Islington Council (202302009)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302009

Islington Council

26 March 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment by his neighbours.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has stated that the resident suffers from chronic depression and is vulnerable due to his physical and mental health.
4. The landlord’s records show the resident had made regular reports of noise nuisance and racial harassment from his neighbour in the flat above since March 2021. On 17 November 2021, the landlord confirmed it had carried out the following actions in response:
   1. Requested for repairs to investigate the noise from the pipes
   2. Carried out a home visit to the neighbour to assess the property
   3. Requested information from the police who took no action
   4. Listened to the noise reported via the noise app
   5. Delivered a letter to other residents in the block regarding reporting ASB
   6. Agreed weekly phone contact with the resident
   7. Assisted the resident to complete a new sheltered accommodation application
5. On 7 January 2022, a community trigger meeting took place in relation to the resident’s case. The outcome confirmed the named contact for the resident and the following recommendations for the landlord:
   1. To enforce suitable flooring replacement in flats to minimise noise disruption
   2. To facilitate “Norsonic listening equipment”
   3. To support the resident with his successful application for sheltered / supported accommodation
   4. Police to follow up the investigation and referral regarding the hate crime
6. On 21 February 2022, the landlord issued the resident with a notice of seeking possession for the property. The reasons for the notice were outlined as continued ASB caused by shouting, swearing, and threatening a neighbour and being abusive to a member of staff. The resident contacted the landlord and apologised for his behaviour. He confirmed that he had also apologised to the neighbour who accepted his apology. The landlord said that if there were no further reports against him then it would not move forward with action.
7. The resident continued to make reports of noise nuisance and racial harassment from the neighbour to both the landlord and the police. The neighbour made counter allegations towards the resident. The resident submitted his formal complaint on 27 March 2023. He stated that he had been experiencing ASB for 4 years and it was ongoing. He said a zoom meeting was arranged with the landlord prior to Christmas and no-one attended. He said vital information had been lost via the noise app and incident reporting sheets.
8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 May 2023. It apologised for not responding by the specified deadline and offered £25 in compensation. The landlord said that the ASB case was open and being worked on. It said it had reviewed 268 recordings of noise and it concluded that the majority contained low level background noise. The landlord confirmed it had taken note of 1 recording in which the resident was racially abused and said it had been addressed with the neighbour. It said that counter allegations had been made and it encouraged the resident and neighbour to keep their distance from each other. It said it was unaware of a meeting in December 2022 and stated that no evidence provided had been lost. The complaint was not upheld.
9. The complaint was escalated and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 August 2023 and stated the following:
   1. It agreed with the outcome at stage 1.
   2. The neighbour was issued with a warning for the racial abuse. It said that further tenancy action would be taken if the racial abuse persisted and if the resident provided evidence.
   3. That mediation was offered and both the resident and neighbour agreed to it. However, victim support was unable to take on the resident’s case due to availability and it would chase them so mediation could proceed.
   4. The case was still open and under investigation. The complaint was not upheld.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said it had been ongoing for 20 years and the landlord had done nothing to bring it to an end. He referred to the meeting before Christmas and that it was never rearranged. He also said the landlord had lost all his evidence and recordings. The outcome he wanted was for the landlord to apologise for the delays in reviewing the complaint, to provide compensation for the time and stress caused, and to evict his neighbours.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by the Scheme. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.”
12. This investigation focuses on events from the community trigger meeting on 7 January 2022 as a reasonable period to evaluate the landlord’s management of reported ASB before the resident’s formal complaint in March 2022. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure (which concluded on 3 August 2023), have not been investigated here and are referenced for contextual purposes only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and harassment by his neighbours.

13. Following ASB reports, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies. This should include assessing risks, discussing cases with those involved, and using available tools to discourage ASB. The landlord should consider vulnerability and carry out impact assessments, and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner. It should consider its obligation as a landlord to treat allegations from all its customers in a consistent and evidence-led way.
14. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that a risk assessment should be completed with the reporter as part of the initial discussion. That it is a live document and must be reviewed and updated as the case progresses or more incidents happen. It states that a safety and action plan should also be completed with the reporter and should be updated as the case progresses.
15. It is recognised that most of the recordings submitted were considered low-level and did not meet the criteria for statutory noise nuisance. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints highlights the need for landlords to develop a strategy for handling non-statutory noise seriously, sensitively, and proportionately. The landlord acted appropriately in keeping an open mind to the potential causes of some of the noise such as the machinery room on the floor above. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider carrying out its own checks to satisfy itself if that was indeed the case and whether more could have been done to minimise the noise, there is no evidence it did so.
16. In the community trigger outcome, the landlord stated that it would enforce suitable flooring replacement in flats to minimise noise disruption. In an internal email at the same time, it was agreed that it would enforce carpet being put down in the neighbour’s property as a condition of tenancy. It is positive that the landlord identified the flooring as a potential contributor to the noise and outlined steps to remedy the issue. It would have been useful to see evidence of it enforcing this with the neighbour within a reasonable timeframe. The resident continued to report the noise on a regular basis up until his formal complaint in March 2023. It is not clear from the information provided whether carpet was put down and whether it had influence on the alleged noise nuisance.
17. In his formal complaint the resident stated that the landlord had lost vital information via its noise apps and incident reporting sheets. He also stated that there was meant to be a meeting before Christmas and the housing officer did not turn up. The resident’s wellbeing practitioner informed the Ombudsman that the resident recorded abuse by his neighbours but the landlord stated that the device had failed and the recording could not be heard. It is disappointing that the landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge this or suggest that it had investigated the resident’s concerns thoroughly. If the landlord was unclear about what the resident was referring to, it would have been appropriate for it to have contacted the resident to obtain further information. Its response was dismissive and would have been frustrating to the resident.
18. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment at any stage of the ASB investigation which is required under its ASB procedure. The resident reported the detrimental impact the noise disturbance and racial abuse was having on his mental wellbeing and existing vulnerabilities. However, there is no evidence that these risk factors were considered. This was a failing by the landlord. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to assess the level of risk when the resident initially raised an ASB complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete ongoing risk assessments particularly given that the resident raised allegations of hate incidents. This would have provided the landlord with the opportunity to assess any potential harm arising from the resident’s reports. Further, it would have allowed the landlord to consider what support the resident required.
19. The evidence shows that the landlord liaised with the police throughout 2022 and 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the complaints with the police and for the landlord to advise the resident to report any hate incidents with the police when they happen. This demonstrated good practice. However, the landlord should consider that while it was appropriate to advise the resident to contact the police, the landlord was still responsible for providing support and interventions to target the ASB. This is highlighted in an email sent from the police in December 2022 stating that the case had been ongoing for 2 years and appears to be impacting the resident’s health and wellbeing. They asked for the resident to be re-housed. It is not satisfactory that the landlord’s contemporaneous records are unclear about its actions and position after contact with the police such as this.
20. The records show that mediation was offered to the resident and the neighbour on more than one occasion. Both the resident and the neighbour had agreed to it, however, there were delays in the mediation commencing due to the lack of availability from victim support. The landlord has since acknowledged that it was not good practice to suggest mediation and stated that any form of discrimination means that mediation is not an appropriate tool to use to manage ASB. It said it would ensure that the relevant teams are reminded of this. It is positive that the landlord has reflected on this and taken appropriate action to learn from its error. However, it should consider what other formal or informal action it could have taken to prevent potential escalation by both parties, in line with its policy.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that a warning was issued to the neighbour. It said that further tenancy action would be taken if the racial abuse persisted and if the resident provided evidence. In its communication to the Ombudsman, the landlord stated that no warning had been issued to date as there had not been enough evidence to warrant it. The landlord’s accounts are conflicting and it remains unclear whether the landlord issued a warning to the neighbour. In its responses the landlord did not explain what evidence would be suitable to provide to the landlord to warrant further tenancy action. This would have been helpful given the landlord already had at least one recording in the period investigated in which the neighbour used racist language towards the resident. The landlord has provided evidence to show that it replayed the recording to the neighbour but there is no information as to what, if any, next steps were taken. This is a further failing on behalf of the landlord. Further, the landlord failed to offer target hardening measures to the resident, which may have supported him throughout the life of the case.
22. Overall, the landlord’s actions in relation to the noise nuisance would have been considered reasonable. However, it is unclear whether the landlord followed up on its enforcement of carpet in the neighbour’s property and did enough to investigate the potential noise from the machinery room. It is also unclear whether the landlord did enough to satisfy itself that the resident’s recordings were not lost. The landlord failed to follow its policy when addressing the ongoing ASB and harassment by the resident’s neighbour. This includes regular contact with the resident, completion of risk assessments, appropriate safeguarding referrals, and an action plan.
23. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the landlord effectively handled the situation or took the appropriate steps to reach a fair resolution. While the resident was also investigated as a perpetrator of ASB and the landlord was having to balance different needs, this should not impact the service to which he was entitled. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment by his neighbour.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2-stage complaint procedure, where it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
25. It states that where a complaint is not upheld, the response should provide the outcome and the reason. It should also provide an explanation detailing the investigation that was made into the complaint and why the complaint was not upheld.
26. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where the council has unjustifiably delayed in taking action in neighbour nuisance cases, compensation may be appropriate. However, consideration must be given to the action that the complainant has taken to assist in solving the problem, for example, whether they have filled in diary sheets. Also, whether they have acted in an unreasonable way that has contributed to the problem with the neighbour. It outlines compensation for distress, taking into consideration the severity, frequency, vulnerability of the complainant, and the extent of the council’s failure to act.
27. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 17 April 2023 as he had not received a response from the landlord following his formal complaint submitted on 27 March 2023. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in relation to this and the landlord confirmed it had received the resident’s complaint and would respond by 3 May 2023. The landlord provided its response on 2 May 2023. In its response it stated that the resident’s complaint was submitted on 31 March 2023, it apologised for the delay and offered £25 in compensation. It is unclear from the records provided whether the resident submitted his complaint on 27 or 31 March 2023. Either way, the landlord’s response was outside of its timescales, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided an explanation for this to ensure it did not happen again in the future.
28. The resident requested a stage 2 escalation on 23 May 2023 and the landlord responded to request the reasons why the resident remained dissatisfied and asked what remedy would settle his complaint. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 6 July 2023 to say that the resident had asked to escalate the matter to stage 2 and was contacted by an ASB officer following this but no action was taken. The Ombudsman requested the landlord provide its stage 2 response by 13 July 2023. The landlord responded on the same day and said that the resident was responded to and asked to provide the reasons for the request. It said the contact by the ASB officer was in relation to a general matter, not the complaint. It said it was not aware of the escalation reasons until the contact from the Ombudsman and requested 20 working days to respond. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 August 2023, 20 working days later. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s frustration, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord did not follow its policy in relation to the stage 2 escalation.
29. The resident’s complaint was not upheld in both the stage 1 and 2 responses. As already identified, the landlord did not provide a sufficient explanation to detail how it had investigated the resident’s complaint that records had been lost and that a meeting was scheduled prior to Christmas and no-one attended. In not doing so, the landlord’s response appeared dismissive and would not have reassured the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Special report on Islington Council

30. In October 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord highlighting concerns with disrepair, ASB, and complaint handling. In relation to ASB and noise, the report made recommendations for the landlord to self assess, apply its procedure, and put in place structured proactive processes for monitoring its compliance with its policy.
31. While the landlord has engaged with the Ombudsman and progress has been made, we have continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance. This is evidenced in the recent findings against the landlord and similar failings which have been identified in this report. It is acknowledged the events in this report pre-date the special report. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our special report dated October 2023.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment by his neighbours.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

33. The landlord is to offer a meeting with the resident to understand any ongoing concerns. The landlord should act in accordance with its policy and procedure. Where appropriate it should conduct a risk assessment, agree an action plan, and communicate with the relevant parties. It should consider any target hardening measures it can put in place for the resident and any specialist support referrals which may be appropriate too. If the landlord considers no further action is required, it should write to the resident detailing why it has made this decision.
34. If the landlord has not done so already, it must carry out its commitment to enforcing carpet is placed in the property above the residents.
35. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £700 compensation comprising of:
    1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and harassment from this neighbour.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint. This is inclusive of the £25 offered in the landlord’s stage 1 response.
36. The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

37. The landlord should support the resident where it is able to ensure the circumstances for rehousing are effectively understood.