South Tyneside Council (202205688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205688

South Tyneside Council

17 October 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s request for additional fencing to prevent dog fouling.
3. Response to the resident’s request to be rehoused, in particular his concerns about banding.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused, in particular his concerns about banding. Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme says 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.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate complaints against local authorities when they are not acting in their capacity as social landlords. This includes applications for rehousing. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the awarding of points or banding are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). It is advised that the resident contact the LGSCO if he wishes to take this aspect of the complaint further. Accordingly, this report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and its response to his request for additional fencing.

Background and summary of events

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that started in 2012. The property is a one-bedroom first floor flat, and the landlord is a local authority. The landlord is aware that the resident has epilepsy and severe autism, depression and anxiety; he has a carer. The resident’s grandmother has acted as his representative in relation to his complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s ASB statement says that it can manifest itself in many forms and, while there is no one single definition, the Housing Act 1996 defines ASB as conduct which:
1. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person; and
2. Directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management function of a relevant landlord; or
3. Consists of or involves using or threatening to use housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord for unlawful purposes.
This is the definition of ASB in the Anti-Social, Crime and Policing Act 2014 also.
The landlord’s ASB statement says that conduct that could be classed as ASB includes, but is not limited to, racist incidents, hate crime, domestic violence, noise nuisance, intimidation, harassment and threatening behaviour. In deciding whether behaviour is anti-social, the determining factor will be the impact that the behaviour has on others. The statement goes on to say that all ASB complaints will be divided into one of three categories depending on the severity and nature of the case. Category B (standard) cases include: all types of ASB can be classed as Category B except where: there is an allegation of race or hate crime; there is violence or a serious threat of violence; or the complaints are so minor that they require little or no further investigation. The complaint will be acknowledged within two working days and the complainant will be interviewed within five working days.
The statement also says that, where investigations need to take place over a prolonged period, complainants will receive updates on a fortnightly basis, unless otherwise agreed with the complainant. All allegations of ASB will be recorded and every case will be investigated in a fair, consistent and sensitive manner.
Turning to enforcement, the statement says that, where behaviour causes persistent distress or repeated misery to a victim, the landlord will adopt a victim-centred approach to the problem and will use a full range of enforcement tools and powers to protect the community as a whole. These include community protection notices (issued after a community protection warning); acceptable behaviour agreements; good neighbour agreements; civil injunctions and possession proceedings. The statement says that the landlord will adopt a victim and witness-centred approach to all instances of ASB.
The landlord’s ASB procedure says that in instances where there is a complaint of ASB which is deemed low-level, is a one-off complaint and formal action is not required, a case may not be opened. Where an ASB case is opened, an action plan must be agreed with the victim and the officer investigating the case must ensure that the victim understands the action plan and agrees with the actions to be taken. The action plan should be confirmed in writing immediately following the initial interview. It adds that an agreement should also be made with the victim as to how often they would like to be contacted (weekly, fortnightly or monthly). The frequency of contact should be included on the written action plan. It adds that a victim risk assessment should also be carried out which will determine the level of risk and the actions that should be followed.
The procedure sets out other action that the landlord should take including interviewing the ASB perpetrator within three working days of interviewing the victim; where the complaint is denied, taking action such as visiting residents in the surrounding area to build up a detailed picture of what has happened; interviewing any additional witnesses and take witness statements where necessary; and speaking to partner agencies or other council services to determine what additional evidence is available.
The procedure notes that, where the perpetrator has not engaged with the landlord, it should document that on the case and write to them as confirmation that there has been a lack of engagement.
The Ombudsman has a factsheet which is aimed at residents who are experiencing ASB). It provides examples of the kind of issues that would be considered as ASB which include dog fouling and drug misuse.
The landlord provided details of a three-stage complaints procedure. At stage one the landlord will try to resolve the issue immediately; if it cannot do so it will provide a complaint response within 15 working days; at review stage it will provide a response within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The landlord provided details from late 2020 of another resident in the block complaining about ASB from one of their neighbours (and/or her partner and who hereafter will be referred to as “the neighbour”). The issues were cannabis use, banging, loud music and slamming doors. It issued a community protection warning to the neighbour at that time which related to issues including cannabis use and also issued her with a formal tenancy warning. These events do not form part of the complaint under consideration.
On 7 September 2021 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord about the ASB the resident had described to her by the same neighbour.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord met with the resident about these issues which included noise nuisance and fly tipping. The resident confirmed he had not reported any ASB previously to the landlord until he approached his MP. The LL subsequently tried to contact the resident and started to investigate activities at the neighbours property including recent visits to the premises by the police.
On 30 November 2021 the resident reported dog fouling around the block which he said was from the neighbour’s dog. In response the landlord said it would continue to try to speak to the neighbour.
On 28 December 2021 the resident told the landlord that the neighbour’s dog had fouled in the communal gardens. He said there were five very large deposits on their side of the front lawn and two large deposits on his side of the front lawn. On the following day one of the resident’s family members asked the landlord to stop the ASB because the disturbance to the resident was “ruining his quality of life”.
On 7 February 2022 the resident gave details of more recent dog-fouling by the neighbour. He explained that this was making him “feel quite ill when I enter and leave the property”, He said he felt “quite agitated by this” and asked it to intervene. On the same day the landlord said it would visit the neighbour and take a look.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the neighbour saying it had received a complaint about her dog fouling in the communal garden which was not being picked up. It asked her to pick it up immediately and disposed of in her wheelie bin. She said failing to do so was a breach of her tenancy and action might be taken against her.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord asked the resident if there had been any improvement with the dog fouling. In response, he said that it was continuing, and the landlord told him that it would continue to look into it.
On 28 February 2022 the resident reported further dog fouling.
On 19 April 2022, in response to a query about whether the dog fouling was continuing, the resident told the landlord that it was, but the grass was long and it was difficult to spot. He said he had requested he be allowed to install a small fence to keep the dog out of his side of the communal garden. He said he had photos of the fouling.
On 23 April 2022 the resident reported noise from the neighbour to the landlord as well as cannabis use. He said the ASB was having a huge effect on his mental health and wellbeing. The landlord spoke to the resident two days later and he confirmed that the dog waste had been removed. It said it would visit the neighbour the next day.
On 27 April 2022 the landlord tried to see the neighbour but there was no answer; a card was left. It wrote to the neighbour the same day saying that it was still receiving complaints about nuisance behaviour at her home. It explained that the most recent complaint was about her and visitors smoking cannabis in the communal area and her visitors causing a noise nuisance when they were going inside. It said it had previously issued warnings against her tenancy for nuisance and it was important that she discussed these issues with it.
On 3 May 2022 the landlord issued a community protection warning to the neighbour in relation to the dog fouling. On the same day the landlord spoke to the neighbour about the reports of ASB; it subsequently told the resident about that and that he should report any further issues to it.
On 13 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that the dog fouling was continuing. He said he had been with the housing officer when he had asked the neighbour to clean up after her dog and she had replied “right” but it had continued. The resident added he had not heard about his request to install a fence. The landlord asked the housing officer to look into these issues.
On 18 May 2022 the landlord closed the ASB case as the issues of dog fouling had been referred to its housing team.
On 30 May 2022 the resident chased up the landlord saying nothing had changed and that his quality of life was being affected. He added he had contacted the housing officer but had not receives a response. On the following day the landlord told the resident it had asked the housing officer to contact him.
On 11 June 2022 the resident reported various ASB to the landlord including dog fouling and cannabis use. He said that his “my mental health is falling apart, my seizures are more frequent than ever, I live in fear and anxiety, and they try to be intimidating when I leave the building or when I am seen by my window”.
On 13 June 2022 the landlord noted it would ask the housing officer to look into the dog fouling. On the same day the housing officer said he had asked for the grass to be cut in the communal garden and had asked the neighbour to pick up the dog waste there. He noted that he had spoken to the landlord of another resident who had also raised issues around the behaviour of the neighbour. The landlord noted “there is constant issues with cannabis smells and anti-social behaviour. [The] tenant has now left due to [the neighbour] and is worries that the new tenant will also have issues with them”.
On 14 June 2022, in response to an email from the resident’s mental health support worker, the landlord said it had visited the neighbour’s flat and could not smell cannabis. It added that that did not mean that it was not happening, but it required evidence and the neighbour had denied the allegations. It said it had also passed this information to the police. It said it would visit the neighbour again that week.
On 27 June 2022 the landlord received a formal complaint from the resident about ASB and other incidents over two years that were affecting his health. He said the landlord had not managed to stop the ASB. The resident gave details of his health problems and said that the cannabis smoke was causing him to have seizures. He said he would like the landlord to consider moving him and his carer into a bungalow as his seizures had caused him to fall down the stairs in the property. He provided a range of medical evidence dating from October 2010 to May 2022.
On 10 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that the ASB was affecting “both my physical and mental health and they continue to be abusive and inconsiderate to others, particularly with the consumption of cannabis this greatly affects my epilepsy and therefore is a threat to my health”.
On 19 July 2022 the landlord issued its stage one response under its formal complaint procedures. The main points were:
1. When he was added as a complainant on the ASB case against the neighbour on 23 September 2021, it had tried to contact him on 19 October 2021 but did not make contact until 19 November 2021 when an update was given.
2. It did not appear that a victim risk assessment or bespoke action plan was carried out with the resident to identify what support needs he might have and inform what steps it would take as well agreeing a contact schedule with him. It explained it would have expected any complainant on a case to have these steps taken within a week of being added to the case.
3. The neighbourhood housing officer had confirmed that the neighbour had been issued with a community protection warning for dog fouling and, if there was sufficient evidence of non-compliance, this would be escalated to a community protection notice. It assured the resident that this was being actively monitored during estate inspections.
4. With regards to the resident’s request to have a section of the communal garden fenced off which the dog could not access, his request had been turned down and I could not overturn that decision. It had, however, asked for a manager to review his request.
5. It confirmed the ASB case remained active, and it would make contact to complete the outstanding risk assessment and action plan.
The landlord partly upheld the complaint because it had failed to carry out a victim risk assessment or make a bespoke action plan. It also said it felt communication could have been more regular with the resident. It apologised for any inconvenience caused. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On the same day the landlord noted that “whatever is going on in that block – whether targeted at him or not – is clearly impacting [the resident]”. It suggested that it met with him to do an updated risk assessment and action plan and it should consider what support it could offer him.
On 22 July the landlord noted that it should speak to the resident and re-open the ASB case, if required. The evidence suggests the case was re-opened because on 2 November 2022 the landlord noted it was again closing the ASB case “as the only complaints [the resident] makes are about the dog foul”.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord met with the resident. It confirmed that all incidents had been addressed and that it would take further action where new incidents were reported and it had evidence of that. The resident said that he could still smell the cannabis and the landlord said it would attend the block with the police. The resident gave details of the support he received and said he did not require further support at that time. The landlord also completed an ASB scorecard which it used to help identify vulnerable residents. The score was 20 which the scorecard noted was “medium” vulnerability. The evidence suggests the landlord received his application for rehousing the next day.
On 26 July 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said he understood the decision it had reached; however, he had further photographed seven more deposits of dog fouling that morning and at least two of them were several days old. He said that the cannabis abuse was also still ongoing. He said that, despite warnings, the neighbour continued to defy the landlord.
Also on 26 July 2022, the resident sent the landlord pictures of incidents of dog fouling in the communal garden. He said that he would rather not move but could not “keep living in this disgusting situation”. He also asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. This Service notes that the resident had tried to send photos earlier that year but told the landlord that its server had rejected them; there is no evidence the landlord offered a different way of sending them or if it had viewed these photos.
On the following day, the resident told the landlord that he had seen the neighbour pick up this dog waste. The landlord spoke to the resident about his complaint on 28 July 2022. He said that the ASB had been going on for two years. He said there was cannabis abuse which he said affected his seizure and epilepsy issues and mentioned loud music also. He explained that the “biggest issue” was dog fouling – the neighbour never moves it, and it made him feel sick. He added he could not hang the washing out as he was “stepping over it. Seven more piles on my side of the garden so far”. The resident said that he was on medication and this ASB had made him feel that he “couldn’t take it any more”. He added that things had “quietened down now” but he was worried about what might happen next. The resident confirmed his brother looked after him.
In an internal email of 3 August 2022, the landlord noted that cannabis use had not been included in the community protection warning and that “there has been lack of evidence of cannabis to issue a warning. A tenancy reminder letter was sent about however, when [named member of staff] and other professionals have been out to the block they have not witnessed cannabis and no other neighbours have corroborated this report to allow further action”.
On 8 August 2022 the resident told the landlord he wanted to report continued dog fouling that morning. He said there were currently six deposits of dog fouling. He said this continued to be a health hazard and made him “feel sick when having to see and smell it in the air. I can still no longer tolerate being in the rear gardens …” As a resolution to the complaint, the resident said that he understood removing the neighbours from the property was not an option and he therefore believed they should be fined which he said would hopefully deter their behaviour in the future. He also said he would like the landlord to reconsider his request to install a short fence along his side of the communal garden with a gate to prevent their dog access to it.
On 11 August 2022 the resident reported dog fouling in the communal garden.
On 22 August 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response under its formal complaint procedures. In relation to the complaints brought to this Service, the main points were:
1. Action regarding cannabis use: it required absolute proof to enable them to take formal action against another resident. It noted that an entry of its system dated 13 January 2021 which stated that they had canvassed the block about the noise nuisance and cannabis use but had received no response. It said a further note from that date said that a formal warning letter had been issued and also a community protection warning letter. It felt that a further canvassing exercise would be useful to do again and would do so to see what information it could obtain to make a tenancy enforcement, both in terms of the noise nuisance and cannabis use. It explained it had also reported the smell of cannabis to the police and had asked if they could provide some feedback if it smelled this when visiting the property; and police logs had been checked for the last twelve months to see if cannabis use has been recorded during any earlier visits. The landlord said that, as yet there had been no evidence available to be used; however, another canvassing exercise would be helpful.
2. Dog Fouling: his neighbour was issued with a community protection warning on 21 March 2022 as a result of dog fouling that had been reported. It said that the neighbourhood housing officer had also confirmed that he had spoken to the neighbour about the issue a number of times and she had always agreed to pick up after her dog. This officer had confirmed he had visited the block recently and had seen saw further evidence of dog fouling. The landlord said it was looking at escalated enforcement, subject to the approval of its legal team, and that would also include regular monitoring visits.
3. Request to have a fence erected: it said that his application for fencing was received on 23 May 2022 but was turned down because fencing in communal gardens was not permitted. It explained that was in part because of the expectation of all residents when they move in was that they would have access to open spaces for communal living; it said that communal gardens also needed access for grass cutting, which was another reason for the refusal. The landlord confirmed there was no appeals procedure but added it was hopeful that the other actions suggested in that letter would ensure that he did not need to have a fence erected in the communal garden.
4. Follow up on warnings: Its aim was to continue to monitor the situation and escalate further in line with advice from its legal team. It proposed looking into if it could identify a specialist team from outside of its organisation to undertake a clean–up of the garden so that it was clean for the residents to use, but also so it could see any dog fouling. It said, following that, it would undertake monitoring visits and take photos of the area, and where necessary take action based on what it found.
It apologised for any inconvenience this situation was causing the resident and said it hoped through its interventions to make the resident’s life more comfortable. It signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 24 August 2022, in response to an enquiry from the landlord, the resident said that he had noticed the cannabis smell, but not as frequently. He said the neighbour was not picking up the dog waste.
On 27 September and 17 October 2022, the resident told the landlord that the neighbour had complied in picking up dog waste for a while but had stopped doing so. On 2 November 2022 the landlord told the resident that the housing officer had confirmed that the neighbour was picking up the dog waste and he should contact the housing officer if this problem reoccurred as the ASB case was closed.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman in August 2022, he said he felt the landlord was “not making enough of an effort” with regards the ASB. He added that the frequency of his seizures had increased due to the stress of living there.
When the representative approached the Ombudsman in October 2022, she said the resident was not happy with the landlord’s final response because the dog fouling was still ongoing. She said the landlord had not taken any action to stop the ASB. She added that the resident’s health had deteriorated to such a degree that he was now also extremely depressed; she said he needed help and support. The representative said that she hoped the Ombudsman’s involvement would force the landlord to do their duty and stop the ASB from the neighbour and to pick up their dog waste. The representative later told this Service that the neighbour now had two dogs.

Assessment and findings

Scope

This report has focussed on the ASB issues that the resident escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure that is dog fouling and cannabis use. It has focussed on events from the date the resident first reported ASB in September 2021 to the date of the final complaint response in Augus 2022.
It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident mentions that the cannabis smoke impacted on his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The issues reported by the resident (dog fouling and cannabis use) clearly fall under the definition of ASB as per the landlord’s ASB statement as they are conduct “capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”. The report will deal with those issues in turn.

Dog fouling

The landlord first became aware of the resident’s reports of ASB through his MP in September 2021. It acted appropriately by interviewing him, albeit not within the timescale of five working days as set out in its ASB statement for category B/standard ASB. As acknowledged in its stage one response, the landlord did not carry out a victim risk assessment; provide an action plan to the resident in line with its policies; and also said that it felt its communication could have been more regular with the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed with the resident how often it would update him about its actions in relation to ASB in line with its ASB statement. These are all acknowledged failings by the landlord for which it offered its apologies.
From late November 2021, the resident regularly reported the neighbour’s dog fouling the communal gardens but, despite further contact from a member of the resident’s family, there is no evidence the landlord took any action until it wrote to the neighbour in early February 2022 asking her to pick up and dispose of this waste. It warned that failing to do so was a breach of her tenancy and action might be taken against her. Following continued reports of dog fouling by the resident, in May 2022 the landlord issued a community protection warning to the neighbour. It also spoke to the neighbour at that time. These actions were a reasonable and proportionate response to the resident’s continued reports of dog fouling.
However, two weeks after issuing the community protection warning, the landlord closed the ASB case, and the matter was passed to its housing team. This was not a reasonable step to take; it would have been reasonable to have left the case open to ensure that the dog fouling had stopped over a longer time period. Not long after, the resident had reported that the dog fouling was continuing. For enforcement action to be successful, a landlord’s actions should be timely and robust.
In the stage one complaint response of July 2022 the landlord said that, if there was sufficient evidence of non-compliance, this would be escalated to a community protection notice and the evidence suggests the ASB case was re‑opened soon after. It assured the resident that this was being actively monitored during estate inspections. The landlord’s evidence refers to estate inspections but evidence of those were not provided to the Ombudsman; however, we have seen internal emails where visits were referred to. Despite the resident providing information about further dog fouling, there was no suggestion of it considering further enforcement action. In particular, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have asked the resident to provide his photos of the fouling for review.
The ASB case was again closed on the grounds that the reports were only about dog fouling. This suggests that the landlord did not recognise that dog fouling is ASB or that it understood the impact on the resident by its failure to take robust action. The landlord’s decision to close the ASB case while ASB reports were continuing and its failure to consider further, timely enforcement action following the issue of the community protection warning amount to maladministration.
An order has been made, below, for the landlord to undertake ASB awareness training with its staff to ensure that they are aware that ASB covers a broad range of issues including dog fouling and not only the more acute issues as set out in its ASB statement such a racist incident and hate crime. It should also ensure that its staff are aware of the full range of enforcement options available in response to ASB including the suitability of each option and when to refer a case for enforcement action.

Alleged cannabis use

The evidence shows the landlord took action in November 2020 in relation to ASB including cannabis use prior to the resident’s reports. Following the resident’s reports of alleged cannabis use in April 2022, there is evidence of only one action by the landlord in relation to the alleged cannabis use – the letter sent to the neighbour about it on 27 April 2022. There is no evidence that an ASB case was open in relation to this matter. That was not appropriate because the issue reported was not a low-level, one-off incident as evidenced by the historic enforcement action
The apparent lack of action in response to the resident’s reports of cannabis use by the neighbour was noted by the landlord on 14 June 2022 to be due to a lack of evidence. However, by that date the landlord did have corroborating evidence as a result of its conversation with another landlord the previous day. The landlord’s failure to recognise this evidence was a serious failure. At around that time the landlord also became aware of the resident’s concerns about the cannabis smells and the negative effect on his health. The landlord also acknowledged that whatever was happening in the block was “clearly impacting” on the resident.
Overall, there was a lack of robust action by the landlord in relation to this matter. It failed to open an ASB case and therefore follow its ASB procedures and it overlooked a significant piece of evidence. It was not until the final complaint response when it undertook to carry out some evidence gathering – a canvassing exercise – some 19 months after the first one. The lack of action following its receipt the corroborating evidence was a serious failing.
Overall, the landlord failed to take a victim-centred approach to the ASB reports made by a vulnerable resident. It did not follow its ASB procedures, missed opportunities to gather evidence that could have led to enforcement action, overlooked existing evidence and closed the ASB case in relation to dog fouling prematurely. The evidence suggests it did not take the issues raised as seriously as it might other ASB issues, such as noise. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical and mental health) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
It is evident that these failings had a significant effect on the resident causing distress, inconvenience and frustration. The resident’s representative told this Service in October 2022 that the dog fouling and cannabis use were continuing. Financial compensation of £500 is appropriate in this instance for the impact of the landlord’s failure to take robust enforcement action in response to his reports as well as in response to corroborative evidence. This sum also takes into the increased impact on the resident due to his vulnerabilities.
While the landlord apologised for failing to complete a victim risk assessment and action plan and its poor communication with the resident, it failed to consider compensation for the impact on him. Had these actions been completed when the ASB was first reported, the resident would have known what action would be taken and when. It is likely that this would have meant he spent less time and trouble in pursuing matters. Financial compensation for time and trouble of £150 is appropriate for the impact of those failings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for additional fencing to prevent dog fouling

It is acknowledged that this suggestion by the resident would at least partially resolve matters for him in particular on his side of the communal garden. However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for fencing was reasonable on the grounds that fencing in communal gardens is not permitted. Residents who live in properties with a communal garden have the expectation that they can access all areas of the communal garden. Therefore, fencing areas off and limiting their access to the communal garden would not be fair to those residents. There is no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for fencing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for additional fencing to prevent dog fouling.
The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused, in particular his concerns about banding, is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take a victim-centred approach to the ASB reports made by a vulnerable resident. It did not follow its ASB procedures, missed opportunities to gather evidence that could have led to enforcement action, overlooked existing evidence and closed the ASB case in relation to dog fouling prematurely.
However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for fencing was reasonable on the grounds that fencing in communal gardens is not permitted.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall complete the following orders within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior member of the landlord to write to the resident with an apology for the failings set out in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £650 for the impact of those failings.
3. Contact the resident to find out if any ASB is continuing and open a new ASB case if appropriate (if there is not one open currently).
4. If an ASB case is open, in three months’ time provide an update to this Service with details of:
  1. What action has been taken to gather evidence in relation to dog fouling and cannabis use by the neighbour.
  2. What are the landlord’s next steps in relation to ASB including details of enforcement action to be considered where appropriate.
5. Undertake ASB awareness training with its staff to ensure that they are aware that ASB covers a broad range of issues including dog fouling and not only the more acute issues as set out in its ASB statement such a racist incident and hate crime. It should also ensure that its staff are aware of the full range of enforcement options available in response to ASB including the suitability of each option and when to refer a case for enforcement action.