Westminster City Council (202207751)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207751

Westminster City Council

31 August 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 the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment from her neighbour;
2. response to the resident’s request for a management transfer;
3. handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord and moved to the property in 2013. The property is a 1-bedroom second floor flat in a block containing 3 flats. The resident’s neighbour lives in a ground floor flat in the same block. The resident has mental health issues which have been known to the landlord since at least 2013.
The tenant’s handbook states that the landlord is committed to tackling nuisance and ASB, and will use its enforcement powers in appropriate circumstances. It has produced leaflets for residents on the topics of ‘tackling ASB’ and ‘resolving problems with your neighbours’. The handbook refers to the landlord’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement to “always investigate complaints of nuisance or harassment and take appropriate action to deal with the problem”. It also says that the landlord views harassment very seriously, and will aim to see victims within 24 hours if they have been physically assaulted and within 3 days for other incidents. Where nuisance is reported, it will investigate by asking the reporting party questions to find out the cause, what has happened, for how long and how often; it will then decide with them the best way to deal with the problem. It may visit the alleged perpetrator, arrange mediation, or take legal action (with the reporting party’s support and evidence). It will normally only consider enforcement action – such as eviction, demotion of tenancy or an injunction – when all other options have been exhausted.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the definition of ASB given by the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014: conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. The policy defines harassment as “aggressive pressure or intimidation of an individual”, such as verbal abuse, and nuisance as “something or someone that annoys or causes trouble for someone”. It states that the landlord will prioritise reports of ASB which may include violence, or where there have been previous incidents and the risk level may be increasing. It will not investigate cases where no evidence or details have been provided. When responding to ASB reports, it will adhere to local procedures for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.
The landlord’s ‘managing ASB’ procedure states that, when interviewing someone who is reporting ASB, its ASB interview form must be completed in order to gather accurate details of the issue and how it is affecting them. It also states that an action plan must be agreed with the reporting party. A risk assessment must be produced and reviewed after every contact, with any welfare or support needs followed up by an appropriate referral. Independent enquiries should be made with agencies such as the police, and 30 and 60-day letters should be sent to those reporting ASB, where appropriate, to provide an update on actions to date. Before a case is closed, a ‘pre-case closure call’ should be made. Besides enforcement action, options available to the landlord in dealing with ASB include verbal and written warnings, banning letters, acceptable behaviour contractors or agreements, mediation, the ‘community trigger’ case review process, and ‘letters before action’ sent by its legal department.
The landlord’s management transfers procedure states that it should be applied if a tenant is at risk of harm from another person and cannot safely stay in their home, and/or they need to move away due to serious reasons that affect their wellbeing. The procedure states that it should not be applied if a tenant is subject to neighbour nuisance but there is no evidence of violence or threats of violence, or if the tenant is themselves a perpetrator of violence, harassment or ASB. Management transfer panel meetings take place weekly, and the procedure sets out the roles of staff involved. This includes the area housing manager’s responsibility to review and recommend all management transfer requests, send them to the community safety manager, and present them to the panel. The area housing manager is also responsible for conveying decisions to residents with information on how to make any appeal.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and aims to provide a response at both stage 1 and stage 2 within 10 working days. When it needs longer to investigate a complaint, it will send a holding response explaining the reason for the delay and when it will provide a full response. If a complaint is upheld or partially upheld it will offer remedies, such as: acknowledging that things have gone wrong, apologising and explaining why; taking action where there has been a delay; changing a decision; reviewing a policy or procedure; and offering financial compensation.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it may award a payment in cases where it recognises there has been a service failure which has caused inconvenience or loss to a resident. In calculating compensation it will assess whether the service failure has exacerbated a resident’s individual circumstances, such as an existing mental health condition, and this causes them not to be able to cope as well as another person. Awards of compensation reflect the level of impact, with payments of up to £250 for low impact, up to £700 for medium impact, and over £700 for high impact.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman understands that the resident has experienced issues with her neighbour since she moved to the property in 2013. She previously told the landlord that she believed her neighbour was conspiring against her with other residents and stealing her mail, and the neighbour made a number of counter-allegations. The landlord offered mediation in 2014 and 2016; the resident accepted this offer in 2014 but declined it in 2016.
On 1 October 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that she had been assaulted by her neighbour. On 4 October 2021 she requested a meeting with her local councillor as she said she had received no response from the landlord’s ASB team. The landlord made several attempts to contact the resident on 7 October 2021 and spoke to her on 8 October 2021. It encouraged her to report the assault to the police, which she did the same day. It confirmed that she had been in contact with Victim Support and told her that it would interview her neighbour about the alleged assault. The resident refused the landlord’s offer of mediation and said she wanted to be moved from the property. The landlord said it may be able to arrange a management transfer depending on the outcome of the police investigation and the police’s recommendations.
The landlord interviewed the resident’s neighbour on 22 October 2021 and followed this up with further action on 2 November 2021.
On 3 November 2021 the police responded to a disclosure request from the landlord and provided a risk assessment. This stated that the risk towards the resident was low, based on the fact that there had been few police reports in the past 5 years. However, it noted that the officer completing the risk assessment had no personal knowledge of the resident or her neighbour, so “any future risk or escalation between these neighbours is unknown”. It suggested that the landlord contacted the police’s local Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) if it required further clarification regarding the level of risk posed by the neighbour to the resident. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord did this.
On 16 November 2021 the resident reported that she had received a letter from her neighbour. She then requested a meeting with the landlord on 20 November 2021 “to discuss an issue that has caused me great fear living in my home”. The landlord discussed the resident’s case internally between 8 December 2021 and 13 December 2021. It spoke to the resident’s neighbour on 9 December 2021 and visited the resident at home on 16 December 2021. Following the visit, it added the resident to the waiting list for its next management transfer panel, requested an updated risk assessment from the police, referred the resident for floating support, and consulted with other nearby residents by sending letters and carrying out door knocks. The updated police risk assessment was received on 21 December 2021.
On 4 February 2022 the landlord answered a number of questions the resident asked about management transfers and the role of the police risk assessment. The resident’s case was then discussed at the landlord’s management transfer panel on 10 February 2022. The panel concluded that the case was unsuitable for a management transfer, based on the police’s assessment that “no offences had been committed and there was nothing to record” (in relation to the letter from the resident’s neighbour). The landlord wrote to the resident to inform her out the outcome of her management transfer request on 2 March 2022. It said that her request had been refused as the police advised that there were “no risks present regarding your property”, and outlined other rehousing options.
In March 2022 the resident was reportedly attacked by a cat that she believed had entered the building through a door left open by her neighbour. She told the landlord that she received hospital treatment for this.
On 7 April 2022 the resident’s local councillor assisted her in making a complaint to the landlord. An email from the councillor’s executive assistant stated that:
1. The resident wished to complain about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour and her request for a management transfer, including the way the risk assessment was carried out.
2. She was unhappy that she was not given the opportunity to provide her own evidence in relation to the management transfer decision. She did not understand why the management transfer application was made if the landlord knew it would be refused. She felt this gave her false hope and was upsetting.
3. She felt the landlord was not taking the assault that took place on 1 October 2021 seriously enough. She was unhappy that the incident was being treated as an allegation, even though she understood her neighbour had admitted assaulting her to the landlord’s ASB officer.
4. She had provided evidence of harassment from her neighbour to the landlord since 2013, and felt this had not been sufficiently considered. This included evidence of false allegations by her neighbour.
5. She believed the landlord had not always taken account of the impact of her neighbour’s behaviour on her mental health and resulting inability to go about her daily life normally. She also believed a reference made by a police officer to her mental health was inappropriate. She felt her case should have been handled more sensitively in view of her disabilities.
6. She was unhappy that she and her neighbour had been told to stay away from each other. Her neighbour had also disregarded this instruction by hand delivering a letter to her in November 2021. In the letter the neighbour referred to being told to avoid her, showing that they understood the advice.
7. She felt the landlord’s questioning of a witness was vague, as it referred to ASB in the street rather than the specific concerns she had raised. The interview also took place at the witness’s home, when they had said they would prefer to be interviewed at the landlord’s offices.
8. She did not feel the landlord’s ASB team responded promptly to her request for support in October 2021. While she spoke to someone on the phone about the assault on 1 October 2021, it was not until her local councillor became involved that she was contacted back about the incident.
9. Covid-19 travel restrictions during 2020 and 2021 meant that she spent much of her time at her parents’ address. This was the reason that there were few police reports during this period. However, it did not mean the issues with her neighbour had resolved or reduced. There was an incident during lockdown when her neighbour told her “I can come into your home if I want to”, which she felt threatened by.
10. She felt the length of time the issues had been going on without resolution was unacceptable, and she did not understand why escalatory or preventative action had not been attempted.
11. She sought the following outcomes:
  1. A meeting with the landlord’s director of housing to review her case.
  2. A review of its decision regarding her management transfer request.
  3. Acknowledgement of the impact the harassment from her neighbour had had on her mental health and life.
  4. A letter of apology from her neighbour.
  5. The landlord to demonstrate how it had taken her concerns seriously and used everything in its power to resolve the situation.
  6. Assistance to relocate out of the area in the longer term.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident informing her that it had closed its ASB case. On 11 April 2022 the resident informed the landlord of further incidents that had occurred involving her neighbour on 7 April 2022, 9 April 2022 and 10 April 2022. These included the neighbour allegedly letting a cat into the building, behaving in a drunken and rowdy way, bringing friends who had a dog into the communal garden, and screaming at the resident’s family member. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss these incidents the same day, and informed her of counter-allegations made by the neighbour. It also liaised with the police regarding incidents that were reported to them, but deemed “a civil matter”.
The landlord received and acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 April 2022. It initially said it would provide a written response by 3 May 2022, but on 5 May 2022 it said it would respond by 10 May 2022. It then issued its stage 1 response on 17 May 2022, stating that:
1. It did not uphold the complaint.
2. In relation to the resident’s management transfer request:
  1. It was sorry that she felt she was given false hope.
  2. Management transfers were only considered where someone was at risk of harm in their home and could not remain there safely. It had discussed the process with the resident. The details of cases were reviewed by an area manager alongside a police risk assessment before the application was presented to the management transfer panel.
  3. The police risk assessment stated that the police had received 2 reports in the last 5 years, and that based on their assessment of the reports, they did not feel there was an immediate risk to the resident at her property. The management transfer application was therefore declined.
  4. If there was further evidence of risk to the resident, and this was supported by the police, it would be happy to review its decision.
3. In relation to her report of a physical assault on 1 October 2021:
  1. It assured her that all reports were taken seriously.
  1. Following her report, the allocated ASB officer contacted her the same day to discuss the incident. The officer left a voicemail and contacted her again on 7 October 2021 by phone and email. They also enquired with the police as the incident involved criminal behaviour.
  2. The police confirmed that the resident was contacted by the investigating police officer on 24 October 2021 and told them that she no longer supported police action. The police investigation was therefore closed.
  3. The ASB officer interviewed the resident’s neighbour on 22 October 2021 after discussing the incident with her. The officer brought the allegations to the neighbour’s attention, but they were denied.
  4. These actions were in line with its ASB procedure.
4. In relation to consideration of previous ASB cases as evidence of harassment:
  1. When new reports of ASB were raised, ASB officers could access any previous case history and it was best practice for them to familiarise themselves with any such history.
  1. It confirmed that it had recorded 5 ASB cases relating to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour: 2 in 2014, 1 in 2016 and 2 in 2021.
5. In relation to support and prejudice during its investigation:
  1. It was sorry that the resident did not feel supported following her reports of ASB and for the impact on her mental health.
  1. In December 2021 she was visited by its ASB team manager and services manager, who offered to refer her for floating support. The referral was made on 22 December 2021.
  2. If she felt it could offer further support, it asked her to let it know.
  3. It provided details of how she could complain to the police about the conduct of individual police officers.
6. In relation to the resident and her neighbour being told to stay away from each other:
  1. It encouraged neighbours to communicate using its ‘dear neighbour’ cards in circumstances where they were unable to communicate effectively and where it felt this was appropriate. The cards were designed to help people express how they were feeling anonymously and without being face-to-face with their neighbour.
  1. It understood the resident was concerned by a letter sent to her by her neighbour. Its ASB officer reviewed the letter and discussed it with the neighbour. They said they thought it would be an appropriate way to communicate following the previous issues. They agreed not to send any further letters to her.
7. In relation to its interview with a witness:
  1. The resident had provided details of other neighbours who she believed were experiencing the same issues.
  1. Local residents were contacted as part of the investigation into her case. This was a routine action it took to investigate reports and identify any witnesses. Its officers remained impartial when contacting residents, and so did not specify any nuisance, residents or properties, as it was important that potential witnesses were not led into making allegations.
  2. Neighbours had been advised how to make reports to it. If other neighbours approached the resident, it asked her to encourage them to report any issues through its usual channels (with details provided).
8. In relation to the low number of police reports, it acknowledged that the resident was away from her home for most of 2020 and thanked her for bringing this to its attention.
9. In relation to the length of time the issues had been going on for:
  1. Allegations between neighbours could be difficult to resolve without direct evidence.
  1. It appreciated that the issues had been continuing for some time. Each of its 5 ASB cases were investigated in line with its ASB policy and the resident was updated throughout the process. It provided a summary of the outcomes of previous cases.
  2. It sent its response to the resident’s management transfer application on 2 March 2022. It then sent an ASB case closure letter on 8 April 2022, following a phone conversation between the resident and its ASB officer on 23 March 2022 where the ASB officer detailed actions that had been taken on her case. The letter provided advice on how to make a new report of ASB, and it could see that the resident had made no new reports since the case was closed.
  3. Its ASB team manager emailed the resident on 27 April 2022 asking for an available time to discuss the matter further, and the resident responded on 29 April 2022 to say that she would like a written response to her formal complaint.
  4. It acknowledged that the resident did not want any further communication from her neighbour following the letter they sent to her, and in view of this, it would not instruct the neighbour to send a letter of apology.
  5. As an alternative, it offered referrals to an independent mediation service. It noted that this was previously offered in October and December 2021 and the resident declined. The offer remained open if she changed her mind.
  6. The resident had referred to wanting to move away from the area. She could make a homeless application to a local authority of her choice if she felt that her permanent accommodation was unreasonable to occupy. The local authority would assess whether she met the tests under homeless legislation. If they accepted her, they may place her in temporary accommodation (which may be in a different area), or may discharge their duty through an offer of private sector accommodation. The resident would not have to relinquish her current tenancy in order to make a homeless application, but she would be liable for rent on 2 properties.
  7. If she felt no effective action had been taken in response to 3 reports of ASB in the last 6 months, she could raise a community trigger.
10. Its ASB team had followed procedure in response to reports she had made. Each of the reports she had made had been investigated and closed for the reasons stated.
11. If she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response, she could request a stage 2 chief executive review within 12 months. To do this, she should explain the reasons for escalation and use the contact details provided.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 10 June 2022, stating that:
1. She believed she was at risk of “continued physical harm and mental discrimination” in her home and could not remain there safely.
2. She felt communications between the landlord and police were conflicting. She disputed that she told the police she no longer supported police action.
3. She was not satisfied with the landlord’s implementation of the measures set out in its ASB policy. She took issue with some of the actions it took (or did not take) in relation to her previous ASB cases, and could not accept that it had taken her reports seriously.
4. The landlord had wrongly stated that she did not report any further incidents. She had provided witness reports to substantiate her claims of harassment and intimidation. She had made reports to the landlord and police in 2013, 2016/17 and 2021 in relation to damage, stolen mail and racial comments made by her neighbour. She had also provided the letter sent by her neighbour to the police. The “long-term harassment and neglect” had impacted her health.
5. With regard to the management transfer decision, while the process was discussed with her, she felt the landlord had failed to examine and investigate evidence to support her request.
6. She had received no contact from the floating support service.
7. She felt the landlord’s stage 1 response demonstrated “disregard and failures” and that it had not followed its anti-harassment and bullying policy by protecting vulnerable victims.
The landlord visited the resident at home on 4 July 2022. The 3 officers who attended spoke to her in her friend’s flat at her request. The landlord’s record of the visit noted that the resident was “in distress and visibly upset”. She described further incidents, including her neighbour opening the communal window outside her property, turning off the communal garden lights, and taking her parcels and letters. The officers advised that the neighbour had not breached their tenancy conditions by opening windows and turning lights off, and suggested changing the lights to sensors. The resident also suggested a solution to prevent the window from being opened. When an officer asked if she would consider taking part in mediation, she threw her keys and ran out of her friend’s property, bringing the visit to an end.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 13 July 2022 and apologised for its delay in doing so. It told the resident the delay was due to “a backlog of cases we are currently experiencing”, with an internal email noting that the escalation had been “logged from today to allow us adequate time to investigate the points of escalation”. The landlord said it would provide its stage 2 response by 10 August 2022.
On 14 July 2022 the landlord followed up the resident’s floating support referral. The support service explained that it had not contacted the resident in December 2021 as it was unclear as to what support she required and did not accept the referral. A re-referral was made on 19 July 2022 and the support service completed an assessment with the resident on 1 August 2022. The resident later told this Service that she declined floating support as her allocated officer was a trainee and she felt they lacked the necessary knowledge and understanding.
On 15 July 2022 the landlord interviewed the resident’s neighbour about recent issues she had reported. It advised the resident and her neighbour to have no contact with each other and explained that it would be monitoring the situation.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 3 August 2022, stating that:
1. It partially upheld the complaint.
2. In relation to risk of harm/discrimination and recent incidents:
  1. Its stage 1 response detailed the process followed by its ASB team where a management transfer was considered. This was in response to the resident’s reports that she felt at risk of harm from her neighbour following an incident in October 2021. The police risk assessment did not indicate that there was an immediate risk to the resident at the property.
  2. It understood that following this case, she contacted its housing enquiries team to report issues relating to the windows and her property. She also mentioned continued harassment from the same neighbour. While she did not provide any details of recent incidents, a record of her call was created on 1 July 2022.
  3. Due to a lack of information regarding alleged continued harassment from the neighbour and the housing issues reported, its ASB officer visited the resident with her housing officer on 14 July 2022. During this visit the resident referred to previous incidents in 2021 and March 2022, and provided a police reference number. This was sent to the police to request more information, but the police advised there was no evidence of harassment and so the investigation was closed. Its ASB officer had emailed the resident to arrange a time to discuss this with her.
3. In relation to conflicting information between the police and its ASB team:
  1. It provided details of the ASB and police officers who were dealing with the resident’s ASB case in October 2021.
  1. As part of the management transfer process, it asked the police to complete a risk assessment based on any risk they were aware of at the time. If the resident felt the police had provided incorrect information and would like her case to be reopened, she would need to complain to the police.
4. In relation to information relevant to the management transfer request not being reviewed properly:
  1. It confirmed that the resident’s case was reviewed by its management transfer panel in February 2022 and all supporting evidence was considered. This included her reports to the ASB team as well as the risk assessment and disclosure from the police.
  1. The panel concluded that the case did not meet the threshold for a management transfer as the risk assessment advised of no risks that were present at her property at that time.
5. In relation to contact from support services following a referral:
  1. It was sorry to hear that the resident had not been contacted by the floating support service, and it had not been aware of this until now.
  1. The support service was a third party organisation that it held a contract with. The support service told its ASB officer that it had received the referral in December 2021. Its ASB team manager had chased this and sent a new referral. The support service apologised for the delay in contacting the resident and advised on 22 July 2022 that her case had been allocated to a support worker. They would contact her within 10 working days.
  2. This element of her complaint had been upheld.
6. In relation to implementation of its harassment policy:
  1. When investigating ASB, although it considered previous reports, it focused on the current issues and risk.
  1. It could only take enforcement action where there was sufficient evidence.
  2. It was satisfied that its ASB process had been followed when reports had been submitted.
7. It was partially upholding the resident’s complaint, as while the correct procedures were followed and appropriate action was taken in respect of her ASB reports, its review identified that the floating support service did not contact her following a referral it made in December 2021.
8. It was sorry that she had reason to escalate her complaint and that this was not addressed in its stage 1 response. It hoped its explanation provided some clarity on the matter to date.

Post complaint

On 10 August 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to ask how things were with her neighbour. She said things were “still the same”, but did not provide details of any recent incidents. She also explained that she had felt overwhelmed when 3 officers visited her on 4 July 2022, and asked for an officer to visit her alone. The landlord declined and instead offered an office interview, which upset the resident. On 30 September 2022 it informed her that her ASB case would be closed. She responded with details of further incidents involving her neighbour, such as drunken behaviour and door slamming, which she said another neighbour had also witnessed. She again said her neighbour had been letting a cat which previously attacked her into the building; the landlord mentioned seeing a video that showed the resident playing with the cat in the garden, and she accepted she had done this. The landlord refused to discuss historic issues and reiterated that its case was now closed.
On 11 October 2022 the resident reported that she had been attacked by a person known to her neighbour. The landlord interviewed a possible witness to this incident on 20 October 2022 and also liaised with the police, who advised that the person who allegedly attacked the resident could not be confirmed to be linked to her neighbour. The landlord therefore closed its case. The resident disputed that the person was not linked to her neighbour and contacted the landlord’s chief executive to ask for their assistance. The landlord’s divisional head of housing neighbourhoods subsequently contacted the resident, and, at her request, arranged for her case to be taken back to its management transfer panel. They also suggested that she may wish to consider applying to an out-of-area move scheme that it operated. The resident’s case was discussed at the landlord’s management transfer panel on 20 January 2023, and was again declined. The same day, the landlord confirmed that the resident was registered for its out-of-area move scheme.
In August 2023 the resident informed this Service that the issues with her neighbour continued and she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraphs 42(a) and (c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure, or which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally 6 months of the matters arising). Therefore, this investigation will not examine the landlord’s response to reports of ASB made by the resident prior to October 2021, its response to allegations made against the resident by her neighbour, or action it took in response to the resident’s behaviour towards its officers. It is also not the role of this Service to investigate complaints about police forces or officers; such matters may be investigated internally by the police or referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

Reports of ASB and harassment

It is relevant for the Ombudsman to acknowledge at the outset that ASB cases involving allegations and counter-allegations over an extended period of time, sometimes with little or no corroborating evidence, can be among 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.
The Ombudsman has seen no contemporaneous record of the resident’s initial report to the landlord of an assault by her neighbour on 1 October 2021. In the absence of such a record, or call logs, it is hard to assess the landlord’s immediate response to the incident and the early efforts of its ASB team to contact the resident. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that it contacted the resident – or attempted to do so – on the day of the incident and again 6 days later. Conversely, an email sent by the resident to her local councillor 3 days after the incident said she had received no response from the ASB team. There is no indication that the landlord attempted to see the resident within 24 hours (as its policy says it will do following a report of a physical assault) or even within 3 days. When it did speak to her on the phone a week later, it documented that it discussed the incident “in detail” but apparently did not complete an ASB interview form or risk assessment. Had it done so, it may have formed a better understanding of the impact of the incident and wider neighbour issues on the resident, as well as her understanding of the risk.
The landlord did not request a police risk assessment until 25 days after the alleged assault took place, meaning that more than a month had passed by the time the document was provided (on 3 November 2021). While delays in obtaining information from external agencies are understandable, the landlord’s failure to satisfy itself of the risk posed to the resident over this period was inadequate. A template internal risk assessment is appended to its ‘managing ASB’ procedure, but there is no indication that this was completed at any stage, or what the landlord judged the risk to be before the police had provided their assessment. Though its action on 2 November 2021 cannot be discussed in detail, as there is no indication that the resident was aware of it, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this showed that the landlord regarded the assault as a serious matter and was considering enforcement action.
It was appropriate for the landlord to interview the resident’s neighbour about the alleged assault and to follow this up with further action, although doing so more promptly may have reduced the risk (or at least given it an earlier indication of what the risk level was). Its offers of support through Victim First, floating support and mediation were also appropriate, and it was right to re-offer mediation even when the resident had declined this previously. However, subsequent investigation found that the referral to floating support was received but not accepted, and the declined referral was missed in the run-up to the Christmas period and/or due to the referring officer being on leave. The landlord’s failure to identify or act on this communication from the floating support service was unsatisfactory, and it rightly apologised for this in its stage 2 complaint response.
When the resident reported receiving a letter from her neighbour, the landlord acted proportionately by conducting a further interview with the neighbour, visiting the resident at home, and requesting an updated police risk assessment. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it rightly concluded that the reported behaviour did not meet the definition of harassment set out in its ASB policy. Its actions reflected the outcome of the initial police risk assessment, and when it encountered some resistance from the police in obtaining an updated version, it persevered. However, while its consultation with local residents was proactive, it delayed in referring the resident’s case to its weekly management transfer panel once it had agreed to do this (discussed in more detail below) and did not keep the resident updated by contacting her weekly or sending the 30/60 day letters referred to in its policy. It also did not agree an action plan with her, or if it did, this was not confirmed in writing using the template letter appended to the ASB procedure.
Given the apparent lack of any reported incidents directly involving the resident’s neighbour between November 2021 and March 2022, it was reasonable for the landlord to close its ASB case in early April 2022 after discussing this with the resident. It presumably did so before it became aware of her formal complaint, as while the complaint was submitted the day before the ASB case closure, it was not received by the landlord until 6 days later. The complaint itself would not be a reason to reopen the case, but the further incidents reported by the resident on 11 April 2022 – together with counter-allegations made by the neighbour and police involvement – may have justified doing so. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out a risk assessment and document its decision making at this point, but no record of its rationale has been supplied. Regular risk assessments would have allowed it to track the changing risk level and prioritise the case accordingly if an increase in risk was identified.
With regard to points addressed in the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, it was reasonable for the landlord’s actions to be informed by information it sought and received from the police, even if the resident disputed the accuracy of this. Likewise, it was appropriate for it to signpost the resident to the police’s complaints process if she wished to complain about the conduct of an individual officer or the handling of her police reports. The landlord was limited in the information it could share with the resident in relation to interviewing of third parties, and so a summary of its policy and routine case actions was appropriate in some circumstances (for example, in relation to its consultation). It had no obligation to address historic ASB cases in its complaint responses, but used its discretion to do so in view of the resident’s concerns about the length of time the issues had been ongoing. This was a reasonable adjustment, and its summary of previous cases and outcomes was an appropriate length.
The landlord’s reference to the community trigger case review process at stage 1 was in accordance with its policy. It also acted reasonably both by declining to require a letter of apology from the resident’s neighbour (in the context of advice given to both parties about contact with each other) and by offering the resident an opportunity to discuss the ongoing situation with its ASB manager. While the resident refused this at stage 1, preferring instead to receive the landlord’s complaint response, it was appropriate for the landlord to meet with the resident in person before producing its stage 2 response. However, it would have been good practice for it to inform the resident in advance that 3 officers would attend this visit, to send officers personally known to the resident, and/or to ask her what it could do to make the visit less stressful for her. Its omission to do these things made the visit emotionally charged and less productive, and had a negative impact on the landlord-tenant relationship.
While the Ombudsman’s investigation focuses on events that occurred prior to the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process, it is relevant to note that the resident’s issues with her neighbour have continued and that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports. Based on the information provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to take action against the neighbour following an incident between the resident and a third party in October 2022, due to the neighbour’s lack of direct involvement and the police’s inability to establish a link between the neighbour and the third party in question. The Ombudsman understands that the resident (and other neighbours) may have had anecdotal evidence of a relationship between the parties, but it was not the landlord’s role to challenge the police’s findings, and any further investigation into this matter would have been disproportionate.
Following the incident in October 2022, the landlord did not manage its contact with the resident effectively, which resulted in various cross-communications involving senior members of staff and confusing advice about a further management transfer application. While actions relating to an out-of-area move scheme were positive, the second referral to the management transfer panel (when the case had not been considered suitable the first time) unfairly raised the resident’s expectations. This is discussed in more detail below. The landlord’s correspondence during this period, both internally and with the resident, was indicative of a disorganised and scattergun approach.
Overall, while the landlord followed some aspects of its policy and procedure in handling the resident’s ASB case, it departed from these in other significant ways. This caused additional worry and uncertainty to a vulnerable resident. Its poor record keeping meant that the risk level was unclear, decisions were not adequately documented, and verbal conversations were not always followed up in writing. While its actions in dealing with the reported ASB were reasonable in view of the evidence available, it did not adequately support the resident in producing the evidence it required (for example, by providing diary sheets) or finding an alternative resolution (such as by providing copies of its ASB/neighbour nuisance leaflets). In addition, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord sometimes treated the resident personally in an unsympathetic and sometimes heavy-handed manner, which did not take sufficient account of her vulnerability. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made in respect of its response to her reports of ASB.

Management transfer request

When the resident told the landlord she wanted to move away from the property, it said it “may be able to do a management transfer” depending on the police’s investigation and recommendations. Since this would inevitably raise the resident’s expectations, it would have been helpful for the landlord to explain the circumstances in which a management transfer would and would not be likely to proceed – for example, if her neighbour was charged or convicted of a criminal offence, or if the police agreed that she was at risk of harm. This conversation took place verbally, so it is difficult to examine the landlord’s efforts to set fair expectations with the resident. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence that it completed a management transfer referral form (which the resident would have been required to sign), signalling an immediate departure from its usual process.
The police risk assessment, upon which the management transfer application ultimately relied, was completed by an officer who had no personal knowledge of the resident, her neighbour, or the dynamic between them. This officer recommended that the landlord contacted local officers who had this knowledge, and indeed, the relevant team was copied into emails sent by the police on 20 December 2021 and 21 December 2021. However, there is no record of the landlord corresponding with this team and asking for their recommendations or opinion of the risk. This constituted a missed opportunity to add valuable insight to the police risk assessment by including the views of officers who knew the history between the parties, as well as their vulnerabilities. In fact, the risk assessment upon which the landlord based its management transfer decision stated “N/A” in relation to whether vulnerability was a factor. The landlord’s evaluation of the police disclosure then minimised the risk even further, stating that there were “no risks present” – when in fact the police information referred to “low risk” and “no offences”.
The risk assessment used, moreover, was unhelpful as it was unclear what risk it was assessing. The initial outcome of “low risk” appeared to relate to the risk of recurrence, on the basis that only 2 reports had been made over a 5-year period. However, the resident later explained that she had been away from her property over 2 of these years at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, and that she had not reported all incidents even when she was at home. This would therefore suggest that the risk of recurrence had been underestimated. In addition, it was unclear whether the risk of harm, or the severity of any harm that the resident may be at risk of, was factored into the risk assessment (or assessed separately). In the absence of a key or guide, an overall outcome of “low risk” did not specify whether this meant low risk of low harm, low risk of high/moderate harm, moderate risk of low harm, or some other intersection of the two. If approval of a management transfer hinged on a risk assessment stating high risk of high harm, this too was not stated.
In any case, it is apparent from the landlord’s internal correspondence that its consideration of the resident’s case for a management transfer did not follow the usual process. An email dated 10 May 2023 stated that “a referral form was never signed off by the area manager”, “there is no paperwork that I have seen” and there were “no notes on the spreadsheet”. The landlord said it “could only assume [the case] was discussed as AOB [any other business]” based on its record of who attended the panel, and no minutes were produced. As well as the case not being reviewed by the relevant manager within 5 working days of the decision to refer it to panel, the outcome was not communicated to the resident within 5 working days of the panel meeting taking place, and the outcome letter sent on 2 March 2022 was misleadingly dated 28 February 2022 (with discussion regarding the content also taking place on 2 March 2022). The letter did not explain how the resident could make an appeal, and did not outline alternative rehousing options – such as its out-of-area scheme, or a mutual exchange – besides the resident declaring herself homeless. The landlord’s decision to take the case back to panel in January 2023 appeared to be based on the resident’s contact with its senior leadership team, rather than any evidence of a change in risk, and the tone of the associated internal correspondence implied that the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
Taking all of the above into account, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer requests. While the case may not have been suitable for a management transfer, the landlord failed to follow its published process and create conditions in which a fair and informed decision could be reached. It also did not explain its decision making process in a clear way, leading the resident to believe that she would be more involved in the generation of the risk assessment and that the assessment produced was “unsuccessful”.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on the same day it received it, which was within its target timeframe of 2 working days. While the resident had actually made her complaint a week earlier (with the assistance of her local councillor’s executive assistant), the email was initially sent directly to the councillor and may have taken some time to reach the appropriate team. It is unfortunate that the resident received a letter from the landlord informing her that it had closed its ASB case in between submitting her complaint and receiving an acknowledgement, but there is no evidence that this was due to any error or delay by the landlord.
When the landlord became aware that it would be unable to issue its stage 1 response by its target date of 3 May 2022, it should have informed the resident of this and provided a revised target date as soon as possible. Instead, it did not inform her that it needed more time until 2 working days after its original target date had passed. This was unsatisfactory. It then went on to provide its response 5 working days after its revised target date. This no doubt caused uncertainty and frustration to the resident at a time when the substantive issue of her complaint was ongoing, and the landlord missed an opportunity to acknowledge and apologise for this in its response (although it thanked her for her patience).
The stage 1 response was laid out in an accessible way and provided a useful level of information regarding each aspect of the resident’s complaint. However, some sections appeared simply to state the landlord’s policies without outlining how it had applied these to the resident’s case (eg “all reports are taken seriously”, “it is best practice for case officers to familiarise themselves with any previous case history”). With regard to the management transfer request in particular, this approach was misleading, as the response stated that “the details of your case are reviewed by an area manager alongside a police risk assessment”, whereas – as discussed above – the usual process involving a referral signed off by an area manager was not followed. The landlord also said it encouraged neighbours to use its ‘dear neighbour’ cards when they were otherwise unable to communicate effectively, but there is no record of it previously advising the resident to use these. Other details were inaccurate, such as the statement that the initial police risk assessment was received on 16 November 2021 (in fact it was received on 3 November 2021).
When the resident requested to escalate her complaint, the landlord did not acknowledge this for over a month. While its eventual acknowledgement email apologised for the delay and said this was due to a backlog of cases it was experiencing, its internal correspondence sent the same day noted that “the escalation will be logged from today to allow us adequate time to investigate the points of escalation, and as such the agreed 10 working day deadline for returning the draft will apply”. This suggested that, though there may indeed have been a backlog of cases, it had intentionally delayed in acknowledging the escalation request in order to comply ‘on paper’ with its target investigation period. It would have been more appropriate for it to acknowledge the request promptly and inform the resident of any delays it anticipated. Keeping an accurate record of complaint backlogs and the effect of these on its response times would also have enabled it to identify and address any resourcing issues. Its lack of communication in relation to the resident’s complaint for 23 working days was unacceptable, and contributed to her feeling of being ignored.
The landlord’s initial target date for its stage 2 response (10 August 2022) was 43 days after the resident made her escalation request. Following intervention by the Ombudsman, it provided the response after 38 working days, but still exceeded the timeframe stipulated by this Service by 5 working days. While it was in frequent contact with the Ombudsman in relation to the delay, there is no evidence that it kept the resident updated, or that it sent her a revised acknowledgement letter as it said it would. This was a further missed opportunity for it to demonstrate that it understood the impact of its actions on the resident, and to reassure her that it was taking her concerns seriously.
The stage 2 response was again detailed and engaged with the points raised by the resident in her escalation request. However, despite the level of detail included, it did not identify any failures apart from a lack of contact by a third party organisation to which it had made a referral. This suggests that it missed an opportunity to conduct a thorough review of its actions against its ASB and management transfer policies, during which some or all of the failings discussed above would presumably have become apparent. Had the landlord identified and acknowledged what it had got wrong, it would have been in a position to validate the resident’s concerns by accepting responsibility and offering a genuine apology. Instead, its stage 2 responder simply said they were sorry she was unhappy or dissatisfied. It also did not offer any financial compensation in circumstances where its actions had evidently had a significant impact on a vulnerable resident, whose mental health issues it was aware of. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in relation to complaint handling, and has ordered compensation in recognition of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment from her neighbour;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a management transfer;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow its policy in relation to contact with the resident after she reported being assaulted by her neighbour. It delayed in requesting a police risk assessment and did not carry out its own risk assessment. It did not complete an ASB interview form when taking the resident’s report, did not keep her regularly updated, and did not identify that a support referral had been declined. Its decision making when the resident reported further incidents was not adequately documented, and its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerability when planning a home visit made the visit unnecessarily stressful for her. Following the complaints process, the landlord did not manage its contact with the resident effectively. Its record keeping was poor and its treatment of the resident was at times unsympathetic and heavy-handed in view of her disability.
The landlord delayed in progressing a management transfer application for the resident after it offered one, and did not follow its usual procedure by completing and authorising a referral form. A police risk assessment which informed the management transfer panel’s decision was completed by an officer who lacked knowledge of the parties/circumstances and was unaware of the resident’s vulnerability. The method used to determine risk was also unclear. The management transfer decision was not communicated to the resident within the stipulated timeframe and the date on the letter was incorrect. The landlord’s reasons for considering a second management transfer application a year later were unclear and again the correct procedure was not followed.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the stated timeframe, and did not inform her that it would be unable to do so until after the deadline had passed. It also delayed in acknowledging her stage 2 escalation request for over a month. The complaint responses sometimes stated the landlord’s policy and procedure rather than showing how these had been applied to the resident’s case. The landlord did not acknowledge or take responsibility for its failures, offer a genuine apology, or otherwise offer sufficient redress to the resident which took account of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

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 her ASB reports, management transfer request, and associated complaint. Its letter should also acknowledge that the neighbour issues have had a significant impact on her mental health and daily life over an extended period.
2. Pay the resident £1,000, comprising:
  1. £400 for its failures and delays in responding to her reports of ASB;
  2. £300 for its failures and delays in responding to her management transfer request;
  3. £200 for its failures and delays in responding to her complaint;
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
3. Agree a timebound action plan with the resident in relation to any ongoing ASB or neighbour issues. This should include an allocated point of contact, regular updates to the resident using an agreed method and frequency, a regularly reviewed internal risk assessment, and an offer of relevant support.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord continues to support the resident in seeking a house move (if she still wishes to do so), either through its out-of-area scheme or other means. This should include providing relevant information and, where possible, a point of contact.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training in relation to ASB case handling and complaint handling, and considers whether refresher training or updated guidance is required. In particular, it should seek to confirm that all frontline staff are familiar with the processes and timescales set out in its policies, and remind them of the need to set realistic expectations and keep complainants updated.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its police information request form/process and considers making changes in order to ensure that any risk assessment specifies both the likelihood and severity of harm, that the views of local officers or those with personal knowledge of the parties are included where possible, and that any information relating to vulnerability is considered.