London Borough of Waltham Forest (202337946)

Background

1. The resident reported ASB from 2 neighbours over several years. The ASB reports included loud music, drug use, intimidating and harassing behaviour, racial hate crimes, animal faeces being put at the resident’s door and cutting up her washing line. The resident lives in a block of flats with shared communal areas. The resident lives with health conditions affecting her mobility which the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. ASB.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We made a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. We made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s serious and repeated ASB reports over a prolonged period. When the resident’s request for a permanent move was refused, the landlord did not consider alternative actions and progress halted. This was a significant failure given the landlord’s acknowledgement of the serious nature of the incidents This likely had a detrimental impact on the resident’s sense of safety and wellbeing. In its complaint response the landlord apologised for failing to address earlier ASB reports however this was not a proportionate remedy given the overall circumstances.
6. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed. Its messaging was inconsistent and it unreasonably refused the resident’s escalation request. The resident had to repeatedly ask the landlord for updates and was delayed in being able to access our service.

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.

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 landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and therefore the complaint did not exhaust its complaint procedure. We have considered this to be a complaint handling failure (as detailed under the landlord’s response to the complaint, below). We have therefore used our discretion to investigate this complaint.
8. The resident told us that ASB continued after the landlord’s complaint responses and was ongoing. This investigation has considered events up to the date of the landlord’s response on 23 January 2024. This is because our findings are based on the information available at the time the landlord completed its complaint process.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy says that the landlord should visit resident who report urgent cases, including those involving violence, threats or intimidation, within one day. It should visit residents reporting non-urgent cases within 5 days. At the visit the landlord should complete a risk assessment, agree an action plan and agree contact frequency.
10. In June 2022 the resident reported her neighbour’s drug use, frequent visitors, frequent parties and confrontational behaviour. The resident provided diary sheets describing 18 incidents between July 2021 and May 2022 describing ASB by neighbours including property damage, intimidating behaviour, verbal abuse, suspected racist actions, persistent loud noise from parties and frequent cannabis smoking in communal areas. The resident said there were witnesses for some instances and that she could evidence other reports with video footage. She said that these incidents left her feeling anxious, scared, harassed, distressed and intimidated.
11. There is no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident about these reports or acted in accordance with its ASB policy. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it did not investigate 2021 and 2022 reports as it should have and apologised. Given the seriousness, frequency and duration of the incidents, the landlord’s initial lack of response and its later complaint response fell significantly short of what should reasonably have been expected.
12. The resident made further ASB reports in May and June 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these reports. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s ASB reports was a significant failing.
13. On 15 August 2023 the resident reported witnessing her neighbour commit a violent assault. The landlord acknowledged the report the next day and said that it tried to engage with the resident. However there is no evidence that it attempted to visit the property, assess risk or produce an action plan. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 further occasions before submitting the stage 1 complaint. She reported daily stress and anxiety, said she had not received an update and reported more behaviour by her neighbour that she found intimidating and believed to be escalating.
14. In its stage 1 response on 8 September 2023 the landlord accepted that its actions were below the expected standard and that it should have been more proactive. It said that it would hold an urgent case review on 11 September 2023 and update the resident. The resident followed up twice before the landlord met with her on 27 September 2023. The landlord continued to significantly exceed required timeframes for urgent cases. This was particularly serious given the resident’s reports of witnessing violent behaviour and her indication that she believed the risk to her and to others was increasing.
15. At the visit on 27 September 2023 the landlord completed a risk assessment, which scored the resident as high risk. The landlord also completed an action plan, which included making a legal referral against one neighbour and serving notice on another. The resident did not want the plan progressed while she remained at the property due to escalating intimidation and her reports of feeling particularly vulnerable due to her mobility issues. The landlord agreed to enquire about a permanent move for the resident. The landlord did not agree a contact schedule with the resident in line with its policy, which meant she had to seek updates herself on 3 October, 8 and 16 November 2023. The impact of this failing was heightened given the level of risk associated with the case.
16. There is no evidence of further communication from the landlord until 23 January 2024, when the resident’s request for a permanent move was refused by its social needs panel. The gap in communication from November to January was not appropriate as the landlord’s policy required weekly engagement with the resident in urgent cases.
17. In January 2024 the landlord said it could proceed with action against the neighbours. However this did not address the resident’s safety concerns about staying in the property. The landlord did not consider safeguarding measures such as temporary rehousing or additional security, in line with its ASB policy for emergency situations where resident safety might be at risk. As a result, progress stalled and no action was taken against the neighbours. This had a significant impact on the resident, who continued to live in a hostile environment.
18. In summary the resident repeatedly reported serious ASB that left her feeling unsafe. The landlord did not appropriately respond to these reports, exceeded policy timescales and failed to consider safeguarding measures. This was compounded by the landlord’s failure to recognise of the significant impact on the resident, who repeatedly reported the effect on her and sought help from her MP when the landlord did not act.
19. When considering all the circumstances this amounts to severe maladministration. This is because there was a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £1,500 in compensation to reflect the likely sustained and significant impact on the resident’s wellbeing and sense of safety. This sum also reflects the fact that, due to her vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on her compared to other residents in the same position without her vulnerabilities.
20. The resident told us that ASB is ongoing and has shared more recent instances with us including drug use and witnessing violence. We have made an additional order for the landlord to promptly engage with the resident, create an action plan and if appropriate, explore the option of temporary accommodation or security measures for the resident.

21. This complaint took place before our Complaint Handling Code became statutory. We have considered the landlord’s actions against its own policy in place at the time. The landlord’s complaint policy from this period says it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 20 working days and stage 2 complaints in 25 working days. The landlord said it received the stage 1 complaint on 6 September 2023. It responded promptly on 8 September 2023.
22. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 28 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation the next day. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to believe the complaint had been escalated.
23. On 9 January 2024 when the landlord’s final response was late, the resident followed up with the landlord. The resident made a new complaint on 10 January 2024 about the same ASB. On 22 January the landlord said it would treat it as a stage 2 request. However the next day it said it would not carry out a stage 2 investigation because the escalation was requested late. It was not reasonable that 2 months after acknowledging the stage 2 request, the landlord told the resident she could not escalate the complaint. The landlord managed the escalation inconsistently and unclearly.
24. The landlord’s policy allowed residents 28 days to request a stage 2 escalation. It was unreasonable for the landlord to apply this timescale strictly in this case as it was clearly a continuation of the ASB issues. Given it had recognised serious failings at stage 1 but not considered the impact on the resident, allowing a review of that decision would have been reasonable. In addition, the landlord did not consider the wider circumstances. For example the landlord agreed to certain actions in its stage 1 response but did not discuss the next steps with the resident in detail until 27 September 2023, 3 weeks after issuing the stage 1 response. It then did not respond to the resident’s update requests throughout October and November 2023, which led to the escalation.
25. The landlord’s delays, inconsistency and failure to escalate the complaint when it should reasonably have done so caused the resident avoidable inconvenience and uncertainty. The landlord prolonged the complaints process, requiring the resident to ask for updates repeatedly and delayed her in being able to make a new complaint or approach us to investigate. The landlord’s actions caused likely frustration and distress, particularly given the ongoing ASB concerns that remained unresolved during this period.
26. We made a finding of maladministration and an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for the impact of failings which the landlord did not acknowledge or put right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord said it attempted to contact the resident on multiple occasions, such as on 16 August and 22 September 2023. We do not have evidence of these contact attempts. Landlords should ensure thorough and accurate record keeping so it can satisfy itself, the resident and us that it has made suitable attempts to engage with residents should this ever need verifying.

Communication

28. The landlord failed to keep in regular contact with the resident. Landlords should ensure residents are kept informed about case progress. In serious ASB cases, landlords should agree regular contact intervals. This will help to safeguard residents and monitor changes in circumstances.