Southwark Council (202216183)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216183

Southwark Council

21 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 1 bedroom flat within a block. The resident’s tenancy started in 2005.
3. The resident says he had reported ASB in his block to the landlord over the past 17 years. He said he had also contacted the police and his local MP, yet nothing had been done. While this Service does not doubt the resident, it is important to note that we can only base our decisions on documentary evidence provided.
4. This Service acknowledges the resident raised a formal complaint on 5 March 2021 when he reported noise nuisance from his neighbour and drug use in his block. The landlord wrote to residents to remind them of tenancy conditions in relation to noise nuisance and drug use. The resident’s previous complaint is not part of this investigation, however offers some context.
5. There is no evidence of further contact between the resident and the landlord for more than a year until the resident raised another formal complaint on 10 October 2022 in relation to ASB in the block. He reported drug users/rough sleepers squatting, urinating, leaving faeces, drug needles and litter in communal areas of the block, loud music; and dog fouling. He said he did not feel safe in his own home or when he used communal areas.
6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 October 2022 and sent its stage 1 response a week later, as follows:
   1. It apologised for the distress experienced.
   2. It said it was aware of rough sleepers and drug use at the block, however the issue required intervention from partner organisations such as the police and its Safer Neighbourhood Team. It said wardens would move rough sleepers on, but it would also work to try and support them. 
   3. It provided contact details for the police, Streetlink, and the council’s Noise and Nuisance team, and said:
      1. The resident should contact the police whenever he felt his safety was compromised or he heard shouting/arguing/drug related activities.
      2. It was working with the rough sleepers team but he should contact Streetlink to report rough sleepers.
      3. The resident should contact the Noise and Nuisance team to report loud music.
   4. It confirmed the block was a general needs block (apart from a sheltered unit) with households of different ages which, it acknowledged, could lead to a “clash of lifestyles.”
7. The resident called the landlord on 24 October 2022 to report the same issues. He also sought assistance from this Service as he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint response.
8. The landlord’s internal notes from 25 October 2022 said it was working with the rough sleepers team, the police, and SASBU (its Antisocial Behaviour unit) in an attempt to address the issues at the block. It said it had confirmed its action plan to the resident in the stage 1 response. SASBU phoned the resident the same day and said it would ask the landlord to send a letter to estate residents in relation to dog fouling (however there is no evidence it did so); and he should call the police and report drug use directly to the landlord (although the resident said he had done, but nothing was ever done). SASBU emailed the landlord in relation to drug use and dog fouling, and closed the ASB report the following day.
9. The landlord closed the resident’s ASB report in relation to rough sleepers on 28 October 2022.
10. The resident called the landlord on 1 November 2022 to further report banging, loud music and drug use in the block, but particularly from the property above. The evidence suggests the landlord called the resident and left a message 3 days later which said it would discuss the matter with him. However, no further evidence has been provided to confirm if it did so. The ASB report was closed on 30 November 2022.
11. It is not clear whether the resident contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint. However, he did contact this Service. Following contact from this Service the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 December 2022 which said:
    1. Its Noise and Nuisance team had not received any reports from the resident since 19 May 2021.
    2. It had taken the resident’s ASB reports seriously, but believed it had handled the matter adequately, and if he reported further issues it would build an ASB case file.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

12. The resident contacted this Service on 10 January 2023 to broadly report the same issues at the block.
13. An internal landlord email dated 15 December 2023 said it did not have any record the resident had specifically raised issues in relation to the neighbour above or the rough sleepers. With regard to ASB, it said the issues raised were general issues to be expected in an inner city estate, and it had worked with SASBU, the police, and partner agencies in an effort to resolve the issues he had reported. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident said he had reported issues to the landlord over the previous 17 years. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme). The complaint of March 2021 is noted above for context, however there is no evidence the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, or this Service at that time. Therefore, this investigation will focus solely on events from October 2021 onwards, 1 year prior to the formal complaint, in line with the Scheme.
15. The Noise and Nuisance team and SASBU are services which operate within the environment and leisure department of the local authority. They sit outside the landlord’s housing function. Therefore, actions and decisions made by either of these teams fall under the LGSCO’s jurisdiction and not the Housing Ombudsman. Therefore, the Housing Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the action or lack of actions by the Noise and Nuisance team or SASBU.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

16. It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. However, it may help to explain that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether ASB took place or its seriousness. Instead, this Service considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and whether it acted in line with its policies, fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
17. The landlord’s policy says ASB reports can be made to its contact centre, a case officer, the resident’s officer, customer experience or directly to SASBU. It will then assess whether the report is high, medium or low risk. 
    1. High risk cases (for example physical violence or threats of violence, harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour) are handled by SASBU where a case officer will visit or call within 24 hours of the report.
    2. Medium risk cases (for example misuse of public spaces; causing nuisance or being inconsiderate to neighbours; dog fouling; and drug taking in communal areas) are handled by the landlord directly who will contact the resident within 3 working days.
    3. Low risk cases (for example littering or dumping rubbish) are also handled by the landlord who will contact the resident within 5 working days.
18. The policy says the landlord should complete a risk assessment during the initial interview with the resident to determine appropriate referrals. It aims to take a problem-solving approach to resolving complex ASB cases; and it will work to find sustainable solutions through a multi-agency approach. It also says it will:
    1. Manage the resident’s expectations and be clear from the outset about the likely outcomes and timescales.
    2. Encourage the resident to keep an ASB diary that can be used to build a case for enforcement.
    3. Update the resident regularly or contact them when the ASB case is ready to be closed.
19. The landlord provided limited records to this Service in relation to reports of ASB and its handling of this issue. It is not clear whether this is because the resident did not report ASB to it from October 2021 to October 2022, or whether the landlord has failed to adequately record any reports he made. The lack of records mean that it has not been possible to fully understand what the landlord did or why, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. No evidence has been provided to confirm whether it carried out partnership work with the police as indicated in its stage 1 response, or whether it sent letters to residents in relation to dog fouling after SASBU emailed requesting it did so. The lack of records also means it is not possible to determine whether the landlord managed the resident’s expectations effectively, told him to keep an ASB diary, contacted him when it closed his report or clearly explained its ASB process to the resident.
20. Despite the provisions of its ASB policy, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed whether the ASB was high, medium or low risk. Given the details of the ASB reported, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have classed this as low to medium risk under its ASB policy. It is not clear whether the landlord completed a risk assessment after the resident raised his complaint, or whether it did so prior to issuing the stage 1 response, but the landlord said it had set out its action plan to address most of the issues in its stage 1 response. Conducting a risk assessment would have allowed the landlord to identify and evaluate the specific risks faced by the resident in relation to the ASB reported. By understanding the risks, the landlord would have been in a better position to determine the appropriate actions needed to address the issue. It would have also enabled the landlord to fulfil its obligations to protect the resident, as stated in its policy. This contributed to the resident’s feelings of being ignored and led him to contact his MP, the police and this Service. The stage 1 response did not address or acknowledge the dog fouling issue. Whilst the landlord/tenant relationship was already strained due to the events of previous years, the landlord further damaged this by failing to appropriately respond to all of his ASB reports.
21. The landlord acted reasonably by directing the resident to its other relevant departments within the council and external partners to attempt to resolve the ASB. It was appropriate for the landlord to work with other partners, particularly in relation to drug use/rough sleepers. However its policy also says that it adopts a problem-solving approach to ASB cases. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered ways to resolve the issues, outside of referring to external agencies. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore other avenues to assist the resident, such as considering signs in relation to dog fouling, or increasing the frequency its wardens attended to stop rough sleepers and drug use in communal areas. Neither is there evidence that it clearly explained its ASB process to the resident and the evidence he would need to gather to build an ASB case. This undermined the landlord/tenant relationship, caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord and to feel that his reports were not being managed appropriately. The landlord’s response took no accountability for the issues reported. It should have taken ownership, rather than relying on external parties and other departments within the council to resolve the issues.
22. The landlord’s ASB procedure says that it will “update the victim or witness on a weekly or as agreed basis to notify of progress”. Although there was no apparent “agreed basis” for updates in the resident’s case, the landlord has provided no evidence that it contacted him following the complaint response, following the phone calls on 24 October 2022 (although SASBU did phone the resident), or when it closed the reports down. This Service acknowledges 12 days is not a significant amount of time between the stage 1 response and the resident phoning the landlord to reasonably expect it to resolve the issues. However, there is no evidence the landlord managed his expectations, asked him to complete diary sheets or provided updates to say his reports had been closed on either the 10 October 2022 or 1 November 2022, which represent further failings. The fact that the resident said he had contacted his MP directly indicated that he had lost confidence in the landlord to resolve the issues.
23. As set out above, the landlord failed to work in accordance with its policy and meet its obligations on several points:
    1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it has a problem-solving approach to ASB cases. While it is sometimes necessary for a landlord to rely on other agencies for support in managing and investigating ASB reports, it bears responsibility for dealing with reports of ASB and should progress any or all actions it can to do so.
    2. It failed to provide evidence of its efforts to offer solutions. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore its own solutions and engage in collaborative discussions with the resident to address the ASB problem effectively.
    3. There is no evidence it assessed the risk to the resident, provided regular updates, or clearly agreed an action plan with the resident.
    4. It failed to consider and promote the resident’s right to a formal ASB review.
    5. Because of those failings, the resident felt that he was not listened to, that his welfare was not considered. He felt frustrated, ignored and his expectations were not managed.
24. The landlord failed to appropriately put matters right for the resident. It failed to consider the distress and inconvenience its lack of action caused him. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise its failing and offer compensation. Having considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, our guidance on remedies and the landlord’s Compensation Policy, an amount of £250 compensation is considered appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Determination

25. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss his continued reports of ASB, carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan in line with its current ASB procedure.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should consider providing staff training/refresher training, in line with its ASB policy with a focus on risk assessments, communication and problem solving.