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

London Borough of Hackney (202307280)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307280

London Borough of Hackney

12 June 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about his neighbour.
    2. The landlord’s handling of counter reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident from his neighbour.
    3. The landlord’s decision to refer the resident for safeguarding.
    4. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority, at the property since June 2017. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a two-storey building. The resident’s neighbour (who he would later complain about) lives in the same building, and they share a communal corridor. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, which includes support from a mental health support worker.
  2. The landlord originally opened an ASB case due to reports from the resident about his neighbour on 1 December 2020. However, due to a cyber-attack on the landlord’s system, no evidence is available from this point until May 2021. On 10 May the landlord recognised it was taking no action on the case as a result of the cyber-attack. It apologised to the resident and began further action on the case. The Ombudsman has seen it took action against the neighbour between 14 and 28 May. It spoke with the police and agreed to send an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) to the neighbour on 12 June. The police and landlord signed the ABA, but the neighbour refused to sign it.
  3. On and from 16 June 2021 the resident reported several incidents to the landlord about his neighbour. This included obstruction of the communal corridor, the neighbour leaving the communal door open, late-night noise and parties and verbal abuse. On 22 June, the police told the landlord it found “no evidence of criminal offences” so would not intervene. The police later confirmed to the landlord it had spoken to both the resident and neighbour on 28 June and “advised them to stay clear of each other”. It said the neighbour said they were “happy to move out if that was a solution.”
  4. The resident continued to report ASB from his neighbour from 29 June 2021. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord took further action with the neighbour on 23 August. Following this, the resident’s reports were reduced but his email contact remained frequent and to several different recipients. As such the landlord referred the resident for a mental health referral and assessment on 4 October. The resident attended a voluntary psychiatric appointment on 19 November. The healthcare provider referred the resident to a mental support worker for practical help.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 December 2021 about its mental health referral. He believed it was “an abuse of its powers.” The landlord spoke to about this to him on 16 December 2021, and he raised further concerns about the handling of the ASB case. The landlord responded on 17 December telling him it makes safeguarding referrals for “all residents it has concerns about.” It also said it had “maintained fortnightly contact” with him regarding ASB and had taken “appropriate tenancy action” against his neighbour. It advised him to report any further ASB incidents to it and was communicating with witnesses. It told him it had explained rehousing to him on 7 December, which included how to apply.
  6. From 6 January 2022 the resident reported further ASB from his neighbour including spillages in the communal corridor, late-night noise, and verbal abuse. He asked for the landlord to rehouse his neighbour. On 17 January, the landlord issued the resident with a “yellow warning letter”. It said this was due to noise nuisance from the resident’s property and the ringing of his neighbour’s doorbell. It said it could issue an ABA or other statutory action. From this point, the resident raised his dissatisfaction with the warning letter and previous concerns about the handling of the ASB case. He escalated his complaint on 6 April and provided further information on 9 May.
  7. The landlord provided its complaint response on 23 June 2022 which addressed multiple points raised by the resident as follows:
    1. It could find no evidence to suggest it mishandled the ASB case and took appropriate action with the evidence provided by the resident. It said his neighbour had the “right to make counter-allegations.” It found no further action was needed against the resident. It found no evidence of it misinforming the resident’s MP about the action it had taken on the case.
    2. The landlord could find no evidence it misinformed the resident to safeguard his neighbour. It referred him for safeguarding to “ensure he was well and see if he needed support.”
    3. It had previously provided advice on rehousing for the resident and told him it was happy to discuss this with him. It could find no evidence he was intentionally housed adjacent to his neighbour “maliciously.” It confirmed a lettings agency was responsible for placing him in his current property.
    4. It said the resident should speak to the police about concerns with the police investigation. It confirmed he took the correct action in reporting his concerns to the police as he felt “threatened or unsafe.” It said there was no evidence it had acted against police advice.
    5. It could not disclose information about the former tenant living at the resident’s property, specific information about the neighbour, including her name or her any information about rehousing her. It said this was in accordance with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
    6. It could install a noise machine at the resident’s property to “substantiate any incidents.” It said it had not previously considered mediation due to the “breakdown in relations” between the resident and neighbour but could arrange this if the resident wished to pursue this. It told the resident to continue to report ASB to it.
  8. There were no further reports of ASB from 12 September 2023. It is believed the neighbour left the property at this time. The landlord closed the ASB case on 1 December 2023. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s case for investigation on 5 February 2024. The resident referred to the whole case history including his email correspondence with the landlord as the reason for his complaint. On 5 June 2024, the resident stated to the Ombudsman his neighbour has returned to their former property. He states he hears “banging noises” from his neighbour’s property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident had raised concerns about the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour on him and other tenants. However, the Ombudsman only looks into individual complaints and while it is appreciated that the situation may have impacted the community, we can only consider the direct impact on the resident. This investigation will assess the impact against the individual circumstances of the resident. 
  3. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about his neighbour.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the resident is responsible for their behaviour and that of every person living in the property, including shared areas. Residents should make sure all shared doors close behind and not leave rubbish in shared areas. The resident must not act in an antisocial way, harass anyone, or cause a nuisance. This includes noise nuisance such as noisy parties. An exception to this is ordinary and reasonable household noise.
  2. The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms its “best practice” for dealing with ASB is focused on achieving positive results, building confidence in communities by:
    1. preventing and discouraging people from acting in an antisocial way.
    2. taking quick and appropriate action when needed.
    3. supporting people to make positive changes to their behaviour.
  3. The ASB Policy states some disagreements come from differences in lifestyle. This includes examples such as hanging around in shared or public areas. It states these activities may not be antisocial but are considered to be inconsiderate. To deal with ASB it may help people to deal with the problem themselves or use mediation. It can use a “good neighbour agreement,” or issue ABAs or legal powers.

ASB reports

  1. Due to a lack of evidence which the landlord states was due to a cyber-attack it is unclear what reports the landlord received or what action it took in response prior to May 2021. It recognised the impact of the cyber-attack and took prompt action to restart the ASB case when it was made aware it was not progressing the case. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord took robust action against the neighbour in May 2021. The landlord issued the neighbour with an ABA on 12 June 2021. It informed the resident of this on 15 June and advised him of further action it could take if the neighbour breached this. This was an appropriate step and showed the resident it was taking the issue seriously and was prepared to act.
  2. Following this the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord from his neighbour on 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, and 30 June 2021. It responded to the resident on 30 June 2021 explaining it would issue a Community Protection Notice (CPN) if the neighbour “did not curtail their behaviour”. It asked the resident to provide evidence and issued him the “noise app”, which is investigated later in this report. It also managed his expectations by stating the case was complex and though it may “look like nothing was being done” in fact there were “multiple agencies” working on the case.
  3. The resident continued to report ASB to the landlord up to 5 August 2021. The landlord reviewed evidence from the resident of parties at the neighbour’s property but was not able to establish a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord did find evidence in this period of the neighbour leaving items in the communal corridor and leaving the communal door open. The Ombudsman can see it took robust and proportionate action against the neighbour on 20 August 2021. It explained to the resident on 23 August 2021 if the neighbour failed to “adhere to the process” it would “impact her tenancy”. This was appropriate in showing the resident it was taking decisive action against his neighbour and taking his concerns seriously.
  4. Following the landlord’s actions of 20 August 2021 there were no further reports of ASB from the resident until 26 September. On this date, the resident reported his neighbour had held a party. The landlord investigated and corroborated with witnesses there was no evidence of a party. It is unclear if the landlord made the resident aware of this. The resident reported his neighbour had a further party on 6 October and provided recordings. The landlord listened to the recordings and obtained “expert analysis” of the recordings. It found no statutory nuisance. It also obtained witness statements to confirm no evidence of a party. It provided an effective explanation of its findings on 17 October that it could only “hear conversations” and this was not a “statutory breach”. It took the step of talking with the neighbour about the report however.
  5. On 9 November and 22 November 2021, the resident reported a party having taken place at his neighbour’s property on 5 November. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident about this specific incident. This caused the resident to believe the landlord was not taking him seriously, causing him inconvenience and distress.
  6. The resident reported further incidents on 17 December 2021 and 6 January 2022. This was related to the neighbour “barging past him in the corridor” and “spilling oil in the communal corridor.” The landlord acted quickly on both reports and spoke to the neighbour who denied any malicious intent and agreed to clean any spillages “immediately in future.” The landlord informed the resident of the outcome promptly, within 5 days of the incident occurring. The resident further reported on 31 January 2022 the neighbour was moving furniture and it spoke to them on 7 February 2022. The neighbour refuted the allegation and “agreed to be more considerate at night.” This was all evidence of the landlord responding to “differences in living” speaking with the other party to make them aware of the issue to achieve resolution.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated it was in contact with the resident fortnightly. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of this throughout the complaint. This suggests the landlord was taking the issue and its responsibility seriously. It was engaging with the resident and providing assurance it was listening. This was in accordance with its ASB Policy in supporting witnesses and maintaining “effective communication.”
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response confirmed it was attempting to discuss the resident’s concerns with a witness he had put forward. It explained it had attempted to contact them and was awaiting a response. There is no further evidence this witness engaged with the landlord prior to it providing its stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2022. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord took reasonable steps to contact the witness and obtain any relevant information from them.
  9. In his complaint escalation of 9 May 2022, the resident asked for details of the former tenant living at his property. He also asked for details about the neighbour including their name. The landlord informed the resident appropriately in its stage 2 response of 23 June it could not provide this information in accordance with GPDR. It explained it referred to his neighbour as the “alleged perpetrator” and this is in accordance with its ASB Policy.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said it could find no evidence to suggest it had mishandled the resident’s ASB case against his neighbour. This was partially accurate, and the Ombudsman acknowledges the complexity of the case and the landlord’s overall handling was good. The only oversight was the landlord failed to acknowledge its failure to consider the resident’s reports on 9 November 2021, which the resident repeated on 22 November. Its failure to do so meant its belief there was no fault with its handling of ASB was not completely accurate.

Actions to support resolution.

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy suggests a number of options for resolving reports of ASB between parties by “helping people to deal with the problem themselves.”  This includes good neighbour agreements and mediation. The landlord opened the ASB case against the neighbour on 1 December 2020. Due to a lack of evidence, it is unclear whether the landlord attempted to resolve the issue amicably between the resident and his neighbour during the initial reports.
  2. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it had not previously offered a mediator due to “the length of time the issues were ongoing” and the “clear breakdown in relations”. Its response was ineffective and displays it had not considered options to resolve the issue between the parties early on. It seemed only to consider mediation not to be an option at the time of its response. It failed to consider whether it would have been appropriate earlier on. Had it considered this at an earlier stage it may have supported the residents in “dealing with the problems themselves” without the issues escalating. The landlord would later attempt to arrange mediation on 26 July 2023. The resident told the Ombudsman the assigned mediator “never got back to him” after an initial call.
  3. The resident was providing evidence of recordings from 16 June 2021 onwards. From 17 June the landlord provided the resident with its “noise app” to record any incidents and provide it directly to it. This was an appropriate action to ensure the resident and landlord were able to manage the evidence he was taking. It would offer this again on 30 June and 17 October. There is no evidence to suggest the resident used the noise app to make recordings.
  4. On 9 March 2022, the landlord suggested installing a “noise machine” at the resident’s property. It said this would be required to record a “statutory breach which is required for a noise abatement notice.” This was appropriate and showed it was taking the situation seriously and was willing to take legal steps with the appropriate evidence. The resident rejected installation of a noise machine on 11 March and 9 May. He said the landlord had not retained recordings it had previously taken. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained it no longer had this information due to the “cyber-attack” against it. It reiterated in its response about installing a noise machine to “substantiate incidents” and “potentially an injunction” in light of the verbal abuse from his neighbour and her family. Again, this was evidence of it taking the issue seriously and its consideration of its ASB process with the right evidence. There is no further evidence to suggest the resident agreed to a noise machine at his property.
  5. On 3 August 2021, the landlord suggested the installation of CCTV in the communal corridor. It confirmed it would provide an answer on this by 13 August. It missed this deadline but told the resident on 16 August it had approved the installation of CCTV. It chased the installation of this up on 17 August 2021. Following this, there is no further evidence it installed CCTV in the communal corridor. The resident chased this up again on 15 February 2022. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging this in its complaint responses or explaining why it did not install CCTV. This caused uncertainty for the resident. Its ASB Policy also suggests the use of CCTV as evidence of ASB. Had it installed CCTV it would have supported its decisions regarding ASB, particularly as much of the ASB reports concerned the use of the communal corridor and door.
  6. In his complaint of 9 May 2022, the resident asked about the installation of soundproofing at his property. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response it “does not carry out soundproofing in its housing stock”. The Ombudsman can find no evidence in the landlord’s Repairs Policy, ASB Policy or the resident’s tenancy agreement to suggest its position was incorrect.

Rehousing

  1. The landlord initially spoke to the resident’s solicitor on 6 December 2021 about his rehousing options. It is uncertain as to the full extent of this discussion. However, on 17 December the landlord appropriately explained to the resident he should contact his housing officer to discuss rehousing and complete a transfer application form. There is no evidence the resident took these steps following this.
  2. On 9 February 2022, the resident told the landlord it was “not rehousing him.” The Ombudsman can find no evidence to suggest the resident had acted on the landlord’s advice of 17 December 2021 at this point. On 9 March 2022, it reiterated it had given him advice on rehousing on 17 December 2021.
  3. The resident stated in further correspondence for his escalated complaint on 9 May 2022 the landlord was “refusing to rehouse him”. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of this or that the resident had acted on the landlord’s advice of 17 December 2021, up to this point. In its stage 2 response of 23 June 2022, it appropriately told him it was “happy to support him with rehousing” and it had previously advised him on how to request a housing transfer. The Ombudsman finds the response from the landlord throughout to be appropriate. There is no evidence the resident acted on this advice throughout.
  4. On 30 June 2021, the police reported to the landlord the neighbour had suggested they were “happy to move out if that was a solution.” The resident told it on 9 March and 5 April 2022 the police informed him his neighbour was “willing to move”. In its response of 9 March 2022 and its stage 2 complaint response of 23 June 2022, the landlord said the police “had not contacted it” about rehousing the neighbour. This was inaccurate as the police had contacted it on 30 June 2021. It should have explained the contact from the police in June 2021 was relaying a suggestion from the neighbour. The landlord should have clarified with the resident that the information received from the police merely amount to relaying a message from the neighbour and was not professional advice in rehousing the neighbour. This would have ensured there was no misunderstanding about the police contact in June 2021.
  5. In its responses of 7 February 2022, 9 March and 23 June the landlord declined to provide the resident with further information about any action it was taking regarding rehousing with the neighbour. It appropriately explained it was unable to disclose third-party information in accordance with GDPR.

Communication with police

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will work with the police when reports of ASB are criminal in nature. The landlord was working with the police which culminated in it issuing the ABA to the neighbour on 12 June 2021. Following this the police informed the landlord it found no further criminal offences and did not intervene. The police asked the landlord not to copy it into any further civil matters. Following this, there is no further evidence of reports of a criminal nature made to the landlord.
  2. From 8 December 2021 the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the standard of the police investigations. The landlord appropriately referred him back to the police as this was not its duty to answer. In his complaint escalation, the resident asked why it was necessary for him to call the police. It reassured him he had taken the correct action if he felt he was “threatened or unsafe.” It appropriately directed him to its website where there was further support available.

Letting of property

  1. On 9 March 2022, the resident said the landlord had refused to investigate placing him adjacent to the neighbour when letting the flat. The Ombudsman can find no previous evidence of the resident raising this point. He raised this during his complaint escalation on 9 May 2022 too. The landlord appropriately confirmed to the resident it was not responsible for placing him at the property in June 2017. It told him this was the responsibility of a letting agency at the time. It appropriately confirmed his belief he was homeless at the time from July 2015. It also confirmed it could remove him from the housing waiting list had he refused the property. This is in accordance with the landlord’s Allocations Policy.
  2. In summary the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from the resident about his neighbour. There was a number of things the landlord got right in its handling of ASB in an extremely complex case. This included its communication with the resident on a regular basis and it listening to his concerns. However, it failed to demonstrate it considered resolution between the two parties from the earliest possible point. Furthermore, it failed to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB in November 2021. It failed to address his concerns about the installation of CCTV and regarding police advice about rehousing his neighbour. For these reasons, compensation of £200 has been awarded to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident which the landlord failed to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of counter reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident from his neighbour.

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms it will assess each report when deciding whether it is ASB, considering factors such as frequency, circumstances, and intent. It confirms it will investigate all ASB professionally and objectively getting proof to show whether an incident was ASB. Before deciding, it will get proof by contacting other residents, the alleged perpetrator, and other agencies. It says it adopts a “reasonable and proportionate approach” to dealing with ASB and this is “reflected in the range of tools and powers it seeks to deploy.” Its tools include sending warning letters.
  2. The landlord sent a “yellow warning letter” to the resident on 17 January 2022. It said this was due to “noise nuisance” from the resident’s address and the resident “ringing the neighbour’s doorbell.” The letter misspelt the resident’s name, which caused uncertainty and confusion to him. The landlord did not go on to acknowledge this or apologise for the error.
  3. The Ombudsman is uncertain of the landlord’s reasoning for the “yellow warning letter” it sent to the resident on 17 January 2022. This is for the following reasons:
    1. The neighbour had reported alleged ASB about the resident on 9 June, 13 July, and 5 October 2021. This included him “acting aggressively towards her,” “confronting her when drunk in the evening” and the police attempting to attend his property on 5 October. There is no evidence of the neighbour or other neighbours reporting noise from the resident’s property. There is also no evidence of reports of the resident pressing the neighbour’s doorbell.
    2. The neighbour reported on 8 November 2021 “everything was fine for the time being”. The landlord in fact closed the ASB case against the resident on 17 January 2022. This is the same day that it sent the warning letter to the resident. This causes uncertainty on the validity of the warning letter.
    3. The “yellow warning letter” stated the landlord “wanted to speak with the resident for a resolution.” There is no evidence it would go on to speak with the resident about the reports stated in its letter. This caused uncertainty to the resident on any outcome or follow up the landlord would take.
  4. The landlord has not been able to demonstrate it investigated any “reports objectively and fairly” as there are no reports to validate its actions. Furthermore, if it had received reports of ASB that are missing from its evidence, there is no evidence it spoke with other residents or the resident before sending the warning letter to him. Overall, there is no evidence of it investigating any supposed reports about the resident prior to issuing its yellow warning letter. As such the landlord failed to act by the ASB Policy when sending the yellow warning letter. It was not “a reasonable or proportionate approach” as it had not followed its process in its policy.
  5. On 7 March 2022, the resident said he had previously contacted the landlord’s neighbourhood officer about its yellow warning letter and was waiting for a response. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this correspondence and is uncertain of the date the resident sent it. The landlord did respond to the concerns on 9 March. It explained its procedure for sending out an “advisory warning letter” and said that it had taken no further action. It is uncertain if at this point the landlord reviewed the evidence it had to determine if its letter was accurate. Furthermore, its 9 March response said the resident had the opportunity to respond to the allegations. The landlord attempted to downplay the serious nature of its yellow warning letter. It portrayed the letter as detailing the allegations made against him and it offered him the opportunity to respond. This was not the resident’s understanding of the letter and the wording used by the landlord confirms he was correct in his view. This was due to the landlord’s use of the terms “can be breach of tenancy,” it could request “an ABA or noise injunction” or “evict” the resident. This caused distress and uncertainty to the resident.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated the neighbour had made “counter allegations which was her right to do so”. It said it had “investigated and found no further action was needed.” There are issues with this for the following reasons:
    1. There is no evidence to suggest it had further investigated the issue. As previously mentioned, there is no evidence of it speaking to witnesses or the resident before sending him the warning letter.
    2. Between issuing its warning letter and its stage 2 response the landlord did not inform the resident it had investigated the reports raised or communicate with him on the matter. The time between sending its warning letter and its stage 2 response was equivalent to 109 working days, meaning it had sufficient time to do this.
    3. The landlord attempted to downplay the serious nature of its tenancy warning letter. It portrayed the letter as detailing the allegations made against him and it offered him the opportunity to respond. This was not the resident’s understanding of the letter and the wording used by the landlord including “breach of tenancy”, “ABA”, “noise injunction” and “evict” confirms he was correct in his view.
  7. In summary the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of counter reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident from his neighbour. The Ombudsman can see no evidence or reports that support the landlord’s decision to send a warning letter to the resident. Furthermore, it is concerning that the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident on the same day in which it closed the ASB case against him. The landlord has been unable to demonstrate it followed its ASB Policy in sending a warning letter to him, or that its response was appropriate or proportionate. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB against the resident. For this the landlord must apologise to the resident and compensation of £300 has been awarded for the distress and inconvenience caused to him.

The landlord’s decision to refer the resident for safeguarding.

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms part of its definition of safeguarding as “making sure people’s wellbeing is promoted.” It works with other organisations to “protect adults who may be vulnerable, including people with mental health problems.” The policy also confirms it may take some actions without the resident’s knowledge, such as making safeguarding referrals for adults.
  2. The landlord referred the resident for a mental health referral and assessment on 4 October 2021. Its referral form stated this was due to “multiple emails to the landlord, MPs and councillors.” It said the resident was “talking about lots of different topics leading it to believe he may need support” and it “found the content concerning.” It’s decision to make the referral was appropriate in accordance with its ASB Policy in supporting the wellbeing of the resident.
  3. The landlord chased the appointment with the healthcare provider on 21 October 2021. The healthcare provider made an appointment on 22 October for 19 November and informed the resident of the appointment. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of its decision to refer him for a mental health assessment or that it confirmed the appointment with him. It’s ASB Policy states it may take “some actions” like safeguarding referrals “without the resident’s knowledge.” It is uncertain if this is in reference to alleged perpetrators or victims of ASB.
  4. It is believed the resident found out from the healthcare provider that the landlord had referred him. This undoubtedly caused uncertainty to him on why it had taken these steps. He later told it he believed it had “abused its powers” in doing this. The landlord had acted in accordance with its policy in referring the resident for safeguarding and not informing him. It may have been fair for the landlord to explain it had referred the resident for safeguarding, however, it was under no obligation to do so. Had it been transparent in its approach it may have been able to clearly explain its reasoning and its intentions for support for the resident. The resident attended the voluntary appointment on 19 November 2022 and was referred for “practical help and psychosocial support.”
  5. From 15 December 2021 the landlord attempted to arrange a professional’s meeting with the healthcare professional who spoke with the resident on 19 November and the mental health team. This was appropriate in “promoting the resident’s wellbeing” in accordance with its ASB Policy. The landlord was unsuccessful in arranging an appointment. This was due to circumstances outside of its control, the availability of the other parties. There is evidence of the landlord attempting to arrange this up to 5 April 2022. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord completed an appointment with the third parties.
  6. In its complaint responses the landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about its reasoning for referring him for safeguarding. At stage 1 it informed him it “takes wellbeing support for all residents it has concerns about”. This was effective in explaining to the resident it had not acted outside its usual procedure. It went on to appropriately explain in its stage 2 response that it made the safeguarding referral “to ensure he was well and see if he needed support”. It was particularly relevant because it told him he “was finding living circumstances difficult” and wished to support him. This was effective in addressing the resident’s concern of 9 May 2022 that it had referred him for safeguarding to “discredit him”. It provided its reasoning for doing so, which was in accordance with its policy.
  7. On 9 May 2022, the resident said the landlord had referred him for safeguarding “without his GPs consent”. The landlord’s ASB Policy and Safeguarding Policy contains no requirement for the landlord to contact a resident’s GP before making a safeguarding referral. The landlord failed to address this in its stage 2 response of 23 June 2022. It should have done this to resolve the issue for the resident and confirm whether it had correctly followed its policy.
  8. In summary the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord referred the resident for safeguarding on 4 October 2021 in accordance with its policy. The landlord could have informed the resident about the referral but chose not to and was not obligated to do so. The resident was under no obligation to attend the appointment with the medical provider but chose to do so anyway. The landlord appropriately explained why it had referred him for safeguarding on 4 October in its complaint responses. It should have explained it was not obligated to contact the resident’s GP to do so. However, the impact on the resident was negligible. As such there was no maladministration for the landlord’s decision to refer the resident for safeguarding. The Ombudsman expects to see landlords have appropriate systems in place to ensure its staff members know when a referral to other organisations might be required. This can be a very sensitive issue and landlords have to balance the potential risk involved in a case, with its data handling obligations.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms it operates a two-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days of receiving them. If required, it will call a resident to “find out more” and “provide reassurance.” It will provide its stage 1 complaint response in 10 working days and its stage 2 complaint response in 20 working days from the date it sent its acknowledgement. The landlord can extend stage 1 complaints by 10 working days and stage 2 complaints by 20 working days with good reason. Its policy confirms it must clearly explain the reason for a complaint deadline extension to the resident.
  2. The policy confirms where residents raise additional information during the complaint investigation, it will incorporate this into its complaint response. It will send its complaint responses “when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.” The policy confirms it uses complaints as an “opportunity to put things right and learn lessons to prevent similar mistakes.” Where it finds “recommendations or actions for improvement” it will include these within its complaint response conclusion.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 December 2021. The landlord acted in accordance with its Complaints Policy in acknowledging his complaint on 9 December. This was equivalent to 4 working days. It also spoke to the resident on 16 December and took further concerns from him which it would later address in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 17 December. This was equivalent to 7 working days so met the landlord’s timescale for response.
  4. On 5 April 2022, the landlord informed the resident how to escalate his complaint which he went on to do the following day. On 3 May the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint. This was equivalent to 19 working days so exceeded the 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint. Furthermore, in the acknowledgement, the landlord stated the resident escalated his complaint on 26 April. This was incorrect and caused further error in its communication with the resident. It told the resident it would respond in 20 working days which it calculated to be the 25 May. However, if the landlord had acknowledged the complaint of 6 April within 5 working days the latest date it had to respond should have been 13 May. This prolonged its resolution of the complaint causing uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The resident added further information for his complaint on 9 May 2022. The landlord appropriately confirmed it had received this the same day. It would later include the further concerns raised by the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. This was in accordance with its Complaints Policy. It told him on 18 May 2022 it was unable to respond by 25 May and would contact him “as soon as it could.” This was not in accordance with its policy and was not a “clear explanation” of why its response was delayed. This was responsible for causing uncertainty to the resident on the process.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2022. From the resident’s escalation request of 6 April 2022, this was equivalent to 53 working days. The landlord’s policy states total timescale for response is 40 working days (including extension). Therefore, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response exceeded this by 13 working days. In its response, the landlord did apologise for the delayed response. However, this is believed to be due to the extension it applied. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord recognised it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint promptly or had exceeded its timescale for response even with the extension.
  7. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. It must be noted that the content of the stage 1 and 2 responses was effective in addressing all points raised by the resident in his original complaint and further information he would provide. However, the landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage two complaint response time and its communication with the resident. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s uncertainty and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £50 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a short duration with minimal impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about his neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of counter reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident from his neighbour
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to refer the resident for safeguarding.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient response to his reports of ASB.
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient response to reports of ASB about the resident.
      3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
    2. A senior member of staff to write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service and provide confirmation the yellow warning letter of 17 January 2022 has been removed from his case file.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so the landlord should consider the use of mediation between the resident and his neighbour to support relations between the parties. It should also revisit its offer of noise monitoring equipment to assist in gathering evidence, if appropriate and if it receives further reports of noise from the resident.
  2. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord review this service’s spotlight report on noise reports (attached) to support its approach to managing reports of noise. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Spotlight-Noise-complaints-final-report-October-2022.pdf