London Borough of Brent (202213803)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213803

London Borough of Brent

31 July 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is a local authority. She lives at the property with her children.
The ASB, Crime and Policing Act (2014) defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB procedure contains 5 steps which may not need to be followed in a set order. Some of its actions might be taken simultaneously or in a different order:
1. Report: Consider whether the ASB reported is conduct that is capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance, and whether the behaviour is unreasonable.
2. Investigation: The landlord will interview the complainant within 5 working days. It will gather further information about the incidents that have occurred, the impact of the behaviour, and whether the complainant has reported issues to another agency. The landlord will then make an action plan with the complainant to determine how and when updates will be made. The landlord will also make a ‘victim vulnerability assessment’. The landlord will then conduct further investigations including interviewing the perpetrator.
3. Action: The landlord will consider what legal or non-legal action is appropriate. This could include referrals to support agencies, mediation, tenancy warning letters, or demotion/possession of a tenancy.
4. Monitoring: The complainant should be updated where possible once action is taken. The case will usually be monitored every 4 weeks. The landlord will keep in regular contact with the complainant and review the vulnerability assessment if the complainant experiences further issues.
5. Closure: Before making a decision to close a case, the officer should discuss the matter with the complainant. The decision to close a case will be based on whether the behaviour has stopped (or reduced to an acceptable level) and in consideration of the needs of the complainant. The landlord will then send a case closure letter to the complainant. The letter should make clear what the complainant should do if there are any further issues and who to report these to.
The landlord applies certain principles through all 5 stages of an ASB case. These include:
1. Ensuring that all actions taken are recorded on the case management system.
2. Identifying any support and/or safeguarding concerns in relation to any party and making necessary referrals.
3. Working to recognise any signs of vulnerability or risk in relation to the victim(s) and taking necessary action.
4. Identifying where a partnership response might be required and making contact with partner agencies to discuss the matter.
The landlord defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord. It provides some examples of this which include a delay in taking action without good reason, bias or discrimination, and poor communication. It states that some issues do not fall within the category of a complaint and are more appropriately dealt with as a service request. These can include instances where a customer is complaining about a problem that the Council has not created, such as neighbour noise nuisance.
The landlord will not normally accept a complaint where the customer has delayed raising the complaint by more than 12 months. The landlord recommends that a resident contacts it to make a complaint as soon as possible, to ensure access to data is readily available. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days, and responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident made reports of issues with the neighbour living in the flat below her on 26 February 2019, listing incidents relating to noise nuisance and ASB, generally from visitors including children to the property.
The landlord spoke to the resident to discuss the case on 20 March 2019 and provided the resident with log sheets. The resident then contacted the landlord on 1 April 2019 to report a further incident of ASB, stating that the neighbour had made obscene gestures. The log sheets provided by the resident include incidents such as doors slamming, loud arguing and shouting, a baby crying, and children running and screaming, loud snoring and cooking smells.
The landlord has provided evidence of a scheduled meeting with the resident on 16 June 2019. There is evidence that the landlord then arranged a meeting with the resident in January 2020. It said it had intended to visit the resident during the summer but did not receive a response from her. On 12 February 2020, the landlord provided an update to the resident. It said it would be speaking to the neighbour about the behaviour of the children visiting.
On 22 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, councillors, and the Ombudsman to outline her concerns about how her reports of ASB had been handled. There is evidence that the landlord spoke to the neighbour on 26 February 2020 who said he had experienced some issues with the resident. The landlord replied to the councillor and resident after reviewing the information provided by both parties and its actions since February 2019. The landlord said that a referral to independent mediation was the best way forward. This option was later declined by the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again about ASB in August 2020. The landlord offered to attend out of hours when the resident was experiencing issues to attempt to witness the issues.
The resident emailed some completed log sheets to the landlord on 19 January 2021, 8 February 2021 and 14 March 2021 and asked the landlord to provide an update. The log sheets show the incidents reported by the resident included children being at the property all day, loud talking, children running around, and screaming and shouting. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 5 February 2021 to advise them of the resident’s complaint and remind them of the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The resident then emailed the landlord again on 27 July 2021. The officer who responded said they were no longer the housing officer but would pass the information on. The landlord advised the resident on 10 August 2021 that it would visit the neighbour.
The landlord and resident were in contact again during October 2021. This included a visit to the resident’s home on 26 October 2021 to discuss the case. The resident said the police had been involved.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2021. She said she wanted to lodge a complaint because of the ongoing issues with her neighbours that had not been resolved for 3 years. The resident expressed frustration with the handling of the ASB case. She said that she had received death threats and wanted to move. The resident went on to explain the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour, stating she was suffering with depression. She said her husband and daughter had also experienced symptoms of stress and anxiety. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it was collating information about the ASB case, which included speaking to the neighbour and liaising with the police.
There were several more communications between the landlord and resident throughout November 2021; the landlord said it wanted to visit the resident to discuss allegations the neighbour had made about her.
The landlord attended the resident’s home to discuss the matter on 9 November 2021. It confirmed to her that the neighbour had reported that she had been threatening and had made racist comments. This was refuted by the resident. The landlord stated the officers left the property when the resident became aggressive and verbally abusive.
The landlord then asked the resident to provide it with evidence of her mental health condition and discussed the resident’s CCTV request. The resident was reluctant to provide information about her mental health due to concerns about the landlord maintaining confidentiality. She said that a balloon with “mental person” written in black pen was found outside her property. She concluded that this meant the landlord had informed the neighbour that she had a mental health condition, as there was no other way they would have known.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 November 2021 about a request she had made to install CCTV to confirm its understanding of a previous conversation and to advise the resident to make a request to install the CCTV in writing. The resident contacted the landlord the following day. She expressed her dissatisfaction with it, stating she had been victimised and bullied by the landlord, who was showing favouritism to the neighbour. She said that damage had been caused to her vehicles and provided further information about her request for permission to install CCTV.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 and 25 November 2021, asking for an update on her complaint.
The landlord advised the resident on 7 December 2021 that it was refusing permission for her request to install CCTV. The resident then asked the landlord to close her complaint as she wanted to escalate the complaint to this Service but was unable to do so while the complaint was still open. The landlord explained there was not a complaint logged as the issues reported were dealt with as an ASB case. It logged the resident’s complaint on the same day.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 January 2022. The response has not been provided to this Service.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 January 2022, as she was dissatisfied with the response to her complaint. The resident stated it was “absolutely ridiculous” that not one person contacted her about her concerns and to obtain the facts. She also said the response was poor, rushed and glazed over points she had made. The resident stated she had suffered physically and mentally from the abuse received from the neighbour over the previous 3 years. The resident said the situation was adding to her depression and her daughter’s anxiety.
The resident stated the landlord had responded to the neighbour’s counter allegations of racism more quickly than her ASB reports and had not taken her reports as seriously. She said the landlord was not treating her fairly. The resident accused the landlord of harassment as she received a letter about her alleged racist behaviour in an email and then twice by post. The resident said she was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made by the neighbour nor provide her version of events. She also said it was unfair that the landlord took the word of its officers without speaking to her about her behaviour when it visited. The resident said she had lost her temper at the visit as she had a migraine and the officers asked her to turn the light on or open the curtains. She said the officers arrived late, and “with attitude”.
The resident stated she had told the landlord that she had received death threats and that her children were being photographed and provided police crime reference numbers.
The resident also said she was not given permission for the CCTV but when the landlord’s officers were at her home, they saw the box for the CCTV and did not tell her she was not allowed to install it. The resident then said that the reason she was asked to remove the CCTV was because the neighbour complained. She said the reason for the CCTV was because her vehicle had been damaged.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 18 February 2022. It outlined the details of the case, including a summary of events. The landlord said:
1. There had been some oversights and delays initially when dealing with the resident’s ASB reports in 2019. Its record-keeping could have been better than it was.
2. The landlord did not agree with the resident’s view that the evidence available at the outset of the case warranted possession against the neighbour, who was at the time an introductory tenant.
3. It did not agree with the resident’s view that it was biased nor that it provided a different response to her concerns of ASB to those the neighbour reported about her.
4. The landlord did not send a warning letter to the neighbour as promised on 30 January and 7 February 2020, but it did meet with the neighbour. It said it is reasonable to keep a case under review and respond to information in the most appropriate way as the case develops. The landlord did however agree it could have been better at managing the resident’s expectations at the time.
5. The neighbour was keen to resolve the dispute through mediation, which was declined by the resident.
6. The landlord said if the resident did not agree with the chronology outlined in its email dated 4 March 2020, and its conclusion that reasonable action had been taken up to that point, she could have specifically contested this at the time. The landlord said this was a relevant point because the passing of time makes it difficult to establish with absolute certainty all the details of what happened several years previous.
7. There is evidence that the landlord addressed the concerns the resident raised with her neighbours during the latter part of 2020 and the first part of 2021, but it did not update the resident.
8. From the middle of 2021 to the date of the final response, the landlord said it had in the main responded promptly to the resident’s contacts with it and taken appropriate action regarding her concerns.
9. The requests the resident made to lodge a formal complaint on 27 October 2021 and 25 November 2021 were not actioned.
The decision taken by the landlord in response to the complaint review was as follows:
1. It apologised for the lapses in communication and record-keeping that had occurred in the case.
2. It offered to pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience experienced and the unnecessary time and trouble caused.
3. The evidence available in June 2019 led to the relevant issues being addressed with both the resident and her neighbour in an even-handed manner.
4. More recently, its further investigations, including contact with the police, had not provided any firm evidence of significant ASB perpetrated that would warrant it taking formal action against the neighbours for a breach of their tenancy conditions.
The landlord outlined the options available to the resident and provided the following information:
1. It offered mediation, acknowledging the resident had previously declined this option on more than 1 occasion.
2. It repeated a previous offer to attend the resident’s property out of hours when she was experiencing issues.
3. It wanted to explore the option of whether a managed move would be an appropriate resolution and gave this as the reason why it had requested medical evidence relating to the resident’s health. It said that it did not want to raise the resident’s expectations as a management transfer would only be considered if there was evidence that the current situation was having a very significant adverse impact upon the resident’s mental health.
4. It noted the resident’s concerns that she suspected the landlord had shared information regarding her mental health with her neighbours. The landlord said it had seen no evidence this had happened and would consider it a very significant disciplinary matter if an officer deliberately shared confidential information of this nature with a third party. The landlord said it hoped this provided the resident with some assurance that any evidence supplied would be treated with an appropriate degree of confidentiality.
5. The landlord expressed concern about the visit made on 9 November 2021. It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction about the attitude of the officers attending but said it did not condone the behaviour displayed by the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether ASB was actually perpetrated or by whom, nor to tackle the ASB itself. The Ombudsman seeks to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
The regulatory standards for registered social housing providers include working in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour in the neighbourhoods where they own homes. All residents should be able to easily report ASB and be kept informed about the status of their case where responsibility rests with the organisation, and appropriately signposted to other services where it does not. It should also provide support to victims and witnesses.
Although the landlord has provided copies of emails and letters, it has not provided a copy of the ASB case file. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events and aid any actions or investigations required. The landlord did recognise that some of its record keeping, particularly during 2019 and 2020, was not adequate. The landlord apologised for this and provided some redress as part of its compensation payment (this redress is considered further below).
When a resident makes an initial complaint about a neighbour, it is considered good practice for a landlord to undertake a risk assessment to highlight vulnerabilities and consider the impact of the ASB or nuisance on the resident. It will then usually develop an action plan to include support it can offer to the resident, how often it will review the case, and how it will update and contact the resident. Because of the landlord’s failings in relation to its record keeping, it cannot be established whether a risk assessment and action plan were completed, nor whether the ASB case was being regularly reviewed.
As the resident has stated the nuisance reported had a negative impact on her mental health, the landlord should have considered the support options available or signposting to specialist support services. The resident did not want to provide further details about her health condition to the landlord. As it is not known what discussions the landlord has since had with the resident about support, a recommendation within this report will be made for the landlord to contact the resident to explore this further.
It is good practice for a landlord to contact an alleged perpetrator of ASB, so they are made aware of the issues and the impact the behaviour is having on the complainant. Throughout the case, there is evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour to discuss the issues the resident reported, either by email or meeting, demonstrating it took the concerns of the resident seriously and was keen to resolve the dispute. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord took counter allegations from the neighbour more seriously as was suggested by the resident.
There is no reference to the resident’s CCTV request in the final response letter. From the information received, the resident lives in a small block of flats. It is often standard practice for landlords to refuse permission for these types of installations on the fabric of buildings on a communal block of flats. There was no fault in the way that the landlord considered the resident’s CCTV request.
There is evidence demonstrating that the landlord considered several options for non-legal action. It offered to make a referral for mediation in 2020, following the first few reports from the resident. This was appropriate given the types of reports received by the resident, many of which would not usually meet the criteria for ASB, such as cooking smells, babies crying, and loud snoring. It also considered information provided by the neighbour, who had made some complaints about the resident and was willing to take part in mediation. Although the resident declined this, it was appropriate that the landlord kept this option open for the resident in its final stage response.
The resident stated that she wanted to move. The landlord has shown it was willing to consider the option of a managed move, asking the resident to provide further information about her mental health condition so it could then assess the possibility of this. This was a reasonable approach and the landlord also took steps to manage the resident’s expectations on the likelihood of a move being agreed.
The landlord also attempted to gather further evidence, which if obtained, could have meant consideration of enforcement action. From the information provided, it spoke to the police and offered to visit the resident out of hours when she was experiencing issues. These were reasonable efforts on the part of the landlord to investigate the resident’s allegations further. From the information seen, there was no evidence gathered during the period of this complaint to warrant the landlord taking enforcement action against the neighbour.

The handling of the complaint

The final stage letter provided by the landlord was a detailed response. The landlord provided a summary of events including the resident’s initial reports of ASB from 2019, going through key events and explaining what actions it took in response. The landlord clearly explained the options still available to the resident.
The landlord also highlighted where there had been failings in its communications, particularly where it did not manage the expectations of the resident well, update her appropriately, and for its record keeping during the early part of the investigation. The landlord apologised for the failings identified and offered the resident an apology and compensation of £250 for its handling of the ASB case. This was reasonable redress for the failings identified, considering the limited detriment to the resident during the period, and the pro-active actions it took as the case developed.
In its response the landlord considered events going back to 2019. These events went back almost 3 years prior to the complaint response. Although the landlord usually considers complaints going back 12 months, it was reasonable that it considered points almost 3 years previous as it was an ongoing matter. This also meant it could address the resident’s opinion that it could have ended the neighbour’s tenancy within the first year as they were introductory tenants. The landlord explained that this would not have been a proportionate response based on the evidence available.
The landlord raised the behaviour of the resident during its visit on 9 November 2021. Although a landlord would usually be expected to raise this matter separately with the resident outside of the complaint process, the resident had referred to her concerns about its handling of this issue in her complaint escalation. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to include this in the response.
However, the landlord failed to raise a complaint about its handling of the ASB and nuisance reports on several occasions. The evidence shows the resident initially raised a complaint in February 2020, when she complained to the landlord, MP and Ombudsman about the handling of the case. The landlord did take some action in response – for instance, it spoke to the neighbour and suggested mediation was the best option. Although the resident did not pursue the complaint further at this point, there is no evidence the landlord treated this as a formal complaint about the service it had provided and did not formally respond to the complaint.
The resident also clearly stated she wanted to log a complaint in October 2021 about the service received. The resident contacted the landlord at least twice in November 2021 asking for an update on her complaint. Subsequently, on 7 December 2021, the resident asked the landlord to close the complaint as she wanted to escalate the complaint to this Service and was unable to do so until the landlord had confirmed the complaint was concluded.
There were therefore unreasonable delays on the part of the landlord as it did not log a complaint until 18 months after the resident’s request. These were missed opportunities for the landlord to review its handling of the case and put right its failings. The resident inevitably experienced inconvenience and extra time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord undertook the actions this Service would usually expect to see in relation to a neighbour dispute case, such as discussing the case with both parties by email, letter and in person, and exploring non legal options available, such as mediation.
There were some failings in its communications and record keeping in the early stages of the ASB, which the landlord identified and offered an apology and reasonable redress for given the circumstances of the case.
Once the landlord logged the complaint, it responded to the complaint within the timescales of its policy. The final response offered a full and detailed review of the handling of the resident’s experience. However, the landlord failed to log a complaint in February 2020, and then again in October 2021, despite the resident chasing this up on several occasions.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report in relation to the handling of the complaint.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £350 compensation (£100 on top of the £250 already offered in its final stage response) for the distress or inconvenience caused to her by the failures in its handling of the complaint.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to review her current circumstances to offer appropriate support or signpost her to specialist support services for her and her family’s welfare.
The landlord to self-assess against the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023).

The landlord should reply to this Service with its intentions in regard to these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.