Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202336741)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336741

Royal Borough of Greenwich

25 February 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a ground floor flat, owned by the landlord. She lives with her 2 dependent children, one of whom has additional needs.
3. There is limited evidence to show how the resident’s reports came about, until a warning letter it sent to her neighbour on 10 September 2021. It said she had reported them being verbally abusive and aggressive. She continued to report regular incidents and made 2 separate complaints in March 2022 and May 2023. In both complaints, she said it was not doing enough to help.
4. The resident made a further complaint on 6 December 2023 stating that it had neglected its duties and failed to act on her reports. In its stage 1 response of 14 March 2024, it explained what it had done so far, and said the matter was now with its legal team. It said it had acted appropriately, although acknowledged it had not always communicated well. It also said there had been counter-allegations against her.
5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 29 April 2024, saying that its failure to act had caused further incidents. She said she was now on medication due to stress, and her daughter was suffering. It issued its stage 2 response on 25 June 2024. It said it had responded to all her reports and was taking possession action against her neighbour. It promised to update her following the hearing, scheduled for July 2024.
6. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She told us the ASB remains ongoing, and she would like it to both resolve this and move her to a suitable property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident told the Ombudsman that there have been further incidents since the landlord’s final response of June 2024. In the interests of fairness, we will not investigate these matters as the landlord has not had the chance to respond. She can raise a new complaint and ask us to open a new investigation if she is unhappy with its final response.
8. The resident has said the situation has made her and her family unwell. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of her complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Reports of ASB

9. The landlord’s ASB and Crime Information Booklet for Tenants explains its ASB procedure. It describes ASB as “behaviour that is capable of causing a nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress to any person living in, working in or visiting the neighbourhood”.
10. There will be instances of annoyance which a landlord cannot act on. A landlord has 2 main duties when it receives a report of ASB. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation. The second is to balance the evidence and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if it investigated fairly and took the action it was able to.
11. Additionally, matters where there is a history of ASB over a long period of time can be challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available may not meet the resident’s preferred outcome. This is further complicated when there are counter-allegations, which the landlord must also consider. By closely following its ASB policy, a landlord can make sure it is acting fairly, even if this does not lead to the outcome the resident has asked for.
12. In the landlord’s letter to the resident’s neighbour of 10 September 2021, it said it had received video footage of them being verbally abusive towards the resident and throwing food. It instructed them not to interact with her or enter her garden. It said it had also sent her a warning letter as they had made counter-allegations. It was appropriate for the landlord to write to both parties, in line with its procedure.
13. The police wrote to the landlord on 30 September 2021 to say the resident was at “significant risk” and required an “immediate and urgent move”. It referred her to the council’s allocations team the next day who reviewed her application to the housing register and awarded a high priority banding. It offered temporary accommodation in the meantime, which she declined as she could not take her dog. It would have been helpful to see that it considered any other viable options or advice, as she said the dog was a great source of therapy and comfort for her daughter who was suffering emotionally, so this was important to her. However, it had met its obligations by making the offer.
14. There is no evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment for the resident, or that it considered other safeguarding measures such as referring her to the sanctuary scheme in operation at the time. It knew she had CCTV and the police were involved, however it should have conducted its own checks. There is also no evidence that it agreed an action plan with the resident, as per its procedure. This is essential to a landlord’s management of ASB complaints. This should include how it will investigate the case, what each party should do next, and how it will keep in touch. It should also be clear on realistic outcomes and take its risk assessment into account so it can respond appropriately. The absence of evidence in this case indicates that either the landlord did not agree an action plan, or did not review an earlier plan as the case progressed, which is a failing.
15. The landlord sent 2 further warning letters to the neighbour on 5 January and 22 February 2022, as the resident had provided evidence of further incidents of abusive behaviour. It wrote to the resident on 2 March 2022 to update her and asked her to continue reporting issues and to complete diary sheets. Therefore, despite the lack of action plan, it had updated her at this point and explained what she needed to do.
16. We have not been provided with a record of the resident’s complaint, but the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 March 2022. It explained what it had done so far, which included putting up a fence between the 2 properties in February 2022. It said it was unable to act on a report that her neighbour had vandalised her car, due to a lack of evidence. It advised her to bid for all suitable properties, as she was only applying for houses which limited her options. It also said there were now criminal proceedings against them both, and it was waiting for the outcome before it could consider any enforcement action.
17. The police wrote to the landlord again on 12 April 2022 to confirm they had arrested the neighbour for wielding a weapon and making death threats towards the resident. They said she was still at significant risk, and they were providing panic alarms. It should have contacted her and considered if it needed to complete a new risk assessment at this point, however there is no evidence that it did so.
18. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 June 2022, roughly 2 months later. It requested evidence of her reports that her neighbour damaged her fence and spat at her. It is unclear when she made these reports or what happened next, which indicates either record keeping issues or poor communication by the landlord.
19. The landlord contacted the resident again on 4 and 11 November 2022 to say it was aware that her request for an ASB review (community trigger) had not met the threshold. There is little evidence of further contact between them until around 5 April 2023, when she reported that her neighbour’s dog had been vicious. This is a further indication of issues with its record keeping and communication.
20. The landlord had told the resident on multiple occasions that it would consider possession action against her neighbour, but it needed to wait for the outcome of the police proceedings. This is the strongest measure a landlord can take and demonstrates that it had taken the situation seriously. It issued a notice seeking possession on 24 April 2023, as the court had now sentenced them and granted a restraining order.
21. The resident contacted the landlord a further 7 times between 27 April and 10 May 2023, to reiterate the reports she had already made. It responded 3 times during this period and visited her at home. It also requested police disclosures regarding incidents that she and her neighbour had reported against each other. This shows that it kept in touch with her regularly at this point, and it was appropriate to request information from the police.
22. The resident’s emails included a new complaint on 28 April 2023. She said the landlord had neglected its duties, was delaying the eviction process, and was protecting her neighbour. She also reported that her neighbour had breached their restraining order and attacked her daughter. It responded on 16 May 2023 to say that it had:
    1. Offered mediation which both parties declined.
    2. Found no evidence that her neighbour had breached their order.
    3. Requested information from the police, who said there was no evidence that the neighbour had attacked her daughter, however they were investigating a counter-allegation that she had attacked their daughter.
    4. Offered temporary accommodation and this could be “explored again”.
    5. Worked with its legal team to take enforcement action, which the criminal proceedings had delayed.
    6. Supported her and taken reports further when it had enough evidence.
23. Although it is not clear when it did so, it was good practice for the landlord to offer mediation. This can help to resolve neighbour disputes, particularly at the early stages. However, this is less effective as time goes on. It had the option to offer this again, but it is for a landlord to make a professional judgement, and it is likely that one or both parties would have declined a further offer of mediation. There is no evidence that the resident took it up on its offer to consider temporary accommodation again and, in the context of there being a restraining order in place, it was reasonable to expect her to get in touch if she wanted to discuss this further.
24. The landlord’s records state that it contacted the resident on 6 June 2023 to arrange a call, and it visited her at home on 7 September and 9 October 2023. She had sent it 7 emails over this time to report noise nuisance from her neighbour and an occasion where they poured dirty water into her garden. There is no evidence to show that the landlord tried to manage her expectations or the large volumes of contact from her.
25. The resident complained to the landlord again on 6 December 2023. She said it had not acted on the evidence she had provided, and it was harassing her and making false allegations. She also said it had ignored her request that it arrange an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) with her neighbour.
26. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 February 2024, although this was not in response to her complaint. It explained that its legal team was still taking possession action against her neighbour. It said it had spoken to her neighbour about her recent reports, which included them taking photos of her, damaging the fence, and causing noise nuisance. It said they had made counter-allegations of a similar nature and that both parties should refrain from this and not interact. It needed to address both parties’ reports, and its letter was fair and balanced.
27. The landlord also said it had previously discussed making a direct offer of permanent accommodation, which was good practice. It is not clear when it raised this with the resident, however she declined as she was worried about a lack of choice, so it is unlikely she would have considered this at any stage.
28. The landlord then responded at stage 1 on 14 March 2024. It said it:
    1. Was taking legal action, but this was a lengthy process, and it would keep her informed.
    2. Had tried to arrange a “Good Neighbour Agreement” (an ABA) but her neighbour declined to sign this, and this was voluntary so it could not insist.
    3. Would rearrange a home visit, as she had cancelled a recent appointment.
    4. Would help her to look for a suitable mutual exchange as a supportive measure.
    5. Was satisfied it had acted appropriately and in line with its service standards, but it could have been more proactive when arranging home visits and updating her on the legal stages.
29. There were delays with the landlord’s stage 1 response. Its policy states it will aim to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, which complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It told the resident it would respond by 20 December 2023 however it did not do so until our intervention, after she contacted us for help. However, in her online complaint to the landlord, she had duplicated wording from an earlier complaint which was confusing. It acted promptly following our contact and apologised for the delay, which was appropriate.
30. The resident contacted the landlord 4 times between 26 March and 25 April 2024 to report further noise nuisance and to ask it to take legal action. During this time, it emailed her twice and visited her at home to discuss how the case was progressing. She asked it to escalate her complaint on 29 April 2024. She said it had shown no interest in the evidence she had provided, had not acted quickly enough on her reports, and said they were still breaching their restraining order.
31. The resident contacted the landlord a further 10 times from this point up to 25 June 2024. She repeated her earlier reports and concerns, made new reports of noise nuisance late at night, and said her neighbour had damaged her car. Sometimes she emailed it more than once on the same day and there is no record that it responded. This further demonstrates that an action plan would have been useful. It could have updated the plan to agree the frequency and method of contact and show that it had explained what was happening with her case. This may also have helped with her frustration, which is understandable as the situation had been ongoing for almost 3 years.
32. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had acted on all the resident’s reports and her evidence had been “instrumental” and allowed it to start possession action. It said the possession hearing was due to take place the following month and it would keep her updated.
33. Throughout the case, the landlord explained to the resident that it needed to wait for the outcome of criminal proceedings against her neighbour before it could take legal action itself. This is appropriate as it needed to be sure that it was not complicating the existing police proceedings. In addition, a landlord needs strong evidence when applying for possession. As well as proving it has the grounds, it also needs to show the court that it is reasonable to evict the occupant. It was appropriate for it to spend time collecting the evidence it needed to, and this is often a lengthy process. However, it did not maintain regular communication with the resident, and it was fair that it recognised this in its response.
34. There were times when the landlord was defensive in its tone. In an email to the resident of 5 May 2023 it said: “I recall us having a lengthy conversation… (almost 50 minutes to be precise)” and “I feel it is unfair to say that we have not made contact with you at all.” In its stage 2 response, it said her reports “have in fact been actioned”. This may have contributed to her impression that it was not supportive, despite the actions it had taken. The landlord is encouraged to consider the phrasing of its responses.
35. The landlord’s failure to agree an action plan prevented it from managing the volume of contact from the resident. While landlords are encouraged to work with other agencies, there were times when it overly relied on the police. There were also periods of several months without evidence that it responded to her or provided updates, however context suggests that it had been in touch with her during these times. This indicates gaps in its record keeping, and we will make a recommendation about this.
36. Despite this, the landlord acted promptly when referring the resident to the allocations team following the police involvement, and it offered temporary accommodation as a safeguarding measure. It sent warning letters to her neighbour, and started possession action against them, which its procedure says it will only do in “serious cases”. It was fair to investigate the counter-allegations, which made the situation more complicated. It reassured her that her evidence had been used.
37. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the matter was inconsistent. The evidence shows that she became increasingly frustrated due to its poor communication as would be expected in these circumstances. It ultimately took the most serious action that it could, after collating evidence from the resident and monitoring the situation with the police and the courts. However, it also failed to maintain and manage appropriate contact with her or follow its procedure and good practice. Therefore, it is our conclusion that its actions were inadequate on the whole.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

39. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for its failure to follow its procedure and the communication issues identified in this report. It must pay this sum directly and not offset this against any arrears.
40. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

41. Due to the resident’s assertions that the ASB is ongoing, we recommend that the landlord reviews the case to make sure it has kept her informed and is taking the appropriate action. If it has not completed an action plan and a recent risk assessment, it should do so now.
42. The landlord should review its processes and record keeping, to ensure that it can clearly show the actions it has taken. This includes making sure it has an ASB procedure available, as we were only able to locate its booklet for tenants. This is well written and appropriate for its audience, however it is essential to have a detailed policy and procedure to support its actions. We also recommend that the landlord takes this opportunity to review its definition of ASB, to bring this in line with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.