Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (202102568)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102568

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

30 May 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour (ASB) outside his property.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident entered into an introductory tenancy on 19 October 2020.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 April 2021 (“First Complaint”). He stated the property he had been put into was not suitable for him as he had three children who sometimes came over and there was not enough space for them to sleep. He added he had made an application for extra rehousing points on both medical and welfare grounds, as he was a vulnerable individual which had been refused. The resident also complained about the way he had been treated by the landlord in particular by the ASB team when he had raised concerns about noise nuisance from his neighbour upstairs. He claimed he was dismissed and was asked if his PTSD condition had made him hear things. The resident said he “was being victimised by people trying to break in to my property” and that he had suffered three attempted break–ins in the space of two months.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 28 May 2021. It explained:
1. It had fully investigated the resident’s complaint concerning the comments made by the landlord’s staff to him and the alleged comments had been refuted by the individual concerned.
2. That whilst it accepted that the sound monitoring equipment and recordings made by the resident’s mobile had contained noises, the majority of these were consistent with general day to day living including movements around the property and hoovering. It also added most of these noises were during the day and not late at night.
3. The recordings made did not tie in with the diary sheets the resident had completed. It also had concerns with noise recorded during the early hours which the landlord stated was preceded by loud music playing for a period of time which it stated, “possibly may have emanated from your property”. It had offered to play this to the resident to clear up any confusion but this offer had not been taken up.
4. The noises did not meet the threshold to be considered as a statutory noise nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 19 November 2021 stating he had a recording of a conversation with the landlord which contradicted its investigation at stage 1.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 January 2022. It explained:
1. It understood further diary sheets had been issued to the resident in relation to ASB in December 2021. It had requested these sheets be completed and retuned to it within a month so that “it could be ascertained whether any action from its Community Resilience Team is required”.
2. In relation to the resident’s concerns about dog barking, these had initially been passed to its Estates Team and had now been passed to an Environmental Enforcement Team.
3. Despite having requested a copy of the telephone conversation the resident had with the landlord on two occasions, it had not been provided with this by the resident. It was therefore unable to determine that there had been any error in its investigation of the matter at stage 1.
The resident raised further concerns with the landlord in March 2022. The contact had followed on from the bins outside the property having been burned. The resident had also raised concerns about groups of youths being outside the property smoking and drinking which he wanted the landlord to address. The landlord had confirmed during patrols of the area that it had found the burnt bin as well as a few vapes and e-cigarettes on the floor outside the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions in May 2022 about the issue of ASB and with regards to the issue of the youths being outside the property. He explained that the actions were intimidating to him and his children when they visited him. The resident added he was unable to identify the youths.
The landlord responded to the resident by telephone on several occasions in June 2022. It also issued him with new diary sheets to be completed in relation to the issue of the noise nuisance which he had raised.
The resident continued to contact the landlord in August and September 2022 in relation to the issue with the youths including the use of drugs. He sent in pictures which showed cigarette ends outside the door. He added that the youths had attempted to break in to his home and the landlord came out to repair the door they had damaged. The resident was unable to identify the people involved. The resident also wished to re-open the case against his neighbour in respect of noise nuisance.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 26 September 2022 stated that notes had been unavailable so it had not been able to check if a case about the youths outside the property had been closed in the last 6 months. It sent the resident diary sheets which it asked him to complete. It also provided the resident a week later with details of the noise app which allowed him to forward noises recorded on the resident’s mobile phone. The resident sent in details to the landlord on 6 October 2022 of noise nuisance from the previous week.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 22 October 2022 asked if there was an open case for resident. It noted that he had been reporting ASB for 22 months and this concerned his neighbour as well as a group of youths who had been spending time outside the resident’s property. In relation to the issue of youths the landlord explained that following some individuals being identified the previous year, the neighbourhood police team had visited them and none of those individuals had returned. The landlord also set out that the resident had been asking for a supporting letter to enable him to move which had not been granted as it stated the resident had not met the criteria.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 18 November 2022 explained that the ASB case had been closed as no information had been received since 10 October 2022. It added that no culprits had been identified and the police had nothing to report. It noted that it would open the complaint again if information was received.
The resident made another complaint on 23 November 2022 (“Second Complaint”). This had followed the resident contacting the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. He complained about:
1. Continuing ASB which he stated had been ongoing for over two years and for which nothing had been done. The resident added he had suffered a seizure during one phone call with the police over an incident as a result of stress. The resident set out details of the incidents which he had experienced.
2. A failure by the landlord to communicate with him.
3. The effect on both his mental and physical health of the issues he had raised.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 12 December 2022. It stated:
1. In terms of the continuing ASB situation outside the resident’s property it accepted that incidents had been occurring. However it stated that it did “not believe that these incidents are directly targeted against yourself”. Instead the landlord believed that the location of the property caused the congregation of young people. It added that the Neighbourhood Policing Team and the Targeted Youth Services had made significant efforts to try and identify people meeting at this location and it had increased patrols for the area in conjunction with the police. Whilst the patrols had confirmed evidence of drug taking and smoking were present, a lack of evidence in the form of identification of the offenders meant that those involved had not been caught.
2. In relation to the failure to communicate, it said that the case handler dealing with the ASB had inherited the resident’s complaint and was a relatively new member of staff. It evidenced that the case handler had spoken to the resident on several occasions between June and September 2022. However it accepted there had been no contact once the complaint had been reopened in October 2022 and this included no response to the resident’s WhatsApp message sent on 10 October 2022. It apologised for this service failure and explained it would feedback to the case handler concerned to prevent the situation from reoccurring.
3. In terms of the resident’s request for a house move, it noted that the resident had been seeking this since shortly after moving into the property in October 2020. It noted that the resident had an active housing application, was in Band B and had points and medical and welfare priority to support him in moving home. It further understood that the resident had presented to its Homeless Team who had accepted a homeless duty and would be supporting the resident to find alternative accommodation.
The resident informed the landlord on 12 December 2022 that he intended to escalate the complaint and that he had videos of youths in the area which he had provided to the police.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 December 2022 in terms of the ASB and neighbour nuisance, setting out the actions it would be taking. This had followed a visit to the resident on 6 December 2022 together with the police and the police community support officer (PCSO). This letter explained the resident should continue to actively bid on homes on the Council register and contact his GP should he have a “decline in his mental health”.
The landlord’s internal communication on 15 December 2022 confirmed that the resident’s rehousing application had been awarded 500 additional points. It added that this did not automatically mean that he would have a guarantee of property. It noted the resident had been bidding on a narrow selection of properties and that, at the time, he was restricted to looking at one-bedroom properties. However it had been explained to the resident that if he was to get custody of his children then it would reassess based on the change in circumstances.
The resident sent in further images on 10 January 2023 using WhatsApp of bottles and cigarette ends outside his property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 January 2023. It explained that it had closed the complaint about ASB as it had noted there had been no recent incidents noted. It explained that the resident had a supporting letter provided by the police which had been forwarded to the Homeless team.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2023. It explained that it was unable to provide its complaint response within 15 working days. However it expected to be able to issue its response by 20 February 2023. A further holding email was issued on 24 February 2023, in which it apologised that it would not be able to provide the stage 2 response by the end of that week. It added that it expected to provide the response by 3 March 2023.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 27 February 2023. It set out:
1. That its Community Resilience Team had engaged with the resident since he had initially raised concerns about ASB, from his neighbour in December 2020. This was shortly after he had moved to the property. The landlord set out details of its interactions with the resident from early 2021 onwards, including after the resident raising concerns about the group of youths outside the property. It did acknowledge that there had been a gap in its contact in October 2022, as noted in the stage 1 response, for which it had apologised. It added that, given the large number of cases which its officers were dealing with, this could have contributed to it not being able to respond to residents in as timely manner as was needed.
2. In relation to the housing situation, it understood the resident stated he had felt compelled to accept the property, which did not meet his requirements, due to the ongoing pandemic at that time. It stated following the property being offered to him, he had the right to request a review of the landlord’s decision but no appeal had been received from him. The landlord explained that a homeless duty was accepted by it on 8 December 2022 and he was awarded priority need points. He had been offered a property which was declined. Following a suitability review it was accepted the property had not been suitable for his needs. The landlord explained that he would not be considered for two or three–bedroom houses as he did not have custody of his children. Whilst they visited him, this would not grant him the ability to look at larger properties but it would review the matter if he was awarded custody. It explained, due to the large amount of people on its waiting lists, it could not say how long it would be before it could offer him a property.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord has confirmed that a property was offered to the resident which was accepted by him on 20 April 2023. The tenancy on that property began on 18 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident received a stage 2 response to the first complaint on 21 January 2022. Whilst he continued to contact the landlord in relation to further issues this had concerned a different issue relating to a group of youths congregating outside the property. The initial complaint he made had centred over the actions of his neighbour and the issue of noise nuisance. The landlord had provided the resident with referral rights in the stage 2 response to refer the matter to the Housing Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied. It had also explained that the stage 2 response marked the end of its complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters which were not referred to it in a reasonable time. Whilst the resident did contact the Ombudsman initially in April 2021 and this had continued up to November 2021, this was prior to his requesting the initial complaint was escalated to stage 2. Following the landlord issuing the stage 2 response for the initial complaint the resident did not contact the Ombudsman again until 3 February 2023, which was more than 12 months after he had been given referral rights. Therefore the events up to the end of the initial stage 2 response issued on 21 January 2022 are outside the scope of this investigation. Instead this complaint will deal with the events from March 2022, when the resident had initially contacted the landlord about the issue of ASB from the group of youths who were outside the property. Whilst this complaint will not look at the events surrounding the earlier complaint, the details have been referred to in this report for context and background.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.

Whilst the Ombudsman has provided a summary of events, this is not an exhaustive account of all the communication between the resident and the landlord over the issue. It instead covers the communication which the Ombudsman considers is relevant to this investigation.
ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
Following the resident having contacted the landlord in conjunction with the issue of youths gathering and smoking and drinking outside his property and alerting it to the burnt bins, the landlord worked in conjunction with other services to identify those who were responsible for the matter. This had included PCSOs as well as the police. This was reasonable and in keeping with the landlord’s youth ASB resolution policy which deals with tackling anti-social behaviour from that specific group. This landlord had noted that whilst “most children and young people are law abiding, but there is a small minority who will commit crime and engage in anti-social behaviour (ASB). Prevention is vital to tackling this youth crime and ASB”. The landlord’s youth model was based on four steps which were:
1. Identification.
2. Assessment.
3. Diversion, Early and Informal Resolution.
4. Enforcement.
As part of the landlord’s youth ASB approach, the first step was identification. Without identifying those responsible it would not be possible to move along to the next step. In this regard, the landlord had asked the resident for his assistance. Whilst the resident had provided some information relating to the possible school where some of those congregating came from based on what he had observed, he had not been able to provide any more information or photos to allow those involved to be identified. In addition to this the landlord had also increased patrols in the area in the hope of catching those involved. Whilst the landlord stated it had previously spoken to several youths who it said had not returned to the area, these patrols in 2022 had not identified any other specific individuals who had been gathering outside the resident’s property.
The landlord’s internal communications show that it did follow up on each of the resident’s concerns over the issue of the youths gathering and it informed the resident that he was not being sought out individually by the youths, but that it was the location of the property which had led to it being chosen by the youths as a suitable gathering place. The patrols as well as the images provided by the resident had discovered empty bottles and cigarette ends at the property which was in keeping with it being used as a meeting place. The landlord had also worked in conjunction with the police over the issue and was aware from previous reports by other tenants of a similar nature to those reported by the resident.
The landlord also asked the resident to complete diary sheets initially on 30 June 2022. This was appropriate to determine both the frequency of any ASB and for the landlord to use further, in the event that it needed to take the matter further including to court. The landlord had chased the resident for the logs and when it had not received them it closed the complaint down. It did state that it would re-open the matter once it had received the completed diary logs from the resident. This was a reasonable approach for it to take. However the landlord has accepted that, whilst it had provided individual references to subsequent ASB reports made by the resident, given the gap between some instances it should have re-opened the previous ASB case.
Whilst the landlord had previously used sound monitoring equipment to record the noise nuisance which the resident had raised from his neighbour in 2021 this would not have been a viable option in terms of the issue with the youths. This was because the ASB was not necessarily noise nuisance but rather concerned the resident’s concerns about large groups of youths smoking, drinking and taking drugs outside the property.
As the landlord was aware from previous complaints of a similar nature to those made by the resident, and there had been previous difficulty in identifying those involved, it could have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether any alternative means of identifying those involved could be used. This was especially as the landlord was made aware that the resident was not living at the property and instead was staying with friends and family due to the stress that the matter had caused him. There is no indication that the landlord had looked into whether it could have done more to help identify those involved in the ASB. This could have included the fitting of cameras to the front and rear of the resident’s property or the use of a Ring doorbell or other similar type of device. Whilst there was a cost implication here, this could have helped to resolve the situation and given the resident assurance. Whilst the landlord has stated it was working in conjunction with the police on a wider operation into the matter relating to the youths, this was something it could have considered further.
Whilst the landlord did act in accordance with its Youth ASB policy and it did respond to most of the the resident’s concerns about the youths gathering outside the property including liaising with other services to jointly tackle the issue there was a gap in its communication and updates to the resident in October 2022. It did apologise for in its stage 1 response. The landlord also failed to re-open and link previous ASB cases which it had closed, once the resident had been back in touch with it. It also failed to consider other options it could look at to help identify those involved in the ASB issue. These amount to a service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”. The policy explained that the complaints process comprised two stages. At stage 1 the landlord would aim to provide a response within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. If this was not possible it would write to the resident to let them know why there was a delay together with the estimated time it needed to provide the response. If the resident remained unhappy they were able to escalate the matter to stage 2 of the complaints process. At stage 2 the policy explained that the landlord would provide its response within 15 working days of receiving the request for the complaint to be escalated.
The resident had informed the landlord on 12 December 2022, the same day he had received the stage 1 response that he wished to escalate the matter to stage 2. Despite doing this, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s request or pass the matter through to the next stage. Whilst it had continued to communicate with the resident, this was in relation to the alternative property it was offering him which had then been withdrawn following a suitability review. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation request until 2 February 2023, over seven weeks later. In its communication of this date it had informed the resident that it was unable to provide its response within 15 working days but that it would aim to do so by 20 February 2023. This was a date it missed and it sent a further email to the resident on 24 February 2023 in which it provided a further revised date to receive the response.
Although it is acknowledged that the landlord did update the resident in February 2023 concerning the stage 2 response its approach was not in keeping with its own complaints policy at stage 2. Instead it was following the policy for dealing with a complaint at stage 1. However, even in doing this, the landlord did not provide any explanation for the delay in providing its response. This was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord in the stage 2 response did apologise for the delay, however it did not provide any reasons which had caused the delay. The stage 2 letter stated the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 on 18 January 2023. However the landlord has not provided this Service with any contemporaneous correspondence or communication which showed this was the date the resident had requested the escalation. The stage 2 letter also clearly stated the resident had informed it on the date he received the stage 1 response on 12 December 2022 (some two months earlier) that he wished to escalate the matter.
The landlord did not follow its own complaints policy and its stage 2 response was provided considerably outside the 15 working days timescale as set out in the policy. The impact of the delay on the resident was that it increased the distress and inconvenience experienced by him at a time when he had been looking for assistance in moving away from the property and had actually not been residing at the property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings in how the landlord handled the resident’s reporting of ASB as identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £75 in respect of its handling of his reporting of ASB from the youths gathering outside the property.
3. Pay the resident an amount of £100, in relation to the issue of complaints handling.

Recommendation

The landlord should review its process in dealing with the issue of youths gathering outside the property. This should involve it considering what other options, it could use to try and identify those people involved in similar situations.
The landlord should undertake a review of its process of dealing with ASB queries to ensure that it follows the correct approach with regards to dealing with separate ASB complaints and linking them due to the time between reported instances.