Leicester City Council (202001361)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001361

Leicester City Council

30 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour’s adult son.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and scope of investigation.

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 30 July 2018. The property is a first floor flat, which is located directly above the flat of the neighbour whose son is the subject of the ASB reports made by the resident in relation to this case.
The local authority has Safer Partnership. The local authority’s Safer Partnership policy states that whilst different services have their own policies and procedures for dealing with ASB, the different services cannot tackle ASB alone, and must work in partnership with others if they are to deal with it effectively. The policy goes on to state that the local authority’s Anti‐Social Behaviour Unit (LASBU) responds and deals with the most serious cases of ASB in partnership with other agencies including local authority housing services (the landlord) and the Police.
The local authority’s ASB policy confirms that social landlords, will continue to use good estate management techniques to tackle ASB and will pass on cases of persistent and serious ASB that they have been unable to resolve through their own policies and procedures, cases that require legal action and those where actual or threats of violence have been made. The policy states that the LASBU will investigate, collate and progress the case to a satisfactory conclusion and that responsibility for tenancy management remains with the landlord.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
1. On receiving report of ASB it will take appropriate and reasonable action including warning letters, ABC agreements, Supporting Tenants and residents (STAR) referrals, property transfer, Possession Order, Injunction, ASBO, perpetrator referral to health services.
2. Consider whether to refer the case to the LASBU and to work with partner agencies to investigate ASB as appropriate. It will also refer the case to the Police and the LASBU immediately if there is a risk of violence, threats of violence or a risk of significant harm
3. It recognises that partnership working is required to challenge those causing anti-social behaviour and, as such works closely with the LASBU and the Police amongst other organisations and groups.
4. With regards to a referral to the LASBU, housing officers should have interviewed the complainant, alleged perpetrator and witnesses first, produced notes of the case and then completed a referral form. Team Leaders must approve LASBU referrals.
Whilst this report makes reference to actions taken by the LASBU, those actions have not been assessed as part of this investigation and have been provided for context only. This is because the role of the local authority in respect of its LASBU is separate to its capacity as a registered provider of social housing, and the discharging of its landlord function. This is confirmed in the local authority’s ASB policy which differentiates between the actions of social housing providers and its LASBU. As such, any concerns raised by the resident about the actions of the LASBU are likely to fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This investigation therefore focuses on the actions of the local authority in respect of its capacity as a registered provider of social housing (the landlord) and whether those actions were fair and reasonable and in accordance with its obligations under its ASB policy.
It is noted that there is a long history of the resident experiencing ASB by her neighbour’s adult son dating back to September 2018. However, this assessment focuses on events following the neighbour signing a Police Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) with the landlord on 7 August 2019 in which the neighbour agreed to take responsibility for her son’s behaviour, approximately nine months prior to the resident emailing the landlord on 23 May 2020, to complain about the service she had received from a number of parties, including the landlord. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, normally within six months, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Summary of events.

On 8 August 2019, the landlord referred the resident’s case to LASBU stating that it had exhausted the initial stages of its incremental approach towards addressing anti-social behaviour. Advice and warning letters had been completed along with an Acceptable Behaviour Contract. The LASBU requested further details from the landlord before a decision could be made as to whether the case was eligible for its services.
On 10 September 2019, the landlord interviewed the resident regarding further incidents of ASB by the neighbour’s adult son between 7 August and 28 August 2019, the reports made were of behaviour of a similar nature to that set out in the ABC with the neighbour. The resident was issued with ASB incident diary sheets and it was agreed that these would be reviewed in 14 days’ time. The resident was advised to continue reporting incidents to the Police and the local authority’s Noise Nuisance team. During the interview, the resident advised that she was receiving support from her GP for depression and was on medication. The resident also said that she was open to Victim Support.
On 17 September 2019 the resident reported further ASB by her neighbour’s son, including that they had called her a Police informer and told her she was going to be killed. In her email to the landlord on 17 September 2019, the resident said that she had again reported this new incident to the police, that it had been a year since she had moved into the property, that she had not had a decent night sleep during that time and was living like she had no value or worth. The resident’s email was also sent to the police and Victim Support.
The landlord interviewed the resident’s neighbour on 17 September 2019, with the Police. The interview notes state that the purpose of the meeting was to review the ABC dated 7 August 2019 and to discuss the reports made since, including the report made by the resident earlier that day. During the meeting the neighbour advised that she had asked her son not to attend due to his issues and concerns that he would disrupt the meeting, the neighbour was also warned that her tenancy was at risk. The actions taken from that meeting were that the case would be referred to LASBU for action to be taken, for the neighbour’s son to engage with support services and for the neighbour to ask that their son vacate their property.
The additional information requested by the LASBU was provided by the landlord on 27 August 2019 and on 23 September 2019 the case was accepted by LASBU.
On 24 October 2019 a Multi-Agency Individual Management meeting (CIMM) was held to create an action plan to address the neighbour’s son’s behaviour. The meeting was chaired by the LASBU and was attended by the Police, the landlord and a support organisation.
On 3 March 2020, the LASBU issued the neighbour’s son with an ASB Cease and Desist letter. The letter confirmed that the case had been referred to them by the landlord in October 2019 and concerned his on-going ASB. It was noted that there had been a reduction in the incidents over the Christmas period, however it had been made aware of an incident which took place on 18 February 2020, in which he had verbally abused the resident. The letter also referred to a report from the resident’s about him subjecting two men who were delivering furniture to her flat to rude and aggressive behaviour. He was warned that if this behaviour continued he would be putting his mother’s tenancy at risk and that enforcement action against him may need to be considered, such as a civil injunction which could include that he be excluded from his home. The letter also referred to his engagement with support services, which the LASBU said it was in regular contact with.
Between 11 March and 21 May 2020, the resident made multiple reports of ASB, of a similar nature, by the neighbour’s son to the LASBU, a number of these emails were also sent to the landlord, Police and Victim Support.
On 23 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, the LASBU, the Police and this service to complain about the continued ASB by her neighbour’s son and the service she had received from the LASBU, her housing officer and the Police. The resident said that she had done what she could to raise her concerns relating to the ASB and it had come to a stage where she was not receiving any communication from her housing officer or their line manager. The resident went on to explain that the situation was having a dramatic effect on her mental health and referred to her front door being insecure.
The landlord’s Head of Housing Services emailed their Housing team leader and the LASBU on 26 May 2020 to ask for an update following the resident’s email of 23 May 2020. Both responded the same day. The landlord’s Housing team leader confirmed that the case was with the LASBU, and that in the past the resident had been asked if she would consider a management transfer but this had been declined. The LASBU also responded to confirm that it was drafting an injunction application, that it had discussed this with the resident, had asked the resident about moving again and had responded to the resident’s report of the incident that resulted in her email of 23 May 2020.
On 16 June 2020, the LASBU wrote to the neighbour’s son referring to the Cease and Desist letter sent to him on 3 March 2020 and saying that as he had ignored the instructions issued to him, it now intended to apply for a civil injunction. Between 19 June and 24 July 2020, the resident made further reports of ASB to the LASBU. Witness statements were provided by the Housing Officer on 18 September 2020, the resident on 21 October 2020 and the Police on 27 October 2020. The resident provided a further witness statement on 19 November 2020.
On 29 December 2020, the Court issued a Notice of Injunction hearing, the defendant being the neighbour’s son, confirming that the hearing would take place on 19 January 2021. On 10 February 2021 the Court issued the neighbour’s son with an ASB injunction order, with power of arrest attached. The neighbour’s son was forbidden from using abusive, threatening or insulting language, using or threatening violence and from harrassing or intimidating any employee of the local authority and the resident. He was also forbidden to enter the building that contained the resident’s and his mother’s flat. The order and power of arrest was to continue until 18 January 2022.
On 19 February 2021, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about how it had handled her reports of ASB. The resident said that she had received no support from landlord, it had shown a lack of care, she had been forced and threatened to move into a property that the landlord knew there was an abusive person living flat below with his elderly mother. The resident also complained that once her case had been past to the LASBU she had not seen her housing officer, she had had no courtesy call from her new housing office and that throughout the time of liaising with the LASBU, she was still experiencing abuse.
The landlord issued its stage one, and final, response on 12 March 2021. It noted that the resident had requested compensation for the impact this matter had had on her health, advised that she was entitled to seek independent legal advice and enclosed a Public Liability Claim form should she wish to pursue a claim directly with its Insurance Services team. The landlord said that:
1. Its Housing Services team dealt with low level ASB, served advice and warning letters and issued ABCs if necessary. If these approaches did not work, the case would then be referred to the LASBU for complex case management. Once referred the responsibility for managing the anti-social behaviour would be with the LASBU and all other tenancy management would remain with the landlord.
2. The resident had first contacted Housing Services in March 2019 and her reports had been investigated in line with its own process. An ABC was created following monitoring of the situation, this was breached, leading to a LASBU referral on 23 September 2019. At this stage Housing Services had exhausted the initial stages of its incremental approach towards addressing ASB, advice and warning letters having been completed along with the ABC.
3. Once the referral had been accepted by the LASBU, they became the key contact, her housing officer was not the person that further reports should be made to. The landlord said that it understood that this had been made clear to the resident and that it could only apologise for any confusion caused. Messages about ASB sent to the landlord would have been passed to the LASBU for them to action and this may explain why the resident felt Housing Services had not maintained contact with her, for which it again apologised.
4. Prior to the case being referred to LASBU, Housing Services had discussed the possibility of a move with the resident, referring to 23 September 2019, and that offer was declined.
5. The LASBU successfully gained an injunction order on 10 February 2021, injuncting the neighbour’s son away from the address and street for a period of 12 months.
6. It was sorry that the resident did not receive a personal introduction when her housing officer changed. However, as they were aware that the resident’s ASB case was with the LASBU, its Housing Services team did not feel an introduction was necessary and could confuse matters as the LASBU were dealing with her case. If Housing Services had still been dealing with her case, the landlord assured the resident that the new housing officer would have made contact.
7. It was also aware that the resident had been offered emotional telephone support as part of the ongoing case management via Victim First and as a result, Victim First had arranged for further security measures to be installed at the property.
8. Its Housing Service team were not aware of any ASB issues relating to the neighbour’s son prior to the resident’s tenancy sign up.
9. To conclude, it was satisfied that the matters had been dealt with in line with its processes and policies, and advised the resident that she could now refer her complaint to this service.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord emailed this service to confirm that its response of 12 March 2021 was its final response and as such the complaint had exhausted its complaints process. The landlord explained that it operated a one stage process at the time of the complaint, which it had since changed in line with this service’s Complaint handling code.

Assessment and findings

This Service acknowledges that the ASB reported by the resident has caused, and continues to cause, upset and distress to the resident. The role of the Ombudsman is to assess how the landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
In accordance with its ASB policy, on receiving reports of ASB the landlord is expected to take appropriate and reasonable action including warning letters, ABC agreements, Supporting Tenants and residents (STAR) referrals, property transfer, Possession Order, Injunction, ASBO, perpetrator referral to health services. The landlord is also to consider whether to refer the case to the LASBU and to work with partner agencies to investigate ASB as appropriate and that it also refer the case to the Police and the LASBU immediately if there is a risk of violence, threats of violence or a risk of significant harm.
Prior to the landlord issuing the resident’s neighbour with an ABC on 7 August 2019, this service has seen evidence of the landlord meeting with both the resident and her neighbour, liaising with the Police, issuing warning letters to the neighbour and making a STAR referral. These were all appropriate actions for the landlord to take and in accordance with its ASB policy. However as these had failed to resolve the ASB and as the resident’s reports had included threats of violent, it was in accordance with its ASB policy for the landlord to refer the complaint to the LASBU.
The landlord originally did so the day after entering into an ABC with the neighbour, 8 August 2019. However, the LASBU requested further information. It is unclear exactly what the LASBU requested however, the referral from the landlord was then accepted by the LASBU on 23 September 2019.
Between 8 August 2019 and 23 September 2019, the landlord had a pre-arranged meeting with the neighbour and the Police on 17 September 2019 to review the ABC that neighbour had entered into on 7 August 2019.
Prior to the meeting on 17 September 2019, the resident had reported further incidents of ASB by the neighbour’s son. In response to this the landlord interviewed the resident, encouraged her to report all incidents to the Police and discussed a referral to Victims First. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take and evidenced that it had taken the resident’s reports seriously.
As there had been further reports made about her son’s behaviour following her signing of the ABC, including an email from the resident on 17 September 2019, it was appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy for the landlord to again warn the neighbour when it met with her on 17 September 2019 and to advise her that the case would now be referred to the LASBU for action to be taken as the actions previously taken by the landlord had evidently failed to resolve the issue.
No evidence has been provided that relates to the landlord advising the resident at that time that responsibility for her case would now be with the LASBU or what that would mean with regards to who she should report her concerns to and who would now be responding to her and providing her with updates. However, by 3 November 2019 the resident had been in contact with the LASBU regarding an incident that took place on 29 October 2019, and there is evidence of the resident reporting further incidents to them between 11 March and 21 May 2020 and 19 June and 24 July 2020. Therefore, at some point between 23 September and 3 November 2019 this advice had been provided, however it is unclear by whom.
In its final response of 12 March 2021 the landlord explained that once its Housing Services team had made a referral to the LASBU responsibility for managing the ASB would be with the LASBU, and not the landlord’s Housing Services team. This response was in accordance with the local authorities ASB policy which states that the LASBU will investigate, collate and progress the case to a satisfactory conclusion and that responsibility for tenancy management remains with the landlord.
Whilst the LASBU had accepted responsibility for the resident’s case, the landlord would still be expected to work with the LASBU and other partner agencies in respect of the LASBU’s investigation of the case. This is did by attending the Multi-Agency Individual Management meeting (CIMM) on 24 October 2019 and by its Housing Officer completing a witness statement on 18 September 2020.
On 23 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, the LASBU and the Police to express her dissatisfaction at the way her case had been handled. In respect of the landlord, the resident specifically referred to not receiving any communication from her housing officer or their line manager. In response to the resident’s email the landlord’s Head of Housing Services emailed both its Housing team leader and the LASBU to confirm what the position was with the resident’s case to establish whether there were any outstanding matters it, as the landlord, needed to address.
However, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s email as a complaint or to provide her with any response to her email. This was a failure by the landlord that resulted not only an unnecessary delay in the resident receiving a response to her complaint but was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to have explained its position with regards to what contact the resident might expect from her housing officer once a case had been referred to the LASBU, thus allaying the resident’s concerns regarding a lack of contact from her housing officer. The landord’s failure to acknowledge the resident email of 23 May 2020 was also not in accordance with this service’s complaint handling code which states that the resident does not have to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request (pre-complaint), survey feedback and a formal complaint and take appropriate steps to resolve the issue for residents as early as possible. In this case the landlord did not do so.
It was not until the resident submitted a further complaint, which was then acknowledged by the landlord as such, that the landlord provided a reasonable response regarding contact from her housing officer. The landlord explained that as the case had been referred to the LASBU had the housing officer become involved this could have caused further confusion. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take as once the case had been referred to the LASBU, the LASBU and not the landlord were responsible for the investigation, collation and progression of the case.
Ultimately the LASBU pursued an injunction against the neighbour’s son and the Court issued the injunction, which had a power of arrest attached, on 10 February 2021.
Whilst it is acknowledged that following the injunction, the resident reported further concerns regarding the neighbour’s son’s behaviour, overall and in relation to the time period considered in this report, the landlord followed proper procedure and behaved reasonably in respect of its handling of her reports of ASB, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
It has been noted that the response given by the landlord in respect of it not being aware of any ASB issues relating to the neighbour’s son prior to the resident’s tenancy sign up appears to contradict the evidence given in the Housing Officer’s witness statement of 18 September 2020, in which they refer to reports of ASB by the same neighbour’s son, against the previous occupant of the resident’s flat, dating back to January 2017. When responding to complaints landlords are expected to ensured that the information they give is accurate and consistent. As there was a contradiction between the landlord’s Housing Officers witness statement and the landlord’s complaint response this is a further complaint handling failure by the landlord for which it should apologise and provide the resident with an accurate position with regards to this matter.
It has been noted that the landlord only provided one response, its final response, to the resident’s complaint. This service’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages. This ensures that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process. The landlord has since advised this service that at the time of the complaint it operated a one stage process which it has since changed in order to comply with this service’s Code. A two-stage complaints process for Housing Services (landlord) complaints is confirmed on the local authority’s website.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour’s adult son.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord followed its policies and procedures, and behaved reasonably and appropriately in response to the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour’s son. When it became evident that the steps it had taken had failed to resolve the matter it referred the case to the local authority’s LASBU for action to be taken against the neighbour’s son. Ultimately a Court injunction was issued by the Court forbidden him from entering the building that contained the resident’s and his mother’s flat.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s email of 23 May 2020 as a formal complaint and failed to provide her with any response to her concerns at that time. In its final response the landlord also provided the resident with information about whether there had been any incidents of ASB related to the neighbours son, prior to when she moved in, that contradicted the witness statement given by its Housing Officer.

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures
3. To provide the resident with an accurate position with regards to whether or not it was aware of any ASB issues relating to the neighbour’s son prior to the resident’s tenancy sign up.
4. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.