Southwark Council (202005263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005263

Southwark Landlord

30 November 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) between 2015 and 2020.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from 2021.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints ‘which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to exhausting a members’ complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’
Paragraph 42(b) says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints ‘which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.’
The resident started to report incidents of ASB to the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) in 2015 and made a formal complaint on 25 August 2020. The complaint was investigated by the TMO and a response was sent on 14 October 2020. There is no evidence the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated and he did not bring the matter to the attention of this Service at the time. It was not until 6 February 2022 that the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update on his complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the complaint about landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between 2015 and 2020 is outside this Service’s jurisdiction. This is because the resident did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure for these issues or bring the matter to the attention of this Service within a reasonable time in accordance with paragraphs 42 (a) and (b) of the Scheme.
The remaining 2 complaints are within jurisdiction and are considered below.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s records. The resident has, however, advised this Service that he has recently been diagnosed with autism and has issues with his mental health.
The tenancy is managed by a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) on behalf of the landlord. A management agreement is in place between the landlord and TMO which sets out the responsibilities of both organisations. It includes details on how the TMO investigates neighbour disputes, ASB and reports of harassment. The TMO is required to act in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. The TMO also investigates complaints made by residents. Residents can escalate their complaint to the landlord if they remain unhappy.
The resident complained on 25 August 2020 that his reports of ASB had not been dealt with. He said the ASB had been going on for several years. He asked the TMO to take action against the alleged perpetrators, some of whom he said used homophobic and offensive language. He also said they used threatening and intimidating behaviour.
The TMO shared its stage 1 complaint response on 14 October 2020. It acknowledged the resident had complained on several occasions and apologised for the failure to provide him with a response. It set out the steps it would take to address his concerns. This included reminding his neighbours of their tenancy conditions. It also reminded the resident of his obligations given counter allegations had been made. The TMO upheld the resident’s complaint given the delays in investigating and responding to his complaint. The resident was told he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied but did not do so.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 22 December 2021 regarding his reports of ASB.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on his complaint about the TMO on 6 February 2022. The landlord treated this request as a new complaint. It responded on 3 March 2022 and told him it had passed his complaint to the TMO to address. The TMO responded to the MP’s enquiry on 3 March 2022, but did not respond to the stage 1 complaint.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 7 March 2022. He said the TMO had not provided answers to the questions he had raised about his reports of ASB.
The landlord issued its final response on 20 April 2022. The landlord confirmed the issues raised by the resident happened several years earlier and fell outside the scope of its complaints policy. It also confirmed that no new reports of ASB had been received by the TMO. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint. This was because he did not receive a formal response to his stage 1 complaint from the TMO. An apology was offered for this.
The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 28 June 2022. The resident said he was unhappy with the way his landlord dealt with his reports of ASB and the handling of his complaint. He also said the TMO was ‘trying to drive him out of his home’ and he wanted to move.

Assessment and findings

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

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the reported ASB occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
The housing records show the resident contacted the TMO on 31 January 2021 about his reports of ASB. He said his neighbours were staring at him and laughing. He also confirmed that he was happy to meet with one of his neighbours but wanted a witness to be present. The TMO contacted the resident on 3 February 2021 and arranged to telephone him on 5 February 2021. It was reasonable for the TMO to do this and demonstrated it took a victim centred approach in accordance with the landlord’s ASB procedure.
The TMO notified the resident on the scheduled date it could not speak with him due to an emergency. This was acknowledged by the resident. There is no evidence the TMO tried to rearrange the telephone call with the resident. This was a missed opportunity to establish if the ASB reports were new incidents or related to previous complaints raised by the resident. As a result, the TMO failed to assess the situation in line with its ASB procedure or manage the resident’s expectations.
The TMO said it met the resident in September 2021 and confirmed the issues he had previously raised had been investigated. The resident was told to submit evidence in the form of diary sheets if he experienced any further ASB. It was appropriate for the TMO to do this and is in accordance with the landlord’s ASB procedure. The TMO also said it offered the resident support with his housing transfer request. No records of the meeting have been provided to this Service and there is no evidence the outcome of the meeting was confirmed in writing to the resident.
It would have been appropriate for the TMO to have done this as it would have provided clarity and helped manage the resident’s expectations in accordance with its ASB procedure. Clear record keeping and management is a core landlord function and assist them to fulfil their obligation to prevent and tackle ASB.
The resident contacted the TMO on 28 September 2021. He said the TMO would have to explain why it had not taken action to address his reports of ASB and homophobia. No dates or details of incidents were provided. He also said the TMO had deleted emails and a member of staff had lied. No specific details were provided by the resident and there is no evidence the TMO responded. It would have been appropriate for the TMO to have contacted the resident to establish if the reports of ASB were new incidents which needed to be investigated in accordance with its ASB procedure.
The resident’s MP contacted the TMO on the 22 December 2021 regarding his reports of ASB. The landlord did not provide this Service with a copy of the enquiry. The failure to do this has meant it has not been possible to assess whether the TMO addressed the issues raised by the MP and acted fairly.
The housing records show the resident asked the landlord for an update on his complaint on 6 February 2022. The landlord referred the complaint to the TMO and asked it to investigate the matter. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and is in accordance with its management agreement with the TMO. There is no evidence the TMO investigated the complaint or provided the resident with a response. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the TMO’s complaints policy. As a result, the resident had to wait longer than they should have for a resolution to their reports of ASB.
The TMO responded to the MP’s enquiry on 3 March 2022. It said it dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB in its stage 1 complaint in October 2020. It also said it met with him in September 2021 and confirmed that the ASB he reported had previously been investigated. The TMO confirmed that it had received no diarised evidence of ASB from the resident since the stage 1 response was sent. It did not refer to the reports of ASB made by the resident in January 2021 which were not investigated. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions between February and April 2022 about historic reports of ASB which he said were unresolved. These included his complaints about:
1. The TMO’s failure to address his reports of ASB by another resident.
2. A member of the TMO committee who did not come forward as a witness.
3. The TMO deleting emails sent by Victim Support.
4. A member of staff at the TMO who had lied.
5. A member of the TMO committee had asked unnecessary questions.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 April 2022 and asked him to clarify what the outstanding issues were. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for him. The resident responded the following day and said his complaint about another resident had never been answered.
The landlord confirmed in its final complaint response that the reported ASB incidents occurred several years earlier and were outside the scope of its complaints policy. It said the TMO had previously told the resident that it could not investigate historic incidents and had offered support with any ongoing ASB issues. The landlord confirmed no new reports of ASB had been received from the resident since the stage 1 complaint response was sent. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to state that historical reports of ASB were outside the scope of its complaints policy, the TMO failed to address the ASB report made by the resident in January 2021. It also failed to rearrange the scheduled telephone call that it cancelled or record the outcome of the meeting it had with the resident in September 2021. These failings amount to a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The management agreement says the TMO is responsible for investigating and responding to resident’s complaints. It must provide a response within 15 working days. Residents can escalate their complaint to the landlord if they remain unhappy. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. These response timescales are not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within10 working days of receiving the complaint. Replies to stage 2 complaints should be sent within 20 working days.
Both the TMO and landlord’s complaints policies say they will not normally consider complaints made more than 12 months after the resident first became aware of the issue they want to complain about. The landlord’s complaints policy also says there are exceptions to this where it will accept a delay if it was reasonable.
The housing records show the resident contacted the landlord about his complaint on 6 February 2022 when he asked for an update. It was reasonable for the landlord to treat this request as a new complaint given the time that had passed and the resident had previously not asked for his stage 1 complaint to be escalated. It was acknowledged the following day and the resident told he would receive a response by 4 March 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 3 March 2022 and apologised for the delay in addressing his complaint. It confirmed it had referred his complaint to the TMO to investigate. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to do this, no evidence was provided on when the referral was made. It also said the resident could ask for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 if he was unhappy with the response it sent him. This was confusing given the complaint had been passed to the TMO to investigate and respond to.
The TMO did not contact the resident to establish what the complaint was about. This was a missed opportunity to gain a full understanding of his complaint and manage his expectations.
The TMO did not respond to the resident’s complaint. This was a missed opportunity to address his concerns. It should have carried out an investigation and provided a response to the resident in line with its complaints procedure. If appropriate, this should have included an explanation if it was determined the complaint was outside the scope of its complaints policy. The failure to do this resulted in further delays, inconvenience, and distress for the resident.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 7 March 2022. He said the TMO had not provided answers to the questions he had raised about his reports of ASB.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 14 March 2022. This was outside the timescales set in its complaints policy. It apologised for the delay and told the resident it would respond by 20 April 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 April 2022 and asked him to clarify what the outstanding issues were. The landlord also confirmed it did not have a copy of his original complaint and asked him to provide a copy. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this and demonstrated its wish to put things right for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 April 2022 and provided a list of the outstanding issues. He said the TMO had failed to address his reports of ASB and claimed the actions it took were designed to make him look guilty.
The landlord issued its final response on 20 April 2022. It confirmed its understanding of the complaint and told the resident that the issues he raised were outside the scope of its complaints policy. This was because the incidents happened several years earlier. The landlord offered an apology for the TMO’s failure to deal with his stage 1 complaint. It said this was due to a misunderstanding by the TMO as it believed its response to the MP was the reply to the resident’s complaint. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was upheld. It was reasonable for the landlord to have done this.
Whilst it is acknowledged the issues raised by the resident fell outside the scope of the complaints policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the matters he raised. This demonstrated it was being fair and wanted to put things right for the resident. The failure to clarify what the outstanding issues were or to provide a stage 1 complaint response, however, meant the resident was inconvenienced. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer an apology, but this was insufficient on its own. Given the failings identified in this report, £100 compensation is ordered for the time and trouble experienced by the resident because of the landlord’s failings in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) and 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s reports of ASB between 2015 and 2020 are outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of ASB from 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to establish if there are any new reports of ASB and confirm the action it will take to address these.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the ASB record keeping practices of the TMO, with reference to the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information spotlight review.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation to the resident. This is to be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the highlighted failures in its response to the reports of ASB.
2. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure in its complaints handling.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be shared with this Service.