Newcastle City Council (202409589)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom terraced house owned by the landlord. He complained about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment from his neighbour, which he said had been ongoing for 4 years. The resident asked us to investigate as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of antisocial behaviour and harassment

4. The landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB and harassment appropriately. It followed its policy and communicated its decisions to the resident.
5. The landlord explained why it could not consider the resident’s evidence from 2020 and information he obtained from the proceedings of a court case.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalated complaint and was delayed in responding to this escalation. However, there is no evidence of this impacting the resident.

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. The resident complained that the landlord had not handled his reports of ASB and harassment from his neighbour. In its complaint response, the landlord said it acted in accordance with its safe living policy in managing his concerns. This was an accurate summary of its handling of the resident’s reports from 10 June 2024 for the following reasons:
   1. The landlord spoke to the resident on the same day it received his concerns and raised an ASB case. It assessed the complaint on the following day and completed a risk assessment.
   2. It waited for consent from the resident to speak to the neighbour. Once he gave this, it spoke to them and issued a warning. Whilst this progressed, it remained in contact with the police and was assured that the resident was speaking with them. It confirmed to the resident that it could not take any further action against the neighbour as there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
   3. It checked on the resident’s mental health support each time it called him. It ensured he was receiving support from witness support, its safeguarding team, and a support advocacy service. It had also previously referred him to his GP for support.
   4. The landlord closed the ASB case on 29 July 2024, informing the resident of this. It said this was because there was no evidence of wrongdoing from the neighbour for the reported 13 May incident. Furthermore, the resident had not reported any ongoing issues after 13 May. It also spoke to the police, who said they were taking no action on the case due to a lack of evidence.
8. The evidence confirms the above events and that the landlord’s actions were in accordance with its safe living policy. It also shows no further reports of incidents from the resident from 13 May 2024, as the landlord stated. The landlord appropriately told him that, although it had closed his case, it would look at any further current evidence.
9. The resident complained that he had further evidence before the incident of 13 May 2024. He said this showed the neighbour was harassing him. He told us that the landlord failed to consider this evidence. In its complaint response, the landlord confirmed the resident’s evidence only related to videos and photos from 2020 and evidence from a court case.
10. The landlord referred to the 2020 footage as historic and said that the court case information was not evidence of harassment. It said it would not consider either as evidence against the neighbour. There is evidence of the landlord explaining this to the resident on each of the calls it made to him between 10 June and 29 July 2024.
11. The landlord’s response regarding historic information was in line with its complaints policy, which confirmed it would not consider events that happened more than 6 months ago. The landlord also took the additional step of verifying with the police if they were openly investigating any historic incidents and if there was additional information. The police provided details of the historic reports made by the resident and confirmed they were not investigating these due to a lack of evidence.
12. The resident also complained that the landlord was responsible for him receiving a CPW on 21 August 2024 for raising issues against his neighbour. The landlord stated in its complaint response, the issuing of the CPW was not solely linked to the complaint about his neighbour. This was accurate, as evidence shows the police issued the CPW, and it related to the resident’s history of communication with numerous agencies. The CPW restricted his communication with not only the landlord but also the police and other agencies.
13. In summary, the landlord confirmed it handled the resident’s reports of harassment and ASB appropriately and told him it would not consider his additional evidence. This was all in accordance with its policy and is reflected in the evidence. It explained his complaint was not the reason for issuing the CPW, and the evidence also confirms this.

14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint and provided its stage 1 response in accordance with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
15. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint escalation. Furthermore, it was delayed in providing its stage 2 response, it took 27 working days. This exceeded the timescale in its complaints policy and the Code by 7 working days.
16. In summary, we have identified failings with the landlord’s complaint handling against the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy. However, there is no evidence of impact caused to the resident relating to these failings.