Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Babergh District Council (202214564)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214564

Babergh District Council

9 February 2024


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:

a.     The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

b.     The removal and replacement of fire escapes.

c.      A communal power failure.

d.     The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord for a second floor flat. Her tenancy ended on 9 April 2023, and she has since been rehoused.
  2. On 3 September 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that it would be carrying out replacement works on internal and external fire escapes at her property’s block within the month. It contacted her again on 2 December 2020 to explain the start date had been delayed until January 2021.
  3. On 10 January 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord. She said that the fire escape work had been delayed and was still ongoing, and that no explanation had been given for why. She also said that the landlord was not actioning evictions when it should, in relation to reports of ASB from her and other residents in the block.
  4. On 17 January 2022, the resident raised a separate stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She told it that there had been a power failure in the communal staircase on 14 January 2022, and that despite reporting it, as of 17 January 2022 the problem had not been fixed. Subsequently, the landlord sent a contractor out that day who fixed the problem.
  5. On 8 February 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response to her complaint about the communal power failure. It upheld her complaint, and said that the time it took for it to resolve the power failure was unacceptable. It said the incident had highlighted some issues in how it responded to out of hours incidents, and confirmed it had since put process improvements in place to ensure the same problems would not happen in the future. It offered no compensation for the delayed repair.
  6. On 17 March 2022, the resident raised a stage 2 formal complaint to the landlord. She said that she was expecting compensation as it had upheld her complaint, and asked for information on what process improvements the landlord had put in place to stop the communal power outage re occurring. In a separate communication to the landlord on the same day, she explained she had sent it a separate complaint regarding ASB, and its replacement of the fire escapes at the property. She asked the landlord to link both complaints together, and the landlord confirmed it would do this before providing its stage 2 response.
  7. On 11 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. It explained all of the measures it had put in place to avoid the power supply problem reoccurring. It noted that the resident had raised concerns about ASB, specifically arson and drug-related activity allegedly carried out by other residents. It assured her it was working with the police to address these concerns, and that CCTV had been installed on the block. Regarding work on the fire escapes, it explained the reasons for the work, and explained it had taken longer than originally planned due to unforeseen problems as the construction progressed. It also reiterated that it would not be paying her compensation.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said she wanted the landlord to be transparent in its approach to ASB.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that if a resident feels unable to approach a neighbour about ASB, or they have tried to resolve the problem and failed, they can report a problem using the reporting form available on its website, or by emailing or making a telephone call to the landlord. This will then be allocated to one of its housing officer’s to resolve.
  2. The policy also explains that the landlord’s housing officer will determine if the ASB complaint should be categorised as urgent or non-urgent. Urgent complaints will be responded to by the next working day, and non-urgent complaints within 10 working days. It states violence, and other criminal matters should be reported to the police in the first instance. The landlord will then investigate the complaint if there appears to be a tenancy breach. The policy also explains that actions the landlord might take include community surveys, home visits, working with the local police, and conducting interviews with both parties. If a resident is being threatened or physically harmed by someone who does not live with them, the landlord will arrange for risk assessments to be carried out at the property in person.
  3. The resident has confirmed to this service that her concerns about ASB relate to the landlord’s decision to rehouse a “large group of criminals” into the block. She says that this has resulted in her and other residents having their lives disrupted by “arson and vandalism”. The landlord has confirmed that since updating its ASB behaviour reporting form in 2021, between September 2021 and March 2023 it has received 17 ASB reports made via the form by various residents in the block. The majority of these related to “noise nuisance, drug related nuisance, and drunken, rowdy, or nuisance behaviour”.
  4. According to the landlord’s records, the resident individually raised 2 incidents of ASB. On 5 December 2021, she contacted the police to make a report of “drunken, rowdy, and nuisance behaviour” outside an address in the block and along the street. After being notified by the police, the landlord added it to its ASB log. The second report was made by the resident to the landlord on 22 February 2021, and concerned “noisy gatherings of local drug dealers and abusers.” The resident also reported 1 incident of fly tipping.
  5. The landlord has confirmed that at the time it did not undertake a risk assessment for ASB in the area, but has since updated its ASB report form to include risk assessments going forward. As per its ASB policy the landlord will carry out risk assessments if a resident is in danger of harm. But it would still be expected to carry out a risk assessment if there were suggestions, reports, or evidence of a risk at the time to the resident as an individual, or to affected residents collectively. From the information provided, there does not appear to be any evidence of this, but the landlord does seem to have acted in collaboration with the police to address the problems reported by numerous residents at the block. The lack of previous risk assessments is concerning, but the landlord has acknowledged this, and implemented the change to its ASB policy which the Service would have recommended it did if it had not already done so.
  6. The landlord confirmed that following the reports of related ASB from multiple residents it made door-to-door enquiries with residents in the area, and its tenancy enforcement teams also visited the area with police. However, the landlord has confirmed it does not have records of these visits. It has therefore been recommended below that the landlord review its record-keeping process, to ensure all ASB-related information is recorded accurately. The landlord has also confirmed to the Service that its current ASB policy is under review, and a new policy will be launched in Spring 2024.
  7. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord confirmed it had been working with local police for an extended period of time relating to ASB matters at the block. It also confirmed that police have a visible presence in the area, and that it holds fortnightly meetings with police relating to ASB concerns. These are not minuted due to confidentiality, but it has provided minutes from other meetings it has had about tackling ASB at the block. In 2021, it introduced a “sensitive let” scheme to only allow particular prospective tenants to bid for properties in the area. It states that ASB has reduced in the area as a result. The landlord has shown it is working in conjunction with the police to try and curb instances of ASB, in line with its own policy.
  8. Regarding the resident’s concerns of arson attacks, the landlord has confirmed that this was reported to the police, and an arrest was made in connection with a suspected attack, but no charges were brought forward, and the police advised the landlord that no further action was to be taken. The landlord continued to work with the police on the matter, but it was also guided by the police’s investigation, and no enforcement action was taken as a result. While it is understandable that the resident would be distressed by this, as per its ASB policy, residents are instructed to report violence, and other criminal or police related matters, to the police in the first instance, and the landlord will work with the police in trying to address and resolve the problem. The landlord has demonstrated that it did this, in line with its ASB policy.
  9. Regarding the resident’s concerns about drug related behaviour at the property carried out by groups of residents, the landlord worked with the police and carried out full closure orders of properties in the area, to provide respite to other residents and improve the situation. The resident has said that the landlord was not “actioning evictions when it should”, but it has confirmed that it issued a community protection notice to an offender at the block, and “Notice of [Seeking] Possession” to 8 residents, following ASB reports of a similar nature from the resident and other residents. Additionally, the landlord upgraded security at the block, changing the security doors to key fob entry so they can only be accessed by residents with the correct fobs. It is not clear from the information available whether the landlord shared any of this information with the resident. Had the landlord done so, without disclosing anything confidential such as names or addresses, it may have helped ease her concerns.
  10. In agreement with police, the landlord also installed CCTV in the area in 2021, and confirms that no further ASB behaviour has been caught on them since. In the event that the cameras do pick something up, the landlord has confirmed that the information would be made available to police for any investigation required. It also offered a visit to the resident’s property from local councillors and staff to discuss any concerns she had, and urged her to continue to raise any ASB incidents through its online portal. These actions do show that the landlord is taking ASB concerns at the block seriously, and acting in line with its ASB policy.
  11. Following the resident’s report of fly-tipping, the landlord attended the area and took pictures of the incident. It arranged for the waste to be removed and reminded the tenant responsible to dispose of their waste correctly. This was a fair and reasonable approach by the landlord, and the incident does not appear to have reoccurred.
  12. The resident’s concerns about ASB at the block are understandable. However, from the information available the landlord has handled reports of ASB at the block in line with its own policies and procedures, and taken additional measures to try and stop incidents re occurring.

The removal and replacement of fire escapes

  1. The landlord’s fire safety regulation policy states that the landlord will “ensure that any risk once identified is managed to ensure the safety of the [landlord’s] occupants”.
  2. Following an inspection of the block in August 2017, the landlord noted that the properties fire escapes were original to the building and had been in place since 1980. A follow-up preconstruction report was completed by the landlord in March 2019. This noted that replacing the fire escapes would improve fire safety at the property, as the ones in place were starting to corrode and deteriorate, causing a potential hazard to residents. As per its fire safety regulation policy, the landlord was expected to appropriately manage any risks it identified with the fire escapes.
  3. On 24 January 2019, the landlord carried out a consultation with residents at the local Town Hall.  This included a presentation on the proposed improvement works, and the reasons for them. The landlord confirmed that 40% of residents attended, and that it received no objections at the time, although the resident did contact it to ask when the works would start.
  4. The landlord has confirmed that it sent a letter to all residents on 3 September 2020 introducing its contractor, listing what works would be taking place, and confirming that the works would start in October 2020. On 2 December 2020, the contractor sent a follow up letter to all residents explaining that the start date had been pushed back due to a legal matter, and would instead start in January 2021.
  5. The work did start in January 2021. As it progressed, the landlord’s contractor sent letters to all residents in July and August 2021 with updates on the work. In October 2021, the contractor sent a letter to all residents explaining that “unforeseen difficulties” had caused some delays to the replacement of the external staircases. It went on to explain that there were initially some difficulties experienced in removing the staircases safely, and once this was done they found that some of the concrete bases at the property needed renewing before the new staircases could be constructed. It then gave details of where and when it would be installing the new staircases. This was a reasonable update, given that the issues were unexpected.
  6. On 15 November 2021, the landlord received an ASB report about a suspected arson attack on one of the flats at the property. Subsequently, the resident contacted the landlord on 25 November 2021 asking for an exact date on when the fire escape closest to her flat would be reinstalled, as she was concerned about the attack and a potential “arsonist” being in the block. The resident also told the landlord that the works had been slow.
  7. On 2 December 2021, the landlord responded to the resident. It agreed the work had been slower than it had anticipated due to unforeseen problems, and reiterated what the contractor had told all residents in October 2021. It also explained that some delays had been caused by the manufacturer being unable to deliver materials as scheduled due to a lack of haulage. It said it would write to her again to inform her when the installation would take place in due course.
  8. While the update itself was sound, it is unfortunate that the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about arson, given that it had logged an ASB complaint about the incident in November 2021, and the resident was clearly worried about it. This was reflected in her communication to the landlord on 20 December 2021, in which she asked it to make reinstalling the fire escape near her flat an urgent priority. She stated that the staircases had been removed in June and July 2021 before any safety measures were established, and asked for a copy of the risk assessment that was carried out prior to the works being done, as she did not think that the suspected arson attack had been considered.
  9. On 24 December 2021, the landlord responded and explained that the manufacture of the staircases for the resident’s block had been completed and that they would confirm the installation dates with the resident as soon as the contractor confirmed them. Again, while the update was appropriate, the landlord failed to address all of the resident’s concerns. Additionally, the resident was entitled to see any risk assessments that had been carried out prior to the work starting, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide her with them.
  10. On 11 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that installation of the staircases in her block would commence following delivery of them to the contractor on 16 February 2022.
  11. The landlord has also provided the Service with a copy of the health and safety assessment that was carried out prior to the works starting, to ensure a safe environment was provided for all residents. This was alongside a full survey confirming what works were needed to meet fire safety regulations, and why. Additionally, the landlord has confirmed both its main communal staircase, and ground floor front and rear exits, remained accessible and in use throughout the work. It is unclear from the information available whether the landlord reassured the resident of this. Had it done so, it may have eased her concerns about safety.
  12. The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s flat had a “stay put policy” in place, which means resident’s are advised to stay inside a property in the event of a fire at the block, unless the fire is inside their property. According to the policy,  in the event of a fire in the property, the main means of fire escape is the communal staircase, with external staircases being the secondary option. The landlord consulted with a fire risk assessor prior to the works starting, and confirmed that this policy would remain in place and not be changed by the work, as the main escape routes remained accessible.
  13. In summary, work on renewing the fire escapes started in August 2021, and concluded in February 2022. While it is understandable that the resident was concerned, worried, and frustrated by the time taken to complete the works, it is reasonable to expect unforeseen delays for works of this magnitude, given the scale of the work required and the age of the building. Both the landlord and the contractor kept the resident informed on the progress of the work at regular intervals, and although there were some unfortunate delays, none of these seem to have been caused by either the landlord’s or the contractor’s actions.
  14. Additionally, the landlord carried out surveys, a health and safety assessment, and consultations with a fire risk assessor prior to starting the work. It also made sure its other exits remained available and accessible while the work was being carried out. This was a fair and reasonable approach by the landlord, and it was required to carry out the improvement works to ensure the building met fire safety standards.
  15. However, the landlord should have addressed the resident’s concerns about an arson-related incident and a risk assessment in its update letters to her, as she was clearly worried about these issues and it had 2 opportunities to do so. It failed to do this with sensitivity. Therefore, it has been ordered below to pay the resident £100 compensation for its failure to appropriately address the resident’s safety concerns at the time, and for failing to provide her with a copy of any risk assessments. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures that have caused distress to a resident, and the landlord’s own compensation policy for “medium impact” failures where inconvenience and distress has been caused to a resident because of repeated failures in service. The landlord has also been ordered to provide the resident with a copy of the risk assessment it carried out prior to starting work on the fire escapes.

A communal power failure

  1. On 14 January 2022, there was a power failure at the resident’s block which meant the communal staircase had no lighting. The resident contacted the landlord about this, as she was concerned that the lack of power had stopped the block’s security doors from working, meaning anyone could access the block. She was also concerned by the potential hazard caused by the stairs not being lit in case of an emergency.
  2. On 15 January 2022, an electrician attended but they were unable to gain access to the electricity cupboard on site. The resident then contacted the landlord the following day and was told it would arrange for an electrician to attend with a carpenter to get access to the electric cupboard, but as confirmed by both the landlord and the resident, they did not attend. The lighting was then fixed by a contractor on 17 January 2022.
  3. In both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses to the resident’s complaint, the landlord recognised that it had taken too long to fix the issue, and upheld the complaint. It also told the resident that security doors at the block were designed to unlock in the event of a power failure to allow residents to leave the property, and emergency services to enter. It confirmed this was in line with safety standards, and that it had put steps in place to stop the same issue reoccurring, and explained what these steps were, which was reasonable. It also apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. Although it upheld her complaint, the landlord confirmed it would not be offering her compensation. No explanation was given as to why.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy says that discretionary payments can be made to recognise “low impact” on residents due to a failing. It classifies low impact as a complaint that has “been upheld” and where there has been some distress or inconvenience caused to a resident because of a failure in service. The resident had explained to the landlord that the prolonged loss of communal lighting made her worried about herself and other residents trying to use the stairs. She was also concerned about the security doors being temporarily unlocked, allowing access to individuals she believed responsible for arson and other ASB at the block. It would have been reasonable for it to offer compensation, in line with its own compensation policy, to recognise the distress caused to the resident by the failure it had acknowledged.
  5. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £50 in compensation, in line with its own compensation policy, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her. This amount is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures of a short duration which have caused distress and inconvenience to a resident. It has also been recommended that the landlord arranges training for its staff on its compensation policy.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it operates a 2 stage process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about its handling of ASB and fire escape work on 10 January 2022. She then raised an additional stage 1 complaint about its handling of a communal power failure on 17 January 2022.
  3. On 8 February 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response about the communal power failure to the resident. This was 16 working days after it was received. While this was not a significant delay, it was outside of the landlord’s own timescales, and the landlord has not acknowledged this or explained the reasons for the delay to the resident.
  4. On 17 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to merge her complaints together, as she had not yet received a response to her original stage 1 complaint from 10 January 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 April 2022. This was over 3 months after the complaint was received, significantly outside its own policy timescales. Again, the landlord has not acknowledged this or given an explanation for the time taken to provide its response. The delay in responding also meant that the resident was delayed in escalating her complaint further to the Service.
  5. As per the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of them being logged, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord has demonstrated its understanding of this requirement in its own complaint handling policy, but has failed to act in line with both its own policy, and the code by meeting those deadlines.
  6. In addition, the landlord has confirmed that some of the resident’s emails to it chasing updates were missed, and in a follow up email to her following on from its stage 2 response, it directed her to the incorrect Ombudsman service. This was a further failure by the landlord, and it has been ordered below to pay the resident £50 in compensation to recognise the delays in responding to her complaint, the lack of communication, and incorrect information given to the resident. It has also been ordered to apologise to the resident for the delays in responding to her complaints.
  7. The landlord has confirmed to this service that its complaints policy is currently under review. It is also worth noting that the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code is being updated in February 2024, and it has been recommended below that the landlord arranges training for its staff to familiarise themselves with it.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:

a.     The removal and replacement of fire escapes.

b.     A communal power failure.

c.      The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 in compensation. This is broken down in the following way:

a.     £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns.

b.     £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the communal power failure.

c.      £50 to recognise the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

  1. The landlord is also ordered to provide the resident with a copy of any risk assessment report it carried out prior to starting work on the fire escapes, and apologise to the resident for its delayed responses to her complaints.
  2. The landlord is required to provide this service with proof of payment, and proof that it has apologised and provided the resident with its risk assessment, within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:

a.     review its record-keeping process in relation to ASB complaints, to ensure that all ASB related correspondence is accurate and up to date.

b.     Arrange for staff training on the landlord’s compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.