Wiltshire Council (202301667)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301667

Wiltshire Council

27 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling

Background

The resident was a leaseholder, but she has since moved out of the property. The landlord is a local authority. The resident is elderly, and she has had representatives acting on her behalf. The resident’s representatives told the landlord the resident was experiencing health concerns and anxiety due to the reported ASB.
The property was a one-bedroomed first floor flat. The neighbour who the resident reported for behaving in an anti-social manner, lived in a flat directly below the resident.
The resident first raised concerns about her neighbour in 2021 after they damaged the resident’s tyres with a knife. The resident later reported that her neighbour was harassing and intimidating her, they were playing loud music, and they were shouting at all hours.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord placed audio recording equipment in the resident’s home. The landlord said the equipment didn’t capture any evidence of noise disturbances. The landlord closed the investigation into the ASB and considered if the resident might be having “auditory hallucinations/delusions” linked to dementia.
The resident’s daughter and an adult safeguarding officer raised concerns about the ASB, and the impact the ASB was having on the resident’s health and welfare. In communications between the landlord’s housing officer and the safeguarding officer, the housing officer suggested the resident might be experiencing dementia. The housing officer asked if the resident could be given anti-psychotic medication as a trial to see if this assisted with the resident’s concerns around noise.
On 27 February 2023 the resident’s safeguarding officer, who worked for her GP practice, made a complaint on the resident’s behalf. In this complaint they said:
1. The landlord’s housing officer lacked empathy and was unprofessional. The Housing officer had made assumptions about the resident’s health, and in doing so they minimised the resident’s concerns.
2. It was inappropriate and discriminatory for the landlord’s housing officer to suggest the resident had dementia and might benefit from taking anti-psychotic medication.
3. They wanted the landlord to review its handling of the ASB reports as the reported ASB was having an impact on the resident’s mental and physical health, and this had caused her to lose a significant amount of weight.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, which said:
1. It believed the housing officer had acted in an appropriate manner. It said the housing officer had acted on their initiative to conduct basic research into dementia.
2. The housing officer had not acted in a discriminatory manner when they suggested the use of anti-psychotic medication, instead they had been looking for a resolution.
3. Its records showed the allegations of ASB had been appropriately investigated and there was not enough evidence to take enforcement actions against the neighbour.
On 10 March 2023 the safeguarding officer escalated their complaint for the following reasons:
1. The resident did not have dementia, and they felt it was inappropriate that the housing officer had sent an email which included dementia symptoms when they were not a medical professional.
2. They felt the housing officer’s incorrect belief that the resident had dementia meant the landlord had minimised the impact the ASB had on the resident.
3. They felt the landlord did not consider the residents feelings and concerns to be valid.
On 22 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said:
1. The housing officer was made aware the resident had dementia from the police, and because of this, the housing officer conducted research and made a referral. This was appropriate and in-line with policy.
2. When the housing officer was told medication would not be appropriate, they discontinued this element of the investigation.
3. It had handled the ASB allegations appropriately and had sent warning letters to the neighbour, conducted in person visits, and taken noise recordings. There was no conclusive evidence of any disturbances occurring.
The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 13 April 2023 as she felt the landlord’s complaint responses were unfair, and she wanted the ASB to end.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take all allegations of ASB seriously and it will deal with reports effectively, and in a complainant/witness focused manner.
The landlord can consider an ASB complainant to be vulnerable due to their age, disability, or any mental health issues. When an ASB complainant is vulnerable, a referral will be made to a support service. Any vulnerabilities will be considered when the landlord assesses risk.
ASB allegations will be categorised so the landlord can deal with reports effectively. Incidents which involve noise complaints and/or property vandalism will be classified as ‘serious’. When a matter is classified as serious the landlord will contact a resident within 48 hours, and it will produce a written action plan within 72 hours.
To investigate ASB allegations the landlord will:
1. Work with other professional agencies.
2. Undertake risk assessments.
3. Provide a single point of contact.
4. Regularly update the complainant, as a minimum it will update residents every 14 days.
5. Take prompt, proportionate and effective action.
If the landlord decides to close a complaint against a complainant’s wishes, it can only do so if it is satisfied it has done everything possible, or if it is apparent the allegation is false.
The resident first reported concerns about her neighbour after she found her tyres had been punctured twice in February 2021. On 28 April 2021 the neighbour received a police caution for puncturing the resident’s tyres with a knife. The resident told the landlord on 20 February 2022 that the neighbour swore loudly through her letterbox at night. Following this, the resident regularly reported hearing loud noises, music, and shouting from their neighbour’s flat throughout the night. The landlord sent the neighbour warning letters about noise nuisance, this was appropriate and in line with its policy.
Throughout the period relevant to the complaint, other residents had reported that the neighbour was acting in an anti-social manner and that they had concerns around the neighbour’s behaviour. Evidence supplied to this Service noted the neighbour had serious mental health conditions, and at the time, they were struggling with their day-to-day functioning.
The landlord initially advised the resident to record noise disturbances via written noise logs. The landlord also periodically provided the resident with electronic noise monitoring equipment.
The resident’s representative has said they felt the landlord put too much pressure on the resident to produce evidence of the ASB. They said the resident struggled with completing the noise logs as she was sleep deprived from the ASB. They also said the resident also struggled with technology, so she found the noise monitoring equipment hard to use. While it was initially reasonable for the landlord to seek evidence from the resident, when it learned of this barrier, it should have adapted its approach to better meet the resident’s needs. However, it is not evident that the landlord took these concerns into consideration, offered assistance, or adjusted its approach to gathering evidence. It was unfair that the landlord did not do this considering the resident met the landlord’s criteria for being vulnerable.
In accordance with its ASB policy, after the resident reported ASB the landlord should have:
1. Produced a written action plan.
2. Conducted a risk assessment.
3. Made a referral if it considered the resident to be vulnerable.
The landlord did not follow the above steps. Instead, it said it had verbally agreed an action plan with the resident. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not follow its own policy, and its lack of written records meant it did not have an action plan it could update, refer to, or compare its progress against. This failure is amplified when considering the seriousness of the circumstances being that both the resident and the neighbour were vulnerable, and there was considerable risk associated with the initial ASB incident.
The landlord has told this Service that since the resident filed their complaint, it has updated its procedures. The landlord said it now produces risk assessments and action plans when a resident reports ASB. While this demonstrates the landlord has sought to learn from this case and improve its procedures, at the time the resident reported the ASB the landlord’s policy already noted these were required actions. Producing such documents should have been standard procedure at the time.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take appropriate action to investigate allegations. Evidence showed that the landlord discussed installing CCTV in communal areas after another resident reported concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord was asked by this Service if it progressed with installing CCTV. It said this wasn’t available, and it was currently looking into systems which complied with data regulations. If this was the case, the landlord should have explained this to the resident to manage her expectations; however, it is not evident it has done so.
The evidence supplied to this service showed that other residents had reported concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord could have assessed such reports as evidence to substantiate the resident’s allegations. The landlord did not appear to do so as it repeatedly said it had no evidence to substantiate the resident’s reports. This would have been frustrating for the resident, and it likely contributed to her concerns that she wasn’t taken seriously or believed.
The resident’s representatives told the landlord that the ASB was having a significant impact on the resident’s physical and mental health. The resident’s GP also wrote to the landlord on 19 April 2022 and said the resident was experiencing physical ill health linked to stress caused by the ASB. In January and February of 2023, the resident’s daughter and the resident’s safeguarding officer told the landlord the resident had been placed on medication for anxiety, and she had lost a significant amount of weight. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord changed its approach or sought to signpost additional support services after it became aware of these concerns, which was unreasonable.
Under the landlord’s ASB policy, complainants should be updated about the reported ASB at least every 14 days. In this instance, there were occasions where the landlord conducted in person meetings with the resident and communicated with her representatives. However, it did not update the resident in a structured manner or every 14 days as per its policy. This was unreasonable and the lack of communication would have contributed to the resident’s distress.
The landlord’s policy says it will only close ASB investigations when it is satisfied it has done everything possible. On 6 September 2022, 1 November 2022, and 7 December 2022, the landlord told the resident it was closing its investigations into the ASB. The landlord’s rationale for this decision was it felt there was no credible evidence to support the resident’s claims. The Ombudsman considers it was unreasonable for the landlord to close investigations as:
1. It had not handled the resident’s concerns in-line with its ASB policy.
2. It had not adequately communicated with the resident about actions it had taken to resolve their concerns.
3. The landlord had not fully considered evidence from other residents which might substantiate the resident’s concerns.
4. The landlord could have taken additional steps to rectify the residents concerns. For example, it would have been proportionate and effective for the landlord to consider producing good neighbour agreements, or to facilitate a mediation, which it failed to do.
In its complaint responses, the landlord maintained it had handled the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately. It is of concern the landlord did not identify any failing considering it had not conducted actions outlined in its ASB policy to investigate reports, communicated effectively with the resident, or assessed risk based on her vulnerabilities.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its housing officer had made a referral relating to the resident, and this was in-line with its ASB policy. The landlord has not supplied any referral made in relation to the resident. It has indicated it met this requirement by communicating with the resident’s safeguarding officer in February 2023. This was inaccurate as the communication was not a formal referral, and it occurred 2 years after the resident reported ASB to the landlord.
The resident’s representative has said the resident decided to move as she had lost faith in the landlord’s abilities to sufficiently handle her reports of ASB, and it had gotten to the point where she was scared to leave her property. The resident’s representative said the resident got to the point where she felt the only way she could stop the ASB was to move.
The Ombudsman has determined maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord did not complete required steps to investigate the ASB and safeguard the resident.
2. The landlord did not update the resident in-line with its policy.
3. The landlord did not fully consider relevant evidence gathering opportunities.
4. The landlord placed the primary responsibility to obtain evidence on the resident who was a vulnerable elderly person that struggled with technology.
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £600 as the harm the resident experienced was high, and the landlord did not acknowledge its own failings or take steps to put things right. The Ombudsman considers £600 compensation to be appropriate and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

The conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff

The landlord has a code of conduct which all staff must abide by. Under this code, staff members are required to treat customers with respect, and act with objectivity.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it recognises the importance of supporting vulnerable persons, and that vulnerable persons are more likely to be victims of ASB.
The resident’s safeguarding officer raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s housing officer. They felt the housing officer had treated the resident unfairly, that they were minimising the resident’s concerns, and they had acted with discrimination.
This Service cannot conclude whether discrimination occurred, as this is not within our remit. However, we can consider if a landlord’s actions have been demonstrably unfair, inappropriate or unreasonable. We can also assess what the landlord did to investigate such reports.
The housing officer and safeguarding officer spoke over the phone on 10 February 2023. Notes made by the housing officer after this call said:
1. They felt the resident had dementia, as a friend of the resident said she had dementia.
2. The safeguarding officer said the resident had been tested and she did not have dementia.
3. They felt the resident had an ‘apparent fixation’ on her neighbour, as other residents had not reported any noise concerns.
4. They raised that the resident could be suffering from delusions linked to dementia. They asked if the GP could prescribe anti-psychotic medication as a trial to see if this would assist with the reports of noise disturbances.
5. The safeguarding officer said medication could not be prescribed without a diagnosis.
In the absence of any professional reports, it was inappropriate for the housing officer to suggest the resident had dementia or delusions when they did not have the required medical training to diagnose the resident with an illness.
Of particular concern is the housing officer’s suggestion that the resident could be put on anti-psychotic medication as a ‘trial’. The housing officer did not suggest this because they wished to safeguard the resident, instead they suggested seeing if medication would affect the resident’s reports of ASB. This was inappropriate and was not reflective of the resident being dealt with in a fair and respectful manner.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord notified the safeguarding officer that it was closing the investigation into ASB. After this, the housing officer copied and pasted an extract from the Alzheimer’s Society’s website about delusions and fixations. The housing officer said this should be ‘explored’ with the resident.
It was unfair for the housing officer to suggest the resident was experiencing delusions linked to dementia/Alzheimer’s. The housing officer was not a medical professional, and they had already been told the resident did not have dementia. This was unfair to the resident, and it indicated her concerns were not being taken seriously, as her experiences were being dismissed as delusions.
The Ombudsman is of the view that any concerns relating to the resident’s health should have taken place in a clinical setting. Such discussions should have occurred with the resident and her medical representatives present. This would ensure she could express her views, consider professional medical advice, and ensure she was comfortable with any suggested treatment.
In its complaint responses, the landlord maintained that its housing officer had acted appropriately and in-line with policy. It said the housing officer was trying to help the situation and conducted research from a credible source.
The landlord should have been concerned about the conduct of its housing officer considering concerns were brought to its attention by a safeguarding professional. The landlord could have seen this as an opportunity to learn and take steps to ensure the housing officer, and any other relevant personnel, received additional training. Instead, the landlord overlooked the conduct of its housing officer, and steps it could take to make improvements to better serve its vulnerable residents. This was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord has not appropriately addressed its employee’s conduct, and they could currently be working with other vulnerable and/or elderly residents. To address this, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to improve its training relating to adult safeguarding and dementia/Alzheimer’s.
The Ombudsman has determined maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord’s housing officer made inappropriate suggestions about the resident’s health and medical treatment.
2. The landlord’s housing officer continued to believe the resident could have delusions linked to dementia when they were told the resident did not have dementia.
3. The housing officer appeared to dismiss the resident’s lived experiences as being delusions.
4. The landlord did not take steps to address the safeguarding officers concerns or see it as an opportunity to ensure its operatives had sufficient training.
5. The landlord did not apologise or offer the resident any redress.
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £400 as it did not acknowledge its own failings or take steps to put things right. The Ombudsman considers £400 compensation to be appropriate and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaints handling

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it defines complaints as being an expression of dissatisfaction relating to the standard of service a resident is experiencing. A complaint does not need to be made in writing, and the word ‘complaint’ does not need to be used.
The landlord will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will then provide its stage 1 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. When a complaint is escalated to stage 2 the landlord will produce its stage 2 response within 30 working days.
On 24 January 2023 the resident’s daughter emailed the landlord about its decision to end its investigation into the reported ASB. The residents daughter said:
1. She was sad and disappointed with the landlord’s decision.
2. The ASB had left her mother scared and a shell of her former self and had resulted in her mother being placed on medication.
3. She expressed concern for the safety of her mother and highlighted that the neighbour had carried a knife in a public place and used the knife to puncture her mother’s tyres.
4. She felt the landlord was not following its own processes relating to ASB.
The landlord should have considered this email to be a complaint as the resident’s daughter had raised concerns about the landlord’s decision making and its ASB investigation, suggesting she was dissatisfied. If the landlord was unsure if this amounted to a complaint, it could have sought clarification.
The landlord sent its stage 1 and 2 responses in a timely manner which was in-line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord sent its stage 1 response 8 working days after receiving the complaint, and its stage 2 response 9 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was appropriate.
The Ombudsman finds a service failure occurred as the landlord did not raise a complaint or explain why it did not consider that the resident’s daughter’s email met the criteria of a complaint.
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the conduct of its employee.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1,050 to the resident. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £600 for its handling of the resident’s concerns of ASB.
2. £400 for the handling of concerns relating to the conduct of its employee.
3. £50 for its complaints handling.
The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this case. In this letter, it is to outline steps it is taking to make improvements in light of the Ombudsman’s findings.
The landlord is to review its ASB policies to ensure its current practices for reviewing and investigating ASB are in-line with its ASB policy.
The landlord is to review its policies and procedures relating to supporting vulnerable residents, with a focus on Alzheimer’s and dementia. It is to update the Ombudsman on:
1. Steps it is taken to improve staff understanding of this topic.
2. Steps it is taking to better support elderly residents.
It must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect, and Rights and consider implementing its recommendations which can be found here: Spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.