London Borough of Brent (202305118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305118

London Borough of Brent

30 August 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local council. The property is a ground floor, 3-bedroom apartment. The tenancy began in October 2003.
The housing association acts as an agent of the council for its council tenants. It manages reports of ASB on the council’s behalf. For this report, the local council will be referred to as the landlord. The housing association providing managing agent services will be referred to as the managing agent.

Landlord obligations

The landlord’s compensation policy states it can make a payment for distress and inconvenience. Its parameters are:
1. Low Impact of the distress and inconvenience up to £250.
2. Medium Impact of the distress and inconvenience up to £500.
3. Major Impact of the distress and inconvenience up to £1000.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it works with partner agencies to tackle the causes and effects of ASB, using a consistent and clear approach. Where necessary, it would use a multi–agency approach in dealing with ASB by sharing knowledge and expertise, including feedback to assess the effectiveness of the interventions used.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. Complaints at stage 1 should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and it should provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord should provide its final response within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident complained to the managing agent on 17 March 2023 about its handling of the eviction process against his neighbour. He referred to incidents of ASB that he had reported since the start of his tenancy. He believed the managing agent should not have delayed possession proceedings against his neighbour due to the history of incidents. He stated the compiled evidence called for an application for mandatory possession of the property, separate to the criminal case against his neighbour.
While this Service recognises the long-standing distress caused to the resident, we cannot investigate the managing agent’s handling of all reports of ASB as it is outside of our jurisdiction to do so, due to the length of time which has passed. This Service will therefore investigate the resident’s complaint from March 2022 when criminal proceedings started against his neighbour, and until the landlord provided its stage 2 response dated 29 November 2023. Any other incidents will not be assessed but will be included for context.
This Service is aware the resident is complaining to the landlord about its handling of matters after 29 November 2023. Should the resident be unable to resolve his complaint with the landlord, this Service may consider his new complaint if it is referred to us.

Previous events

In late 2020, the managing agent worked with the police to obtain an injunction against the resident’s neighbour to restrict contact with the resident from June 2021 until June 2022. This was an escalatory measure as part of its ASB procedure. The managing agent was aware the neighbour breached the injunction and was considering serving a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) against the neighbour.

Summary of events

On 21 March 2022 following a new incident, the police proceeded with a criminal prosecution against his neighbour. The managing agent told the resident it would not be able to continue with the eviction process for the breach of injunction. It explained it was because the allegations would now be investigated as part of the criminal proceedings, and it would need to wait until these had been decided. The trial date was set for February 2023.
In March 2022 the managing agent discussed with the resident the possibility of serving a NOSP against his neighbour. It referred the matter to the landlord. However, in line with the advice previously provided, it decided to wait until after the criminal trial in February 2023 before continuing with a NOSP.
On 25 April 2022 the resident provided the managing agent with copies of the police disclosure he received, which listed the neighbour’s breaches of the injunction in place while awaiting the trial. He asked if the managing agent could pursue eviction against his neighbour due to the breaches. The managing agent told the resident it required permission from the landlord to proceed with eviction.
On 6 June 2022 the managing agent requested renewed permission from the landlord to pursue an eviction.
Between 26 June and 1 August 2022:
1. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on whether it gave permission to the managing agent to begin the eviction process. The landlord said it had not received the request.
2. The resident stressed the differences between a mandatory and discretionary NOSP with the landlord. It told the resident it was still waiting for permission.
3. The managing agent received permission to begin eviction proceedings. The landlord noted the report received from the managing agent requesting permission was incomplete and the reason for the delay.
On 7 August 2022 the managing agent drafted a NOSP due to the neighbour breaching the injunction in place. Internal correspondence noted it would decide on what grounds to make the NOSP following approval from the landlord.
On 10 August 2022 the resident reported an incident of ASB from his neighbour to the managing agent.
On 18 August 2022 the managing agent needed to discuss the matter of eviction with the landlord’s legal team for advice to proceed with the NOSP and on what grounds it could be made.
On 7 September 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that he felt abandoned by the managing agent and landlord.
On 22 November 2022 the managing agent asked the resident for an update on the neighbour’s behaviour towards him. The resident explained that incidents occurred daily. He reported these to the police who he described as disinterested in handling breaches of the injunction in place. He explained the severity of his neighbour’s ASB had affected him mentally and physically which prevented him from sending a detailed report to the managing agent.
On 10 March 2023 following the neighbour’s trial and later conviction, the managing agent proceeded with steps to issue a NOSP on mandatory grounds.
On 17 March 2023 the resident complained to the managing agent. He explained:
1. The managing agent told him it would make an application for possession on mandatory grounds in May 2022. However, it waited until the conclusion of his neighbour’s criminal prosecution before doing so. He was not advised of the managing agent’s decision to delay this process.
2. An ASB case which had been compiled between 2018 and 2021 should not have delayed a NOSP being issued against his neighbour. He believed the evidence which had been compiled was enough to issue a NOSP on mandatory grounds, separate to the criminal case against his neighbour.
On 5 May 2023 the managing agent received the certificate of conviction.
On 27 May 2023 the managing agent provided the NOSP to the landlord and its legal team for approval.
On 16 August 2023 the managing agent tried to serve the NOSP on the neighbour. However, there were difficulties doing so as it needed to find the location of the neighbour who was in prison. It contacted the prisons service to help.
On 22 August 2023 the managing agent provided its stage 1 response:
1. It explained it could only consider events 6 months prior to the resident’s complaint as per its complaints policy.
2. It acknowledged failings in its communication with the resident and that it should not have waited for a decision from an alternative court before continuing with its own possession application on discretionary grounds.
3. It could only seek a possession order on mandatory grounds following the neighbour’s conviction in February 2023. It would serve the NOSP in 10 days.
4. It apologised for its substantial delay to respond to the resident’s complaint. It took learning and would discuss the resident’s case at its next team meeting to ensure the correct procedure was followed.
5. It offered £650 compensation comprising of:
  1. £400 for its complaint handling failures
  2. £150 for time and trouble
  3. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
On 29 November 2023 the landlord provided the stage 2 response:
1. It confirmed it would consider the events 12 months prior to his complaint.
2. It initially decided to evict the neighbour on discretionary grounds in 2021. However, it decided to wait until the alternative criminal proceedings were heard, which if the neighbour was found guilty would allow eviction on mandatory grounds. It acknowledged it should not have done this and should have proceeded with eviction on discretionary grounds. It took learning from the incident.
3. It agreed with the stage 1 findings and acknowledged there were several communication failures in addition to its complaint handling.
4. It offered £350 in addition to the £650 offered at stage 1 for the managing agent’s role in not addressing the resident’s concerns, which resulted in the complaint and additional time and trouble.
5. It would ensure there were service improvements, further training for staff, the resident’s case would be reviewed to take more learning and prevent recurrence of the incidents. It would also provide further training to keep good communication with its residents.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

The resident’s reports of ASB

It is clear that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions reported amount to ASB, or that eviction proceedings should have been taken to remove the neighbour from their property, but rather whether the managing agent and landlord responded to and managed the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
Within its stage 1 response dated 22 August 2023, the managing agent explained it could not issue a NOSP on mandatory grounds in March 2022, until there had been a criminal conviction of the neighbour. The managing agent apologised and acknowledged it did not communicate effectively with the resident. It also explained it should have continued with a NOSP on discretionary grounds and apologised to the resident for not doing so. It was reasonable for the managing agent to recognise its failings and apologise to the resident. The managing agent also offered the resident £250 for the time and trouble and inconvenience it caused, in addition to the landlord awarding further compensation in its stage 2 response. This showed the managing agent and landlord wanted to remedy their acknowledged failings.
Between 25 April 2022 and 18 August 2022, the evidence shows the managing agent wanted to issue a NOSP following a breach of the injunction in place. It however, needed to obtain approval from the landlord. This Service appreciates the landlord’s stage 2 response explained it had not received a request for permission from the managing agent following the resident’s enquiries. However, we have seen evidence the managing agent requested this on 6 June 2022. Evidence confirmed the form the managing agent submitted was incomplete, which was the cause of the delay. While the delay was unfortunate and understandably caused distress to the resident, the landlord has acknowledged its service failure and offered compensation in remedy, in addition for apologising for not issuing a NOSP on discretionary grounds. Learning was also taken to ensure better communication between the landlord and managing agent to prevent any future recurrence. This was reasonable.
Managing ASB in such a complex situation requires a coordinated approach involving multiple parties and various legal considerations. All of which can cause delays and may not result in the specific outcome the resident wanted, which was to act immediately to evict his neighbour prior to a criminal conviction. This is why it was important to communicate effectively with the resident and manage his expectations, ensuring he was fully informed of the process being followed. The lack of communication was likely to have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience and was evidence of a service failure.
On 22 November 2022 the managing agent received information from the resident there were incidents with his neighbour which had breached the injunction in place while awaiting trial. The resident explained the police had been unhelpful and he was not in a good physical or mental state to continue to report the incidents. The managing agent reassured the resident to keep reporting the incidents to the police. However, its records do not confirm it had any further contact with the resident until March 2023.
This Service has not seen evidence the managing agent or landlord considered the risk to the resident following his report of poor mental health. While there were pending criminal proceedings against the neighbour, the managing agent should have effectively managed the situation knowing the neighbour was still living at the property. Completion of a risk assessment would have assisted the managing agent and landlord in identifying how they could best support the resident. This is something the Ombudsman would expect to see the landlord have consideration of within its evidence, despite the ASB policy being silent on assessing risk.
While the outcome of a risk assessment may not have altered how the case was handled overall, the managing agent and landlord has not been able to show it had considered whether the resident may have needed any additional support. There is little indication in its communication with the resident that it considered how the situation may have been affecting him.
Additionally, the ASB policy states it worked with partner agencies when managing reports of ASB. However, the landlord or managing agent did not consider referring the resident to any of those agencies. It therefore missed opportunities to offer tailored support and assistance. This was not appropriate and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the managing agent and landlord were not customer focussed and lacked empathy to the resident’s situation.
Equally, when the resident said he stopped reporting incidents to the police, the managing agent should have encouraged the resident to record the reports of ASB through the means set out in its ASB policy such as diary sheets. While evidence confirmed it had already taken the highest level of measures against the neighbour set out in its ASB policy, the managing agent should have continued to support the resident while awaiting the trial date and manage the ASB. There is no evidence the managing agent did this and therefore acted unreasonably to the resident. This was likely to have caused distress to the resident. This was evidence of a service failing.
Following the neighbour’s criminal conviction on 10 March 2023, the managing agent told the resident it would continue with the NOSP on mandatory grounds. It served the NOSP in August 2023 which was a 5-month timeframe since the conviction. There were several parties involved in the eviction process. While the managing agent cannot be responsible for any court delays, it can ensure its own internal processes supported the resident and did not cause unnecessary delays. The managing agent should still have communicated the process to the resident and provided him with an action plan of its steps to manage his expectations. While some of the information was sensitive and could not be shared with the resident, it would have reduced the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident if he was informed of the next steps. The managing agent acted unreasonably by failing to provide an action plan and was evidence of a service failure. This Service does however recognise the managing agent and landlord identified failings here and took learning to prevent recurrence of the incident.
This Service recognises the managing agent and landlord have admitted various service failings in its procedure relating to the eviction and its communication with the resident. It took learning from the incident and proceeded with the NOSP following the neighbour’s conviction. The resident has been offered £950 in compensation for its service failings, £650 of which was to remedy its handling of the ASB. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress by the landlord and managing agent to resolve the complaint. The compensation offered was in line with its policy of up to £1000 to recognise there was a major impact of distress and inconvenience to the resident. This is also in line with the Ombudsman’s financial remedy scale.

The associated complaint

The resident complained to the managing agent on 17 March 2023. The managing agent did not provide its stage 1 response until 22 August 2023. This was a 5-month delay. It should have provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days. This was not in line with the managing agent’s complaints policy timescales or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The managing agent acknowledged its complaint handling failings and acted reasonably by apologising to the resident. Between the landlord and managing agent, they offered £400 compensation for its failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s financial remedy scale. Its handling of the associated complaint was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the managing agent regarding its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The managing agent and landlord offered compensation to the resident which this Service considered reasonable redress for its service failings in handling the resident’s reports of ASB. It took learning from the incident and apologised to the resident.
The managing agent and landlord offered compensation to the resident which this Service considered reasonable redress for its complaint handling service failings. It took learning from the incident and apologised to the resident.

Recommendation

If the landlord has not already done so, it should make payment of the £950 compensation offered to the resident during its internal complaint procedure within 4 weeks from the date of this report.