Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202409992)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409992

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

7 February 2025

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:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. The associated complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy which started in 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a converted house. Both the resident and her daughter have mental health conditions including anxiety and depression.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 16 February 2024. She said she was unhappy with antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the neighbour below (flat A). This included issues with rubbish left in the corridors and outside the property, and shouting throughout the day. She noted her main concern was the odour coming from flat A into her bedroom. She said the smell was unbearable and left the property uninhabitable. Due to this, she felt the landlord failed its “duty to provide a safe and habitable environment” and to ensure the wellbeing of its residents. She asked it to resolve the ASB and odour and to rehouse the occupants of flat A. She added that it should not have housed her neighbours as they needed additional help and support.
On 3 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Apologised for its delayed response.
2. Said it was aware of the issues with flat A. It was working with partner agencies to resolve this and to ensure that flat A had the correct support in place.
3. Confirmed it had visited flat A on 15 February 2024 to investigate the reported concerns. It also visited the resident on the same day and updated her of the actions taken. This included a safeguarding referral and working with mental health teams for flat A. It had also told her to report any further issues and to also contact the police if she felt unsafe.
4. Apologised that it had failed to respond to the resident’s reports of further incidents. It said this was due to the resident’s housing officer being on leave. It said it had now passed the case to its complex needs panel due to the complexities of the situation.
5. Said it had spoken to her on 29 February 2024 to provide an update of the action taken. During this, the resident had requested to open an ASB case against flat A and so it had sent her a consent form to allow it to do this.
6. Reassured her that it would remain in contact with her to provide updates on the actions taken. It would also continue to consult with the relevant agencies involved.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 21 March 2024. She was unhappy with its delayed response. She said the issues with flat A had worsened. This included aggressive behaviour and worsening smells which ruined her bedroom carpet. She said she had asked for a management transfer to another property, the landlord had overlooked this and not addressed it. The resident explained how the issues impacted the mental health of herself and her child. She said the landlord had not updated her with steps it would take about flat A’s tenancy. She also felt that flat A needed additional support.
On 16 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Could not confirm whether flat A would return to the property soon. It reassured her that it would work with flat A’s support services to ensure if they returned, a support package would be in place.
2. Was sorry to hear of the smell damaging her carpet. It said it would inspect her bedroom and would discuss any options with her afterwards.
3. Explained the issues had not met its criteria for a management transfer at this stage.
4. Had met with her on 12 April 2024 and apologised if it had not managed her previous ASB cases correctly. It gave her advice about her housing options and the criteria for a management transfer. It said it would keep this under review throughout the ASB case investigation.
5. Gave her details of a temporary housing officer who would be her main point of contact while recruiting a new housing officer. It also explained that a manager would oversee the case and meet regularly with the housing officer to review the action taken. It said the new housing officer had already contacted her to introduce themselves and arrange a meeting to discuss the case.
The resident escalated her case to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB. She said the issues had escalated and she felt the landlord had not done enough to resolve the ASB. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 14 October 2024.
After the complaints process ended, the ASB issues escalated. The landlord arranged a management transfer, and the resident moved to another property in November 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB affected the health of the household. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because it is difficult for us to determine what caused or made a health issue worse based on a review of the housing file and without sufficient medical expertise. In personal injury claims, the parties will appoint independent medical experts to provide testimony the court process can examine. Therefore, we have not assessed the impact of the complaint on the resident’s health in this report.
The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding this aspect of her complaint. The resident may also be able to make a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. If this is something she wishes to do, she should make enquiries with the landlord accordingly. We will, however, consider whether the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB caused any distress to the resident.
The resident said she had experienced issues related to ASB since 2020. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, while the issues are live. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the reports of ASB made at the time of the complaint.
After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience concerns with ASB and the landlord’s response to her reports. This included reports of racial abuse and harassment, violent threats, and issues with a management transfer. Similarly, as part of her complaint escalation to the landlord, she included a new aspect about noise issues from the upstairs neighbour.
In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour

On 27 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report concerns with the neighbour below, in flat A. She said that flat A had just moved in and had asked her for food and a drink. Since this happened, flat A had accused her of stealing their keys and had repeatedly rung her doorbell, which had scared her daughter. She asked the landlord to complete a welfare check as she felt that flat A was vulnerable. The following day, the landlord confirmed it was in contact with flat A’s mental health team. It said it would ensure it visited flat A that day. This was an appropriate response by the landlord.
The landlord’s ASB records are either missing or lacking detail. It is unclear, following the report in September 2023, when and how often the resident reported concerns with ASB from flat A. The landlord’s complaint responses at both stages refer to actions and steps taken which it has not evidenced to the Ombudsman. It said:
1. It visited flat A on 15 February 2024 regarding the issues reported by the resident. However, it has not provided this Service with evidence of the resident’s concerns which led to it taking this action.
2. It visited the resident on the same day after visiting flat A to update her of the steps taken. This included a safeguarding referral and liaising with flat A’s mental health team. However, when the Ombudsman asked the landlord for further information regarding this it said it could not “find a record of the visit.”
3. It contacted the resident on 29 February 2024 and provided an update on the action taken regarding the ASB reports. The landlord has not provided this Service with such evidence.
4. It had passed the ASB case onto its complex needs panel due to the complexities of the situation. It said the safeguarding teams and mental health teams took the lead on the support needs of flat A. The landlord has not provided such evidence.
Given the lack of evidence to support the steps the landlord said it had taken, this Service cannot establish whether its action was timely or proportionate to the reports of ASB. Additionally, the resident’s complaint included other issues with flat A such as rubbish in the communal areas, shouting, and an odour which came up into her property. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence that it fully investigated these concerns or took action.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour, racial harassment and hate crime policy and procedures outlines how it will respond to reports of ASB. Following a report of ASB, it will open an ASB case and complete an initial report form with the resident. It will then send a consent form to the reporting party and complete an action plan and risk assessment within 2 working days of the initial interview.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that it opened an ASB case in June 2024. This was 2 months after the final complaint response. It is unclear why it did not open a case sooner given the resident’s ongoing reports of ASB and the complaint. This is especially concerning given that its complaint response noted the resident had asked it to open a formal ASB case in relation to the issues she had been experiencing flat A on 29 February 2024. The landlord sent the resident a consent form – allowing it to open a case – which was appropriate. However, its later actions were not in line with its policy or statutory guidance.
The steps referred to within the landlord’s complaint response indicated that it was acting on the ASB reports. It should therefore have dealt with the reports as part of an open ASB case. However, there is no evidence that it had opened an ASB case throughout this time. It is therefore unclear how the landlord managed reports and if it did so effectively. In failing to open a case sooner, it missed opportunities to investigate the issues raised by the resident.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord completed an initial report form, action plan or risk assessment with the resident at the time of the reports or at the time of the complaint. The landlord therefore cannot evidence that it followed its policy or statutory guidance in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. By not doing so, it missed an opportunity to assess the risk of harm to the resident, along with any potential vulnerabilities, and to establish proportionate next steps. It also meant that it failed to consider whether the resident required any additional support during this time.
The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not provided her with information about the steps it would take regarding the issues with her neighbour. In her complaint escalation to the landlord, she said the noise and odour issues meant she lived in “intolerable” conditions. Between 18 March 2024 and 3 April 2024, she reported concerns with flat A on 3 occasions. She explained that she felt unsafe in the property. She added that the neighbour of flat A had been sectioned. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it offered the resident support or investigated the issues during this time.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident wanted the landlord to rehouse flat A. The landlord said it could not confirm whether flat A would return to the property. It reassured her that it would continue to engage with flat A’s support services to ensure they had a full support package if they return.
The landlord’s response was reasonable as it could not take legal action to end flat A’s tenancy without first considering ways to resolve the issues through non-legal actions. However, it is concerning that as there is no evidence that it had opened an ASB case at this point. As such, it did not complete any risk assessments which caused missed opportunities to support the resident sooner. Doing so would have also provided transparency about what it would do next to try to resolve the issues reported.
On 9 April 2024, the landlord completed an ASB report form with the resident. It is unclear whether this concerned flat A or not. We asked the landlord who the alleged perpetrator was. It was unable to confirm, with clarity, who this was. Similarly, on 12 April 2024, the landlord met with the resident to discuss concerns with ASB from another alleged perpetrator. However, it is unclear whether it updated her with any progress regarding her reports of ASB from flat A.
In the resident’s complaint escalation to the landlord, she said it had overlooked and failed to address her request to move to another property. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident made a request prior to this. However, later, on 3 April 2024, she asked for it to move her through a management transfer. This was due to issues with flat A as well as issues with ASB with another neighbour in the property above.
While the issues with the other neighbour are not subject to this investigation, it is important to note that the resident had told the landlord of wider issues she experienced at the property. There is no evidence to show that it assessed her support needs in response to her reports and concerns at the time. This was not appropriate.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request for rehousing within its final complaint response. It explained the “case” did not meet its criteria for a management transfer at that stage. This is confusing as it suggests there was an open ASB case at the time of the response on 16 April 2024, but the landlord has said it did not open an ASB case until June 2024. It is therefore unclear whether it had investigated the concerns sufficiently to be able to make an informed decision regarding her request for rehousing.
Given the resident’s concerns that the odour had ruined her bedroom carpet, the landlord said it would inspect this and discuss its next steps with her. It said it would normally expect a resident’s contents insurance to cover such damage, but it would assess the options available. This was appropriate advice. However, in doing so, it would be reasonable of the landlord to consider whether its action or inaction contributed towards the damage as part of its later assessment.
The landlord outlined that it would oversee the management of the “case.” It gave the resident details of a temporary housing officer who would be her main point of contact regarding the ASB. It was appropriate for it to provide this for her. However, again, the mention of the ASB case is confusing given the landlord’s confirmation that it only opened an ASB case in June 2024.
Overall, the landlord has failed to provide evidence to this Service to show it acted appropriately in response to the reports of ASB. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord opened an ASB case in accordance with its policy. It cannot evidence that it completed a risk assessment or action plan and that it took steps to ensure that the resident was adequately supported. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
Considering these failings, the landlord should pay £450 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to her. This is an appropriate award for failings which have had an adverse impact on the resident.
The landlord has told this Service that the lack of information available in this case may relate to a staffing issue at the time of the complaint, where temporary staff were in place. It has confirmed its expectations are for its staff to record all reports and contacts on its system, and that its permanent staff are aware of this. While this reflection is welcome, the landlord should also consider training or rolling out key points of learning to its staff managing ASB cases to ensure it learns from its mistakes in this case.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. It will then provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. For stage 2 complaints, it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The resident made her complaint on 16 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on the following day and said it would provide its stage 1 response by 1 March 2024. It provided the response to the resident on 3 March 2024.
The resident later told the landlord she was unhappy with this delay. Its response was marginally outside the timescale outlined in its acknowledgement. The landlord should have updated the resident that it could not meet the deadline it had previously advised of. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, we deem that this minor delay did not have any detrimental impact on the overall handling of the complaint itself. The landlord apologised for its delay within its stage 1 response. This was appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 21 March 2024. It acknowledged the complaint on 3 April 2024. This was outside of its target timescale as it took 9 working days to acknowledge the complaint, rather than 5. However, its overall complaint response remained within the timescales set out in its policy, as it later provided its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024. This was 17 working days after the resident escalated her complaint.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it said the resident had escalated her complaint due to “repairs remaining outstanding”. It is unclear why it referred to repairs when this was not relevant to her complaint. The landlord should review its responses before it provides this to residents to ensure that it provides high quality and relevant information.
In the resident’s escalation request, she raised concerns to the landlord that it did not contact her following her initial complaint. She said that if it had, she could have explained her concerns further as she had experienced other ASB issues since 2020. While this may have frustrated the resident, the landlord could choose whether to contact her further if it required clarification or further information related to a certain complaint point. It explained this within its acknowledgement of her complaint where it said it would contact her if it needed further information. Its decision not to contact her was therefore not a failing.
The Code sets out our expectations for how landlords should respond to complaints. Where a resident raises a new issue after the landlord has responded to the initial complaint, the landlord should treat these matters as a separate complaint. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to not address the resident’s concerns about her upstairs neighbour within the final complaint response. It instead acted appropriately by outlining how it would investigate her additional concerns.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the associated complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples in its apology.
2. Pay £450 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of antisocial behaviour. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account.
3. Deliver refresher training or provide key points of learning in writing to its staff managing ASB cases. This should include the importance of logging reports and actions taken, raising ASB cases in a timely manner, and completing risk assessments and action plans. The landlord should provide us with a copy of the training or learning points given to its staff. If it cannot do this within 4 weeks, it should provide us with a date that it expects to do this by and what this will cover.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the period set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its complaint responses before it provides this to residents to ensure that it provides high quality and relevant information.