Waltham Forest Council (202007562)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007562

Waltham Forest Council

19 August 2022

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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant under a tenancy agreement dated 22 July 2013. She resides in the property with her young daughter. The property is a two-bedroom ground–floor flat in a purpose-built block of six flats. The neighbouring property is a leasehold property, which the leaseholder lets out to the alleged perpetrator of anti-social behaviour.
3. The resident has reported that the neighbouring property is being used for prostitution and that the occupant is responsible for noise nuisance, drug dealing and harassment.
4. Initial reports were made in 2018, in which the landlord called the leaseholder to an interview. He did not attend, and it is not clear what action the landlord took in response. The landlord’s evidence shows that it requested a police report in 2018. The case was closed on 12 September 2019, after a 17-month investigation.
5. The second antisocial behaviour case was opened on or around 28 April 2020. The landlord’s files state that there were other residents concerned about the neighbour’s behaviour.
6. The evidence shows that the neighbour was arrested for making threats to kill the resident on or around 12 October 2020. This occurred following the resident’s call to the landlord. During that call, the housing officer called the police in response to the threats made by the neighbour to the resident. The neighbour was arrested and placed on bail with conditions not to approach the resident. On the same date, a member of staff for the landlord attended the property and witnessed the neighbour kicking her front door and engaging in disruptive behaviour. The officer is said to have filed a report.
7. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 October 2020 to report that the neighbour had approached her – which was in breach of the bail conditions.
8. On 5 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the leaseholder responsible for the neighbouring property. It requested the leaseholder contact the landlord to discuss the issues.
9. The resident raised a complaint and further reports of anti-social behaviour. On 10 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it would investigate the complaint in line with its anti-social behaviour policies and procedures. With the letter, the landlord advised that the neighbour was being prosecuted for a Public Order Offence under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. The landlord advised it would request a police report to determine if the resident would be offered additional priority banding.  There is no evidence the landlord did come back to the resident in respect of priority.
10. On 23 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the and warned him regarding a potential breach of the lease.
11. The neighbour was convicted on 1 December 2020 and the Magistrates’ Court issued a Restraining Order dated 22 December 2020 to last until 21 December 2021.
12. The resident raised a complaint, and the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 17 May 2021. Its findings were:
    1. The tenancy officer investigated and managed the anti-social behaviour case, in addition to collaborative working with the police.
    2. There had been no evidence to corroborate the resident’s allegations of noisy visitors and loud noise in the block and there was no other evidence from supporting agencies.
    3. The tenancy officer was compiling a schedule of allegations, but the resident had not responded to update this.
13. The resident contacted the Ombudsman and we, in turn, wrote to the landlord, on 20 May 2021. We informed the landlord that the resident was not satisfied with its response. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2.
14. The landlord issued its final response on 25 June 2021, in which it partially upheld the complaint. It explained:
    1. The complaints about drug dealing and prostitution were matters that only the police could investigate. The landlord stated it would cooperate with any police investigation. At that time, the police had taken no action and there had been no evidence to support the allegations.
    2. Whilst the resident was initially reluctant to install noise equipment in respect of the noise, it was eventually placed in the resident’s home. The landlord found no evidence that there had been a nuisance during the review of the recordings.
    3. There were reports that the neighbour threatened the resident, which resulted in the neighbour being arrested. The incident was corroborated by other neighbours who had also reported drug dealing at the property. The neighbour was bailed with conditions that they did not contact the resident directly or indirectly. The neighbour had complied with this save for an incident where they approached the resident to apologise for their behaviour.
    4. The landlord considered referring the resident to its Social Needs Panel (‘SNP’) but felt it was not appropriate. This was not explained to the resident in writing.
    5. There was a gap in the information from November 2020 to April 2021.
15. As part of the complaint response, the landlord agreed to obtain an update about the status of potential legal enforcement against the neighbour. If the legal case had stalled, to request it progresses against the leaseholder. Lastly, it agreed to update the resident. There is no evidence of those actions having been completed.
16. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the case and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman for an independent review. On making enquiries with the landlord, it said:
    1. The officer investigating the case could not take any action between April 2018 to September 2019, as there was no evidence to support the resident’s allegations.
    2. Once the neighbour had been arrested and convicted, it had evidence to take action against the leaseholder. In doing so, it held several meetings with different professionals. The Ombudsman notes no written evidence of these meetings was presented to this Service for review.
    3. The landlord had passed the case to its legal department, who in turn, asked for a schedule of allegations. However, the resident did not make contact in respect of this. The Ombudsman notes that there is no documentary evidence to corroborate that a referral was made to its legal department.
    4. The Magistrates’ Court Restraining Order was a ‘remedy’ in place until 21 December 2021.
    5. As of 10 August 2022, the case was still under investigation in line with its policies and procedures.
    6. It completed a risk assessment on 23 April 2018.
17. The landlord also agreed to:
    1. Arrange a community trigger review which will be organised in the coming weeks.
    2. The landlord will put the case forward for the Special Needs Panel to consider the resident’s priority to move home, under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996.

Assessment and findings

18. The role of the Ombudsman in anti-social behaviour cases is not to determine whether the behaviour complained of actually occurred. Our role is to decide whether the landlord acted fairly in all the circumstances of the case – considering the available evidence. We consider whether the landlord followed a reasonable course of action, in line with its policy and procedures.
19. There have been reports of anti-social behaviour (some quite serious) from 2018. However, there is no evidence that witness statements were obtained or that any advice was sought about a breach of the lease. Whilst the landlord has stated its legal department asked for a schedule of allegations, and that the resident did not assist with this; it is unclear why the conviction and the information it did have could not have been provided to its legal department. This was a significant failure by the landlord, in light of the evidence of threats to kill, which the neighbour admitted and was found guilty of in criminal proceedings.
20. In various correspondence to the resident, including the final response, the landlord said there was no evidence to corroborate the behaviour complained of. That was not necessarily the case. Neighbours had reported concerns, as had a housing officer – in addition to a conviction. The Ombudsman notes that not only did the neighbour admit threats to kill, but the landlord was also on the telephone and called the police at the time. Moreover, a conviction in the criminal court is secured by the prosecution proving the crime (as the old phrase goes) ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. On that basis, the conclusion that there was not enough evidence is not one in which a reasonable landlord could have arrived at considering all the evidence.
21. Importantly, despite the threats to kill the resident, the landlord failed to complete a further risk assessment and relied on the one it completed two years earlier. That was a failure by the landlord. Of significant importance is that the landlord’s policy categorises harassment, threats, drugs and prostitution as ‘high risk’ anti-social behaviour.
22. The landlord has stated it liaised with other parties. However, the prosecution obtained the Restraining Order and Witness Protection obtained a spy-hole camera. The evidence of support from the landlord is minimal in this case.
23. Whilst the landlord stated it obtained legal advice, there is no evidence of this on file. The anti-social behaviour procedure requires an LF3 form. No evidence of a completed LF3 form has been provided to this service. Nor has it presented any minutes of the meetings it held with third–party agencies.
24. Overall, the matter has been ongoing since 2018, almost five years – with the landlord admitting investigations still ongoing. There is no evidence that the landlord has considered the impact of the behaviour on the well-being of the resident and her child.

Determination (decision)

25. On carefully considering the evidence, I have determined that the landlord is responsible for maladministration in the way it handled the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

26. In summary, the reasons are:
    1. The landlord persistently said there was no evidence to take formal action. This was not the case. There was evidence from neighbours, a housing officer, and the criminal conviction, as well as the breach of bail condition.
    2. The landlord failed to complete a risk assessment after the neighbour was arrested. It has relied on a risk assessment completed in 2018. That was inappropriate.
    3. There is no evidence, in the form of written minutes of meetings with third party agencies. Nor is there evidence the matter was referred to the legal team for advice.
27. Taking the above into account, the resident will have been caused some distress and inconvenience.

Orders

28. IT IS ORDERED THAT the landlord does, within 28 days of Monday 22 August 2022 does:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this case.
    2. Arrange for a Community Trigger Review (ASB review) to be completed. Once it has been completed, the landlord should send the resident its findings within 21 days of the review.

Recommendations

29. It is recommended that the landlord complete the SNP report (IF4) as detailed in the ASB procedure and present it to the HSM to consider whether the resident should have her priority increased to move home. If the resident believes the decision is incorrect, she should be informed of her right to complain and refer any exhausted complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman about priority and banding.