Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202423535)

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing noise and antisocial behaviour from her neighbour to the landlord. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. ASB.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

4. The landlord has not evidenced how its handling of the ASB was in line with its policy. It took some appropriate action, however it failed to provide the outcomes of those actions within a timely manner.

The complaint

5. There were unnecessary delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint which caused the resident significant time, trouble, and inconvenience in chasing a response to her concerns. The landlord acknowledged the delays but it did not put things right.

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’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord is a local authority and we can only investigate the local authority in so far as its role as a landlord. The local authority Community Protection Team (CPT) operates within the separate environmental health department, which sits outside of the local authority’s landlord function. As such, this investigation does not comment on the actions of the CPT regarding the noise complaints and we make reference to it only where it informs our investigation into the landlord. We are aware the resident has a separate complaint with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in relation to her concerns regarding the CPT.
7. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will acknowledge reports of ASB within 5 working days and serious cases will be investigated within 24 hours. It says it will understand if a resident feels uncomfortable about making a report and assure them of its support and protection where possible. It says it will not identify residents to the alleged perpetrator unless the resident agrees. The policy states it will then agree an action plan in writing and regularly review the case.
8. The ASB policy says that for hate crime related harassment it will interview resident’s within 1 working day and agree a plan of action. It said its Tenancy Enforcement Officer will agree action with their manager within 3 working days or 24 hours in cases involving violence. The landlord also has a separate Hate Crime Policy which states it will risk assess such cases and prioritise actions in line with the risk assessment. It says it will keep the victim informed of action it intends to take.
9. The resident mentioned the ASB issues had been ongoing with the neighbour since 2022. However, this investigation has focussed on the resident’s reports from July 2024. This is the first record we have seen of the resident reporting the issues directly to the landlord.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 July 2024, she referred to an assault by her neighbour which took place on 21 June 2024 which she said she reported to the landlord at the time. We have not seen evidence of the report made at the time. However, she confirmed she contacted the police but did not make a full statement as she was “petrified of the repercussions”. She said the neighbour had threatened her in the past and she did not feel safe. In the absence of the report at the time, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord responded reasonably. In line with its policy, it would have been appropriate to have contacted the resident within at least 5 working days and confirmed its plan of action. There is no evidence of it doing so.
11. In an email dated 12 July 2024, the resident said her neighbour had confronted her regarding a letter they had received from the landlord which said the resident had called them racist. She described the neighbour as very agitated and asked why the landlord had not treated her reports anonymously. She said she had made it clear to the police that she feared repercussions and she was concerned for her safety.
12. We have not seen evidence of the landlord responding to this email. This was not appropriate. While it is unclear what was reported at the time, it appears the landlord considered the neighbour’s actions as racist. In line with its hate crime policy and the resident’s concerns for her safety, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a risk assessment. A clear action plan would have also shown consideration to the resident’s request to be anonymous and its approach in contacting the neighbour.
13. We have not seen a copy of the letter sent to the neighbour. However, as stated by the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised her of its intention to send the letter beforehand. This would have been in line with its policy and made her aware of any potential risks to her safety.
14. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it liaised with the police in relation to the incident in which she said she was racially abused and assaulted. The landlord has not provided evidence of its contact with the police. It said the police closed its case as the resident was unwilling to support further action. The landlord said it had arranged a meeting with the neighbour on 17 July 2024. It later said the neighbour denied the allegations. The landlord advised the resident to report any further incidents to the police.
15. It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the police and the neighbour following any allegation of criminal activity. By sending a letter to the neighbour and meeting with them, it showed consideration to whether the neighbour had broken tenancy conditions, and not just the law. As highlighted above, there were failings in the landlord’s approach to this. There may have been limitations in the landlord’s ability to take enforcement action due to the neighbour denying the allegations and lack of further evidence, but the landlord should have made this clear to the resident.
16. As per its policy, the landlord should have understood the seriousness of the situation when the resident made it clear she feared repercussion following her reports of ASB. It should have done more to understand what had happened with the neighbour and offered appropriate support, which may have reassured the resident. It is a failing that there is no evidence of it doing so.
17. On 12 August 2024, the resident informed the landlord her health had declined since June. She referred to previous incidents in which she had witnessed her neighbour being violent and explained why she was scared of reprisals. The landlord responded the same day and said it needed to complete a risk assessment with the resident. It also informed the resident it had referred her case to its “High Harm Panel” which dealt with racial matters and to look into supportive measures while enforcement action was being taken.
18. While the landlord appropriately identified the need to assess the risk to the resident and consider further support for her, as highlighted above, it should have done so sooner. It was positive to outline some of the steps it had taken in relation to her reports. However, it is a failing that despite the resident chasing the outcome of the panel, we have not seen evidence of the landlord ever confirming the outcome of it. We have also not seen any risk assessment for the resident, despite requesting this information from the landlord. The resident provided a GP letter on 19 August 2024 which confirmed the impact caused to her from the issues. We cannot see that the landlord considered this which further demonstrated its failure to appropriately support the resident, despite the significant impact of the issue.
19. On 1 September 2024 the resident chased a response from the landlord. She felt the landlord had not taken sufficient action against her neighbour. She outlined that it had not followed its procedures and could have considered mediation, sound recording equipment, or an action plan. The resident raised valid concerns and it is a failing that we have not seen evidence of it responding to her in a timely manner.
20. Mediation when offered early on in a complaint can be a useful tool to address neighbour friction where there is not enough evidence to carry out enforcement action. As the resident had shown a willingness to engage in mediation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered this, but there is no evidence it did.
21. In its stage 2 follow on response on 28 January 2025, the landlord said it had liaised with the police following her report of assault and other incidents concerning the neighbour during September and November 2024. It said the police were not taking further action and it could only take enforcement action if it had sufficient evidence to substantiate a breach of tenancy. The landlord’s ASB policy provides examples of some of the evidence landlord’s may require to take further action. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified to the resident what such evidence could look like in her case and how it could be obtained. This may have helped to manage the resident’s expectations and shown how it had reached its findings.
22. On 5 February 2025, the landlord said it would not soundproof the neighbour’s property under the circumstances but it would continue to liaise with the CPT regarding her noise reports. Its position may have been reasonable but it did not expand on the reasons why. It should have considered the outcomes of its communication with the CPT so far and its responsibilities in addressing the issue.
23. We understand the resident made further noise reports but we are not aware of any further incidents from the neighbour towards the resident since July 2024. We acknowledge there would have been some limitations for the landlord in taking further enforcement action but as outlined, we have not seen how it reached its findings. The landlord has clear policies on the steps it must take following reports of ASB and it has not evidenced how it followed its policies or considered the seriousness of the circumstances for the resident.
24. Our order of £400 is in line with our remedies guidance. This amount is appropriate for complaints where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has not put things right.

25. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and timescales, set out in its complaint policy, are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (or the Code).
26. In the stage 1 response dated 30 July 2024, the landlord said the resident’s complaint was from 1 February 2024. The landlord has not provided evidence of a complaint from the resident dated 1 February 2024. If the date of the complaint is correct, then the time taken to respond was not appropriate or in line with its policy. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding, it said it had experienced staff shortages and a significant backlog. It said it was actively working to rectify the situation.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 August 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it within 5 working days which was reasonable. The landlord said it would respond by 29 August 2024, it is a failure that it did not then do so. We have not seen further communication from the landlord at the time explaining the reasons for the delay or requesting an extension to provide its response. This was not in line with its policy or the Code which states that landlord’s must communicate any extensions to its deadlines and clearly explain the reasons for them. It was not appropriate that we had to contact the landlord on more than one occasion to request it provide a stage 2 response.
28. While the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 17 January 2025, the response was primarily in relation to the reports of noise and action from the CPT. It said the tenancy team would respond separately to her ASB reports. The resident did not receive that response until 28 January 2025, almost 6 months after her stage 2 escalation.
29. The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response and said it was due to an administrative issue. It is unclear what the administrative issue was and it did not sufficiently address the further emails sent chasing a response. As such, we do not feel the landlord put things right or showed learning from its outcomes.
30. Overall, we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. As per its compensation policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its poor service and offer compensation. Our order of £200 is in line with our remedies guidance. This amount is appropriate for complaints where a landlord acknowledged some of its failings but failed to address the detriment caused to the resident and to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. Accurate and complete records should assist with effective case management of ASB reports. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping practices and if they are robust enough to support good ASB case management.

Communication

32. While we have not investigated the CPT actions, we acknowledge responsibility can overlap and requires both teams to work together to identify the best course of action. The evidence for this case failed to clearly demonstrate the landlord had an understanding of its role and responsibilities in handling the reports made. The landlord should consider how it communicates with both the CPT and the resident regarding its responsibilities in addressing noise complaints.