Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Islington Council (202124725)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124725

Islington Council

13 November 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 resident’s complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour. (ASB)
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Background

  1. The resident occupied a one-bedroom flat on the second floor in a block of flats. She was 74 years old. The records indicate that the resident is elderly and has physical health needs.

Legal and policy framework

  1. The landlord’s ASB procedures stated as follows:
    1. The landlord would triage all ASB reports. It would consider
      1. whether anyone involved was vulnerable or had “protected characteristics that need to be taken into account. (“protected characteristics” refers to the characteristics which are protected by the Equality Act 2010).
      2. The urgency of the issue and how the report should be dealt.
    2. The landlord categorised the reports into low, medium and high-level risk
    3. The tenancy officer (TO) should attempt to make contact with the reporter within 2 working days of receiving the initial service request. Where possible, the TO should aim to speak with the reporter in person by telephone, video or a home visit if necessary.
    4. At this stage, the TO should remain openminded about what they are being told and not jump to any conclusions about the case. Both reporter and alleged perpetrator(s) have a right to be treated fairly and respectfully.
    5. The TO should carry out a risk assessment with the reporter as part of the initial discussion.
    6. Where ASB is ongoing, the TO should give the reporter diary sheets and explain how these are to be used.
    7. If there is insufficient evidence to support further action, the TO should ensure that details of the investigations undertaken are clearly recorded on the case file.

The complaint:

  1. On 10 November 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint which was as follows:
    1. The resident’s account was that she had reported “severe anti-social behaviour acts towards her” by her neighbour (“N1”). She reported that N1 had “aggressive schizophrenia.
      1. N1 had attacked her, leaving her with a disability. The resident was now waiting for three operations. She was living in fear.
      2. N1 stalked and harassed her.
      3. N1 had an accomplice, and they were both harassing her and other neighbours
      4. She has called the police to escort her into her house. N1 attacked two police officers. She had made 34 police reports to date.
    2. Her doctor had advised her to move home. She wanted a management move and a review of her housing points.
    3. The resident had reported that she was awaiting a Stage two response to her complaint. The landlord should send a Stage two response to the resident no later than 15 December 2022.
  2. The evidence indicated that the assaults occurred in 2019 and that subsequently, the resident raised allegations against a different neighbour who will be referred to in this report as N.
  3. On 19 December 2022, the landlord responded with its Stage 1 response as follows:
    1. The complaint was formally logged on 5 December 2022.  
    2. While she had reported a “problem” with an anti-social and violent neighbour for some years now, it would focus on the previous 12 months. It could not address the ASB behaviour itself.
    3. The matter was referred to the ASB team in January 2020. The landlord had explored the reports in partnership with the police and Safer Neighbourhood teams.
    4. She had provided medical forms which were submitted to re-housing. It encouraged her to contact the rehousing team to discuss her application and the housing options. A referral had been made to AGE UK Social Prescriber.
    5. She was advised who to report to, if she continued to feel at risk.
    6. No action had been taken as her allegations were unfoundedas there did not appear to be any reliable, corroborated evidence to substantiate (her) claims. The landlord had received counter allegations against her.
    7. It set out the TO’s conversations with the resident on 11 January 2022.
    8. An estate “coordinator” had inspected the communal areas but there did not appear to be any grease on the communal landings.
    9. The police confirmed that no action would be taken against her neighbour due to lack of evidence. On that basis, the landlord could not enforce the conditions of N’s tenancy.
    10. The specialist ASB team referred the case to the TO in June 2022.
    11. The counter allegations meant that unfortunately, this has made it challenging for the landlord to take definitive action in response to her reports.
    12. The TO stated she would “no longer investigate (the resident’s) allegations because the accusations had to date been unfounded.
    13. The complaint was not upheld. 
    14. It offered mediation.
    15. It stated that its actions were in line with its ASB policy and procedure. It understood her frustration but it needed evidence to enable it to take action.
    16. The landlord thanked the resident for making the complaint as it improved its service.
  4. On 13 May 2023, we wrote to the landlord again as follows:
    1. The resident had reported that N had thrown chemicals at her door. This had been caught on the resident’s CCTV and she had provided screen shots to the landlord. The resident felt that not enough was being done to manage the risk to her as an elderly female resident with mobility issues who lived alone.
    2. Following receipt of the Stage One response she had contacted the Citizens Advice (CA) for assistance but was then advised by the landlord that because CA had contacted it, it was unable to escalate and the complaint would be closed.
    3. The resident stated that she needed to move to a ground floor or a liftaccessible property due to her mobility issues. The landlord has offered a transfer to sheltered accommodation but she had refused it as she did not feel it is the environment for her. She wanted to remain active and did not want to downsize. Instead, the resident wanted to move to ground floor general needs accommodation.
    4. The landlord should treat our letter as the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to Stage Two.
  5. On 6 June 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
    1. The landlord had investigated her allegations against N and was not able to find anything to support her claim.
    2. Other tenants had not corroborated her claims.
    3. She was granted a management transfer to her current address in 2018, following very similar reports about her previous neighbour, including using chemicals to harass her. These allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.
    4. She had alleged on 9 January 2023 that N had thrown “chemicals weapons”. The video she had submitted, did not show “anything remotely of this kind”. It invited the resident to send it fresh evidence. It was of concern that these allegations were being made with no evidence to substantiate them.
    5. It made a referral to mediation in May 2023, upon the request of N’s support worker. It encouraged her to consider this. 
    6. The landlord was considering the management transfer request alongside other housing options. It referred her to her housing office.
    7. As there was no evidence to substantiate her allegations, her complaint was not upheld.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It was not disputed that there was a history of the resident’s reports. The landlord’s records showed reports going back to 2019 although those in 2019 concerned a different neighbour. The resident alluded to her having been seriously assaulted. The landlord’s records show that a report of an assault was made in 2019 and in relation to a different neighbour.
  2. The landlord’s position was that it only looked at events going back 12 months, which would have been to November 2021. The Ombudsman considers that to be an acceptable and proportionate position and is as set out in our Complaint Handling Code. Complaint Handling Code 2024 | Housing Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). In the circumstances, while an assault is a serious allegation and a criminal matter, the Ombudsman has not investigated events prior to November 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

  1. The landlord’s records showed that the resident made a number of reports of ASB by N. The reports consisted mainly of N reportedly pouring grease in front of her front door and him harassing and stalking her.  In particular, she made reports in January 2022 and on 27 April and 9, 13, 19   May 2022. She was told on 6 June 2022 that her reports had been logged on 6 May 2022 and she would be contacted. The evidence showed that the landlord responded to the resident in January 2022 but there was no evidence that it responded to her April 2022 reports before June 2022. This was unreasonable.
  2. The landlord’s reasons for not progressing the resident’s case was that there was no evidence of anti-social behaviour by the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s records showed the landlord had carried out the following investigations into the resident’s allegations:
    1. On 22 August 2021, the landlord inspected the reported oily marks of food outside the resident’s door. It saw no oily marks or food smell outside on the landing outside no. 11. There had been rain earlier that day and there were water marks along the whole landing.
    2. On 13 November 2022, the landlord attended to inspect the resident’s report of N smearing grease all over the resident’s walls and doors. The landlord attended 1 ½ hours after the report. There was a black mark but no smeared grease.
    3. On 16 December 2022, the TO informed the resident that she had visited the property but there was no grease as the resident had reported there would be. The resident responded by saying the grease was cleaned up by her on those occasions.
    4. On 11 January 2022, the landlord advised the resident to take pictures and if she feels threatened at any time, she should contact the police. She should keep a diary of incidents.
    5. On 19 January 2022, according to a telephone file note, the landlord’s caretaker/coordinator had inspected the communal areas after previous allegations. He advised on each occasion, there did not appear to be any grease on the communal landings
    6. On 26 January 2023, according to a file note, the TO viewed a video that the resident described as N throwing a chemical substance in front of her door at 3 o clock in the morning. According to the landlord, it could not see that he had thrown any liquid or a glass bottle bigger than a cup in N’s hand but did see him do a swoosh motion. According to the resident, the police took swabs of the liquid to be tested for a harmful substance. The resident said that she had cleared it up
    7. On 28 January 2023, the police wrote to the landlord, after it made enquiries, that it had not taken any action due to a lack of evidence
    8. On 16 May 2023, the landlord offered the resident mediation. The resident agreed to this but N declined.
    9. On 19 October 2023, the resident attended the landlord’s office and showed the TO a video recording. The TO noted N walking past the resident’s property speaking to himself but he did not throw anything in front of her door, as reported by the resident. The TO also reported that a photograph provided by the resident of the footpath in front of her front door did not show any effects of acid having been thrown onto the ground.
    10. On 9 May 2024, the resident attended the landlord’s office to make similar reports about a different neighbour. The landlord did not consider photographs of a wet floor outside her property was evidence of how the floor became wet, which substance this was, or what led to the wet mark. The landlord advised the resident to manoeuvre the camera in a position that showed both sides. The resident reported that N no longer threw grease in front of her door as the camera was in place.
  4. The evidence showed that the landlord viewed the resident’s photographic and video evidence and that the landlord reported that they did not support the resident’s reports. We were provided some photos of the flooring for this investigation. They were undated. While photographs cannot be conclusive, it was not possible to identify any such substances. There were also undated screenshots of a doorbell recording. We have reasonably to assume the screenshots related to the allegations regarding N throwing chemicals at the resident’s door. The screenshots only showed N walking near the resident’s door.
  5. The evidence also showed that the landlord followed up the resident’s reports and inspected the property for evidence of grease. Each inspection disclosed greasy or oily substance. The resident reported she had removed the grease prior to the inspection. This meant that there was no evidence of an oily or greasy substance.
  6. The landlord reasonably liaised with the police. The landlord referred to the police not having any evidence. It is generally unreasonable not to take action because the police did not have evidence. This is because the burden of proof in a criminal case is higher than in a civil case. Furthermore, the police would only investigate actions that are classed as criminal offences. Incidents that may constitute ASB often fall short of being an criminal offence. However, it is reasonable for the landlord to take note that the police, with its greater powers of investigation, did not identify any evidence and had closed its case. This would apply to the dangerous substance the resident reported had been tested by the police.
  7. In all of the circumstances, it was reasonable that the landlord concluded it had no corroborating evidence upon which to take any action.
  8. The landlord referred to the resident making similar reports in the past, in 2018 and 2019. She had been offered a management move previously in relation to similar reports. It is noted that that there was evidence of the landlord investigating the resident’s fresh reports about a different neighbour in 2024. While this is not conclusive evidence of facts, it was reasonable that the landlord took this into account when taking a view as to the reports, when combined with the lack of evidence.  However, the landlord should always keep an open-mind as stated in its ASB policy.
  9. There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident in April 2022 however it generally responded and viewed the resident’s evidence when presented. There was no evidence that the landlord followed the processes in its ASB policy. This was unreasonable. While the landlord expressed concerns for the resident, there was no evidence of an initial risk assessment, aside from a note in the landlord’s internal records in November 2021 stating “no safeguarding concerns have been ruled out. The note itself was unclear. However, it was reasonable that the landlord made a referral to a specialist charity for social prescribing in June 2022. It also had referred her to a specific team dealing with vulnerable and elderly residents.
  10. There was no evidence that the landlord made enquiries with her neighbours as stated in its Stage 2 response. We do not disbelieve the landlord in this regard. However, as our investigations are evidencebased, it would not be fair to either party to either discount it or rely on it. While the landlord managed the resident’s expectations by stating at intervals that it would not be taking any action, there was no evidence of a closing letter or that the landlord ensured “that details of the investigations undertaken were clearly recorded on the case file, as required by the landlord’s own ASB policy. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
  11. In relation to the landlord’s complaints responses, there was an unexplained delay between the Ombudsman writing to the landlord on 10 November 2022 and it responding on 19 December 2022. While the events related to 2019, given the seriousness of the allegation, it was unreasonable the landlord did not refer to it at all. There was an unreasonably heavy reliance in its complaint responses on conversations the TO had with the resident rather than the actions of the landlord themselves.
  12. However, there was no evidence that the landlord declined to escalate the resident’s complaint on the basis of her approaching Citizen’s Advice.
  13. It was not satisfactory to inform the resident that her allegations were unfounded as opposed to unevidenced. Being unfounded requires a clearer, more positive explanation. However, that is a question of communication. The landlord was entitled to conclude that there was no evidence for the resident’s reports. This meant that there were no actions the landlord could take. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the landlord.

Management transfer

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman will consider the resident’s request for a management move. It will not be considering the resident’s application for priority on medical grounds on the Housing register. This is because Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The guidance accompanying the Memorandum of Understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) Memorandum of Understanding – Housing Ombudsman (housingombudsman.org.uk) sets out that the LGSCO investigates complaints regarding applications to the local authority housing register (such as increasing the applicant’s banding, or priority) under Part 6 (allocations/housing register).
  2. The evidence showed that the resident raised the issue for a transfer in November 2021, January 2022 and June 2022.
  3. On 7 June 2022, the resident submitted an application for medical priority. She was placed on Band C. It was open to the resident to either appeal this or make a fresh application. Given that the resident had made a transfer application through the allocations system of the Housing Register and under the Housing Act 1996, the Ombudsman considers that the LGSCO would be better placed to consider any complaint about her application for medical priority. In any event, we do not have the expertise to assess medical issues.
  4. However, we will whether the landlord considered the resident for a management move and how it supported her wish to move.
  5. The evidence showed that the landlord reasonably assisted the resident with her rehousing application.
    1. On 8 June 2022, it asked its management team to fasttrack her application to the housing register. It explained that the allegations have been unfounded” and there was no further action by the police, which was reasonable to state its conclusions. It added that the resident was due to have a hip operation and her medical needs had worsened over time. The application itself was a matter for the housing register that the landlord, in its tenancy management function, had no control over. It was reasonable that the landlord advocated for the resident, within the context of its findings.
    2. In July 2023, the landlord considered her application for a management move to another property on the ground floor due to her needing to have hip replacement surgery on the basis of “personal vulnerability”. However, the landlord did not consider her to be at risk as there was no threat towards her. A move on medical grounds would have to be considered by the Housing Register.
  6. The criteria for a management move included being at risk from ASB, having a significant medical need or disability which means that a resident was unable to remain in their home, and “exceptional circumstances”. While we cannot make a definitive judgment on the merits of the landlord’s decision, we can consider whether it is inappropriate. There was no indication that the resident would definitely fall within the criteria as the landlord had concluded there was no evidence of ASB, and while the resident had a medical need, there was no evidence that she was unable to remain in her own home which is a high bar. Her medical needs could still be considered by the housing register.
  7. On 9 October 2023, the resident’s medical assessment form for a change of circumstances was refused because she did not meet the criteria. She was offered assistance with finding sheltered accommodation which the resident did not wish for. It is open to the resident to make a fresh application and seek support from an advice charity to assist her.
  8. Fault is not attributed to the landlord in its management functions for this decision by the housing register. Such a complaint about the housing register would have to be referred to the LGSCO. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s request for a management move.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The landlord should ensure that its ASB cases clearly comply with its policy procedure and retains a clear evidence of its actions.
  2. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.