Leeds City Council (202304805)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304805

Leeds City Council

05 August 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 30 March 2015 and was terminated on 12 February 2023. The resident is disabled and has a support worker.  The resident lives with her husband who was reporting the issues and raised the complaint with the landlord.
  2. On 28 December 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said that he had been reporting loud music and noise from a neighbour for months. On 1 October he had sent diary sheets detailing the noise to the landlord. He had heard nothing from the ASB team or his housing officer. He had tried to contact the team and had been promised to be called back but that had not happened.
  3. His wife was disabled, and the noise nuisance had caused lack of sleep, stress and anxiety. On 22 October he said that he and his wife had to go and stay with a friend as he considered that the flat was no longer fit to live in due to the noise. He was now looking for accommodation to rent. In the process he had incurred financial expense and he had had to pay rent for a flat he felt he could no longer live in.
  4. On 17 January 2023 the landlord responded. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said that it had failed to follow its ASB procedure and provide an acceptable customer service. It said it would formally speak to the officer involved. It explained that as the resident was moving permanently to a new property it would close the case. It said that it had advised the resident that it could not offer financial compensation. The resident could contact its corporate insurance team to make a claim for compensation.
  5. The resident completed a form to make an insurance claim as advised. On 12 April 2023 the landlord’s legal team reviewed the claim and concluded that the matter should be escalated to stage 2. The landlord provided a stage 2 response. It confirmed its position as it had in its stage 1 response. It also apologised that it had incorrectly advised the resident that compensation was not offered as part of the complaint process. As a resolution it offered £250 as a gesture of good will. £150 as it failed to follow its process and £100 for the distress caused.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. The landlord then revisited its offer of compensation in December 2023 and increased its offer to £400 made up of:
    1. £150 for the failure in service
    2. £150 for the distress and upset caused.
    3. £100 for the time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied as he considered this did not reflect the costs that he had incurred having to leave the property or the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not disputed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress. Nevertheless, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to prove whether events took place as alleged but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. We cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way a court does. We do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence or liability and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages for example out of pocket expenses, loss of earnings etc.
  3. Our focus in this case is therefore on how the landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns and their complaint and whether this response was reasonable and fair in all the circumstances. This includes consideration of whether the landlords’ actions were in accordance with the landlord’s relevant policies and procedures.
  4. The resident has described the effect on his wife’s health caused by the length of time it took for the issues to be resolved. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health.
  5. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his or his household’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  6. The landlord’s ASB procedure defines antisocial behaviour as “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or the conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
  7. The procedure states that the landlord will respond to urgent ASB reports within one working day and all other reports within five working days. Urgent reports are defined as incidents “where there is a risk of harm to reporting persons, victims or witnesses or where there are clearly identified vulnerabilities.” It goes on to state that when reports include incidents of a criminal nature, it may be more appropriate to contact the police.
  8. On receipt of a report, the procedure states that the landlord will undertake an initial assessment to determine the seriousness of the reports and whether an ASB case is required to be opened. Once a case had been opened, the landlord will investigate the issues and look to gather evidence to support the allegations made. It will also liaise with outside agencies and community groups.
  9. Within ten working days of the case being opened, the landlord will attempt to arrange visits with both the complainant and alleged perpetrators to discuss the allegations. These visits will also look to identify any vulnerabilities or safeguarding concerns. The landlord will then contact the complainant every ten working days to keep them updated on the progress of the investigation.
  10. Vulnerabilities will be assessed and re-assessed at regular intervals through the investigation to re-assess support needs in response to on-going incidents, changes in personal circumstances and any significant case actions.
  11. The landlord will explain what the reporting person can expect from its service and what it will require from the reporting person recording any agreed actions within an action plan.
  12. In relation to the installation of noise monitoring equipment (NME), the policy states that “If the noise is happening during the daytime, efforts should be made by the case officer to witness the noise rather than install NME. Where this is impractical or noise frequently occurs in the evening/night-time/early morning, the use of NME might be appropriate.”
  13. The policy describes what action a landlord will take against an alleged perpetrator of ASB. This ranges from a written warning up to possession orders.
  14. The resident reported noise nuisance once in March and once in August 2022 to the landlord’s out of hours team. The landlord’s our of hours team attended on both occasions to try to witness the noise but had been unable to.  This was an appropriate response and in accordance with its policy. At some point the resident had been provided diary sheets but it is unclear when.
  15. The resident first submitted the diary sheets on 3 October 2022. The landlord’s triage team did not respond until 20 October 2022. It acknowledged that this was an unreasonable time frame.  It said that the delay was because it had received a high number of enquires at this time. It said that advice was offered at this point by its triage team and further diary sheets issued. It was at this point it opened an ASB case. The resident was informed that the case had been assigned to his housing officer.
  16. The out of hours team did attend on 3 occasions during October and November 2022 but were unable to witness the noise. This again was appropriate and in accordance with its procedure.
  17. The resident however contacted several times to chase up matters during October and November to ascertain what action the landlord was taking. He was advised he would receive a call back from his housing officer who had been assigned the case. He submitted further diary sheets in November 2022 and said that matters had got a lot worse. He said that whenever he approached the neighbour to ask him to turn off the music the neighbour was aggressive. The resident had also advised the out of hours team of this when they attended. He said it was impacting his families mental and physical health as they were unable to sleep. He asked for an urgent call back.
  18. The landlord failed to contact the resident to assess the reports until he raised a stage 1 complaint in December 2022. It therefore failed to follow its own policy and procedure. It had not completed any risk assessments, created an action plan or taken any action.  The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable. The resident had received no support in response to his reports for almost 3 months. 
  19. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had failed within its stage 1 response. As part of its learning the landlord said that it would be speaking formally to its member of staff.  It would also offer further training and support to its staff to avoid it happening again.
  20. Landlords should have processes and systems in place which ensure that cases are monitored when they are opened. This would ensure continuity in its handling of cases regardless of oversight by staff or absences. That it has not is a record keeping failing and an order has been made in respect of this below.
  21. The landlord apologised which was appropriate but failed to consider how its failings had impacted the resident. While it offered an apology and explained what had gone wrong its stage 1 response failed to consider how it could put matters right.
  22. It is acknowledged that the resident had advised that he was terminating his tenancy. The landlord could not therefore take any further action because of this to try to resolve the noise nuisance. However, the landlord then incorrectly informed the resident that he had to claim through its insurance to claim compensation. This caused the resident further time and effort having to pursue the matter. It also did not foster a good landlord tenant relationship which was a further failing.
  23. The landlord did try to put matters right within its stage 2 response. It apologised that it had incorrectly advised the resident within its stage 1 response in respect of compensation. It offered £150 for its failure to follow process and £100 for the distress caused. It later increased the offer by £50 for the distress and upset caused. Making the total offer of compensation for its response to the reports of ASB £300.
  24. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor. The level of compensation it offered to the resident however was disproportionately low when considering the impact of the failings.  The resident was vulnerable and had received no contact from the landlord for almost 3 months. The resident had informed the landlord on several occasions that he had been experiencing aggression form his neighbour. He had not received any support to help him manage the situation. 
  25. Without any risk assessments in place the landlord had not ensured that any measures were in place to minimise any risks. Furthermore, the resident was vulnerable and had informed the landlord on several occasions that it was impacting his family’s health.
  26. The resident had made the landlord aware that as a result of the noise he had been staying with friends. He then gave notice to terminate his tenancy as he considered that he could no longer live there. While the termination of the tenancy was the resident’s choice there is no evidence to show what support the landlord offered the resident once it was aware of its failings. Particularly given that the stage 1 complaint was raised prior to the notice of termination being issued.
  27. Accordingly, while the landlord’s admission of its failings was appropriate in the circumstances. The level of redress offered did not reflect the impact caused to the resident.  This Service has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint Handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy gives ten working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. In this case, the stage one response took 14 working days. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) or its policy.
  2. The stage 1 response set out the landlord’s position and acknowledged its failings. This was appropriate. Its response however lacked sufficient learning. The comments that the concerns would be raised formally with its member of staff and support/training offered did not show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred.
  3. It failed to consider its own record keeping, systems and monitoring processes. The landlord was also vague on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB, without receiving a detailed response.
  4. The resident completed the landlord’s insurance claim form on 29 January 2023 as he was advised to do within the stage 1 response. The stage 2 response was issued 64 working days later.  The landlord’s incorrect advice within its stage 1 had unreasonably protracted the complaint process. The landlord revisited its offer of redress 7 months later in December 2023 when the resident brought the matter to this Service. It increased its redress offer to include £100 for the delays in its complaint handling.
  5. Whilst the landlord did this, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service.
  6. This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint. The complaint responses failed to put things right, lacked sufficient learning, and offer appropriate redress. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
  1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
  2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £800. £400 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the residents reports of ASB.
    2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
  1. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its response to the resident’s reports of ASB to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
    1. Its staff training and system needs to ensure that its cases are monitored and issues or any inaction on cases are flagged and actioned within a reasonable timeframe.
    2. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.