Camden Council (202232940)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232940

Camden Council

30 July 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports made against the resident.
2. the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. the complaint and the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is also the local authority. The landlord said that it became aware in December 2023 that the resident has a mental health condition. The resident has not referred to this in correspondence with us or the landlord.
The landlord sets out informal and formal remedies for dealing with ASB. Informal remedies include conversations, letters and mediation. Formal remedies include acceptable behaviour agreements (ABA), injunctions and possession action. It says that, after the ABA, review meetings are held, and next steps agreed if this is breached. The landlord has internal guidance for staff, including a flowchart of steps that can be taken after a resident reports a neighbour dispute. It says it will:
1. work with local safer neighbourhood teams, community safety, external ASB support and adult social care, where needed.
2. consider whether the resident may have mental health issues or other vulnerabilities and arrange appropriate support.
The landlord also has guidance on collaborative work between its community safety and housing management services. This says that community safety will become involved where a vulnerable person is at risk of targeted ASB. It says that to protect victims from harm in complex cases, community safety should complete a risk assessment in cases where a risk of harm is possible.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and those at stage 2 within 25 working days. It says that ASB reports fall outside the complaints process. It also says it is committed to making its complaints process barrier-free and accessible for everyone.
Records we have seen show contact between a community safety officer for the landlord and the police at the end of September 2022. This was regarding a report made about the resident by his neighbour (neighbour T). The community safety officer said there had been reports of the resident being threatening towards neighbour T for a period of time. On 12 October 2022 the landlord sent the resident a warning letter about the incident. It said:
1. it had been alleged the resident had tried to “grab” his female neighbour.
2. it had been informed by its community safety team that the resident had been acting in a “threatening manner” towards neighbour T for a “long time”.
3. previous emails and complaints the resident had sent to one of its neighbourhood housing officers (NHO) suggested he was “fixated” on his neighbour.
4. it encouraged the resident to seek medical support from his GP.
The landlord said that, “due to the severity of the allegations”, it had asked that the resident sign an ABA. It provided a time and date it could meet him to do this. The ABA set out that the resident should not engage in unwanted conversations/shout at neighbour T, approach them or knock on their door. It said it would share the ABA with the police and other departments within the landlord and that a breach of the ABA could lead to possessions proceedings. The landlord told us the ABA was not signed by the resident.
At the end of October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that his neighbour was obtaining information from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about his Universal Credit. In response, at the beginning of November 2022 the landlord told the resident that he should raise his concerns about this with DWP.
On 6 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again. He made reports of coercive controlling behaviour by neighbour T (to others in that household) and that neighbour T was watching him all the time. In response the next day the landlord said it could not investigate concerns about criminal behaviour and that the resident should raise these concerns with the police.
At the end of December 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about the warning letter it had sent him. In response the landlord told him the complaints process had “no part to play” in this. It said the warning letter was in accordance with enforcement of tenancy conditions and that it was unable to raise a complaint about it. It directed the resident to the NHO. In early January 2023 the resident sent further correspondence to the landlord. He said he believed the NHO, and neighbour T were “colluding”, and that neighbour T household were violent criminals. In response on 17 January 2023 the landlord told the resident again that any reports of a crime should be raised with the police. The landlord set out issues it could investigate as a complaint, such as failure to follow policy or process, failure to respond, or failure to do what it said it would. It said if the resident considered any member of staff had carried out any wrongdoing, then he should clearly state this.
Later in February 2023 the landlord recorded a discussion with the police about the incident between the resident and neighbour T of September 2022. It noted the police said it considered the matter to be a neighbour dispute and it would not be investigating further or taking any action.
At the end of March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident reminding him of the ABA. It said it had seen footage of him approaching neighbour T’s door and trying to communicate with them. It said it had also received reports of him “shouting and banging on walls”. At the beginning of April 2023, the resident sent an email to the landlord’s complaints team. Amongst other things he complained that 2 officers for the landlord were personal friends of neighbour T. In emails sent to the landlord in May and June 2023 the resident asked that the landlord investigate the “friendship” between its officers and neighbour T.
At the end of June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord again about the “friendship” between 2 of its officers and neighbour T. He said there had been “malpractice and corruption” and the friendship needed to be investigated. He said it “undermine[d]” his complaints about his neighbour. In response to this, at the beginning of July 2023 the landlord said:
1. some requests fell outside the scope of the formal complaint process and were more suitably dealt with elsewhere.
2. this was the case with the issues raised by the resident as he was raising a request about staffing within the landlord and the person, he referred to no longer worked there.
3. his complaint had therefore been closed.
On 4 July 2023 the landlord’s NHO wrote to the resident. They said there was no evidence his neighbours had been following him around and it advised him to contact the police if he was concerned there had been a criminal act.
On 5 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that his previous complaint had not been considered. In response to this, on 7 July 2023, the landlord said this appeared to be a duplicate of an earlier complaint he had raised which was being dealt with as a service request.
After contact from us the landlord sent a further response to the resident on 14 July 2023. It said:
1. it would not be investigating the resident’s concerns that his neighbour had passed information to DWP as this was handled by DWP.
2. it would not investigate concerns about the ABA or warning letter as this was best directed to the police or the NHO.
3. it would not investigate his concerns that the complaints had been incorrectly removed from the complaints process as this was best directed to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

ASB reports about the resident

Correspondence between the police and the landlord details a report from neighbour T about an incident with the resident on 29 September 2022. However, the records we have seen do not include the report from neighbour T about the incident. That was a record keeping failing. The landlord should have ensured that it maintained and appropriately stored clear records of the incident reported, which resulted in it issuing a warning letter and ABA to the resident. The landlord also referred to emails and complaint the resident had sent which suggested he was “fixated” on his neighbour. But these have not been supplied to us. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do so as it is apparent this communication had some bearing on its decision to issue the warning letter and ABA. It is a further record keeping failing which has impacted our ability to investigate the concerns raised by the resident.
The landlord’s correspondence with the police details the report that the resident had threatened neighbour T. In line with its duties and responsibility to address ASB, it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to this report. That would include considering a warning letter, ABA or other proportionate action to address concerns that had been raised. The landlord had noted its concerns in the warning letter that the resident had tried to “grab” his female neighbour and that it had been told he had been acting in a “threatening manner” towards them for a “long time”. In these circumstances, its decision to issue a warning letter and ABA was reasonable.
The resident wrote to the landlord in response to its warning letter. Amongst other things, he questioned why it had not obtained his side of events before issuing this. He also set out what he had said to his neighbour during the incident. In response, on 21 October 2022, the landlord said the warning letter was not intended to be a detailed account of what had taken place. It said the language the resident had stated he had used towards his neighbour was “not acceptable”. While it is clear the resident considered the landlord should have spoken to him about the incident prior to issuing the warning letter, it was not required to do so. It was also aware the matter had been referred to the police for investigation. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident on this point. That it did not do so was a failing.
We have not been provided with any risk assessment completed by the landlord. In line with its own processes, it should have ensured a risk assessment was completed in cases where a risk of harm was possible. However, the landlord’s internal emails in early March 2023 refer to its community safety officer having previously completed a risk assessment, and other steps it had taken around the safety of neighbour T. But the landlord should have ensured this risk assessment was appropriately stored and available so that it could evidence that this had been completed appropriately and close to the time of the incident. That it has not provided any of its risk assessments is further record keeping failing.
We have seen internal communication in March 2023 that refers to steps already taken around the safety of neighbour T, but there is no evidence of what action had been taken around the time of the incident. There is also no evidence the landlord considered other action to ensure all parties, including the resident, were supported and protected from harm. Its internal guidance in respect of remedies for ASB says it will consider whether the resident may have mental health issues or other vulnerabilities and arrange appropriate support. After noting its concerns in October 2022 that the resident was “fixated” on his neighbours, it directed him to seek medical support from his GP. This was an inadequate effort to explore possible vulnerabilities and ensure the resident had access to support he may need. There is no evidence the landlord took any active steps to do so until the end of November 2023. At this time, it referred the case to its multi-disciplinary team. Following this it raised a safeguarding alert, and we have seen evidence of other appropriate steps taken. But that was more than a year after the incident with neighbour T, and more than 6 months after it reminded the resident of the terms of the ABA. The landlord stated that it only became aware that the resident had a mental health condition diagnosis in December 2023. But there is no evidence it had taken appropriate steps to explore potential vulnerabilities prior to this, despite having clear concerns.
The landlord should have completed timely risk assessments. It should have made safeguarding considerations for all parties, including taking steps to ensure those with mental health issues or vulnerabilities had access to appropriate support. We have seen evidence that the landlord delayed making appropriate referrals to identify vulnerabilities and ensure support was in place. We have also identified record keeping failings has meant that we have been unable to establish that the landlord completed timely risk assessments. The landlord was made aware in February 2023 that the police were taking no further action on the matter. In these circumstances and given that the landlord had outlined its significant concerns about the resident’s behaviour towards his neighbour, it should have ensured it was doing what it could to manage the risk of harm presented by the circumstances.
Following an investigation by the Ombudsman in September 2023, the landlord set out its intention to review its ASB policy and procedure. In January 2024 it provided us with a draft copy of its new ASB policy and risk assessment tool. It said this will ensure it considered vulnerabilities, managed risks and that its officers gave appropriate support when addressing reports of ASB. In light of this recent review of its policies and procedures, which is subsequent to the events considered, we have not made duplicate orders. However, we have ordered that the landlord review the failings set out in this report to consider whether its new ASB policies and procedures adequately address the failings identified. We have seen no evidence that the landlord has a specific safeguarding policy that it directs officers to consider. In light of this, and the failings we have identified around safeguarding referrals, we have made a further order that it reviews policies and processes in place around this and ensure staff are appropriately aware of these.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports about the resident. We have found that it was reasonable for the landlord to issue the resident with a warning letter and ABA. But it failed to take other appropriate steps to manage the risk of harm through timely referral of the case to internal and external partners and by ensuring the resident had access to appropriate support. The impact of this on the resident has been considered below when considering the landlord’s handling of ASB reports he made.

ASB reports made by the resident

Records show that the resident has made a large number of reports to the landlord about neighbour T since October 2022. The landlord also referred to reports/complaints prior to this date but these were not included in records. Reports we have seen included concerns that neighbour T had obtained information from DWP, and that they were watching him and following him and of criminal behaviour by neighbour T.
We have seen that the landlord told the resident on 1 November 2022 to raise directly with DWP his concern that his neighbour was obtaining information about him. That was appropriate as there was little or nothing the landlord could do to investigate his concerns about this. In further correspondence with the resident in December 2022 and January 2023, it directed him to the police in respect of his concerns about criminal activity. It said it would cooperate by providing the police with any relevant information. Again, the landlord’s position on this was reasonable. It was appropriate for the resident to refer concerns about any criminal behaviour to the police for investigation in the first instance. But, as outlined earlier in the report, the landlord made no apparent consideration to vulnerabilities the resident may have when responding to his reports about his neighbour. Given the nature of the communication from the resident, and the concerns it had already identified about his behaviour, it should reasonably have been clear to the landlord that it was appropriate to do so.
While it had directed him to seek support from his GP in October 2022, that was not enough. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take a more considered approach to responding to the large volume of reports it received from the resident. In line with its ASB processes and guidance from the time, it should have considered mental health issues and other vulnerabilities to ensure appropriate support was in place. The landlord told us that it received emails from the resident in January and February 2023 which it said appeared to show the resident’s mental health may be declining. It told us that its NHO spoke to the community safety officer about having a meeting with the resident, but this did not go ahead as the community safety officer went on leave. This meeting was not rearranged, nor was there any apparent steps taken to refer concerns to other services. That is evidence that the landlord was not doing all it should have done to address vulnerabilities and manage the risk of potential harm. The landlord’s internal guidance states that an NHO will maintain ownership of the case but should draw on support from internal and external partners. While the landlord said it tried to engage with the resident after it had referred the case to the multi-disciplinary panel, by attempting a home visit, this attempt is not recorded. That was a further record keeping failing. In addition, given that it appears this attempted visit took place after November 2023, the action was significantly delayed.
We have seen correspondence the landlord has sent to the resident subsequently, in February 2024 to attempt to arrange to meet with him to discuss the ongoing issues with his neighbour. We have also seen evidence of the landlord’s communication with internal and external partners since November 2023. But the landlord should have done more at an earlier stage to ensure it was taking a holistic approach to addressing the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord had appropriately directed the resident about where to raise concerns about his neighbour. But, we have found the landlord should reasonably have taken steps at an earlier stage to attempt to meet with the resident to discuss the reports he was making. Not only would this had demonstrated that it was doing what it could to understand his concerns, it would also have been an opportunity for the landlord to explore any vulnerabilities or support needs. As already noted, this may have helped it in managing the risk of harm. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. With consideration of the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award has been ordered aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident.

Complaint and his concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff

The resident sent a number of complaints to the landlord’s complaints team. In December 2022 he sent several emails setting out that he had concerns about the behaviour of the NHO. The correspondence from the resident at this time was unclear about specific concerns he had about the NHO, other than that he considered the warning letter to be “slander and defamation”. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord said its complaints process had “no role” in considering his concerns about the warning letter. It said at the end of December 2022 that it would forward the resident’s questions about the warning letter to the NHO. But we have seen no evidence the landlord did so, or that the resident received any response from the NHO about the matter. That left the resident without any satisfactory response to his concerns, and this was a failing by the landlord.
By early January 2023 the resident sent the landlord’s complaints team a further email stating his belief the NHO and his neighbour had “colluded” together to send the warning letter. In April 2023 he sent an email setting out his belief that the NHO and another officer of the landlord were “friends” of neighbour T. But there is no evidence the landlord responded to either of these emails. It should reasonably have done so. The resident was expressing a clear concern about the landlord’s officers, which could impact on the handling of his case, and the landlord should have responded to this. If it needed further information, it could have contacted the resident to seek further clarification of his concerns.
The resident sent further correspondence to the landlord in June 2023, setting out his belief that the NHO and another officer of the landlord were in “collusion” with this neighbour. In response to this the landlord said on 3 July 2023, that the resident’s concerns fell outside of the scope of its complaints process. It said that the concern raised was about staffing and that the officer he had referred to had left the organisation. But that was not a reasonable response to the concern the resident had raised. The landlord’s response referred to only one of the officers, who it said had left the organisation. But it is apparent from subsequent correspondence that the other officer referred to continued to work for the landlord. In addition, an officer having left the employment of the landlord did not prevent it investigating concerns about their actions, or the impact of these on the resident. Its complaints policy does not list complaints about staff as a matter the landlord would be unable to consider under its complaints process. It should have given reasonable consideration to the concerns the resident had raised about the 2 officers. Instead, it unreasonably dismissed the matter as being outside the scope of the complaints process.
Following correspondence from us the landlord sent a further response to the resident on 14 July 2023. As set out earlier, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to raise some of his concerns with DWP. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the importance of the landlord recognising the difference between a service request and a complaint. The resident clearly stated he was making a complaint, but the landlord’s position was that his concerns about the warning letter and ABA should be directed to the NHO. But that was unreasonable in circumstances where he had repeatedly raised concerns and asked it to investigate the NHO’s friendship with his neighbour. There was an apparent lack of understanding by the landlord about the issues the resident raised and the connection to his concerns about its consideration of his reports about neighbour T and the fairness of the warning letter/ABA. The landlord should have provided a full response to the concerns under its complaints process. Its failure to do so has left the resident without any response to these concerns.
The Ombudsman has recently made an order in relation to another investigation which requires the landlord to carry out a review of its complaints handling process. For this reason, we have not made a duplicate order in this case. However, we have ordered that the landlord consider further learning and insight from this investigation during its review of its complaint handling process. In particular we note that its complaints policy refers to ASB reports falling outside the complaints process. With consideration to the failings found in this case, the landlord should ensure it provides clarity to staff that concerns about its handling of ASB reports may be considered under the complaints process. We have also ordered that the landlord review failings we have identified in its handling of this complaint, with reference to the Ombudsman’s report on attitudes, respect and rights. This is particularly regarding considerations the landlord can make to reasonably adjust its approach when responding to complaints from those with possible vulnerabilities.
The resident told us that he felt the landlord had ignored his requests for information and had not answered his concerns. The landlord’s complaints process should have been an opportunity for it to respond to the resident’s concerns effectively. Instead, the landlord placed a barrier in the way of the resident receiving a response to his concerns. It directed him to address issues with the NHO where these concerns were not addressed. Nor could they have been fairly addressed by the NHO when she was the subject of the complaint. The lack of response to concerns the resident had raised since January 2023 would have left him feeling his concerns were being ignored or dismissed by the landlord. It can only have added to the resident’s feeling that reports of ASB about him, and his own reports about neighbour T, were not being fairly and appropriately addressed. The landlord could reasonably have avoided this by registering his concerns as a formal complaint and providing an appropriate response. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and with consideration to the circumstances of the case, we have ordered an award to the resident to recognise the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failing. We have also ordered that the landlord contact the resident to obtain clear details about his concerns about its handling of ASB reports and staff conduct. It should then undertake to investigate this matter under its complaints process.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints, both in policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our compliance framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation we have found that the landlord’s response timescales are not in compliance with the Code. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of ASB reports about the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the ASB reports made by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint and the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 1 week of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to obtain clear details about his concerns about its handling of ASB reports and staff conduct. It should then undertake to investigate any outstanding concerns under its complaints process.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings we have identified in this report. This apology should be made in line with the guidance on apologies contained within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident compensation of £650, made up of:
  1. £250 for the impact of failings identified in its handling of ASB reports.
  2. £400 for the impact of failings identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint and concerns about the conduct of its staff.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. review the failings set out in this report to consider whether its new ASB policies and procedures adequately address the failings identified.
2. review policies and processes in place around safeguarding referrals, and ensure staff are appropriately aware of these.
3. review record keeping failings identified in this case and ensure that policy and guidance to staff is appropriately clear so that these failings are not repeated.
The Ombudsman has recently made an order in relation to another investigation which requires the landlord to carry out a review of its complaints handling process. While we have not duplicated this order, we have ordered that the landlord take into account further learning and insight from this investigation during its review of its complaint handling process. In particular the landlord should:
1. ensure it provides clarity to staff that its handling of ASB reports may be considered under the complaints process.
2. review failings we have identified, with reference to the Ombudsman’s report on attitudes, respect and rights. This is particularly around consideration the landlord can make to reasonably adjust its approach when responding to complaints from those with possible vulnerabilities.

Recommendations

Contact the resident to obtain details of any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for him.