Liverpool City Council (202300555)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300555

Liverpool City 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 16 April 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. The resident shares the property with her 4-year-old daughter.
The landlord had a contract with a managing agent who was responsible for managing tenancy issues and complaints on behalf of the landlord. The contract sets out that the management agent will manage complaints and day to day tenancy issues and attempt to resolve routine issues. It will refer non routine issues that cannot be resolved to the landlord. For clarity, this report will refer to both the managing agent and the landlord as ‘the landlord’ with the exception of where it is necessary to make a distinction.
On 15 November 2021, the resident made her first report of ASB. She advised that she had been experiencing ASB since the beginning of the tenancy in the form of shouting, arguing, and noise coming from the neighbouring property. She reported that recently she had asked the neighbour to keep the noise down and they became threatening and aggressive towards her, so she reported this to the police. The resident reported that she was living in fear and was concerned for the wellbeing of her 1-year-old daughter. After this, there were several further reports of ASB to the landlord until she brought a formal complaint.
On 15 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB. She felt that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously, she stopped reporting ASB as she felt the landlord was ignoring her, she was unhappy that the landlord advised her that it had no ASB procedure in place, and it only recently provided her with incident logs.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022. It upheld the complaint. The landlord accepted that more action could have been taken in response to the reports of ASB. It accepted that it should have issued an incident log when the ASB report was first raised, and it should have advised the resident of the relevant authorities to contact. It offered the resident £50 as a goodwill gesture and agreed to meet the resident to gather evidence of the ASB complaint.
On 1 April 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She felt that the landlord was ignoring her and that it had not been following its procedures. She advised that her neighbour’s behaviour was affecting her daughter’s emotional health. She felt that the managing agent was treating her unfairly as she was not a resident of one of its properties.
On 27 April 2023, the landlord provided the resident with its final complaint response. It advised that it was taking her ASB complaints seriously, it had been in regular contact with her ASB officer and had contacted her neighbour about her behaviour. It offered £30 compensation because of its delay in providing a complaint response.
When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, as a resolution to the complaint she wanted the landlord to take action against her neighbour because of their anti social behaviour.

Assessment and findings

Scope

When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she was also unhappy with the landlord’s response to repair requests and the arrears figure provided by the landlord. Paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that we may not investigate complaints prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. After consideration, these are issues that this Service cannot investigate because the resident raised these issues with the landlord as part of her stage 2 complaint escalation, 6 months after the original complaint about its handling of reports of ASB. The landlord should have a reasonable opportunity to respond to these issues before the complaint is brought to this Service.

Assessment

Section 5 of the landlord’s tenancy agreement sets out its responsibilities to the resident. With regards to ASB it sets out that it will:
1. give help and advice if you tell us you are the victim of ASB.
2. respond to complaints of ASB in a reasonable time according to the seriousness of the behaviour being complained about and keep you informed about the progress of your complaint.
3. take all complaints of ASB seriously and will use available legal powers to take action where it is appropriate.
4. refer you to a mediation service or other agency where this is appropriate.
The aims of the landlord’s management agents ASB policy broadly align with the tenancy agreement. Its policy aims include:
1. Encourage good neighbourly behaviour to avoid ASB arising in the first place.
2. Be accessible to all our customers, including non-tenants, in the event of an incident which requires our involvement.
3. Prioritise our response to reports of anti-social behaviour based on a harm-based approach, (i.e. impact on the victim), ensuring that our approach is tailored to the situation.
4. Ensure our approach is victim centred.
5. Ensure our approach where possible supports perpetrators of anti-social behaviour to recognise and change their behaviour making eviction a last resort.
6. Ensure we communicate effectively with complainants by producing a clear action plan with agreed actions, timescales, and desired outcomes.
7. Resolve all cases as swiftly as possible and if possible, to the satisfaction of every complainant.
When it receives a report of ASB it has a list of actions it will take, including:
1. Responding to resident enquiries within 5 working days.
2. Assessing level of risk on first contact.
3. When determining a valid case of ASB it will agree an action plan within 5 days if it is identified as a tenancy management case or, 3 days if it is a tenancy enforcement case.
4. Ensure we communicate effectively with complainants by producing a clear action plan with agreed actions, timescales, and desired outcomes.
5. Keep in regular contact with complainants by an agreed method and at a frequency agreed with you.
6. Work with other agencies where appropriate and adopt a multi-agency approach.
7. Take action at the appropriate level based on the evidence to support each individual case.
8. We will follow local authority safeguarding procedures if there are safety concerns for a vulnerable person.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its policies and procedures and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
On 15 November 2021, the resident reported threatening behaviour from her neighbour which she reported to the police, and she raised concerns for the wellbeing of her child, highlighting that she had moved her away from an abusive father. The landlord asked the resident for specific dates of ASB incidents, and the update from the police since she contacted them. Thereafter, there is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment or agreed an action plan with timescales and desired outcomes. This was inappropriate as the resident reported threatening and aggressive behaviour towards her. It would have been reasonable to treat her reports as urgent. The landlord did not adhere to its own ASB policy, or its responsibilities set out in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has an important safeguarding responsibility and given the report of threatening behaviour and welfare concerns, it was a significant failure not to take any meaningful action. It should have conducted a risk assessment and considered what supports it could have given the resident and signposted her to external support services. Its failure to give regard to the residents vulnerabilities and to take any meaningful action to this report represents maladministration.
Shortly after the first report of ASB, the resident asked the landlord 3 times for its ASB procedure. The landlord advised that there was “no official office or industry policy for one tenant to make a complaint against another.” Instead, it would use the tenancy agreement to point out any breaches in the form of ASB and issue notices or warning letters. It is unclear to this Service why the landlord provided this advice to the resident when it did have an ASB policy in place. Section 218a of the Housing Act 1996 states a registered provider of social housing landlord must publish a summary statement of its ASB policy and procedure. That the landlord didn’t refer the resident to this statement is a failure.
This was a significant failure by the landlord. Landlords should have robust policies and procedures in place for dealing with reports of ASB and its staff should be aware of these policies and procedures. If the landlord had provided its policy to the resident, she would have had a clear understanding of the landlord’s responsibilities and what was expected of her. The landlord’s failure to provide her with its policy was inappropriate and it is evident that the resident felt unconfident its approach.
Based on the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord staff was unaware of its ASB policy. This is because it failed to conduct a risk assessment and agree an action plan. This initial failure was the basis for continued failings by the landlord in its response to the residents reports of ASB.
On 28 November 2021, the resident agreed for the landlord to write a letter to her neighbour reminding her that ASB would not be tolerated. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the letter, but the landlord advised that it sent a basic letter reminding her neighbour to be courteous on 29 November 2021.
This was not a proportionate response to the resident’s reports of threatening behaviour and concerns for her child’s wellbeing. The landlord should have taken more action to support the resident. It could have taken a range of actions such as: completing a risk assessment, consulting with the police, interviewing both parties, mediation, signposting the resident to external support services, assisting the resident with gathering evidence of ASB, and providing information of its ASB policy and procedures to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord failed to follow its own policy and failed in its responsibilities under the terms of the tenancy agreement. This represents maladministration.
On 30 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord because she did not know how to provide it with evidence of ASB. She advised that she would email it every time she experienced ASB from her neighbour. She reported that they had been arguing and smashing things on 28 January 2022 and now they were banging on her walls. The landlord replied to the resident the next day and agreed that this was the best way for her to report ASB. However, it took no action to address the ASB, provide incident logs, or carry out any of actions set out in its ASB policy. The resident had already informed the landlord that her child’s emotional state was being negatively affected and was causing a lot of distress to her. The landlord’s response was inappropriate and caused further distress in the circumstances.
After further reports of ASB, the landlord asked the resident on 2 March 2022 if she wanted it to issue a formal letter to her neighbour. The resident replied that the landlord had informed her months ago that it sent the letter. She was unhappy that the landlord had not already sent the letter and felt that the landlord was not taking the reports seriously, as such she would not be reporting any further incidents of ASB to it. The landlord’s failure to set out a clear action plan at the start and its poor communication led to a breakdown in the relationship with the resident.
On 11 October 2022, the resident requested a meeting with the landlord about the ongoing ASB and stressed the impact it was having on her 2-year-old daughter. She felt that the landlord had not acted on previous reports of ASB and wanted to know what the process was if the neighbour breached the tenancy. The landlord advised the resident that to action a breach of tenancy based on ASB it needed strong supporting time stamped evidence with the backing of environmental health. It provided incident logs for the resident to complete and advised her to contact environmental health.
This was inappropriate. Environmental health conduct investigations into statutory nuisance at the criminal burden of proof. This is different to the burden of proof required for breach of tenancy. To provide this information to the resident is a failing and further demonstrates the lack of ASB awareness of the landlord. It is a further failing that the landlord relied solely on the investigation of Environmental Health and not conduct its own investigation.
Based on the evidence, this is the first time the landlord provided the resident with information on how to gather evidence of ASB. This was 11 months after the resident first reported ASB. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 1 complaint response and offered £50 compensation. This was an unreasonable offer of redress considering the type of ASB reported and the length of time the ASB impacted the resident. This Service has made an order of compensation below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
After its stage 1 complaint response there is evidence that the landlord visited the resident on 26 October 2022. The resident provided the landlord with video evidence of ASB, which included threatening behaviour, and advised that she would like to move as she feared for her safety. On 9 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord if it will be interviewing her neighbour, provided a crime reference she had received from the police, and asked what the next stage is if the ASB continues. The landlord replied on 22 November 2022 advising that it was reviewing the evidence and would update the resident.
There is no evidence of any further correspondence about the ASB investigation until the resident asked for an update 4 months later on 17 March 2023 when reporting further ASB incidents. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to contact the resident to advise of the outcome of its review of the evidence or provide information on her next steps. Given the residents reports of fearing for her safety, and the effects the ASB was having on her and her child, the landlord’s failure to communicate with her was unreasonable and unsympathetic in the circumstances.
The landlord visited the resident again on 23 March 2023 to listen to further recordings. It sent the resident’s neighbour a warning letter the next day. On 29 March 2023, the resident reported an incident in which her neighbour attacked her, which was reported to the police. The landlord confirmed it had sent a warning letter to the neighbour. On 31 March 2023, the resident reported further evidence of ASB and requested the landlord’s next steps including timescales, stating that her daughter was petrified in the house. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that it continued to investigate the ASB, but it had not built up a strong case of evidence to consider action against her neighbour. It confirmed that it was arranging to meet with her neighbour.
The landlord’s reply lacked empathy or any understanding of the resident’s circumstances. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights cited the tone of communication with residents was a major factor that impacted on the service the resident received. The report cited that when the tone of the landlord’s response “dismiss[ed] a resident’s lived experiences”, it resulted in the resident feeling they had received unfavourable treatment. The evidence indicates the tone of the landlord’s communication created such a situation.
It should have consulted with the police and considered the potential risk to the resident given the recent report of an attack, it again should have considered signposting her to external supports and considered what steps it could take in the interim. Its continued failure to demonstrate any meaningful action in line with its ASB policy represents maladministration.
This Service finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. This investigation identified a series of significant failures by the landlord. In its initial response to the resident, it failed to identify that it held an ASB policy and as such failed to apply it.
This initial failure meant that the landlord failed to conduct a risk assessment or agree an action plan with the resident. It delayed significantly in providing the resident with information on how to gather evidence of ASB. It failed to take a multi-agency approach, provide appropriate support to the resident. It failed to acknowledge the vulnerabilities of the resident and her personal circumstances, and to acknowledge and address the affects the ASB was having on the resident and her child.
It was unreasonable of the landlord in its failure to highlight the resident’s right to raise an ASB Case Review via a Community Trigger. Its communication lacked empathy. The landlord did not demonstrate that it took any meaningful action to investigate the ASB, especially when she raised concerns for her safety.
It is acknowledged that the landlord employed a management agent to manage the tenancy issues, however, it remains the responsibility of the landlord to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB. In effect, the management agent’s failures were the landlord’s failures. The landlord should have agreed service level agreements in place with the management agent and a clear process for escalating ASB cases from the management agent to the landlord to ensure its responsibilities to the resident were met. There was little evidence of oversight from the landlord. The management of the residents ASB reports were inappropriate in particularly distressing circumstances.
These failures caused significant detriment to the resident. She reported living in fear and raised concerns about the wellbeing of her young daughter. She reported feeling ignored by the landlord which exacerbated her distress in the circumstances. The resident was incorrectly advised that the landlord did not have an ASB policy which led to frustration. The resident lost confidence in the landlord and stopped reporting incidents of ASB. Based on the evidence, the landlord’s failures affected the resident for a period of over 17 months (74 weeks) since it first received a report of ASB until it issued a stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s failures caused distress to the resident, and she lost enjoyment of the property because of its failures. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s’ Remedies Guidance to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code, (the Code), sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning.
In its stage 1 complaint response, it acknowledged that it had delayed in providing information on how to gather evidence of ASB. However, the landlord failed to say what it was going to do to prevent a reoccurrence of the failures and failed to implement any learning which is demonstrated by the repeated mistakes. The landlord failed to acknowledge that it had not applied its ASB policy. It failed to acknowledge that it had not conducted a risk assessment, failed to agree an action plan, or conduct meaningful action in response to the reports of ASB. It also failed to acknowledge that its staff member responding to the resident’s reports of ASB was unaware of its ASB policy. The landlords offer of £50 as a gesture of goodwill was inappropriate. After identifying failings, it would have been reasonable to provide an explanation of its financial redress.
After its stage 2 complaint response the landlord arranged a meeting with the resident and reviewed video evidence, however, it failed to keep in contact with the resident about the ASB investigation for 4 months when the resident requested an update. Its stage 2 complaint investigation failed to identify any failings in its handling of ASB reports or its communication with the resident, and it did not demonstrate any learning or commitment to improve its processes. The landlord offered further compensation for the delays in its response but failed to properly assess the appropriate level of redress to put the issues right.
This service finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. If the landlord had used its complaint investigation effectively and appropriately identified its failures, it would have applied its ASB policy, conducted a risk assessment, agreed an action plan with the resident with agreed actions and appropriate timescales. It failed to learn from the complaint, put things right and it failed to take action to prevent the same mistakes reoccurring. Its complaint handling failures contributed to the resident’s distress which she reported has caused harm to her and her young child. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance to reflect this distress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered for a senior director of the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to apologise in person for the failures identified in this report.
It is ordered for the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to pay the resident further compensation of £2700 compromising:
1. £1500 for the distress caused to the resident by the failures identified in its response to reports of ASB.
2. £950 for loss of amenities of her property for 74 weeks. This offer is calculated at 15% of the average rent for local authorities in the area.
3. £250 for the distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it is ordered that the landlord carry out a review of all current ASB cases being investigated on its behalf by the managing agent to ensure oversight. The review should be carried out by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include:
1. establishing why it failed to identify and apply its ASB policy in this case.
2. a review of the management agents ASB policy and procedures to establish improvements that can be implemented to prevent similar failings reoccurring.
3. identification of all other resident’s who may be affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaints process.
4. a review its staff training needs in its awareness and application of its ASB policy.
Following this review the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learnings from the review.
2. The number of residents who were experiencing similar issues.
3. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the resident’s affected by similar issues.
4. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from reoccurring.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to ensure its changes in practice are embedded.
The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of the report 12 weeks and confirm it has complied with the orders.