Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202417243)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417243

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

10 July 2025

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:
   1. reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
   2. the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord and sole occupant of the property. She signed the tenancy on 4 September 2023.
3. The resident moved into the property in early October 2023 following completion of decoration and carpeting. By 10 October 2023, having experienced the smell of cannabis on 2 separate occasions, a conversation took place between the resident’s father and the neighbouring property.
4. Between 1 December 2023 and 30 May 2024, the resident has provided information stating she made multiple reports of the smell of cannabis present within the communal corridor or her property.
5. Following a meeting with the landlord on 30 May 2024, the resident made a freedom of information request. The landlord acknowledged this request and opened a complaint.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 June 2024. It listed the actions it had taken and concluded these were appropriate measures to address the ASB. It advised it would consider reinstating her access to the housing register to bid for a new home as she felt unable to return to the property.
7. The resident requested a complaint escalation on 3 July 2024. She felt that the landlord had not taken the complaint seriously and that actions to address the ASB were not completed in a timely manner.
8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 25 July 2024, it highlighted 2 learnings from the review of the case:
   1. It could have offered more victim support as part of the investigation.
   2. It could have sought third party witness statements to corroborate some of the statements made.

The landlord highlighted the constraints caused by the resident not currently residing at the property, along with it not having access to the latest video doorbell footage which may have helped to progress the investigation.

9. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 30 July 2024. She explained that she wished to move property, and the landlord had advised that it would support this as a priority, but a move had not been completed. The resident’s tenancy ended on 24 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

10. In her communication with the landlord, the resident referenced how the situation impacted her health. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
11. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident asked for the landlord to support a permanent move and to receive additional priority banding due to the anti-social behaviour she reported. Part 6 of the Housing Act governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England and sets out the circumstances in which reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants.
12. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) reviews complaints regarding applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints regarding an applicant’s banding or priority. Any concerns the resident has specifically about her rehousing request are better suited to the LGSCO. Therefore, we have not included this part of the resident’s complaint within the scope of our investigation. 
13. It is not in the Ombudsman’s authority to order a landlord to take legal action against its tenants. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether ASB occurred or who was responsible. The Ombudsman can assess how a landlord dealt with reports it received in the timeframe of a complaint. We assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all the circumstances of the case. 

Policy and Procedures

14. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as behaviour that caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not at the same household as the perpetrator.
15. The policy notes the commitments to customers as follows:
    1. It will begin investigating and acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours for high priority cases (for example drug and alcohol abuse) and 5 working days for other cases (for example neighbour disputes).
    2. It will provide a case reference number and advise the resident of the name of the investigating officer.
    3. It will agree what actions it will take and how it will give feedback.
    4. It will talk to residents before closing a case and follow this up in writing.
16. Its ASB policy categorises drug and alcohol abuse as high priority, meaning that:
    1. In some cases, it will be appropriate to install security measures following liaison with the Police or other agencies (for instance, Safer Families).
    2. Legal action will be considered at an earlier stage in the procedure if evidence is available. In some very serious cases, it can apply for an Injunction.
    3. If criminal behaviour is reported, it will aim to talk to directly affected customers about the problems. Where appropriate, it will carry out checks with the Police to allow it to consider what action could be taken.
    4. The case officer will inform the complainant of local groups or agencies who can offer additional emotional or practical support. Examples of these agencies include Victim Support and Safer Families.
17. The landlord’s complaints policy advises stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged in 5 working days with a final response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. At stage 2, the resident will receive an acknowledgement within 5 working days with a resolution issued within 20 working days.

Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour

18. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict and improve the experience of its residents. ASB cases are often challenging as options available to, or chosen by, a landlord to resolve a case may not be the resident’s preferred outcome. It can become difficult to manage expectations.
19. It is not disputed by the landlord that between 1 December 2023 and 30 May 2024, the resident made 11 reports of ASB. These included the smell of cannabis within both the communal corridor and the resident’s property, along with noise from visitors to the neighbouring flat. The resident has submitted information to suggest that she made more reports during this time that have not been recorded, all of which referred to the issues of cannabis and noise.
20. The Neighbourhood Housing Officer (NHO) responded to the initial reports in December 2023 in an appropriate and timely manner. They immediately visited the flat in question and discussed the allegations with the neighbour, advising they would conduct further visits to the block to ensure the situation did not reoccur.
21. This response from the landlord showed proactive and decisive action in line with its policy on high priority ASB cases involving suspected drug misuse. The NHO also requested the resident start to keep a record of dates and times of when any noise issues occur. This again demonstrated a positive approach in dealing with reports of ASB.
22. However, there is no record to show that it created an action plan or customer assessment as detailed in its policies. This failure to set out a clear expectation of what it would, and would not investigate, or what action it could take potentially meant expectations were not managed and additional distress later in the process.
23. The NHO visited the neighbour on 25 January 2024. They also recorded a smell of cannabis from within that property. The landlord issued a written warning to the neighbour and updated the resident on 30 January 2024. This was an appropriate response and action given the evidence it obtained of cannabis use.
24. The resident states that she made a further 7 reports of ASB between 1 February 2024 and 1 April 2024. In response to these reports, the landlord invited the neighbour to their office for a face-to-face interview to discuss the severity and impact of the allegations. The Ombudsman considers this to be an appropriate response to the continued reports of ASB.
25. The landlord purchased and arranged for installation of a video doorbell for the resident, allowing for the recording of factual evidence to support the diary sheets and allegations in any formal action. This was appropriate as an additional means to substantiate allegations of ASB. However, there was no agreed means of how to submit these images or actions the landlord was able to take in response, which is a failing.
26. Overall, the landlord was proactive in its response and took the reports seriously. However, it failed to explain its limitations when dealing with ASB and what potential tools and powers it has in dealing with ASB. This in turn left the resident with a false expectation of what it could do.
27. Following the installation of the video doorbell on 9 April 2024, the resident continued to report incidents of ASB to the landlord. As a result of these, she chose to vacate the property due to the impact of the ASB on her mental health. She informed the landlord of this and requested permission to re-join the housing register with a priority banding to apply for alternative properties. The landlord permitted the request to re-join, which was outside of its usual processes. A priority banding was not applied as the reports of ASB did not meet its policy for this. While this was a positive course of action, a clearer explanation of the priority banding system would have been appropriate.
28. The resident also advised that she did not receive an action plan until 3 April 2024. As explained above, this should have been completed at the outset to provide clear direction for the resident. The Ombudsman has not been provided this action plan. Good record keeping is essential. In this instance, it would have ensured that there was clear evidence of its decision making, expectations of the resident and limitations on its actions. This could have prevented later distress for the resident and is therefore a failing.
29. In April 2024, the resident told the landlord she no longer wished to share videos of the alleged ASB until the Police had viewed these and she had moved her possessions out of the property. In response, the landlord should have advised how it would continue to investigate the case and what was expected from the resident. It should have advised of the potential limitations to its investigation as a result.
30. Following this, both the resident and landlord’s records show a breakdown in their relationship. The resident had requested the landlord raise a complaint about the handling of the situation. The resident said that the landlord had not logged several incidents of ASB and raised concerns regarding the NHO discussing her living situation with the neighbour. There is no evidence to confirm the landlord raised a complaint despite the resident’s clear expression of dissatisfaction – this was a failing which has been addressed below.
31. The resident has noted several incidents that the landlord did not formally record to support the allegations. The landlord should ensure that it records all reports of ASB to support case progression and to provide a clear picture of the impact on the resident. As such, a recommendation has been made below.
32. The resident submitted a freedom of information request on 30 May 2024 following a face-to-face meeting to discuss the situation which apparently caused a further divide between the parties.
33. Following the resident’s FOI request, the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint. In its response, the landlord said it had acted in line with its policy when dealing with the reports. It advised that it had requested diary sheets, met with the neighbour, and issued a warning. It did not however provide an update on future actions that it could take or how it would continue to investigate. This illustrates a missed opportunity for the landlord to follow its policy around joint working solutions and represents a service failure.
34. The resident requested an escalation on 3 July 2024. She felt the landlord had not taken her complaint seriously and that it had not conducted actions in a timely manner with limited impact on the ASB. She also enquired as to why the landlord had not disclosed information regarding previous ASB reports at her initial property viewing.
35. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised areas for improvement with regards to a lack of victim support and gathering third party testimony and has advised it will review its sign-up process on disclosure of past ASB. The landlord also sought additional consultation on the case from experienced colleagues for any potential insight on case handling. It is positive that the landlord has recognised and appropriately explained these findings and will consider how disclosure of local reports of ASB can be offered to allow for more informed decisions by prospective tenants.
36. This Service acknowledges that without access to the withheld video evidence, the landlord has limited ability to progress the case to a stage where legal action is viable. It is however the landlord’s responsibility to ensure residents are clear on evidence requirements and how the landlord will use evidence in the investigation process from the outset. The landlord should be clear on the potential length of time for enforcement actions and the process leading to any possible legal action. The landlord failed to offer clarity on both these points throughout this process which was a service failure.
37. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. It is positive that the landlord acted quickly and broadly in line with its policies in relation to these reports, as well as recognising and acknowledging some failings. However, it did not set clear expectations on the timescales involved in resolving ASB or the potential outcomes.
38. The resident was in a difficult and often distressing situation. She was understandably apprehensive about pursuing some of her reports of ASB with the landlord. Its failure to provide clarity on the potential outcomes likely added to her distress. These actions are imperative to maintain relationships between resident and landlord. As such, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of these failings and those it acknowledged through the complaints process.

The associated compliant

39. The records from the resident show she asked for information on how to complain on 11 March 2024. The landlord provided a manager’s contact information. While this was to some extent appropriate to attempt to resolve the complaint in the first instance, it is the landlord’s responsibility under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code that residents should be able to raise their complaints in any way and with any member of staff. All staff must be aware of the complaints process and be able to pass details of the complaint to the appropriate person within the organisation. This initial failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience.
40. The resident raised a FOI request on 30 May 2024. The landlord issued its acknowledgement on the same date, advising it would respond within 10 working days. Its stage 1 response was issued on 21 June 2024. This  exceeds the number of days stated in its policy by 6 working days for which it provided no explanation.
41. The landlord did not recognise the delay in providing its complaint response and we have not seen evidence that it kept the resident updated on the extended timeframe of the complaint albeit this was only a minor delay .
42. The resident requested an escalation on 3 July 2024 which the landlord acknowledged on 8 July 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 25 July 2024, all of which are in line with its policy.
43. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. As such, an order has been made below.

Determination

44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

45. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £200, comprised of:
       1. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of ASB.
       2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
46. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

47. The landlord should review how communications from victims of ASB are recorded on ASB files to ensure a clear and accurate timeline of events to support good record keeping and progression of ASB cases.