South Tyneside Council (202124147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124147

South Tyneside Homes

20 March 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident complains about the landlord’s:

a. handling of the arrangements to move the resident’s furniture to his current property including the return of the keys;

b. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from Tenant A including the resident’s reports that Tenant A had encroached on the front garden;

c. response to concerns regarding the meeting in December 2020;

d. response to reports of a neighbour growing cannabis at their property;

e. handling of the resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 42 (c) of the Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not bought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
Evidence seen by this Service show that after the resident viewed the property on 7 August 2018 and that the landlord took responsibility for the removal of his belongings to the property. In doing so, a mistake was made which led to the removals taking place over two days on the 16 August 2018 and 17 August 2018. At the time, the resident made a complaint to the landlord in July 2021 over two years had elapsed. There is no information showing that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord at the time or that these concerns were raised with the landlord at the time.
After considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint regarding the handling of the arrangements to move the resident’s furniture to his current property including the return of the key is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had a secure tenancy which commenced on 13 November 2018 until the 26 February 2023.The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is described as a one-bedroom bungalow.
The resident medical condition has been described as emotionally unstable personality disorder. The resident has informed this Service that due to his medical condition, he has difficulty with telephone contact, unless the contact has been prearranged and has given consent for his ex-wife and his medical team to be contacted on his behalf. This arrangement was also in place with his landlord.
This landlord’s submission shows that the landlord’s ex-wife acted as his representative and is recorded through this determination as the representative.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement obliges residents not to harass or discriminate against any person. Its definition of harassment includes threats of violence, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. The tenancy agreement advises that it will not tolerate ASB and that it will investigate complaints that it receives.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as:

a. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.

b. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.

c. Conduct causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.

The ASB policy gives examples of situations that it does not consider to be ASB. The policy advises that incidents that it considers to be low level and occur once it may decide not to treat that incident as ASB.
The landlord’s complaints procedure sets out that complaints will be answered within 10 working days at the first stage of the complaints procedure and within 20 working days at the final stage of the complaints procedure.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances in which it will make compensation payments with a maximum of £75 for inconvenience where the service failure has not incurred a cost to the resident.
The resident’s complaints concern a number of his neighbours who are tenants of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreements for his neighbours, but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Summary of events

The landlord received a report on 9 April 2020 from Tenant A that for the past three days, the resident had been shouting abuse and that this had been ongoing for the past 12 months. In response, the landlord’s community safety tenant enforcement officer (CSTEO) contacted the resident’s community psychiatrist nurse (CPN) regarding the reports that it had received.
On 5 August 2020, the landlord received reports from Tenant A of noise disturbance by the resident. This was described as the constant banging of walls and that he could hear the resident making comments through the wall. The landlord was also informed that the blinds and the curtains to the property were not opened and the resident was living in the dark. In response, the CSTEO contacted the representative who confirmed that his support visits had been suspended due to the lockdown introduced by the national Government as a response to the Covid 19 pandemic. The representative explained that the resident had placed the bin bags over his window to stop Tenant A looking into his windows.
In response, the CSTEO contacted the CPN the following day (6 August 2020) and when she did not receive a response chased the CPN on 14 August 2020.
The landlord received a report from the representative on 18 August 2020 that Tenant A had been digging in the resident’s garden and had put poison on his door handles and around his property. The CSTEO contacted the neighbourhood officer on 21 August 2020 who advised that a report had been received from the police that Tenant A had been in the garden waving a spade and putting down poison.
Later that day (21 August 2020) the police advised that the video footage had been reviewed of Tenant A actions and the video showed that Tenant A was trying to remove or kill a large weed on the resident’s side of the garden. The police advised that it did not intend to take further action, requested that the landlord speak to Tenant A and that the case of criminal damage had been closed.
It is noted that the resident informed the police on 21 August 2020 that he believed that he was the victim of disability discrimination as he was unable to use the garden to stop Tenant A digging in the garden. He went on to say that the landlord had failed to act for the past two years. The landlord’s records show that it contacted the CPN on 24 August 2020 and 28 August 2020 to discuss the support in place for the resident.
On 28 August 2020, the CSTEO spoke to Tenant A following the update from the police. Tenant A explained that he was trying to remove the root of an elder tree to prevent it growing and cracking the pillar of the communal garden gate. Also, Tenant A stated that for the past ten years, he had taken action to manage the root of the weed and had not received any objections. The CSTEO advised Tenant A not to undertake any further work on the resident’s side of the garden.
The CSTEO updated the resident on the same day (28 August 2020) regarding the explanation given by Tenant A for his presence on the resident’s side of the garden. The representative advised that they did not accept the explanation given by Tenant A, did not want him digging in the resident’s side of the garden and wanted the Council to remove the weed if that is the action that was required to prevent the weed cracking the communal pillar to the garden gate.
On 1 September 2020, the CSTEO emailed the neighbour officer regarding the resident’s garden. The CSTEO was advised that the gardens are communal, that both residents are expected to maintain the gardens and it would not contact the Council to obtain a quote to remove the weed from the garden.
On the same day (1 September 2020), the landlord received a report from Tenant A that the resident had been swearing and had called him a “paedophile”. The landlord contacted the police on 9 September 2020, to obtain information regarding the report.
The landlord communicated with the resident’s CPN between 16 September 2020 to 18 September 2020 with regard to the police attendance at the resident’s property following reports of noise disturbance by the resident. The CPN advised that the resident disputed that he was shouting when the police attended and the CPN requested to see the video footage.
On 18 November 2020, the landlord received reports from other residents that the resident had been using abusive language and that the situation was not improving.
The CPN communicated with the CSTEO on 21 September 2020, 25 September 2020 and 30 September 2020. The CPN advised that the resident wanted to move to a property with a private garden as the current property was having a negative impact on him. The CSTEO advised that the resident needed to reduce the noise disturbance to his neighbours and that at the time occupational therapy assessments, were not being carried out in resident’s homes. However, the resident could bid for properties on the transfer list.
On the same day (1 October 2020), the landlord provided an update to the resident’s CPN and the CSTEO. The landlord advised:
1. That the resident’s housing application was active.
2. Information had not been received to confirm that the property was unsuitable or that a transfer to a different property would provide a resolution for the resident.
3. Requested information on the resident’s treatment plan and how the current property was acting as a trigger for the resident.
On 16 October 2020, the CPN informed the landlord that the resident felt unsupported by the landlord as he wanted a private garden and the height of the fencing increased. The CPN explained that the resident was experiencing a lack of privacy as he believed that Tenant A was looking into his property.
The landlord’s records show that the resident’s housing circumstances were reviewed on 23 October 2020. The review found that there was no evidence to show that the property was affecting the resident’s mental health or that additional medical priority should be awarded.
On 13 November 2020, the police contacted the landlord to report two incidences of noise disturbance from Tenant A on 9 November 2020 and 10 November 2020. Tenant A had reported that he could hear screaming through the walls and that the resident had called him a “nonce” and threated to kill him. The police advised the landlord that the resident played games throughout the night and is part of a talk group that “shouts insults at each other.” The police advised the resident to reduce the level of noise and that it did not sufficient evidence to take criminal action.
On the same day (13 November 2020), the CSTEO sent the resident a formal warning regarding the reports of banging, shouting, screaming using foul language and threats to kill. The letter informed the resident that the incident on the 9 November 2020 and 10 November 2020 constituted a breach of his tenancy.
The representative reported on 24 November 2020 that Tenant A had walked past the resident’s window to retrieve his bin and killed a weed on the resident’s side of the garden. Furthermore, he had spoken to a neighbour across the road, while looking at the resident’s property. In response, the CSTEO advised that the reported behaviour did not constitute ASB and that she had spoken to Tenant A who had agreed to stop taking his bin out pass the residents property.
On 3 December 2020, a multi-disciplinary meeting was held with the resident’s CPN, support worker, representative and CSTEO in attendance. The landlord’s record of the meeting describes the meeting as confrontational and not well managed. The representative expressed that the resident was affected by Tenant A walking past the resident’s window to access his bin and that Tenant A spoke with other residents about the residents. Since receiving the warning letter from the landlord, the resident had become more of a recluse and that she felt the CSTEO did not understand mental health neither had she shown sympathy to the resident. Furthermore, the representative expressed her unhappiness at the landlord’s decision not to rehouse the resident as a priority. In response the CSTEO explained that the warning letter had been served following complaints about the resident’s behaviour. The CSTEO suggested a meeting take place with a manager to discuss the rehousing for the resident.
The resident’s CPN contacted the landlord on the 16 December 2020 advising that at the last multi-disciplinary meeting, it was agreed that it would attend to provide the resident with an update on his rehousing. The resident’s CPN requested a meeting the following day.
The same day 16 December 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s CPN regarding the meeting request for the following day. The CPN was advised that the requested information regarding the treatment plan and the medical need for rehousing had not been received. The landlord confirmed that while a reassessment could take place of the resident’s housing needs this could not take place at a multi-disciplinary meeting. Furthermore, she had not received information that the property did not meet the resident’s needs and was willing to talk to agree a way forward.
On 18 December 2020, Tenant A wrote to landlord to advise that the police had attended his address following a report that he had been looking into the resident’s windows. Tenant A disputed that he had done this as the resident’s windows are permanently closed and blacked out.
The landlord received a report on 5 January 2021 that the resident was being harassed and verbally abused by Tenant A. The representative informed the landlord that Tenant A was reading the resident’s mail and the resident had ring doorbell footage to evidence this.
The landlord’s investigation of the incident showed Tenant A with an envelope in his hand, looking towards the resident’s address. The police had investigated and concluded that there was no substantial evidence to take action as the footage showed Tenant A turning towards the resident’s home saying F**** B****. The landlord issued a formal warning to Tenant A advising that his actions was considered a breach of tenancy.
Between 3 February 2021 and 13 March 2021 the landlord received reports of noise disturbance from the resident – door slamming, door chimes and verbal abuse.
The resident complained on 28 May 2021 that for the past two years, he had not had the opportunity to discuss the impact of Tenant A on his well-being. In addition, the formal warning served by the landlord gave Tenant A the right to access his side of the garden which had affected his mental health. Furthermore, the resident had provided ring doorbell footage showing the neighbour reading his post and looking into his windows.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 29 June 2021. It advised that as a meeting was taking place with the resident’s CPN on 7 July 2021, it could not provide any further comment and the CCTV would be shared at that meeting. The landlord apologised that the level of customer service did not meet the expected standard.
On 7 July 2021, the multi-disciplinary meeting took place with the representative, CPN, support worker and the landlord in attendance. The ring doorbell footage for 13 July 2021 and 27 June 2021 which showed Tenant B making an abusive sign to the resident was viewed at the meeting. The landlord explained that the incident with Tenant A spraying the weed was not a breach of tenancy and suggested that the resident consider undertaking mediation with Tenant A.
On 8 July 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that its staff had been “horrible” and “hassled the resident and that the resident’s care team had arranged a meeting that its member of staff had not attended but had time to speak to Tenant A regarding his reports of ASB.
On 22 July 2021, the landlord carried out the following actions:
1. It held a case review which noted that the resident was not leaving the property. It agreed to contact the resident regarding the abusive sign made by Tenant B and to reoffer mediation with Tenant A.
2. It visited the resident regarding his complaint and the representative was present at the meeting. Amongst other things, the landlord offered mediation with Tenant A to resolve the ASB.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 23 July 2021 regarding the meeting in December 2020. A summary of the key findings are:
1. There was no evidence to support the complaint that its staff had not acted professionally in their involvement with the resident.
2. Provided the reason for the non-attendance by its staff at the multi-disciplinary meeting held in December 2020 and gave an update on the resident’s request for rehousing.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 August 2021. He advised that since February 2021, there were up to 100 drug dealers passing his bedroom on a daily basis, consequently he had to sit in the dark and the landlord had not acted.
The resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint on 17 August 2021. The resident complained that during a phone call with the Assistant Head of Housing regarding his complaint he had sniggered during the call.
The landlord spoke with the representative on 7 September 2021 regarding the resident’s escalated complaint about the attitude of its staff. The representative advised that she had found its staff unhelpful when they had spoken about Tenant A digging in the resident’s garden, its staff had failed to act even though they had been made aware that the resident has issues with security. The representative stated that the resident was bullied by Tenant A and that if the CSTEO had acted earlier, the situation would not have escalated.
On 17 September 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a “weed farm” operating from Tenant C property which had been set up by “corrupt council employees”. The resident advised that he had reported the “weed farm” to the police.
On the same day, (17 September 202), the landlord contacted the police regarding the residents report of the use of cannabis by Tenant C.
The resident complained on 20 September 2021 that the landlord had allowed the “weed farm” to continue operating for eight months. Consequently, he had to live in the dark and the landlord had failed to safeguard him as there were at least 100 people accessing Tenant C property.
The landlord’s records show that on 27 September 2020 that it visited Tenant C property on 17 August 2020 and there was no smell of drugs. It was waiting for information from the police regarding the action it was taking about the alleged criminal activity.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 29 September 2021. It confirmed that meetings that its staff had been invited to had been attended and apologised for any inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaints procedure to the resident’s complaint on 30 September 2021. The summary of the findings were:
1. Reviewed the video footage and was satisfied that Tenant A was managing a weed when he was digging in the resident’s side of the garden.
2. Confirmed that the gardens are communal and separated by a path. It had advised Tenant A to remain on his side of the garden and it had not received any evidence that he had not done so.
3. Acknowledged that the resident wanted stronger action taken, however, this was a neighbour issue and not ASB.
4. Accepted that the resident wanted its staff to be more helpful but there was no evidence that its staff had displayed a poor attitude in her handling of the reports of ASB.
5. Acknowledged that the resident had found the situation upsetting but the correct course of action had been taken.
The landlord responded at the first stage of the complaint procedure on 4 October 2021 regarding the resident’s report of the cannabis farm and the landlord’s failure to provide safeguards. The summary of the findings are:
1. The landlord was made aware of the concerns of 23 July 2021 and 13 September 2021 regarding the alleged cannabis farm at Tenant C property.
2. Police advised that they had not received any reports from other residents and reports of criminal behaviour should be reported to the police.
3. It had worked with the CPN to ensure his support needs were met.
4. It had evidence that its staff had acted in a professional manner.
On 6 October 2021, the resident escalated his complaint advising that he had offered to send videos to the safeguarding & tenancy enforcement co-ordinator, who did not take up his offer.
The landlord contacted the representative regarding the complaint about the cannabis farm on 28 October 2021. The representative advised that the resident was affected by the number of people visiting Tenant C address as they were looking into his window. He had video evidence of this and the landlord did not ask to see this. The representative advised that the landlord did not appear interested in the report made by the resident.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 November 2021 to the resident’s complaint about the cannabis farm. In summary, the landlord found:
1. The report in April 2021 regarding callers to Tenant C property walking to the end of the resident’s property and walking back did not mention criminal activity.
2. Received two reports in July 2021 regarding allegations of cannabis use at Tenant C property. The police were contacted and no other reports were received. No action was taken as it had no concerns regarding Tenant C.
3. Following the report regarding allegations of cannabis dealing and cultivation by Tenant C, it had taken steps by contacting the police and the resident informed to report any such concerns to the police.
4. Satisfied that it had followed up on the resident’s reports and that it had not received evidence to support the allegations. However, it accepted that it could have viewed the footage from the ring doorbell and supplied diary sheets for the resident to keep a record of the activity.
5. Accepted that there was an unreasonable delay between 7 July 2021 to September 2021 when it did not act. It apologised for this and agreed to visit the resident to discuss the outstanding concerns regarding ASB in the area including criminal activity and to visit Tenant C regarding the resident’s report.
6. Awarded compensation of £50 for the distress experienced by the resident.
After the complaint process was exhausted, the landlord’s records show that it visited Tenant C on 12 November 2021. It noted that there was no evidence of cannabis use.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord visited the resident’s property. The representative and CPN were in attendance. The representative requested as a solution to the resident’s concerns a higher rear fence and the landlord advised that in its opinion, the current rear gardens provided some privacy without closing off the communal areas. It reoffered mediation between the resident and Tenant A.
The landlord informed this Service on 15 March 2023 that the resident transferred to another of its properties.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

There has been a large amount of communication between the resident, his representative and CPN regarding the reports of ASB from his neighbours. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach to resolving his concerns have been noted and all the available evidence has been considered. This report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident, rather, it will reflect the key points and events which have been summarised.
It is clear from the resident’s submissions that he has been distressed by the reported ASB from his neighbours and he believes that this distress has been exacerbated by the lack of strong action by the landlord to tackle the problem.
The resident’s feelings are acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman’s role in such situations is to look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s report and his concerns and whether or not it acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies.
Having considered the available information, the Ombudsman recognises that this has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage due to the allegations and counter allegations of ASB it has received and the vulnerability of the resident. The landlord is required to balance its obligations to support the resident under the tenancy agreement and its ASB policy with its obligation to the other residents.
The landlord is also obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to provide appropriate support that will meet the needs of the resident. The submission to this Service shows that the landlord had regard to the resident’s disability, complied with the communication preference expressed by the resident – that verbal communication should be facilitated by the representative, collaborated with his support team and took measured steps to ensure that the resident maintained his tenancy.

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from Tenant A including the resident’s reports that Tenant A had encroached on the front garden.

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the behaviour that it considers to be ASB and behaviour that it considers not to be ASB. In delivering services, the landlord’s behaviour framework, sets out the standards that the landlord sets for its staff when delivering services to its residents. With reference to this complaint, the CSTEO is expected to take ownership of problems, provide explanations of decisions and keep customers informed. In addition, act with integrity and without bias.
The landlord has evidenced that it acted in accordance with its ASB policy following the report from the resident that Tenant A had been digging on his side of the communal garden and put poison on his door handle. The landlord’s submission to this Service shows timely contact with the police, review of the video footage and communication with Tenant A, the alleged perpetrator within five days regarding the resident’s concerns. The landlord concluded that the explanation provided from Tenant A was reasonable – that he was removing a weed to prevent damage to the pillar of the communal gate which concurred with the review of the footage. Therefore, after the landlord had spoken to Tenant A and obtained his agreement not to dig in the resident’s side of the communal garden there was no further action for the landlord to take against Tenant A. The available information shows that there were no further reports from the resident about Tenant A digging in the communal garden, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the intervention by the CSTEO had resolved the situation.
The landlord explained to the resident that Tenant A digging in the communal gardens and his allegations that Tenant A was looking into this window did not constitute ASB. This was reasonable and in accordance with its ASB policy, which sets out the behaviours of residents which do not meet the threshold of ASB but are disputes between neighbours.
Looking at the available evidence regarding the conduct of the CSTEO, the resident’s CPN did not raise concerns about the interaction with the CSTEO with the landlord. The representative advised when speaking to the CSTEO regarding the removal of the weed, that the CSTEO was off hand and not helpful when she was trying to explain the impact on the resident of Tenant A being on the resident’s side of the communal garden.
In its complaint response, the landlord accepted that, the CSTEO could have been more helpful but did not elaborate in what ways she could have done so. The evidence shows that once the CSTEO obtained agreement from Tenant A not to dig on the resident’s side of the communal garden, the resident was informed the same day. There is no evidence that Tenant A has not kept to the agreement. Whilst the representative wanted the landlord to commit to the council taking responsibility for the management of the weed on the resident’s side of the communal garden, the CSTEO correctly advised that this was unlikely which managed the expectations of the representative of the level of service that the landlord could deliver and the resident expect.
The landlord in its complaint response advised that it could not find any evidence that the CSTEO had demonstrated a poor attitude when dealing with the resident. This was a reasonable conclusion to make as the review of the communication between the resident, the representative and support staff had not demonstrated that her attitude towards the resident did not meet its standards of behaviour.
The landlord acted appropriately and proportionately in the tenancy action it took regarding the reports of noise disturbance that it received. It sent a warning letter to Tenant A regarding his language towards the resident, contacted the resident to ascertain whether it wanted further action taken against Tenant B for making an abusive sign towards him. Following reports of noise disturbance by the resident, it shared this information with the resident’s CPN, and tried to obtain the footage from the police.
The landlord’s ASB policy advises that where it receives a report of ASB which it deems to be low-level, formal action is not required, it does not need to open a ASB case. The evidence shows that the landlord acted in accordance with this regarding the report of the removal of the weed. The landlord’s decision that no further action was required was reasonable as the representative accepted that following the landlord speaking with Tenant A, the situation had not reoccurred.
The landlord acted appropriately by setting and managing the resident’s expectations about how it deals with neighbour disputes of this kind. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints expects landlords to promote good neighbour relationships. There is evidence that the landlord did this, after identifying that the issue was a neighbour dispute, it offered mediation to the resident to improve his relationship with Tenant A. This is an informal mechanism for residents to discuss their concerns, especially as the resident was concerned that Tenant A was looking into his windows.
The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to adopt a victim-focused service assessing risks to residents and offering appropriate support. The landlord has evidenced that that it contacted the resident regarding his reports of ASB from Tenant A, Tenant B and Tenant C and engaged with his representative and with his support team since at least April 2020.
The evidence shows that during the some of the Covid 19 lock down period, the resident was not receiving home visits from the care team and in August 2020, the landlord made contact with the CPN to understand the support that was in place for the resident. This was appropriate to ensure that the resident had appropriate support in place during a period when the national government had placed restrictions on face-to-face contact.
The landlord’s position was that it had no evidence that the resident was being targeted by his neighbours and this was confirmed in its complaint response to the resident.
The landlord received counter allegations about noise disturbance by the resident which was evidenced by the police. These reports contained threats to kill and abusive language which the resident said were used as part of his participation in an online game. The landlord’s decision to use a non-legal remedy by serving the warning letter on the resident was proportionate. The landlord’s action recognised that the resident’s behaviour was having a negative impact on other residents and it had a responsibility to ensure the resident complied with his obligations under the tenancy agreement. Furthermore, the landlord had to act in accordance with its ASB policy in ensuring that it applied it consistently to all residents, after it had taken into account the resident’s individual needs.

response to concerns regarding the meeting in December 2020.

With regard to the resident’s housing application, in October 2020, the landlord confirmed the resident’s position on the waiting list, advised that she had not received information that the resident’s accommodation was not suitable. There is no evidence that the requested information was sent to the landlord.
Looking at the request for the landlord to attend a meeting in December 2020 regarding the resident request to move to alternative accommodation. There appears to be misunderstanding about the attendance at the meeting. The information shows that the CSTEO suggested that a manager meet with the resident, representative and CPN regarding the request for a move. There is no evidence that the manager was informed of this before she was contacted by the CPN.
It is noted that clarification was requested from the CPN for the need for attendance at the meeting as the information previously requested by the resident had not been provided. The available information does not evidence that there was any follow up by the CPN regarding the meeting request, in the provision of the requested information or to the suggestion that a conversation could take place. The landlord in its complaint response, stated that its staff had attended meetings that it had been invited to, which was not factually correct as the meeting in December 2020 had not been attended as the information requested had not been provided. This is a shortfall which does not amount to a service failure.

landlord’s response to reports of a neighbour growing cannabis at their property.

The resident complained to the landlord about the number of people walking past his property on a daily basis and alleged that there was cannabis dealing taking place at Tenant C property.
The landlord’s ASB policy advises that complaints of alleged criminal behaviour will be investigated by the police in the first instance and if proven can constitute a breach of tenancy. In accordance with this, the landlord took the approach that the report of cannabis use was not ASB and it was a criminal offence and therefore a police matter. As such, it expected the police to take the lead on any action.
The landlord contacted the police to obtain information regarding the alleged criminal activity by Tenant C. The landlord is reliant on the police to confirm whether criminal activity is taking place. In this particular case, the police did not confirm that there was criminal activity taking place at Tenant C property, neither did the police advise that they were intending to take action. Therefore, in the absence of supporting evidence of illegal drug use taking place at Tenant C address and the lack of supporting information from other residents, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it did not need to take tenancy action against Tenant C.
In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it could have gathered evidence by supplying diary sheets to the resident and reviewed the footage on the resident’s video doorbell. These were short comings recognised by the landlord as the resident was reporting a large number of people passing his property and he had put bin bags on his windows to prevent people looking in. Notwithstanding, that it had not received such reports from other residents about the number of people alleged to be attending Tenant C property.
It is noted that the representative repeated the resident’s assertion regarding the number of people passing his window and the impact on him but did not say whether she had actually witnessed the amount of people. As the resident’s report of cannabis use by Tenant C could not be independently substantiated, it could not take action against alleged illegal criminal activity without strong supporting evidence, especially when it can lead to the loss of a tenancy.
The landlord in its complaint response agreed as the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions had lifted to carry out a visit to the resident’s address and to Tenant C. These were appropriate measures as it had a responsibility to ensure that a breach of tenancy was not occurring at Tenant C address regarding the allegation of drug use and to reassure the resident regarding his outstanding concerns.
The landlord acknowledged that there was a two-month delay in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the report of cannabis use at Tenant C property and made a compensation award of £50 for this. The landlord apologised as it recognised that it could have acted earlier to ascertain whether there was cannabis use on going at Tenant C property. The landlord’s apology to the resident, compensation award, visit to the resident’s property and to Tenant C property represents reasonable redress as the resident has recognised and taken action with regard to the delay in acting on the resident’s report.

landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure with complaint answered at the first stage within 10 working days and at the final stage within 20 working days.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 May 2021 was not answered until 29 June 2021. This was outside its published complaint response time frame which says that complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. The complaint response did not address the resident’s concern regarding the attitude of the CSTEO, rather it informed the resident that a visit had been arranged for 7 July 2021 and his concerns would be addressed then. Whilst the visit did take place on 7 July 2021, the landlord’s decision not to answer the resident’s concerns in its first complaint response was not appropriate. The resident experienced a further delay receiving the landlord’s response to his concerns.
The resident escalated his complaint on 31 August 2021 and the landlord spoke with the representative on 7 September 2021 to obtain further information about the complaint and the landlord responded to the complaint on 30 September 2021. The complaint response did not consider whether an award of compensation was required for its delay in providing its earlier complaint response.
The resident complained to the landlord on 8 July 2021 and it responded to the resident’s complaints at both stages of the complaint procedure within its published time limits.
The resident complained on 17 September 2021 and its initial response on 4 October 2021 was just outside its published time limits. The resident escalated the complaint on 6 October 2021 and the landlord responded on 3 November 2021 within its published time limits.
The landlord final complaint response signposts the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This is inaccurate as it provides the resident with incorrect advice about who to contact if they are unhappy with the response to their complaint. The complaint handling code expects landlords to give correct information to residents about how they can access this Service to obtain advice about their complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from Tenant A including the resident’s reports that Tenant A had encroached on the front garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns regarding the meeting in December 2020
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress to the resident prior to the investigation of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of a neighbour growing cannabis at their property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy and has evidence its actions were timely and appropriate. It worked with its partners to obtain information regarding the ASB reports it received and communicated with the resident’s support team to keep him updated regarding the actions it was taking. The landlord has a set of behaviour that it expects its staff to adhere to when delivering services. There is no evidence that the attitude of the CSTEO fell below the service standard it expects in relation to behaviours when investigating the ASB report.
The landlord requested information about the resident’s request for rehousing. There is no evidence that the landlord received clarification for the need to attend the meeting in December 2020.
The landlord in its complaint review has accepted and acknowledged that it delayed in responding to the resident’s report of cannabis use at Tenant C property. It apologised and made an award of compensation for this. Furthermore, it carried out the visit to the resident regarding his outstanding concerns and to Tenant C to investigate the resident’s concerns.
One of the landlord complaint responses incorrectly refers the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This provides a barrier to residents escalating their complaints to the correct ombudsman service when the landlord has a responsibility to provide correct information to residents. In addition, the landlord unreasonably delayed in providing the resident its initial complaint response which was outside its published complaint handling timescales.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £250 for its complaint handling failures identified in this report regarding its delay in providing its complaint response and for its failure to signpost the resident to this Service.
The landlord to update all of its public facing complaints communication including its complaints procedure and its self-assessment against the Complaints Handling Code to ensure that it correctly signposts residents to this Service.
The landlord to carry out training with that all staff responsible for responding to final stage complaints to ensure that their complaint responses signpost residents to this Service.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not done so, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation award of £150 agreed in its complaints responses.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.