Southwark Council (202216877)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216877

Southwark Council

31 January 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and a neighbour’s reports of ASB about the resident.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handing.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied his home under a secure tenancy which was assigned to him on 22 August 2016. In 2020, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He lived in a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a converted house. A neighbour (B) lived in the ground-floor flat under him. Another neighbour (C) occupied a flat also on the first floor, next to the resident. His mother acted as the resident’s representative in the complaint and will be referred to as M.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord did not provide the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, during the course of the complaint, the landlord referred to the following obligations both B and the resident had under their respective tenancy agreements:
1. “You and persons residing in or visiting the property must act in a reasonable manner and must not do anything which causes nuisance, annoyance, distress, or alarm to other persons residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality, or cause damage to their property or possessions. You must not discriminate, intimidate, harass or abuse anyone because of their age; race; sex; disability; religion and belief, marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; sexual orientation, or gender reassignment”.
2. “You must not behave in a controlling, coercive, threatening or abusive way to, or use or threaten to use violence against, any other person allowed to live in the property that may or does prevent them continuing to live peaceably in the property. If you do not you will be responsible for the cost of repairing, redecorating or replacing items damaged by you, or any person living with you, or your visitors”.
The landlord’s ASB policy stated as follows:
1. The landlord would “take a victim-centred approach ensuring that cases are risk-assessed so that appropriate action is taken to protect and support victims and witnesses” “take effective action to assist those who are affected by or are victims of ASB” .
2. High risk cases were dealt with by the local authority’s ASB unit and included physical violence or threats of violence, harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour. Medium–risk cases were dealt with by a “case officer” and referred to public spaces. It did not explain what a case officer was. It set out a procedure. In cases of threats of harm or allegations of threats of harm being made, case officers should refer to the risk assessment and follow the process of the assessment. “If the victim/witness or the alleged perpetrator is considered to be vulnerable and they do not have a support/care package in place, the Case Officer must ensure that safeguarding checks are made”.
3. Steps included: Identify victims, alleged perpetrators, and measure the risks posed to them in order that the most appropriate action can be taken, discuss with victims or witness their expectations on how a case is to be managed and be clear from the outset of the likely outcomes that can be achieved, including timescales, encourage the victim or witness to keep an ASB Diary, update the victim or witness on a weekly or as agreed basis to notify of progress. Where a number of agencies are involved, the Case Officer managing the case should arrange a problem-solving case conference; here information can be shared and an action plan put together to deal with the issues. The Case Officer should consider the most appropriate and proportionate remedy to deal with any case.
4. The officer dealing may consider a non-legal remedy suitable to resolve the ASB which included: interviewing the alleged perpetrator to address behaviour, sending warning letters to advise of concerns, drawing up an acceptable behaviour or good neighbour contract, referring to mediation services, requesting professional witness services and referring to other services.
5. All officers should take care to ensure that any action taken is not discriminatory under the Equalities Act 2010 or the Public Sector Equalities Duty.
6. Legal remedies, including notices seeking possession where the report of ASB was very serious, were to be referred to the local authority unit.
7. A warning letter was a robust warning is issued to “inform individual that behaviour is unacceptable. Advise that behaviour is being monitored. Warn that further action will be taken if actions do not cease. “Good practice – explain clearly the behaviour which is unacceptable i.e. noise, the effect the behaviour has on others etc”.
The Tenant’s Handbook stated that “sometimes there may be genuine reasons for a person’s behaviour, such as mental health or social problems and we have to be fair to people in genuine difficulty. We refer these people for support but if their behaviour does not improve, we can still take legal action against them”.
Under the landlord’s complaint policy, the time limit at the time of the complaint was 15 working days at Stage 1 and 25 working days for Stage 2. This is not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidelines but the policy has been amended since then, to be compliant.

Chronology

The evidence showed that B made a number of reports to both the landlord and the police about the resident, including 3 and 18 December 2020 of noise nuisance of noise and loud banging. She also made reports about C. Internally, the landlord noted it had told B that neighbour C was not the perpetrator of the noise. The housing officer (“HO”) contacted the police and referred to beginning “formal ASB proceedings”.
The landlord’s records show that in January 2021, it had made a request for a noise listening device.
On 2 February 2021, the resident informed the police he was not making any noise and that he was not staying at the property. The noise nuisance team witnessed no noise on 10 February 2021.
On 21 February 2021, the police attended following a report by B that the resident had (allegedly) thrown a stone at her.
Its records showed that in February 2021, the landlord would offer mediation. The evidence showed that B declined mediation. The landlord had spoken and written to residents reminding them about keeping any noise down and referring to the terms of the tenancy. The noise team had attended on a number of occasions and had not witnessed any noise.
In March 2021, the landlord noted again that no noise had been witnessed by the noise team.
On 16 March 2021, the resident’s mother and representative (M) wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. She referred to a meeting on 22 February 2021. They had been satisfied to date with the actions it had taken. The situation had escalated, however.
2. On 13 March 2021, an occupier of, or visitor at, B’s flat attacked the resident physically, pinning him against the door, threatening to break into his flat and kill him and then threw him into the street, accusing him of continuing to make a noise and also of throwing stones at B.
3. The resident had only been at the flat on two occasions.
4. She described the resident’s concerns and anxiety about being homeless and his mental health condition.
5. She requested an update from the landlord.
On 16 March 2021, the HO replied as follows:
1. It was investigating the claims made against the resident. It had talked to neighbours. It had sent “antisocial behaviour letters”, spoken to the police and the noise nuisance team. It had written to B “formally” about the incident. It had offered mediation. B had not agreed to this.
2. He was “extremely concerned and upset” that the resident had had to endure such an experience and it was totally unacceptable. He would support the resident “any way” he could. He wanted the resident to feel safe coming home. He had spoken to the resident and tried to speak to M. He had written to the resident stating he would carry out a risk assessment for the resident.
M reported to the landlord on 19 March 2021 that the police had accompanied the resident to the flat and went to speak to B’s partner.
On 20 March 2021, the noise nuisance team refused the landlord’s request to provide a noise listening device.
On 29 March 2021, the police passed on more noise reports by B to the landlord and suggested the only solution was for B to move out, if possible. B denied the allegation that her partner assaulted the resident.
According to emails in April 2021 from the landlord to the police, it had asked again for a listening device from the noise nuisance team and once lockdown restrictions were eased, it would be able to go into people’s properties again.
According to the resident’s risk assessment by the landlord, the crime report about the incident on 13 March 2021 was closed due to insufficient evidence. It was suspected that B had mental health issues. It stated that “Resident played to recording”. The resident had also reported that B’s partner verbally abused him about where he had chained his bicycle. B’s partner had threatened to kick his door in and physically cause him harm if he heard any noise coming from his property again. The risk was rated as “high”. According to an internal chronology, the landlord carried out the risk assessment on 19 April 2021. A MARAC meeting (MARAC (the Community Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference) was due to take place a few days later.
The landlord wrote to the police on 19 April 2021 that resident had provided a recording “which was quite disturbing”. It requested the police to share any other information and also complete a risk assessment for the resident.
According to M’s email of 4 May 2021, a meeting has been cancelled because the police had catagorised the incident on 13 March 2021 as ”anti-social behaviour” rather than an offence. The landlord replied that it was considering an ABC (anti-social behaviour contract). M replied that the resident would be happy to sign a contract which stated what both parties wanted regarding future behaviour.
On 12 May 2021, the police attended B’s property again but witnessed no noise or disturbance.
Throughout, there was several email exchanges between the M and the landlord, including M chasing for outcomes.
On 7 June 2021, a referral for mediation was made. It was made to a company which offered services as a mediator and as a professional witness.
On 8 June 2021, the police investigated a report by the resident that his door had been “smashed”. It recorded that there were no forensic evidence, there was a potential assault risk, recorded threats, and that there would be a further investigation.
According to the landlord’s notes, the police attended the property on 2 June 2021 as B has locked the resident out of the building.
On or around 1 July 2021, B reported that the resident and C had created a hole in the wall between their two properties.
On 16 July 2021, an individual from the mediation company, acting as a professional witness, made a statement stating that he and a colleague attended B’s property on 9 July 2021. B stated that she could hear and feel the vibrations and hear music as they were in the property. They checked various rooms and the garden but not hear or feel anything.
On 11 July 2021, a police report about B stated that there as only circumstantial evidence, no witnesses, no CCTV, and no forensic evidence. The case was closed. It was unclear which report this related to, however from the date and context, it would appear it referred to the damage to the door.
On 14 July 2021, the HO inspected the property, except the loft, and did not see any evidence of any holes in any of the walls in the property.
According to the HO’s notes of a remote meeting on 20 July 2021, M referred to her that B had damaged the resident’s front door. She had removed fuses from the communal hallway fuse box. The landlord was unable to share details about B with the resident due to data protection. It proposed and agreed rehousing the resident through a social welfare panel (SWP) referral. It suggested what evidence would assist. The landlord would request that the professional witness would submit a report stating the resident should move from the property. The landlord would investigate who had removed the fuses from the fuse box and send B a warning letter. It was repairing the front door.
On 22 July 2021, the professional witness wrote to the landlord stating that he had told the resident to “take great care” when going home due to the recording of him being attacked and threatened, another neighbour allegedly being knocked off his scooter and attacked, as well as someone trying to break into the flat with a hammer.
The landlord wrote to B on 22 July 2021 that it was investigating the criminal damage to the resident’s door and that electrical fuses had been removed leaving the resident’s flat without power. It cited the tenancy conditions set out above and including “You must not enter any restricted areas including, but not limited to, lift rooms, water tank rooms, roofs and roof spaces”.
On the same day, the landlord also sent “warning“ letters to the other two residents of the building, the resident and to C. The following day, the landlord’s contractors attended the property and found no evidence of structural damage to the property. The evidence showed that another neighbour had reported that had also accused that neighbour of making noise, and had abused and threatened him.
On or around 31 July 2021, the resident’s housing benefit was stopped on the basis he was not living at the property. The landlord explained to the housing benefit income officer at the local authority that “due to an ongoing neighbour dispute, the resident had decided to stay with his mother from time to time” and asked the income officer to refer the resident for support to appeal the decision.
The resident ‘s GP wrote on 9 September 2021 setting out the resident’s diagnoses and the effect of the situation on him.
In September 2021, arrangements were made for a ‘professionals’ meeting.
On 21 October 2021, M wrote to the landlord chasing her request for an update. The ASB team at the local authority had stated that the mediation service had said that the resident had done nothing wrong.
The landlord replied on 23 October 2021 as follows:
1. It was arranging a meeting on how to support the resident.
2. It confirmed that the resident “had not done anything wrong at all” and the police had confirmed this.
3. “Not all parties” had signed the ‘good neighbour contract’ so it was unable to take action on a breach of the contract.
4. It had been agreed that a move through a social welfare panel referral would be the best way to support the resident.
5. However, M had since changed her position and wanted the resident to go back to his property, which was understandable.
6. B had been “formally warned” about her behaviour and conduct and she “understood” that the continuous disturbances did not help anyone enjoy the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their home.
M replied on 28 October 2021 that she was making a complaint regarding the landlord’s “total lack of any duty of care with regard to a prolonged case of severe harassment towards an extremely vulnerable man who suffers from schizophrenia”. The complaint was about the processes, not the housing officer, whom she had found to be sympathetic, supportive, and caring. The complaint was as follows:
1. M set out the resident’s vulnerabilities.
2. It pointed out that he had lived at the address for 5 years with no problems with any neighbours.
3. The “mediation service” had listened out for the “loud noises” coming from the resident’s flat but there was no noise at all and concluded that the case involved B’s mental health. He advised the resident not to return to his flat because he would be “in danger”.
4. The reports had continued, including continuing to make loud noises, allowing tenants to live illegally in his flat and drilling holes in the wall to the adjoining upstairs flat to operate a “noise-making machine” with the sole purpose of annoying her and contaminating her water supply by interfering with the water tank in his attic.
5. A report by the mediation company stated that moving tenants from adjoining flats would not solve the problem as new tenants would also be subjected to the same abuse.
6. The warning letter to B was an “inadequate response to a case of severe and continual harassment of a vulnerable person with a severe mental health condition”.
On 16 November 2021, the landlord requested a listening device for B’s property. It also wrote to the mediation service asking about escalating reports and crime reference numbers in order to support the housing application for a move for both the resident and C.
On 11 November 2021, the landlord stated it had repaired the door and was chasing a supporting statement from the resident’s support worker.
The landlord replied with its Stage 1 response on 24 November 2021 as follows:
1. It referred to “harassment and antisocial behaviour incidents between the parties”.
2. The decision on 20 July 2021 was to resolve the matter by way for a SWP application.
3. It listed the steps it had taken: Letters sent to all residents about breaching ASB rules in line with their tenancy, repairs, referred to mediation, carried out risk assessments, liaised with benefits department to reinstate benefits.
On a date unknown, as the email provided to this Service had no date, M requested a review of the complaint as follows:
1. The landlord’s actions were inadequate as B ignored warnings. A number of accusations B had made were found to be false. Warnings did not guarantee the resident’s safety.
2. The mediation company warned the resident not to go home. The landlord had not sent her the company’s report.
3. She had not received further information about the SWP referral since she was told it would be made on 23 October 2021.
4. The landlord had not informed her of the details and practical outcome of the risk assessment.
5. The resident’s anxiety had increased.
6. His rent account was still in arrears. She was was not happy with the decision making.
According to police emails provided by the landlord of 14 and 15 December 2021, there was no evidence of harassment, it had watched B’s CCTV and videos which had disclosed very little. On 15 December 2021, the landlord’s surveyor had reported that the loft was intact.
The resident’s psychiatric letter dated 3 December 2021 set out that the resident had a diagnosis of an enduring illness, he had no reason to disbelieve the resident, the situation was causing him stress, he had been sleeping on a sofa for 8 months and asked for him to be moved to an alternative address.
On 17 December 2021, the landlord stated he would refer the resident for support to appeal the decision to end the resident’s housing benefit. The resident had not “totally” abandoned the property. It was not serving a notice to quit. The resident was bidding for another property.
The landlord submitted the social welfare referral on or around 19 December 2021. It advised the resident to bid for properties.
On 7 January 2022, M wrote to the landlord that the resident had appealed the Housing Benefit decision.
The evidence shows that the landlord was continuing to take steps regarding B but there was a lack of agreement on the way forward. The Ombudsman cannot share the steps that the landlord was taking in relation to B.
On 27 February 2022, M wrote again as follows.
1. No action has been taken against the perpetrators of the abuse and false allegations by B.
2. She had not received a response to her request for escalation of her complaint.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord requested a case conference review as a result of the complaint and the solicitor’s letter.
On 29 March 2022, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. It referred to the landlord’s policies. The landlord had failed by failing to adhere to its policies when “alerted” that the resident “had been the victim of a prolonged attack from the perpetrators”.
2. The resident had stated that he wished to continue living in his property safely.
3. The landlord had failed to take preventative action against the perpetrators of the ASB.
4. It referred to the landlord’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act. It referred to Article 8 of that act on the basis the resident was homeless and in fear of his safety and Article 3, suggesting that an investigation should have been carried out. It argued that, according to a court case, the minimum threshold of severity was significantly lower for disabled people. It also referred to Article 14 that he had been treated less favourably in relation to those other rights.
5. The landlord had knowledge of “the real and immediate risk of ill-treatment of (the resident) by his neighbour”. It had “failed to take reasonable measures within the scope of (its) powers to avoid this risk”. The resident was “a vulnerable adult”, and the landlord had “failed to use (its) powers to protect (the resident) from abuse”.
6. It wanted the landlord to take preventative action against the perpetrator and her partner and apply for a Without Notice Injunction with a power of arrest attached.
7. It threatened a Judicial Review if the landlord did not take such steps and respond within a specified time.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord referred the resident for further support to the local authority’s complex needs team but there was no evidence this resulted in any concrete outcome and was closed in June 2022.
M wrote again on 4 April 2022 chasing the outcome of the complaint.
M wrote again on 4 April 2022 chasing the outcome of the case conference. On 16 May 2022, the landlord responded with its Stage 2 complaint as follows:
1. There was on on-going mediation process.
2. It had informed her that it could not evict B without evidence as the police decided that no further action was to be taken and a prosecution was not made.
3. It had informed her that the resident would have to state in writing if he wished to leave the property. The HO had “requested this as well as the reports with all residents involved and a recent status update on his findings and resolution plan of action”.
4. As “all parties involved did not sign the appropriate behaviour contract, the process was unfortunately delayed”.
5. It repeated the contents of the Stage 1 letters about the SWP referral. was agreed at a joint meeting on 20 July 2021 that a SWP referral was the best thing to support the resident. It referred to delays in receiving supporting statements but M was “notified that they had now been received and that (the support worker) would be sending the supporting statement and the referral will be submitted.
6. “To summarise”, a number of referrals had been made on behalf of the resident to SWP, “Complex Case team” and mediation referral. The “supporting statement” was from the support worker not the “independent mediator”. It referred to having made an online application form, “formal warning letters”, liaising with “third party” services (police, the noise nuisance team of the local authority and its repairs team), and giving assistance with benefits.
7. It found that the matter had been fully addressed.
In May 2022, the landlord requested a meeting with the police in order to address the resident’s solicitor’s concerns and its reports “to assist in an investigation of resident concerns and for appropriate investigations and actions to be undertaken.
On 9 June 2022, the SWP panel replied to the HO. It requested more information, such as risks assessments and a standard check list of what evidence was required.
Throughout, M continued to chase the landlord for updates.
The application to the SWP dated 17 June 2022 set out that the resident was “at serious risk of harm, “verbal and alleged physical altercations with his neighbour” that had lead him to feel that he was not safe in his home. It provided a risk assessment, police reports, medical documentation, correspondence from the police who had attended the property when incidents took place and the MARAC referral.
The internal records of June 2022 indicated that the resident had stated that he wished to move and referred to a meeting with the resident in May 2022 which was not evidenced.
According to an internal email of June 2022, B “continued to make spurious allegations about others” as well as the resident.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord requested a copy of the police’s risk assessment.
Also on 22 June 2022, the landlord solicitor’s replied to the resident’s solicitor as follows:
1. The landlord accepted that the resident held a ‘protected characteristic’ under the Equality Act 2010.
2. It was unable to disclose the details of any sensitive personal information concerning B but the landlord held a duty also to her under the Equality Act. This had complicated the case in providing a satisfactory solution to all parties.
3. A n application for an injunction ‘without notice’ could only be made where there was a serious and immediate risk of physical violence. The incident had occurred in March 2021. Because the resident was not resident at the property, there was no immediate risk to him. Any application would need to be made on notice. The resident had not made any reports of crime and/or ASB, as he was not living at the property. The reports were historic therefore there was “little prospect of either an injunction order a possession order being made.
4. The resident had told the HO that he no longer wished to live at the property. A housing application was completed and is supported by a number of agencies.
On or by 29 June 2022, the landlord had submitted the SWP referral as it had received the police’s Risk Assessment the day before.
Notes of a meeting of 5 July 2022 stated that the resident was willing to move as long as he could have “like for like”. An internal email that “M would take it begrudgingly”. The resident was open to mediation. “He (was) not a noisy person from what (the landlord) had seen and the police believe so also”. He was to meet with B. The resident should stay in the property two nights a week. M wanted to know “the qualifications of the complex case team and their ability to diagnose (B)”.
The local authority wrote to the resident on 11 July 2022 that the panel concluded that there was not enough evidence to support placing him in priority band 2 under welfare grounds or any other grounds.
On 15 July 2022, the resident requested a review of his priority.
On 20 July 2022, M wrote that she had obtained police reports under the Freedom of Information Act. Two neighbours living in the adjoining house had also been the victims of similar abuse and harassment which has resulted in police involvement.
On 5 September 2022, the resident was awarded band B for a one-bedroom or studio flat. The letter noted that it had read the housing file.
In January 2024, M informed this Service as follows:
1. CCTV pointed at the entrance to the building or flat.
2. As at January 2024, the resident remains “homeless” and that the landlord’s actions “This lead to the cancellation of both his tenancy and benefits.”
3. B had continued to make allegations of assault in one form or other and stalking, all of which proved to be untrue.
4. In January 2024 B had locked the resident out again of the building, although she left him in on that occasion.
5. The landlord had referred the resident’s case to the “serious anti-social behaviour team”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and a neighbour’s reports of ASB about the resident.

The landlord did not provide its case system records, or evidence that it opened an ASB case. The records provided to this Service was incomplete as it lacked some of the detail provided by M. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
The evidence indicated that, initially, the landlord treated the situation between the neighbours as a neighbour dispute. It was reasonable that the landlord liaised with the local authority’s noise team and investigated the reports. It was also reasonable that the landlord would investigate the reports by both neighbours, offer mediation and write to all residents “to keep the noise down”. At that stage, it was acting in a neutral manner, while taking steps to investigate and mitigate any noise levels.
As the investigation developed, evidence emerged that indicated that the resident was not making noise. The landlord altered its stance and appeared to take the view that the resident was not at fault. It was understandable that this took time to establish. Nevertheless, even in a “neighbour dispute”, the landlord should still investigate the allegations. In particular, the face of an alleged assault, whether this was a neighbour dispute or not, and whether the resident was noisy, was immaterial.
On receiving a report that B’s partner had assaulted the resident, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not take a more robust stance. It was reasonable that the landlord initially liaised with the police, as the police has greater investigatory powers and is the appropriate body to investigate and address criminal offences. However, a police involvement does not negate the landlord’s obligations. The police do not always have the capacity to investigate every case thoroughly. Moreover, the criminal burden of proof is higher than the civil burden of proof. A criminal prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the civil burden of proof only requires the balance of probabilities.
Even without the police support, the landlord had evidence to support the resident’s allegations. It had that of the resident himself and, more compelling, that of a recording which the landlord described as “quite disturbing” and the professional witness described was of the resident “being attacked and threatened”. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the landlord made enquiries as to whether there were any witnesses or CCTV evidence. Even considering B’s circumstances, the landlord had the power to apply for an exclusion order as against the resident’s partner, who had no rights of occupancy, no landlord and tenancy relationship, and there was no evidence that there were other barriers such as issues of capacity for B’s partner. If the landlord’s decision was not to pursue reports, it need to provide a clear and comprehensive explanation why not. There was no evidence that such a step was considered at all.
Despite the assault in March 2021, and its own policy, the landlord did not seek to convene a professionals meeting until September 2021. There was then no evidence this ever took place. There was an unreasonable delay of over a month in carrying out a risk assessment.
By March 2021, the landlord had evidence that indicated that the resident was not, in fact, at fault. B had made similar reports against other neighbours. There was no evidence of noise. In July 2021, there was no evidence that the B’s reports that the resident and another neighbour had created a route between their properties or a number of other reports were true. There was no evidence that the landlord considered whether the unfounded allegations constituted harassment. There was no evidence that it referred the case to its local authority ASB unit, in accordance with its policy.
The landlord had stated that it had sent ”warning” letters to B. The letter 22 July 2021 consisted no more of stating that the landlord was carrying out an investigation into the damage of the door and reminding B of her obligations under the tenancy agreement. The warnings included tenancy terms that were not directly relevant to the situation, referring to not entering into restricted areas and did not explain how those that did apply were relevant to the situation. This would have been confusing and did not demonstrate a focused approach. This was in similar terms to the letters to the resident and to C. It was not the robust warning, as suggested by the landlord’s own policy. It did not warn that further action would be taken if actions did not cease nor explain “clearly” that her behaviour was unacceptable and the effect the behaviour had on others. The landlord commented to the resident that B had “understood”. It is not reasonable to consider that as comfort to the resident when B did not cooperate with an ABC, mediation or correspondence and it was not clear on what basis the landlord said so.
The evidence indicated that the suggestion of an ABC contract and mediation were unlikely to progress as they both required cooperation by B. However, it was inappropriate to state that it could not take action because there was no ABC that B could breach. Breach of an ABC would not be grounds for court proceedings in itself, unless that was also a breach of the tenancy conditions, which the landlord could have actioned in any event. It also contradicted the landlord’s position that it had a duty to both parties which prevented it from taking legal action.
It is noted that there were no forensic evidence to support an investigation of the front door. Given the circumstances of the case, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to have considered ensuring that the evidence was preserved. By July 2021, a number of incidents had occurred where it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether there were grounds to reconsider whether to apply for an injunction, given the impact of the behaviour on the vulnerable resident. At that time, there was evidence to indicate that B’s reports were groundless, and that her conduct including her reports, while potentially a result of her own mental health, could be considered to be harassment. There was evidence that B was making unfounded allegations against others. This continued to be confirmed throughout 2021.
The HO’s tone was sympathetic and supportive, he proactively supported the resident with his housing benefit appeal, as well as the application to the SWP, while not initially successful. He was responsive to the resident and M. The HO carried out those steps set out in the policy to be carried out in the pre-legal stage. However, given the initial assault, the harassment by B and the resident’s vulnerability, it was inappropriate that the landlord was not sufficiently robust in addressing a situation where a vulnerable resident was too concerned to live in his home. While these can be reconsidered at any stage, mediation, ABCs and letters which required B’s cooperation were unlikely to, and did not, succeed. It did not escalate the case, consider legal action or reconsider the position as the evidence accrued that B’s reports were groundless. .
The landlord had two legal routes open to it: injunction and possession proceedings. The Ombudsman is conscious of the difficulties the landlord would have faced, given that B was protected by the Equality Act 2010. It is appreciated that the landlord would have a number of issues to consider. Any possession proceedings would have been protracted and disputed, given B’s vulnerabilities, the evidential issues, and that the assault was perpetrated by her partner who, the evidence indicated, had left the property. Injunction proceedings might have raised issues of B’s ability to comply. However, as far as B would have been protected by the Equality Act 2010, the landlord may take steps that may be discriminatory as long as they are justified and more robust action may have produced an effect on B. The landlord was not precluded by B’s issue not to take action and this was envisaged in the landlord’s own policy. Therefore, it was unreasonable not to consider such steps.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to consider proceedings at the time of the incident with or without notice on B and her partner. An exclusion injunction against B’s partner would not have solved the issues entirely, but may have assisted. While B was vulnerable, the landlord could have considered whether an application for an injunction, at least an interim injunction, against B would be feasible, as a proportionate step in the circumstances.
M complained, on behalf of the resident, about the lack of updates. There was evidence that the HO emailed M and the resident a number of times. There was also evidence of M chasing the landlord. There was no evidence that the landlord updated M and the resident with any consistency or agreed a contact plan as required by the landlord’s policy.
The landlord worked with all the residents to move from the property. There was no explanation for this as it only required one party to move. However, this could be explained by the landlord seeing which party would be offered a property first.
The role of the “mediator” was not clear. While the landlord referred to the person involved from the company as “an independent mediator”, the individual provided police witness statements to the police and described himself as a professional witness. The roles are completely different and one would preclude the other. While the statements that the company gave as professional witness were supportive and helpful to the resident, this was confusing.
The Ombudsman does not make findings about whether the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 but the Ombudsman does consider whether the landlord considered its obligations under those Acts and its obligations to the residents. The landlord did accept without dispute that the resident was protected under the Equality Act 2020. The Ombudsman considers it showed some regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities by supporting the application to the SWP, the residents’ appeal against the housing benefit decision and the HO’s language. However, while these steps were positive, the Ombudsman has considered whether this was sufficient, given the resident’s disability.
A case conference should have been called earlier, in line with its policy. The evidence indicated that the landlord could have done more to promote the success of the SWP referral such as ensuring it was following the required process and presenting more complete evidence from the outset. While it is appreciated that the landlord was awaiting the support evidence prior to submitting the referral in December 2021, it took nearly a year to submit a full application. There was no evidence that the landlord chased the SWP referral. While it is noted that the landlord increased its efforts in May 2022, this was as a result of the resident’s complaint and his solicitor’s letter. Such efforts should have come about proactively. They also came about too late, by its own account, to take injunctive proceedings. This report has already commented on legal steps the landlord could have considered taking. While the point about evidence as at mid-2022, is appreciated, the Ombudsman would also have expected the landlord to have kept the issue under review, given the resident was prevented from going home. There was little or no evidence the landlord did not appear to have this at the forefront of its mind.
The landlord was faced with balancing the needs of two vulnerable residents. While not ideal for the resident, moving may have seemed the fastest means of achieving a resolution. The move was agreed at the meeting 20 July 2021 and there was no evidence that the resident wanted to stay until the solicitor’s letter of March 2022. There was no evidence that the landlord actually clarified the position until July 2022. The position is that the resident would move if he was given a one-bedroom property. However, it was not reasonable of the landlord to rely on that solution alone, as events have proved, as the circumstances do not appear to have been resolved.
It is appreciated that the legal response of 22 June 2022 was taking a defensive position in the face of a threat of legal proceedings against it. Nevertheless, it was inappropriate to state at the date of the involvement of the resident’s solicitor that the incidents of March 2021 were too historic to act upon. They became historic because of the lack of action by the landlord at the time. It is not reasonable not to take steps and then state it was too late to do so. Nor was it reasonable to state there was no need to take steps as the resident was not living there. The resident was not living there as he felt at risk. It is not known why the resident’s solicitor did not pursue the matter, which could have been for any number of reasons. The landlord would still be expected to proactively pursue resolution and, in the meantime, mitigation. There was no evidence that there was a detailed and considered review of the case.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration, given the landlord did not act more robustly sooner, both in relation to B’s partner and B. The landlord failed to consider that it would have had the options of a move and proceedings running side each other.
The Ombudsman does not make any findings whether the resident remains homeless due to the landlord’s actions as those events are outside the remit of this report and have not been investigated. However, the information will inform the orders the Ombudsman will make.

The landlord’s complaint handing

The first complaint response was to set out a list of actions it had taken. It referred to incidents between the parties as if this was a neighbour dispute and did not refer to the assault on 13 March 2021. Or the allegations that had been not to be true, or the M’s view that the “warning letter” was inadequate. It therefore came across as perfunctory and had not taken M’s concerns seriously.
There was a significant delay to the Stage 2 response, which the landlord neither acknowledged or explained. It referred to an “on-going” mediation process, although there was none. Its references to the ABC and police evidence were inappropriate for the same reasons set out above. , that it would reply solely on police evidence in order to apply for an injunction, which point has been noted above. The content was not always clear for example “requested this as well as the reports with all residents involved and a recent status update on his findings and resolution plan of action”. It emphasised the steps it took without addressing the resident’s points, or what M was referring to in her request for a report from the “mediator”. Again, the tone was perfunctory and defensive. It lacked reflection or any sense of a review and did not demonstrate an appreciation of the resident’s experience.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and a neighbour’s reports of ASB about the resident.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While there was no straightforward solution to this case, the landlord failed to escalating the case and consider more robust steps.
The complaint handling was delayed and there was no evidence of a considered review, investigation, or understanding of the resident’s situation.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord pays the resident the sum of £800 as follows:
  1. The sum of £500 in relation to the landlord’s the landlord’s response to his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and a neighbour’s reports of ASB about the resident.
  2. The sum of £300 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handing.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should:
  1. Escalate the case to the local authority’s ASB team but remains involved and retains its housing management role.
  2. Undertake a case conference and review, involving the relevant agencies, the landlord’s solicitor and the local authority ASB team, a manager from the local authority housing register team in order to review all options, including legal proceedings and a management move for either party and whether a safeguarding referral would assist.
  3. The landlord should then commit to a 4-weekly review with its ASB team, its solicitor and any support agencies actively involved, following liaising with the local authority allocations team.
  4. Provide report with a summary and outcomes to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  5. The landlord should ensure that it monitors the CCTV on receipt of any reports by the parties, and if the CCTV is not the landlord’s, consider installing CCTV and/or a ring bell device and any other security measures.
3. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should set out the outcome, findings and intentions with timescales and provide this report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should confirm to the Ombudsman compliance with the above orders within 4 and 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should review its complaint handing in the light of the findings in this report, in particular in such a complex and serious case including:
  1. It should consider delivering training about its approach to a review.
  2. It should carry out a proper investigation in conjunction with its internal teams in order to ensure it identifies any failings or areas the landlord could improve upon.
  3. It should keep at the forefront the experience of the resident.
2. The landlord should ensure that it provides its case system records and complete records in future investigations by this Service.
3. The landlord should provide feedback on this recommendation to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.