We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Harlow District Council (202307174)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307174

Harlow District Council

20 September 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 anti social behaviour (ASB).
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, the landlord is a local authority. The resident took on the lease on 26 July 2004. The resident lives in a second floor flat. The resident’s property is the neighbouring flat to that of her neighbour (neighbour A). The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. Neighbour A moved into the neighbouring property in August 2022. Neighbour A had been placed there as temporary accommodation. Neighbour A’s tenancy was non-secure and was pending the outcome of his homelessness application to determine whether the landlord was obligated to house them under its homeless relief duty and the Homeless Reduction Act 2017.
  3. The resident first reported neighbour A to the landlord on 5 September 2022. The resident reported that Neighbour A had been sleeping on the shared access balcony because they had lost their key. The resident reported feeling scared to walk past Neighbour A. The landlord advised it would contact Neighbour A’s support worker to arrange a new key.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions from September 2022 to December 2022 to report neighbour A’s behaviour. The resident provided evidence including CCTV footage and information from other local residents. The reports included:
    1. Throwing broken furniture from the second floor balcony.
    2. Dumping rubbish outside the building.
    3. Defecating in a bag and throwing it off the balcony.
    4. Drinking alcohol in the stairwell.
    5. Having multiple guests visit at once whilst drinking alcohol.
    6. Making loud noises and playing music throughout the night.
    7. Shouting, swearing, and using aggressive language.
    8. Smashing the glass window in their own front door while trying to gain access.
  5. The resident raised frustration that neighbour A had been housed in the property which she felt did not meet the neighbour’s support needs. The resident felt that it had not been appropriate for the landlord to place neighbour A in the property. The resident also felt that the landlord had not done enough to support her or manage neighbour A’s behaviour. The resident asked that the landlord did not share her identity with neighbour A.
  6. The landlord visited neighbour A on 10 October 2022 to discuss the concerns that had been raised. Around the same time, the landlord informed neighbour A that it had been determined that they did not meet the requirements for priority housing. A notice to quit was served on neighbour A on 22 November 2022, with an expiry of 26 December 2022. Neighbour A failed to vacate the property and the landlord instructed its legal service to issue court proceedings on 12 January 2023. A possession order was granted on 11 September 2023 and neighbour A was evicted on 27 November 2023.
  7. The landlord requested that the police serve neighbour A with a community protection warning (CPW), which the police did on 7 December 2022. The terms of the CPW were to:
    1. Not play loud music after 8:00pm.
    2. Not allow anyone not on the tenancy to stay at the address.
    3. Not to be abusive or intimidating to any other residents.
    4. Not to urinate or defecate in a public place.
  8. The landlord states that it did not receive any further reports after the CPW was issued, and that neighbour A was regularly absent from the property for long periods of time.
  9. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised to the resident for the distress caused by neighbour A being housed next door. It stated that it had a statutory duty to assist neighbour A and had no option but to provide accommodation, regardless of neighbour A’s personal circumstances. The property was offered because it was available and considered suitable within the landlord’s housing stock. The landlord confirmed it would not use the property for the same purpose in the future.
  10. The landlord advised that it considered that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports and had followed its ASB policy. As the resident was unwilling for her details to be shared with neighbour A, it had been unable to hold meetings between them or to mediate. It was unable to share specific details about neighbour A or their circumstances with the resident due to GDPR.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. 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.

Policy and procedures

  1. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) defines ASB as:
    1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
    2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation or residential premises, or;
    3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that the following behaviour is considered ASB:
    1. Abuse or insulting words or behaviour.
    2. Aggressive and threatening language or behaviour.
    3. Noise nuisance.
    4. Alcohol abuse.
    5. Rubbish dumped and misuse of communal areas.
  3. The ASB policy states that the landlord will make contact with the complainant within 24 hours to complete an ASB report and interview form, risk assessment, and create an ASB folder. ASB reports are categorised by risk, for standard risk cases the landlord endeavours to investigate in line with procedure, work with other agencies, and undertake enforcement action if required. The landlord will contact the perpetrator to discuss the reports and gather evidence of the alleged ASB. Evidence can include witness statements, CCTV, and reports to police. Where there is sufficient evidence of ASB, the landlord will take steps to resolve the matter or take enforcement action if necessary.
  4. The landlord’s allocation policy states that, in order to meet its statutory duty towards homeless households, it may offer a property it considers suitable to meet the immediate needs. Properties will be allocated on the basis of type and size, single adults are entitled to one bedroom properties. The landlord categorises housing applicants into bands relating to priority.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to in 15 working days.

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

  1. The resident first reported neighbour A shouting and swearing, trying to break their own front door because they had lost their key, sleeping outside, and defecating on the balcony on 5 September 2022. While the landlord did respond on the same day, it only provided reassurance that neighbour A would be given a new key.
  2. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not follow its ASB policy on this instance because it did not conduct a risk assessment, interview the resident, or create an ASB folder. This meant the resident needed to report ASB on several further occasions before the policy was followed. The resident was inconvenienced by the matter not being resolved sooner which caused distress and impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her home. The landlord missed the opportunity to provide support to the resident and manage her expectations.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 September 2022 to open an ASB file and arrange a visit to the resident, the visit took place on 5 October 2022 and a risk assessment was completed. The resident advised that she did not want her identity shared with Neighbour A because she was fearful of what would happen if they knew who had made the reports. This meant that the landlord could not mediate between the parties. The landlord met with neighbour A on 10 September 2022 to discuss the concerns raised and provide a warning that the alleged behaviour was breach of the tenancy agreement.
  4. The resident made several requests to the landlord relating to the reported ASB, including the neighbour A’s broken window to be repaired and for the communal areas to be cleaned. The landlord took steps to arrange these actions in good time.
  5. The resident expressed frustration that the property next door to her had been considered appropriate as temporary housing for neighbour A, given his evident support needs. This service acknowledges the resident’s concerns and the distress caused. It is not for this service to assess what support neighbour A required or whether the appropriate support was given.
  6. In relation to the suitability of the property, the landlord’s allocation property states it will offer a suitable property to those it owes a duty to. At the time, the landlord owed a duty to neighbour A to provide temporary accommodation and the property was appropriate in terms of size and availability from its housing stock. The landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident but pointed out that it was required to house neighbour A within 1 of its properties. It stated it would not use the property as temporary accommodation in the future due to the resident’s concerns. The evidence suggests that the landlord followed its allocation policy when housing neighbour A.
  7. Neighbour A was served a notice to quit on 22 November 2022. The notice to quit related to the landlord concluding it no longer owed neighbour A to duty to provide accommodation, rather than the ongoing ASB case. Neighbour A did not vacate the property when required and the landlord issued court proceedings to regain possession of the property in January 2023. A possession order was granted on 11 September 2023. The resident expressed frustration that the possession order was taking too long and she was fearful that the resident could return to the property at any time. While the time taken to evict neighbour A caused distress, this was outside of the control of the landlord.
  8. The landlord took steps to hold multi agency meetings with the police and neighbour A’s support worker to manage the ASB case. This was a positive step and demonstrated the landlord was taking the reports seriously. In December 2022, the landlord liaised with the police to request they serve a CPW on neighbour A to prevent further ASB until the procession order was granted. There was no further reports of ASB from the resident or any others after this.
  9. The resident had requested further information about neighbour A’s personal circumstances, what steps were being taken to support them, and specific details of the court proceedings. The resident was frustrated that the landlord did not provide this information and had cited GDPR as the reason. The evidence suggests that the landlord provided the resident with sufficient information where it could without interfering with neighbour A’s right to privacy, and kept the resident up to date with what steps it had taken.
  10. The landlord’s initial response to reports of ASB was a failure of service, it did not act quickly enough to ensure that it interviewed the resident, did a risk assessment, and opened an ASB file as per its ASB policy. The resident was clearly distressed by neighbour A’s behaviour and was not provided with support during the first instances of ASB. The landlord has not recognised this failure of service or provided any learning or reflection to ensure that it does not happen again.
  11. The landlord acted appropriately once it had opened an, albeit late, ASB case file. It met with the resident to discuss her concerns, visited neighbour A to issue a warning and insisted to the police that it issue a CPW. The landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and shared evidence with the police and neighbour A’s support worker to facilitate a multi-agency approach. The landlord’s actions appear to have been effective as no further ASB was reported after the CPW was issued.
  12. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s initial response to reports of ASB. To acknowledge the impact the failure to act had on the resident, an apology and compensation of £100 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The resident first complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB on 10 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 November 2022, it outlined when it would respond and provided a copy of its complaint policy. The landlord responded on 24 November 2022, which is 10 working days after the initial complaint and in line with its complaint handling policy.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint and addressed each point in turn. It apologised to the resident that she felt that it had not responded appropriately. It set out in detail the actions it had taken to address the reported ASB and explained thoroughly why it had taken the steps it took. It acknowledged the frustration felt by the resident and was sympathetic in its tone.
  4. The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 20 December 2022 and the request was acknowledged on 23 December 2022 which is in line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 January 2023. While this is 1 day outside of the timeframe for a stage 2 response in the landlord’s complaint handling policy, this shortcoming caused minimal detriment.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord set out its understanding of the complaint and outlined the evidence it had considered. The landlord outlined in depth its legal duty towards neighbour A and why it placed them in the property. It acknowledged the impact this had on the resident, but explained that it was required to house neighbour A and the property chosen was the most suitable that was available at the time. It also further outlined the actions it had taken to address the ASB that the resident had reported.
  6. Overall the complaint responses provided by the landlord were clear and detailed. It was sympathetic towards the resident’s situation and provided reasonings for its actions.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident, in writing, for the service failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £100 in recognition of the failure to act appropriately on the resident’s reports of ASB.