Leeds City Council (202338852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338852

Leeds City Council

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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and racial harassment from his neighbour.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. His tenancy commenced on 29 June 2015. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a 25-floor block of non-traditional construction. The landlord has stated that the resident does not have any recorded vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s ASB Policy in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint states that:
1. “LASBT (Leeds ASB Behaviour Team) will seek to tackle anti-social behaviour at the earliest opportunity through a tiered approach of prevention, enforcement and support & resettlement.”
2. “LASBT will aim to respond quickly to all reports of ASB, contacting the reporting person or victim to discuss their report and more fully understand the nature and complexity of their problem ... Reports linked to persistent problems or incidents where there is the potential for harm, will be allocated to an ASB case officer for investigation in accordance with LASBT’s established ‘what goes where guidance’.”
3. “Once a case investigation has been allocated, a LASBT case officer will arrange to meet with the reporting person or victim to explain the services’ procedures, understand the background to reported problems, identify any vulnerabilities and/or support needs (not already disclosed) and agree an appropriate course of action.”
4. “LASBT case officer will conduct a thorough investigation to establish the facts and gather evidence. The case officer will be advised by a senior manager or supervisor as to whether reported problems might be resolved using interventions and/or warnings or whether enforcement action may be necessary.”
5. “Leeds City Council, Housing Leeds/Belle Isle Tenant Management Organisation (BITMO) and West Yorkshire Police use an agreed Information Sharing Protocol created under the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, which permits some types of information to be shared the purpose of preventing anti-social behaviour or crime.”
The landlord’s ASB Procedure in effect at the time of the complaint states that “In urgent situations, (i.e. reports that include ‘hate crime‘ incidents, where there is a risk of harm to reporting persons, victims or witnesses or where there are clearly identified vulnerabilities), a Case Officer will contact the reporting person or victim, by telephone or face to face visit within 1 working day”.
The landlord is reviewing its ASB Policy and Procedure and in 2024 produced an Interim Service Offer. The landlord is also currently compiling Vulnerability Policy which is scheduled for completion and publication by the end of 2024/25.
The landlord’s Goodwill, Time and Trouble, Request for Compensation Guidance for staff provides the following guidance:
1. “Moderate financial redress (Service failure – up to £100): Where the customer has been moderately inconvenienced/ upset on more than one occasion/ time and trouble pursuing their complaint/ delays in getting matters resolved. We haven’t put things right at the first opportunity and the customer has had to come back to us on more than one occasion causing unnecessary frustration and inconvenience.”
2. “Substantial financial redress (maladministration– up to £600): Where the customer has been adversely affected, suffered significant inconvenience and/or upset over a sustained period. We may have had the opportunity to resolve the issue but have failed to do so leading to ongoing frustrations for the customer/their family. This could include ongoing cases of ASB or ongoing issues of damp/potential disrepair.”
3. “Severe financial redress (severe maladministration/service failure – up to £1,000): Where the customer has suffered a significant impact because of the issues surrounding their complaint, such as severe distress, inconvenience & avoidable disruption for a significant period. This will include cases where the customer and/or their family have suffered reduced living standards due to the ongoing issue and/or has resulted in existing medical conditions such as stress or anxiety being exacerbated.”
4. “Extreme financial redress (severe maladministration – over £1,000+): Where the customer has suffered extreme disadvantage that may include discrimination or a breach of the Equality Act 2010. This category would cover either a single significant failure in service or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the tenant and as a result of these failures the situation was exacerbated, and it further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship. We demonstrated a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes.”
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, stage 1 complaints relating to housing will be responded to within 10 working days of receipt. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, complaints relating to housing will be responded to within 20 working days of receipt.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that since July 2020, periodically the resident has reported ASB from his upstairs neighbour in his flat. The resident overhears verbal and racist abuse, comments about his religion, shouting, banging on his floor and loud music during the night. The resident has reported ASB via emails, nuisance diaries and calls to the landlord’s Out of Hours (OOH) service. There is a previous ASB case that was closed on 30 March 2022 by the landlord due to the neighbour denying the allegations at an interview and “in the absence of any substantive evidence”.
On 25 October 2022 after the resident contacted its ASB team about issues at his property the landlord sent him a noise nuisance information pack including diary sheets by email.
On 9 December 2022, a Councillor forwarded an email from the resident to the landlord. The email stated “have been having issues with the tenant at … which is the flat above me. This has been going on for years since 2017. Whenever he get drank, he hurls abusive and racist comment while shouting very loudly and stamping on my ceilings which rattles my flat. He also plays loud music to annoy me as it’s always when I come back from all the way until the morning sometimes. I have been logging all nuisance since 2017, logging every nuisance, raising complaint, calling the after hour nuisance team (which are not helpful at all during the many times I spoke to them. So far Leeds city council did not take any action and this is affecting my quality of life as I cannot rest well after a long day of work.”
On the same day, the landlord sent out a noise nuisance information pack which contained details of its OOH noise witnessing service. It wrote and left a message on his mobile asking him to complete diary sheets for 3 weeks.
The landlord spoke to the resident about his ASB case on 21 December 2022 who stated that there had been incidents for 3 years. It asked him to complete incident diaries for 2 weeks and to report harassment and racial abuse to the police with whom it worked in partnership. The landlord created a racial hate crime case, advised him to arrange a priority assessment for a transfer with the Housing Needs Team and to consider a mutual exchange, agreed a referral to mental health support and carried out a THRIVE risk assessment arriving a “high” score of 10. The landlord also noted that the resident wished to complaint about the OOH service.
On 9 January 2023, the landlord carried out a Complainant Vulnerability Matrix arriving at a colour score of Red. It wrote to the neighbour on the same day asking to discuss the resident’s reports of ASB on 19 January 2023. As the neighbour did not show up, the landlord wrote again to the neighbour to rearrange the appointment for 31 January 2023.
The resident made further calls to the OOH service on 11 January 2023 and 3 February 2023. On 7 February 2023, the landlord interviewed the resident who advised that the neighbour would get drunk and shout through the window. The neighbour was mainly incoherent but some of the words were offensive. The notes state that the resident said that he did not wish for the landlord to raise recent events and that he did not require support.
The landlord wrote again to the neighbour advising that it wished to carry out a phone interview on 23 February 2023. After the neighbour did not attend again, the landlord wrote to arrange another telephone interview for 13 March 2023.
On 24 February 2023, the resident reported by phone that incidents of banging, shouting, swearing, threats, religious slurs and loud music had got worse after the neighbour found out that he had made a complaint against him. The resident stated that he was fearful for his life due to intimidation and threats. He stated that his mental health was getting worse and that he may go back on anti-depressants.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord interviewed the resident who confirmed the neighbour problems had escalated. He stated the previous night the neighbour was banging on the floor shouting, “We will kill all Muslins. We will put you down like a dog.” The resident reported the incident to the police as a Hate Crime.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident advising that it had been unsuccessful contacting the neighbour. It asked the resident to confirm if there had been further incidents. The resident replied stating that the neighbour was “doing the same” most nights – “loud shouting and verbal threats including knocks and bangs.”
In emails sent in April and May 2023 the landlord stated that it was awaiting the outcome of the charges from the police. If the neighbour was not charged it would serve a housing caution; if charged it would look to serve a NSP (notice of seek possession).
On 16 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the neighbour noting that he had not attended an appointment and made a new appointment to interview him on 22 May 2023. As the neighbour was not in when it attended, it sent a further letter on 12 June 2023 rearranging the visit for 22 June 2023.
In April and May 2023, the landlord received a report from the police about the neighbour. For reasons of confidentiality, details are not disclosed in this report.
On 30 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord stating that the neighbour was still “doing the same things” and that it was the language that affected him the most.
The OOH witness further incidents of noise on 4 and 15 June 2015 in the early hours.
The landlord drafted a Housing Caution, valid for 12 months, for the neighbour as it had received further reports showing a breach of the tenancy agreement. It quoted incidents between 21 December and 11 March 2023 and warned that it would take legal action if it obtained evidence of further ASB. It hand delivered the caution on 23 June 2023. It advised the resident of this action and stressed that he needed to complete diary sheets to take further action.
On 6 July 2023, the OOH team again attended the resident’s property and on 11 July 2023 the resident sent a diary sheet detailing 6 incidents between 24 June 2023 and 10 July 2023.
On 1 August 2023, the OOH team attended the resident’s block following a report of shouted racial abuse which the resident felt was directed at him and loud music. The team’s records of the incident noted that the neighbour shouted at and abused it using “racist language” and “shouting about immigrants and ‘Pakis’”. It felt the landlord needed to address the behaviour.
On 22 August 2023, the resident phoned the landlord stating the neighbour’s behaviour was getting worse and it was now affecting his health and work. He advised that he could not sleep as there was noise until 4-5pm. On the following day, the resident submitted a diary sheet report of screaming, banging, abusive and aggressive behaviour.
In the early hours of 24 August 2023, the OOH team attended the resident’s block following another report of shouting and music. Its records of the incident noted that the neighbour shouted and threatened the team with violence when it knocked on his door.
On 24 August 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint stating that his neighbour had been shouting racial and anti-Islamic slurs while banging on his ceilings and walls, with no resolution in sight. He attached an audio file for an incident in the early hours of that day where the Out of Hours Team attended but were shouted at and threatened by the neighbour. He had reported the incident to the police also. The resident also provided a video of a friend of the neighbour trying to force entry to his property the previous week. The resident explained how his mental heath had been affected and stated that he wished for a tenancy transfer.
On 25 August 2023, the landlord hand delivered a section 80 Abatement Notice under the Environmental Act 1990. At the same time the landlord managed to speak with the neighbour who attributed his behaviour to an underlying reason. It warned him that it had a lot of evidence and his behaviour needed to stop.
On 29 August 2023, the landlord made a referral for the neighbour to receive support to address the underlying reason he had attributed his behaviour to. For reasons of confidentiality further details cannot be provided in this report. On the same day, the landlord also requested body cam footage for incidents of 1 and 24 August 2023.
On 30 August 2023, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint.
1. It noted the resident was providing incident diaries, but it needed further evidence to progress the Housing Caution that had been served. It had requested body cam footage for the incident witnessed by the OOH Team and statements from officers and the resident. Once it had gathered all statements and evidence it would decide on the appropriate course of action.
2. The landlord understood that the resident was unhappy because the police approached it regarding the incident of 3 March 2023, but the landlord had not provided an update. It confirmed it had liaised with the police about the incident, with the information provided underlying its decision to issue a Housing Caution.
The resident reported that further incidents had occurred on 29 and 31 August 2023 and 3 September 2023. On 4 September 2023, the resident requested a review of his complaint stating that he felt like he was going round “in circles”, and the issue had been going on for years. He noted the OOH team sometimes came out and sometimes did not. The resident added that the landlord did not specify the ground it was rejecting his complaint. When acknowledging the complaint escalation, the landlord stated that its ASB Team worked alongside the OOH team but did not manage it, and that the OOH team’s ability to respond and its response times was variable and based on the number of calls received. The resident subsequently reported that further incidents had occurred on 4 and 14 September 2023.
On 25 September 2023, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint having spoken to the resident by phone. It stated:
1. It was in the process of gathering statements, including from the resident, so that it could evaluate the evidence available and make a proportionate decision as to legal action. It noted the resident was willing to attend court if necessary.
2. It had requested that day that the Housing Options Team undertake an assessment of his housing needs, including advising of his preferred areas of choice.

After the complaints procedure

The resident continued to report ASB through completing incident diaries, contacting the OOH service and sending emails with audio files. On 30 January 2024, the landlord referred an application for a Civil Injunction to its legal team.
On 23 February 2024, the landlord served a NSP on the neighbour referring to 40 incidents between 3 March 2023 and 10 February 2024 some of which were only reported to the police at the time of occurrence. The covering letter stated that the landlord now had sufficient evidence to apply to the court to seek possession of the property. The landlord advised the resident at the time that it was serving the NSP and ask him to keep it updated.
After another report of verbal threats and banging, on 9 May 2024 the landlord advised the resident that it was chasing its legal team for a court date, and that he should report any threats to the police in the interim.
On 16 May 2024, the resident advised the Service that the ASB was still continuing and in fact the neighbour had used religious and racial slurs the previous night.
The landlord has advised the Service when providing information for this investigation that it has applied for an injunction although the judge asked for papers to be resubmitted. The resident has stated that he is aware that his ASB case is with the landlord’s legal team.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from October 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred, at the time. The resident’s prior reports of ASB have been noted to provide background context to his complaint and have only been considered in relation to the landlord’s handling of his further reports.
It is also noted that the resident’s ASB case has progressed since the resident’s complaint completed the court procedure. The resident has made further reports, and the landlord has made a court application. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. However, matters occurring since the end of the complaint procedure have been noted in order to place the complaint in its current context and to inform the orders and recommendations on the case.

Assessment

Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB the landlord first needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts. It is therefore important that a landlord has in place procedures to ensure reports of ASB are appropriately and effectively responded to. The landlord’s ASB Policy allowed for the prioritisation of reports and provided a number of measures that could be taken either in isolation or in conjunction, depending on the severity and urgency of the reports. Embedded within the procedure was the need for engagement and liaison with partner agencies, including the police.
Generally, landlords should risk assess and ensure that steps are taken as soon as possible to support and safeguard vulnerable residents. Landlords should consider whether a multi-agency response is needed. Following investigation, landlords should formulate an action plan and share this with the resident who has reported the ASB. Ideally, the action plan should be agreed with the resident. An incremental approach to action should be taken, starting with providing advice and warnings. Mediation between neighbours (either formal or informal) should be considered at an early stage to stop matters escalating. The Ombudsman expects to see regular communication with the complainant and alleged perpetrator, monitoring of the situation, evolving risk assessments and action plans and good record-keeping.
After the resident initially contacted the landlord through his councillor in December 2022, the landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets and to contact the OOH service. This was appropriate as diary sheets can enable the landlord to understand the nature, frequency and impact of ASB at that time, which can inform further action. Moreover, evidence from staff witnessing incidents support action against the perpetrator. However, the ASB procedure states that the landlord should respond quickly to reports of ASB, contacting the victim to discuss the report and more fully understand the issue. Where incidents are perceived to be motivated by race as in this case the landlord should respond and form an action plan in a day. It was therefore unreasonable that it took the landlord 8 working days to speak to the resident and open a case, in particular given that it was aware he had made previous reports.
It was appropriate that the landlord initially carried out a risk assessment to enable it to assess if the resident required support and safeguarding. However, landlords should be responsive to evolving circumstances to ensure it provides an appropriate level of service. The Department for Communities and Local Government’s (as was) toolkit for social landlords on tackling ASB states “Adequate levels of protection and tailored support are available throughout the duration of the case and beyond.” It was unreasonable that the landlord did not revisit this after the resident reported in February and March 2023 that matters were getting worse, and that in fact that he was fearful for his life. In fact, the resident reported specific threatening comments and that his mental health had deteriorated. This should have prompted the landlord to reassess his support needs and the urgency of its actions.
From January 2023, the landlord sought to interview the neighbour which was appropriate course of action in the first instance. In speaking to a perpetrator, the landlord can make clear their tenancy obligations, hear their version of events and allow the opportunity to change their behaviour. However, the neighbour refused to engage, not attending several appointments over several months or seek to make contact with the neighbour outside of the designated appointments. This allowed the neighbour’s actions to go unchallenged for longer and potentially led him to believe that the consequences to him of his actions would be limited. The landlord should have been clear to the neighbour of the behaviour expected of him as a tenant, which it was able to do, in the absence of independent evidence or acceptance of an allegation.
In fact, the letters the landlord sent rearranging appointments followed the same letter template which suggested that that it would not take stronger action against the neighbour. The landlord ultimately sent the neighbour a caution letter in June 2023. However, this was after repeated missed appointments, 6 months after the resident’s initial report through the Councillor and two months after the police disclosure. This was an unreasonable delay and not consistent with its commitment to take “robust action” to stamp out hate incidents given the resident’s continued reports and his statements that the situation had worsened. It ought to have been clear from the resident’s ongoing reports that the incidents were continuing to bother him.
Following further incidents in August 2023 the landlord served a noise abatement notice of the resident. The noise abatement notice only concerned noise reports under the Environmental Protection Act therefore in itself this was not sufficient. This is because aside from the noise, the neighbour had continued to use racist language and threatening behaviour despite the serving of the caution. Indeed, when delivering the notice it spoke to the resident advising of possible tenancy action. There was no good reason why the landlord did not follow up the verbal warning in writing to reinforce to the neighbour the need for him to ensure further incidents did not occur. Furthermore, the OOH team noted abusive behaviour by the neighbour and asked its colleagues to address the behaviour. This reinforces the fact that a verbal warning was not proportionate at that stage.
The resident also reported an incident of a visitor to the neighbour seeking to enter his property. There is no evidence that the landlord raised this issue with the neighbour which was unreasonable as the incident was undoubtedly distressing to the resident, was potentially a criminal offence and contributed to his fear of the neighbour.
With regards to the landlord’s communication with the resident it is evident that the landlord sought to update the resident and sought further information from him after 22 December 2022 by emails from a designated case officer. The landlord has advised the Service that it sent emails due to the resident’s working patterns. The resident made clear that there were regular incidents, that they occurred in his home and that his mental health was deteriorating. While it is evident that the landlord wrote to the resident, it did not acknowledge the ongoing impact on him. It did not say that it was dealing with the case as a racial harassment case. It therefore missed opportunities to demonstrate it understood his perspective, reassure him that it was dealing with his case with sufficient urgency and discuss the provision of tailored support.

Complaint Handling

With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, both its responses at stages 1 and 2 were within the timeframe in its complaints procedure. However, effective complaint handling enables residents to be heard and understood. As stated in the Service’s Complaint Handling Code in effect at the time, the complaint handler must deal with complaints on their merits and consider all information and evidence carefully. In addition, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate
In this case, the landlord’s complaint responses were brief, simply providing an update on the current status of the resident’s ASB case and stating that it did not uphold the complaint. The landlord did not outline the action it had taken since the ASB case was opened or consider whether there had been any service failure in its prior handling of the case, such as delay and adequate communication. As such the landlord did not consider all the information and evidence and did not justify its decision on the complaint. Moreover, the Code states that “If the complaint is about a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint…” The landlord should therefore have taken into account that the resident had made previous reports about his neighbour when responding to his complaint.
The complaint process provides an opportunity to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship and the tone of a complaint response can help this. In this case, the resident explained the effect on his mental health, the fact he felt he needed to move property and his perception that there had been no progress in resolving his ASB case. The landlord in its complaint responses failed to acknowledge these points or indeed that his case involved the aggravating factors of race and religion. The cannot but have contributed to the resident’s perception that the landlord was not appreciative of the impact of his neighbour’s behaviour on him and that it was not treating his case with sufficient urgency.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and racial harassment from his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in acting on the resident’s initial report and failed to re-assess the risk to the resident as the case evolved. It delayed in taking robust action to address the neighbour’s behaviour especially as he refused to engage. When communicating with the resident the landlord did not show empathy and missed opportunities to discuss support needs.
When responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not consider all the information and evidence and did not justify its decision on the complaint. It did not consider the points the resident had made or acknowledge that race and religion were aggravating factors.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. arrange for a senior member of staff to send an apology to the resident, either in writing or verbally, depending on the preference of the resident. The landlord should take into account the guidance of the Service on apologies.
2. pay the resident compensation of £600, comprising:
  1. £500 for his distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the handling of his reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of his complaint.
  3. This award supersedes the compensation offer made during the complaints procedure therefore the landlord may deduct any compensation previously paid.
3. provide a detailed update to the resident regarding the action being taken on his case, including the court action against the neighbour.
4. obtain details of the resident’s health condition and vulnerabilities and ensure that they are recorded on its systems.
Within the next 12 weeks, in accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the ongoing review of the ASB policy and Procedure and evidence that the issues highlighted in this report have been considered during the review. The review of this case should be carried out by senior staff with authority for formulating corporate policies and procedures.