Lambeth Council (202012031)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012031

Lambeth Council

22 September 2022

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 report of anti-social behaviour.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and lives in a one-bedroom flat.
3. There have been historical reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) between the resident and her neighbours in a nearby property. In January 2021, the resident said her neighbours were abusive towards her, and tried to enter her property. She also thought they had put glue in the lock of her shed door. The resident reported this to the landlord. She then complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports, which she said dated back for 18 years.
4. The landlord issued its stage one response on the resident’s complaint. It made the following points:
   1. It said it had taken a number of actions to establish whether any ASB had taken place in January 2021, but had not found evidence of this.
   2. It advised the resident that it had requested a new police disclosure, and said it would then determine if there was sufficient evidence of ASB.
   3. It asked the resident to complete witness statements giving full details of any ASB incidents.
   4. It confirmed it had made a safeguarding referral to adult social care on the resident’s behalf.
   5. In respect of counter-allegation of ASB made by the resident’s neighbours, the landlord said it was required to investigate all complaints. It confirmed that if it could not find enough evidence to support her neighbours’ claim of ASB, then the case would be closed and the resident notified of this.

5. The resident later sent the landlord a video of the ASB from January 2021. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB. Following this, the landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a warning letter and soon after, the neighbour vacated their property. The landlord issued its final response on the complaint, and confirmed that it would not be taking any further action in respect of the reported ASB as the perpetrators were no longer its tenants.

6. The resident brought her complaint to this Service. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB, and said she still felt unsafe in her property. She thought her previous neighbours may come back to visit friends within the block of flats where she lives.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the resident’s concerns about ASB going back 18 years. This is because as issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult for both the landlord and this Service to conduct effective investigations. Over protracted periods of time, recollections become unreliable and records may not be retained. This can hinder the Ombudsman’s ability to establish what did or did not take place. Instead, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the more recent reports of ASB in January 2021 which were subject to the formal complaint.
8. The resident has raised concerns to this Service about more recent noise by new tenants in the property which her previous neighbours had vacated. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on specific issues which have not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process in the first instance. This is so that we can be sure that the landlord has had an adequate opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues internally before we intervene. The resident should therefore raise her concerns about the noise from the new neighbours with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s handling of the reported ASB

9. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that the tenancy agreements clearly prohibit being violent, abusive or threatening towards others in the property or locality. It also says that where there is evidence of tenancy conditions being broken, the landlord can respond in various ways. These include; – take no action; take informal action such as verbal warnings, sending a letter and/or referral to mediation; and to take legal action (amongst others).
10. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of ASB was in line with relevant policies, procedures and good practice.
11. The resident sent the landlord a number of videos of the alleged ASB that she says occurred in January 2021. The landlord said it was not able to view all of the recordings she sent, but for the ones it could view, there was no evidence of ASB. It was appropriate for the landlord to view the video evidence it was sent, to establish if there was any evidence of ASB. The landlord also requested a police disclosure, as the police had attended the incident. That was also appropriate, however the landlord confirmed that the information provided to it by the police also did not support any wrongdoing by the resident’s neighbours.
12. The landlord asked the resident to complete witness statement sheets so it could use this to build a case for potential legal action. As these sheets provide first-hand evidence of incidents, as well as the frequency of these, this request was reasonable. Though it is understood the resident chose not to complete these.
13. The landlord did not offer the resident and her neighbour mediation on this occasion, as this had previously been offered to the parties and the resident did not wish to take part. Mediation can be a useful tool when there are neighbour disputes, though it is appreciated that when matters have been taking place over a long period of time, mediation may not be appropriate, particularly when it has been offered previously and refused.
14. The landlord arranged a referral to adult social care for the resident. Although the resident was unhappy about the landlord’s decision to do this, the referral was made so that an assessment could take place to ensure that the resident was able to deal with the issues with her neighbours that she had reported. That was not unreasonable, as the landlord has a duty of care to the resident, and she had advised the landlord that she did not feel safe in her home.
15. The landlord said it was not able to carry out home visits at the time, due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions in place. However, it did carry out a door knocking exercise, where it spoke with other tenants in the same block of flats as the resident and her neighbours. It did so in order to find out if there were any witnesses to the incident that happened in January 2021, and also establish if other tenants were experiencing ASB from the resident’s neighbours. This demonstrated that the landlord was taking steps to establish whether there was evidence of the ASB reported by the resident.
16. The resident maintained that she had video evidence of the ASB she had reported in January 2021. Unfortunately, it seems this was recorded on the video evidence that the landlord was not able to view. The resident therefore reduced the file size, and it is understood she sent this to the landlord in July 2021 (via her MP). The landlord viewed this file, and appears to have then accepted that this showed evidence of the ASB as reported by the resident. The landlord then sent the resident’s neighbours a warning letter. That was an appropriate response, and was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. However, it appears that this was the first occasion that the landlord had contacted the resident’s neighbours about the ASB.
17. The landlord’s ASB policy did not specify that it would contact the alleged perpetrator for a statement, though this is common practice for landlords when investigating ASB reports as it helps effectively manage the case. It is appreciated that the landlord was prevented from carrying out a home visit given Covid-19 pandemic restrictions at the time. Though given that the landlord was able to carry out a door knocking exercise to the other tenants in the block of flats, it is not known why the landlord did not also visit the alleged perpetrators to speak with them without actually entering the property.
18. It is understood that the landlord did attempt to call the resident’s neighbours to discuss the matter but could not get through to them. Though this phone call was not attempted until July 2021, which was around six months after the resident first told the landlord about the incident. This was not appropriate, particularly given the serious nature of the resident’s allegations against her neighbours. The landlord ought to have attempted to contact the resident’s neighbours after the resident notified it of the ASB. It is noted that the landlord had an email address for the neighbours, and so could have contacted them in this way.
19. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the ASB being reported in line with its ASB policy. However, there is concern that it failed to contact the resident’s neighbours promptly to discuss the incident of January 2021 after the resident’s initial reports, and only did so in July 2021 after it received video evidence which apparently corroborated the resident’s allegations.
20. If the landlord had contacted the resident’s neighbours after she had reported the ASB in January 2021, it would have been clear to the resident that the landlord was taking her concerns seriously. She also would have been reassured that her neighbours had been spoken to about these concerns, and that an ASB case had been opened. The Ombudsman considers the resident was caused unnecessary worry and upset by the landlord’s failure to take this action after she reported the ASB.
21. After the landlord issued the resident’s neighbours with a warning letter, they made the decision to move out of the property. The landlord therefore closed the ASB file. That was appropriate, as the landlord could not take any further action against the resident’s previous neighbours as they are no longer the landlord’s tenants. Although the resident is concerned that her previous neighbours know where she lives and may return to visit friends in the same block of flats, the landlord has no control over this. The landlord has advised the resident that if she feels unsafe, she should contact the police, which was appropriate advice. It is understood that the resident wishes the landlord to rehouse her, though the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord is required to take this action, particularly as the perpetrators have moved away.
22. It is noted that the resident’s neighbours made counter-allegations of ASB against her. The landlord advised the resident of this, and after receiving completed diary entry sheets from the resident’s neighbours of alleged ASB carried out by her, the landlord issued the resident with a warning letter as it was satisfied that sufficient evidence had been provided to warrant such a course of action. Although the resident was unhappy about this, the landlord was following its ASB policy in taking this action. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the ASB case against her would be closed if there were no further reports of ASB and it has confirmed to this Service that the case was permanently closed in December 2021.
23. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s actions were largely in accordance with the requirements of its ASB policy and in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations in such cases. It took various steps to gather evidence of potential ASB from the neighbour, including issuing diary sheets, conducting a door knocking exercise, liaising with the police and reviewing video footage. Having satisfied itself that there was sufficient evidence on file of unacceptable behaviour on the part of the neighbour, it issued a warning letter, with the neighbour subsequently vacating their property.
24. However, there are concerns that its response was not sufficiently robust when first contacted by the resident in January 2021, which led to unnecessary inconvenience for the resident and potential escalation of the issue. For this reason, an overall finding of service failure has been identified here, with an order of compensation made to reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience and recommendations included for the landlord to remind staff about the requirements of its ASB policy and for it to contact the resident to confirm what support it may be able to provide her in her attempts to secure alternative accommodation.

Determination

25. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Order

26. In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB, the landlord should award the resident £150.
27. The landlord should ensure that the above payment is made within four weeks of receiving this determination, with evidence provided to this Service by the same date.

 Recommendations

28. The landlord should remind its staff of its ASB policy, and that it is good practice to take a statement from an alleged perpetrator when it is notified of an ASB incident.
29. If the resident still wishes to be rehoused, the landlord should provide her with information on how she can apply for another property.