High Peak Borough Council (202122468)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122468

High Peak Borough Council

2 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment.
2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He lives in a two-bedroom first floor flat.
4. In April 2021 the resident reported ASB from his neighbour which included threats to kill made by the neighbour’s son, harassment and theft of money and a coat from his property. A lock change was completed by the landlord on 15 April 2021. In May 2021 the resident asked the landlord to contact him regarding the “long-term harassment” from his neighbour and her sons and the threats that he said they had made to damage his property.
5. In September 2021, the landlord was contacted by the resident’s advocacy and support service who explained the impact the ASB was having on his wellbeing. The letter confirmed that the resident had been arrested following a previous incident and was keen to avoid similar incidents.   
6. On 8 November 2021 the resident advised that it was the fifteenth time he had reported harassment from his neighbour and her sons. Around the same time, the police confirmed that the reports of harassment made by the resident had been closed due to a lack of witnesses.
7. The resident made a further report of harassment from his neighbour and her family on 10 January 2022. He stated that the landlord had refused to record a complaint and its suggestion that he should move from the property was “totally unacceptable.” The following day the resident contacted the Service to assist him with his complaint. The Service wrote to the landlord and requested that it send a stage one response by 26 January 2022. The resident reported his neighbour’s son for assault in February 2022.
8. A stage one response was issued on 8 February 2022. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s reports were under investigation with the police and until they had finished their enquiries it could not progress the resident’s complaint further. The resident responded and said that harassment “is a breach of tenancy which the landlord continues to do nothing about.”
9. The police confirmed in March 2022 that the neighbour’s son had been charged with assaulting the resident but that “no action had been taken [by the landlord] for breach of tenancy.”
10. The landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour in April 2022 reminding her of her responsibilities for the behaviour of her occupants and visitors.
11. The landlord later confirmed there was not “sufficient evidence” to warrant formal tenancy action, however, warning letters had been sent.
12. The resident made further reports on 22 April 2022 that the police had been called twice the previous evening due to youths visiting his neighbour’s property and harassing him. He submitted a video and stated that a fence panel had been removed by his neighbour. In response, the landlord confirmed that it would continue to liaise with the police and if the resident wished to pursue his complaint, he needed to explicitly ask to escalate to stage two.
13. A meeting was arranged between the housing officer, probation, and the police in May 2022 after his probation officer raised “serious concerns that the situation is likely to escalate.”
14. A home visit was completed in June 2022 when the resident was advised to stay away from his neighbour. Between July and October 2022, the resident continued to report incidents to the landlord and police regarding being harassed, the smoking of illegal drugs and damage to his car. The resident was advised how to apply to install CCTV.
15. After involvement from the Service, the landlord issued a stage two response on 12 June 2023. It confirmed that it had not received any further complaints from the resident since 4 May 2022 and that it would not normally deal with a complaint relating to an incident that happened more than six months ago. The resident was asked to provide further details of any incidents that it was not aware of.
16. In July 2023 the resident advised the Service that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. To resolve the complaint, he asked that the landlord issued written warnings to all parties and that the landlord took responsibility for his wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

17. The tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for their own behaviour and the behaviour of every person (including children) living or visiting their home and they must not cause a nuisance to, annoy, or disturb someone else.”
18. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that the landlord will develop an agreed action plan which will include a named point of contact, key actions, timescales, objectives, and outcomes. The ASB procedures confirms that the complainant will be asked to complete diary sheets. Further steps it can take includes offering mediation, sending warning letters, and issuing Community Protection Warnings (CPW) and Notices (CPN).
19. The landlord’s ASB policy cites harassment as a criminal offence which it defines as “ASB that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.” Incidents of harassment, vandalism, criminal damage, and drug misuse are categorised as “serious and criminal behaviour” and should be reported to the police. 
20. It is not disputed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for him, and that there have been genuine concerns about the behaviour and actions of his neighbour and visitors to his property. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
21. The resident’s initial reports of ASB indicated that the issues were caused by his neighbour and related to family members who had been living in or visiting his neighbour’s property. There is no indication that the landlord responded to the resident’s May 2021 contact or to the support and advocacy service’s September 2021 contact. This was a failing.
22. The evidence shows some collaborative working between the landlord and the police later in 2021 and early 2022, as the resident’s reports included harassment, theft, and criminal damage which the police would be best placed to deal with. The evidence also shows that the resident initially expressed a desire to move home, and that the landlord awarded him high priority and offers of moves were made (though declined by the resident). This shows that the landlord was taking some steps to try and alleviate the situation for the resident.
23. However, the crux of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord should have taken more significant steps to evict or otherwise ensure that his neighbour complied with her tenancy agreement obligations. While it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to the police for criminal matters, the landlord is still expected to consider the reports of ASB in accordance with its own policies and procedures. It is accepted that enforcement action would require significant action from the police, but this does not absolve the landlord’s obligations in addressing the reports itself and supporting the resident.
24. The resident expressed his concerns in an email to the landlord on 11 January 2022 that the landlord had “failed to protect him from harassment” to which the landlord replied on 8 February 2022 that it “could not progress the complaints” until the police had completed their enquiries. This was an inappropriate response which is likely to have compounded the resident’s belief that the landlord was not doing enough to protect or support him.
25. The landlord’s response did not seek to gain the confidence of the resident by “treating all complaints of ASB and harassment seriously, and investigating them promptly in a sympathetic, and impartial manner.” Placing the onus on the police before it would act on his reports showed a lack of empathy to his situation and was a departure from its own policy.
26. Given the serious nature of the reports, it is a reasonable expectation for a landlord to complete a risk assessment. This provides the landlord with the opportunity to measure any risks and determine the most appropriate course of action to take, to protect the resident from harm. The landlord advised the Service that a risk assessment was not applicable in this case, but the reasons why it believed this are unclear. Ultimately, by not completing a risk assessment, it hindered the landlord’s ability to recognise the level of risk and by continuing to refer the matter back to the police, it failed to take responsibility, adding to resident’s distress.  
27. The Service also requested evidence of a completed action plan, as this is a fundamental part of ASB case management. The landlord confirmed that it had a “discussion with the resident and agreed actions.” In accordance with its policy the action plan will be “developed with the resident and partners where relevant, this will include a named point of contact, key actions, timescales, feedback process, contacts, objectives and outcomes required for resolution.” There is no evidence that the resident was provided with this level of detail which would have provided him with assurance that the landlord was taking his concerns seriously.
28. The police confirmed that it charged the neighbours son with assaulting the resident in March 2022. Up until this point, there is no evidence that the landlord took appropriate steps to prevent the ASB from escalating. The landlord has the powers to consider warning letters, mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts, or good neighbour agreements. However, there is no evidence that it considered pursing these options at the earliest opportunity. It is noted that the resident was prioritised on the transfer list to an ‘A band’ which indicates that the landlord had considered the matter serious enough to award the highest priority for a move.
29. The police pursued action against the neighbour’s son in March 2022 when he was charged with assaulting the resident. This resulted in the landlord sending a warning letter to the neighbour. The Service understands that the resident wanted to landlord to take more serious action, levelled at the gravity of the offence. There is no evidence to show that the landlord explained the reasons for issuing a warning letter, or why it could not take enforcement action, such as a CPW or CPN or further legal action in line with its policy. Had it done so, it may have been able to better manage the resident’s expectations.
30. It is a concern that following the alleged assault, the landlord was not prompted to assess the harm, or the impact that this had on the resident. No risk assessment was carried out. Notably, a home visit was not conducted until June 2022 and was seemingly prompted by the resident’s probation officer citing her “serious concerns” that the situation could escalate. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took a ‘person centred approach’ to assess his level of risk.
31. The failings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports, its case handling, case management, and communication caused the resident distress and frustration, and there were several missed opportunities to address his reports and concerns. As such a finding of maladministration has been made along with orders for remedy. The amount of compensation ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests amounts of between £100 and £600 where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there has been no permanent impact.

Complaint handling

32. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint for the following reasons:
    1. It did not acknowledge the resident’s stage one or two complaints within its policy timescale of three days.
    2. It failed to set out the outcome of the complaint or the reasons for any decisions it made.
    3. It did not explain or detail what reports it considered as part of its complaint investigations to be able to assess whether the actions it had taken were reasonable and proportionate.
    4. It failed to set out the complaint responses in line with the Complaint Handling Code (Code) which include stating the complaint stage, the outcome, the reasons for decisions made and/or details of any remedies offered to put things right.
    5. The responses did not satisfactorily address all the concerns raised by the resident which could indicate that it either had limited records to rely upon, or that its investigation into the complaint was cursory.
    6. Despite the resident’s dissatisfaction following the stage one response in February 2022 the landlord failed to escalate the complaint in accordance with its complaints policy.
    7. It did not ensure that a different officer reviewed the complaint at stage two.
    8. It did not acknowledge any failings in its complaint handling.
    9. Despite evidence on the contrary, it stated that the resident had not reported any incidents since May 2022.
    10. It incorrectly stated that it would not normally deal with a complaint when the incident occurred more than six months ago, contrary to its complaints policy which states that it will not normally deal with any complaints arising out of actions or omissions which occurred more than 12 months previously.
33. The failures in its investigation and complaint handling prevented a swift resolution as well as a missed opportunity to rebuild a positive relationship between the landlord and resident.
34. The repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, lead to a delay in resolution and meant the landlord failed to use the complaints process as an effective tool and compounded an already stressful situation for the resident.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. The complaint.

Orders

36. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in its handling of the ASB reports and the subsequent complaint.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £800 compensation, made up of:
       1. £500 for the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports.
       2. £300 for its complaint handling failures.
       3. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears.
37. Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to consider the learning from the complaint handling failures in this case, and advise the Service of its plans and actions, including timescales, to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the Code.