Cambridge City Council (201913783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913783

Cambridge City Council

31 January 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the condition of the property.
2. The landlord’s response regarding safeguarding and the suitability of the property
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

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 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This service is aware that in September 2020, legal action was taken against the resident in relation to his own behaviour. This investigation does not consider whether this action was appropriate and instead focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This service cannot make determinations on judgements and orders made in civil and criminal courts.
This service cannot make determinations on health implications caused by a landlord’s actions or inactions. Such matters should be considered by the courts via a personal injury claim.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The resident’s complaints relate to his tenancy at a previous property which he lived at from 9 October 2017 to 31 July 2022. The property is a 1 bedroom, first floor flat within a low rise block.
The resident has a range of health concerns including a personality disorder, PTSD, anxiety and depression. He has also reported that the condition of the property has negatively affected his health.

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that he first reported concerns with the front entrance door following the start of his tenancy in 2017. The landlord’s repair records confirm that on 6 March 2018, he raised concerns about the door. The resident raised further concerns about the door being insecure and allowing water and draughts into the property throughout his tenancy.
This investigation does not cover all events during the resident’s tenancy however some information has been considered and referred to for context only. It is noted that the resident also reported frequent incidents of ASB caused by his neighbours throughout his tenancy.
This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns from December 2020 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlord promptly so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Summary of events

On 29 December 2020 the resident instructed a solicitor regarding disrepair at the property. A schedule of repairs was provided to the landlord and it was suggested that an independent surveyor inspected the property.
An independent surveyor was agreed and attended the property on 22 February 2021. The surveyor’s report outlined:
1. The poor condition of the front entrance door may be allowing water to enter the property.
2. There were areas of brickwork on the outside of the property which were cracked and in poor condition which could be allowing water to enter the property.
On 12 April 2022 the resident reported incidents of ASB to the landlord. The landlord’s records state that the resident did not agree to the landlord contacting his neighbours about the ASB.
During July 2021 the resident contacted the police to report that he had received threats of violence from his neighbour. Also during this time, the landlord was concerned about the resident’s behaviour and on 29 July 2021 it contacted his doctor to raise and discuss these concerns.
In internal emails between the landlord’s staff on 14 September 2021, it referred to the inspection report dated 22 February 2021 where the surveyor had noted that cracks in the external brick work may be causing water to enter the property.
On 19 September 2021 the resident reported to the police that he had been threatened by his neighbour, who was holding a knife and to come out and fight him. The resident also reported this incident to the landlord. It offered the resident support through its tenancy support service and on 1 October 2021 it increased the banding on the resident’s rehousing application due to this incident. Following investigations by the police this incident, no further action was taken as CCTV footage did not support the resident’s version of events.
On 21 October 2021 the landlord completed a priority need housing review with the resident. It documented his health concerns and the ongoing ASB and repairs he was experiencing.
On 25 October 2021 the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident to arrange an inspection of the balcony. The landlord’s notes state that the resident swore at the contractor over the phone and no appointment was made.
The landlord made a further referral to the resident’s GP on 17 November 2021 due to further concerns about his behaviour. The landlord confirmed in its referral that it had increased the banding on his rehousing application to assist him in moving elsewhere but that it would not provide him with a management move to a new property. It stated that it felt the resident should have a choice of properties he may wish to consider, rather than it offering one property. The landlord advised the GP that the resident had stated he was feeling suicidal and asked for advice. The GP later replied and confirmed that the resident was prescribed medication to assist his health concerns but had asked to be referred to a private psychiatrist for a review.
On 21 November 2021 the resident contacted this Service and outlined his complaint against the landlord.
In early January 2022 the landlord was in contact with the local safeguarding unit who advised that they would not progress a referral from the resident’s GP as it was determined that the resident had no care or support needs the could assist with. It was highlighted that the resident had stated he was sleeping with a metal bar under his bed due to the ASB and repair issues at the property. The safeguarding unit recommended that the resident continued to receive support from his GP.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 January 2022 to report ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property. He stated that he was using a dehumidifier all day to tackle it.
In mid-January 2022 the landlord’s records state that the resident had left voicemails with the landlord in which he stated he was feeling suicidal. The landlord contacted its local health services and reported this. Other professionals also reported to the landlord that the resident had made threats of using a firearm towards named members of the landlord’s staff. A mental health worker advised the landlord that they had completed a full telephone triage with the resident and he stated that he felt his current medication was not supporting him. The resident was referred back to his GP for a medication review.
On 21 January 2022 the landlord attended a meeting with its community safety partners and the resident’s case was discussed. The landlord and its partners agreed the following recommendations:
1. The landlord would consider enforcement action against the resident.
2. To refer him to his GP for medical assistance to get help and reassess his medication.
3. Contact local support services regarding the resident’s mental health concerns.
4. Encourage the resident to engage with other support services e.g. Personality Disorder referral
5. The landlord would review whether offering the resident a move would be suitable given the severity of the threats he had made.
During late January 2022, the resident reported further incidents of ASB caused by his neighbours. The resident asked the landlord when it would be taking legal action against his neighbours. The landlord’s records state that the resident did not permit the landlord to contact his neighbours about the ASB.
On 27 January 2022 the landlord sent a detailed email to the resident in which it stated:
1. Its ASB officers were not always available to take his calls but they would call back as soon as possible. It confirmed that some staff were still working at home due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
2. It confirmed that a new officer had been assigned to his ASB case.
3. It reminded the resident that it would end any calls during which he became abusive to its staff and also that it would consider further legal action against him should this continue. It said that the recent threats made against its staff may also lead to further legal action.
4. It asked for clarity on dates and times of recent ASB incidents he had supplied footage of.
5. It asked the resident to inform it should his position change on not allowing it to contact his neighbour about the ASB.
6. It said that at this stage it did not have sufficient evidence to take legal action against his neighbour due to the ASB.
7. It outlined that it had spoken to his GP about his claims that the condition of the property was affecting his health. It said that from speaking with his GP, it could not conclude that the condition of the property had caused chest infections or asthma.
8. It said that following an inspection of the property in 2021, there was no evidence of damp and mould, apart from one area. It had provided the resident with a decorating voucher to cover a stained area from an earlier leak. It did not agree with the resident’s claim that damaged windows were causing condensation.
9. It confirmed that there were outstanding works due on the exterior of the property and also that a new front door would be installed. It said that it had chased these repairs and would update him as soon as possible.
10. It also confirmed that it had not instructed a contractor to block his phone number when he was trying to arrange a boiler repair. An appointment had been made.
11. It had contacted the police about an incident with his neighbour in September 2021. Whilst the police had decided they would not take any further action, the landlord felt that the incident called for an increase to the banding on his rehousing application.
12. It said that it was seeking legal advice around his behaviour and would also seek advice on whether it needed to review his rehousing banding increase.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 February 2022 and said:
1. His case had been heard at its tenancy enforcement panel on 4 February 2022.
2. Due to his recent threats towards its staff, it would not be offering the resident a new property as a direct let.
3. It was seeking legal advice and suggested he sought legal advice himself.
During February and March 2022, the resident reported further incidents of ASB caused by his neighbours. The landlord’s records state that he reported being threatened by his neighbours and their associates. He supplied video footage and confirmed that he had also reported this to the police.
The landlord called the resident on 21 March 2022 to discuss the video footage he had provided. It also confirmed that following legal advice, it was not taking further legal action against the resident. The resident confirmed during this call that he was now agreeable to the landlord contacting his neighbours about the ASB.
On 25 March 2022 the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident’s neighbour about the ASB. The letter reminded the neighbour of his tenancy obligations. At this time the landlord was in contact with the police regarding the reported ASB.
The resident reported further incidents of ASB on 3 April 2022. He said that his neighbour’s behaviour had worsened since the landlord had sent out the warning letter. The resident was pleading with the landlord to be moved to another property.
Due to the landlord’s concerns about the resident, it made a referral to its rehousing panel on 6 April 2022. The resident’s case was heard at the panel the following day and its records show that the panel recommended that a medical assessment be conducted to determine how the ongoing ASB was affecting the resident’s health.
Following further contact from the resident, this service contacted the landlord on 21 April 2022 and asked for confirmation on which stage the resident’s complaint was at.
On 26 April 2022 the landlord called the resident and spoke with him at length about his unhappiness with its actions. A formal complaint was logged on its systems.
Also on 26 April 2022 the resident reported ongoing issues at the property including:
1. Repairs still outstanding including the front entrance door and external brickwork. The resident also raised concerns about drainage outside the property.
2. Ongoing ASB caused by his neighbours.
3. The resident said that his desired outcome was to move elsewhere.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response in which it stated:
1. It apologised for the delay in fitting a new front entrance door. It confirmed that concerns about the door were first logged on its systems in 2017. It further confirmed that a new door should have been fitted in 2020 but this did not happen. It said that a new door was due to be fitted by the end of May 2022.
2. It confirmed that repairs to the external brickwork in several locations were needed however it did not provide timescales in which this would be completed. It did however state that a meeting was scheduled with its contractors on 13 May 2022.
3. It stated that it had received a report from the local water company about the drainage issues but no action had been taken.
4. It said that his neighbour below had not made any reports about foul smells due to the drainage issues. It asked the resident to ask his neighbour to make contact about this issue.
5. It outlined that it had rehoused the resident at the property in 2017 due to issues with his previous neighbour. The move to the property was facilitated through a management move due to the landlord’s concerns. It said that it had no evidence to show the move was a temporary measure as the resident believed it to be.
6. It outlined the offers of support it had made to the resident. It said that its ASB team had not prevented him from accessing any support as he had claimed. It confirmed that it had raised concerns with health professionals when he had reported feeling suicidal.
7. It listed the actions it had taken regarding the ASB he had reported. It outlined its position in that the resident’s behaviour towards its staff had made it difficult to work with him in a positive way. It also outlined that due to the resident not allowing it to approach his neighbour about the ASB until very recently had meant that it had not been able to progress the case against his neighbours.
8. It understood that the resident’s desired outcome was to move to another of its properties. It confirmed that due to recent ASB incidents it had increased the banding on his rehousing application which it hoped would help.
9. It said that it was not able to offer him a direct let to another property. It asked him to provide further supporting medical evidence from his GP which may assist his rehousing application.
On 7 June 2022 the resident reported an ASB incident to the landlord which had occurred the previous day. He reported that his neighbour had made threats to him and provided supporting video evidence. The landlord reviewed the footage and agreed that the neighbour’s behaviour was unacceptable. It advised the resident that it would consider enforcement action against the neighbour. The resident agreed to support this.
On 9 June 2022 the local policing team contacted the landlord and advised that they would be interviewing the resident’s neighbour about the recent ASB incident. The police also advised they had completed an ASB risk matrix with the resident and determined that he was rated as high risk.
Later in June 2022 the landlord arranged with the resident via its contractors for a new front door to be fitted. On 27 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask if an electrician would also be attending as there were exposed wires on the door frame. The resident confirmed that the new door was fitted on 28 June 2022 however he told the landlord that the exposed wires still required attention.
The landlord’s records show that on 1 July 2022, the resident was offered a move to another of its properties which he accepted.
On 8 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and requested that it escalated his formal complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord confirmed this and advised that it would provide its response by 13 July 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 July 2022 in which it stated:
1. It apologised for its delays in responding to the resident’s emails between the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. It stated that it had improved its process to prevent further delays.
2. It outlined the historic repairs it had carried out to the front entrance door.
3. It confirmed that it had now fitted a new entrance door. It stated that the delays in fitting a new door were due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. It had reviewed its stage 1 complaint response and did not find any fault in its response.
5. It confirmed that the resident had accepted its offer of a move to another property which would happen at the end of July 2022.

Post complaints process

The landlord’s records confirm that the resident moved out of the property on 31 July 2022 and the tenancy was ended. The landlord also advised the resident that it would not take any enforcement action against his previous neighbour as he had now moved away.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s website states that in relation to repairs, it will respond within the following time limits:
1. Emergency repairs: 24 hours
2. Urgent repairs: 3 working days
3. Routine repairs: 20 working days
It lists broken door glass as an emergency repair and no draught proofing, damaged door and window frames as routine repairs. It also lists structural cracks in walls and ceilings as routine repairs.
The landlord’s ASB policy (2020) outlines that it will assess and respond accordingly to all reported ASB. It outlines its commitment to working as part of a community safety partnership and that it will support all victims of ASB in its communities.
The landlord’s letting policies outline how it will allocate its properties to tenants. It lists housing needs bandings from urgent need (band A) to low housing need (band D). It also outlines provisions for direct lettings, which incudes situations where properties will be allocated outside of its allocations scheme. Its lists a range of reasons where a direct let will be authorised, including for tenants who have an urgent housing need, due to health and safety risks. It also lists that where the landlord or a partner agency has identified that a tenant is subject to harassment, or other conduct causing alarm and distress, it may increase housing needs banding.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the condition of the property.

It is clear from the evidence reviewed that the resident was extremely frustrated with the landlord’s repair service throughout his tenancy. He reported concerns with the front entrance door shortly after the start of his tenancy. This is not disputed by the landlord as it confirmed this in its stage 2 complaint response and its repairs records also support this. Whilst the landlord advised the resident that the delays in fitting a new door were due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this does not explain any earlier reasons prior to 2020 why it did not install a new door.
The landlord took steps to repair the door at various points during the tenancy, however, these were insufficient as the resident continued to report concerns until the end of his tenancy. Additionally, the poor efficiency of the door was highlighted in surveyors reports which recommended that the door be replaced as it may be allowing water to enter the property. Despite this, the landlord did not seem to prioritise the replacement of the door.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) 2006 outlines 29 categories of housing hazard. Each hazard has a weighting which will aid landlords in determining the potential for harm, should a resident be affected by a particular hazard. In relation to external doors, the HHSRS states that external doors should provide adequate security against unauthorised entry and protection from the weather. The HHSRS also covers excess cold within a property and outlines that any disrepair or dampness to a dwelling can affect the energy efficiency of a property.
It is of significant concern that the resident was reporting ASB throughout his tenancy and had informed the landlord that he was worried that the poor condition of the door may leave him at risk from his neighbours. Despite this, and the landlord being well aware of the resident’s vulnerability, it did choose to repair, rather than replace the door until weeks before the end of the tenancy. This is a significant failing as the resident may have felt more secure in the property had a suitably secure door been fitted at the earliest opportunity.
The resident advised the landlord several times that he was having to use a dehumidifier in the property due to damp and mould. Whilst it is noted that the landlord’s own assessments found that there was no damp and mould in the property, it was aware as early as February 2021 from a surveyor’s report that there were numerous cracks in the exterior brickwork. It is not clear why the landlord did not complete the surveyor’s recommendations to repair the damaged brickwork.
In light of the above, this service finds that the landlord’s approaches to the repairs at the property were poor and were not in line with its stated policy position. It responded well outside of its emergency and routine repairs timescales in relation to the entrance door and damaged external brickwork. The resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience in reporting the same issues to the landlord and chasing it for updates.

The landlord’s response regarding safeguarding and the suitability of the property

The resident made many reports to the landlord during the scope of this investigation in which he said that his mental health was affected by the ongoing issues at the property. The landlord was in frequent contact with health professionals and made referrals on the resident’s behalf to the relevant services. It shared information quickly with its partners and reacted quickly when the resident reported that he was feeling suicidal by making safeguarding referrals. The landlord considered the resident’s health concerns in its internal and partnership meetings.
It also offered support referrals to the resident and signposted him to support where necessary. Whilst landlords are not best placed to provide specialist support to vulnerable residents, it acted appropriately by alerting the right partners and agencies. It also referred him to its internal tenancy support service. These were all positive steps taken by the landlord.
The landlord was in frequent contact with the resident about his rehousing request. It listened to his concerns and explained why it would not offer him a direct move to a new property. It considered his health concerns and also the worsening of the reported ASB towards the end of the tenancy. It reacted to the resident’s reports of ASB and following its assessment of the severity of an incident in June 2022 it agreed to help the resident with a move to a new property which he accepted.
This service has not considered the suitability of the property when allocated to the resident in October 2017 as this is outside of the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

The resident told the landlord over a significant period of time that he did not agree to it contacting his neighbour regarding the alleged ASB. This was due to him being fearful of reprisals. Landlords will be unable to take any significant action without the full support of ASB victims. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by respecting the resident’s wishes and not contacting the neighbour. However, the landlord could have advised the resident much sooner that it would not be able to take action to try and resolve the ASB without his support. The resident continued to report ASB and provide evidence, yet due to his position it could do very little. It is clear that the resident became frustrated with the landlord when reporting ASB. Had the landlord explained its position to the resident sooner, it could have gone some way to managing his expectations as he seemed to believe that the landlord was taking legal action against his neighbour which was not the case until after he provided consent in March 2022.
When the resident did consent to the landlord contacting his neighbour in March 2022 the landlord acted quickly having considered the available evidence and issued a warning to the neighbour. This was an appropriate action. The neighbour appeared to react badly to the warning and the landlord advised the resident that it was preparing to take legal action. It liaised closely with the police and shared information which was a positive step.
Whilst the landlord was also required to consider its approaches to the resident’s own behaviour, it also has a duty to respond to reports he made as a victim of ASB. There is little evidence from the landlord’s records to show that it made enquiries with other local residents, and as such had little independent witness evidence to rely upon. It did however inform the resident of its position when it was not able to progress matters due to a lack of supporting independent evidence.
Once the resident had ended his tenancy and moved to another of the landlord’s properties, it advised the resident that it was no longer seeking legal action against the neighbour. This was reasonable as the neighbour would not have been informed by the landlord where the resident had moved to and the resident’s risk of further ASB was greatly reduced. It is noted that the resident had stated throughout his case that he urgently wanted to move, which was the outcome he achieved. The landlord acted positively by quickly reviewing its position on rehousing the resident, following a serious ASB incident. It applied its direct letting policy by offering the resident a move to another property.
The landlord was well aware of the resident’s health concerns and vulnerability throughout this case. This service has however not seen any evidence that it completed a risk assessment at any point during its ASB investigations. It is noted that the local police completed an assessment with the resident in June 2022 however landlords should also be carrying out these assessments. The ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlines that social landlords and local authorities should effectively assess the risk and vulnerability of any resident affected by ASB and offer appropriate support. It is however duly noted that the landlord did offer support and make referrals on the resident’s behalf in relation to the information he shared.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response regarding safeguarding and the suitability of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £875 compensation which is comprised of:
  1. £800 in respect of its failings in completing repairs promptly at the property.
  2. £75 in respect of its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service.