Islington Council (202300617)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300617

Islington Council

28 March 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 about;

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
On 18 January 2023, an officer from the Targeted Tenancy team wrote to the resident, as recommended by the Ombudsman, and explained that it had reviewed 133 noise recordings submitted by the resident in 2022. The resident maintained that the recordings evidenced ASB by her neighbour. The landlord determined that the recordings did not evidence ASB, and the noise heard was consistent with normal daytime activity. It also advised that it had tried to contact her neighbour to substantiate claims of ASB but had been unsuccessful.
The resident responded to the landlord on 30 January 2023. She disputed the landlord’s claim that the recordings had been taken during the day and said that the majority of recordings had been taken at night. The resident did not believe that the staff member had listened to the recordings, and also provided the landlord with contact details for her neighbour so she could be contacted.
On 5 April 2023, the resident raised a complaint after she did not receive a response to her previous email. The resident reiterated that the recordings were not taken during the day. She also said that the police supported her ASB claims, and said that the recordings evidenced ‘clear, intentional banging’. The resident also stated that the neighbour had confirmed that the landlord had not tried to contact her to discuss the ASB.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 22 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged that the targeted tenancy officer had drafted a response to her previous email, but the email was in the officer’s drafts. The landlord confirmed that the recordings had been reviewed, and it did not propose to re-open her ASB case. It also confirmed that it had tried to make contact with the resident’s neighbour.
The resident escalated her complaint and requested a face to face meeting with the landlord in order to listen to all noise recordings.
On 26 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord refused to meet the resident face to face but advised it had reviewed several of the recordings as part of its independent review of the complaint. It determined that the recordings did not evidence ASB, and there were no grounds to reopen the case. The landlord also confirmed that it had evidence of the landlord contacting the resident’s neighbour. With regards to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, the landlord confirmed that the officer’s draft response was no longer available, so feedback about record keeping had been given.
The resident remains dissatisfied because she does not believe that the landlord’s stage two response is factual and said it was ‘completely absurd in parts’. The resident maintained that she did not believe that the landlord had reviewed the recordings, and that ASB was ongoing. She raised a number of concerns regarding staff conduct, all of which as detailed in the below assessment and findings.

Assessment and findings

Scope

On 20 December 2022, the Ombudsman determined a separate complaint made by the resident under case reference 202116638. That investigation centred around the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) as well as its communication, record keeping and complaint handling. The investigation considered a timeframe between November 2020 and September 2021.
In the Ombudsman’s determination, we recommended that the landlord review noise recordings submitted by the resident in 2022.
This report will only consider the landlord’s handling of matters between January 2023, when it reviewed the noise recordings and June 2023, when it issued its stage two complaint response. This investigation will not consider the landlords handling of the ASB, nor will it consider the actions of any landlord staff prior to January 2023.

The resident’s assertion that the landlord had not reviewed noise recordings and it’s subsequent decision not to re-open her ASB case.

It is important to emphasise that it is not for this Service to determine if the noise recordings submitted by the resident evidenced ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. The Ombudsman has considered to what extent the landlord met its responsibility to ensure that it took appropriate action to review the recordings and take the necessary action.
The landlord confirmed on 18 January 2023 that it had listened to and reviewed all 133 recordings submitted in 2022. This was reasonable, given the Ombudsman recommendation for it to conduct a review.
The resident disputed that the targeted tenancy officer had listened to the recordings, as if they had, they would not have determined that the noise was not ASB. Given that the staff member maintained that he had listened to all recordings, together with the lack of other evidence to corroborate the resident’s allegation that he did not, it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged this aspect of the resident’s complaint but did not uphold it.
At stage two, the reviewing officer confirmed that they had listened to 35 recordings at random to ascertain if the recordings evidenced ASB. It was determined that the random recordings did not evidence ASB and therefore the decision for the ASB case to not be reopened was supported. While the resident may feel frustrated by this, the landlord took reasonable steps to review the recordings. Given staff members maintained that they had listened to all recordings, it was proportionate that the reviewing officer only listened to a limited number of recordings to verify the original decision made.
The landlord determined that there were no grounds to re-open the ASB case. This Service appreciates that the resident disagrees with the landlord’s decision. However, it was for the landlord to consider the recordings and decide for itself whether the recorded noise constituted ASB. It appears that the landlord did this. The Ombudsman is unable to determine that the landlord has been untruthful in the absence of evidence to suggest this and as such, cannot determine that there was any maladministration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, particularly staff that reviewed her ASB case and those dealing with the resident’s complaint.

The resident has raised complaints regarding several landlord staff members and how they responded to the Ombudsman’s recommendation and her complaints. The complaints are about;
1. The targeted tenancy officer’s failure to a respond to her email on 30 January 2023, and the explanation provided for this in the complaint responses.
2. The targeted tenancy officer’s statement that the majority of noise recordings submitted were taken during the day.
3. The landlords claims that staff had attempted to contact her neighbour to corroborate her claims of ASB, yet the neighbour refutes that the landlord has contacted her.
4. The involvement of a particular staff member in the complaints process, despite the resident previously raising a complaint about him. The resident believes this was inappropriate.
5. The landlord’s refusal to meet the resident face to face to review the noise recordings.
Upon receiving reports of poor staff conduct, it is the landlord’s role to investigate the concerns raised by the resident and collect evidence from staff members and the resident to determine what events had taken place. In this instance, the landlord asked the staff member why they had failed to respond to the email, which was appropriate. It provided an explanation to the resident about the email being drafted, but not sent. This Service cannot reach a determination about whether the landlord had drafted an email in response to the resident.
However, the landlord acknowledged that good practise would have been for the staff member to retain a copy of the email. It also referred to a previous finding by this Service regrading poor record keeping and advised that feedback had been provided to relevant parties to retain all relevant documents and records. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had taken positive action to learn from its mistakes.
The resident was dissatisfied that the targeted tenancy officer had stated that the majority of the noise recordings had been taken during the day. The resident disputed this, advising that out of 133 recordings, only 10 were taken during the day. The landlord confirmed in its complaint responses that regardless of the time of day, the noises heard did not evidence intentional ASB and reflected noise consistent with day to day living. It also later clarified in its stage two response that the targeted tenancy officer had meant that most of the recordings were not made at unsociable hours.
This Service has reviewed a spreadsheet devised by the resident that outlines the dates and timings of recordings submitted. We are unable to determine the veracity of the evidence provided, and this Service does not review the content of recordings as a matter of course, is it within our remit to do so. The resident is evidently frustrated at the landlord’s comment about the recordings made during the day and the landlord may wish to reflect upon this to ensure it is more sensitive and does not make comments that could be perceived as dismissing a resident’s lived experience.
This Service recommended that the landlord contact the resident’s neighbour to corroborate her claims of ASB, which it said it did. The resident refuted this and said that the neighbour had no evidence of contact from the landlord. The landlord advised in its stage two response that it had recordings of the landlord’s attempts to contact her neighbour, as well as internal emails confirming that a voicemail had been left. It also confirmed that should the resident’s neighbour contact the landlord to corroborate her account, it would investigate further. This was reasonable.
The resident had previously raised a complaint about a specific staff member and requested that he not be involved in this complaint. The resident was dissatisfied that the staff member had been consulted at stage one. The landlord explained that the staff member responded to a query on behalf of the targeted tenancy officer, who was unavailable, as he was the only person able to respond given his prior knowledge of the case. The input from the officer had no bearing on the outcome of the complaint, nor was his involvement significant. Therefore, there is no evidence of a service failure.
The resident is unhappy that the landlord has refused to meet face to face to review the recordings. The stage two reviewer explained that it was his role to review the available evidence and reach an independent conclusion. Therefore, he did not deem it beneficial to conduct a face to face meeting. This was not unreasonable of the landlord, and it was within its right to make this decision.
While the resident may disagree with the landlord’s findings, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns during the investigation process and that there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.

The associated complaint handling.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage one response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, and a stage two response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the CHC.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 22 May 2023; 31 working days after the resident raised her initial complaint. This is beyond the 10 working day timescale expected. However, the response refers to the delay being mutually agreed with the resident during a phone call. While this Service has not seen any evidence of this agreement, it is not deemed that the delay had a negative impact on the resident, nor is there evidence of the resident raising her dissatisfaction at this delay when escalating her complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 May 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and the CHC, the landlord should have issued its stage two response on 22 June 2023.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 26 June 2023; 23 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. While marginally outside the timescales expected, the minor failure caused no detriment to the resident. As a result, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of;
1. The resident’s assertion that the landlord had not reviewed noise recordings and it’s subsequent decision not to re-open her ASB case.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, particularly staff that reviewed her ASB case and those dealing with the resident’s complaint.
3. The associated complaint handling.