Camden Council (202002857)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002857

Camden Council

10 March 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint concerns:

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours.
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disability discrimination against her by its staff.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

3. After carefully considering all the evidence and in accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and the corresponding complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

4. The resident is the leaseholder for the property. The landlord is the freeholder.

5. The property is a flat, situated in a building with similar properties.

6. The complaint has been raised by the resident and, at times, by her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as “the resident”.

7. It is noted that the resident suffers from various medical conditions, including visual impairment, which the landlord is aware of.

8. As per the information provided to this Service, it is noted that the resident had been reporting antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues since 2018 to the landlord.

Summary of events

9. On 21 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report that there were “people blocking the communal area” serving her property. Landlord internal records stated that the landlord telephoned the resident on 25 June 2020 and the following matters were addressed:

  1. The resident advised that both other residents and people who did not live on the estate were gathering “at the bottom of her stairs” and that this had been a recurring issue for the past year.
  2. Furthermore, the resident advised that there were multiple children there as well, and she was concerned that, as some were “crawling around on the floor”, she may stumble on a child because of her visual impairment and be accused of hurting them.
  3. The resident also expressed her concern regarding the safety implications of these gatherings because it would make it more difficult for her to escape her property in the event of a fire.
  4. The resident advised she had also contacted the police and the community safety team with regard to this matter; however, nothing was done.
  5. The landlord advised the resident that it was unaware that these gatherings were causing issues as this was not brought to its attention previously by either the resident or other occupiers.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns regarding fire hazards and mentioned that “the plant pots on every other step of the stairway were also a fire hazard”.

10. The resident has advised this Service that she first contacted the landlord about ASB in April 2020. However, the Ombudsman has not been given evidence to confirm this. Furthermore, the resident advised it was her who contacted the landlord via telephone on 25 June 2020 and not the other way around.

11. On 7 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the people congregating outside of her property and raised further concerns. The issues raised in the email were the following:

  1. The offensive language used by the people attending the gatherings
  2. The lack of privacy caused by the gatherings
  3. The noise caused by “nonstop shouting and screaming at the large number of little children”
  4. The use of drugs
  5. The presence of uncontained pets, which interact with certain residents who then need to dispose of the articles touched by the pets, due to their religion.

12. On 24 July 2020, this Service wrote to the landlord, as a result of a telephone conversation with the resident, to address the following issues:

  1. The resident reiterated the concerns raised in her stage one complaint.
  2. The resident advised she contacted the police and tried raising a complaint with the landlord regarding this matter; however, the police could not do anything as no law was broken and the landlord advised her to ask the people to move to allow her to pass.
  3. This Service asked the landlord to consider: visiting the area to assess the situation; review the photographs provided by the resident; discuss the matter with the individuals involved; discuss the complaint with the resident; liaise with police; set up good neighbour agreements or CCTV, if these were not already in place.

13. In the landlord’s internal communication from 29 July 2020, it confirmed that the matter was logged as a formal complaint and a response was due on 11 August 2020. Subsequently, internal communication, dated 5 August 2020, noted that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB because it did not send out the letters it agreed to, and did not keep her informed of the progress made on this issue. Furthermore, the resident advised she was unhappy with certain comments made by the landlord and requested for the matter to be recorded “as disability discrimination”.

14. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 21 August 2020, addressing the following matters:

  1. The police, fire brigade, and landlord attended the estate that the resident’s property was located on, in order to assess the situation while “people were outside”.
  2. It was confirmed that the fire brigade did not identify any fire hazards that resulted from the gatherings and provided advice about how to ensure that “no exits or entrances were blocked”.
  3. It was confirmed that the police did not identify any ASB during their visits and discussed noise levels with the individuals attending.
  4. The landlord confirmed that it was not concerned that the communal area was blocked or that the individuals gathering there were causing ASB.
  5. The landlord advised the resident that she should address her concerns regarding the use and distribution of drugs with the police as this was a criminal act.
  6. The landlord advised that it spoke to the staff involved in the case and reviewed her file and could not find any issues relating to its conduct in terms of impartiality or professionalism.
  7. The landlord apologised for the delay in sending the agreed letters and advised it would do so as soon as possible.
  8. The landlord decided to partially uphold the resident’s complaint due to the delay in carrying out the agreed actions.

15. On 11 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to appeal the decision made in its stage one complaint response of 21 August 2020. The resident detailed the grounds she wished to make the appeal on and also included a list of questions that she felt the landlord did not respond to.

16. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 19 October 2020, comprising the following:

  1. The landlord advised that it investigated the resident’s concerns regarding its handling of her complaints and its conduct. In respect of this, the landlord noted that the resident advised of certain comments, made by its staff to her, showing “lack of empathy” and “unwillingness” to assist the resident with progressing her complaint. However, could not come to a “fair conclusion” without “independent evidence”, it apologised if she was “left with an impression” that her concerns “were not being taken seriously”, and it reassured her that this was not the case.
  2. In respect of the resident’s concerns regarding the individuals gathering outside of her property and the “obstruction” caused by them, the landlord advised that these were investigated and considered by itself, the fire brigade, and the police. The landlord also advised that as long as people were willing to move aside then “their use of the walkways was tolerated”.
  3. Additionally, the landlord advised that due to the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, it was more tolerant with “such use of the space” than it would have been otherwise.
  4. The landlord noted “that now the warmer weather has ended, this nuisance had also ended”. Furthermore, the landlord informed the resident that it was difficult to investigate ASB cases without clear records and it appreciated that, due to her visual impairment, it would be “difficult to keep a nuisance diary” and therefore it said it would accept a voicemail diary.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of its ASB leaflet and advised that it felt that “the most positive approach” would be to ensure that, moving forward, it would stay in “regular contact” with the resident to provide further support, in compliance with its policies and procedures, when investigating ASB reports.

17. The landlord emailed this Service on 20 October 2020 to advise that most of the issues raised by the resident ceased at the end of the summer. However, the resident was still reporting “noise issues and children shouting at her”. The landlord advised that in order to manage this, it was keeping in contact with the resident on a weekly basis and advising her of the information recording tools available on its website. Furthermore, the landlord advised it was working on rebuilding a working relationship with the resident.

18. The resident contacted this Service to inform that she raised a new complaint to the landlord concerning the ASB of her neighbours because, on 20 February 2020, the same group of people gathered “in the area leading to her flat”.

Assessment and findings

19. The Ombudsman appreciates that the neighbours’ behaviour has caused distress and worry to the resident and we have not disregarded the effect this has had on her. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate or make a determination on whether an individual (or group) is responsible for antisocial behaviour. Instead, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and subsequent complaint about this matter.

The landlord’s guide for reporting antisocial behaviour

20. The landlord’s guide for reporting ASB defines this as any behaviour that would make a resident feel unsafe or it would cause concerns regarding the safety of others, including: drug use or dealing; threatening behaviour (verbal or physical threats and abuse); vandalism and property damage; harassment or youth related ASB.

21. Once a resident makes a report of antisocial behaviour to the landlord, it may discuss the report “at a community safety briefing” to determine how the incident would be dealt with. When making this decision the landlord will take into consideration factors such as the seriousness of the incident, the length of time the issue has gone on for, and whether there have been other complaints about the same matter.

22. The landlord commits to liaising with other relevant third parties when dealing with antisocial behaviour and has staff allocated to oversee and investigate these types of incidents.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by her neighbours

23. As set out above, there are differing accounts concerning exactly when the ASB was first reported. However, as per the data received by this Service, the resident emailed the landlord on 21 June 2020 to report that people were gathering in the communal areas outside of the resident’s property. As a result, the landlord and resident had a telephone conversation on 25 June 2020, to discuss the issues stemming from these gatherings. The information provided indicated that, at that time, the matter was brought up as more of a fire hazard rather than a cause of antisocial behaviour and, as a result, the landlord dealt with it as such by addressing the resident’s concerns. Furthermore, the landlord informed the resident that this issue was not raised to it before by either the resident or other tenants and advised her to report this, should it happen again. It was reasonable of the landlord to delay taking action until it received reports of further incidents, as if this was a one-time event, no further action would be necessary. However, if it kept happening, then it would be appropriate to investigate any potential health and safety implications.

24. On 7 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and raised clear concerns regarding the antisocial behaviour caused by the individuals gathering in the communal areas in proximity of her property. Following further communication on the matter, the landlord logged a formal complaint on 29 July 2020 and issued a stage one complaint response on 21 August 2020. In its stage one complaint response the landlord confirmed that it had attended the estate along with the fire brigade and police, while the “people were outside”, to assess the situation. The landlord confirmed that the fire brigade could not identify any fire hazards and the police could not identify any antisocial behaviour. In this instance, the landlord’s actions were both reasonable and in line with its policies regarding antisocial behaviour because it effectively liaised with qualified third parties to confirm that there was no significant fire safety risk which needed to be addressed. The landlord could not take any further action against the neighbours without evidence to support the resident’s allegations of anti-social behaviour. As the police could not identify any anti-social behaviour, there was insufficient evidence to support the landlord taking further action against the neighbours such as issuing tenancy warnings.

25. Despite, the landlord not identifying any cause of concern, it decided to partially uphold the resident’s complaint because it had previously promised to send a letter, regarding the guidelines around fire safety and antisocial behaviour, to all residents but it was yet to do this. The landlord was reasonable in respect of this matter as well, because it acknowledged and apologised for its error and advised it would send out the agreed letter as soon as possible. Considering the short delay in sending out the agreed letter, the actions taken by the landlord were sufficient to put things right.

26. Moving forward, the resident’s complaint was escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure and a final response was issued on 19 October 2020. In this response, the landlord apologised to the resident and confirmed that the nuisance stopped “when the warm weather ended”. The landlord also advised that it had been more tolerant regarding residents’ use of communal spaces due to the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic; it requested the resident to keep a log of any future ASB occurrences and committed to keeping in regular contact with the resident to ensure that any reoccurrences are dealt with efficiently.

27. By taking the above into consideration, it is clear that the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours efficiently and in a reasonable manner because:

  1. It liaised with the police and fire brigade to check if the gathering posed a fire hazard or caused antisocial behaviour.
  2. It requested the resident to keep a log of any incidents, in order to ensure that, in case these issues need to be escalated further, it can do so on reasonable grounds.
  3. It offered to keep in regular contact with the resident to ensure that any incidents are identified and dealt with immediately.

28. To conclude, based on the information provided to this Service, it is clear that the landlord handled the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by her neighbours in a fair and efficient manner because it had effectively investigated the resident’s reports of ASB, it had liaised with qualified third parties, and it had offered a reasonable solution to the resident, while remaining impartial.

29. This Service would also like to note that, in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, it would have been more efficient to log the resident’s ASB reports as a formal complaint at the time of the initial report. It was also noted that the landlord initially advised it would issue a stage one complaint response by 11 August 2020 yet it did not do so until 21 August 2020. In this instance, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to inform the resident that the answer would be delayed. However, both the overall delays in recording this matter as a formal complaint and issuing the stage one complaint response were not long and therefore these delays would not have caused significant, avoidable inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disability discrimination against her by its staff

30. In respect of the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s conduct and reports of discrimination, as detailed above, it is not within this Service’s remit to investigate or make a determination on whether discrimination has taken place. However, we can look at the landlord’s response to these reports and the way in which it explained its position to the resident.

31. The resident advised she was unhappy with the landlord’s conduct in both her stage one and two complaints as certain comments made by staff displayed “lack of empathy” and “unwillingness” to support her complaints. In the stage one complaint response, the landlord advised it had spoken to the members of staff dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB however, it did not confirm whether the discussion concerned the resident’s reports of discrimination as well. Subsequently, the landlord advised that it reviewed the resident’s file and determined that it was satisfied that the members of staff involved acted impartially and professionally. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for any inconvenience and advised that it could not come to a conclusion in respect of the resident’s reports of discrimination, due to insufficient supporting evidence.

32. Based on the information provided, it appears that the landlord attempted to address and investigate the resident’s concerns regarding discrimination however, it did not do so in a thorough manner. In this instance, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed the allegations with the members of staff involved and then confirmed the outcome of this to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord should have confirmed what its review consisted of, including whether this involved both written correspondence and call recordings, where applicable.

Memories fade over time, and the members of staff concerned would be unlikely to be able to accurately recall their conversations with the resident which occurred some time ago. Therefore, the Ombudsman would not recommend that the landlord should discuss the allegations with the members of staff at this stage. However, as detailed below the landlord should pay compensation to the resident  for any distress caused by its lack of a clear explanation of the steps it had taken to investigate her concerns about staff conduct.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:

  1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of ASB caused by her neighbours.
  2. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination by its staff.

Orders

34. The landlord is to pay compensation of £50 to the resident, for the inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of discrimination made by its staff.

35. Compensation is to be paid in full, to the resident, within four weeks from this determination.

Reasons

36. The landlord liaised with qualified third parties to ensure that the gatherings did not cause a fire hazard and sought advice on whether there was any evidence of criminal activity or antisocial behaviour.

37. The landlord handled and responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in an efficient and fair manner, and in accordance with the terms set out in its ASB reporting guide.

38. The landlord failed to carry out a thorough investigation of the resident’s reports of discrimination against her, by its staff. It is noted that the landlord addressed these concerns however, it did not provide a clear outcome or substantial data to support the actions taken by it to make its findings.

Recommendation

39. The landlord should consider providing further complaint handling training to its staff to ensure that moving forward all complaints are recorded, handled and investigated in a thorough manner and without delay.