Islington Council (202017241)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017241

Islington Council

30 July 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 suggestions in relation to the antisocial behaviour (ASB) he experienced from a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is the leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat.
3. The resident reported several incidents of serious ASB from his neighbour to the landlord and police in 2019. The ASB was proven, and the landlord obtained an injunction against the neighbour, but this was unenforceable due to the neighbour’s circumstances. The landlord received further reports and, because it was unable to pursue an injunction, started the process in 2020 to seek possession of the neighbour’s home, and evict him. Due to the coronavirus and a temporary change in legislation, the notice period for seeking possession changed, causing a three-month delay. Since 23 March 2020 legislation changes have meant that all possession claims have been suspended.
4. On 3 August 2020 the resident reported that on 31 July 2020 his neighbour confronted him in the communal hallway and threatened him with a knife. The resident asked the landlord to move the resident or consider relocating the neighbour’s front door to the exterior basement of the building (so that the resident would no longer encounter the neighbour in the communal area). He confirmed he had reported this to the police and had asked the police to review CCTV footage.
5. The landlord replied on 4 August 2020 that it had contacted its solicitor for advice. It said that it could potentially assist him with temporary accommodation, but he would need to pay for it. The landlord said that the resident could also consider finding his own short-term accommodation if he felt unsafe in his home. It explained that it would consider the resident’s request about the door, but suspected alteration would not be possible.
6. On 4 August 2020 the resident replied that he could not afford temporary accommodation, and asked what other options were available in his situation. He repeated his request for the neighbour’s door to be moved, because the ASB incidents were usually in the communal hallway.
7. The landlord responded on 7 August 2020 that temporary accommodation would not usually be open to leaseholders, but it had explained the situation to the local authority. The local authority could assist and arrange for temporary accommodation, but there was no recourse to assist the resident financially, and this was the case for any private resident or council tenant who was not in receipt of benefits. The landlord provided the resident with information on how he could take up the option or discuss it further with the local authority. The landlord confirmed that the situation with the neighbour’s door had not changed. It had made a formal request for information from the police and was liaising with its solicitor on whether there was any further action the landlord could take.
8. The resident asked how he could appeal the decision regarding the relocation of the neighbour’s door, and, on 11 August 2020, the landlord confirmed that it had raised a formal complaint for him. It said it would respond within 15 working days.
9. On 26 August 2020 the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. It explained why a separate entrance for the resident’s flat was not viable because of the structure and layout of the property. The landlord said that it was sorry to hear that the resident could not afford to pay for temporary accommodation but reiterated its explanation in its email of 7 August 2020. It explained how the resident could escalate his complaint if he was dissatisfied with the response.
10. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 September 2020 and asked to escalate his complaint. He clarified that he was asking the landlord to relocate the neighbour’s door, not his, and he felt that the landlord had not taken the full circumstances into consideration. The resident explained that the focal point for his neighbour’s “frequent hostility, violent assaults and offences” had been the communal hallway. The neighbour’s actions had affected the resident’s mental health, and he was concerned that a similar situation could re-occur regardless of whether there was successful repossession of the neighbour’s property.
11. On 3 September 2020 the landlord confirmed that it aimed to respond to the complaint within ten working days.
12. In the landlord’s further complaint response of 16 September 2020 it said there would be nowhere to relocate the bathroom within the neighbour’s property, to accommodate the door being moved. The layout of the property prohibited the moving of the door and therefore the landlord was unable to meet the resident’s request.
13. On 25 October 2020 the resident said he was not happy with the landlord’s response, as outlined in his letter of 2 September 2020, and asked to escalate the complaint.
14. The landlord sent its chief executive complaint response on 21 January 2021. It apologised for its delay in responding, explained that this was due to an increase in escalated complaint requests, and offered the resident £25 in recognition of the delay.
15. The landlord reiterated that for structural reasons it could not move the neighbour’s door. It considered supporting the resident in a move to another property but, as leaseholder, the resident would be liable for all associated costs.
16. The landlord confirmed that the neighbour had significant health issues, including mental health concerns. The landlord had arranged various support services for the neighbour, but the resident still experienced ASB, and so it was also providing  support to the resident. Following the resident’s report that the neighbour threatened the resident with a knife, the police were involved and there was a prosecution in November 2020. Unfortunately, there were further incidents and the neighbour had now been charged. Following these incidents, the resident was being supported by a witness service, a charity, and his GP.
17. The landlord concluded that it worked closely with the resident and support services. While it was unable to help further with a temporary move, it hoped that its continued support and action, and support from other agencies and police would help alleviate the ASB situation. The landlord explained that this was its final response to the complaint and the resident may contact this Service if he remained unhappy.
18. It is not clear what prompted a further response, but on 5 March 2021, the landlord updated the resident. It said that it was actively pursuing rehousing the neighbour, but that would require the neighbour’s cooperation and agreement from his support providers. However, it was unable to recommend moving his front door for several reasons. These included the structural reasons, the planning and costs required, and that there was no guarantee that the suggested works would prevent further ASB. The landlord noted that in a recent telephone call with the resident, it discussed the courts and legal action. It confirmed that possession orders were still suspended nationally. The landlord reiterated that if the resident remained dissatisfied, he could complain to this Service.

Assessment and findings

19. There is no dispute between either the landlord or resident that there is serious ongoing ASB from the neighbour. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the landlord was taking legal action against the neighbour, which can often be a lengthy process. The resident’s complaint focuses on the landlord’s response to the suggestions he made to improve his situation in the meantime.
20. While the situation was understandably distressing and frustrating for the resident, there is no evidence indicating that moving the neighbour’s door was a viable or realistic option. The landlord’s explanations and response to the resident’s request was therefore reasonable. Ultimately, it is for the landlord to decide how to manage its assets, and, while it considered the resident’s request, it explained in detail why that could not be done, and why it may not resolve the ASB problem.
21. Because the resident is a leaseholder, some of the options that might be open to a tenant, such as a management move, were not available. The landlord explained how the local authority might assist with temporary accommodation, but this would need to be paid for by the resident. The landlord also raised the option of the resident finding his own alternative accommodation, but again, there is no evidence of financial support that might have been available to the resident in doing so. While neither option was suitable for the resident, these actions show that the landlord was attempting to assist. The landlord also ensured that the resident was aware of sources of support available to him at the time.
22. Overall, the landlord considered the resident’s request to move the neighbour’s door but explained in detail why that option was not viable, or even possible. It considered the resident’s requests for a temporary move and explained the options available to him in that regard, all of which involved costs to him. There is no evidence that the landlord was obliged to rehouse the resident in the circumstances of his complaint.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

24. The landlord thoroughly considered the resident’s circumstances and the options available in light of the ASB he faced, but was unable to agree to his requests. It clearly explained the options available, and why the resident’s suggestion of altering the building were not viable.