Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202105403)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105403

Greenwich Council

22 March 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:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of paying for services not provided by the landlord.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident occupied her home with her baby in a one-bedroom flat on the 11th floor under a secure tenancy which began on 26 February 2007.

The legal and policy framework

3. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident was obliged to pay rent and a charge for heating and a water charge. The net rent covered the general cost of maintaining and managing her home and neighbourhood/area. The service charges covered services provided to her home or local area, for example, ground maintenance, estate cleaning, or communal facilities like concierge and estate lighting.
4. The ASB policy/ tenant handbook set out that the landlord did not tolerate any form of anti-social behaviour. It would acknowledge the resident’s report within 5 working days. It would assess how serious the problem was before deciding what action to take. Serious cases would be investigated within 24 hours. The landlord would agree an action plan to resolve the problem and would confirm this in writing. The case would be closed when the problem had been resolved, or 4 weeks after the most recent contact by the resident. The policy set out a number of actions the landlord would take including agreements with the perpetrators and/or legal action. A court could grant injunctions, possession orders, or demotion orders only on good evidence. Evidence that would satisfy the court must: preferably be first–hand named evidence. A resident could also request an anti-social behaviour review/community trigger. A community trigger gave the right to ask for a review of the response to an anti-social behaviour problem that the resident had reported at least three times before. At least one of the reports must have been made within the last six months. Each report must have been about something that had happened within the month before being reported it.
5. Under the resident’s handbook, the landlord would take action against people who caused problems for their neighbours, and support people whose right to peaceable enjoyment of their property and area is seriously affected. It would work in partnership with the Police and other agencies in order to deal effectively with perpetrators and assist people who are affected by anti-social behaviour.
6. There was no service charges policy.
7. The complaint policy was a two-stage process. It was to respond at the first stage within 15 working days and 20 working days of receipt of the resident requesting escalation of the complaint.
8. Under the compensation policy, the landlord would consider requests for a pro–rata refund for a lost service, where a problem with the service had been reported and the landlord had responded outside of its agreed timeframes. Refunds would be considered where it charged residents a service charge for a specific service.

Chronology

9. On 4 March 2020, a routine supervisor inspection took place and reported no issues with ‘drug litter’. The report included photographs including the lift, stairs, passageways and the 11th floor of the building which showed them to be clear and clean.
10. The landlord has informed this service that caretakers would respond to service requests to clean internal, easy to reach communal windows if there was time to do so. In the period between 4 March 2020 and 4 March 2021, the caretaking service reports included the following:
    1. 3 reports of urine in the lifts.
    2. 16 reports of ASB.
    3. 2 general cleaning requests.
11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 March 2020. She had noted the charge of £0.34pw week for CCTV and £0.06pw for window cleaning. She was not aware of those services.
12. The resident wrote again to the landlord on 5 March 2020 with photographs attached showing the condition of the block. She enquired what measures the landlord intended to take in relation to safeguarding the health and safety of the residents, in particular given the coronavirus pandemic. She had been unhappy with the landlord’s response to concerns in the past. She cited there had been incidents of urine, faeces, saliva and mucus containing blood in the lifts which the caretakers did not clean properly. Although the intercom had been repaired, there were unwanted members of the public accessing the building from both the front and back of the building. She said they included drug users and dealers, and that the main building door would become jammed by the intruders so that it was difficult to open, particularly as she had a baby in a pushchair.
13. The resident said that she had suggested installing CCTV cameras in 2018 as a way of not only deterring unwanted people from the building but to catch those who were misusing the lift and the building as a whole. However, the suggestion was rejected. Instead, the landlord wrote warning letters and a request for the residents to inform it as to who was misusing the lifts. She said the perpetrators would be difficult to identify. Tenancy officers had patrolled the building but this had not assisted the situation. She had made reports to the Police regarding the drug users. She has been in “confrontational situations” with these unwanted visitors which put her safety at risk. She felt the landlord’s approaches had been unsuccessful. There were a number of vulnerable residents including children, disabled and older people in the block. She felt constantly anxious as to what she would meet when entering and leaving her home. In addition, given the pandemic, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that residents were not exposed and at risk from the virus. She reported feeling unsafe, uneasy and uncomfortable in her own home.
14. The landlord replied on the same day stating as follows:
    1. It would investigate her complaint.
    2. If it was found that the standard of cleaning was not acceptable then changes would be made to ensure that it was done correctly.
    3. The landlord was monitoring the situation regarding the pandemic and following government guidelines.
    4. Its approach to ASB was robust.
    5. It had attended the block on 12 December 2019. A number of residents including her had agreed to provide diary sheets in order to support enforcement action against any perpetrators of ASB, but it had not received any responses.
    6. It had attended again on 11 February 2020 and stated that the resident had informed it that the situation had “calmed down”. Another resident agreed to provide a statement.
    7. The landlord was collating evidence and statements to support a “Closure Order” against a property that it believed was attracting individuals to the block who were perpetrating this behaviour. It explained that a Closure Order was a Court Order preventing anyone from entering the property for a duration of three months, including the relevant tenant. To be successful in Court and to demonstrate that such an order was reasonable and proportionate, the landlord required strong evidence to support its case. The resident’s photos were an excellent contribution, if it had her agreement to use them, but it would also need statements from affected residents. It reassured the resident that such statements could be anonymous. It invited her to contact it for assistance in making such a statement.
    8. In relation to CCTV, there was no capacity on the existing CCTV infrastructure to add additional cameras to the network and the costs associated with creating additional capacity and cabling/installing additional cameras was likely to be prohibitive. The landlord explained that it experienced similar issues in blocks with CCTV installed but found that the presence of cameras was not always a sufficient deterrent to serious anti-social behaviour.
15. On 6 March 2020, the resident replied that she considered her reports of incidents in the form of email, telephone and face to face were sufficient.
    1. She had also understood her neighbour had “taken the lead” regarding particular events on her floor and that emails including footage has been submitted.
    2. The resident had made reports on 21 February 2020 regarding events two weeks previously and raised a welfare concern for a resident who had been sleeping rough in order to stop people from coming to him as they had been abusing him. She described a serious assault to that neighbour and understood another neighbour had provided photos.
    3. She requested a deep cleaning service to the lifts and the entire building. She requested detailed information on how often the lifts were cleaned.
    4. She requested a further explanation about the CCTV infrastructure and experience elsewhere given the pandemic.
16. There was a further supervisor inspection on 1 May 2020. Again, there were no reports of “drug litter”.
17. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 May 2020 regarding the service charge. It explained that the service charge covered the cost of all communal services across the local authority. Previously, the cost of communal services had been paid for from rent. The charges were set out separately from February 2017 in order to provide more clarity and transparency. The landlord considered that this was the fairest and most efficient way of charging for the services. It did not mean that the resident would receive all the services listed. It invited the resident to report any concerns about the quality or frequency of the services she received and listed the various teams.
18. On 13 May 2020, the resident replied querying how a flat charge was fair when she did not have CCTV in the building or a window cleaning service.
19. The landlord replied on the same day. The flat rate meant that costs were kept as low as possible, as individual assessment would be costly and complex to administer and would result in higher service charges for all. It was about to review its service charges in order to seek greater transparency, parity and fairness. It would contact the resident for feedback, if appropriate.
20. On 11 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord as a complaint regarding service charges. She felt it was not fair to have to pay service charges for window cleaning services and CCTV that she did not receive, in particular as she wanted those services in relation to the ASB she was suffering.
21. The resident chased her complaint on 6 November 2020. She set out the difficulties she had had in chasing a response. The landlord replied on 10 November 2020 to explain the reasons for the delay and it would respond within 10 working days.
22. The landlord responded on 20 November 2020. It provided the same explanation as its email of May 2020. It had adopted a flat charge in order to avoid additional costs which would be charged back to residents. However, it recognised it did not allocate the relevant costs to the relevant property. It was reviewing the process and inviting feedback. It partially upheld the complaint but did not explain in what particular respect. The resident was entitled to escalate her complaint.
23. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2020 to escalate the complaint on the following grounds:
    1. She should be refunded for all the years she had paid for a service she did not receive.
    2. She should no longer continue to pay for those services.
    3. She should be compensated for her time and trouble.
    4. She felt it particularly unfair given the ASB she had reported.
24. On a date in January 2021 (the email is not dated) the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her complaint in December in relation to anti-social behaviour including urine and faeces in the lift. It asked whether the issues were ongoing. It stated that a number of issues relating to a property on her floor had been addressed in that the neighbour was not currently residing at that property and there were no plans for them to return for the foreseeable future. Other addresses within the block were currently being investigated. It invited the resident to make reports in order to ensure sufficient resources were allocated. In relation to the CCTV, the landlord was exploring the possibility of expanding its CCTV capacity prior to lockdown. It felt CCTV would be beneficial and it would keep her informed.
25. The resident replied on 1 February 2021 to confirm that the issue in the lifts was still ongoing. She requested that the landlord escalate her complaint given the ASB from non-residents was continuing.
26. The landlord responded with its second stage response on 4 March 2021 as follows:
    1. The landlord operated a fixed flat rate service charge which did not actually reflect the full cost of the services provided. By way of illustration, leaseholders in her block paid on average £1,824 per annum in service charges, excluding insurance. This was more reflective of the actual cost of existing services excluding window cleaning etc. It hoped this demonstrated the value for money experienced by tenants and why a refund would not be appropriate.
    2. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the service charge was subject to periodic and regulated changes. The pooling and setting of a flat–rate service charge balanced out across all of the landlord’s housing stock and all of the respective services received. This ensured efficiency and reduced costs in the administration of its service charge regime, commensurate to being able to maintain the lowest rent and service charges in London, according to the landlord.
    3. It was considering moving to a block/estate–specific service charge regime, and was reviewing the impact on charges and tenant affordability.
    4. It would arrange for an increased frequency of caretaking, cleaning, and inspection of the block based on the reports.
    5. It would consider some measure of window cleaning to take place at the block but did not provide further details.
    6. It asked the resident to continue to report ASB.
    7. It would only install CCTV where the offences likely to be detected could result in a custodial prison sentence of at least three months.
27. On 28 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord stating she had not received a second stage response letter. She was not satisfied the landlord was doing enough. She sent photos of mucus in the lift that afternoon. The resident made a fresh complaint on 21 April 2021. The letter was not provided to the service however the landlord replied on 29 April 2021 stating that the complaint was regarding tailgating and a person defecating in the block. It stated that its team was patrolling the block and carrying out regular checks within the block to gather evidence. It suggested that she report any drug dealing to the Police. The landlord had asked the local Police to increase its presence and patrols of the area.
28. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 May 2021 with its second stage response to the complaint.
    1. It had written to all the residents in the block on 26 May 2021 reminding them of their responsibility to maintain the security of the block. It noted that the main entrance door was not faulty and was secure.
    2. It noted that the photographs and reports she sent in March 2021 detailed incidents previously investigated in October 2020.
    3. The landlord was aware of a property where illegal activity and anti-social behaviour were occurring. Appropriate action was taken. The property had been secured with no further reports received.
    4. The landlord had not received any recent reports from her or any other residents of the block. It had invited reports on 16 April 2021 with details of incidents but did not receive a response.
    5. There were weekly patrols and Police teams regularly visiting the block. No recent reports had been received from those teams. It was not possible to provide 24-hour patrols of the block and it was therefore reliant on detailed incident reports, dates, and times to deploy the patrols teams to the area when they were most likely to encounter perpetrators of anti-social behaviour.
    6. It reassured the resident that robust enforcement action would be taken against those persons identified as spitting, defecating, and behaving in an unacceptable manner. Its caretaking service regularly cleaned the block and reported drug “detritus” or defecation. No recent reports had been received from this service.

Assessment and findings

29. The resident effectively made three complaints, One on 4 March 2020 regarding the ASB, one on 21 September 2020 in relation to service charges and then a further complaint which overlapped the issues of the previous two on 21 April 2021, to which the landlord provided a final response to on 28 May 2021. The complaints are so closely linked both in subject and time and were provided to this service as the relevant complaint, that the Ombudsman has considered it fiar to consider all three complaints.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

30. The resident’s concerns about the ASB and the condition of the building was very understandable. She vividly described her discomfort and anxiety. It was also understandable that her anxiety in relation to cleanliness was heightened due to the pandemic and in particular as she had a baby. She pointed out that she had no option but to use the lift as she lived on the 11th floor. In considering the resident’s concerns and formal complaints, the Ombudsman will assess the responses by the landlord and investigate whether they were reasonable and appropriate and what other steps it could have taken and could take.
31. The landlord’s responses in relation to the resident’s suggestion that CCTV be installed were, in themselves, reasonable. It cited that it had considered CCTV but that it was expensive, that it was not always effective and that it was however reviewing the issue. However, the landlord’s responses were also contradictory, as in one email it stated that CCTV did not assist with ASB and in another that it did. The landlord could have also reassured the resident sooner that it was reviewing its decision whether to provide CCTV in the building.
32. The evidence showed that it had actively addressed the issue on her floor. It was reasonable of the landlord to request specific reports and for the resident to engage in providing evidence for its case. As set out in its policy, a court would require robust evidence in order to make a closure order under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It was reasonable of the landlord not to merely move the neighbour involved to avoid court action, as suggested by the resident, but to address the issue in a conclusive way.
33. While the landlord was taking action, there was no evidence that it considered whether to open an ASB case for the resident. The evidence showed she had made some reports herself. Opening a case may have better structured the landlord’s response. Moreover, the policy set out that the landlord should consider the severity of a report, agree an action plan and then conclude it. There may have been scope for considering a Community Trigger, involving the Police and landlord in a more formal way. However, given the landlord took action, liaised with the Police, and addressed the ASB, there was no significant practical impact on the resident of it not opening a case. In any event, the resident did not make any further reports between 4 March 2020 and her reference to the issues in her email to the landlord of 9 December 2020.
34. It was reasonable of the landlord to explain it could not provide 24/7 monitoring and that it encouraged the resident to report issues so that it could act upon them.
35. The evidence showed that there were issues regarding the cleanliness of the building. Given the level of ASB in the block, as demonstrated for the need of landlord patrols and Police presence, this would be of particular importance in the block. The evidence also showed that there was no regular or thorough window cleaning services. This would exacerbate the distress and frustration for the resident. It was not reasonable of the landlord to only address the issue of cleaning in its final response of 4 March 2021. However, when it finally did, it was reasonable for the landlord to increase the frequency of caretaking, cleaning, and inspection of the block.
36. The landlord had addressed the incident on the same floor as the resident, it had arranged patrols, it had requested the Police to increase its presence, it had collated reports through its caretaking services, it increased the cleaning, and it evidenced that it would take action if the specific circumstances required it. In terms of the landlord’s response to the reports the resident made in the period investigated, the Ombudsman did not find service failure, as the landlord’s response and actions taken were proportionate to the issues raised and actions were taken within a reasonable timeframe.
37. It was understandable the resident felt other neighbour’s reports should suffice. In addition, she was a single mother with a small baby and would have limited resources to make reports. However, the Ombudsman accepts that residents making reports of ASB is a key source of information for a landlord.
38. The evidence showed there was a high level of unacceptable behaviour in the block perpetrated by intruders. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be proactive in ensuring there was good security of the block and ensuring that the level of cleaning met the particular circumstances. The landlord should monitor the cleaning closely, ensure it is of a suitable frequency and keep the resident informed of its review of the provision of CCTV in the block. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of paying for services not provided by the landlord.

39. While the resident was of the view that the cleaning service was insufficient, cleaning was taking place, even if it needed improvement. However, the landlord was not entitled to charge the resident for CCTV as that was a service that was not provided to her block. It was not appropriate to impose a charge for a service that the resident was not receiving. It is therefore understandable that the resident was unhappy with the charges, in particular as CCTV was the very service she required. This approach led to difficulties raised by the resident and a failure of transparency. It also led to a loss of trust in the landlord.
40. Nevertheless, the landlord’s justification, that its calculation methods  was a way of keeping the costs down and that the charges did not reflect the true cost of the series it was providing the resident, was reasonable. The landlord’s overall intention was to save administrative costs which it was entitled to do, indeed it should do, in particular as a social landlord.
41. The effect on the resident was mitigated by the landlord not passing on all its costs so that the resident was not paying the full cost of the service she was receiving.  Taken as an overall situation, the resident would not have been unduly prejudiced by how the landlord calculated the service charge.
42. It was appropriate that the landlord was addressing the matter by undertaking a review in consultation with the residents and it invited the resident to take part and provide her comment.
43. While the policy stated the landlord could make a refund for services not delivered, the landlord was addressing the resident’s concerns by reviewing the way it charged for services and by inviting the resident to report any further concerns about the level of services. Given those actions, the amount involved, the landlord’s rationale, and the evidence showed the resident was not suffering a significant detriment,  the Ombudsman does not consider repayment would be  proportionate in the circumstances of this case. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord undertaking a review addressing the service constituted reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

44. There were significant delays of over two months for each of the landlord’s response   to the resident’s service charge complaint which amounted to service failure. Finally, while it expressed some reassurance regarding the incidents of ASB, the landlord did not express a high level of understanding and empathy for the resident living in a block with a high level of unacceptable behaviour.
45. The complaint process became confused as the landlord treated the resident’s email of 9 December 2020 as both an escalation regarding the service charges and ASB. However, there was no disbenefit to the resident in having done so, indeed, as it allowed the landlord to be more thorough and to treat the issues as connected, which they were.
46. The responses in relation to the CCTV were inconsistent. It initially informed the resident CCTV was too expensive and was not useful, then it informed the resident that it had been considering installing CCTV since before lockdown. Presumably its final position was that it would only install CCTV where the offences likely to be detected could result in a custodial prison sentence of at least three months. While the landlord is entitled to undertake a costs-benefit exercise, this decision may require further consideration, as it would be difficult for the landlord to predict how serious ASB could become and a three-month sentence is a high threshold for ASB.
47. While some of the aspects of the complaint response were positive, as it led to the landlord providing some explanation for its actions, taking all of these factors together, its delays, its tone and inconsistencies constituted service failure overall.

Determination (decision)

1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of paying for services not provided by the landlord.
3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

48. The evidence showed that the landlord addressed the reports of ASB, it had arranged patrols, it had requested the Police to increase its presence, it had collated reports through its caretaking services and it increased the cleaning of the block.
49. While the landlord was not entitled to charge for a service it had not provided to the resident, it provided reasonable redress by its explanation of its approach and that it was pursuing a review of how it charged for service charges.  The evidence showed that there was a cleaning service, even if it was subject to improvement given the circumstances of the block.
50. While some of the aspects of the complaint response were positive, as it led to the landlord providing some explanation for its actions, taking all of these factors together, its delays, its tone and inconsistencies constituted service failure overall.

Orders

51. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling within 28 days.
52. The landlord should confirm compliance with the order to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

53. The landlord should continue to patrol the block for intruders, to inspect and ensure that the door is kept secure and to consider regular proactive steps to minimise intruders and unacceptable behaviour in the building.
54. The landlord should monitor the cleaning more closely, ensure it is of a suitable frequency and abide by its promises to consider window cleaning, which it should instigate unless it had very good reason not to, and to consider increasing the frequency of caretaking, cleaning and inspection of the block.
55. The landlord should update the resident as to its plans to improve the security and cleanliness of the block.
56. The landlord should keep the resident informed of its review of the provision of CCTV in the block and provide a clear explanation of its decision.
57. The landlord should ensure that it adheres to its complaint policy and ensures its email boxes are monitored and appropriate arrangements are made when there are changes to those email boxes.