord. The landlord’s records show that there could have been joint visits to the alleged perpetrator in December, as the police had agreed them. It is unclear from the records why no visit took place in December 2022 or January 2023.
It is unclear why the landlord did not interview the alleged perpetrator until 27 February 2023. Given the risks and severity of the case, it would have been reasonable to conduct some form of intervention earlier to prevent the case from escalating.
The delays to conduct any intervention with the neighbour contributed to the resident’s distress in this case. This was clear throughout the resident’s correspondence as he repeatedly expressed being very anxious and severely affected by the ASB.
The communication between the resident and landlord in February 2023 show that the issues with drilling noises had continued since January 2023. The landlord had missed an opportunity to interview the alleged perpetrator and the resident was then concerned about reprisals from its involvement. It was appropriate to interview the other neighbours as possible witnesses, albeit that this should have been done earlier in the timeline.
It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the case and get the resident’s permission to interview the alleged perpetrator on 22 February 2023. It should have used the opportunity to set out the evidential thresholds necessary for the actions available to resolve the ASB. It could have helped to better manage his expectations by doing so.
Once the landlord interviewed the alleged perpetrator on 27 February 2023, it was reasonable to contact other neighbours to gather further evidence. Having done so, it was able to confirm that the noise nuisance caused by drilling affected other residents. It was also able to confirm that there were issues with screaming, shouting, and arguing from the alleged perpetrator’s property. There are no records that show that it returned to the alleged perpetrator to address the additional problems occurring at the property. Additionally, it did not return to address the allegations made on 2 March 2023 which included further racial abuse. By failing to address these issues with the alleged perpetrator, the landlord failed to manage the impact they had on the resident.
It was not appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident not to use the communal area in its communication on 6 and 8 March 2023. It was fair to state that the resident should keep any pets he had under proper control while in the communal areas. But it was not reasonable to state that he should not use the communal area to prevent further bad behaviour from the alleged perpetrator. A remedy that restricted the resident’s enjoyment and use of communal space outside his home was inappropriate. It placed responsibility onto the resident to mitigate the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour.
It was reasonable to issue an advisory letter to the alleged perpetrator in March 2023. It was reasonable to address the nuisance caused by drilling, and asking them not to approach the resident, or encourage their visitors to do so. However, it should have contacted the other witnesses involved in the case before closing its investigation on 8 March 2023. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord did contact the other residents involved before closing its case.
The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach in this case. There were missed opportunities to interview independent witnesses. The resident told the landlord that he has several vulnerabilities from the outset. It would have been appropriate to consider what reasonable adjustments were available to gather evidence of the ASB. The resident had struggled to complete incident diaries, yet reported new incidents each time it contacted him to review the case. It was unfair to place the sole reliance on the resident to complete incident diaries to substantiate the ASB.
While the landlord assessed the level of risk at the start of the ASB case, the risks changed as the case progressed. It would have been appropriate to assess the level of risk at these appropriate milestones and escalations and agreed to support him accordingly. It is not until 2024 when any re-evaluation of the risk is evident from the landlord’s records.
The landlord’s initial stage 2 response on 21 March 2023 did not address the delay to interview the alleged perpetrator. It did not fully assess the ASB case. However, it was fair to allocate a new case for investigation. It was reasonable to direct the resident to continue reporting new incidents to the police also.
The landlord was dismissive of the resident’s reports of ASB on 25 April 2023. He explained that the drilling had restarted and had issues with the alleged perpetrator using his bin. Although it was fair to address the issues with the communal bin, it did no investigation into the reports of noise nuisance from drilling. Had the landlord reviewed its own records, it would have found that other witnesses reported the same ASB. It could have contacted other residents to determine if the alleged perpetrator had caused nuisance and annoyance. Its failure to do so contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord pursued the same lines of investigation in the resident’s reports in October 2023. It continued to place an over reliance on incident diary sheets, as opposed to conducting a formal complainant interview and addressing the allegations with the alleged perpetrator. These issues were highlighted by the resident to the landlord in his later emails in December 2023 and January 2024. There was no record that the landlord responded to his concerns. Its failure to do so caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
There was a delay of around 2 months for the landlord to review the evidence provided by the resident 13 December 2023. When it did respond on 13 February 2024 it acknowledged the impact the ASB had on the resident. It was right to acknowledge the impact and was reasonable to offer to address the issues with the alleged perpetrator in writing.
The incident reported on 13 February 2024 about the windows being smashed at the alleged perpetrator’s property caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It was apparent from his communication that it caused him anxiety. The landlord’s policy defined ASB as conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. It should have considered these reports as ASB and investigated appropriately. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns in any of the records available to the Ombudsman. This is despite the resident reiterating the same concerns in March 2024.
Mediation can be an effective tool to resolve longstanding neighbour disputes. It was reasonable for the landlord to make the offer to provide mediation in its second stage 1 response on 22 March 2024. However, it had only made this recommendation after the issues between the resident and the alleged perpetrator had become protracted. Additionally, there had been an insufficient investigation into the residents earlier concerns, or the impact that the racist abuse had on him. The landlord should have considered its wider powers available under the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. The landlord’s records show that it conducted the initial complainant interview, risk assessment, and action plan. It sent appropriate case closure letters at the end of each of its investigations. It broadly acted in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy. However, there was a failure to make reasonable adjustments to investigate the ASB. It should have been proactive in its approach, by interviewing other witnesses and considering additional means to gather evidence. There were instances where it was dismissive of the resident’s reports and gave inappropriate advice. The landlord must pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report.

Concerns about staff conduct.

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
This issue led to a distrust from the resident towards the landlord. It contributed to a breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship. However, the landlord’s approach to the investigation was reasonable. Its records show that it discussed the complaint with the officer and investigated the allegation. The evidence available to consider was limited and resulted in this being a case of one word against another. Its apology in its stage 1 response in January 2023 was reasonable in the circumstances. It was appropriate to acknowledge the impact on the resident and apologise for the upset caused its stage 2 response in March 2023.
Although there was no recording of the call, there is no requirement that all calls between the landlord and its residents are recorded. The landlord will have officers who communicate with residents across several mediums. It is not uncommon for officers to use work mobile phones for calls. Landlords are often required to work to strict budgetary requirements. It would be onerous to ensure that all calls from mobiles are recorded also.
It acted on the resident’s request to review the CCTV footage. It was reasonable to explain that there was no evidential value available. It demonstrated learning by deciding to improve the systems it had available.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct. The landlord was fair in its approach. It recognised the impact on the resident and its apology was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated learning by reviewing its approach to CCTV and the monitoring of its communal areas.

The associated complaint.

The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy.
The evidence shows the landlord’s stage 1 response in January 2023 was broadly issued within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. It demonstrated intention to address the substantive issues raised by the resident. It was reasonable to acknowledge the impact the issues had him and apologise.
There were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 11 January 2023. Its initial response to the escalation request by telephone on 13 January 2023 was reasonable. It was fair to conduct an additional investigation in the CCTV footage. However, it took around 9 working days to provide any formal acknowledgement. When it did issue the acknowledgement on 24 January 2023, it agreed to escalate the complaint to stage 2, but appeared to provide a response to his complaint. This caused confusion to the resident, who understood the acknowledgement on 24 January 2023 as its stage 2 response.
There was a delay of around 40 working days to issue the stage 2 response on 21 March 2023. The response set out that it had discussed the delays with the resident on 24 February and 10 March 2023, which was fair. It was appropriate that it acknowledged the delay in its response. It was reasonable to show that it had investigated his complaint. However, there was still a substantial delay to issue its response. The landlord did not provide any offer of redress for the delays. The resident had taken additional time and trouble chasing the landlord and pursuing assistance from the Ombudsman. It would have been appropriate to recognise the time and trouble caused to the resident by the delays.
The resident sought to pursue his second complaint through the Ombudsman on 20 February 2024 as he had no response to his reports on 13 February 2024. The landlord issued its second stage 1 response on 22 March 2024, around 13 working days after we wrote to it on 5 March 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the involvement on the Ombudsman in its response.
The landlord said that it had tried to discuss the complaint with the resident from 16 March 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to make efforts to discuss the complaint with the resident. However, he had asked for all communication to be by email. The landlord should have made efforts to clarify the resident’s complaint by email. There are no records that show it did this, only that it offered appointments to meet with the resident. It should have made reasonable efforts to comply with the resident’s request for adjustments in its handling of his complaint. The evidence shows the landlord treated the resident unfairly as a result.
The landlord’s second stage 2 response on 10 May 2024 was issued in accordance with the timeframes set out in its policy. It was appropriate to apologise for the impact its earlier response had on the resident. It showed that it had considered the resident’s other substantive issues.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. There were delays issuing its stage 2 response in March 2023. It failed to follow the resident’s requests for email correspondence in its stage 1 response in March 2024. The redress offered was not reflective of the detriment caused. The landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation for his time and trouble, reflective of the failures in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraphs 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. Provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £600. This is calculated as:
  1. £400 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £200 for time and trouble.
3. The landlord should contact the resident to understand if they are experiencing any current ASB issues. It should conduct a risk assessment and make an action plan with the resident to ensure any issues raised are addressed and provide achievable timescales for resolution. The action plan should consider the failings identified in this report.
4. Provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman in the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident and discuss his concerns about punitive conduct by the landlord’s employees.
The landlord should investigate any wider community tensions caused by the recent vandalism at the alleged perpetrator’s property.