Central Bedfordshire Council (202217828)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217828

Central Bedfordshire Council

3 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’); and
   2. The subsequent complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupies a property under an assured shorthold agreement with the landlord that commenced on 30 September 2019. The property is a three-bedroom end-of-terrace bungalow with a small front garden and a rear garden. The resident has various medical conditions that would make her vulnerable such as PTSD and depression.
3. The resident reported that she had been experiencing ASB from her neighbour since March 2020. However, the landlord has not provided records of the resident’s reports before 19 September 2020.The resident started making diary entries of incidents from 4 February 2020. This was following an incident in December 2019, where the resident said her neighbour pushed his way into her property.
4. The diary sheets detail that her neighbour was sending unwanted gifts, leaning over her garden wall, staring at her for long periods, sweeping her doorstep, stalking her, throwing excrement and rubbish into her garden, putting fairy lights up without permission, pouring petrol over her wall and had touched her inappropriately. The resident, her mother, internal council departments and the domestic abuse agency sent various emails to the landlord to notify them of the neighbour’s behaviour continuing behaviour between March 2020 and August 2021.
5. The neighbour was later charged by the police and bail conditions were attached to those proceedings. The landlord issued the neighbour with a warning letter for breach of tenancy after it became aware of this. Later, the landlord rehoused the neighbour within 2.6 miles of the resident’s property. It also agreed to put a trellis in the resident’s garden to help alleviate her privacy concerns, but this was after the neighbour had moved.
6. On 12 November 2020, the resident’s mother raised a formal complaint to the landlord, expressing the resident’s dissatisfaction with the way it handled the resident’s various reports about her neighbour. The landlord responded informally on 18 November 2020 and said that because the reports were of serious events, its policy was to allow investigations to be led by police. It advised her to keep reporting events to the police and not to contact the neighbour to ensure the investigation was not compromised.
7. The landlord elected to take the complaint through the formal complaint procedure on 28 April 2022. This was following a call from the resident explaining that she had not received an outcome to her concerns. It partly upheld her complaint when it issued its stage 1 response on 4 August 2022. It said that it did not follow the spirit of the ASB policy, it did not communicate well enough with both the resident and inter-departmentally and offered her £150 compensation.
8. In its stage 2 response issued on 14 September 2022, it upheld all the resident’s complaint points. It also apologised, undertook a case review, issued additional staff training across its teams for communication, working practices and information sharing, and offered her £600 in compensation.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied. She told this service that she was seeking the following outcomes:
   1. Acknowledgement for its failings.
   2. Individual apology for its failings, to her, her son, and parents.
   3. Public apology for the failings.
   4. Compensation for the self-funded security aids.
   5. Compensation for lack of consideration of the resident and her son’s vulnerabilities.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

10. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that:
    1. The landlord can pursue non-legal remedies to resolve ASB such as warnings, mediation, ASB contracts and notices.
    2. The legal remedies available are penalty notices for disorder, ASB orders and injunctions, demotion of tenancy, community protection notices and seeking possession of the property.
    3. The response times for medium-level reports will be within 7 working days. In relation to vulnerable households, it states that will ensure that it works closely with partner agencies to ensure adequate support is in place.
11. The resident reported her neighbour’s behaviour to the landlord in March 2020 after contacting the police. At this time, the resident alleged that her neighbour sexually assaulted her in public. The neighbour was later sentenced in August 2021 to prison for 26 weeks. This was related to the offence of harassment (stalking) of the resident. The court also issued a restraining order for the neighbour not to contact the resident, a breach of which would be an offence.
12. During March 2020 and August 2021, the resident reported various concerns including diary entries from 4 February 2020 to 7 October 2020. This detailed inappropriate behaviour such as banging on walls, abusive name-calling, gifting unwanted items such as lingerie, jewellery and teddy bears on several occasions, putting excrement and rubbish in her garden, putting fairy lights up on the property and sweeping her front door for excessive periods of time, staring at her over the wall and through the window.
13. The landlord was also provided with information about the resident’s concerns from internal and external teams. The landlord responded by:
    1. Undertaking a risk assessment of the resident and rating it a medium risk.
    2. Issuing a breach of tenancy letter on 4 December 2020 to the neighbour.
14. On 20 November 2020, the landlord said internally that the following actions were to be taken if the neighbour was found guilty by the police:
    1. A Community Protection Notice to be issued
    2. Possession proceedings to be initiated by issuing a Notice Seeking Possession

There is no evidence that any of these actions took place after the neighbour was convicted for his behaviour. However, the landlord did rehouse the neighbour near the resident’s property in or around April 2021.

15. The evidence shows that the landlord’s repeated response to the resident was that the risk was of a ‘serious threshold’ which meant the police would have to take the lead in the investigation. It told the resident this on several occasions as well as telling her to make reports to the police. This was despite the landlord’s internal communications confirming the serious nature of the allegations and its ASB procedure categorising harassment or intimidation as high risk, meaning that legal and non-legal remedies could have been considered and/or employed.
16. Although the landlord told this service that reporting ASB to it is encouraged by telephone, it could not produce any records to show it had recorded the resident’s reports. Additionally, the reports had not been logged on a central database and dates had been missed from important documentation including risk assessments. Any reports by the resident should have been taken seriously, logged, and progressed as per its ASB procedure. There is no evidence that this happened, and this is both a failure to maintain effective record-keeping and to follow its policy.
17. Failure to keep proper and adequate records can have severe consequences in ASB cases. This leads to landlords not being able to make prompt evidence-based decisions when required.
18. The Ombudsman considers that it would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to carry out its own investigations, with the support of partner agencies and to have assessed the evidence available to it as an organisation. It would have been proportionate for the landlord to have considered any civil remedies available to it, based on the evidence it had. It should not have relied solely on the matter being of a criminal nature and therefore only in the remit of the police for enforcement action.
19. The landlord’s approach to record-keeping and signposting the resident to the police without making its assessment was seriously flawed.
20. The Ombudsman finds it concerning that the landlord did not review its risk assessment, employ any safety planning, or make suitable referrals to agencies for further support to alleviate the resident’s fears. It was left to the resident to self-refer for support and to pay for these measures, this included paying for the installation of CCTV. Particularly as the household was vulnerable, the pattern of reported behaviour was escalating, and the neighbour was ultimately charged and convicted for his behaviour.
21. The Ombudsman also would have expected the landlord to have continually reviewed the risk to the resident throughout the period that the resident was reporting her concerns. Following this it should have adapted its approach and considered how it could mitigate the risk to the resident. It should have liaised more regularly with the resident and partner agencies, including the police, for both ongoing support for the resident and as part of its investigation and evidence gathering.
22. The Ombudsman considers that for the reasons detailed above, the landlord did not follow its ASB policy. The landlord delayed in considering civil remedies and failed to communicate regularly with the resident and partner agencies. This resulted in much distress to the resident and a delay in pursuing a suitable remedy.
23. The resident was concerned to find that the neighbour had been rehoused near her property. The landlord told her in its formal response that the lettings team were unaware of the neighbour’s criminal conviction at the time of allocation. This is indicative of poor information sharing. The evidence shows that this decision was based on an application for housing pre-dating the resident’s conviction. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have communicated with the relevant lettings department an updated position on the ASB matter so that this was considered properly against any allocation of social housing.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

24. The resident’s mother raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 November 2020, and it informally responded on 18 November 2020. It did not raise the complaint through the internal complaint procedure, despite the correspondence clearly being an expression of dissatisfaction and so a formal complaint.
25. The resident chased the landlord for its formal response on 28 April 2022, but this was almost 2 years after the complaint was raised. It would have been reasonable to have expected the resident to have requested an update earlier on. However, the evidence shows that the resident was in frequent contact with her landlord about the ASB and she explained how that was impacting her daily life and health and emotional wellbeing.
26. Despite this, the landlord should have been alert to the original correspondence in November 2020 being a formal complaint. It should have taken it through the complaint procedure or explained why it would not. The informal response only sought to confuse matters and delay the resident receiving a full answer to her complaint. This suggests a lack of knowledge by the landlord about the differences between a service request and a complaint.
27. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 May 2022 and stated the resident could expect a response by 25 May 2022. Nevertheless, the landlord issued its stage 1 on 4 August 2022 which was 437 working days after the resident raised her complaint. The landlord was required to respond to the complaint at stage 1 of its procedure within ten working days of logging it. This was, therefore, a significant and unacceptable delay by the landlord.
28. The resident escalated the complaint on 10 August 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 September 2022. This was 25 working days after the escalation request was received.
29. stage 1 response was clear and partly upheld the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation as a “goodwill gesture for the distress and worry experienced during [the] horrible incident.” In its final response it fully upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £600 compensation for the distress it had caused the resident.
30. The Ombudsman considers that this offer of compensation did not sufficiently address the failures and the impacts of those failures on the resident. Additionally, it is good practice set out the rationale behind compensatory offers, so that residents understand the breakdown of any failures and the corresponding award.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. Within 28 days of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. A suitably senior member of staff to provide a written apology to the resident and her family members to acknowledge the failures highlighted in this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident compensation for the sum of £2,250 made up of:
       1. £1500 for the impact caused by the delay in acting upon the resident’s reports of ASB and for failing to investigate the ASB fully and proportionately in line with its policy and decide on whether it could have taken further action.
       2. £500 for failing to have shared information about the neighbour’s conviction with its rehousing department and the worry and upset caused to the resident by this.
       3. £250 for the poor complaint handling.
    3. This is in addition to the offer of compensation made to the resident through the internal complaint process. The landlord must pay the resident the offer of compensation if it has not done so already.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service.

Recommendations

34. Within 28 days of this determination, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Conduct a review of the training needs of its staff members about complaint handling.
    2. Conduct a review of its internal and external communication practices to ensure that ASB cases are recorded and handled more effectively, such as cases remaining under review and further actions and/or approaches being regularly assessed against the current events and tailored to each situation.
    3. Conduct a case review of the complaint handling failures identified in this report and discuss its findings with relevant staff to ensure best practice is followed for future complaints.
    4. Liaise with the Community Safety Department to compile a support checklist with measures available to ASB teams to support residents who require safety planning.