London Borough of Newham (202215506)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215506

London Borough of Newham

30 August 2024

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours;
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a fixed term flexible tenancy for a one-bedroomed flat. He lives there with his wife and young baby.
The tenancy started in December 2018. The resident says that he has experienced problems with ASB around his block of flats since 2019. He says that in one incident, one of his windows was broken.
This investigation will cover the period since the resident made reports of a group of 17 and 18 year olds dealing drugs and smoking cannabis on the doorstep in June 2022. He told the landlord that they carried knives, and on one occasion when he spoke to them they had threatened him. The resident advised the landlord that a relative staying with one of his neighbours was letting the individuals into the block.
The landlord referred the matter to the police’s safer neighbourhood team, and carried out repairs to the front and rear communal entry doors. The landlord’s ‘design out crime co-ordinator’ carried out an audit of the block, and as a result the landlord installed smaller door handles and improved the lighting in the communal stairwells.
The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour and issued them with a warning letter. Both the resident and the landlord identified that the neighbour could have vulnerabilities, and the landlord made appropriate referrals to other agencies for support.
On 17 October 2022 the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord regarding its response to the ongoing ASB, citing the effects it was having on his health.
On 2 November 2022 the resident made a further report of ASB from a group of about eight boys, who were doing drugs and spitting on the floor of the block. He said he had seen them playing with knives, and believed his life was in danger. He asked the landlord to rehouse him.
The landlord told the resident to report the activities to the police, because they concerned criminal activity, and on 8 November 2022 it visited the resident’s neighbour with the police to issue a warning.
The resident made a further report of ASB on 16 November 2022, and the next day he submitted another complaint to the landlord. He described a “recent” incident in which he had been threatened with a knife when he asked the boys to leave, and explained he had reported this to the police. He said the police had told him that there was nothing they could do, and that he should not have asked the boys to leave. He said the landlord had told him the same thing when he reported the incident to it. The resident said he was at his “breaking point”, and his mental and physical health were “at risk”. He felt “hopeless and depressed”, feeling that he was “being ignored”. He again asked the landlord to rehouse him.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 January 2023, and issued its stage 1 complaint response on the same day. It:
1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and said it had no record of the matter prior to the resident’s complaint;
2. Said its “HLO” (housing liaison) team would contact the resident, and gave him relevant signposting advice;
3. Advised that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord in the early hours of 3 March 2023, explaining that he could not sleep due to noise from his neighbour, with shouting and arguing continuing for over an hour on occasions.
The landlord referred the matter to the police’s local safer neighbourhood team in March 2023.
In early April 2023 the resident contacted this Service, and the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 at our request.
The landlord’s records show that it tried to carry out a visit to the resident’s neighbour with the police on 19 April 2023. It also visited other residents in the block in relation to the ASB the resident had reported.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 May 2023. It:
1. Recognised the resident had initially contacted it on 23 January 2020 regarding ASB. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction with regular drug-related nuisance on 5 July 2022, and again on 2 November 2022;
2. Noted that the resident had advised it that the issues were still ongoing;
3. Explained that it had carried out a joint meeting with the police, to the resident and his neighbour, on 19 April 2023;
4. Said it had no record of the resident’s request to move due to ASB. It advised the resident to report all incidents to the police and itself, so that it could assess whether the resident met the criteria for a move. It advised him that this would only be possible “to prevent serious risk to life and limb”, and explained that it would ask the police to provide it with a risk assessment to aid its assessment. It also advised the resident to keep his rent account “in order” if he wanted to move, telling him this could affect its decision;
5. Said it recognised there had been service failure in the way it had handled the issues the resident had raised. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience he had experienced due to the ongoing ASB issues, and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident responded to the landlord on 9 May 2023, and highlighted that he had submitted a separate complaint to the landlord about its response to his request to be rehoused. He provided a reference number and queried the landlord’s statement that it had no record of the request. He also stressed that he wanted the issues resolved, and the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation would do nothing towards that.
The landlord’s records show that it met with partner agencies in June 2023, and was in contact with the resident and his neighbour. It made further referrals to appropriate partner agencies in July 2023, and was in contact with the resident and his neighbour in July and August 2023. In September 2023, the landlord spoke with other residents in the block, and reiterated its warnings to the resident’s neighbour.
In January 2024, the resident told the landlord that youths were still congregating at the block, and asked it for help with the housing bidding system. The landlord’s records show that it told him the bidding system was “outside our responsibility”.
The landlord liaised with relevant partner agencies in January 2024, and asked for assistance for a visit to the resident’s neighbour. This visit was carried out on 5 March 2024, and the landlord issued further warnings, whilst noting that two members of the household that had been linked to the issues no longer lived there.
The landlord said it explained to the resident in March and May 2024 the need for “up to date and ongoing evidence” regarding ASB issues for it to take further action. It also discussed with him “counter allegations” that had been made about him making “malicious complaints”.
The landlord has advised that the current situation is improved, with no recent issues reported to it by the police’s safer neighbourhood team. It recognises that the resident still wants to move, but says that evidence of ongoing ASB is needed for “case progression”.
The resident has advised us that the situation did improve, because the block is more secure, however he is still disturbed by the young people smoking cannabis outside his window (which he says affects his asthma), and sometimes kicking a ball against the wall, which wakes his baby. He is still keen to move, as he still fears for his safety while the young people are hanging around the property, and wants the landlord to confirm its position in writing so he knows where he stands. He explained that he has been left with the impression that the landlord does not care about his family.
In August 2024, the landlord advised us that it would reach out to the resident and offer him support to submit a rehousing application, to include the details of why he believes it should consider him for a direct offer or an increased level of preference.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbours

We do not issue decisions related to matters of health, because these are medical issues and fall outside the scope of our investigation. We do, however, acknowledge that the resident has found the ASB that has occurred near his home very upsetting. He has explained that he worries he cannot keep himself or his family safe.
The information we have seen supports the landlord’s assessment that the resident is not being directly targeted by the young people. Rather, he is being affected because he lives at the block, and has to pass them on his way in and out, and they are outside his flat because he lives on the ground floor. The advice the landlord and police have given to him, to not directly challenge the young people, is appropriate and aimed at minimising risk to him.
The landlord has advised that the main individuals who were accused of letting in the young people no longer live at the block, and it is hoped that the situation will improve. The landlord has advised that it has not received further reports from the police or the resident in recent months.
The landlord took other practical steps early on, to attempt to reduce the ASB. These included improvements to the lighting in the block, changing the door handles, and repairs to the block entrance doors. These were positive steps for it to take, and demonstrated engagement with the matters the resident had raised. One of the problems in this case was that the young people were being granted access by individuals in the block, and it is hoped that these measures will contribute to reduced ASB now the situation has changed.
The resident also reported noise nuisance from his neighbour’s flat. Amongst the issues, he explained that his sleep was disturbed by loud shouting and arguments. He has explained to us that he found what he heard distressing, and this is understandable. We cannot disclose confidential details about other individuals, but we have seen evidence that the landlord has been in contact with the resident’s neighbour on multiple occasions and contacted several relevant agencies to assist in reducing the ASB the resident experienced.
In managing ASB, the landlord must be proportionate in its response. This is a requirement under the law, and it means that it must take into account the alleged perpetrator’s circumstances before taking any legal action. In this case, the evidence we have seen shows that the landlord has tried to be fair to both the resident and his neighbour, as is required of it. It issued several warnings to the resident’s neighbour, and involved the police where relevant. This explains why the landlord has not proceeded to take further action through the courts, and we are satisfied that it has taken reasonable and appropriate action given the circumstances.
The resident specifically requested that the landlord move him due to the ASB. On this issue, the landlord was less helpful. It is a local authority, and it manages requests to transfer through its general housing allocations process, under its role as a local authority rather than its role as a landlord. For this reason, the resident’s complaint regarding the banding the landlord applied to his application to move falls outside the scope of this investigation. We do note, however, that the landlord told the resident that his request for help with its bidding system was not its responsibility, and it was not clear in its communication around the matter.
The landlord’s ASB policy provides a good level of detail around several tools its staff, as well as partner agencies, can use to manage and respond to reports of ASB. It does not, however, mention transfers or rehousing at all. Residents will sometimes need to move due to high levels of risk presented by an ASB issue, and there is learning to be taken from the resident’s experience.
It is welcome that the landlord will now provide the resident with assistance to make an application for increased preference, and for him to understand its position regarding the priority it decides to assign to his application. In our opinion, the actual detriment caused to the resident by failing to do this earlier was likely to have been minimal, because it is not likely that he would have qualified for an urgent move under the landlord’s allocations policy. For this reason, and when considering all the steps the landlord has taken to address the ASB, we have not found maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord did not recognise that it needed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when he remained dissatisfied with its initial complaint response. The resident felt his concerns had not been heard, telling the landlord he felt ignored.
The landlord’s complaint responses were poor. The most significant failing was that, despite partially upholding the resident’s complaint at stage 1, and acknowledging failures at stage 2, it did not specify what these failures were. This demonstrated a failure by the landlord to use the complaint process to identify what had gone wrong, so that it could put it right, and importantly it meant that it did not take appropriate learning from the resident’s experience. It also meant the resident was left unclear on the landlord’s position about the situation he was living in, and it had the potential to unnecessarily raise his expectations regarding actions it may take.
The wording of the landlord’s offer of compensation suggested that it was compensating the resident for the effect of the ASB, rather than communication failures in its response. This risked raising the resident’s expectations unfairly, because the landlord had in fact taken reasonable steps to manage the ASB, and was not prepared to either move him or to take legal enforcement action against his neighbour at that point. It had not identified any further action needed in respect of the communal areas of the block either. It compounded the effect of its previous raising of his expectations when it told him to keep his rent account “in order” if he wanted to move.
The landlord’s failure in this case was around its communication with the resident in its responses to his complaints. It should have taken quicker action to reassure him that it understood his concerns, and expressed more empathy with what was an upsetting situation for him. It should have given him clear information regarding the limits of its powers and the reasons why it needed to show any action it took to address ASB was proportionate. It was particularly concerning to see mistakes in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses that suggested poor record keeping and management of information on its systems. It was understandable that these mistakes did not reassure the resident that the landlord was aware of the history of his case, and consequently left him unconfident that it truly understood why he was dissatisfied.
The landlord’s failures in its complaint handling were serious, compounding the resident’s distress. When considering the impact of its poor communication in response to the resident’s complaint, we have found maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbours;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failure to use its complaint process to appropriately address his concerns. It must provide us with a copy once completed.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident a total of £250 compensation for the distress the resident was caused as a result of its poor communication. This is made up of:
1. £100 it previously offered;
2. £150 in new compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within eight weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a case review conducted by a senior manager, which should set out the lessons learnt from this investigation, the actions it will take to ensure its complaint handlers have appropriate access to its ASB and rehousing case records, and identifies any other improvements it could make to prevent similar failings in its handling of future complaints about ASB.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the current situation regarding ASB, and confirm to him whether it proposes to take any action as a result. We recommend that it agree with the resident a date for a further check-in regarding the issues at his block.
We recommend that the landlord consider whether it would help in the effective management of its ASB cases to include details of the use of transfers/ rehousing in its ASB policy.