Cambridge City Council (202010402)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010402

Cambridge City Council

18 August 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 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:
    1. request for a housing transfer;
    2. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

m) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.

  1. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has jurisdiction over complaints regarding social housing applications for local authority landlords. Following the resident’s rejected homelessness application in January 2019, and her rejected appeal in May 2019, it is evident that on 11 July 2019, the landlord awarded her Band B priority for bidding on alternative properties. The resident disputed her banding on 13 November 2019, which the landlord subsequently considered a formal complaint. The landlord provided its stage one response to this complaint on 3 December 2019, and a stage two response on 4 February 2020. The stage two response appropriately advised that the resident could refer her complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), as it was then known.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident should refer this element of the complaint to the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue an investigation of the landlord’s response.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident had been on an introductory tenancy at the property of the landlord since 1 May 2017. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The property is a first floor flat in a block of 13 flats with a shared garden area. The neighbours both above and below the resident’s property are the subject of the resident’s ASB reports.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes the landlord will initially discuss the complaint with the resident, then follow up with a formal response within 10 working days.
  4. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The landlord’s approach to ASB notes it will investigate in partnership or pass reports on to specialist agencies such as the police where necessary; use available tools such as mediation, written warnings, and acceptable behaviour commitments; and take appropriate action to stop ASB where there is sufficient evidence.

Summary of events

  1. The resident was offered the property she resided in at the time of the complaints as permanent accommodation following a period of being registered as homeless. Prior to moving to this property, the resident raised a number of complaints about the local authority moving her around temporary accommodation while homeless. These complaints were formally responded to and were subsequently the subject of a LGO investigation. Following her move, it is evident that the resident reported a number of incidents of ASB throughout 2018 and in late 2018 the resident made a further application as homeless, citing ASB from her neighbours affecting her mental health. In January 2019, the local authority refused her homelessness application as it did not consider the level of ASB experienced to be sufficient to mean she was unable to continue living at her property. The resident subsequently appealed this finding, and on 18 July 2019, as part of its response to her appeal regarding her homelessness application, the landlord noted she had made 27 reports of ASB and gave a detailed response regarding its actions following several of the reports, noting it had liaised with the police as well as reviewing her video evidence, and it advised it was unable to determine ASB as a result.
  2. On 12 September 2019, the resident reported that her neighbours were continuing to harass her and that she considered her neighbour to have tampered with her letter box. She advised she had already reported it to the police. It is evident that the landlord questioned the neighbour about this incident, and that they denied it. On 23 September 2019, the landlord also sent a warning letter to the neighbours warning them about ASB and drug use at the property. The landlord also had a face-to-face meeting with the resident on 22 October 2019 where it discussed her ASB concerns and queried if she had any support needs, following which the resident advised she had a support worker and did not require any further support.
  3. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident reported ASB from her neighbours on a regular basis, not all of which can be referred to in this report. The reports involved abusive language, intimidation, drug use, and noise at unreasonable hours. On 4 November 2019, the landlord offered the resident the option of mediation with her neighbours, however, it is not disputed that she declined this offer.
  4. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident sought alternative accommodation, and subsequently made a formal complaint on 9 December 2019 regarding her banding priority. As noted above, this element of the complaint is outside of this service’s jurisdiction, however, in its stage two response to that complaint, the landlord noted that its Housing Officer had been in regular contact with her and had met with her to try to resolve the issues she was experiencing. It also advised it considered it had provided sufficient support and had offered to refer the resident to further support agencies if she requested. It further noted that the resident had requested a formal response to her ongoing complaints on 11 July 2019, which had not been noted on the landlord’s system and offered an apology for this oversight.
  5. Throughout February and March 2020, the resident reported multiple instances of hearing scraping noises from the property above her, which she considered indicated her neighbour had installed laminate flooring. On 4 March 2020, the landlord advised it had inspected the neighbour’s property, which was carpeted and that it was unable to therefore to determine where any such noise could have come from. On 23 March 2020, the landlord advised that it considered the resident’s further reports and recordings of noise to be ordinary living noises, for which it was unable to take action.
  6. On 1 April 2020, it is evident the landlord had a meeting regarding the resident and agreed to have weekly contact with the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns. It also noted the resident had made multiple reports regarding her neighbours using and dealing drugs at the property, following which it advised her to forward her reports to the police. It also sent out a number of warning letters to all residents regarding the use of drugs at the property. On 27 April 2020, it advised the resident it had taken this action and reiterated its offer to assist with mediation, however, it is not disputed that the resident did not pursue this offer. It also offered to visit the property following the removal of COVID-19 restrictions in order to witness any noise nuisance, and also that it could install sound monitoring equipment should it not be able to.
  7. As noted above, the landlord has provided this service with its notes from throughout the period of the complaint, which include that several of the resident’s neighbours made a number of counter allegations of ASB against her, including abusive language and allowing her dogs to foul communal areas. On 10 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a written warning regarding her behaviour. On 21 July 2020, the resident provided the landlord with recordings of her neighbours in the communal area which she considered to show them behaving antisocially. The landlord replied on the same date and noted that the resident could be heard to be verbally abusing the neighbours in the recordings and subsequently gave her a further written warning about her behaviour.
  8. On 22 July 2020, the landlord advised it was in a position to install sound monitoring equipment to help gather evidence about the resident’s noise complaints. The resident requested that the equipment be installed in the communal corridor, however, the landlord advised it would be unable to do so as the purpose of the monitoring was to assess the level of noise within the resident’s property. It is not evident if the landlord followed this up with a further offer to install the equipment in the resident’s property.
  9. Throughout August 2020, the landlord received further reports from neighbours about ASB from the resident and on 1 September 2020, it issued a further warning letter to the resident. After further reports, on 21 September 2020, the landlord advised the resident it was its intention to seek an injunction against her in relation to her alleged continued breaches of her tenancy agreement. On 28 September 2020, the landlord clarified it was not seeking an eviction, however, the resident subsequently strongly expressed her dissatisfaction at its intentions. On 6 October 2020, it is evident that the landlord had a meeting with another organisation providing assistance to the resident and it subsequently agreed to pursue an ‘Acceptable Behaviour Contract’ with the resident instead of the injunction. It is not evident when this was subsequently communicated to the resident, however.
  10. On or around 27 October 2020, both the resident and a neighbour reported ASB to the landlord against one another. The landlord subsequently sought a supporting statement from the resident’s support worker who was with her at the time, who advised that the neighbour had acted aggressively towards the resident. The landlord forwarded the reports to the police and advised the resident of the same on 30 November 2020.
  11. The resident continued to express her concerns about ongoing ASB and subsequently referred her complaint to this service. Following correspondence from this service, the landlord provided a stage one response on 21 January 2021. It noted the resident had repeated her concerns about her application for rehousing but advised this had already been responded to under its internal complaints procedure. Regarding its handling of ASB, it noted the investigative steps it had taken, including reviewing the “very considerable volume” of correspondence to date, interviewing the staff members involved, and assessing their actions and conclusions. It advised it had found it had “generally responded promptly” and always within its policy timescales. It also advised its officers had acted “sensitively, professionally and with a demonstrable concern to uncover the facts in circumstances that are frequently unclear and often contested by the other parties.” It further advised it had frequently exercised its discretion in the resident’s favour, and that it had at all times dealt with her ASB reports “correctly.”
  12. On 23 January 2021, the resident reported that a neighbour had stolen her package and that she had reported it to the police. The landlord subsequently interviewed the neighbour, who denied taking the package and made counter allegations of ASB against the resident. It is evident that the landlord continued to liaise with the police on the issue and on 1 February 2021, the police advised they would not be taking any further action.
  13. It is evident that the resident requested an escalation of her complaint, and the landlord provided its stage two response on 11 February 2021. It noted the resident’s ongoing concerns about her homelessness application but advised it would not address this issue as it occurred over five years previously. In addressing its response to the resident’s reports of ASB, it went into considerable detail about the actions it had taken. It noted it had spoken with her neighbours on multiple occasions following her reports and had forwarded reports of drug use to the police. It also noted it had inspected her neighbour’s property when she reported scraping noises but found no evidence. It further noted it had offered sound monitoring equipment but had been unable to install it in the communal area as requested by the resident. It also noted it had worked with the local authority’s environmental health team, who had found the noise not to be a statutory noise nuisance. Additionally, it advised it had attempted to arrange for its surveyor to investigate installation of noise proofing, but this had been postponed due to COVID-19 restrictions. Further, it noted it had attempted to resolve the situation through mediation, but that the resident had declined. It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction that the landlord had investigated her for ASB but advised there had been evidence of dog fouling in communal areas and it had a responsibility to address this. Finally, it advised it had undertaken a number of multi-party meetings to address her concerns and following advice from her support workers, decided to pursue an acceptable behaviour agreement as opposed to any formal proceedings. It concluded that it agreed the resident had experienced ASB and harassment, but it did not have any evidence which it could use to take formal action. It noted, however, that it was continuing to assist with finding a new property and had made a number of direct let offers, including an offer of a bungalow which suited her needs, which remained pending.
  14. On 8 March 2021, the resident advised this service she had relocated to the bungalow offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have affected and caused distress to her. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  3. It is evident that the resident began reporting ASB in 2018. This service has not been provided with specific correspondence from this period, however, it is evident that the landlord’s housing officer liaised with the resident throughout this period, and that the landlord accepted that the resident was experiencing harassment as a result of the ASB. It is also evident that the landlord liaised with the police and reviewed her submitted evidence at this time, in line with its ASB policy, but was unable to take action based on the available evidence.
  4. Following a report of ASB, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation within a reasonable timeframe. Following the resident’s reports of ASB on 12 September 2019, the landlord appropriately questioned the resident’s neighbour about the incident and subsequently issued a warning letter regarding their behaviour and use of drugs at the property, in line with its ASB policy. Given that the resident had advised she had reported the ASB to the police, who were the appropriate entity to investigate reports of criminal behaviour, it was reasonable for the landlord not to also forward these reports at this time. It was also appropriate that the landlord arranged a face-to-face meeting at this time and made enquiries about her support needs, which was beyond what was required under its ASB policy. It is also evident that the landlord offered the resident the option of mediation on multiple occasions, which the Ombudsman considers to be in accordance with best practice in such instances, as well as in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  5. It is evident that the resident made a significant number of reports of ASB throughout the complaint period. It is also evident that the landlord’s housing officer remained in continuous contact with the resident throughout this period, and so it is reasonable that it did not provide a written response to every report.
  6. Following the resident’s reports of scraping noises and her concerns that her neighbour may have installed laminate flooring, the landlord appropriately inspected her neighbour’s property and reported back to the resident the outcome of its investigation. It is also evident that the resident made a number of reports and provided several recordings of noise throughout the period of the complaint, following which the landlord appropriately advised it considered them to be ordinary living noise. It did, however, refer the resident to the local authority’s environmental health team to assess the issue further, in line with its ASB policy, as well as sending further warning letters to the neighbours. Additionally, it appropriately offered to attend the property to witness the noise and subsequently install sound monitoring equipment if necessary, in line with its ASB policy, and its advice that this would occur following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions was reasonable in the circumstances. Following its offer to subsequently install the equipment in July 2020, it is evident there was confusion from the resident about where the equipment should be installed. While it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the purpose of the equipment was to assess the sound in the resident’s property, it is not evident that she no longer wished to have the equipment installed and so it would have been helpful for the landlord to have sought to clarify this, which it is not evident it did.
  7. It is evident that throughout the period of the complaint, the resident was also the subject of ASB allegations. As noted in its stage two response, the landlord was required to investigate all reports of ASB it receives. While it subsequently issued warning letters to the resident, it appropriately explained the basis for it doing so and that it would continue to investigate her reports as well.
  8. As noted in its stage two response, it is evident that the landlord had a number of meetings, as well as multi-party meetings with the resident’s support workers to address how it could assist her. It appropriately sought to have continued regular contact with the resident to address her concerns. Additionally, following its decision to seek an injunction against the resident as a result of the ASB complaints against her, after meeting with the resident’s support workers, it appropriately resolved to pursue an acceptable behaviour contract instead, however, it is not evident it advised the resident of this prior to its formal response, which would have left her unsure about her position prior to this point. It did, however, address her concerns regarding eviction, noting it had at no point pursued this.
  9. Following an incident on 27 October 2020 to which there were third party witnesses, the landlord appropriately sought supporting statements from them and forwarded them to the police, who were the appropriate body to investigate the ASB. This was also the case following the resident’s reports in January 2021.
  10. Given the number of reports made by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord not to have referred to specific incidences in its stage one response dated 21 January 2021. Based on the evidence provided to this service, it was also reasonable to find that its responses to the resident’s reports had been prompt and in line with its ASB policy. It is also evident that the landlord went to lengths to offer additional support and work with the resident’s support workers and so its findings that it acted “sensitively, professionally and with a demonstrable concern” was also reasonable.
  11. Given that the resident requested an escalation of her complaint, it was appropriate that the landlord went into considerable detail in its stage two response, setting out the specific investigation steps it had taken following a number of the residents reports and outlining the additional steps of seeking to install soundproofing, which was beyond the requirements of its ASB policy. It was also helpful that it clarified that it had continued to liaise with the police, and that whilst it agreed that the resident was experiencing ASB, it did not have any evidence to take specific action.
  12. Additionally, in its stage two response dated 11 February 2021, the landlord noted the resident’s concerns regarding her homelessness application but advised it would be unable to provide a formal response to them as they occurred “in excess of 5 years ago.” The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord to decline to respond to complaints the subject matter of which were over 12 months prior to the complaint. The Ombudsman also considers it reasonable for a landlord not to reinvestigate complaints that have already been dealt with under its internal complaints procedure. It is evident that the resident’s initial period of homelessness was both greater than 12 months prior to this complaint and also the subject of a number of complaints which the landlord, in its capacity as local authority, responded to at the time. Additionally, the resident’s rejected application to be considered homeless in 2018 was also greater than 12 months prior to this complaint and while she subsequently unsuccessfully appealed this decision, it is not evident that the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord at the time. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have declined to consider this element of the complaint in its formal response.
  13. It is also evident that the resident reiterated her concerns about the landlord’s earlier decision surrounding her banding in her complaint in early 2021. As noted above, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable not to reinvestigate issues already dealt with under its internal complaints procedure. Given that it already issued a stage one and two response on this issue, it was reasonable for the landlord to not reinvestigate this in its stage one response dated 21 January 2021.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

  1. It is evident that the landlord followed its ASB policy in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB, issuing warning letters, interviewing her neighbours and carrying out inspections, interviewing witnesses, as well as reviewing recorded evidence and liaising with the police. It is also evident that it offered the resident additional support, worked alongside her support workers, and made appropriate offers to assist in the resolution of the issue such as mediation. While it could have made further attempts to clarify whether the resident still wished for sound equipment to be installed, it is evident it kept in continuous contact with the resident and its findings that it responded in line with its ASB policy was reasonable.