Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202317482)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317482

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).
    2. Request to be rehoused.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident applied to the local authority to be rehoused due to neighbour harassment and on medical grounds (declined on 9 August and 23 November 2023 respectively). The applications were considered by the landlord acting on behalf of the local authority in its role of housing provider (rather than landlord). Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) rather than the Housing Ombudsman.
  3. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’. As a result, the resident’s complaint about her rehousing applications falls outside this Service’s jurisdiction and is not considered further in this report. The resident should contact the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue this complaint further.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor maisonette. The resident lives in the property with her son who has autism, and the landlord is aware of this.   
  2. On 23 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report issues with a neighbour: banging on the wall; drilling; racially harassing her; victimising her due to her son’s disability and saying her son made too much noise (despite being aware he has autism); coming to her door to intimidate her; and having a dog that barked loudly. She said both her and her son’s sleep had been affected, particularly by the banging and drilling.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the email the same day. It said it would write to the neighbour to discuss the allegations (no copy of any such correspondence has been provided to this Service) and that the resident should report further incidents to it and the police.
  4. The resident contacted her local MP on 21 February 2023 saying she had reported ASB to her landlord on numerous occasions but nothing had been done. The MP wrote to the landlord the same day and the landlord acknowledged this the following day, saying it would investigate and review the situation.
  5. The landlord’s Hate Crime panel reviewed the resident’s application to move on 28 February 2023. A risk assessment was completed the same day which concluded there was ‘medium risk’ so it monitored the situation. It emailed the resident and advised her to look for properties through its Choice Based Lettings (CBL) and complete a medical form which could help her move on medicals grounds. However, there is no evidence it explained the risk assessment outcome to her.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 and 21 April 2023 to report further incidents of harassment and intimidation by her neighbour. She said she had reported issues but no action had been taken due to insufficient evidence. As a result, she had installed CCTV. She said she felt uncomfortable, frightened and threatened, and asked to be urgently relocated. She also sent CCTV and audio of a drilling sound from the neighbour’s property (not provided to this Service).
  7. The resident emailed the landlord again on 31 May 2023, alleging another neighbour had drilled heavily over a period of 3 days and left hazards in the communal hallway which her son tripped on. She said it seemed like a plan between the 2 neighbours to harass her and she requested urgent relocation or temporary accommodation.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 June 2023 (no copy provided to this Service) and she replied on 19 June 2023. She acknowledged that noise can be generated from everyday property use, but believed her neighbours were intentionally noisy due to her son’s disability. She said she was willing to install insulation to reduce noise transference between the properties.
  9. The landlord emailed the resident on 23 June 2023 and said it attended the building on 17 June 2023 when it witnessed a statutory noise nuisance of loud music and banging from the neighbour. It had therefore written to the neighbour. It said it was difficult to establish if the noise was deliberate but it would issue a noise abatement notice if it witnessed loud music again. 
  10. The landlord emailed the resident on 26 June 2023 and said she should contact its repairs team to attend and inspect the sound insulation of her property. It said the repairs team would raise relevant follow on work if required. 
  11. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 3 August 2023 she said she could not cope with the banging and drilling almost every day at unsociable hours, and had provided video evidence of this. The landlord’s housing allocations team emailed her the same day and said the demand for social housing was extremely high and encouraged her to bid for properties through the CBL.
  12. Internal landlord emails of 8 August 2023 said there was no evidence to support the resident’s claims of ASB by her neighbours. However, it had received counter allegations of ASB by the resident from 3 of her neighbours.
  13. The resident contacted this Service on 14 August 2023 and said the landlord was dismissive of her ASB reports and she wished to be moved. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord raised a formal complaint on 2 October 2023.
  14. After no further reports, the landlord emailed the resident on 18 October 2023 to ask how she was and clarified its position regarding the ASB. It said she should report incidents to its Community Protection Team (CPT) and the police, but her neighbours had denied the ASB allegations and made counter allegations. It advised that there was insufficient evidence to take enforcement action against either party and it noted that both parties had declined mediation.
  15. The following day the resident emailed the landlord saying she had provided evidence of ASB, and intended to take legal action.
  16. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 October 2023, as follows:
    1. The resident’s neighbour (it is unclear which one) was not its tenant, so it could not take enforcement action. However, it had referred the resident’s reports to the CPT who review whether enforcement action is required against private tenants.
    2. It had completed a risk assessment and referred her to its housing allocations team. However, the allocations team deemed there to be insufficient evidence of ASB or harassment to recommend a priority move.
    3. It would continue to monitor the situation and she should bid for properties via CBL.
  17. In the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 9 November 2023 she reiterated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and supporting evidence and she believed the situation had ‘gone beyond’ mediation. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 November 2023, saying:
    1. Its decision to refer the resident’s case for a move indicated it had taken her ASB concerns seriously.
    2. The CPT had carried out visits at different times (no records of the dates or findings of these visits have been provided) and it had not witnessed any noise, so no further action could be taken.
    3. It had reviewed the CCTV footage provided but it appeared to show normal neighbour activity.
    4. It enclosed diary sheets for her to complete. 

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident’s neighbour made further counter allegations of ASB against her in January 2024. On 30 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and neighbour, provided diary sheets, and proposed mediation.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 February 2024 advising her to bid for properties through CBL. It also said it required evidence of the ASB, such as noise recorded on a noise app or from independent witnesses, before it could take action against her neighbours.
  3. After the resident continued to report the same issues, the landlord wrote to her in March 2024 reiterating its offer of mediation as her neighbour had agreed to attend. However the resident again declined. The landlord provided evidence to show it continued to engage with relevant parties and other agencies in an effort to resolve the situation. It also visited the building on numerous occasions at random times to gather evidence, but had not witnessed any ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Housing Ombudsman can only investigate the local authority in so far as it was acting in its role as landlord (reflected at paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme). The local authority CPT (formerly the Noise and ASB Team) operates within the separate Environment and Leisure Department, which sits outside of the local authority’s landlord function. Therefore, it is important to note that this investigation does not comment on the actions of the CPT and reference is made to it only in so far as it informs the investigation into the landlord function. If the resident wishes to pursue any concerns about the CPT further, she should contact the LGSCO in that regard.
  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident continued to report ASB after receiving the stage 2 response and her frustration understandably increased as the months passed. However, this Service can only investigate complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues internally in the first instance. As a result, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of ASB between 23 January and 13 November 2023. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions following its stage 2 response, she may wish to consider raising a new complaint in that regard.

Landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. It is evident that the situation with her neighbours has been distressing for the resident. However, it may help to explain that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether ASB took place or its seriousness. Instead, this Service considers the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB and whether it acted in line with its policies, fairly, and reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as behaviour capable of causing nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress. It says harassment (including hate crimes) and noise nuisance are ASB, and residents should report concerns. Once a report has been made, it will discuss the situation with the resident and decide a course of action including mediation (which it actively encourages for most neighbour disputes). It says (as a local authority) it has a range of teams that deal with ASB, including the CPT and Tenancy Enforcement team.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will:
    1. Not tolerate any form of ASB.
    2. Acknowledge reports within 5 working days and assess how serious the report is before deciding what action to take.
    3. Agree an action plan with the resident which will be confirmed in writing. The action plan may include mediation, whether further evidence of ASB is required, contacting neighbours, or involving other local authority departments or organisations.
    4. Regularly review the case and decide further action.
    5. Close the case when the ASB is resolved, or after 4 weeks of no further contact, and write to confirm the case has been closed.
    6. Use a range of actions including acceptable behaviour contracts or legal action.
  4. The landlord has provided limited records to this Service in relation to its handling of the ASB reports between January and November 2023. Following the original report, no evidence has been provided to confirm whether it:
    1. Wrote to, or met with, the neighbour in January 2023;
    2. Clearly explained its ASB process or the evidence required to build a case against a neighbour;
    3. Opened a case in January 2023, and if it did, whether it was closed 4 weeks later in line with its policy after no further reports.

This was unreasonable as managing the resident’s expectations effectively at the earliest opportunity could have avoided some of her frustration.

  1. The poor communication also contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction and led her to contact her MP in February 2023 as well as different departments within the local authority. She evidently felt her reports were not being taken seriously or addressed, which was a failing by the landlord. The hate crime review presented a further opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations, but there is no evidence that the landlord explained the outcome of the review. There is no evidence it agreed an action plan with the resident, told her to complete diary sheets, explained that the evidence she submitted was insufficient to warrant further action, or explained its ASB process following her reports in either January, April or May 2023.
  2. The landlord demonstrated that it considered ways to resolve the issues and offered mediation (although there is no evidence to confirm when this was first offered). It also suggested that it could investigate noise transference in June 2023, but left it to the resident to contact its repairs team. It would have been reasonable for it to arrange a repairs appointment which could have helped with noise transference between properties and resolved the ASB.
  3. The landlord advised the resident to apply for alternative housing through CBL in February, August and October 2023 to improve her chances of finding alternative accommodation. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take as it gave appropriate advice on the options available to the resident to help herself. However there is no evidence that the resident applied for any other properties, indicating that she did not take all available steps to mitigate her situation.
  4. Overall, the lack of landlord records has meant that it has not been possible to fully understand the steps it took or why, which has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. However, the evidence suggests its handling of the resident’s ASB reports undermined the landlord/tenant relationship, caused her to lose faith in it, and feel her reports were not managed appropriately or taken seriously. The poor communication and failure to manage her expectations effectively protracted the issue and amount to maladministration.
  5. ASB is difficult to investigate and evidence, based on the documents provided, the landlord was within its rights not to take robust action against the neighbours. For it to take action, it required the resident to actively engage, provide sufficient evidence to open an ASB case, and complete diary sheets. While this Service is not commenting on the actions of the CPT, the landlord obviously liaised with them following the resident’s reports, and they did not find any corroborating evidence either. On the basis of the evidence provided, it would not have been reasonable for the landlord to apply time and resources to investigating the alleged ASB, when the resident had given insufficient cause to suggest there was anything to investigate. 
  6. Whilst the landlord used its complaints process to explain that the ASB evidence provided was not sufficient to take action against the neighbours, it did not acknowledge any failings in communication. It also did not manage the resident’s expectations with regard to the evidence she would need to provide, and likely outcome of an ASB case as a whole. As a result, there was maladministration.
  7. However, there was no evidence the resident applied for other properties through CBL, engaged in mediation, requested the repairs team attend to inspect the insulation (as instructed), or provided conclusive evidence of ASB or noise to the landlord. This affected its ability to investigate and effectively resolve the issue. On balance, an order is made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident, to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble its failures caused. This amount is less than would ordinarily be ordered under the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, to reflect the impact of the resident’s lack of actions to mitigate her own circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request to be rehoused is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings.
    3. If the resident is still reporting the same ASB issues, interview her, complete an up to date risk assessment, and complete an action plan which should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should ensure all residents are clearly informed if/when an ASB case is closed and no further action taken in line with its policy.