London Borough of Camden Council (202320005)

Background

1. The resident reported concerns with his neighbour leaving furniture and other items outside their flat, on an external communal walkway. He was unhappy that the landlord had not taken further action after issuing warning letters, because the issues continued.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

5. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s reports. However, it missed opportunities to manage his expectations about whether this was an ASB or tenancy management issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged its delay in responding at stage 1, but it did not fully put this right. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns following its decision to withdraw his earlier complaints and the impact of needing our involvement to progress his complaint.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. After the resident reported that his neighbour left belongings on the external communal walkway, the landlord responded appropriately. Between January and May 2023, it inspected the area and placed a notice on a chair stating it would remove the items within 48 hours if they remained. It also reminded the neighbour not to store items on the walkway. This response was appropriate and in line with its tenancy conditions and fire safety leaflet, which explained communal walkways must be kept tidy and clutter-free.
8. Following further reports in September 2023, the landlord inspected the area again, placed further notices on the items, and updated the resident of this. This was good practice. In November 2023, it spoke to the neighbour again after the resident continued reporting issues with them smoking and storing items on the walkway. The landlord told the resident the neighbour disputed this and said they had stopped doing so. Although the resident was understandably unhappy with its findings, the landlord acted appropriately by explaining it could not take further action without evidence.
9. The landlord explained it had previously offered mediation to help resolve the dispute between the resident and his neighbour, but this had not worked. It also explained that the police had been involved previously and had both parties to ignore each other. It was good practice for it to outline how it had tried to help the situation, and that it asked the resident how he felt it could resolve the issues. The resident felt the neighbour had breached their tenancy agreement. However, the landlord appropriately explained there was no recent evidence of items left outside.
10. On 7 December 2023, the landlord inspected the communal walkway again and spoke to the neighbour, who said they had not smoked or stored items there recently. During the visit, the landlord found the resident had left rubbish bags/items on the walkway and asked him to remove these. This was appropriate in line with the landlord’s tenancy conditions and fire safety leaflet. By applying the same standards to the resident, the landlord showed it treated residents fairly.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will close an ASB case when it cannot classify behaviours as ASB or nuisance. In the complaint responses, the landlord said it had closed the “case”, but this is confusing because we have not seen evidence of it opening an ASB case.
12. Although the landlord investigated the reports and took appropriate action, it missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations and clarify whether this was an ASB or tenancy management issue. The resident repeatedly said the neighbour “breached tenancy rules” and asked the landlord to take action to stop this. He also sent his own “cease and desist” letter to the neighbour to try to stop the issues himself. There is no evidence that the landlord outlined what action it could take, as it is unclear whether it managed this as an ASB issue or tenancy management issue.
13. If the landlord opened an ASB case, in line with its policy, we would expect it to provide a copy of a risk assessment and any action plan(s) agreed to investigate the reports, before later finding no evidence of the issues. As we have not seen evidence of this, it is unclear what approach it took.
14. The landlord also told the resident in October 2023 that it would send a block letter to all residents about not leaving items in the communal areas. We have not seen evidence that it sent this, which means we cannot conclude that it did so.
15. Overall, the landlord took appropriate action to investigate the resident’s concerns. It inspected the area, spoke to the neighbour, and updated the resident. However, it missed opportunities to manage his expectations in confirming whether it was investigating the issues under its ASB policy or as a tenancy management issue. Given this, we have found service failure.
16. The resident has told us he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports after the complaints process ended. He mentioned he had to ask for support from other services to resolve the issues. We cannot investigate matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaints process. If he wishes to, the resident can make a new complaint and escalate this to us to investigate if needed.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time broadly aligned with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). It has since updated the policy to reflect the Code’s requirements.
18. The resident complained in September 2023 about the ASB issues. However, the landlord failed to respond within its 10-working-day timescale. This understandably caused the resident unnecessary time and effort chasing updates. The landlord then logged a second complaint in October 2023, but it is unclear whether this duplicated the original complaint or if it was in response to new information.
19. On 12 October 2023, the landlord withdrew both complaints because it said it could resolve the issues outside of the formal complaints process. It said it would monitor the ASB and send out a block letter “as discussed”. The Code in place at the time stated landlords must clearly set out reasons for not accepting a complaint, referring to their complaints policy when doing so. It is unclear how the landlord’s reasons related to its policy, and therefore we cannot conclude it followed this when withdrawing the complaint.
20. After the resident raised concerns with the decision to withdraw his complaints, the landlord said they had both agreed to close the complaint and manage the issues outside of the complaint process. There is no evidence of this agreement and so we cannot conclude it did so.
21. As a result, the resident experienced further time and trouble in asking us for help in progressing his complaint. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, which it later did. However, it missed opportunities to address the impact of its complaint handling.
22. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged delays in providing its initial response, which was positive. However, it missed opportunities to address the resident’s concerns that he felt it had only responded because of our involvement. It also missed opportunities to consider the impact caused by its 4-month delay from when he first complained.
23. Additionally, while investigating the resident’s complaint, the landlord found it did not respond to an email for nearly a month. It was good practice for it to acknowledge this, and explain it would review its IT systems to prevent this issue in the future. However, it missed an opportunity to reflect on the impact caused by its failure.
24. Overall, the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s complaint. Withdrawing the complaints and delaying its initial response understandably caused avoidable time and trouble for the resident. Although it acknowledged some failings, it missed opportunities to put these right. As such, we have found maladministration.

Learning

25. The landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations about whether it dealt with his reports as an ASB or tenancy management issue. This meant it was unclear what action the landlord might take when responding to the reports. It should consider confirming its position at the earliest opportunity to avoid any confusion going forward.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord referred to opening an ASB case and sending a block letter in October 2023, but it has not evidenced these actions to us. It also failed to evidence how it followed its complaints policy when deciding to withdraw the complaints, or that it agreed this approach with the resident.

Communication

27. The landlord kept the resident updated about its steps to inspect the communal areas and to discuss the issues with the neighbour. This was good practice to show it took his concerns seriously.