Blackpool Council (202004838)

REPORT

Complaint 202004838

Blackpool Coastal Housing

26 February 2021

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 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:

– The resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and harassment.

– The resident’s request to edit his personal file on its case management system.

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 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

– The resident’s request to edit his personal file on its case management system.

Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that:

‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.

This Service notes the resident’s mention of alleged data protection failings by the landlord, but such allegations are usually a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Officer and would not be considered by this Service.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a Local Authority’s Arms Length Management Organisation and has resided in his current property since January 2020. The property is within a sheltered housing complex and the resident lives there with his wife.
The landlord has a ‘Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour’ policy. In this the landlord states it ‘is important that complainants and victims of ASB understand in which circumstances we can intervene and the tools and powers available to us. We will not raise expectations that we can take action when we are unable to do so’. Regarding the landlord’s case management of ASB reports, the policy outlines that the landlord will take ‘immediate and appropriate action whenever incidents are reported’ and, also identifies that cases are categorized as either High, Medium, or Low, which will be acknowledged within 1, 5 and 7 working days, respectively. Examples of ‘Medium’ ASB category issues include ‘Ongoing noise nuisance’ and ‘Intimidating/Abusive behaviour’ while examples of ‘Low’ category ASB issues include ‘noise’. The policy further states that the landlord will close cases where any of the following applies:

– The case has been resolved.

– There is insufficient evidence for action to be taken.

– There is a lack of response or engagement from victims.

– Where it is established that the complaint is unreasonable.

The policy notes that if victims or complainants do not agree with the case being closed, they are entitled to request that the case is reviewed by a Team Leader.

The landlord also has a complaints policy which has an informal stage (Stage 1) followed by a further formal 2 Stage process. A relevant manager will respond at Stage 2 and at Stage 3 an Appeal Panel is convened to consider the complaint, consisting of the relevant Director and a customer trained to deal with complaints. An acknowledgement letter will be sent to the complainant, which ‘may include an invitation to attend the panel hearing to provide evidence’. Following the Appeal Panel, if the complainant is still unhappy with the decision, they can refer the complaint to a designated person to review, in this case the Cabinet Member for the relevant directorate at the Council.
This Service is aware that the resident has also made a subsequent complaint to the landlord in December 2020, in which he made further ASB reports relating to the period April 2020 to December 2020. It is noted that this information was not available to the landlord during its response to the complaint being considered in this investigation. This Service understands that these new submissions have been treated as a new complaint by the landlord and have not yet exhausted its complaints procedure. As such, these submissions are noted but will not be something this Service will investigate as part of this investigation.

Summary of Events

30 January 2020 the resident and his wife moved into the property. On the same day, his neighbour made a noise complaint about the resident.
On 20 April 2020, the resident logged a report of ASB with the landlord concerning his neighbour. The resident’s report stated that on 18 April 2020 the neighbour had come to his property in the early hours of the morning and banged on his living room window, reportedly stating that the resident was making noise. The resident stated that the neighbour was ‘angry and erratic’ and at one point ran towards him. The resident denied that he was making any noise, both to the neighbour and to the landlord in his ASB report. Within the report, the resident also provided a log of other incidents, detailing alleged ASB carried out by the neighbour between 3 February 2020 and 15 April 2020 which will not all be detailed here. The reports outlined alleged instances of ‘banging’ and ‘stamping’, loud music, noise from a television and raised voices from the neighbour’s flat, occurring at various times of the day.
Landlord records show that the landlord logged the report and contacted the resident later that day to discuss the situation and reported incidents. It advised the resident that the neighbour had made a counter-allegation against him and at present they had differing versions of events to consider. The resident stated that, in his view, the fact he and his wife counted as two people proved that his version of events was truthful. The resident also advised that he considered the neighbour banging on his window to be a ‘threat’. Although the landlord advised they did not agree that this amounted to threatening behaviour, they acknowledged that it was not appropriate and advised the resident that they would be speaking to the neighbour and advising them to not approach the resident. Landlord records show it did speak to the neighbour later that day and that the neighbour acknowledged that he had ‘banged’ on the window after first knocking on the door to speak to the resident about alleged noise disturbance. As a result of this, the landlord’s records indicate that it issued the neighbour with a verbal warning.
On 22 April 2020, the resident provided the landlord with a crime reference number and confirmed that he had reported the incident on 18 April 2020 to the Police. The resident advised the Police expressed an interest in CCTV cameras that may have overlooked his property and would show the incident with his neighbour. The resident contacted the landlord again the same day and requested a callback to discuss the situation further. Records show the landlord contacted him later that day. It confirmed to the resident that his neighbour had been spoken to and advised not to make further contact him, although it reiterated that the neighbour had provided a different version of events. Regarding the CCTV, it advised it did not operate any cameras in the area. Landlord records show the resident advised the landlord he had independent witnesses regarding the ASB, although he confirmed these were not present during the incident on 18 April 2020. It is also noted that the resident advised that his version of events was true because he believed he had made the report first and he requested a transcript of the neighbour’s report. Regarding the additional noise reports made by the resident, the landlord advised the installation of noise monitoring equipment was an option but was not possible at that time due to current lockdown conditions set down by Government due to the Coronavirus pandemic. The resident was unhappy and requested to speak a manager.
Landlord records show that a manager contacted the resident on 24 April 2020. The landlord confirmed that the neighbour had been given a verbal warning but that, as there was no verifiable evidence regarding the reported ASB, it would not be taking any further action at that stage but that it would continue to monitor the situation and respond to any further reports. It also advised it would review any further evidence the resident wished to submit from independent witnesses. The landlord reiterated that it would consider installing noise recording equipment, but it was not possible at present due to lockdown. It also provided information regarding how to make a Service Access Request.
On 18 May 2020, the resident requested the landlord contact him regarding reported ASB. The landlord did so the following day. It is noted that no new ASB incidents were reported at this time. The resident also contested the neighbour’s version of events regarding the previously reported issues and stated that the information the landlord held amounted to a defamation of character. The landlord referred this part of the resident’s query to its Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer.
On 25 May 2020, the resident submitted a complaint. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 27 May 2020. After initially stating it would treat the complaint informally, the landlord clarified on 28 May 2020 that it would treat the complaint formally under its compliant procedure. Although parts of the complaint relate to the resident’s unhappiness with the veracity of information the landlord held on its files and do not form part of this investigation, he also raised issues that included:
1. Why had the landlord not informed him of the neighbour’s original complaint against him?
2. Why did the landlord not verify the neighbour’s evidence?
3. Why did the landlord allow the neighbour’s statements to go on its records?
4. The reference to him as a ‘perpetrator’ was libellous.
5. The landlord’s investigation showed bias and it failed in its duty of care.
On 9 June 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response. The landlord advised that, following the resident’s ASB report in April 2020, it investigated the matter and a verbal warning was given to his neighbour. The landlord advised that no further action was taken as it had received no further reports. Regarding the complaint made against him by the neighbour, the landlord advised it had been satisfied that no further action was necessary, and the decision had been noted on its records. The landlord also offered to refer the resident and the neighbour to an independent mediation service.
The resident requested that his complaint be escalated to the Appeal Panel (Stage 3) the same day. This request was acknowledged by the landlord the following day. On 11 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and advised that he believed his health was being affected by the stress of the situation and that the landlord had not reviewed his case properly in their Stage 1 response. The resident also stated that the neighbour should have been given a further verbal warning for complaining about him and reiterated that he had submitted information regarding reported ASB between February 2020 and April 2020 that he believed the landlord had not considered. The resident also stated that the offer of independent mediation was inappropriate.
On 15 June 2020, the landlord advised the resident that the Appeal Panel would meet on 19 June 2020. The Panel duly met that day and issued its response the same day. The Appeal Panel did not uphold the resident’s complaint, noting that it agreed with the contents of the Stage 2 response. The resident was advised about his right to escalate the complaint to a Designated Person.
On 1 July 2020, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to a Designated Person and be reviewed by the Cabinet Member for Housing. The resident also expressed his dissatisfaction that he had not been invited the attend the Appeal Panel.
On 6 July 2020, the landlord held an internal review of the ASB case and noted that no further incidents had been reported.
On 29 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident advising it would close the open ASB case if no further incidents had been reported. On 7 August 2020 it subsequently closed the case.
On 24 August 2020, the landlord issued its final response via the Cabinet Member for Housing who had reviewed the case. The resident was advised of his right to refer his complaint to this service.

Assessment and Findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
The Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Although referred to above, the resident’s complaints regarding the handling of his personal date related to ASB reports made by his neighbour will not be considered within this investigation. This Service will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment overall.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment

Following the resident’s initial ASB report on 20 April 2020, the landlord responded the same day, allocated the case to an officer, and contacted the resident to discuss the reports. It also contacted the neighbour the same day to discuss the situation and in particular an incident that took place on 18 April 2020. Following this it issued the neighbour with a verbal warning. It further contacted the resident in the following days to advise on what action it had taken and that, while the resident and the neighbour’s versions of events differed, without any further corroborating evidence, it would not be taking any further action. While the resident’s strength of feeling regarding the veracity of his reports is noted, this was a reasonable position for the landlord to hold as the case effectively amounted to one person’s word against the other’s and the landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the ASB report.
This Service acknowledges the resident also submitted further reports of alleged noise disturbances from February to April 2020 within his initial complaint. However, it is also noted that this was the first time these had been brought to the landlord’s attention and its ability to corroborate from up to two months previous would be limited. Its decision to issue the neighbour with a verbal warning regarding the incident on 18 April 2020 and advise the resident that it would continue monitor the situation was proportionate and in line with its ASB policy.
While the resident stated belief that his reports were more reliable than his neighbour’s because he made them first, and because they were supported by his wife and other independent witnesses, who were relatives and friends of the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that this did not prove matters one way or the other. The landlord did advise they would consider any evidence put forward from the witnesses, which was reasonable and indicated a willingness from the landlord to carry out further enquiries. However, from the information available, there is no indication that further evidence from witnesses was submitted during the complaint process covered by this investigation.
Within their complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the resident remained unhappy with the situation. In their Stage 2 response, the landlord offered to refer the resident and the neighbour for independent mediation to try and resolve the issue. While in his submission to the Appeal Panel the resident noted that he considered this inappropriate, this was a reasonable and proactive step for the landlord to take and in line with what this Service would expect to see from a landlord seeking to resolve an ASB dispute.
In their Stage 2 response, the landlord noted that no further specific reports had been submitted by the resident so it would not consider further enforcement action at that time. This was reasonable, as was the landlord’s decision to close the ASB case in August 2020 as it had received no further reports.
In the landlord’s Designated Person response, it is noted there is an erroneous mention of the resident being offered a move to a new property in response to his ASB reports. From the information available to this investigation, this appears to be a reference to a previous complaint relating to the resident’s former property. While it is noted the resident believes this mistake shows the landlord deliberately misled the Designated Person, based on the landlord’s records and information available to this investigation, there is no indication this was the case. While the error is unfortunate, it does not necessarily indicate the landlord’s responses to, and investigations into, the resident’s reports and complaint were flawed overall.
The Designated Person’s response additionally stated that the landlord recording comments from the neighbour on its housing system would not constitute libel. While this Service will not investigate matters more appropriately dealt with in the Courts, it is noted that we would expect a landlord to keep accurate notes and records, even when it decided not to take further action or when there is a dispute over a version of events.
It is acknowledged the resident remains unhappy with the fact the landlord did not also take additional action against his neighbour for submitting what he considered vexatious counterclaims of ASB. However, the landlord had advised that it did not feel these claims required any further action against either the resident or the neighbour. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB policies which state it will close a case if there is insufficient evidence for further action to be taken. The landlord closed the complaint as it felt there was no need to take action against the resident and there was no need to verify the neighbour’s evidence, as the resident had queried. However, while landlord records indicate that they considered the neighbour’s complaint against the resident had been addressed with him during a home visit in February 2020 and they refer to this in their complaint response, it is unclear whether they were explicit that the conversation about noise transference was relating to a complaint. The landlord could have offered further clarity about this either during the visit or during its complaint responses.
While the resident was unhappy he was not invited to the Appeal Panel to submit further evidence, it is noted that the Panel, which included an independent panelist, were satisfied the landlord’s actions were appropriate, and the resident’s presence was not required. The resident’s desire to attend is acknowledged, but it is noted the landlord’s complaints policy states complainants ‘may’ be invited to the Appeal Panel meeting. The landlord had the right to hold the Appeal Panel without inviting the resident and to do so was in accordance with its policy, so its actions were not unreasonable. However, the landlord may wish to consider whether it would be preferable to advise residents in advance whether they will be invited to Appeal Panel meetings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment. Its response to the report received on 20 April 2020 was reasonable and the actions it subsequently took regarding the resident’s reports, and its handling of the ASB case, were proportionate and in line with its policies.