Oadby and Wigston Borough Council (202307271)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307271

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

27 June 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 handling of the residents concerns about:
1. antisocial behaviour (ASB) in her block.
2. the security and condition of the communal fire doors in her block.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a first floor 3 bedroom maisonette in a communal block owned by the landlord. The block has one front and one rear communal entrance doors on the ground floor, which are operated by a key pad door entry system. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 2 March 2023, the resident’s son was bitten by an unleashed dog while walking to a local shop and was treated at his local accident and emergency department. The resident informed the police about the incident. On 8 March 2023, the dog’s owner came to the resident’s home while she was at work and “screamed” at her son.
On 15 March 2023, the resident contacted her local Member of Parliament (MP) about the incidents. She said she felt she and her family were “imprisoned in our home” as a result of the ASB and drug taking on her estate. The resident further stated she was seeking help to minimise the risk of dog attacks in future and had asked to be moved to a “safer community where we do not live in fear of retribution”.
The MP’s office forwarded the resident’s enquiry to the landlord on 23 March 2023. The landlord responded to the MP on 28 March 2023. It said it had advised the resident to report the dog biting incident to the police. It confirmed the resident had said that the dog’s owner was also its tenant, and it would therefore investigate the issue to determine whether a breach of tenancy had taken place. Should a tenancy breach be evidenced, it would take “proportionate action against the tenant”.
On 31 March 2023, the resident formally complained to the landlord. She stated that the owner of the dog that had bitten her son came from a family she had previously contacted the landlord, the police, and her local MP about. The resident stated the family were responsible for ASB, drug taking, and drug dealing. The resident also challenged the landlord’s response to her MP, stating it had not advised her to contact the police and had also “more or less” stated that it was “a police issue”. The resident stated she had asked the landlord to communicate to all tenants to remind them of the law about walking dogs in communal or public areas. She had also raised the issue of the communal door “still not working correctly”, as it was “open and insecure”; an issue she said had been ongoing for more than 3 years. The resident said she was seeking a meeting with the landlord’s senior leadership team, her housing officer, and local councillor as she felt she had “not received any support”.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response dated 17 April 2023 to the resident on 18 April 2023. It set out the following:
1. It was sorry that the resident and her family had a “bad experience” as a result of a dog biting the resident’s son, but confirmed this was a matter for the police to investigate. It stated that if the police took action against the owner of the dog, it “may influence” the landlord to also take action against them, if the owner was also its tenant.
2. Should the police take action, the landlord’s housing team would contact the resident and her son to arrange to take statements from them. However, it stated it would not “interfere with a criminal investigation” by carrying out this action before the police had completed it.
3. It confirmed that, should its housing team investigate a reported incident concerning a dog, it would contact the owner of the dog. It would remind them of their obligations to appropriately manage their dog and ensure they do not breach the terms of their tenancy.
4. It advised the resident to complete a rehousing application and signposted her accordingly for housing advice.
5. The landlord’s repairs team had investigated the resident’s complaint about the communal door. Its records had shown that a fault had been reported in October 2020 and a repair had been completed at the time.
6. It would arrange for a block inspection to be carried out. It would thereafter consider any findings about the current condition and security of the door.
7. It stated that its senior leadership team did not “get involved” with operational issues, but that members of the team do oversee complaints and complaint responses as part of its complaints management process.
8. It provided contact details for 3 of the resident’s local councillors.
The resident responded to the landlord on 19 April 2023 to communicate her dissatisfaction with its response at stage 1. She stated the landlord had been aware of the “ASB and drug taking on this estate” and that both the landlord and the police had a responsibility to resolve the issues. She confirmed she had received a letter that had been issued to residents of the block regarding the dumping of rubbish and the communal door being “wedged” open. She also acknowledged posters that had gone up in communal areas about rubbish being left. The resident queried why the landlord had not included an additional sentences on the letter or posters to remind tenants to ensure their dogs were leashed in the communal areas. She further suggested that the landlord used its social media pages to remind dog-owning tenants of their legal responsibilities. In a follow-up email sent to the landlord on 21 April 2023, the resident confirmed she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP).
On 25 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It set out the following:
1. It had taken into account, when responding at stage 1, information the resident had provided about the dog owner being a member of a family the resident had previously reported to multiple agencies. It had not directly referenced this information as it was unrelated to any specific query the resident had made.
2. The resident had confirmed that her complaint about the communal door did not relate to a “fault” with the door, but that other residents had been “wedging the door open”. It stated the resident had further confirmed she had received a letter reminding tenants not to do this with communal doors.
3. Its stage 1 response had already addressed the resident’s complaint about a missed opportunity to include a sentence about responsible dog ownership in the letter it had recently issued to the block’s residents.
4. It had no plans to issue guidance or advice about dog ownership through the landlord’s social media channels.
The landlord raised a works order to complete a repair to one of the communal doors in the resident’s block on 23 June 2023 and this was completed soon after.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation. She has since informed the Service that she has recently moved into permanent alternative accommodation and therefore the issues are no longer affecting her. However, she would still like for the Service to assess the landlord’s handling of her complaint and consider any remedy that may be appropriate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord is also a local council and therefore performs a variety of functions in its capacity as a council as well as a landlord of social housing. Where the landlord is functioning as a local council, such services are available to all local citizens regardless of whether they are its tenants. The Ombudsman’s remit is to assess its handling of issues within its functions as a landlord, where its services are available for its tenants only. Therefore, it is outside of our remit to assess the actions or inaction of certain departments at the landlord, such as its rehousing department. This is because such departments run services for all local citizens to access if they choose to. If the resident has concerns relating to the landlord’s functions as a council, she could refer any complaint (once it has completed the ICP) to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to consider investigating.
The Service understands that the issues raised in this complaint continued or reoccurred to varying extents up until the resident recently moved to alternative accommodation. The Service’s remit is to assess the landlord’s handling of events up until its final complaint response. This is because the landlord needs to have been given the opportunity to respond formally to matters arising before the Ombudsman investigates. The Service will take into account any additional context the ongoing problems lends to our assessment of the landlord’s handling of matters. We will also consider this when assessing whether the appropriateness of any remedies.

Antisocial behaviour

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement, which confers legal and contractual responsibilities onto the landlord to take reasonable steps to resolve ASB that is reported to it. The landlord’s records indicate that the owner of the dog that bit the resident’s son was also a tenant of the landlord’s and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the dog owner was subject to the same tenancy terms and conditions as the resident.
The tenancy agreement sets out that tenants, their relatives, and their visitors must “not do, threaten to do, incite or encourage others to do anything illegal or unlawful in the property, in communal areas or in the locality”. Examples given of such behaviour include reference to selling and using drugs.
The agreement also states that no dogs may be kept in flats or maisonettes. It further states that where permission has been given to keep a pet in certain circumstances, “it must be kept under control at all times and not allowed to cause a nuisance”.
The landlord has an ASB procedure and has provided its guidance document on this that sets out its approach to handling such reports from its tenants. Upon receiving such a report, the procedure is given as follows:
1. The tenancy and estate management team will record the details and open a case.
2. It will then contact the complainant within 3 working days.
3. It will assign a level (1, 2, or 3) to the case and assess the vulnerability of the complainant, witnesses, and perpetrator as part of the risk assessment matrix (RAM).
4. It will formally acknowledge the report in writing.
Following these initial actions, the guidance sets out various steps the landlord may take to investigate and manage the case, with a view to resolving the matter. These steps include:
1. interviewing the complainant and alleged perpetrators.
2. Referring the complainant to agencies that can offer support if needed.
3. Agreeing an action plan with them.
4. Improving their home’s security if appropriate.
5. Liaising with the police and making a safeguarding referral as necessary.
6. Gathering evidence, such as through the use of diary sheets or witness statements.
7. Issuing letters or verbal/written warnings to those suspected of causing ASB.
8. Taking legal action or action against the perpetrator’s tenancy where appropriate.
The procedure states that the action the landlord takes against perpetrators “will depend on each individual case and must be proportionate and reasonable”. The landlord will usually only consider rehousing complainants if the police “confirm that there is a risk to the complainant’s life, usually though confirmation of an Osman warning having been issued”.
On 7 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to give a more detailed statement about the incident on 2 March 2023 in which a neighbour’s dog bit her son while he was on his way to a local shop. She informed the landlord that the family who owned the dog were responsible for a lot of local ASB and drug dealing. She stated that the family knew her as a “grass” and that the resident and her family lived in fear of retribution. She asked the landlord to consider its safeguarding duties and to move her to alternative accommodation. In an internal email sent the following day, the landlord indicated it was unsure what the resident was “seeking as a result of the dog bite incident”. It assumed she wished to make a complaint against the owner of the dog. The email went on to instruct a colleague that an ASB case should be opened and managed in line with the procedure. The email attached the procedure for the colleague’s information.
It is unclear from the evidence whether an ASB case was opened, or if it had been assigned a level 1, 2 or 3. The landlord should be able to clearly demonstrate it had done this by way of complying with its own policy on initial handling of new ASB reports. The evidence demonstrates the landlord made an enquiry with the police on 9 March 2023, to ask for details of any outcome from the police’s own investigation into the incident. From its own investigations, the landlord had also established the dog’s owner had a second dog for which they had not requested the landlord’s permission. An internal email on the same day suggested the landlord had spoken with the dog’s owner and referred her to a clause in the tenancy agreement concerning permission for pets. While this was a reasonable response, it was not directly related to the resident’s concerns.
In its response to the resident’s local MP on 28 March 2023, the landlord stated it had advised the resident to report the biting incident to the police. It confirmed it was investigating the incident to assess whether the dog’s owner had breached their tenancy. If it found evidence of this, it would take “proportionate action against the tenant”. It said it would be informing the dog’s owner of their obligation as a tenant and as a dog owner (with reference to the biting incident). It is unclear when the landlord expected it would take this action as it did not confirm this and the Service notes this was nearly a month after the incident had happened. The landlord should reasonably have been able to demonstrate more decisive action taken by this point. The landlord should also have considered that, in the circumstances, proportionate action may have amounted to more than a conversation with the owner of the dog.
The resident formally complained to the landlord 3 days later. She stated that action had not been taken, the situation had escalated between her family and the dog’s owner, and she did not feel like she was “being heard”. She also denied the landlord had advised her to contact the police and that it had stated it was “more or less” a “police issue”. The Service agrees with the resident’s position that the landlord appeared to have been largely inactive in the intervening weeks since the incident. We also note that we have not seen any direct evidence of the landlord having advised the resident to contact the police in the first instance, in the immediate aftermath of the incident. However, we accept that the evidence suggests some communication with the resident took place by phone call. Regardless, the landlord should keep sufficient records of advice it has given to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 17 April 2023 took a different approach to the matter in comparison to its response to the resident’s MP. If the resident had felt the landlord considered the issue to be a matter for the police, the stage 1 response would have been likely to have affirmed this. It stated that “this matter is for the police to investigate”. It stated that the police taking action “may influence” its housing team to also take action against the dog owner. This was inappropriate. The dog bite incident being a police matter did not automatically mean it was not a matter for the landlord to also investigate and act upon. The landlord gave the impression in its response that it was not willing to take ownership of an issue that fell under its remit. This was despite clear references in its tenancy agreement to its tenants keeping their pets “under control at all times” and not otherwise doing anything illegal. The landlord must consider that illegal activity is a police matter and can also constitute ASB, which it has a legal obligation to adequately respond to.
The landlord further stated in the stage 1 response that once the police had completed its investigation, it would consider what action it would take and it may remind the dog’s owner of their obligations with respect to their tenancy. It also said it did not want to “interfere with a criminal investigation”. There was no reason for the landlord to wait for the police to complete their own investigation. It is also difficult to see how the landlord investigating breaches of its tenancy separately to the police would have “interfered” with the investigation. The landlord was required to carry out its own investigation of a breach of tenancy and to take proportionate action as necessary. It was inappropriate for the landlord to suggest that it was unable to take any action at the same time that the police were investigating or that it did not have its own important role to play when such incidents are reported. To suggest that it could only take action once criminal activity had been established risks unfairness to those reporting ASB to the landlord.
The resident pointed out to the landlord in her complaint escalation that it was a “joint responsibility” between both the police and the landlord to take action. The Service agrees with the resident on this point and it is concerning that it had been necessary for her to remind the landlord of its obligations. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s failure to take basic actions to remind its dog-owning tenants of their responsibilities. She stated it had missed opportunities to do so, such as including such reminders on recently issued posters and letters to the block. She also suggested the landlord used its social media pages to communicate this messaging. The resident’s points were all reasonable. The landlord could have taken more proactive steps to respond to the resident’s concerns with simple messaging to its tenants using this variety of mediums. It should again not have been necessary for the resident to make these suggestions to the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not offer any significant new insight or information as a follow up to its stage 1 response. It confirmed it had no plans to issue guidance or advice about dog ownership through its social media channels. It did not offer any explanation for this or accept that it would be reasonable for it to consider this. The resident was likely to have felt that her suggestion had been dismissed without good reason. The landlord also failed to set out the steps it would take, or had already taken, with reference to the potential actions as listed in paragraph 19. It offered no analysis of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, identified no shortcomings in its response, and made no attempt therefore to put anything right. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was poor and the complaints process had failed as a mechanism for dispute resolution.
The Service will therefore make a finding of maladministration with respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence that it took appropriate steps within a reasonable period of time to respond to the resident’s report of a dog biting her son. It has instead provided evidence of it actively refusing to take ownership of its own responsibilities over the matter. The landlord will be ordered to carry out a review of this case to determine why it failed to take responsibility or meet its legal and policy obligations.
The Ombudsman has also noted that the resident referred to other ASB issues in her communications with the landlord. She referred to drug taking and drug dealing in the immediate vicinity of her home by people she believed to be the landlord’s tenants. She referred to issues with rubbish being disposed of inappropriately. She informed the landlord of the impact the ASB had been having on her and her family, which had resulted in them feeling scared to leave their home. The landlord has again provided little to no evidence that it acted in accordance with its ASB policy or otherwise took any meaningful action to appropriately handle these reports. While the Service accepts the resident’s complaint largely focused on the biting incident, the landlord must ensure it identifies all matters being raised and responds to them accordingly and in full.
In light of the identified maladministration, it will be necessary for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay an amount of compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her household as a result. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published online) sets out our approach to putting things right where they have gone wrong. The guidance suggests that awards of £700 may adequately remedy maladministration that had a significant impact on the resident and her household.
This award is intended to recognise the landlord’s failings to take ownership for the role it had in responding to the resident’s reports. The Service has also considered the impact of these failings. Photographs of the resident’s son’s injuries, and her account of his A&E attendance and necessary time off work following the dog bite, show that this had been a significant incident. That the resident has now been offered alternative accommodation and that her move had been strongly supported by police demonstrates that her fears were reasonable and she had been significantly affected by local ASB. We have also considered that the resident remained afraid in her home as a result of ongoing ASB up until her recent move away. The severity of the impact has further compounded the significance of the landlord’s failings and therefore the award of £700 at the higher end of the maladministration remedy range is justified.

Communal door issues

The resident’s tenancy agreement confers legal and contractual responsibilities onto the landlord with respect to reported repairs to the communal parts of the block. The agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to communal areas to blocks of flats “such as corridors, stairways and entrances”. Relevant legislation sets out that the landlord must carry out reported repairs that it is responsible for within a “reasonable” timescale.
The tenancy agreement handbook sets out that the landlord will complete most repairs it is responsible for within 1 to 28 working days; the more urgent the repair is considered, the sooner it will respond to resolve it.
As part of her formal complaint on 31 March 2023, the resident raised a concern about the condition and security of a communal door in the building. She stated that it was “still not working correctly”, that it was “open and insecure” and that this had been an ongoing issue for more than 3 years. In its stage 1 complaint response issued on 18 April 2023, the landlord stated it had resolved the most recent report it had received about a communal door, which had been in October 2020. However, the contemporaneous repairs records provided by the landlord do not support this statement.
The records indicate that no repairs had been raised concerning communal doors between August 2019 and the resident’s complaint in March 2023. It is unclear why the landlord’s records do not correspond with its statements in the complaint response. Either way, its records do not support that any issue had been reported concerning the door for more than 3 years prior to the resident’s complaint. It is unclear whether this is because no concerns about the door had been reported to the landlord in that time, or whether concerns raised had not been recorded. However, the landlord has provided evidence of 6 door repairs being carried out between 2015 and 2019. The Service would also not expect the landlord to respond to repair issues it had not been informed of.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response further set out that as its records “contradict[ed]” the resident’s complaint about ongoing issues with the communal door, it had referred the door for inspection in order to assess its condition and security. This was reasonable.
The landlord also issued a letter to all residents of the block, which the resident confirmed on 19 April 2023 that she had received. She stated this letter reminded tenants not to “wedge open” the communal door. The landlord has provided the Service with a letter template that had been used although it is not clear when this letter had been sent out. The letter referred to recent changes to fire regulations and reminded tenants to ensure communal fire doors were kept closed when not in use. It also stated that tenants or their guests should not tamper with self-closing devices on the doors. This was reasonable.
On 17 May 2023, the resident and landlord exchanged emails. The resident stated that a repairs operative had attended the block the previous day and applied “some type of oil” on the communal door that was now causing it to close too quickly. She felt this was unsafe. The landlord confirmed the door had been reported as it had stopped self-closing and therefore the operative may have adjusted it. It agreed to report this to its repairs service again, which it did the following day. It further mentioned that it had written to all residents and knocked on front doors in the block to remind them not to ‘prop’ doors open. The landlord confirmed these actions in its stage 2 response. This was a reasonable response and demonstrated the landlord had been taking appropriate steps to try and manage the problem.
On 30 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and said issues with the door were ongoing and were affecting her ability to feel safe in the building. She asked the landlord to again inspect the door and rectify any identified faults. The landlord’s records suggest this was completed by the end of June 2023, which was appropriate.
The landlord has demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s request for repairs to the door within reasonable timescales, and those as set out in its tenancy handbook. It also took reasonable steps to try and resolve any issue with tenants propping the doors open. While the Service accepts the actions from her neighbours reasonably made her feel unsafe, we would not find against the landlord on the basis of their behaviour. What we expect to see is the landlord responding to reports of concerns in a reasonable and appropriate way. It is difficult to see what other action the landlord could have taken in the absence of information about specific perpetrators. Therefore, a finding of no maladministration will be made with respect to this part of the complaint.
The Service has noted that the repairs logs provided by the landlord do not support some of the information contained within other records it has provided. As mentioned earlier, the records do not corroborate the landlord’s position in its stage 1 response about the date of the last reported repair to the door(s). There is also no record within the repairs log of the operative’s visit to the resident’s block on 16 May 2023 to adjust the door. It is unclear why there is no record of this job being raised within the contemporaneous records. As such, a separate finding of service failure will be made with respect to the landlord’s record keeping. This is because there has been some ambiguity present in this investigation as a result of contradictory evidence The landlord must ensure it keeps accurate records of all actions undertaken by its repairs service and that all of these are provided on request to the Ombudsman.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB) in her block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the security and condition of the communal fire doors in her block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the following orders:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must consult with the section on apologies in the Remedies Guidance before writing and issuing the apology. It must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the compliant apology.
2. Make a direct payment of £700 to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her household by its maladministration in its handling of her reports of ASB. This award should not be used to offset any outstanding debt the resident may have with the landlord following the end of her tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a case review of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The review must be completed and provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this determination. The review must seek to establish the following:
1. How it can ensure in the future that it appropriately handles ASB incidents involving the police, as a landlord.
2. Why it failed to follow its ASB procedure or take any reasonable actions to manage reported poor dog management, drug taking, and drug dealing on its estate.
3. Why its complaint responses made little reasonable attempt to understand, and respond to, the reasons why the resident had felt it necessary to formally complain about its response to her reports of ASB.
Where the review identifies areas for improvement, the landlord must come up with an action plan that is designed to drive these improvements within reasonable timescales. The action plan must also be provided to the Ombudsman within the 10 week timescale.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping practices within its repairs service. This should be with a view to ensuring it records all reports of repairs received and actions it takes in response to those reports. The landlord should also ensure all appropriate records are reasonably accessible to appropriate members of staff, including those responsible for responding to evidence request from the Ombudsman.