Leeds City Council (202105984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105984

Leeds City Council

1 September 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 complaints are about:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an incident involving an operative working at a neighbouring property.
   2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an incident involving the operative’s wife at a local school; and the vandalism of cars belonging to her and her partner.
   3. the landlord’s enquiries regarding a fence that the resident has erected outside the property.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, complaints b and c, as detailed above, fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The incident at the school and the vandalism of the cars

4. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has explained that when she went to collect her children from school a few days after the incident at the property, the operative’s wife verbally abused her, and behaved in a threatening manner.  Later, on 6 April 2021, the resident says that both her and her partner’s cars were vandalised. The resident says that the damage was carried out by three men who she believes are known to the operative.
5. While the resident’s concerns about these incidents are acknowledged, these are not matters which the Ombudsman can investigate. The role of the Ombudsman is to investigate complaints about member landlords – or those acting on their behalf – in relation to housing-related activities. The incident at the school and the vandalism of the car are criminal matters, which would be most appropriately investigated by the police – and ultimately considered in court.
6. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person or other tribunal procedure. It follows that complaint b falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

The fence

7. In correspondence to this Service, the resident says that following the incident at the school and the vandalism of their cars, they erected a new fence outside of the property for additional safety. However, she says that the landlord queried whether they had obtained the appropriate permissions, and informed them that it would be sending a surveyor round to assess the fence. The resident says that they will not take the fence down, and that she is upset that the landlord is more concerned about the fence than the wellbeing of her family after the incidents.
8. The resident’s reasons for erecting the fence are noted, and not disputed. However, paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. The Ombudsman has not seen anything which suggests that the resident has raised this as a formal complaint with the landlord – and that it has had the opportunity to respond to the matter. It follows that the Ombudsman cannot investigate the resident’s concerns about this as part of this complaint.
9. If the resident remains concerned about the matter, she may wish to make a formal complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman may then be able to consider the issues surrounding the fence as a new complaint.

Background and summary of events

10. The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. She resides at the property with her partner (Mr R) and two children. The resident has advised that her children have disabilities and vulnerabilities. The property has a driveway which is shared with the neighbouring property.
11. On 9 March 2021, Mr R contacted the landlord to make a complaint. He said that an operative of the landlord’s contractor had been working at the property next door and was blocking the driveway. He said that upon asking the operative to move the vehicle he became aggressive and the police were ultimately called. Mr R added that the operatives had been on site for two to three weeks and there had been issues since the works started.
12. The same day, the operative reported the incident internally – and the contractor relayed the message to the landlord. It said that the operative had parked his vehicle close to the skip, and the resident came out “shouting”, and told him that he could not leave his vehicle there. The operative said that he explained that he was not leaving the vehicle there, but was offloading materials; adding that he would move it if they needed to leave. The contractor asked if they could have some clarification about ownership of the driveway and if landlord staff could speak with the resident.
13. On 11 March, Mr R called the landlord to discuss further concerns about the operative and the works next door. He said that he felt that they had to watch their cars, and that they felt unsafe with the operative working next door. Mr R added that the operative had been allowed to return to the neighbouring property and he wanted to know why. He confirmed that he had contacted the police in relation to the matter, and that he would be contacting them again.
14. Mr R added that his partner suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and this had been triggered by the incident. He also explained that his children, and the operative’s children, went to the same school, and this had resulted in the operative’s wife and his partner “having words” at the school during pick-up. Mr R said he understood that the school issue was separate, but the issue on 9 March was during working hours when the operative was contracted to the landlord. He asked for an update on what action was being taken.
15. Meanwhile, the landlord made enquiries with the contractor and asked if the operative – and others who were present at the time – could provide a statement detailing the events and what had transpired. The landlord also made enquiries with the police, who confirmed that the incident had been filed ‘with no further action’. The police did ask if the operative could be redeployed to avoid ongoing stress to the residents.
16. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 19 March 2021. In its letter it said:
    1. Its understanding of the complaint was that:
       1. the operative working on the neighbouring property blocked in the resident’s vehicle and when asked to move he became aggressive.
       2. This escalated to a verbal altercation at the local school and involved people known to the operative. Police had been involved.
       3. The residents had advised they felt intimidated in their home, and wanted to know why the operative had not been removed from site.
    2. The landlord advised that to investigate the matter, it had requested statements from the operative as well as a witness. While it was waiting to receive the statements, it had asked the operative not to return to the neighbouring property unless absolutely necessary – and only when accompanied by another operative.
    3. The statements provided gave a different version of the events described by Mr R. 
    4. The incidents which took place away from the property were being dealt with by the police, and as such it was unable to comment on them.
    5. It was sorry that the resident and Mr R felt intimidated in their home. It had asked the operative not to attend the property again while its investigation was underway. Although the investigation was complete, the witness statements were at odds from the events that Mr R had described. Nevertheless, it had agreed with the contractor to deploy the operative elsewhere.
17. Mr R made a further complaint on 24 March. He said that they had received the stage one response, and noted in particular the explanation that the operative had been asked not to attend the neighbouring property again. Despite the landlord’s complaint response, the operative had been at the property that morning and as such they felt that the complaint had not been taken seriously. Mr R asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s procedure.
18. The landlord subsequently issued its stage two response to the complaint on 31 March 2021. It said:
    1. The complaint had been partially upheld at stage one, and it was agreed that the operative would not visit the neighbouring house unless he was accompanied.
    2. The resident had said the operative subsequently attended the property alone.
    3. The landlord was disappointed that the resident had to complain further and had contacted the main contractor to express that disappointment. The distress the resident’s family has been caused was noted and the contractor advised that the operative should not work on the neighbouring property again.
    4. The resident could contact the Technical Services Manager directly if they felt that the operative was seen at the neighbouring property again. 

Events after the stage two response

19. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that on 6 April 2021 their cars were vandalised with the windows being smashed. Due to continued problems with the operative’s wife, they had taken their children out of the school. They felt victimised and targeted by the landlord who had not called to see how they were. They felt unsupported and that the landlord was discriminating against them because they have disabilities.
20. In response to the Ombudsman’s request for further information relating to the complaint, the landlord has advised that the operative did attend the neighbouring property on one further occasion “to take a delivery and instruct on works”. It added that there was no altercation with the neighbouring resident and that he was accompanied by another operative. However, in light of the further complaint by Mr R, the landlord asked for the operative to be deployed elsewhere as it was acknowledged that the situation was causing the family distress. 

Assessment and findings

21. The Ombudsman’s role when investigating complaints of this nature is not to determine whether the incidents have occurred as alleged. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the evidence that is available and reach a conclusion as to whether the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations when responding to a resident’s report.
22. The landlord has provided a copy of its “Employee Code of Conduct”. This sets out the expectations of staff who work for it, or on its behalf. However, the Code of Conduct does not set out what procedure will be followed in the event that a complaint is received about an employee or contracted member of staff. The Ombudsman has therefore assessed how the landlord responded to Mr R’s complaint, and whether its investigation and response was appropriate in the circumstances
23. On receipt of Mr R’s complaint, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the incident at the property. This included obtaining a statement from the operative concerned, and another witness. While the investigation was underway, the landlord asked the contractor if it could ensure that the operative did not attend the property unless it was “absolutely necessary”; and that if he did have to attend, that he did not do so unaccompanied. This was a proportionate step to take while the outcome of the landlord’s investigation was pending. 
24.  When the landlord issued its stage one response, it explained the actions that it had taken to investigate the incident and what precautionary measures it had taken. This was appropriate.
25. On receipt of the request to escalate the complaint, the landlord asked the contractor to deploy the operative elsewhere. Although the landlord’s investigation had been somewhat inconclusive, it acknowledged that the resident and her family had been distressed by the events – and that they felt unsafe. This demonstrates that the landlord had fully considered the circumstances leading to the complaint, and the resident’s concerns that they did not feel safe with the operative attending the next-door property.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an incident involving an operative working at a neighbouring property.

Reasons

27. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident.