Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southwark Council (202335373)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335373

Southwark Council

13 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having a mental health condition. Throughout her complaint the resident said she was experiencing ASB from her neighbour who lived in the property above. For clarity, this report refers to the resident’s neighbour as “Mr A”.
  2. Mr A reported he was experiencing ASB from the resident in November 2022, and January 2023. The resident and Mr A attended a mediation session in February 2023. The landlord contacted the local authority ASB team to ask about installing noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property in March 2023.
  3. On 22 April 2023, the resident reported her kitchen window was smashed, and she believed Mr A was responsible. The landlord asked the resident to attend its offices so it could complete a risk assessment. It is unclear if the appointment took place at that time. The resident regularly reported she was experiencing ASB from Mr A throughout 2023, and supplied recordings that she claimed to show Mr A shouting and being abusive towards her. Mr A continued to make counter allegations against the resident. The landlord arranged for installed noise monitoring equipment to be installed in the resident’s property around August 2023, the exact date is unclear.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord, on 1 September 2023, about its handling of her reports of ASB. She said Mr A was continuing to “harass” her, it was impacting her mental health, and she did not feel safe. She said the landlord should evict Mr A. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 18 September 2023, and outlined the actions it had taken in the ASB case. It said the case was complex as the resident and Mr A were making similar allegations against each other. It had listened to recordings from the noise monitoring equipment and determined there was not a statutory noise nuisance. It explained that it did not uphold the complaint, but had referred the case to its ASB unit for further input.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and asked her complaint to go to stage 2 of its process on 18 September 2023. Following an incident on 11 November 2023, where Mr A allegedly kicked the resident’s door, made threats, and was arrested, the landlord’s ASB unit took over the case.
  6. The resident continued to report incidents of ASB from Mr A in late 2023, which included allegations of noise disturbance, and dumping rubbish in the resident’s garden. The landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident in December 2023. On 15 January 2024 the landlord asked the resident to put the stage 2 complaint on hold due to upcoming legal action, the resident agreed.
  7. Following an intervention from this Service, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 24 May 2024. It gave a history of the actions it had taken in the case, and explained it was now applying to the court for a “closure order” (a legal power that allows a local authority to close a property for a period of time to prevent ASB) against Mr A. It did not uphold the complaint. It accepted the situation was “incredibly difficult” for the resident, but it was unable to identify any “fault” in its handling of the ASB case. It explained it had followed its procedures and that legal action can take a “significant amount of time” in ASB cases.

Events after the complaint

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 24 June 2024, and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the reason for delaying the complaint was “never explained”, and that the ASB was still ongoing.
  2. On 16 July 2024, the courts granted the landlord a closure order against Mr A.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response.
  2. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it has 3 categories of ASB cases:
    1. Category 1 cases (high risk), which will be handled by its specialist ASB unit, and be responded to within 24 hours.
    2. Category 2 cases (medium risk), which will be handled by a “case officer”, and be responded to within 3 working days.
    3. Category 3 cases (low risk), which will be handled by a “case officer”, and be responded to within 5 working days.
  3. The procedure states that when it opens an ASB case it will complete a risk assessment so it can appropriately manage risk while dealing with the case. The procedure states that the landlord should consider non legal remedies to try and resolve the situation such as warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC), mediation. If the ASB is considered “very serious” the landlord will explore what legal remedies are appropriate, such as: injunctions, tenancy repossessions, and closure orders.
  4. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  5. It is acknowledged that the ASB case was complex due to the nature of the allegations the resident made, and the fact that MR A made similar allegations against her. The landlord was obliged to give full consideration of the concerns raised by both parties in a fair and impartial manner. The evidence shows that it adopted such an approach, and the complexity of the case can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the timeframe it took to resolve the issue.
  6. When concerns were first raised about ASB between the resident and Mr A, the landlord referred them to mediation. This was appropriate in the circumstances based on what was reported, and the suggested non legal remedies in its procedure. The landlord applied its ASB procedure appropriately, and sought an early intervention as a solution to the issues.
  7. When the resident was consistently reporting noise disturbance from Mr A, in early 2023, the landlord made enquiries about noise monitoring equipment. The evidence shows it asked the relevant team about it in March 2023, the outcome of the enquiry is unclear.
  8. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord was proactive in following up on this enquiry, which likely inconvenienced the resident. The resident likely experienced time and trouble, in August 2023, when she had to chase the landlord to make a formal request for the equipment. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. It is noted the noise monitoring equipment was installed around this time. However, the resident was evidently distressed at the ASB she said she was experiencing. The lack of proactive action around the noise monitoring equipment from the landlord contributed to her concern it was not handling her reports appropriately.
  9. The evidence shows that the landlord sought to complete a risk assessment with the resident in April 2023, when she reported feeling “extremely unsafe”. This was following an incident where Mr A had allegedly smashed a window at her property. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to assess the risk posed to the resident. From the evidence available it is unclear whether the resident responded to the landlord’s request to meet at its offices.
  10. It is unclear why the meeting at the landlord’s offices did not go ahead. On the information available it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was not proactive in following this up with the resident. There was a 4 month delay between it initially inviting her in for a risk assessment, and following up with her. Considering the resident had reported she felt “extremely unsafe”, this is concerning. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact the landlord was not proactive in following up on her reports of ASB.
  11. We have seen an email from 27 July 2023 that states the landlord needed a risk assessment if it was to facilitate a move for the resident’s safety. Based on this, it is reasonable to conclude the risk assessment did not go ahead in April 2023. The resident was evidently distressed at the situation with her neighbour. It is not possible to determine what caused this delay but the fact that the meeting did not go ahead impacted on the landlord’s ability to progress the case.
  12. The evidence shows that from August 2023 the landlord adopted a multi agency approach to the resident’s reports of ASB. It regularly sought advice and guidance from its ASB unit from this time onwards. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and while it was of the view the case was not at the risk level that the ASB unit would lead on the case, it still sought guidance from its expert team. This is evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  13. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response, of 18 September 2023, to set out its position on the ASB case, and explain the actions it had taken up to that point. It sought to reassure the resident it was seeking advice from the ASB unit, and would provide further input when it had a response, this was appropriate. It also sought to manage the resident’s expectations about actions it could take, and that it had to investigate the allegations Mr A had made against her. This was a balanced and reasonable response. It was appropriate that it signposted the resident to her GP for mental health support. This is evidence it had due consideration for the resident’s vulnerability, and was sensitive to the impact the situation was having on her.
  14. Following an allegation of a serious incident with Mr A in November 2023, that resulted in his arrest, the landlord appropriately handed the case over to its specialist ASB unit. The evidence shows it completed a risk assessment, deemed the case high risk, and therefore the ASB unit was the appropriate service to lead on the case.
  15. The evidence shows that after the alleged incident in November 2023, the landlord held a multi agency meeting with the police and its internal teams to decide on next steps for the case. This was appropriate in the circumstances and further evidence the landlord sought to work closely with all the relevant parties in the case.
  16. The landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation at this time, which demonstrates it took the concern about risk seriously. It is noted the resident declined the offer. The offer of temporary accommodation was made in its function as a local authority, and therefore not within the remit of this Service to make a determination on the reasonableness of the offer. This is because offers of accommodation by local authorities fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) rather than the Housing Ombudsman. However, the fact that it made the offer is evidence it was considering appropriate avenues to reduce risk to the resident as an organisation.
  17. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of May 2024, gave a detailed account of the actions it had taken in the ASB case, and it explained its position with clarity. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations about how it used sound monitoring equipment and its latest position on the legal action it was taking against Mr A. It also set out that such action often took “significant amount of time”, which showed transparency. While not upholding the complaint, the response showed empathy for the resident’s experience which is evidence it had due consideration for the impact the ASB had on her.
  18. The evidence shows that the landlord took the resident’s concerns about ASB seriously, and appropriately escalated the case to its specialist team when it was clear the risk had increased. The resident was inconvenienced by its poor communication in relation to the noise monitoring equipment. Despite the poor communication in the early stages of the case, from August 2023 its communication with relevant parties was good, and it adopted a multi agency approach.
  19. The resident’s concerns about the time it took to take legal action against Mr A are noted. It is evident that the situation was distressing for the resident, and we do not seek to dispute her concern that the situation impacted on her mental wellbeing. As the landlord set out in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord needed to provide evidence to the court to show it had taken reasonable steps to resolve matters before pursuing legal action. Ultimately it was for the court to decide if a closure order could be granted and the landlord could not decide this on its own, without the court’s permission. There are multiple stages involved in legal action which can be lengthy and the landlord did not have full control over how long the process took. Considering the individual circumstances of the case the length of time take to pursue legal action against Mr A was reasonable in the circumstances.
  20. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £175 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. At the time of the resident’s complaint its policy stated it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days, and it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. The landlord’s complaint response timeframes at the time did not adhere to those set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. It is noted the landlord has since updated its complaints procedure, and the response timeframes now align with the Code. As such, we see no need to make an order in relation to its complaints procedure.
  2. The Code sets out that landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so, and it a landlord decided not to accept a complaint it must be able to evidence its reasoning. The Code defines legal proceedings as an acceptable exclusion which is defined as a claim having been filed at court.
  3. The resident was evidently unhappy that she had to ask again for noise monitoring equipment, in August 2023. The resident’s email, of 1 August 2023, said she was advised to raise a stage 1 complaint about the issue. That it did not open a complaint investigation at that was inappropriate. This likely inconvenienced the resident. The resident experienced time and trouble due to the need to raise concerns again on 1 September 2023, in order to get the landlord to open a complaint investigation.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 12 working days after the resident’s complaint of 1 September 2023. While this was within the timeframes set out in its procedure at the time, it was outside of the timeframes set out in the Code. While not an excessive delay, it was inappropriate that the landlord’s response did not acknowledge or apologise for the fact the resident had tried to raise a complaint on 1 August 2023.
  5. The resident asked for her complaint to go to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 18 September 2023, and the landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint until 5 December 2023.There is no evidence to show why this happened. This is a failing and likely caused an inconvenience to the resident.
  6. The landlord asked the resident to put the stage 2 complaint on hold, in January 2023, due to the legal action it was taking against Mr A. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an adequate explanation of why it felt this was appropriate, and simply sought her agreement in a phone call. We have not seen evidence to corroborate what reasons the landlord gave, at the time, for pausing the complaint.
  7. In most cases the complaints process can continue while legal proceedings are ongoing against another resident for ASB. Therefore, the fact that there was ongoing legal action was not in itself sufficient reason to put the complaint on hold. This was a failure to adhere to the approach mandated by the Code, which likely inconvenienced the resident. It is noted that the landlord gave an explanation, in its stage 2 response of May 2023, about its reasons for doing so. It was unreasonable that it did not give this level of detail sooner.
  8. The landlord’s comments, that it did not want to adversely affect the legal proceedings against Mr A, are noted. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to outline there were some things it could not comment on due to legal proceedings, but to pause the entire complaint created a protracted complaint process for the resident. She was likely inconvenienced by an unduly long complaints process, and was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from this Service in order to get a response to her stage 2 complaint.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not acknowledge the fact there was a 3 month delay in initially opening the stage 2 complaint. This lacked transparency. While we welcome the fact the landlord apologised for any “misunderstanding” about putting the stage 2 complaint on hold, given the landlord appeared to accept its communication about putting the stage 2 on hold was poor, it was inappropriate that it did not offer redress for its admitted failing. Given the above failings, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, an order for £150 is considered appropriate to put things right for the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling errors.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £325 in compensation made up of:
      1. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
      2. £150 in recognition of the time, trouble, and inconvenience likely caused by errors in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
    1. Progressing with a complaint investigation in line with the timeframes set out in its procedure, and the Code.
    2. Acknowledging, showing appropriate learning, and offering redress for complaint handling delays in its responses.