Portsmouth City Council (202333072)

Background

1. The resident was a secured tenant of the landlord between July 2015 and March 2021, when she ended her tenancy and moved to a privately rented property. Between February 2020 and March 2021, she reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour who was the tenant of a leaseholder. She reported the neighbour shouting, threatening and intimidating her as well as leaving waste in the communal areas and smoking cannabis.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
3. We also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

ASB

6. The landlord promptly acknowledged and acted on the resident’s ASB reports and took reasonable steps to prevent the neighbour from identifying her as the complainant. Although there were significant delays in arranging a meeting with the resident in 2020, overall, the landlord maintained regular contacts with the resident. However, it did not assess the potential risks to the resident or discuss her support needs. It also failed to manage her expectations effectively, advise her to report her concerns to the police, or liaise with the police regarding the issues raised.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint within the required timeframe.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

8. The resident has informed this service that as a resolution to her complaint she would like the landlord to move her to another property. While we can consider how a landlord has handled the resident’s complaint and whether it has followed fair process in considering the resident’s concerns relating to their complaint, we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint.

9. We understand that the landlord is not directly responsible for the ASB. However, the landlord has a duty, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to respond to ASB reported by its residents with a victim centred approach.
10. The landlord’s ASB policy says that on receipt of an ASB report, it will assess the risks and support needs of the residents involved. It will then discuss the matter with the parties and agree on suitable actions. These may include regular contact, referrals to support agencies, use of mediation services, warnings, or acceptable behaviour contracts. Where appropriate and proportionate, it will take legal action such as injunctions or possession proceedings. It says it will treat all information confidentially and seek consent before sharing any details that could identify the complainant. It will work collaboratively with other agencies, such as the police, to manage the ASB.
11. The resident first reported ASB from her neighbour on 16 February 2020. Between then and when she moved out in March 2021, the landlord investigated her reports. It showed that it promptly discussed each report with the resident and the neighbour’s landlord. Those actions were reasonable by the landlord and in keeping with its ASB policy.
12. During that period, the resident repeatedly said she felt unsafe in her property and was “scared” of her neighbour. She also described the impact the situation had on her mental health. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will assess the risks posed by the ASB. The purpose of such assessment is to understand the resident’s vulnerability and the impact of the ASB. Based on the assessment, the landlord can then put suitable measures in place to support the resident and mitigate the risks, if needed. In this case, the landlord did not show that it considered the risks or the impact of the ASB on the resident. This was unreasonable by the landlord and a missed opportunity to understand the situation. Its failings to do this contributed to the resident feeling “unheard” by the landlord.
13. Throughout the case, the landlord showed that it kept the resident updated on the actions it took and provided her with updates. For example, when the resident reported the neighbour smoking cannabis and leaving waste and bulky items in the communal areas in February 2020, it informed her it would raise the matter with the neighbour’s landlord. It then did so and updated the resident on its actions. Between February 2020 and March 2021, the landlord also remained in regular contact with the resident about the issues, which was in keeping with its ASB policy.
14. The resident repeatedly asked the landlord not to disclose to the neighbour or his landlord that she had made a complaint about him. We understand that in April 2020, the neighbour told the resident that the landlord had informed him she had complained. We are an impartial service which can only base decisions on the evidence provided. In this case, the landlord clearly communicated to others involved, such as its leaseholder and estate service teams, that the resident wished to remain anonymous. While it discussed the issues with the neighbour, the leaseholder and issued warning letters about the ASB, it did not disclose who made the ASB reports. The landlord respected the resident’s wishes in keeping with its ASB policy.
15. On 23 March 2020 the landlord advised the resident to report noise nuisance to the Environmental Health Team (EHT) and other issues to the Community Wardens Teams. While this was reasonable, this should not have prevented the landlord from investigating the matters and discuss ways of gathering evidence with the resident such as keeping logs of the incidents or requesting the noise monitoring equipment from EHT. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take ownership and conduct its own investigation, rather than relying on external parties to investigate and resolve the issues.
16. We recognise the landlord acted on the resident’s reports and had some success in managing the neighbour’s behaviour. For example, after it discussed the issues with the neighbour’s landlord in April 2020, there were no further ASB reports until November 2020. While this was positive, it did not show that during that period it monitored the situation, reviewed the case, asked the resident if the issues had improved or considered closing the case. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take a more proactive approach and contact the resident during this period. Its failing to do this caused inconvenience to the resident because she felt the landlord was not addressing the issues or keeping her informed. As a result, she sought support from her local councillor.
17. The landlord website advised residents to report criminal activities to the police. The resident repeatedly reported the neighbour smoking cannabis. She also reported several other incidents, including the neighbour shouting at her in April 2020, trying to run her over with his van, intimidating her daughter in January 2021, and making threats. However, we did not see evidence that the landlord advised her to contact the police about those incidents prior to January 2021. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do so sooner and to explain the benefits of involving the police in such cases. It could also have clarified that it worked in partnership with other agencies, including the police, in addressing ASB.
18. The resident informed the landlord on 8 April 2020 and 8 November 2020, that she had reported the neighbour to the police. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the police on the matters in keeping with its ASB policy. However, while the landlord acknowledged her reports it did not show that it liaised with the police on the matters. This was a missed opportunity to work in partnership to resolve the matters and show the resident that it was actively working with her and relevant partners to resolve the ASB. Its failings contributed to the resident feeling “unheard”.
19. On 4 November 2020, the resident reiterated her concerns about reporting ASB to the landlord due to fear of reprisals from the neighbour. She requested that the landlord’s Cleaning Service Team, which attended weekly, reported the bulky items or waste left in communal areas going forward. The landlord responded promptly by instructing the Cleaning Service Team to do so going forward. While this was a reasonable step, it was reactive. The landlord did not take a proactive approach to investigating the issues or support the resident in reporting the ASB or gathering evidence, as expected under its ASB policy.
20. On 19 August 2020 the resident requested a meeting with the landlord to discuss the ASB and explore a way forward. Although the landlord initially agreed to meet, three months later the resident informed the landlord that it had not provided her with a date. There is no evidence that, prior to December 2021, the landlord met with the resident to hear her concerns or offered an explanation for the delay. A delay of 16 months in arranging this meeting was unreasonable and fell short of the landlord’s responsibilities to support and communicate effectively with residents in keeping with its ASB policy.
21. Throughout the duration of the case, the landlord did not demonstrate that it effectively managed the resident’s expectations. For instance, it did not show that it had discussed the purpose of gathering evidence with the resident—something that could have helped clarify the process and set realistic expectations. In November 2023, the resident asked what would be required for the landlord to evict the neighbour. However, the landlord did not show that it responded to her query or explained the enforcement process or the threshold of evidence needed. Those were missed opportunities to provide transparency and manage the resident’s expectations, this was especially important given the limitations around disclosing she was the complainant.
22. Between February 2020 and March 2021, the resident repeatedly described the impact of the ASB on her mental health. It was evident from her communications with the landlord that she felt anxious about the situation. In December 2020, she informed the landlord that her GP diagnosed her with anxiety and referred her to the sleep clinic. The landlord did not show that it discussed making a referral to support services with her. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s support needs in keeping with its ASB policy.
23. We acknowledge that the landlord signposted the resident to mediation services in January 2021. However, this occurred 11 months after she initially reported issues with her neighbour. It would have been more appropriate and helpful for the landlord to consider and offer mediation earlier in the process. The delay was not in line with its ASB policy, which emphasises prompt action to prevent escalation of ASB.
24. The resident informed the landlord that she felt she had no choice but to move property. While she was unable to find a suitable property through mutual exchange, she was using the relevant platform in seeking a new property. In January 2021 the landlord informed her that although there were restrictions on services because of the Covid pandemic, mutual exchanges were happening. It correctly advised her to forward any mutual exchange application to it. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
25. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that it did not discuss a priority move with her at the time of the ASB case because the police did not report that it was not safe for her to remain living in her property. While we understand it would require input from the police prior to facilitating a priority move, the landlord should have explained this to the resident on 26 November 2020, when she said she would “try for a management move”. Its failure to respond to her query at the time was unreasonable. We recognise that its failings to do this, did not impact the overall outcome for the resident.
26. Considering the identified failings by the landlord, we determine there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. The resident repeatedly reported the situation impacted on her mental health and she was “forced out” of her property by her neighbour’s conduct. In keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay £200 compensation directly to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her.

27. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. It states that landlords must respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if a landlord needs more time to respond, it must agree an extension with the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord’s complaint policy is in keeping with the Code.
28. On 27 June 2023, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord with the support of her local councillor. It acknowledged the complaint with the councillor the following day but did not have the resident’s contact details to follow up. The councillor provided this on 4 July 2023. It is unclear when the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint directly with the resident, but it would have been reasonable to do so within five working days. While we cannot confirm the exact date of acknowledgment, the landlord allocated the complaint to an investigator on 3 August 2023—26 working days after first becoming aware of the complaint and 22 working days after receiving the resident’s contact details. Those delays were unreasonable and did not align with the requirements of the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
29. Once it allocated the complaint for investigation, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 5 days later, which was reasonable and in keeping with its complaints policy or and the Code.
30. The resident said that she had informed the landlord the previous year of her intention to raise a formal complaint but received no response. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that when it met the resident it understood the resident would follow up if she wished to proceed, but she did not do so. As previously noted, where accounts differ and the available evidence does not clearly support either side, we cannot conclude that the landlord failed in its duties or require remedial action. In this instance, due to the lack of supporting evidence, we are unable to determine whether the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s earlier complaint.
31. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 August 2023. The landlord contacted her on 13 September 2023 to confirm whether she wished to proceed to stage 2, which she promptly did 2 days later. It is unclear why the landlord waited 10 working days to confirm whether the resident wished to appoint a representative before progressing the complaint. This delay exceeded the expected 5 working days for acknowledging a complaint and was not in line with the standards set out in the Code.
32. The landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response on 20 October 2023, 25 working days after the resident confirmed her wish to escalate the complaint. It did not acknowledge or explain the delay in responding to her complaint. This was unreasonable and did not comply with the standards set out in the Code.
33. Considering the above findings, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. While we acknowledge the shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling, we did not see evidence to suggest these failings had a significant impact on the overall outcome for the resident. Therefore, in keeping with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her.

Learning

34. The landlord should explain its ASB procedure to residents early in the process to help manage resident’s expectations effectively. It should assess the potential risks posed by ASB and consider the individual support needs of affected residents. The landlord should also take ownership of ASB investigations and proactively work in partnership with relevant agencies, such as the police, to seek resolution.
35. The landlord adequately recorded the resident’s ASB reports, the actions it took, and its communications with the resident and other parties involved.
36. The landlord should ensure that its staff are aware of the response timescales listed in its complaints policy.