Newham Council (202014692)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014692

Newham Council

28 February 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of anti social behaviour (“ASB”).

Background and summary of events

Background and scope of investigation

2. The resident is the leaseholder of a one-bedroom ground floor flat. He holds a Selective Landlord’s Licence, and the property is occupied by his tenants. The leaseholder was previously resident in the property under a secured tenancy with the landlord.
3. As is usual practice, the local authority (council) for the area in which the property is situated, is responsible for delivering a wide range of services to the population it covers and serves. One of that authority’s functions is to provide housing activities, and it is this part of the local authority which is classed as being “the landlord” for the purpose of this Service’s involvement. The Housing Ombudsman does not offer any scrutiny of a local authority’s other functions, this being carried out by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
4. This distinction is important in this case because this local authority runs a centralised response to ASB which includes all types of behaviour and not just that impacting those to whom it offers housing activities as a landlord – that is to tenants and leaseholders. The local authority has staff members who deal with this issue, and they are referred to, in the evidence below, as the “ASB Team”. However, the evidence does not confirm that that Team is part of “the landlord’s” staff alone, as they carry out work for the local authority generally. Under these circumstances, their actions cannot be said to be part of the landlord’s housing activities and are not covered by the Scheme under which this Service operates.
5. Accordingly, the scope of this investigation will be confined to considering whether the landlord referred the matter to the Local Authority’s ASB Team quickly enough and whether they kept the leaseholder informed of progress. Further, because the person(s) actually living in the property are tenants of the leaseholder, rather than the landlord, this Service is limited in the extent to which it canconsider the impact on them of the landlord’s actions – there being no landlord/tenant relationship between them. The Selective Landlord Licence under which the leaseholder lets out the property does not create any direct relationship between the landlord and the leaseholder’s tenants.

Summary of Events

6. On 11 January 2021 the landlord received reports of noise nuisance in the early hours of that morning coming from an upstairs neighbour who had already received a Community Protection Warning (CPW) on 7 January for similar behaviour, and a Notification of Anti Social Behaviour letter prior to that (on 3 December 2020). The local authority’s ASB Investigation Officer was liaising with the police and social care services about the situation.
7. On 24 February 2021 the leaseholder complained to the landlord via this Service. He had been unable to use the landlord’s online facility. It was explained on his behalf that he had been reporting ASB from the neighbour in question since June 2020. This consisted of general noise; the neighbour jumping off his upstairs balcony at night into the gardens below; the throwing of paint at the leaseholder’s door; interfering with his mail; littering and drug use. It was noted the neighbour had set a fire in the communal area and the leaseholder considered him to be a danger to himself and to others. By way of resolution, the leaseholder was suggesting the neighbour should be moved to supported accommodation elsewhere. 
8. On 1 March 2021, the local authority’s ASB officer discussed the situation with the leaseholder who confirmed there was no noise during the day but that issues arose in the early hours, typically between 2am and 5 am. He reiterated that the neighbour, along with non-resident visitors, were making noise generally, including by jumping off their first floor balcony into the communal gardens below. Access was being afforded to these visitors by the neighbour wedging communal doors open. The leaseholder also reported that items of his mail were being interfered with and that he suspected there was drug use taking place at the property.
9. The ASB officer confirmed that the police had been contacted and asked for checks of the area around the relevant times to take place. In addition, ‘further action’ was planned to follow on from the CPW already served, including that the neighbour would be contacted and advised of the consequences of their behaviour. Advice was given on how the leaseholder’s tenants could make reports direct to the landlord.
10. On 8 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the leaseholder with its response in accordance with stage one of its complaints procedure explaining that it had been asked to look at his concerns by this Service as a formal complaint. The landlord confirmed that it had received three reports from him of ASB, two being made on 11 January 2021 and the other on 18 January. A further report had then been made by the leaseholder’s tenant on 19 February 2021.
11. Following this, the local authority’s ASB team had become involved and had liaised with both the police and other local authority services and this was ongoing. The neighbour had been contacted and advised of the possible consequences of their behaviour. A Notification of Anti Social Behaviour letter had been sent to the neighbour on 3 December 2020, followed by a Community Protection Warning (CPW) on 7 January 2021. The situation was being monitored and its investigation was ongoing, and the neighbour was aware that the warning might be followed up by a Community Protection Notice. In the meantime, the leaseholder’s tenants had been given the means to report problems direct to the local authority.
12. On 12 March 2021 the ASB officer spoke with the leaseholder’s tenants to provide advice on their personal safety and the reporting process. The leaseholder was also advised that further action would be taken to follow on from the CPW already served. He was advised to report all incidents to the police. 
13. During March to July 2021 the upstairs neighbour was not at the property and no further reports were received during that time.
14. On 29 March 2021 the landlord noted this Service’s request of 22 March 2021 made on the leaseholder’s behalf for an escalation of the complaint to the second stage of its complaints procedure. It had not received such a request directly from the leaseholder and was not aware of the specific reasons for the leaseholder’s ongoing dissatisfaction.
15. On 15 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder asking him to confirm why he remained dissatisfied with its first response so that their review could go ahead. It requested a response in five working days but did not receive one.
16. On 10 May 2021 the landlord’s complaints team requested an update from the ASB team and again on 20 May 2021. It responded that the upstairs property was now unoccupied, and they were awaiting the outcome of a court hearing to determine any future course of action.
17. On 27 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder with the outcome of its complaint review pursuant to stage two of its complaints procedure. It apologised for the delay in providing its response following the escalation request of 22 March 2021. It explained that because that request had been received via this Service it was unclear as to why the leaseholder was dissatisfied with its first stage response. It had written to him on 15 April 2021 to clarify this but had received no response. The conclusions of its review were as follows:
    1. The landlord had requested an updating report from the ASB team and understood their involvement was ongoing and the situation was being monitored. The leaseholder’s tenants had been updated as to progress directly.
    2. The upstairs property was currently unoccupied, and the outcome of a court hearing was awaited which would determine where the case went from there.
18. However, the neighbour returned to the property and on 16 July 2021 the ASB team visited them with Social Services, and they agreed the terms of an Acceptable Behaviour Contract.
19. On 2 August 2021 the leaseholder emailed the landlord to report there had been further noise nuisance issues of a similar nature to previously. The ASB officer served the Acceptable Behaviour Contract on the neighbour that day.
20. On 18 August 2021 the leaseholder made a report to the landlord of a noisy party coming from the neighbouring property. A Notice Seeking Possession “NSP” was served on the neighbour by the ASB officer the same day (and legal action remains ongoing). The landlord contacted the leaseholder the following day to discuss the situation.
21. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that legal action is ongoing against the neighbour in question and that the ASB Team and the landlord’s Resident Services Team would continue to monitor the situation. In addition, the landlord’s Head of Housing Services was willing to meet personally with the leaseholder to discuss the situation.

Assessment

22. The leaseholder reported to this Service that he had been making reports of ASB to the landlord since June 2020, but the evidence only demonstrates such reports from January 2021. However, a Notification of ASB letter and a Community Protection Warning had already been served upon the neighbour in question by this point, from which it is reasonable to conclude some reports had already been made to the landlord and/or the local authority about the situation. The evidence does not demonstrate who made these reports, to whom they were made or when this occurred.
23. It is also noted that the landlord underlines the fact it has had to set out the correct reporting procedure to the leaseholder and his tenants more than once – which might explain the shortage of evidence confirming what reports had been made.
24. The evidence does show, in the Ombudsman’s view, that the situation has been taken seriously by the landlord. Irrespective of whether the landlord’s staff arranged it, or the local authority’s ASB team were involved, the various “tools” available to deal with the behaviour have been utilised, including warnings, notices, contracts and so on. Indeed, the issue of court proceedings to evict a resident is very much an action of last resort. Legal proceedings carry risk and potentially adverse costs consequences. The fact this action has been undertaken positively supports this view. Any further tenancy enforcement action by the landlord would be dependent on the decision of the court.
25. The exact date the landlord involved the ASB Team is not clear. However, it would appear that ASB was already under investigation by the beginning of January 2021 when the evidence confirms reports by the leaseholder. The landlord cannot be said to have delayed, therefore, in acting on the reports and involving the ASB Team, the police and other local authority services was the route it needed to take. The evidence also supports the fact the leaseholder was kept informed of developments.
26. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord has acted reasonably in responding to the allegations of ASB and there has been no service failing on its behalf.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the leaseholder’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

28. Owing to the fact the local authority was involved in dealing with the reports outside of its housing remit, the scope of this investigation has been very limited. The evidence does not support any delay by the landlord in dealing with matters and there is no suggestion that it failed to take the situation seriously or keep the leaseholder informed. All of the usual ways of responding to ASB have been worked through in this case and the fact legal proceedings have been issued demonstrates a serious commitment to tackling the issue.