The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Southwark Council (201906325)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906325

Southwark Council

8 February 2021


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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and its response to reports of damage and mould in the property in 2017. This was reviewed by the landlord in 2018, following which the resident approached the Housing Ombudsman Service. The Ombudsman considered the complaint, and a determination was made on 16 November 2018 (case reference number 201703285) of ‘no maladministration’ in relation to the repair issues and ‘service failure’ in relation to the response to the ASB reports and the landlord’s complaint handling. Both the landlord and the resident requested reviews of the determination, which was completed on 18 January 2019 and no changes were made to the determination. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay the resident £75 for service failure in relation to the handling of the allegations of ASB, £75 in relation to complaint handling and the landlord to discuss what, if any ASB issues were outstanding and to identify a way forward. The Ombudsman acknowledged the landlord could not complete these actions without engagement from the resident.
  2. As a complaint about the same issues has already been considered by the landlord and the Housing Ombudsman Service, this investigation will look at the landlord’s response since 18 January 2019 until its final response relating to this complaint.
  3. The resident has not made any further noise reports to the relevant team since October 2018.

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has a complaints policy which defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about any of our services requiring a response.” It operates a two stage complaints process; the complaint phase and the review phase. The landlord will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days and stage two complaints in 25 working days.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that on receipt of a report of ASB, the resident services officer will assess the nature of the risk and will refer or respond as appropriate. The policy is clear that the resident services officer is responsible for assessment, referral, and initial interviews with the reporter.

Summary of events

  1. On 30 January 2019, the landlord confirmed that it would comply with the Ombudsman’s orders providing the resident engaged with it and it had already arranged payment of the compensation. It also confirmed that it had a meeting booked with the resident that day, but evidence shows the resident cancelled the meeting. The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 January 2019 requesting she contact the landlord to arrange a new appointment that was convenient to her.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to engage with the resident on at least ten occasions during 2019 and 2020 to discuss the ASB issues she had reported. However, the evidence also shows the resident repeatedly refused to engage with the landlord by refusing to arrange and/or attend meetings with the resident services officer and refusing to engage with the noise nuisance team.
  3. A noise machine was installed in the resident’s property on 1 December 2019 and collected on 8 January 2020. On 10 December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to advise the electricity had “tripped out” and nothing had been recorded. It is unclear what the landlord said in response as the email has not been provided by the resident or the landlord, however, the resident replied on 14 December 2019 stating “I do but sadly the device went off. I was asking for it to be re-set please.” The landlord informed the resident the device did not record constantly, she needed to press the button when there was a noise she wanted to record.
  4. The evidence shows that when the noise recording device was collected on 8 January 2020, it had been disconnected from the power and the battery had ran flat. However, when it had been recording on 1 and 2 December 2019, it had not detected any change in sound.
  5. On 20 January 2020, the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service about the ASB issues she was experiencing. She was advised to raise the issue with her landlord in the first instance.
  6. There is no evidence the resident engaged with the landlord following this, though she sent several emails to the Housing Ombudsman Service, her MP, and the Lead Councillor.
  7. On 20 March 2020, the Housing Ombudsman Service emailed the landlord following further contact from the resident. The landlord responded the same day and advised they had emailed the resident that day to confirm where in the complaints process her various complaints were. The landlord confirmed the resident did not currently have any open complaints regarding ASB and asked her to provide more information if these issues had occurred after January 2018.
  8. On 21 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the ASB she was experiencing. The landlord subsequently raised a new complaint on 23 March 2020.
  9. On 14 April 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint. The landlord explained it had installed a noise monitoring machine on 1 December 2019, and the recordings it had taken did not pick any difference in sound. It also explained it had made “attempts to meet and discuss any concerns” the resident was experiencing, but these offers had “been declined.” The landlord explained the offer to meet to discuss her concerns was still open to her and advised her to report any noise issues to the noise service so it could assess the noise.
  10. On 26 May 2020, the Housing Ombudsman Service emailed the landlord as the resident remained dissatisfied with the stage one response. The landlord opened a stage two response on 28 May 2020.
  11. The landlord responded on 23 June 2020 and explained it had attempted to meet with her on several occasions, but she had refused. The landlord urged the resident to reconsider this offer, as without her engagement it could not provide her with support or advice regarding the issues she was experiencing.
  12. On 24 June 2020, the resident responded to the landlord advising she had “no reason to engage with the resident officer at this stage.” In response the landlord explained it could only investigate her complaints of ASB if she engaged with the resident services team.
  13. The resident asked the Housing Ombudsman Service to investigate her complaint on 24 June 2020 as she was dissatisfied with the stage two response.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. Following the Ombudsman’s previous determination, it is clear the landlord has tried to be proactive to ensure the resident receives an appropriate service, in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles of learning from the outcome of complaints. Although there was a significant delay in the noise machine being installed in the property, this was due to the resident’s lack of engagement with the landlord.
  2. There have been no new reports to the landlord of ASB since 2018, meaning the landlord has not had the opportunity to identify any issues and attempt to resolve them through its ASB procedure. In the absence of any reports of ASB in this time, it follows that no service failure has been identified with the landlord’s handling of this case from an ASB management perspective.
  3. Despite no official reports being made, when the landlord has been contacted by the Housing Ombudsman Service, the resident’s MP, or the Lead Councillor regarding the issues, it has attempted to engage with the resident to progress the situation, however again, the resident has repeatedly refused to engage with the landlord. It was appropriate that the landlord progressed the case through its complaints procedure, following the contact from HOS, the resident’s MP and the Lead Councillor.
  4. Having raised a formal complaint, the landlord’s formal responses highlighted the importance of reporting ASB issues and engaging with its service. This was an appropriate response, as it needs to be made aware of any ongoing issues experienced by the resident. This will provide the landlord with an opportunity to identify and address anything requiring further action.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

  1. The resident has not made any further reports to the landlord since October 2018; therefore, the landlord has not had any reports to respond to. Despite this it has continued to attempt to engage with the resident.