Southwark Council (202120974)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120974

Southwark Council

2 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The residents are joint leaseholders, for the purpose of this report, they will be referred to as ‘the resident’. The landlord is the freeholder. The resident has been the leaseholder for the property since 26 February 2018. The property is a first floor flat.
The neighbour who is the subject of the resident’s ASB complaint is a tenant of the landlord and lives in the flat directly below the resident. For clarity, in this report, the subject of the complaint will be referred to as ‘the neighbour’.
The resident has no recorded vulnerability with the landlord. Since they reported the ASB, they have told the landlord several times, that they suffer from depression and anxiety because of the ASB they have experienced.
The resident was working from home as a lecturer during COVID 19 periods of lock downs. The resident said that the ASB impacted on their ability to do their job.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s guide for leaseholders says that:
1. Leaseholders have a right to ‘quiet enjoyment’ of their home and to live without interference. The landlord is responsible for either taking action or assisting the leaseholder in taking action against a neighbour when the neighbour is causing a proven nuisance.
2. The landlord will discuss the issues with the leaseholder, manage its expectations and take a problem-solving approach to resolving the issue. This may include a range of remedies such as mediation, warning letters, or visits.
3. Other agencies, such as the anti-social behaviour unit, the police, the noise and nuisance team, can help dealing with ASB.
4. If the person causing the problem is vulnerable, they may refer to other agencies to support residents who are at risk of losing their tenancy. Vulnerabilities include mental and physical health.
The ASB policy says that:
1. The landlord takes a victim- centred approach, protecting and supporting victims and witnesses. It says that it manages victims’ expectations. It keeps the victims informed by providing them with updates, weekly or within agreed time scales. It also works with victims to resolve the problems.
2. On receipt of an ASB report, it will speak to the victim and carry out a risk assessment. It will review the risk assessment, manage the risk effectively, including signposting to relevant agencies. The risk assessment will be reviewed throughout the duration of the investigation and uploaded on the recording system.
3. The landlord will encourage the resident to complete ASB diaries. It will also speak to other relevant parties, including the alleged perpetrator to understand what happened and explore solutions.
4. The landlord will explore solutions by adopting a problem-solving approach, a multi-agency approach and by organising problem solving case conferences. An action plan will be put together.
5. The landlord will work with a range of partner agencies such as the police, the noise and nuisance team, health services, anti-social behaviour unit and social services.
6. The landlord will consider a range of remedies such as warning letters, mediations, request to professional witness services and legal remedies and actions.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about any of the landlord’s services. The policy has two stages. The landlord will respond to a stage one complaint within 15 working days and to a stage two complaint within 25 working days. In its response, the landlord will address all the issues raised and provide a clear outcome. If its services did not meet the standards, it will apologise, explain what went wrong and say how it will put things right. It will also tell the resident how to escalate the complaint if the resident is not satisfied with the response.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that the level of compensation awarded is determined by the particular facts of the case and the impact the failings had on the resident. The policy says how much compensation will be paid for delay, distress, time and trouble, incurred costs, and for good will payments.

Summary of events

There were historical reports of noise nuisance and harassment toward the resident from the neighbour below and another neighbour. The resident made reports of ASB between 2011 and 2014, as well as in 2020, with long periods of no nuisance in between. Those reports are not part of this investigation, they do however offer some context.
In January 2021, the resident reported loud music and shouting from her neighbour’s property. She reported the incidents to the landlord and the police.
The landlord sent a letter to the neighbour on 16 February 2021. It told the neighbour that it had received allegations of noise disturbances coming from her property. It also reminded the neighbour of the terms of the tenancy agreement and offered to discuss the reports.
On 25 February 2021, the resident shared with the landlord that she had received a letter from the neighbour on 17 February 2021. The resident asked the landlord to keep the letter on file but not to act. She was concerned that if the landlord challenged her neighbour, this could cause the behaviour to escalate. The resident explained that receiving the letter had been stressful and frightening. The letter said that:
1. The neighbour was protected by the victim unit and that a police officer regularly checked on her welfare.
2. Someone was living illegally at the resident’s property and that the neighbours were aware that the resident’s girlfriend lived there.
3. If the neighbour had to contact the police, the neighbour would tell the police about the resident. The neighbour had nothing to lose.
4. The resident was racist and had bullied her. The neighbour also said that she had witnesses to those facts.
5. The neighbour would fight the resident to the end.
The landlord signposted the neighbour to the relevant support services on 15 March 2021. It continued, throughout the investigation, to liaise with services to support the neighbour and seek advice.
The resident sent the landlord some of the ASB diary sheets she had recorded between 19 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. The resident continued to complete the diary sheets until 22 June 2021. The resident recorded the date of the incidents, the type of nuisance, who she believed was causing the nuisance, who she reported the incident to and what impact it had on the household. Over the six months period, the resident reported that:
1. Incidents happened on 49 days.
2. On some days there would be more than one incident per day.
3. Some of the incidents happened during the night.
4. The nuisances were: banging, playing loud music, shouting, playing loud TV.
5. The resident reported each incident to the landlord, the noise and nuisance team or the police as and when it occurred.
6. She suffered distress, anxiety, and was frightened because of the ASB she was experiencing.
7. The resident stayed away from her flat, several times during that period, to rest.
In April 2021, the neighbour made a counter complaint and said that the resident was using her washing machine during unsociable hours. This was reported to the landlord, the noise and nuisance team and the police. The landlord investigated and found no evidence to substantiate the complaint.
The landlord was working closely with the Police throughout the case. On 4 May 2021, thePolice confirmed that it was investigating allegations of harassment and homophobic remarks against the resident by the neighbour.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord requested for the noise recording equipment to be installed by the noise and nuisance team. The noise team replied that it could not install the noise recording equipment due to covid restrictions. The noise and nuisance team said that it had informed the resident.
The landlord provided evidence that on 8 May 2021, it sought advice and made an appropriate referral to support the neighbour.
On the 18 May 2021, the police emailed the landlord and said that it arrested the neighbour. Due to the level of harassment and homophobia toward the resident, the police were planning to charge the neighbour and to apply for a restraining order. The police said that the alleged offences were witnessed by members of the public and police officers. The police referred the case to the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC). The landlord said in an internal email, that it expected the police to take the lead as it had all the evidence. It also said that it could consider seeking possession but that it would take time.
In an internal email on 17 May 2021, the landlord said, that since January 2021, the resident had to leave her property to stay with friends on eight occasions. It said it was due to the excessive noise disturbance and harassment the resident was experiencing from her neighbour.
The MARAC meeting took place in June 2021, and was attended by several agencies, including the behaviour unit team, the noise and nuisance team, health services and the police. The resident told the landlord in an email, that she felt that the focus of the MARAC meeting was on the neighbour. She said that the agencies failed to consider the impact the ASB was having on her. The evidence did not show whether the resident attended the meeting.
On 8 June 2021, the resident contacted their MP and asked for support. The resident told the MP about the ASB she was experiencing and her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response.
The MP emailed the landlord on 10 June 2021. The MP explained that the resident contacted its office for support following homophobic abuse, harassment, intimidation, and threatening behaviour from her neighbour. The MP asked for the landlord to advise what options were available to resolve the situation.
The Police told the landlord, on 15 June 2021, that a criminal prosecution was unlikely because of the neighbour’s health.
On 20 June 2021, the resident told the landlord in an email, that she called the noise and nuisance team the previous night. She said that it was not aware that her case was a high priority case. As the noise team had not arrived by the time the noise stopped, one and half hour later, she cancelled the visit. The resident said that she was reluctant to call the noise and nuisance team, because she never had any success when previously calling them.
The resident asked the landlord on 20 June 2021, for the noise recording equipment to be installed in her property. The landlord explained to the resident that the noise nuisance team could not install noise recording equipment in properties because of Covid restrictions. It advised the resident to continue to report all incidents to the noise and nuisance team. It explained that that the noise team had a statutory power to take legal actions against a perpetrator if a statutory noise nuisance was established. It also said that it would inform the resident when the noise recording equipment could be installed.
The landlord responded to the MP on 21 June 2021. It explained that the neighbour had been arrested. It said that the Police charged the neighbour with homophobic abuse, harassment, intimidation, and threatening behaviour and were planning to prosecute. It said that if the neighbour was found guilty of the offences, the landlord may be able to take legal action against the neighbour for breach of tenancy. It said that it was waiting for the outcome of the police case.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2021 and asked the landlord to buy back the property.
The resident contacted their local MP on 22 June 2021. The resident said that:
1. She was told ‘to put up’ with the nuisance from her neighbour’s, and it would take up to two years to resolve the issue.
2. Her neighbour was constantly shouting, photographing her property, banging, or playing loud music and TV.
3. She had to sleep elsewhere to get a good night’s sleep and peace of mind.
4. Her and her partner were stressed, anxious, depressed, and trying to work at the same time.
5. The resident said that when leaving and returning to the flat, she was trying to avoid the neighbour for fear of intimidation.
The resident made a stage one complaint on 27 June 2021, which the landlord acknowledged three days later. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said that she had been experiencing harassment and intimidation from the neighbour since February 2021. The resident said there had been a homophobic aspect to the harassment. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB. She said that:
1. MARAC focused on helping the neighbour and that the landlord did not ask about her welfare.
2. The landlord did not take actions to improve the situation, protect the resident and her household or stop the harassment.
3. The noise recording equipment had not been available to gather evidence. The resident offered to use her own phone to record the nuisance, the landlord rejected the option.
4. The noise and nuisance team said that they were not authorised to enter the property to witness the noise disturbance due to covid 19 restrictions, which the resident was unhappy about and disputed. The resident asked the landlord to confirm where, in the Covid Act, it said that the noise and nuisance team could not enter the property.
5. When she called the noise and nuisance team, they had taken so long to arrive that the noise had ceased.
6. The landlord told her that it could not take further action until an independent source had witnessed the noise levels.
7. The landlord’s failed to offer alternative solutions to resolve the issue or to provide protection .
8. The landlord breached the terms of the lease by allowing the nuisance to continue.
9. The landlord did not consider moving the neighbour.
10. She would like the landlord to take actions to resolve the issue, review the evidence she provided, move her neighbour, and protect her.
11. She would like an apology from the landlord. She would also like the landlord to pay her compensation for the impact the ASB had on the value of her property.
The landlord emailed the MP on 1 July 2021. It repeated the information it provided to the MP ten days earlier. It also added that it had asked the resident to report the noise to the noise and nuisance team. It said this was because they had a statutory power and could install recording equipment to gather evidence. The landlord said that it had informed the resident that it could only evict a resident via a court order.
During June 2021 and July 2021, the landlord continued to liaise with relevant agencies regarding the neighbour.
In July 2021, the neighbour agreed to consider a transfer, and the landlord started the process of assessing her application. It also provided the neighbour with information on other options available to help her move.
The landlord provided the stage one response on 20 July 2021. It said that:
1. It understood that the neighbour had been arrested because of homophobic abuse, harassment, intimidation, and threatening behaviour toward the resident.
2. It confirmed that the neighbour was given a verbal and written warning regarding their conduct.
3. The noise and nuisance team were unable to enter the property. It explained that during the pandemic several services were assessed, and it was decided that these would be put on hold. It said that it was waiting for updates on when visits would be able to resume.
4. There were legal requirements and processes to follow when taking action against a resident’s tenancy. It said that it is not a quick process and that due to the pandemic, it could take several months for cases to be heard by the courts.
5. It had been working with the police and various agencies to resolve the ASB.
6. It was unable to comply with their request for compensation, as the landlord cannot compensate the resident for the actions of the neighbour.
7. It would be in touch with the resident to discuss their concerns and support needs.
8. The resident could also take private action against the neighbour under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The resident told the landlord that they remained dissatisfied following the stage one response to their complaint. The resident requested for their complaint to be escalated to stage two, their request was accepted on 22 July 2021. They said that:
1. They did not feel the landlord had done all it could to resolve the issue.
2. The landlord did not meet its obligations in the terms of the lease, which guarantee their rights to quiet and the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
3. The landlord failed in their duty to support the victim.
4. The landlord lacked creative thinking around resolutions on how to record noise nuisance during covid.
5. The landlord had tried to push its responsibility for taking actions onto the resident when the landlord suggested that the resident could take private legal actions against their neighbour.
The landlord asked the resident in an email on 27 July 2021, whether she needed support. The evidence does not show whether the resident responded to the landlord’s query.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 July 2021, to inform her that her neighbour had requested mediation. The resident refused the offer and explained that mediation would be inappropriate as their neighbour was being charged with a criminal offence against them. The resident told the landlord that its request for mediation is evidence of its lack of support for victims. The police told the landlord on 1 August 2021, that mediation would not be appropriate in this case.
The resident told the landlord in an email on 30th July 2021, that they had not received a response to an email they sent 5 weeks earlier. In that email, the resident had offered to sell the property back to the landlord.
The police confirmed on 1 August 2021, that the evidence supported the resident claims of harassment from her neighbour. The evidence also showed one instance of homophobic hate crime. The policesaid that before they could proceed with interviewing and prosecuting the neighbour, further assessments needed to be completed.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord provided the resident with relevant contact details to discuss selling their property back to the landlord.
The landlord provided the resident with the stage two response to their complaint on 13 October 2021. The landlord’s position in response to the complaint at stage two remained unchanged, but it added that:
1. It had reviewed all videos, diaries and recordings provided by the resident. It said that it had used the evidence provided by the resident to advise the agencies involved, namely the police, the mediator and agencies working with the neighbour.
2. It had explained that there were legal requirements for gathering evidence and presenting it at court for such evidence to be admissible. For the purposes of noise disturbance, admissible evidence would be one recorded by the noise team, using legally recommended equipment which was the noise recording machine.
3. It had explained to the resident the stages involved in noise nuisance cases and the role and power of the noise and nuisance team. It could only consider eviction proceedings if the noise and nuisance team had taken actions and failed to resolve the issues. It advised the resident to continue reporting all noise nuisance to the landlord, the noise and nuisance team and the police.
4. There were multiple breaches of the tenancy conditions and taking legal actions on one part only, would not be effective for the case. To present a strong case in court , the landlord would benefit from combining evidence and proof of each breach, as well as evidence of the criminal offence.
5. It had informed the resident that her request for the noise recording equipment was being treated as a priority.
6. Due to the Covid19 pandemic restrictions, it could not do much in terms of legal actions.
7. It was satisfied that it had adequately responded to the resident’ reports of ASB and had followed due process. It had worked in partnership with all relevant agencies to find a resolution to the case. It explained that the MARAC meeting was about finding a resolution to the case. The police dealt with the criminal aspect of the case whilst other agencies were working with the neighbour. It explained that in ASB cases, those steps always preceded legal actions.
8. Both parties had been offered mediation.
9. Legal actions were the last resort. It told the resident that in ASB cases, the aim is not to move the resident but instead to explore all avenues to resolve the issues.
10. It had provided the resident with the contact details of the conveyancing and home ownership teams details to discuss the resident’s ‘offer of purchasing’ their property.
11. It had asked the resident if they needed further support and advised that the police offered victim support.
The resident said several times to the landlord in 2021, that the ASB had a severe impact on her and her partner. During that time, she said that:
1. ‘The impact on us has been enormous’
2. ‘We are extremely stressed, have been intimidated and are depressed. We live in a state of anxiety, not knowing when the harassment might happen. We have regularly had to go and stay elsewhere to get any sleep.’
3. ‘Our work life at home as university lecturers has been compromised, and it has destroyed our quality of life’.
4. ‘We are very worried about our safety’.
5. ‘This is terrifying’.
6. ‘At the moment it is impossible for us to be able to carry on with our professional and personal lives. And we are living in fear, having to regularly leave our flat and remain in a friend’s apartment’.

Post internal complaint process

The resident emailed the landlord on 25 November 2021. She said that:
1. She had been experiencing persistent noise nuisance for the past 11 months, with a six-week gap when it went quiet.
2. The noise nuisance was on going.
3. She saw little point in reporting the nuisance to the noise and nuisance team as it led to no action.
4. She said that following the MARAC meeting actions were taken to support her neighbour but no action was taken to protect her.
5. She asked the landlord what action it was planning to take to protect her against their neighbour’s conduct.
6. She said that the neighbour would not be prosecuted or face any form of penalty for the harassment caused.
Following further reports from the resident of noise nuisance on 25 November 2021, the landlord told the resident that it was liaising with the noise and nuisance team to install noise recording equipment at the property.
The noise and nuisance team reported to the landlord that they had attended the property on 25 November 2021, and had not witnessed any noise nuisance.
The landlord told the resident on 12 January 2022, that it had contacted the noise and nuisance team in November 2021. It asked for the case to be considered a priority for the installation of the noise recording equipment. It told the resident that it would update her once it received a response.
In recent contacts with this service, the resident said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB. She did not feel supported by the landlord and she felt that the neighbour should be moved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

The landlord is a local authority and some of the services it provides do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman, but instead fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The Memorandum of Understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and the LGSCO sets out the complaints that each Ombudsman is responsible for considering. This states that the LGSCO considers complaints about actions and decisions made by environmental health services.
The noise and nuisance team, and the antisocial behaviour unit are services which operate within the environment and leisure department of the local authority. They sit outside the landlord’s housing function. Therefore, actions and decisions made by either of these teams fall under the LGSCO’s jurisdiction and not the Housing Ombudsman. In accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the action or lack of actions by the noise and nuisance team or the antisocial behaviour unit.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. The landlord must show that it acted reasonably and was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord adhered to its policies, procedures, and any agreements made with the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’ reports of antisocial behaviour

The Ombudsman recognises that ASB cases can take time to investigate and resolve. It also recognises that the landlord is not directly responsible for the ASB. However, the landlord has a duty, under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014 to respond to ASB affecting the properties it manages with a victim centred approach.
The resident started experiencing noise nuisance and harassment from their neighbour in January 2021. The evidence showed that the landlord advised the resident to keep logs of the incidents and nuisance, to report the noise nuisance to the noise and nuisance team and incident of harassment to the police. Those were appropriate actions from the landlord. Those actions were also in accordance with its obligations and in line with its ASB policy.
However, the landlord provided no evidence that it discussed the purpose of gathering evidencewith the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to clarify the purpose of gathering evidence, this would have been helpful to manage the resident’s expectations. This would have also been compliant with its obligations as set in its ASB policy.
The landlord did not show that it consistently reviewed the resident ASB diaries and personal videos to establish whether the threshold for legal action had been met. It would have been reasonable, and in line with its policy for the landlord to review the evidence gathered and seek legal advice on available actions. This would have enabled the landlord to have a clear understanding of all actions available. It would have also reassured the resident that it was listening and actively exploring solutions. It would have built trust and confidence between the resident and the landlord.
The landlord said that it reviewed the ASB logs provided by the resident and shared the findings with the relevant agencies. The resident said that the landlord did not discuss the findings with her. The landlord did not dispute this. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to communicate its findings with the resident. By doing so, the landlord could have shown support, acknowledged the resident’s efforts in documenting the ASB, and fostered a sense of being heard and understood. Because it did not, the resident felt that the evidence they took the time to record was ignored, and their welfare was not considered important. This lack of communication affected the relationship between the resident and the landlord, leading to frustration, mistrust, and dissatisfaction.
The landlord referred to and worked with several external agencies to resolve the ASB. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to work in partnership with others, its policy also says that it adopts a problem-solving approach to ASB cases. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered ways to resolve the issue, outside of referring to external agencies. The evidence showed that the landlord deferred the responsibility of resolving the issue to the resident, the police, and the noise team. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take ownership to conduct its own investigation and actions, rather than relying on external parties to resolve the issue.
The landlord referred the case to the noise and nuisance team, which is in line with its policy. However, when the noise and nuisance team said that it could not help, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore other avenues to assist the resident. The landlord should have demonstrated that it explored other options mentioned in its policy, such as professional witness services or drawing up a good neighbour contract. These are commonly used for resolving ASB involving noise disturbance. By failing to explore alternative avenues and solely relying on the noise and nuisance team, the landlord neglected to fulfil its responsibilities in assisting the resident and in addressing the issue effectively.
From the evidence seen, the landlord was slow to identify any vulnerabilities or support needs for either party. The landlord failed to explain the three- and four-months delay in considering support providers for the neighbour. It also failed to explain the seven month delay in making an offer of support to the resident. If the landlord had considered both parties vulnerability and support needs, it could have been more proactive in seeking suitable support services. This could have prevented the issues from escalating further. It would also have been in line with its policy.
The leaseholder’s guide says that leaseholders have the right to ‘quiet enjoyment’ of their home without interference. While the landlord is not expected to prevent all instances of ASB, they are obligated to take action or assist the leaseholder in addressing ASB. The landlord should also protect the victim. In this case, the landlord took some actions to deal with the ASB but provided little evidence of protecting and supporting the victim. The landlord waited seven months before offering support, without explaining the delay. This was an unreasonable delay and not in line with its ASB policy. The delays contributed to the resident feeling ignored, neglected and that her welfare was not considered.
The landlord failed to complete and review a risk assessment. Conducting a risk assessment would have allowed the landlord to identify and evaluate the specific risks faced by the victim in relation to the ASB reported. By understanding the risks, the landlord would have been in a better position to determine the appropriate actions needed to address the issue. It would have also enabled the landlord to fulfil its obligations to protect the victim, as stated in its policy. Because of those failings, it missed the opportunity to quickly understand what happened, the nature of the ASB and to assess the impact on the victim. This contributed to the resident feelings of being ignored and their needs not being considered.
The policy says that when multi agencies are involved, the landlord will organise a problem-solving case conference. The landlord provided no evidence that this happened. If it had, the case conference would have set out clear actions as well as reviewed the outcomes and solutions. It would have also reassured the resident that all avenues for resolution were being explored. This would have promoted trust, confidence and better managed the resident’s expectations.
The landlord offered mediation to the resident and their neighbour seven months after the issue started. It did not explain its reasons for delaying the offer. It would have been appropriate to offer mediation when the ASB started in January 2021. Timely mediation could have helped to maintain a healthier relationship between the resident and their neighbour and prevent the situation from escalating. It could have prevented the resident being exposed to further incidents of ASB, which caused them distress, frustration, and inconvenience.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will maintain weekly contact with the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident weekly or discussed a timeframe for providing updates. An agreement on the method and frequency of communication could have been agreed as part of an action plan. Communication is crucial in maintaining a positive landlord-tenant relationship. In this case, the lack of regular updates was a missed opportunity for the landlord to build trust and bring confidence to the resident that the issues were being investigated. The lack of communication caused the resident to feel ignored, creating a sense of neglect and disregard. The resident felt that their needs and welfare were not considered.
The landlord failed to respond to some of the resident’s comments and queries in a timely manner. For example, the resident asked whether the landlord would consider purchasing their property back. It took six weeks for the landlord to provide the resident with the relevant contact details to discuss their offer. The landlord provided no explanation for the delay. The lack of urgency in addressing such queries, reinforced the resident’s perception of not being considered or being taken seriously.
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014, says that when a victim is not satisfied with its landlord response to ASB, or when the ASB is persistent, the victim can request a formal ASB case review. It says that it is important that victims can easily access information about how to apply for a formal ASB case review. The landlord did not show that it considered whether the case met the threshold for a review. It did not show that it discussed the resident’s right to a formal review or provided the resident with information on how to apply. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to consider those actions.
Overall, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord failed to work in accordance with its policy and meet its obligations on several points:
1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it has a problem-solving approach to ASB cases. However, the evidence showed that the landlord delegated the responsibility of resolving the issues to others.
2. It failed to provide evidence of its efforts to offer solutions. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore their own solutions, seek legal advice if necessary, and engage in collaborative discussions with the resident to address the ASB problem effectively.
3. It failed to assess the risk, to provide regular updates, to agree an action plan, and to access witness services.
4. It failed to consider and promote the resident’s right to a formal ASB review.
5. Because of those failings, the resident felt that they were not listened to, that their welfare was not considered. They felt frustrated, ignored and that their expectations were not managed.
The landlord failed to appropriately put matters right for the resident. It failed to consider the distress and inconvenience its failings caused the resident in line with its compensation policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise its failing and offer compensation to the resident. An offer of compensation would have showed that the landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience its failings caused the resident.
In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidelines, which are published on the website, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that an appropriate level of compensation is £1000. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is also to reflect that the landlord’s failings contributed to the resident’s feelings of being ignored, neglected, and disregarded.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint

The complaint handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It says that a landlord must respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 27 June 2021. The complaint was about their landlord’s response to ASB they were experiencing. The landlord responded to the stage one complaint within the landlord timeframe, but it was four days outside the Code published time frame.
In its stage one response, the landlord provided a list of the actions it took from the start of the ASB investigation. It did not evaluate those actions against its policy. It failed to identify its failings in working in line with its ASB policy. For example, it failed to identify that it did not complete a risk assessment, agree an action plan, offer timely support, or provide weekly update. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the actions it took, in response to the ASB reports, when investigating and responding to the resident’s complaint.
The resident requested the complaint be escalated on 22 July 2021. The landlord’s stage two response was 34 days outside its published time frame and 39 outside the Code timeframe. The landlord provided no evidence that it discussed an alternative time frame with the resident or apologised for the delay. There is no evidence that the resident chased a response.
In its stage two response, the landlord summarised what happened and provided background to the case and a summary of steps the landlord took. It listed information it shared with the resident and relevant agencies. It also listed the advice it provided to the resident and reasons for the decisions it made, which was reasonable for the landlord to do. oweverHowever, the landlord did not explain why it failed to fully implement all steps of the ASB policy. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do this.
Overall, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the complaint. It failed to address all aspects of the complaint or respond within its published time frame at stage 2. It failed to put things right, to identify its failings or to show that it had learned from the mistakes it made and improved its services.
The landlord’s complaint policy does not comply with the Code. The landlord’s published time frames to respond to complaints are outside the Code’s time frames.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to meet its obligations and work in accordance with its policies in its handling of the reports of ASB. Its failures may have delayed the resolution of the situation and exposed the resident to further incidents. The ASB caused distress, fear, frustration, inconvenience to the resident. It also impacted the tenant landlord relationship with the resident losing confidence in the landlord’s services. The landlord’s failings in its handling of the ASB caused the resident to experience distress and inconvenience for 12 months.
The landlord failed to respond to the complaint within the published time frame of its policy at both stages. It did not apologise and failed to provide good reasons for the delays or to agree a new time frame with the resident. The landlord also failed to address all aspects of the complaint and failed to identify its failings.

Orders recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report.
2. Pay £1000 to the resident in compensation to reflect the impact of the landlord’s failings in responding to the ASB had on the resident. The compensation is to reflect the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
3. Pay £200 to the resident in compensation to reflect the failure in handling the complaint.
4. Evidence that all officers dealing with ASB have received training on implementing the actions identified in its ASB policy, or to confirm the date by which the training will be delivered.
5. Evidence that the induction of any new officers who will be expected to deal with ASB as part of their role, will receive training on implementing the ASB policy.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord complete the self-assessment of its complaint policy against the complaint handling code and update the Ombudsman on its action plan to implement changes to its complaint policy based on its self-assessment.