London Borough of Hackney (202333490)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333490

London Borough of Hackney

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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints, including the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat under a secure tenancy agreement. The resident lives with her son, who is under 16.
The resident raised two complaints on 6 September 2023. The resident was dissatisfied that:
1. she had been reporting antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour for 7 years
2. she did not believe the landlord was doing enough to support her or to deal with the neighbour’s behaviour
3. she had not received an updated action plan despite several requests
4. she had not been told the outcome of the local authority’s assessment of the neighbour’s capacity
5. she wanted the landlord to provide CCTV
In its stage 1 complaint response on 26 January 2024, the landlord:
1. apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and acknowledged this was below its usual standard of service
2. stated the case had been with its legal department as it intended to seek an injunction against the neighbour and it would update the resident once the case had progressed
3. stated an engineer was due to visit on 25 January 2024 to check whether it was feasible to install a CCTV camera and that if it was, it would install a camera within 4 weeks
4. stated it was reviewing the ASB case regularly and acknowledged the resident was continuing to report ASB from the neighbour
5. invited the resident to tell it whether there was anything further it could do to support her, or whether there were any services it could refer her to
6. offered £720 compensation comprised of:
  1. £320 for the delay in responding to the complaint
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 February 2024. The resident remained dissatisfied that:
1. the ASB was ongoing
2. the landlord had not installed the CCTV camera
3. the landlord had not taken actions it had promised
4. the landlord had not responded to both complaints
5. she believed the landlord ought to pay twice the amount of compensation, as the ASB had also affected her son
In its stage 2 complaint response on 23 April 2024, the landlord:
1. apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint
2. explained the compensation offered was for the tenancy as a whole and not each individual resident. It would not, therefore, double the compensation offered
3. stated it had maintained regular contact with the resident about the ASB, and had held meetings with various agencies about the neighbour’s behaviour
4. reiterated it was pursuing an injunction against the neighbour and the case would be reviewed by counsel before submission
5. acknowledged that the engineer had not attended to inspect the property on 25 January 2024. It explained this appointment had been cancelled by the engineer. It apologised that the resident had not been informed
6. explained an inspection was done on 16 February 2024 and it had identified that the property was not suitable for CCTV due to the construction of the building and lack of access to the roof
7. explained it had considered a ‘standalone’ camera and decided not to install one as it would be susceptible to interference or damage
8. stated that a standalone camera inside the building could also be a breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)
9. explained it had mistakenly merged both complaints
10. offered £1,045 comprised of:
  1. £720 offered in its stage 1 complaint response
  2. £300 for merging complaints
  3. £25 for the missed appointment on 25 January 2024
As of the date of this determination, the resident continues to report ASB and the landlord has not obtained an injunction against the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope

The Ombudsman previously investigated a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, which was determined on 30 May 2023. Therefore, this report will only consider the events from 1 June 2023 onward.
In her complaints to the landlord and this service, the resident was dissatisfied with the actions taken by social care services about her neighbour, in that she believed those services were not taking adequate steps to deal with the neighbour’s behaviour.
The landlord is also the resident’s local authority. Local authorities are only members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for their role in managing social housing or long leases. They are not members of the Scheme for their other roles and duties, such as adult social care services.
Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme states:

“41. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: d. concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease”

Therefore, the resident’s complaints about social care services are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and not one we can investigate. If the resident remains dissatisfied with this, she could contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), which may be able to investigate.
In her complaints to the landlord and this service, the resident was also dissatisfied with the support the landlord had offered to the neighbour to manage their behaviour.
Paragraph 25.c of the Scheme states:

“25. The following people can make complaints to the Ombudsman about members: c. a representative of any of the people above who is authorised by them to make complaint on their behalf”

There is no evidence the resident was authorised to bring a complaint on behalf of the neighbour. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and not one we can investigate.
The Ombudsman will consider how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB, and whether this was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states it will take proportionate action to deal with ASB, which could include seeking an injunction and installing CCTV. The policy also states it will develop and review action plans.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to take a proactive approach to dealing with ASB. This includes taking action against ASB which landlords have identified is appropriate in a timely manner.
The resident has reported ASB from the neighbour for at least 7 years before 2023. Throughout 2023, the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord and the police, which included the neighbour:
1. staring and laughing at her son, which her son found intimidating
2. walking closely and making comments to the resident, which she found intimidating
3. leaving their front door open
4. throwing objects out of their window, including tools and glass bottles
5. leaving large objects in the stairwell
6. blocking the resident’s front door with large objects, including household appliances
7. pouring water in the stairwell
8. ringing the resident’s doorbell in the early hours of the morning
9. screaming and shouting
It is accepted that the neighbour may live with complex mental health conditions.
On 7 June 2023, the landlord told the resident it would seek an injunction against the neighbour because of the reported ASB. This was reasonable, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
On 15 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord to provide a detailed action plan about the ASB. The resident repeatedly asked for an action plan between June and September 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident’s request was reasonable.
It is positive to note that the landlord did maintain regular contact with the resident about the ASB in this time. However, there is no evidence that it ever provided her with an updated action plan. This was a failure by the landlord.
In July 2023, the resident completed a risk assessment and asked the landlord to install CCTV. She believed the landlord was obliged to do this, because she had scored the highest risk category in the assessment.
In July 2023, the landlord told the resident:
1. CCTV was one of a number of actions for it to consider
2. the case had been referred to the local authority’s ASB action panel, and additional security would be considered
3. that following a meeting with its legal services team, it had decided to wait until a capacity assessment had been completed with the neighbour before it started legal proceedings
4. it had made appointments with social services to conduct the capacity assessment
5. it had made disclosure requests to the police to support the legal action
6. it had made to contact the neighbour and acknowledged this had been difficult
7. stated it would update the resident every Monday, with the exception of work absences
In August 2023, the landlord told the resident:
1. an ASB panel meeting had been held, and the landlord had received legal advice that it ought to obtain evidence of the neighbour’s capacity before starting proceedings for an injunction
2. it would continue to prepare the legal case whilst it was waiting for evidence of the neighbour’s capacity
3. it had obtained advice that if it were to start proceedings before it had obtained evidence of capacity, it would likely lead to further delays as the court would want to be satisfied that the neighbour understood the action being taken against them
4. without evidence of the neighbour’s capacity, it was highly unlikely that the court would make an order for an injunction
5. a professionals’ meeting had been held with agencies involved in the neighbour’s care
6. it would continue to coordinate with social care services for them to complete the capacity assessment and explained it was reliant on social care services for this
7. it had considered the resident’s request for CCTV and decided against this because there was no evidence she was at risk of physical harm
In September 2023, the landlord told the resident it had received the capacity assessment from social services and that it had passed the case to its legal department.
In October 2023, the landlord told the resident it had decided to instruct outside legal counsel to expedite the case, as its own legal department was operating with limited resources. It also stated that its own legal department would review the case before this was passed to external counsel.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the actions taken by the landlord between July and October 2023 were reasonable, because it demonstrated a proactive approach to dealing with the ASB and was consistent with its policy.
In November 2023, the landlord offered to refer the resident to various support services, which she declined. It also told the resident it had reconsidered her request for CCTV and would install a temporary camera. There is no evidence that the landlord did this, or that the landlord had told the resident it had changed its decision at the time. This was a failure by the landlord.
In its complaint responses, the landlord:
1. reiterated its intention to seek an injunction against the neighbour and that it would instruct external counsel to expedite this once it had been reviewed by its own legal department
2. stated that it would not install a CCTV camera and explained the reasons for this
3. offered the resident £1,045 compensation, of which £400 was offered for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident
In her complaints to this service, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to not install CCTV cameras.
The Ombudsman understands it would be desirable to the resident for the landlord to install CCTV. However, there was no obligation on the landlord to provide this. The landlord has considered the resident’s request and explained the reasons for its decision. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord was not entitled to make the decision it did.
The landlord told the resident it would instruct outside counsel to expedite the application for the injunction. This was appropriate, because it demonstrated a proactive approach to dealing with the ASB.
However, as of the date of this determination, there is no evidence the landlord has instructed legal counsel or made the application for an injunction. There is no evidence that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. There is no evidence to detail why no action was taken, such as a change in the prospects of success at court. Alternatively, if there had been such a change, that the landlord informed the resident. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord has provided the resident with an updated action plan since June 2023. This is despite repeated requests from the resident. This was a further failure by the landlord.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the reports of ASB, in that:
1. it has not provided the resident with an updated action plan
2. it has unreasonably delayed in instructing external legal counsel as promised, or alternatively failed to make explain why the position had changed

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy states the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. It further states that the landlord will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The resident raised 2 complaints on 6 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 September 2023. Between September and December 2023, the resident asked the landlord to respond to her complaints on several occasions.
In the absence of a complaint response, the resident approached this service. In January 2024, the landlord explained to this service that it had not investigated the resident’s complaints because it concerned matters which related to the Ombudsman’s previous determination.
This was not appropriate. Although the resident’s complaint was similar to complaints the Ombudsman had already considered, it related to the ongoing ASB which occurred after the Ombudsman’s previous determination. Therefore, it ought to have been considered as a new complaint. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
Furthermore, if the landlord believed it was appropriate to decline to consider the resident’s complaint, it ought to have told her this at the time and clearly explained its reasons for this, in accordance with the Code. There is no evidence that it did so. This was a failure by the landlord, and significantly delayed the resident’s ability to seek redress through this service.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 January 2024, which was 99 working days after the resident raised her complaints. This was not appropriate as it was far outside the landlord’s policy.
In her complaints, the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had only responded to one of the complaints she raised. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that although the resident completed 2 separate complaint forms on 6 September 2023, they were substantively about the same issue, which was the landlord’s handling of ASB.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to provide a single complaint response. However, it would have been better had the landlord explained this to the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 February 2024. Under its policy, the landlord ought to have provided a stage 2 complaint response no later than 13 March 2024.
On 14 March 2024, the landlord provided a revised response deadline of 12 April 2024 and apologised for the delay. Although the extension to the response time was reasonable, the landlord only did so after the deadline for it to provide its complaint response had passed. This was not appropriate.
On 18 April 2024, this service instructed the landlord to provide its complaint response no later than 25 April 2024. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to manage complaints appropriately without the involvement of this service.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 April 2024, which was 48 working days after the resident escalated her complaint, and 7 working days after the revised deadline the landlord had set. This was not appropriate and was a significant failure by the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £1,045, of which £620 was offered for its complaint handling failures. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable as it was consistent with this service’s Guidance on Remedies.
In her complaints, the resident was dissatisfied because the ASB and the landlord’s complaint-handling failures have also affected her son. She therefore believed the landlord ought to offer twice the amount of compensation.
In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that the offer of compensation was made for the tenancy as a whole, and not individual residents of the property.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable as it was consistent with this service’s Guidance on Remedies.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the complaints and the compensation offered.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident an additional £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the additional failures in the landlord’s handling of the ASB
2. pay the resident the £1,045 compensation it previously offered, if it has not already done so
3. provide evidence of these payments to the Ombudsman
4. complete an updated action plan and risk assessment with the resident, and provide a copy of this to the Ombudsman
5. explain to the resident the cause of the delay in the application for an injunction against the neighbour and what it intends to do to resolve this, and provide a copy of this to the Ombudsman. The landlord must explain if the position has changed on seeking an injunction.