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

Thurrock Council (202220272)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220272

Thurrock Council

14 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and hate crime.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a Local Authority. The tenancy commenced on 8 February 2021 and the property is a one bed bungalow.
  2. In May 2021 the resident reported various problems with his new neighbours to the landlord. Reports included items being thrown into his garden and comments which the resident believed to be racially motivated. The landlord acknowledged this as a potential hate crime and encouraged the resident to also report to the police. The resident was told someone would be in contact, however, there is no evidence that this happened.
  3. From the evidence seen by this Service, the resident made no further reports to the landlord until February 2022. At this stage he was provided with diary sheets which he completed and returned on a regular basis throughout 2022. The diary sheets detailed the date and time of incidents and the detrimental effect it was having on the resident.
  4. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the diary sheets and telephoned the resident on several occasions during this period. The landlord also attempted to visit the resident on 21 April 2022, however the appointment was unannounced, and the resident was not home.
  5. On 22 June 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, stating that he was unhappy with the way the case was being handled. He felt that the landlord had acted unprofessionally and failed to show any compassion to the distress he continued to experience.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 July 2022, in which it found no evidence of unprofessional behaviour. It listed the dates in which the resident had been contacted and provided with diary sheets. It also confirmed that a door knocking exercise had been undertaken but unfortunately no one had witnessed the incidents. The landlord went on to say that the investigation had been carried out in line with its policies and procedures and that the matter had been taken seriously.
  7. In September 2022 the resident requested an escalation of his complaint, this was refused by the landlord as it was outside of the 28 day timeframe detailed in its policy. The landlord informed the resident of this but assured him that his concerns would be passed onto the ASB team.
  8. The day after the escalation refusal the landlord contacted the resident to inform him that a multi-agency meeting would take place on 30 September 2022. The landlord states that the resident was notified of the outcome during a telephone call on 4 October 2022. No records of what was discussed during the meeting were seen by this Service.
  9. The resident contacted this Service in December 2022 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions. He said that over recent weeks the landlord had failed to return his calls. The resident did not wish to move or engage in mediation but wanted the landlord to resolve the ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman is aware that since its involvement the resident has continued to report ASB to the landlord. Further investigations have taken place, however, the resident remains unsatisfied with the actions taken by the landlord. For the purpose of this investigation, we will be assessing the landlord’s response and actions to the reports made prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement.
  2. When investigating complaints about the landlord’s handling of ASB reports, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
  3. The landlord’s website acknowledges that ASB and hate crime can severely affect the quality of life for individuals, families and communities, as a result it has a comprehensive ASB and Hate Crime process in place. The procedure sets out the key components for processing each case, which includes but is not limited to:
    1. Risk assessment
    2. Initial contact within 48 hours
    3. Investigation
    4. Landlord decision
    5. Local Action Group meeting
    6. Measures for tackling
    7. Monitor
    8. Case closure
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial report in May 2021 and advised that someone would contact him to discuss further. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the landlord made any further contact at this stage, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that it did not act in accordance with its own procedure.
  5. Following reports of ASB and suspected hate crime it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity as set out in its procedure and to have discussed the allegations with the police. Had it done so, it may have formed a better understanding of the impact on the resident as well as an understanding of the risk.
  6. The landlord’s policy states that the ‘purpose of the initial contact is to act quickly, ensure the safety of the victim and ascertain the category of the case in order to make sure the correct action is taken’, it goes on to say that ‘it is important to gather as much evidence and interview all parties in order to conduct a thorough investigation. Interviews should be conducted quickly’. There is no evidence available that the landlord carried out any investigation until March 2022, 10 months after the resident’s initial report. Therefore, the landlord failed in its obligations and did not apply its own policies and procedures.
  7. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord again in early 2022 and provided a summary of ongoing incidents. At this stage the landlord did contact the resident and provided him with diary sheets, however, there is no evidence that the landlord provided any further advice or offered any referrals to hate crime support services. The landlord did attempt to visit the resident in person, however, its failure to notify him of the appointment resulted in no access. This understandably left the resident feeling frustrated and again did not follow the landlord’s own procedure.
  8. The resident continued to complete diary sheets between April 2022 – June 2022 detailing further reports of excessive door slamming and items being thrown into his garden. The resident also reported an alleged homophobic comment, but there is no evidence that this was fully investigated in accordance with the landlord’s policy. The landlord determined that the completed diary sheets and subsequent door knocking exercise did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant any further action. It is therefore reasonable to question if it was appropriate for the landlord to continue supplying the resident with diary sheets.
  9. Given that there was no clear evidence to confirm that the neighbour had breached the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord agreed to provide the resident with a doorbell camera in an attempt to gather evidence. Although this was a proactive approach from the landlord, the doorbell placement at the front of the property limited the opportunity to capture any useful footage. From the reports made by the resident it was evident that the majority of the incidents occurred to the rear of the property, therefore, it would have been more appropriate to consider alternative placement or equipment.
  10. According to the resident the landlord spoke to him about other options available to help resolve the situation, including mediation and moving, which he refused. Given that there was no clear evidence to confirm the neighbour had breached the terms of the tenancy agreement, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider non legal options in the circumstances.
  11. However, in failing to put in place an action plan the landlord missed the opportunity to reassure the resident that his reports were being taken seriously.  This would have demonstrated best practice and enabled the landlord to effectively manage expectations throughout.
  12. Overall, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report in a timely manner in accordance with its policies and procedures. It did not adequately investigate the reports, interview the alleged perpetrator, communicate any action plans, or provide any reassurance to the resident that the matter was being fully investigated. These failures led to an unreasonable delay and missed opportunities to resolve the issue at an early

 

  1. Overall, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report in a timely manner in accordance with its policies and procedures. It did not adequately investigate the reports, interview the alleged perpetrator, communicate any action plans, or provide any reassurance to the resident that the matter was being fully investigated. These failures led to an unreasonable delay and missed opportunities to resolve the issue at an early stage. As a result, this caused considerable distress and uncertainty to the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman has also noted that in September 2022 the landlord refused the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on the grounds that it exceeded the 28 days permitted in its policy. The stage 1 response letter failed to notify the resident of this time restriction. Although this timeframe is set out in the landlord’s policy, the Code states that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint. Given that the ASB reports were ongoing and having a detrimental impact on the resident and the fact that the 28 days wasn’t clearly communicated to him, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have exercised discretion.

Determination

  1. 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 and hate crime.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide to the resident a written apology for its failures and delays in responding to his initial ASB report. Its letter should also acknowledge the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
    2. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its failures in responding to reports of ASB and hate crime.
    3. Meet with the resident and agree a timebound action plan in relation to any ongoing ASB or neighbour issues. This should include an allocated point of contact, regular updates to the resident, a regularly reviewed internal risk assessment, and an offer of relevant support.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman is currently reviewing the Complaint Handling Code. When it is published on 1 April 2024, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its current complaints escalation policy against the code and considers amending the 28 day time limit.