Lewes District Council (201913094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913094

Lewes District Council

29 January 2021 (Amended on review 10 May 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 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) allegedly perpetrated by her neighbour.
2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping in the case.

Background

3. The resident occupies the property, a first-floor retirement flat, under a secure tenancy. The resident is recorded as suffering from depression.

Policies and Procedures

4. The landlord’s ASB policy is stated to be built on the principle of a victim orientated approach, with an emphasis on risk assessment, early intervention, support and regular contact with victims and witnesses. It is “essential for the efficient management of ASB (that) there is an accurate recording and monitoring of cases.”
5. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for an initial informal response to complaints before a two-stage procedure is commenced. The landlord is usually expected to provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage two response within 20 working days.
6. Compensation may be payable for time and trouble in accordance with the landlord’s policy where there has been a delay in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

 

Summary of events

7. On 10 August 2019, an incident occurred within the resident’s block during which the alleged perpetrator had an altercation with another resident, which involved a knife. Police were called but it is not clear whether any further action was taken. The resident was involved and assisted with the removal of the knife from the alleged perpetrator’s hand and was, as a result, understandably affected by the incident. She stated as a result, she was “practically living in isolation” and felt she was “going crazy”.
8. Following the incident, the resident emailed the landlord to with reference to the events, stating that she was holding the landlord responsible as it had dismissed signs that the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour was likely to escalate. She felt that the landlord’s failure to act had put her and other residents in danger. The resident reports that the alleged perpetrator had a history of altercations prior to the incident of 10 August, however this Service has seen no evidence of the history referred to.
9. Following the incident, the landlord held a meeting with all the residents on 12 August 2019. It spoke to some residents individually but not the resident. On 13 August 2019, the landlord states that the resident’s Retirement Housing Adviser asked whether she would like to speak with her but the resident declined. The landlord returned a call from the resident on 20 August 2019 where it discussed her support needs and advised her to contact her GP.
10. The landlord has provided a file note, dated 20 August 2019, which records the resident’s complaint about its response to the incident of 10 August 2019. The note stated that the resident was upset that the police had not followed up to take her statement and the landlord had informed her that it had contacted the police to pursue this. The landlord apologised for the lack of individual and immediate follow up after the incident but stated that it was appropriate for the police to respond and not its out of hours team. The resident explained that she was upset that no-one had enquired about her welfare.
11. The landlord met with the resident on 22 August 2019 to take a statement about the incident of 10 August 2019 and discuss her concerns. It offered her a needs assessment in the light of medical information she had disclosed and to provide morning check-in calls. The landlord also encouraged the resident to speak with her GP. The landlord offered a further meeting with the Retirement Housing Adviser to discuss how the parties could improve communication going forward.
12. The landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint on 12 September 2019. It outlined the timeline of events and its response and acknowledged that this was ‘slightly disjointed and delayed’, for which it apologised. It explained that this had in part been caused by recent restructuring, which had resulted in staff resourcing issues. It noted, however, that it had undertaken the initial steps to visit to take a statement and liaised with the police. The resident’s complaint about the support offered following the incident was not upheld. However, her complaint about               ‘the tenancy management activities following the incident’ was partially upheld, as the landlord acknowledged that its response ‘could have been clearer and managed in a timelier manner’. It assured the resident that additional staff were being recruited to improve its service. 
13. On 19 September 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord to request the escalation of her complaint. She noted some errors within the landlord’s response of 12 September 2019 and highlighted paragraphs of the landlord’s ASB Policy, which she felt it had failed to comply with. She made the following comments on the landlord’s stage 1 response:
    1. The resident noted that whilst she had been present at the meeting on 12 August 2019, the landlord’s member of staff had made no attempt to speak with her individually. The resident felt this was inappropriate in the circumstances, given the seriousness of the incident and her direct involvement.
    2. The resident stated that on 13 August she had heard the Retirement Housing Adviser comment that she had not spoken to her in over a month. The resident felt this was unprofessional. The resident indicated that the Retirement Housing Adviser’s behaviour and attitude towards her had had a negative impact on her mental health and that their relationship had broken down irreparably.
    3. The resident noted that the telephone call of 20 August 2019 was the first time anyone had personally spoken to her about what happened on the night of 10 August 2019.
    4. The resident stated that the landlord had no authority to liaise with police on her behalf. The resident stated that the landlord should have spoken with her directly about her statement instead of contacting the police.
    5. The resident clarified that her complaint was less about the landlord’s disregard for her welfare and more about the Retirement Housing Adviser’s alleged mismanagement of the ‘whole affair. Not just afterwards but for all the incidents leading up to it’. The resident noted that she believed the Retirement Housing Adviser had ignored the ‘warning signs’ of the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour.
14. It is not clear what occurred between 19 September 2019 and 25 November 2019, when the landlord held a meeting with the resident during which it offered to make a referral to Victim Support, due to the possibility that the resident was experiencing post-traumatic stress. On 3 December 2019, the resident chased an update on the response to her complaint.
15. The landlord’s staff visited the resident again on 17 December 2019 to establish what resolution she was seeking from her complaint. She stated that she wanted the individual staff member dismissed, which the landlord refused to do. The landlord stated that it was seeking to bring about a resolution but that it was unable to discuss confidential information about other tenants. In addition to its offer to refer to Victim Support, the landlord offered to make a referral to STEPS, as well as to assist the resident in contacting her GP. It arranged for another member of staff to communicate with her as an interim arrangement. The resident declined the latter two offers.
16. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 December 2019, stating that the meeting left her unable to sleep that night and ‘without closure’.
17. The landlord responded on 24 December 2019, apologising for the effect the meeting had had on her and reiterated its encouragement for her to seek professional help for her mental health. It confirmed escalation of her complaint to stage two and that she would receive a response no later than 10 January 2020. It confirmed it would be carrying out a case review as a result of her complaint.  
18. The landlord sent its stage two response on 11 February 2020. It confirmed that:
    1. It had identified that additional staff training was required to ensure staff were able to effectively manage and resolve ASB at the earliest opportunity;
    2. A mediation session would be offered to all residents on 24 February 2020 in the hope that residents would be able to come together and work towards a positive environment within the block;
    3. It apologised for the breakdown in communication which had occurred between the resident and itself, though did explain that it had sought to try to communicate with her;
    4. It reiterated that verbal threats towards staff members were a breach of the resident’s tenancy agreement and that action would be taken against her tenancy if any threats were made in future;
    5. It had offered wellbeing support to the resident and confirmed that, as a result of the meeting of 20 January 2020, it had made a safeguarding referral to Adult Social Care which she could take up if she wished;
    6. A review into the incident had highlighted the need for additional staff training and a more robust scrutiny of retirement housing applicants to help ensure suitability. The landlord had, to this end put additional checks in place;
    7. It was maintaining ongoing communication with the police regarding the incident;
    8. It confirmed that it would not be dismissing any of its staff members, who were not responsible for the actions of individual tenants; and
    9. In light of the above, the resident’s complaint had not been upheld.
19. On 22 February the resident responded to the stage two response stating that the landlord had misunderstood her complaint, which was not about how little regard the landlord had for her health and welfare, but about the staff member’s handling of the situation, including ‘all the incidents leading up to it’. She stated that the staff member was responsible for the distress she was experiencing and asked the landlord what action it was going to take in light of this.
20. The landlord responded with an email on 24 February 2020 stating that it had sought to understand what it could do to resolve the matter but, to date, the only resolution she had sought was the dismissal of the staff member, which it would not agree to. It confirmed that, in any event, the member of staff was no longer working at the block. The referral to STEP previously offered was still available if the resident wished to take it up.
21. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, which she says shows disregard for its own ASB policy.

Assessment and findings

Response to ASB

22. No evidence has been provided regarding any incidents prior to 10 August 2019, as referred to by the resident. On this basis, this Service is only able to consider the landlord’s response to the incident of 10 August 2019.
23. According to the evidence provided, the landlord acted largely in accordance with its ASB policy by taking a victim orientated approach – it organised meetings with the resident, arranged a mediation session, and offered regular contact and support to her. It also maintained regular contact with the police in relation to the incident. The resident sought the dismissal of one of the landlord’s staff members as a resolution to her complaint, but it was reasonable of the landlord to decline to do this, explaining that its staff members were not responsible for the actions of individual tenants.
24. The landlord sought to further improve its response to incidents such as this by identifying additional staff training and implementing more robust checks during sign up.

Complaints handling

25. On the basis of the evidence provided to this Service, it is clear that there was some delay in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in a timely manner, although there was a minor delay beyond its 10 day target timeframe for providing a formal response. There was, however, a delay of some months in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The resident chased the landlord on 3 December for an update as to when she would receive a response; the landlord responded stating it would be provided by 10 January 2020, however no response was provided until 11 February 2020. The delay in its complaint response was unreasonable in accordance with its own policy, which requires responses to stage one complaints within 10 working days, and to stage two complaints within 20 working days and there has been no explanation for this.
26. It is accepted that the landlord communicated with the resident on more than one occasion to understand the resolution she was seeking. It is also accepted that the landlord appropriately identified training and policy needs as a result of the complaint. However, the fact that the resident was required to chase the landlord for a response, in addition to the delays she experienced throughout the process, warrant a finding of service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Record keeping

27. The landlord’s policies require it to maintain accurate records. This Service has not been provided with evidence relating to the landlord’s response to the alleged perpetrator of the incident on 10 August 2019. This Service cannot therefore comment on whether the landlord’s response to the alleged perpetrator’s actions was in line with the requirements of its ASB Policy. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of service failure, however, as it is clear from both parties’ accounts that the matter was being dealt with by the police and that the landlord engaged with the police in relation to their investigation, which was an appropriate response.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the ASB.
29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

30. The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy in taking a victim-centred approach and seeking to support the resident. It acted appropriately in declining to dismiss its staff member.
31. The delays in the landlord’s complaint responses, which in turn led the resident to chase for an update, were inappropriate and amount to service failure.

Order

32. The landlord is to pay £100 to the resident within 28 days of this report to reflect the time and trouble experienced during the complaints process.

Recommendation

33. The landlord is to review its record keeping policies to ensure that all relevant information/ documentation is held in accordance with its statutory obligations.