London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202316685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316685

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 July 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) reported by the resident.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. She has lived in the property since 2004 and currently lives there with her husband and 2 children. The landlord has told this Service it is aware the resident is severely visually impaired due to previous brain surgeries.
The resident has told this Service she has experience ASB from her next-door neighbours for a number of years. She said many incidents have been reported to the landlord and have required police involvement. In December 2022, she raised a new ASB case against the same neighbours regarding noise nuisance, threats of violence, and racial and homophobic abuse. The landlord attended the property on 7 December 2022 and obtained copies of diary logs and a recording. It set up a weekly contact agreement and urged her to continue logging incidents and informing the police where appropriate.
The resident continued to experience ASB and provided the landlord with updates in the form of emails, diary entries and recordings on a regular basis from December 2022 to July 2023.
On 7 August 2023, the resident formally complained to the landlord that the ASB was continuing, and she did not think it was taking the matter seriously enough. She said she was not getting the answers she required, and she was scared one of her family would end up dead. She requested that the case was reviewed as soon as possible.
The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 4 October 2023 to ask it to provide a response to her. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2023. The response concentrated on recent events that had been reported after the complaint had been made. However, it did acknowledge that the initial complaint had been recorded incorrectly and offered the resident £200 compensation for errors in complaint recording.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and requested the complaint was escalated the following day. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord again on 11 December 2023 to ask it to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 29 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. The response set out a proposed action plan that would be taken forward and again recognised the failures in its complaint handling. It offered the resident £660 in compensation for failings with its complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied and reported the issue to the Ombudsman on 4 May 2024. She told this Service that the ASB is still ongoing, and the measures taken by the landlord were not effective. She would like the ASB to stop and wants the neighbours to be moved to a different property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed this Service that ASB issues have been taking place for a number of years. Due to the passage of time, it has not been practical for some issues to be investigated by us. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on the ASB case that was opened by her in December 2022.
The resident has described how the issue has impacted the health of her and her family. It is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions/inaction, and the resident’s health. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord.
The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which the police have dealt with her reports of ASB. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to comment on the police response to this matter and the resident has been signposted to more suitable agencies in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of ASB reported by the resident – Pre complaint

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not result in a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between her and the landlord regarding whether it responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident reported ASB in December 2022, and the landlord opened a new incident. The landlord’s case notes recorded that she was upset and in a state of distress. It did not record the nature of the ASB or the date the report was made. A further note stated that the landlord had visited her on 7 December 2022 and obtained diaries which logged the ASB and a recording. It also noted a call to her son in which homophobic abuse was disclosed. It stated that a weekly contact agreement had been set up with her and she was advised to keep a log of further incidents and inform the police where appropriate.
The landlord’s website and ASB policy set out what can be expected when a report of ASB is made. It states, “If the incident involves violence, threats of violence or a hate crime, we will give it a priority 1 status and carry out an assessment within one working day.” In accordance with this policy, the landlord gave the resident’s report priority 1 status. However, due to the failure to record the incident, it is not clear whether the initial assessment was made within its own timescales.
The ASB policy also sets out how the landlord will manage the investigation:
1. Regular contact will be kept with the reporting party.
2. Where necessary, an interview will be carried out with the reporting party to identify any particular circumstances or needs that should be factored into the handling of the case.
3. Safeguarding procedures will be followed if there are concerns that a vulnerable adult or child is at risk.
4. Advice and support will be provided, including making referrals to other agencies to:
  1. Support the gathering of evidence.
  2. Identify any appropriate security measures to ensure residents are safe in their property.
  3. Any other necessary measures.
5. An action plan will be agreed with the reporting party and will be updated to reflect new information or incidents.
6. A vulnerability Risk Assessment Matric (RAM) will be completed on all high priority ASB cases to measure the harm caused to the victim and guide staff on the actions to take to protect the victims from further harm.
While the landlord did meet with the resident to set up a weekly contact agreement and provide some advice, it failed to consider safeguarding of a vulnerable resident and her children, failed to complete an action plan, and failed to complete the required risk assessment on a high priority ASB matter.
The resident submitted further diary entries and recordings on 12 December 2022, and 6 and 11 January 2023 by email. The entries contained instances of excessive deliberate noise, shouting of racist remarks and threats. On 11 January 2023 the landlord’s log contained an entry that read, “Please make urgent contact… [the resident] has collated 92 recordings of abuse from the neighbours, including from last night when they are heard to say, ‘I swear to God I’m gonna burn that house down’.” The landlord did not contact the resident until the end of January 2023. This was a failing given the established contact agreement and the serious nature of offences that the resident was disclosing. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to update the action plan with the new incidents, in line with its policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that if a case is priority 1, all further incidents of the same ASB case will also be assessed within 1 working day. The landlord failed to assess the new incidents in accordance with its own policy, despite the seriousness of the allegations and the resident telling it how the matter was making her family ill with stress and anxiety.
Given the priority 1 status of the case, the seriousness of the allegations being made, the vulnerabilities of the resident and the impact it was having on her and her family, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out the actions set out in paragraph 17 at the earliest possible opportunity. While the landlord did contact the police on 21 December 2022 to request further information and assigned the case to the ASB team on 5 January 2023, it failed to maintain weekly contact, complete an action plan, or risk assessment. These failings added to the resident’s distress, which is evident in the communications she sent to the landlord.
The neighbour is also a tenant of the same landlord. The tenancy agreement is clear on the behaviour expected from tenants. It states that the tenant must not, “threaten or cause, a nuisance, annoyance or physical or verbal abuse to other persons in the neighbourhood or to any tenant, agent, employee or contractor of the Association.” It further forbids harassment on the grounds of race, colour, sexual orientation, or disability, which may cause offense or interfere with the comfort of another tenant. In relation to noise nuisance, it is also clear that tenants should not cause noise that is a nuisance or annoyance to other persons in the neighbourhood and lists specific examples such as slamming of doors, loud gatherings, and barking/whining dogs.
The landlord’s ASB policy also states that it will use whatever powers and remedies are available and appropriate in dealing with ASB. It states it will work in partnership with other agencies to take preventative and enforcement action. This includes:
1. Communicating that it takes ASB extremely seriously, and the potential consequences for any resident identified as perpetrating ASB.
2. Prompt, appropriate and decisive action to prevent the problem escalating, for example the use of warning letters, mediation, and acceptable behaviour contracts.
3. Using the full range of tools and legal powers available to prevent the tenant committing further ASB.
There is no evidence that the landlord followed its own policy to take prompt preventative or enforcement action within the first 2 months of the ASB case being opened. By failing to contact the neighbours during this period, the landlord missed an opportunity to intervene at an early stage.
The first recorded contact with the resident after the initial meeting was on 31 January 2023. The landlord called her and informed her she would need to resubmit all the evidence she initially supplied, as the staff member she supplied it to appeared to have left the organisation. While she could provide copies of the diary entries she had recorded, the resident did not have a copy of the recording that contained an alleged racial slur. In the landlord’s subsequent log, dated 6 November 2023, it confirmed that it did not have the recording the resident gave to a staff member in December 2022 and recordings had also been lost while downloading them to another device. This was a severe failing in information management, which caused a crucial piece of evidence to be lost. It also further demonstrated that the landlord was not actively managing the ASB case which was a further significant failing.
The resident resubmitted the diary entries and recordings she had made throughout January 2023 to the landlord the same day. On 1 February 2023, the ASB team reviewed the evidence and informed her it was mostly noise nuisance and as such, it would be passed back to the housing team to deal with. The resident replied the same day asking if her diary entries had been reviewed as they captured death threats, racism, and homophobic comments. The landlord failed to respond to the resident, which was a severe failing given the seriousness of incidents.
No further contact with the resident was recorded until 13 February 2023. During a telephone call to the resident, the landlord recorded that the resident had reported the abuse was continuing and affecting the whole family. The resident was reported to be suffering heart problems and her daughter was having anxiety attacks. The resident stated that she was very ill, and the ASB had been going on for too long. The landlord again failed to update any action plan or carry out any safeguarding measures or risk assessments as stated in its policy.
On 23 February 2023, the housing team escalated the case to a senior member of staff. However, on 1 March 2023 it was passed back to the housing team to deal with. The landlord failed to record any rationale as to why this was the case. Despite the ongoing ASB and the reported health implications that this was having on the resident, the landlord again failed to take preventative or enforcement action in line with its own policy.
The resident continued to supply the landlord with diary entries and email updates on the continued ASB. On 25 April 2023, the case was assigned back to the ASB team. On 24 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update from the ASB team. She made further contact with the landlord on 31 May 2023 and 15 June 2023 and stated that nothing was being done and she could not take it anymore. Again, the landlord failed to take preventative or enforcement action in line with its own policy.The ASB team made no contact with her from receiving the case back on 25 April 2023. This was a serious failing.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to take any enforcement action, as set out in its policy. The landlord had also failed to update any action plan or risk assessment that should have been created in line with its policy. The resident continued to provide diary evidence, as advised during the first meeting, but no further advice was given. There is also no evidence the landlord considered any other measures during the first 6 months of this case being open that could have supported the resident, such as the installation of noise recording equipment or the involvement of other agencies such as environmental health. This was another serious failing.
The ASB team contacted the resident on 3 July 2023 and recorded that she was happy for it to contact the neighbours. She stated that the neighbours had made threats to harm her, they had tried to run her son over with their car and one of the neighbour’s dogs had tried to bite her daughter. She said that although the police had been involved, they were not taking the necessary action. She also said she did not want to move as she had spent a lot of money on her current home. Following this call and the serious allegations made, the landlord failed to create any meaningful action plan or complete a risk assessment, in line with its ASB policy. This was a further failing.
The first contact the landlord had with the resident’s neighbour was also on 3 July 2023 and this contact was by email. The landlord set out the allegations made by the resident, which the neighbour denied. While it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the neighbour, it was a substantial failing on its part to have waited so far into the timeline to do so, particularly considering the number and severity of the allegations made, which were supported by documentary and physical evidence. The landlord’s limited actions to this point did not demonstrate that it took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the neighbour of the potential consequences of ASB and its failure to do so, as is set out in its policy, was evidence of another failure, in a series of failures, in its management of the resident’s reports.
The neighbour denied all allegations and said that due to previous ASB allegations made against the resident, they had CCTV fitted to the front and the rear of the property that was able to capture sound. The neighbour requested details of times and dates of the alleged incidents so they could provide evidence that they had not been racist or threatening. The resident was unwilling to disclose the exact dates and times to the neighbour. However, the landlord had been made aware of times and dates of many incidents of reported ASB, given the extensive logs that the resident had provided. It would have been reasonable to assume that the landlord would wish to secure the evidence contained upon the neighbour’s CCTV to corroborate or discount the reports of ASB that had previously been made as part of its ongoing investigation. The landlord’s failure to ask for or gather the evidence and conduct meaningful investigations into the matter was another failing on its part.
The resident reported further incidents of ASB to the landlord on 4, 6 and 11 July 2023, including excessive banging in the early hours of the morning, racist comments being shouted through the wall, and allegations that the neighbours were trying to break the cameras at the back of her property. She also requested an update on her case. The landlord replied on 13 July 2023 and said, “Please provide evidence, without it, it is harder to investigate.”
The resident had been sending in incident updates for 7 months. If this evidence was not suitable the landlord should have advised the resident this and provided support to gather evidence, as stated in its ASB policy. It is evident from the landlord’s emails dated 1 February 2023 and 24 July 2023 that the recordings provided by the resident had been listened to, but the landlord could not hear what the resident believed had been captured. This suggests that the noise app used by the resident was ineffective and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide further support, such as noise recording equipment.
The resident continued to send the landlord recordings and email updates throughout July2023 and was repeatedly advised to provide evidence of the alleged incidents. On 25 July 2023, the ASB team contacted her to say that they were only dealing with the hate crime aspect of the case and all noise reports should be forwarded to the housing team. The inability of the landlord to appreciate the situation from the resident’s perspective lacked empathy. From the resident’s perspective, it is reasonable to assume she considered her reports of ASB to be one continuous activity, which comprised of many incidents and to differentiate and report to different departments of the landlord was an unreasonable and inappropriate ask of her in these circumstances. It was also an unrealistic expectation on the part of the landlord.
The resident reported further incidents to the ASB team on 31 July 2023, involving the neighbours tapping a knife on the fence near to her head and further threats such as “you’re all going to burn”. The ASB team responded the following day by email and said, “Would you like me to bring this ‘allegation’ to your neighbour’s attention so that I get their version of events.” The reply left the resident with the impression that her reports were not being taken seriously. The landlord again failed to comply with its own ASB policy. It did not offer further support, signpost to other agencies, reassess any action plans or risk assessments in place. The landlord also failed to contact the police regarding the incident, resulting in the police chasing the landlord for information 9 days later.
The resident formally complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB soon after the incident on 31 July 2023. In summary, the landlord’s handling of the reports pre complaint was unreasonable and inappropriate. It had failed to retain evidence and reports, consider safeguarding actions for a vulnerable adult and child, complete an action plan or a risk assessment despite the matter being reported 7 months previously. These cumulative failings, combined with its lack of support, added to the resident’s distress.
Following a complaint, it is a realistic expectation of a functioning complaint system to identify the inadequate service provided previously and to prioritise the implementation of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles as part of the subsequent complaint process.

The landlord’s handling of ASB reported by the resident

On 7 August 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding the handling of her ASB case. She stated that nothing had been done to address the ASB and she felt as though it was not being taken seriously enough. She stated the whole household had been prescribed antidepressant medication to deal with the situation and she wanted the ASB to stop and the neighbours to be moved.
The ASB team contacted the resident on 1 September 2023 and said that the neighbours had said they were seeking legal advice, and it was waiting for a response from them. It also stated that as the resident had refused to provide the neighbour with dates of allegations, it was unable to progress her case.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 11 October 2023. Notes of the meeting record that the resident did not want to take part in mediation as this had been tried in the past and did not work. The resident reported that the neighbour had threatened to “put her husband in an ambulance if he was in the same room as him”, so the mediation had to be done on an individual basis and therefore was unsuccessful. The notes of the visit also contained a summary of the ASB experienced by the resident and counter allegations made by the neighbours. The landlord’s action plan was to consider mediation and a ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’. While these were the first time the landlord had been able to demonstrate it was managing its response in accordance with its policies, it did not provide any explanation as to why it had not done so significantly earlier in the timeline or apologised for its delay in doing so.
During the visit, the landlord also visited the neighbour. This Service has not been provided with any notes that were obtained from that meeting, but correspondence sent to the resident indicates that counter allegations were made by the neighbours. The following day the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was not sure what it said to her neighbours the previous day, but that night she had experienced racial abuse, shouting, and swearing which was “off the scale”. The landlord failed to acknowledge the email or offer any reassurance to the resident.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the measures it will take in relation to reported ASB, which includes supporting evidence gathering and dealing robustly with the perpetrator. The landlord did not set out the details of how it would do any of these things as per its policy, either in response to the resident’s complaint, or that it conducted or considered its actions in review of the entire incident to date. The failure to manage the case effectively using a risk-based approach or gather evidence or make interventions as mandated by its policy, or to demonstrate it had meaningful plan to do so, was inappropriate and an unreasonable response by the landlord to the circumstances.
On 16 October 2023, the ASB team contacted the resident and suggested mediation as a starting point to addressing the ASB. It explained that a ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’ did not mean anyone was guilty of anything, but it would contain a list of conditions that needed to be adhered to. The resident replied to the landlord the same day and said that her family did not feel safe taking part in mediation and they felt it was too late for the ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’.
In separate emails on this day, the resident informed the ASB team that she was finding it hard to supply the evidence it was requesting. She also stated she was severely visually impaired and not up to date with technology. The resident told this service that she had great difficulty using the noise app due to her visibility. As the app was not running constantly, she said she had to locate it and set it to record every time an incident occurred. She said she found this difficult and would often miss recording the incidents due to the time taken to activate the app.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. Ultimately it is for the courts to determine whether any adjustments (requested or provided) are reasonable. However, we can investigate whether a landlord has properly considered whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by disabled people. We may find service failure or maladministration if a landlord cannot demonstrate it properly considered whether adjustments were reasonable or should be made.
There is no evidence that the landlord had considered the vulnerabilities experienced by the resident as part of the already limited support it had provided to her to gather evidence. It would have been appropriate and in line with its ASB policy, for the landlord to have adjusted the support it offered. Its failure to do so demonstrated a significant failure on its part. The failure to demonstrate it considered or made any such adjustments is evidence the landlord was not acting with due regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act, and doing so was unreasonable in the circumstances.
In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 17 October 2023, the landlord stated it lacked sufficient information to act against either party, despite the “extensive diary sheets” provided by the resident. It stated that once further evidence was received from either party the investigation could be progressed. It also requested for the resident to reconsider mediation but failed to acknowledge her concerns over safety or offer any reassurance as to how they could support her. The response also noted that the case was finely balanced against both parties. This Service has not been made aware of any reports of ASB against the resident prior to the neighbour being confronted with their own behaviour.
The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address the lack of communication by the landlord that the resident had originally complained about. It also failed to address how the ASB case had been handled to date, including where the landlord had not followed its own policy, for example:
1. The landlord had lost evidence provided by the resident.
2. The landlord failed to consider safeguarding of a vulnerable adult and child.
3. The landlord failed to carry out the RAM.
4. The landlord failed to produce, monitor, and reassess an action plan to deal with the ASB until 11 October 2023.
5. The landlord failed to implement any intervention measures until July 2023.
6. The landlord had failed to provide reasonable adjustments necessary due to the resident’s disability in order assist the resident to effectively gather evidence as per its request to gather evidence of noise and ASB.
On 28 October 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that the ASB case was going to be closed because, “As the ASB was a one-off incident and has been dealt with by the police, we feel that any further action taken by [the landlord] could make the dispute between yourself and your neighbour worse.”
The evidence provided by the resident demonstrated ASB in various forms had been ongoing since December 2022. It was inappropriate for the ASB Team to describe the case as a one-off incident, given the resident had been supplying information of new incidents for a 10-month period. The landlord’s communication lacked empathy and understanding of the significant impact on the resident and her family of reports of ASB over a prolonged period. To categorise the resident’s experience of the ASB as being one incident is likely to have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaints process and its ability to effectively manage subsequent complaints.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the circumstances in which it would close an ASB case:
1. Where ASB has not taken placed or has ceased.
2. Where it has delivered all the actions necessary, or it believes no further action is necessary.
3. Where the case has been passed to a third party better placed to deal with the matter.
4. Where the reporting party fails to engage.
5. Where there is insufficient evidence.
It was also inappropriate for the landlord to consider closing the case when the ASB was still ongoing, and the resident continued to provide evidence. The landlord had not adhered to its own policy, and this was a significant failing.
Despite this, the landlord requested evidence of further incidents on 30 October 2023. The resident responded the same day and explained her medical condition made it difficult for her to use the app and capture the evidence quick enough. The resident also stated that the police had advised her that the landlord should consider installing CCTV cameras with sound.
The landlord replied to say that it did not have the resources to supply CCTV. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to support the resident and it did not provide support to gather evidence as set out in its ASB policy, or to demonstrate that it had considered its obligations to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. The landlord’s failure to meaningfully support the resident to gather evidence to the standard it deemed acceptable was unreasonable and evidence of its expectations being unfair to the resident.
Throughout November and early December 2023, the resident continued to provide the landlord with updates on the ASB and landlord repeatedly informed her that she needed to provide evidence. The landlord failed again to offer support in evidence gathering, in line with its ASB policy.
Little proactive action is evidenced from the landlord until 11 December 2023, when the Ombudsman intervened and requested a stage 2 response was provided.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 December 2023. It summarised the resident’s complaint as:
1. Continual threatening behaviour and abusive language that was considered racist and homophobic.
2. Noise issues from banging on walls, shouting, and barking dogs.
3. The resident has serious vulnerabilities in her household and feels the situation has impacted on medical conditions.
The response included a comprehensive summary of the ASB experienced by the resident set out in a chronological timeline, which included the incidents noted earlier in this report. It also recorded the few actions taken by the landlord in the lead up to her complaint, such as:
1. December 2022 – The landlord visited the resident in person and opening an ASB case.
2. March/April 2023 – The head of housing was consulted.
3. July 2023 – An ASB specialist was brought back to the case and the alleged perpetrator of the ASB was contacted.
4. August September 2023 – The landlord contacted the police in relation to an incident involving a knife.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also set out a proposed plan of action that would be finalised following a face-to face visit with the resident in January 2023:
1. To complete a risk assessment.
2. To carry out research on the dogs at the neighbouring property following concerns raised by the resident.
3. Good Neighbour Agreement.
4. Obtain further diary sheets not on file.
5. The resident was also asked to again consider mediation.
This was a positive step, and it demonstrated that it was putting together a plan of action, in line with its ASB policy. However, it would have been appropriate to take this approach at a much earlier stage. The landlord knew that the resident did not feel comfortable with mediation and felt it was too late for the ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’. It is reasonable to presume that from the resident’s perspective, she believed she had no alternative but to engage in the agreement to try and end the ASB, even though she was uncomfortable with it. This resulted in the resident agreeing to the ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’ on 15 January 2024, as she felt she had no other option.
In addition to the above, the landlord also stated it would look into providing a more secure back fence to the property, and screening for the boundary fence, to reduce the likelihood of an interaction with the neighbours. The fencing proposal was later approved and installed at the resident’s address. This was a positive action taken by the landlord to make the resident feel more secure. However, the resident had been reporting ASB for 12 months and it would have been reasonable to provide this support much sooner.
The timeline of events set out in the stage 2 response, combined with the recorded landlord’s responses, should have highlighted its own failings in dealing with the matter, namely:
1. Failure to record and retain information and evidence.
2. Failure to consider safeguarding of a vulnerable adult and child.
3. Failure to complete a risk assessment.
4. Failure to create an action plan to address the issue that was revisited and updated as the situation developed.

The response failed to acknowledge that these actions had not been carried out.

The resident has told this Service that despite entering into the ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’ with her neighbours, the racism, homophobia, and threats to life have continued and the problem is not resolved. The resident has also reported this to the landlord.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of ASB reports, responses, interventions, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items that are detailed below.
There is no record of the original report of ASB from the resident in December 2022, nor is there any complete record of everything that was discussed when the landlord met with her on 7 December 2022. It would also appear that evidence the resident supplied to the landlord at this time, including a recording of an alleged racial slur, has been lost and further recordings have been lost when being transferred to another device.
The loss of evidence has caused the resident great distress and inconvenience. She has maintained extensive diary notes, which the landlord has not deemed suitable as evidence. This was an egregious process failure, which undermined the credibility of the landlord’s case management from that point forward. It is reasonable to conclude that its failure to safeguard evidence that could have prompted an intervention, has prolonged the ASB and denied an earlier resolution to the resident.
The many and systemic failings of the landlord’s handling of this ASB case are detailed below.
The landlord’s failure to consider safeguarding measures and risk assessments, given the severity of the allegations was a severe failing. The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities of the people in the resident’s property and its ASB policy stated it would conduct risk assessments and consider safeguarding in these circumstances. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to complete these actions given the nature of the allegations be made, including threats to life.
The landlord’s lack of intervention caused further distress and frustration for the resident. Despite providing records of incidents as and when they arose, as she was initially instructed, the landlord failed to make any contact with the alleged perpetrator of the ASB for 7 months. When contact was made, the landlord did not follow its own policy by being robust and issuing warnings. Instead, it concluded that both parties were equally to blame rather than being proactive and trying to secure evidence that would either support or refute the allegations. It was unreasonable for the landlord to take this approach given its own earlier failings in case management.
The lack of communication from the landlord to the resident appears to have been aggravated by the case being passed backwards and forwards between the ASB team and the housing team when the case was opened, then being split between the 2 teams in the later stages. While noise nuisance was clearly one of the issues reported, a large proportion of those instances referred to the shouting of threats and racist remarks. The resident’s correspondence makes it clear that she believes all the individual incidents are part of a bigger campaign on behalf of the neighbour to intimidate and harass her and her family.
In these circumstances it would have been more appropriate for the ASB team to deal with all matters from the point it was given priority 1 status. This would have given the resident one point of contact and would have caused less frustration and inconvenience when she was trying to chase for updates. Furthermore, that team should have followed the weekly contact agreement that was initially drawn up to ensure that contact was maintained. It was unreasonable and inappropriate of the landlord to expect the resident to report her concerns to two separate teams. The inability of the landlord to appreciate the situation from the resident’s perspective lacked empathy.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB and will work with other agencies such as environmental health, the police, mediation services and local authorities. While the landlord has liaised with other agencies on occasion, these instances were minimal compared to the extent of the reported problem, and no real detail was recorded to suggest any joint agency approach to tackling the issue.
The resident has also explained the difficulty she experienced using the recording app due to her medical condition and how this has impacted on her providing evidence in a form the landlord would accept. The landlord failed to consider reasonable adjustments and its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It would have been appropriate to consider other ways of gathering evidence such as a noise monitoring machine, an expert witness, enquiries with neighbouring properties or signposting the resident to the environmental health team. This may have prevented the issue escalating to this stage.
The landlord has failed to provide the resident with the service she could expect, which has had a detrimental impact on the resident and her family. These failures, which have accumulated over a significant period, have caused great distress, upset and frustration to the resident and her family. The resident has not felt safe in her home, and she has been denied effective resolution to her complaints due to a series of failures by the landlord to manage her ASB reports and complaints effectively. These failures amount to severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reported by the resident. An order has been made that the landlord pay £1,500 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience its failings have caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provisions.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out the timescales in which complaints should be addressed. It states that an acknowledgement to a complaint should be received within 5 working days, a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
On 1 August 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that she did not think the ASB matters she had reported were being taken seriously enough and she was not getting appropriate updates and answers from the landlord when she requested them. She asked that her case was reviewed immediately and progressed, as she believed that the neighbours had breached several terms of their tenancy agreement, yet no action had been taken.
The landlord failed to provide the resident with an acknowledgment of her complaint and failed to provide a stage 1 response within the time scales set out in its complaints policy. It contacted her by email on 1 September 2023 and thanked her for her email of complaint. While the email provided a brief update on the ASB investigation, it did not inform her how her complaint would be handled, in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The resident was dissatisfied, and she believed the landlords communication was its stage 1 complaint response. She contacted the landlord again on 4 September 2023 requesting an immediate response to her complaint. While her email did not use the word “escalate”, she has informed this Service that was the intention of the email. The landlord failed to make further contact with her regarding the complaint or clarify the resident’s wishes and on 4 October 2023, the Ombudsman intervened and requested the landlord provide a response by 1 November 2023. It was inappropriate that landlord failed to respond to the resident prior to the Ombudsman’s intervention. This suggests the landlord’s complaints policy was not being followed and was therefore ineffective. This caused the resident further time and trouble in pursuing the matter and compounded her belief that her complaint was not being taken seriously.
On 5 October 2023, the landlord issued an acknowledgment to the resident, almost 2 months after the initial complaint had been made.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day and stated she believed that a stage 1 response had already been received and that her reply on 4 September 2023 should have been treated as an escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process. She confirmed that she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It was appropriate that the landlord did not escalate the complaint as it had not issued its stage 1 complaint response. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make it clear that it was going to provide a stage 1 response. The landlord failed to do this, and this was further evidence of poor communication and expectation management.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2023. This was 54 working days after the complaint had been made. This was significantly outside of the 10-working day timescale in its complaint policy and was therefore a serious failing. The landlord did identify its own failings in complaint handling and explained the complaint had been logged incorrectly. It offered her £200 in compensation to address this failing.
On 18 October 2023, the resident replied to the landlord and said that she was expecting a stage 2 response. It failed to acknowledge the further escalation request. On 11 December 2023, the Ombudsman again intervened and requested a stage 2 response was issued by 29 December 2023. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to respond to the resident’s escalation request, and it did not comply with its own complaints policy. This further evidences the landlord’s complaint procedure was not effective, and this caused the resident further distress as she felt as though her complaint was being ignored.
It is clear from the evidence supplied to this Service that the landlord put a significant amount of work in trying to address the complaint from this point onwards and this is further evidenced in its communication with the resident. However, had this approach been taken at an earlier stage, it may have negated the lengthy delays the resident experienced and reduced her frustration and distress, and gone some way to improve the confidence of the resident in its complaints process.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 December 2023, in line with the Ombudsman’s request. However, this was still outside of the timescales in its complaint policy and was therefore a failing. The response incorrectly recorded the date of the initial complaint but did recognise the impact the complaint handling had on the resident and increased the compensation offered to £600.
By not following its own policy for recording and handling complaints, the landlord has caused the resident confusion, frustration, and distress. Furthermore, resident has needed to take further time and trouble to raise the matter with the Ombudsman for the complaint to be progressed. This has caused lengthy delays in the handling of her complaint.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests an award of £600 may remedy maladministration where there was a failure that had a significant impact on the resident. Considering the multiple failings, the landlord’s acceptance of these, the apologies made and the offer of compensation, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reported by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology, from the Chief Executive, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1,500 in compensation in recognition of the distress, time and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the reports of ASB from the resident.
3. Conduct a review of the resident’s ASB case and identify a proactive action plan which includes:
  1. Consideration of safeguarding a vulnerable adult and child.
  2. An updated risk assessment.
  3. Providing the resident with support for evidence gathering, considering reasonable adjustments and the Equality Act 2010.
  4. A single point of contact to take a holistic approach to resolving the ASB matter.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on:
1. The continuity of information and evidence during turnover of staff.
2. The approach taken to multi agency working when dealing with ASB cases.
3. The approach taken when implementing its ASB policy to ensure that its response to ASB is appropriate and reasonable.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.