Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Southwark Council (202008800)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008800

Southwark Council

7 February 2022


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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her reports of anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) by her neighbour.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has a tenancy agreement with the landlord which started on 20 November 2000.
  2. The resident states hat her neighbour has “stalked” and harassed her since she moved into the property. She says that she would like to move property.
  3. On 3 October 2019 the landlord carried out separate home visits with the resident and her neighbour. Both parties made allegations of ASB by the other. Following a further complaint from the resident, the landlord met with her at the landlord’s offices.
  4. On 16 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident referring to the recent in person meeting in which the resident had raised problems with her neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord advised the resident to report any further incidents via the online reporting tool and that the landlord was liaising with the police on the matter.
  5. On 7 January 2020 the landlord issued the resident with a written warning. The landlord wrote that it had taken this action as a result of the outcome of a police investigation which found that both the resident and her neighbour had engaged in inappropriate behaviour. The landlord reminded the resident of section 10(b) of the tenancy agreement. Section 10(b) of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that “you and persons residing in or visiting the property must act in a reasonable manner and must not do anything which causes nuisance, annoyance, distress or alarm to other persons residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality, or cause damage to their property or possessions.’ The landlord specified that this was a “final warning”. A warning letter was also sent to the resident’s neighbour.
  6. On 8 January 2020 a meeting took place with the police, the Resident Services Officer (RSO) and the resident. The police stated that there were reports of ASB by both the resident and her neighbour and they could not take action as there was insufficient evidence. The police advised that they took the view that both parties were making false allegations.
  7. On 16 January 2020 the landlord sent the customer a letter confirming the Action Plan that was agreed in the meeting on 8 January 2020. The agreed action plan was that: (i) any further reports of harassment and intimidation would lead to enforcement action against the perpetrator (ii) the resident agreed not to cause any obstruction to her neighbour (iii) the resident would video record activities involving her neighbour and record incidents in the Incident Diary Sheets (iv) the resident would report any ASB directly to the police (v) the resident agreed to abide by the tenancy agreement.
  8. An internal email of 12 February 2020 indicates that the landlord put in an application for a property transfer for the resident. 
  9. On 27 July 2020 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. There does not appear to have been further reports from the resident to the landlord from the time the Action Plan was issued to this time. The resident said that she was being stalked by her neighbour since she moved into the property. She has reported this several times to the police and housing officers, however they have not done anything and had “sided” with her neighbour. She also said that someone called about a gas safety check on 1 June 2020 and he said that he would send an email about the ASB but he had not done so.
  10. On 27 July 2020 the landlord responded advising the resident that the email had come through to the incorrect department and that the issue needed to be looked at by the resident’s housing officer.
  11. On 4 August 2020 the landlord wrote an email to the resident. This referred to the previous steps the landlord had taken and stated that the resident’s claim that the landlord had taken her neighbour’s side was incorrect. 
  12. On 13 September 2020 the resident wrote an email to a senior employee of the landlord. She reiterated her complaints about her neighbour’s behaviour and that she had raised her issue with the landlord but it had not been resolved. She wrote that she requested to be rehoused in January but the landlord had sided with her neighbour. The resident also referred to an interaction with a person who came to undertake a gas safety check who told her that he would send an email but he did not.
  13. The landlord provided the resident with a stage two complaint response on 3 November 2020. In this letter the landlord set out the history of its handling of the matter. It noted that the resident had not returned any diary sheets previously provided and that there had been no further reports made to the police. The landlord noted the comments about the gas safety officer and advised that the officer had told it that he had limited communication with the resident and advised her to discuss any issues with her neighbour with her resident RSO. The landlord advised the resident that its decision was to not uphold her complaint. The landlord’s position was that it had been very objective in the matter and managed the case in accordance with the landlord’s procedures for such matters. It advised the resident to send Incident Diary Sheets and report any further incidents to her RSO.

Assessment and findings

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have affected and caused distress to her. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The background to this complaint is one of allegations of ASB by the resident and counter allegations by her neighbour. It is relevant for the Ombudsman to acknowledge at the outset that ASB cases involving a number of parties with allegations and counter allegations of the extent presented in this case can be amongst the most difficult and intractable for a landlord to resolve. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important that the Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
  4. In this case the landlord took steps, which included in person meetings, to understand and explore the resident’s concerns. It did this both with the resident and her neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to then liaise with the police who were investigating the matter and to take into account the police view that both parties were engaging in inappropriate behaviour. The landlord was reasonable to write warning letters to both parties. 
  5. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the Action Plan that was agreed by the resident and the landlord in the 8 January 2020 meeting was reasonable. It did not impose unfair restrictions on the resident and proposed an effective procedure for the resident to follow should she want to going forward.
  6. The Ombudsman understands that the resident feels that the landlord has been biased towards her neighbour. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that the landlord has taken into account both perspectives equally. The warning letter was also sent to the resident’s neighbour and there is no evidence that the landlord favoured or gave more importance to the neighbour’s view of the situation.
  7. The resident has complained that that the landlord has ignored and not followed up the issues she has raised. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has investigated the matter and worked to provide a reasonable solution taking into account the actions of both parties. The Action Plan which the landlord sent to the resident on 16 January 2020 was a proportionate response to the issues raised. The evidence does not indicate that there were new issues arising after the Action Plan was sent which warranted further assessment and a revised approach by the landlord. The resident does not appear to have completed and sent in the Incidents Diary Sheets as suggested by the landlord in its letter of 16 January 2020.
  8. With respect to the specific point that the resident raised about the gas safety officer advising her that he would send an email about the matter and then failing to do so, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord investigated this and determined that the gas safety officer had not made such a representation and had only limited contact with the resident. Rather, the gas safety officer advised the resident to discuss the matter with her resident officer. Whilst it may have been good practice for the gas safety officer to pass on the resident’s concerns internally, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that his failure to do so constitutes a service failing. The landlord provided adequate contact points for the resident to communicate with it about the matter and if the gas safety officer had passed on the resident’s comments internally this would not have made a substantive difference to the landlord’s approach.
  9. The evidence indicates that the landlord was conscious of the impact the matter was having on the resident’s mental health and the internal email of 12 February 2020 indicates that the landlord put in an application for a property transfer for the resident. The Ombudsman considers that the resident moving would be a reasonable resolution of the matter, taking into account the clear distress which the resident is experiencing. The Ombudsman has not been provided with further information on the progress of the application for the resident’s move. It is possible that further steps have been taken with respect to the application that have not been provided to the Ombudsman as this was not specifically included as a complaint ground in the submission made by the resident to this service. The Ombudsman would encourage the landlord to facilitate such a move where it is possible. It should explain to the resident the status of the application for her move and the priority it has given to the application. It should also give her advice on other options which may be available to her, such as mutual exchange.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to her complaint of anti social behaviour by her neighbour.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the matter and propose a workable solution based on the evidence available to it, including advice from the police. There is no evidence that the landlord was biased towards the resident’s neighbour.
  2. It is not clear if the landlord has progressed the application for the resident to move. Moving would be a reasonable resolution of the matter, taking into account the clear distress which the resident is experiencing

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord, if it has not done so, take further steps to progress the application for the resident to move where that is possible. It should explain to the resident the status of the application for her move and the priority it has given to the application. It should also give her advice on other options which may be available to her, such as mutual exchange.