London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202348403)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348403

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

17 December 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom fourth-floor flat, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her son who has autism. The landlord, which is a local authority, has no recorded vulnerabilities for either the resident or her son.
The resident described installing a video recording doorbell on 1 March 2023. She said she had taken this decision due to her post going missing. The resident says neighbours “were angry” about the doorbell and tried to attack her and forcefully remove the camera. She says she reported this ASB incident to the landlord on 24 March 2023 as the neighbours had threatened to petrol bomb her property.
On 14 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of her report of ASB. She said incidents were ongoing, some of which she had caught on camera. Also, neighbours continued to act aggressively towards her and one would throw cannabis cigarettes on to her balcony from the floor above. She did not feel the landlord had done enough to address her concerns. She described not feeling safe in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2023. It was sorry about the concerns she had raised but it was satisfied it had appropriately acted and issued the neighbours with a community protection warning (CPW).
On 16 October 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP). Her request asked the landlord to consider that her neighbours had also attacked another resident in the street.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request the next day and issued its stage 2 final response on 15 December 2023. It remained satisfied with the action taken by its ASB team. It reminded the resident that it had issued a CPW alongside the police. It said it required evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, to serve a community protection notice (CPN). It did not have evidence that the neighbours were targeting her and urged her to report any incidents to it and the police. The landlord did not uphold her complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She said she wanted the landlord to apologise and offer compensation to recognise the effects on her and her autistic son’s health. She said in November 2023 she had requested an urgent management transfer to another property “suitable for her health conditions and close to her support system.” She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord rejected this request.
During our conversations with the resident in November 2024, she said she continued to experience incidents of ASB and remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the resident’s correspondence said the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and her complaint affected her and her son’s mental health.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
We also note the resident’s request for the landlord to transfer her to another property. While we are able to consider whether it appropriately considered its policies for a management transfer at the time of this complaint, the landlord’s overall allocation process does not fall within our remit. This is a matter for consideration by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). It was therefore appropriate that the resident informed us that she had communication with the LGSCO in October 2023.
Also, the resident’s correspondence to us continued beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response. This included new reports of ASB, including matters affecting another resident. This would be a new complaint, one that the individual involved must choose to raise themselves. We are therefore unable to specifically comment on other resident’s circumstances where we have no consent to do so.
A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s original complaint through its ICP. This is to ensure it took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s complaint within its 2 stage up to its stage 2 complaint response on 15 December 2023. The resident’s additional reports beyond this date will not form part of this particular investigation. We have discussed this with the resident and explained that she may wish to raise new complaints with the landlord. It must first complete its own ICP before we can investigate.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) at the property

Following our correspondence to the landlord between August 2024 to October 2024, although requested, we did not receive the landlord’s ASB records.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Scheme state that the member landlord must provide copies (without charge) of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint or assessment of compliance with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This may include the following records and documents:
1. the member’s policies and procedures
2. any internal files, documents, correspondence, records, accounts or minutes of meetings, in hard copy or electronic form. This includes records relating to similar cases where we need them to establish consistency of practice
3. a self-assessment against any good practice issued by the Ombudsman when ordered to do so
The member landlord must provide the requested information within a reasonable timescale in an accessible format or allow access for inspection. While we acknowledge that the landlord has responded promptly and thoroughly during the investigation, we remind it of its obligation as a member landlord to ensure it supplies us all requested information when first asked.
The landlord’s housing services ASB policy defines ASB in line with the Crime and Policing Act 2014. This states that ASB is conduct which:
1. has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person
2. is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises
3. is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person
To support the landlord’s case management and investigation, along with the resident’s needs, its policy details “tools” available to it. These include:
1. risk assessments to assess the risk, if any, the resident may be at and their vulnerability
2. agreed action plans for both the landlord and resident to complete to try to resolve the reported situation
3. making sure it refers children and vulnerable adults to safeguarding, where required
The resident says she reported ASB to the landlord in March 2023. She does not dispute receiving a call from the landlord following her reports. However, she described receiving no further contact or update for “weeks.” At this time, the landlord acknowledged that its staff changed patches and a new officer took over the resident’s case.
The landlord’s ASB case management records do not demonstrate the action it initially took following her reports. The landlord has provided no evidence of any activity records between 1 March 2023 to 30 April 2023. Not until 30 April 2023 when police attended the block following reports of a fight.
ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables landlords to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord and resident relationships, and improve the residents experience of residing in their properties. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision making process and an audit trail after the event. While the landlord’s ASB policy does not stipulate response timescales, this was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to wait for support.
There is evidence of the landlord asking the police for information regarding the alleged petrol bomb threat. The police advised that there was no crime report made and no evidence gathered. Records state the resident did not want to pursue a police prosecution. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to investigate the resident’s reports.
On 4 May 2023 the evidence provided demonstrates the landlord chose to request a joint visit to the resident with the police safer neighbourhood team. With the visit completed on 17 May 2023. In which, the landlord’s records state it completed a risk assessment, discussed an action plan, and noted the resident’s support needs. This included that she already had support from victim support regarding post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), following other life events.
While this was a reasonable step to take and in line with its ASB policy, it is unclear why the landlord’s evidence to us does not include any reference of the resident’s health or vulnerabilities. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
Following the landlord’s joint visit with the police to the resident, there is evidence throughout May 2023 where the landlord considered the circumstances of the case and the parties involved. We are satisfied from the evidence supplied that the landlord followed its ASB policy and demonstrated a multiagency approach and safeguarding considerations prior to enforcement action. There are matters that the landlord did not share with the resident. This was appropriate and demonstrated it considered its data protection responsibilities.
On 25 May 2023 the landlord, accompanied by the police, issued the resident’s neighbour with a CPW. It served a second CPW to another neighbour alleged to be involved with the resident’s ASB reports. This demonstrated the landlord was using the enforcement powers available to it and its multiagency approach.
There are no further incidents reported by the resident at this stage. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to discuss an action plan and agree to close the resident’s case with her on 7 June 2023.
Between July 2023 to November 2023 there is evidence that the landlord reopened the resident’s case. Her reports included incidents of items allegedly thrown onto her balcony. At this time, there is evidence that the landlord informed the resident of counter ASB allegations against her. In which, it informed her of the steps it would take to write to residents about the alleged littering. Also, that her and her mother directly contacting her neighbours was not appropriate and the consequences should she continue to do so. This demonstrated the landlord’s impartiality and efforts to address all reports and counter allegations.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2023. In which, it said:
1. a new officer took over the resident’s case. They contacted her on 5 May 2023 and visited her with the police safer neighbourhoods team on 17 May 2023
2. it anonymised the resident from the complaint during its enquiries, visited other residents in the block, discussed an action plan with her, and took enforcement action on 23 May 2023. The police witnessed this action
3. it received no further reports of ASB until July 2023 whereby the resident reported cannabis cigarettes thrown on to her balcony. Without evidence of the alleged perpetrator, the landlord said it would write to all residents on the floors above
4. it was aware that the resident and her mother had exchanged text messages and calls to the alleged perpetrator. The landlord said it had discussed this action and the consequences of this with the resident. Instead, it encouraged her to report any incidents of littering on her balcony to the block caretaker
5. it reminded the resident to contact the police immediately if she felt intimidated and for any new reports
6. that it was sorry about the concerns she had raised but it was satisfied it had appropriately acted on her concerns
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response thoroughly summarised the resident’s complaint and actions it took. While the resident remained dissatisfied, its response demonstrated it had acted on her concerns and included the police to support the enforcement actions taken. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
We note that the resident’s correspondence on 23 November 2023 disclosed physical and mental health vulnerabilities. Furthermore, she said her son had “special needs.”
While the resident did not include this information in her original housing application, it was sufficient notification to the landlord that the household circumstances may have changed. It is therefore again unclear why the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it followed these comments up. It did not evidence contacting her to discuss or review any risk assessments or support needs. Nor provide any evidence that it updated its customer records. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
Paragraph 1.1 of the landlord’s management transfer policy states a management transfer would apply if it could identify a threat to life and limb. Such as the resident or a household member living at the address being the victim of a threat or physical harm.
We note that the resident asked the landlord to move her due to the reported ASB. She expressed dissatisfaction that it declined her request. While we acknowledge this would have been disappointing, there is evidence that the landlord considered her request. On or around 28 November 2023 it met internally to discuss her application, submitted a disclosure request to the police, and determined there being no supporting evidence of a threat to life and limb. This demonstrated the landlord acting in line with its management transfer policy.
While we acknowledge the resident has provided video evidence of incidents outside her property’s front door, some took place after the landlord’s stage 2 response in December 2023. Therefore, these do not form part of her original complaint and we cannot therefore include them within this investigation.
Based on the evidence, the landlord demonstrated discussing incidents with the police and took enforcement action based on its investigations. This was appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy. That said, there are gaps in the initial stages of the resident’s case. While the landlord explained the change of personnel, its initial delay, and lack of communication left her feeling that it was not addressing her concerns. This caused her distress and inconvenience as she tried to progress matters with it.
Furthermore, given the health and vulnerability information passed to it by the resident, the landlord failed to demonstrate effective record keeping. It failed to demonstrate it had updated its customer records or revisited its risk assessments prior to its final complaint response in December 2023.
Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) at the property. We order it to pay £75 to acknowledge and put right the identified failures.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 of its ICP within 5 days. At stage 1, it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 30 working days at stage 2.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code, 1 April 2022, required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
While the landlord’s policy at the time did not align with the Code, the Ombudsman accepted corporate complaints processes for local authority landlord’s at that time.
The Code became statutory from 1 April 2024. It is therefore appropriate that the landlord’s website demonstrates it has changed its complaints policy to align to the expectations of the statutory Code. All further reference to the Code within this report will relate to the 1 April 2022 version as it was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 14 August 2023. To meet the expectations of the landlord’s relevant complaints policy, the resident should have expected an acknowledgement by 21 August 2023 and a response by 28 August 2023. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to achieve either of these dates.
We note from the landlord’s late acknowledgement on 22 August 2023 that it said it would provide its stage 1 response on 4 September 2023. This indicates the landlord calculated its response dates from the date of its acknowledgement letter rather than the date it logged the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with paragraph 5.1 of the Code.
Paragraph 4.2 of the Code says within the complaint acknowledgement, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, it must ask the resident for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.
The landlord’s stage 1 response clearly summarised its actions following the resident’s ASB report. However, its response did not clearly set out its understanding of her complaint. This was not appropriate and not in line with paragraph 4.2 of the Code. While the detriment of this would be low to the resident, it showed a training need at the time of this complaint response.
The landlord’s relevant complaint’s policy states that a resident must ask to escalate their complaint no later than 28 days from its stage 1 reply. With this in mind, the resident had until 2 October 2023 to submit her request. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to accept the resident’s late escalation request on 16 October 2023. This demonstrated the landlord acting reasonably and taking further steps to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 17 October 2023. This was appropriate and within the landlord’s 5 day response timescale.
However, we note that it calculated the 30 working days to provide its stage 2 response from its own acknowledgement date. Rather than the date the resident asked to escalate the complaint. While the response was delay by only 1 day, this was not appropriate and not in line with the expectations of the Code. This demonstrates a training requirement at the time of this complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 15 December 2023. This was not appropriate and 14 working days beyond its complaint policy response timescales.
The landlord’s complaint responses detailed the action it took, provided guidance to the resident, and encouraged her to report incidents to it and the police. However, we have identified recurring complaint handling failures, which the landlord did not acknowledge. While the detriment of these failings to the resident would have been low, the landlord has failed to demonstrate taking steps itself to put things right.
Therefore, based on the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to pay her £50 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £125 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £75 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) at the property.
  2. £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. We order the landlord to contact the resident and ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect her circumstances.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord ensures its complaint handling training includes reminders of the importance of providing the Ombudsman with all records when first requested.