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

Wolverhampton City Council (202011973)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011973

Wolverhampton City Council

30 November 2021


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 antisocial behaviour (ASB) at the resident’s former property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’, the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s handling of ASB has had an impact on her health is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. This is as the Ombudsman is unable to make a causal link between matters complained of and any correlation with a resident’s health. These types of claims amount to personal injury were decisions on liability need to be made. This is better suited for the courts who can provide a binding decision or as an insurance claim. Should the resident want to pursue this aspect of her complaint she is advised to seek independent advice.

Background and summary of events

  1. The property is a 2-bed low rise flat situated above another property (Neighbour B), with both properties having their own individual front doors, but sharing a communal pathway at front.
  2. The resident is not noted as having any vulnerabilities although her son has allergies. The resident moved into the former property on an introductory tenancy in July 2019.
  3. The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy notes where necessary, it will work with relevant agencies where a multi-agency approach is required to resolve specific issues of ASB. All partner agencies carry out a range of functions relating to ASB. In many instances in order to pursue a course of action, joint working will be an important part of the approach taken. Other partners may be able to provide evidence and additional information or provide specialist support services.
  4. The policy further notes early intervention through an informal approach can be successful in stopping ASB committed by most perpetrators. These methods will be considered and exhausted first as they can often stop the behaviour before it escalates. This includes mediation, verbal warnings/written warning letters, support, and counselling. Legal action will be taken where there is sufficient evidence and legal action will be proportionate, this can include injunctions and possession proceedings.
  5. The policy determines category b incidents of ASB to include drug related activity such as drug dealing and syringes, damage to property or vandalism. Upon reports of this type the complainant will be contacted within 3 working days. In supporting the complainant, it will complete an assessment to identify any support the complainant may require, provide the complainant with information about how to record incidents of ASB and provide regular staff contact amongst other things.

Summary of events

  1. In August 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that neighbour A was injecting drugs and indecently exposing himself. The landlord logged this and advised the resident to continue reporting any incidents. She reported this again in October noting she believed drug dealers were entering and leaving neighbour A’s property. The landlord’s ASB team met to discuss the concerns and put in place an action plan to address the matter with neighbour A. The landlord also sent letters to all residents about reporting ASB and advised the resident she could call 101 should she witness further indecent exposure or drug use.
  2. There were no further incidents from neighbour A from October 2019 until February 2020, following his arrest for a separate incident. Following his release the landlord visited him at the end of February, warned him of his behaviour and issued warning letters including issuing a Notice of Seeking Possession (NoSP).
  3. In March 2020, the resident complained about neighbour A’s previous indecent exposure and drug taking, the rear of the garden being open to trespassers and with poor lighting around her property, she noted she feared for her safety and that of her child. The landlord updated the resident and her MP, advising that she could report all incidents to a specific member of staff and that it continued to work with the police to tackle the issue and gain evidence from it to support any court action. It noted neighbour A had been released from prison, so it was working with other neighbours to gain evidence of ASB. The landlord advised the resident that it would erect fencing in her garden, however due to the pandemic restrictions, contractors were not currently carrying out repairs and a survey would also be carried out to inspect the lighting when possible.
  4. On 16 June, the resident complained that neighbour B was harassing her, and the landlord arranged for mediation following the police advising that there was no evidence neighbour B was responsible for the attack on her vehicle or other damage. The resident stated the landlord was not exercising its duty of care towards her and her son and she was financially out of pocket.
  5. On 2 July the landlord spoke with the resident noting that she could consider an injunction at court if it could evidence persistent ASB. It noted that once the fence was erected should the neighbour encroach in her area or damage her items, it could use this as evidence, however given the pandemic, the courts were not hearing cases at present. It advised it would grant the resident permission to install CCTV and could use this in order to evidence incidents and noted to be successful in court it had to present a strong case.
  6. Internal records note the landlord continued to try and engage with neighbour A, liaising with third party organisations to provide support and also considered whether it could serve a Notice to Quit. It arranged several case conferences to discuss the resident’s complaints and review the action plan.
  7. On 15 July 2020, the resident spoke with the landlord and advised she had not experienced any recent incidents from neighbour A, since it had issued the NoSP.
  8. During August 2020 and following restrictions being lifted, the landlord surveyed the resident’s garden and agreed to install fencing to the back and front of the garden. It noted this would be installed as part of the planned programme and within 2-4 weeks.
  9. On 26 August 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response. It noted that it had issued the NoSP on neighbour A, meaning any evidence of incidents of excessive and persistence nuisance in the next 12 months would allow it to pursue possession. It noted the resident was in communication with it and had been advised on how to report matters, but it needed specific details of incidents of ASB as opposed to sighting visitors. It noted it would continue to share information with the police.
  10. In relation to neighbour B, it advised as there had been counter allegations and there was no evidence that neighbour B had damaged items in her garden, it would install a fence at the rear of the properties to make a clear boundary. It reiterated the advice given in June and July. It noted members of staff had discussed the issues complained of at case conferences and confirmed her banding noting she should continue bidding if she wanted to move. It advised it was concerned with her complaints and sought the best outcome for her, however it had processes to follow in establishing ASB and this was also difficult when counter allegations were made. Finally, it confirmed it would support her if she believed her only option was to move.
  11. The resident wrote to her MP at the end of August, advising of all the issues with her neighbours. She noted that neighbour A had other drug users living at his property and they were all loitering and begging. She referred to the earlier situation with neighbour B, when she requested her not to lay slabs of wood with nails down in the garden, as it was unsafe for her son. She noted that since that time she had experienced damage to her greenhouse, washing line- including washing being pulled down and her car being smashed so it was written off. She noted the landlord had advised it could get her a courtesy car but could not prove who had carried out the damage, but felt it was not doing enough.
  12. The resident escalated the complaint on 8 September, noting that both neighbours made her feel unsafe in her property, her son was afraid to leave the house and she was out of pocket due to the damage to her property and belongings. She asserted that the landlord was doing nothing to assist, and it did not take on board the impact of the situations on her.
  13. On 5 October, the landlord provided its final response. It clarified that the NoSP issued to neighbour A, was the first step in the legal process, which needed to be supported with evidence to proceed to court for eviction, hence it requested the resident keep it informed of further incidents. It acknowledged the impact of the situation on the resident and her son and advised it had not diminished this, but currently there was insufficient evidence for court action. It noted that information provided by other residents had been logged but it was unable to provide details.
  14. It confirmed that the fence had been erected between the resident and neighbour B, and it was hoped this would reduce the likelihood of further incidents, but she should report any issues. It noted both the resident and neighbour’s bins were in a shared communal area, however if there were reports of unreasonable behaviour it would rescind permission and either party would need to store their bins in their respective gardens.
  15. It apologised that the resident felt it had not been empathetic but that it had to carry out its investigations based on evidence and facts, acknowledging information provided by both parties to the dispute and speaking to both residents. It clarified that the resident was not expected to provide evidence by CCTV, however as she had advised it that she would be installing this, it noted it would be able to use any footage as evidence to support more formal action.
  16. It confirmed both ASB cases with neighbour A and B remained open and the ASB team would continue contacting to update her and the recent incidents had been logged as part of the case against neighbour A and those relating to neighbour B were being investigated. It acknowledged that the resident wanted to move but clarified that the current incidents did not qualify her for extra priority, but she could complete a medical assessment which would detail whether there were any vulnerabilities making the property unsuitable. It concluded that the issues raised had not been ignored and the impact on the resident had been considered.
  17. Neighbour A was relocated to another property at the end of October 2020.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has provided extensive records of the reports made by the residents in relation to both neighbour A and B. Within this is noted the action the landlord has taken specifically to each individual report. This includes referring neighbour A for support services, interviewing both neighbours, contacting the resident back within three days of the reports, sending an official warning letter to neighbour A, providing written communications to all residents on how to report ASB, logging reports of ASB from other residents in order to build a case and also advising the resident to contact the police if necessary. This was all in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  2. The landlord was also in direct contact with the police and partner agencies. Given that matters of drug dealing/taking and indecent exposure are criminal matters, it would be for the police to lead the case and the landlord use any conviction to support its NoSP. The landlord did indeed seek information from the police following neighbour A’s arrest in its pursuit of mandatory possession of the property, however the police case was dropped, and neighbour A released. As such the landlord did not have sufficient evidence to pursue a possession claim at court. The landlord reasonably explained this to the resident and continued to support both the resident and neighbour A in trying to alleviate the ASB issues permanently.
  3. In relation to neighbour B, the landlord correctly investigated allegations made by both parties and again sought advice from the police in relation to the damage caused to the resident’s belongings Whilst the resident noted that she was at a financial loss, this was not as a result of the landlord’s actions. Following police advice that there was no evidence to prove neighbour B was responsible for the damage, the landlord again was limited in the action it could take.
  4. The landlord assessed the safety of the resident’s garden and erected fencing to alleviate some of the issues complained of. The landlord reasonably considered the resident’s concerns, and advised she could be medically assessed to deem whether there were any vulnerabilities that would increase her priority for alternative housing. This was again in line with its ASB policy and evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns adequately.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s handling of ASB has had an impact on her health is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman is unable to make a causal link between incidents complained of and impact on an individual’s health, it is best to pursue such claims via the courts or as an insurance claim
  2. The landlord considered the resident’s complaints and worked in accordance with its ASB policy. Whilst it was not able to resolve the matter to the resident’s satisfaction it took appropriate action following the reports made.