Waverley Borough Council (202322576)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322576

Waverley Borough Council

4 June 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:
    1. Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. On 8 June 2023 the resident reported concerns regarding anti-social behaviour from neighbours. He said there was excessive noise and a strong smell of cannabis. He advised this was impacting his wellbeing. The landlord issued noise diary sheets.
  3. The landlord left a voicemail for the resident on 14 June 2023 to advise that it had changed his tenancy from introductory to secure. This was to allow him to consider a mutual exchange. The resident said he did not want to move and said he would raise a formal complaint.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2023 to raise a complaint. He felt that his housing manager was not treating him fairly. He said that the landlord had ignored his reports of ASB. He felt that the housing manager had now suggested he move, rather than deal with the ASB. He said that he found the housing manager’s communication to be rude and dismissive. He noted that the situation was impacting his mental wellbeing.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 November 2023. It said that the housing manager was a professional with many years of experience. It advised that due to the sensitivity of some of the issues raised by the resident, it could not share all information with him. It said it was working with the police, and another agency.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 11 September 2023. He disagreed that the way the landlord had dealt with him was appropriate and reiterated that he felt the landlord had been rude to him. He said he felt frustrated that the housing manager had told him that there were no issues with ASB. He requested a stage 2 response.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord 22 September 2023. At this time he requested a stage 1 and stage 2 response. The resident sent a further email email on 30 November 2023. The landlord responded on 30 November 2023, and said that he raised a complaint on 15 September 2023 and that it had sent a response on 24 November 2023.  The resident challenged the dates as these were different to those on the stage 1 letter. He said the response did not make clear it was a stage 1 response.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 20 December 2023. It acknowledged that it was not clear that the email on 22 November 2023 was a stage 1 response. It had provided feedback regarding this to the complaint handler. It reiterated that it could only share some information regarding issues around drug taking in the area. The landlord said it had reviewed the correspondence between the resident and the housing manager and did not consider this to be rude or aggressive. It stated that it had not found ASB by 2 neighbours who it had investigated. The police had placed a closure order on another neighbour. The resident had said he did not receive letters regarding his tenancy being changed to a secure tenancy. The landlord apologised these were not received but said it was confident these were sent.
  9. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response. He feels action is not being taken to address his ASB concerns. He has advised recent reports for the same issues have been ignored.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that we may not consider complaints which were not bought to the attention of the landlord in a reasonable period of the matter arising, which is normally within 12 months. We have therefore only considered events related to this complaint, which happened since 7 September 2022. This is 12 months prior to when the resident raised a formal complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

 

  1. The first record the Ombudsman has seen regarding a report of ASB from the resident is dated 23 September 2022. This was in relation to a persistent smell of cannabis. The resident requested that the landlord did not speak to the neighbours at this time, as he was concerned it would be obvious who had reported them. The landlord agreed to do a walk with the police in the area on 30 September 2022. It advised it would drop leaflets into all flats to say that cannabis had been smelt and that this would be monitored. The landlord considered the resident’s request for confidentiality and took an alternative action to tackle the resident’s concerns.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will work with the police when ASB concerns are raised. It completed the street walk on 30 September 2022 which local police officers. Therefore. the landlord followed its ASB policy.
  3. On 26 January 2023 the landlord noted that it had spoken with the resident on a number of occasions but that it could not locate where the smell of cannabis was coming from. While the Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident could smell cannabis, we consider it reasonable that in the absence of evidence, the landlord did not take further action.
  4. When the resident raised noise concerns on 8 June 2023 the landlord sent diary sheets. We consider this to be an appropriate action for the landlord to gather evidence when there are reports of ASB due to noise from neighbours.
  5. On 12 June 2023 the landlord reviewed the resident’s tenancy which was an introductory tenancy at that time. It changed this to a secure tenancy. We understand that the resident was not quite due to have his tenancy changed but the landlord expedited this so the resident could register for a mutual exchange. The resident later complained that the landlord was suggesting the resident move, rather than deal with the ASB. Based on the evidence, we consider that the landlord had acted on reports of ASB previously but that the lack of evidence meant there was limited actions it could take.. We consider that expediting the tenancy change was an appropriate action. The landlord demonstrated that it was exploring all options to support the resident.
  6. The resident advised that the voicemail which the landlord left him on 14 June 2023 to advise his tenancy type had changed was rude and aggressive. The landlord has provided us with a transcript of this voicemail. As this is a transcript we cannot comment on the tone. However, we have reviewed the content and consider this to be appropriate and professional.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 response advised that it could not share all information regarding its actions in relation to reports of ASB. This was due to the sensitive nature of the complaints, and it involving personal information about other residents. It was appropriate for the landlord not to disclose personal information relating to other residents.
  8. On 7 December 2023 the resident raised that he did not have a new tenancy agreement with his name on. The landlord advised that he did not need to sign a new tenancy. It said that it had sent a letter on 14 June 2023 and on 29 November 2023 advising that his tenancy had been changed to a secure tenure. The resident disputes that the landlord sent these letters. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident did not receive these, however, the landlord checked its database and confirmed it sent the letters.  Based on the evidence, we consider it likely that the letters were sent.
  9. The resident raised concerns that the housing manager accused him of lying when he reported ASB. He said that the landlord had asked him for the name of a police community support officer who had visited the resident. We have not seen evidence in the landlord’s correspondence that it accused the resident of lying. Where the landlord has requested further information regarding an event, we consider this to be an appropriate method of evidence gathering.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response summarised what actions it had taken to investigate the ASB reported. It advised that it had found no evidence of ASB from 2 neighbours and that a police closure order had now been served on a third neighbour. It hoped this would resolve any ASB from this neighbour. The landlord’s response demonstrated that where it could take action to tackle ASB, it worked with the police to ensure this was done.
  11. We recognise that the matter has caused distress to the resident. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it responded appropriately to reports of ASB. The landlord communicated when it did not have enough evidence to take further actions. It also considered alternative solutions for the resident, by expediting his change of tenancy from introductory to secure, to allow him to consider a mutual exchange. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns regarding how the housing manager handled his case. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord took 4 working days which was within the timescales.
  2. We have seen correspondence dated 30 November 2023, between the landlord and the resident in which the resident questioned the stage 1 response date. The landlord said the complaint was raised on 15 September 2023 and responded to on 24 November 2023. We have seen an email from the resident dated 11 September 2023, requesting to escalate the complaint, and are satisfied that the response was issued on 11 September 2023.  In mentioning other dates, the landlord has caused confusion and frustration to the resident.
  3. In the stage 1 response, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the way in which a staff member had dealt with him. The response said that the staff member and the team were professionals and aimed to communicate clearly, fairly and impartially. It did not confirm what specific actions it took to investigate direct interactions between the landlord and the resident. The resident subsequently stated that he felt the complaint response was an attempt to cover up wrongdoing from a staff member. In issuing a general statement rather than being specific about the resident’s interactions, the resident may have felt that his concern was not being listened too. However, the stage 2 response provided further information and confirmed the landlord reviewed specific interactions.
  4. It was not clear that the letter sent on 11 September 2023 was a stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. The landlord also noted that the stage 1 response did not advise the resident that he could escalate the complaint if he was unhappy. The landlord confirmed that it provided feedback to the relevant staff members. The landlord took appropriate steps to address the service failure.
  5. It is unclear if the landlord logged the escalation request when the resident first asked for this. The resident sent further requests for the landlord to escalate his complaint on 22 November 2023 and 30 November 2023. The resident may have experienced frustration as he needed to contact the landlord more than once for his stage 2 response.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 15 working days. The landlord took 72 working days which is outside of these timescales.
  7. There was more than one service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. These may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  8. We recognise that there was some impact on the resident, as he had to chase responses and there was confusion regarding the complaints process. As such we have awarded £150 compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is in recognition that there were some adverse effects on the resident, but no permanent impact. 
  9. We are aware that following our request for evidence the landlord reviewed its complaint handling, and was considering offering a compensation payment to the resident. We are unsure if the landlord made an offer or if it has paid this. If the landlord has already made a payment of £150 for complaint handling, it does not need to pay this again. However, it does need to provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £150 compensation for complaints handling failures, within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations,

  1. The resident has advised that he has reported ASB recently but is not getting a response. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and provide an update on any open ASB cases. If there are no open cases, the landlord should advise the resident on how he can report any issues moving forward.