Camden Council (202004959)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004959

Camden Council

30 April 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s response to reports of the lift being out of order.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord and moved into the property in January 2019. He has a flat on the second floor of a block; it is 44 steps from the front of his apartment to the front door of the block and 58 steps from his front door to the garden. He suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and has a service dog. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions document says that it will investigate complaints of ASB and it will give residents help and advice if they are affected.
The landlord’s housing harassment procedure outlines its methods for dealing with harassment and/or ASB suffered by its tenants. It says it is committed to ending acts of harassment and ASB. It defines harassment as deliberate action designed to cause fear and distress which includes, among other things, physical assaults, property damage and provocative behaviour. The procedure defines ASB as inconsiderate action, or lack of action, by an individual or group that prevents other residents from having quiet enjoyment of their home and surrounding area and includes, among other things, drug/alcohol–related behaviour, rowdy behaviour and criminal/sub-criminal behaviour.
The procedure says that when the landlord received a report of harassment/ASB it should interview the tenant within five days; if there is a physical danger (that is the victim has been attacked/threatened with violence or where the incidents are prejudicial to health), the landlord should carry out a full interview within one day and pass the report to a manager to make a decision on priority, support package and whether temporary accommodation is appropriate.
The procedure says that, in discussion and agreement with the victim, the landlord should outline an action plan, the methods for gathering evidence and ways to increase the personal safety of the victim. The action plan may involve support from caretakers, mobile patrol; liaise with the legal team and note the advice given; ask the victim to report any criminal damage to the police and to inform it of any further incidents. The landlord should write to and telephone, if possible, the victim with confirmation of the proposed action plan and timescales, within five days of the interview.
The procedure includes details of action the action the landlord may take in response to ASB including warning letters to the perpetrator, Notice of Seeking Possession and injunctions.
In March 2020 the government introduced a ban on evictions in light of the pandemic. However, some evictions could still go ahead, for example, for ASB or significant rent arrears.
With effect from 20 October 2014, new closure powers to close premises came into force for the purpose of dealing with, or preventing, public nuisance and disorder. The process to close premises comprises two stages – the issuing of a closure notice followed by the issuing of a closure order. A closure notice prohibits access to the premises for the period specified in the notice. Only the police or a local authority can initiate the process to close premises which are causing antisocial behaviour, if they reasonably believe that there is, or is likely to be either:
1. a nuisance to members of the public
2. disorder relating to the premises and in its vicinity
The tenancy conditions document says the landlord will provide any services it thinks are needed and maintain them to a reasonable standard. These include, among other things, lifts. The landlord’s website says that it aims to repair lift breakdowns as soon as it can, and once a repair has been logged an engineer will attend within three hours, or as soon as possible. They will do their best to get the lift working again straight away, but sometimes if the repair is very complicated, or parts need to be ordered and delivered, that is not always possible. It says that if the lift is not working for three days or more, it will write to residents and tell them when it expects to have it fixed by; if the repairs are delayed for any reason, it will write to them again to let them know. The website asks residents who are vulnerable or who need support whilst the lift is not working to contact their Neighbourhood Housing Officer. It adds that the date given for the lift to be put back in service is an estimated date given by the lift contractor and may change due to circumstances outside the landlord’s control.
The landlord has a two stage corporate complaints policy which says it will issue a stage one response within 10 working days and a final response within 25 working days. The policy also says that, in most cases, claims for compensation against it will be referred to its insurer.

Summary of events

On an unknown date in June 2019, the landlord visited another flat in the block (that I will refer to hereafter as flat Z) with the police to question a tenant living in the block (the tenant) about the reports of ASB. The landlord noted that the tenant denied it and claimed not to know the individuals concerned.
On 2 August 2019 the resident called the landlord saying that there was a man from flat Z who was sat at the main entrance of the block and “unwrapped something which he smoked and shortly after he collapsed on the floor … this fellow later woke up and threw up all over the main entrance”. The resident said that the man was a visitor to flat Z who he had reported “many times” to the landlord for ASB. He suggested that the man at the entrance had bought drugs from the tenant. He asked the landlord to act about the ASB and said he would “clean up the mess”.
On 7 August 2019 the landlord spoke to the resident about the incident of 2 August 2019. It said it had served the tenant with a Notice of Seeking Possession which would be in effect for twelve months. The landlord explained that, to initiate successful possession proceedings, it required evidence from the police or statements from residents. The landlord encouraged the resident to report incidents to the police and assured him that, if it had such evidence, it would initiate court proceedings.
On 4 September 2019 the landlord spoke to the resident who reported that on 26 August 2019 that a friend of the tenant was seen by him outside of the block shouting and screaming in an attempt to get the tenant to give him access. The landlord noted that the resident also reported a friend of this tenant directly outside of the block “vomiting”. It noted the resident suspected that this person was a drug user and that this had happened previously. The landlord asked the resident for the names of others who had witnessed these incidents as it would add weight if it needed to take further enforcement action.
On 15 September 2019 the resident told the landlord that a planter had been purposely broken by three visitors to flat Z on the previous afternoon. He included photos of these visitors who he said were “drug addicts”. He said the past two weeks had been peaceful; however, at the end of the previous week the tenant had started dealing drugs again and had given his key to a woman who had been “abusive and unpleasant” to others in the building. The resident said that there were people going in and out of flat Z at all hours. He gave two crime reference numbers to the landlord and said the matter had had been going on for “far too long”.
On 19 September 2019 the landlord received a letter from a different resident in the block with photos in which she reported that the situation was “deteriorating fast” and visitors to flat Z were blocking the entrance to the building.
On 26 September 2019 the landlord told the resident that the information it had so far would not be sufficient to successfully obtain a possession order in court as the tenant could claim that he was not associated or no longer associated with the people causing ASB in the block. It added it would need evidence that directly linked the perpetrators to the tenant. It urged the resident to continue reporting these incidents to the police and its patrol teams.
On 4 October 2019 the landlord noted that it had met with the police outside the block and who confirmed that the case about flat Z was a priority and they were currently looking at all the information they had. The landlord noted that the police was communicating with the resident and it had agreed that it would wait for their action and, in the meantime, would continue to ask residents to call the police and its patrol team.
On 29 October 2019 the landlord left a key for the police so that they could gain access to the block. This Service understands that the police had a warrant to search flat Z at that time but did not find anything amiss.
On 3 December 2019 the resident told the landlord that he had seen a person “who appeared to be under the influence of drugs” enter flat Z and he had informed the police.
On 3 January 2020 the resident reported an incident of ASB on Christmas day when a woman tried to tailgate into the block behind him but he managed to close the door. He said this woman “proceeded to shout a torrent of abuse and threats at him from outside for about fifteen minutes” and threatened “to go and get someone to come and cut his throat”. He said he had seen this person going into flat Z many times the previous year. He said he had informed the police.
On 15 January 2020 the landlord visited the block and noted it had seen no ASB at that time.
On 4 February 2020 the landlord wrote to all residents in the block about unauthorised occupants, security of the block and to report any incidents to the police and the patrol team.
On 12 February 2020 another resident in the block raised concerns with the landlord about drug dealing from flat Z. Later that month another different resident raised similar concerns with the landlord.
On 8 March 2020 the resident told the landlord that the drug dealing continued from flat Z. On the following day the landlord offered to meet with the resident on 12 March 2020 at its offices. There is no evidence that that meeting went ahead.
On 10 March 2020 another resident told the landlord that the risks residents were facing in the block were “completely acceptable” and they were “forced to live in fear”. He said it had been more than a year since residents first noticed the recurring patterns of ASB and suspected drug-related crime. He added that there were also frequent rough sleepers in the block who had left “dirty bedding, dirty underwear, spits and extremely unhygienic paraphernalia on the landings where they sleep”. This resident also said that the rough sleepers had “used a screwdriver as a weapon against some of the residents” and had “physically pushed” some residents. This resident also said that, in the last week, some residents had called the police at least three times to ask for assistance to remove the rough‑sleepers from the landings. In response the landlord said it would forward these concerns to its community safety team to request daytime patrols. It added that residents should report issues to its patrol team.
On 11 March 2020 the landlord received three separate reports from other residents in the block: one reported rough–sleepers gaining access to the block; one reported people congregating outside the block, using drugs and trying to gain access; and the other that an elderly gentleman could not exit the block as there were four people on the steps outside – three ran off but the remaining person “seemed out of it and was reluctant to move”. This resident also reported she had found “two small wrappings” on the stairs recently which she had been told were likely drugs. The landlord told these residents to report incidents to the police as it needed “to build evidence” for further action. It also noted that it would arrange another appointment to visit flat Z along with the police “just to remind them of the impact his suspected visitors are causing. If nothing, to quiet things down for a while”. The landlord contacted the police about such a visit the same day.
On 12 March 2020 the landlord suggested a meeting with one of those residents “to discuss measures” it could implement to try to resolve this issue.
On 25 March 2020 a different resident in the block reported to the landlord that visitors to flat Z were taking drugs and making noise.
On 23 March 2020 the government announced that people must “stay at home”, except for very limited purposes. All gatherings of more than two people in public were not permitted. Legislation to this effect came into effect on 26 March 2020.
On 26 March 2020 in response to a local councillor about the situation in the block, the landlord said that its community safety team would be making a request for daily night–time patrols between midnight and 4am for the next two weeks. It had also asked the hotspot team to visit the block in the mornings for the same time period.
On 30 March 2020 the landlord emailed all residents in the block to say that it was still receiving reports of unauthorised individuals gaining access to the block, blocking the entrance and taking drugs. It said it was aware these reports were linked to a particular property and the police were investigating. It reminded residents to report incidents to the police and the patrol team.
On 1 April 2020 a resident in the block provided photos to the landlord of people who had been in and out of flat Z. The next day this resident reported men coming in and out of flat Z four times in 20 minutes and that they were shouting. She said she called the landlord and the police but neither answered.
On 16 April 2020 the landlord noted, among other things, the following reports from the resident:
1. The tenant at flat Z was “selling drugs from the property” and that the police had raided it in November 2019.
2. His encounters with people coming to the flat to buy drugs were “dangerous” as these individuals were “aggressive” and attempting “to tailgate into the building” and under the influence of drugs.
3. On 14 April 2020 he had met a courier outside the building who he believed was delivering drugs to flat Z. When the resident told him he could not enter the building the courier became aggressive and then followed him into the building lift and began “verbally abusing and spitting at him”. The resident said that was “unpleasant and particularly frightening in the context of the Covid-19 crisis”. He had told the police about this incident.
4. Support had been withdrawn for his service dog due to the “dealers and crack heads in the building”.
5. Communal hallways were being used as toilets and he believed the associates of flat Z were responsible.
On 17 April 2020, following contact from a different resident, the landlord wrote to the tenant at flat Z saying that he was breaching covid-19 rules. The landlord wrote to him the same day saying he should not have visitors to his flat during that time.
On 21 April 2020 the local authority’s Early Intervention and Prevention team told the landlord that the resident in flat Z was a “known class A drug dealer” and, since lockdown, “customers” had been trying to get in through communal door and making threats to other residents. It noted that other residents had made complaint/reports about this as these “customers” had been using communal entrance as a toilet leaving bodily fluids and “causing fears for residents many elderly and vulnerable but many not complaining as they feel nothing will be done about it”. The landlord noted that this had to be resolved “urgently”.
On 22 April 2020 the resident told the landlord that he and his dog were physically attacked twice in the last week and had reported these incidents to the police. He said that the residents in Flat Z had had “continual guests between midnight and 5am” that morning, “allegedly to buy drugs”.
On 25 April 2020 a resident in the block reported “further occurrences this week of human faeces found in the communal areas”. The landlord responded on 7 May 2020 saying it would ask for information about the visits by both the patrol and hotspot team and would get back to her. Following a further email from this resident chasing a response on 16 June 2020, the landlord responded on the following day saying that it could work to resolve these ongoing issues through patrols and direct investigations. It asked that residents continued to report incidents to the patrol team so that officers can attend to stop or witness and gather the evidence needed for it to take action against a resident if they are linked to the antisocial behaviour.
On 28 April 2020 the police visited the tenant at flat Z to discuss the people visiting him. It said the landlord would be monitoring the situation. In an email with social services on 30 April 2020 the landlord noted that there was not enough “direct evidence” at that time to evict the tenant at flat Z.
On 4 May 2020 the resident told the landlord that the tenant in flat Z was dealing drugs and, despite the lockdown, there were many visitors daily. The resident said he had been assaulted at the weekend by one of the visitors to flat Z and he was awaiting contact from the police. He added that he “fears for his safety”.
On 8 May 2020 the landlord confirmed that patrols in the area of the block would start that evening.
On 14 May 2020 the landlord noted that the police had executed a drug warrant at flat Z the previous day. It noted that they had found no drugs but lots of drug paraphernalia and the police were considering obtaining a partial closure order.
On 19 May 2020 a resident in the block exchanged emails with the landlord saying that the ASB situation in the block had not been resolved and the police had attended the previous day.
On 20 May 2020 the landlord told a resident in the block that, based on the evidence so far, the police had decided to apply for a partial property closure order. It explained that this order would allow the resident to remain in the property but would bar anyone visiting them for three months; only the local authority, emergency services and healthcare providers would be allowed to enter. It said the police could apply to extend this arrangement, with evidence, for a further three months; failure to comply with the order was a criminal offence that could lead to imprisonment. The landlord said that, as part of the application for this order, the police needed to conduct a consultation with residents in the block about the impact of the nuisances caused by the perpetrators.
On 21 May 2020 the landlord noted the resident had called about the escalation of his complaint. It noted that the resident said he had been assaulted seven times since he made his complaint, each of these have been logged with the police and he said he was unable to receive shielding support for his service-dog, due to fears that a support volunteer would be assaulted by his neighbours in the block.
In an internal email on 22 May 2020 the landlord noted that the resident had called to advise that he had been physically assaulted the previous day along with an elderly resident at the property. He said the perpetrator had been arrested by the police and charged with physical assault and criminal trespass. He said he had provided a police statement and was currently receiving medical treatment for his injuries. On the same day the landlord asked the police for information about an assault on the resident that happened the previous day. It asked whether the perpetrator had been charged and for any other information connected to the incident such as interview notes and/or surveillance information. This Service understands that the attacker was charged and was in court on 19 June 2020. This Service has not seen evidence to confirm what happened at that hearing.
On the same day the landlord noted the residents within the block whom it could approach for statements about how they had been impacted by the ASB within the block to support the police’s application for a closure notice.
On 17 June 2020 noted that it could work in resolving these ongoing issues through patrols and direct investigations. It asked that residents continue to report incidents to the patrol team.
On the same day the landlord received a letter from the resident’s doctor which said that it was “psychological stressful” for the resident at that time due to the ongoing ASB.
On 6 July 2020 a different resident reported that visitors to flat Z were leaving rubbish “used tissue, tissue with blood, dirty clothing etc” on the stairs and were also going into the garden.
On 8 July 2020 the police told the landlord that there had been a delay obtaining a closure order due to a backlog at the court.
On 10 July 2020 another resident reported being threatened by two people taking drugs by the lift who said they would “slash her”.
On 10 July 2020 a social worker approached the landlord saying she had been tasked to undertake a Section 42 Safeguarding Enquiry with regards to concerns raised by the resident. She said he had requested temporary rehousing/hotel accommodation until the behaviour of the alleged offending tenant was addressed; that CCTV be placed in the common areas to evidence the alleged drug taking and assault behaviour occurring in the common areas; and that the lift was fixed so that residents did not have to bump into the alleged drug takers in the stairwells. She asked for the landlord’s response by 13 July 2020 and said a safeguarding meeting was scheduled for 17 July 2020 and asked of the landlord wished to attend.
On the same day the landlord spoke to the resident and noted, among other things, the following:
1. He had been assaulted 16 times in the previous 59 days.
2. Someone had thrown a syringe at him the previous weekend.
3. He had a service dog and the lift had been broken for five weeks which meant he was “forced to carry his dog up and down the stairs eight times a day” which exacerbated his COPD.
4. His support worker had said she would get him help with his dog but that support was withdrawn support was withdrawn “because there are dealers and crack heads in the building”.
5. He had confrontations with the people visiting flat Z several times a day as he had to let his service dog out regularly. He said, “no-one is getting this”.
6. He had gone through his entire supply of inhalers because of the breakdown of the lift and having to go up and down the stairs.
7. He believed there should be CCTV in the building.
The landlord said it would look into temporary relocation; getting the lift repaired and would chase up the status of his complaint.
On 14 July 2020 a court ordered a closure notice for flat Z (which meant he could have no visitors to the flat).
On the same day the resident reported two further assaults and said he had informed the police. He said that on 11 July 2020 he was threatened and spat at; the police were able to take samples; and earlier that day a visitor to the block said he would “break his neck and mash him up and stab his dog”. The resident added that drug-taking visitors to the block were “urinating and defecating” in the building; older residents were “hiding in their properties”.
In an internal email dated 17 July 2020, the landlord noted that it was “very concerned about the state [the resident] was in. He was worryingly out of breath …”.
On the same day the landlord met with the resident and took a statement from him. Afterwards they told him that the police had secured an order that prevents a tenant of concern from receiving visitors. It added the police would be taking further action at the end of the month to expand this order. Regarding the lift, the landlord said that the parts for the lift were no longer in production therefore they had to be made specially. The landlord said that the parts were due to be delivered and fitted the following week.
On 27 July 2020 the court ordered a full property closure. The order allowed the tenant to collect his belongings from flat Z on 28 July 2020 before it came into force.
In an email dated 3 August 2020, the landlord noted an update from the lift contractor that replacement doors were required because the existing doors would no longer be repaired; the type of door was of a special design and replacement was ordered and taken to site last week but could not be installed due to a difference in the size and design of the doors. Further replacements had doors had been ordered and were expected in five to six weeks. On the following day the landlord gave this update to residents and apologised for the inconvenience.
On 19 August 2020 the landlord told residents in the block that it hoped to start work on the lift by 21 September 2020 and have it working by 28 September 2020. It said the these were major works and the delay was due to parts coming from Italy.
On 20 August 2020 the landlord responded to the resident at the final stage of its complaints procedure. Its main points were:
1. In respect of ASB: a closure order was currently in place at flat A. The landlord was sorry that the issues the resident reported took so long to address. The Housing Officer had carried out joint visits with the police to investigate the issues and the tenant did not respond to initial visits but, when the housing officer and police visited in June and November 2019, they found no evidence to support further action. When they visited the block on 13 May 2020, they found sufficient evidence of ASB and it started action to remove the tenant. The landlord said it was satisfied that it had made reasonable efforts to resolve matters, but it should have given him regular updates on the action it was taking to deal with the ASB.
2. In respect of the broken lift: there had been repeated breakdowns with the lift and the landlord apologised for the inconvenience that had been caused to the resident. Thirteen repairs had been raised between 2 April and 17 July 2020: four of those reports were when the lift was not working at all; one was to free a trapped passenger; and the rest were problems with the door and the lift not stopping at some floors. Each report was actioned but the repairs were temporary. The lift had been out of service since 11 June 2020. Additional parts had been ordered and the lift repair was booked for 25 September 2020. It would ensure that the residents in the block were kept informed of any delays to that work.
The landlord offered the resident £150 for the inconvenience and distress caused by the time taken to resolve the ASB. It signposted him to the Ombudsman.
On 24 September 2020 the landlord told residents in the block that it hoped to have the lift working by 9 October 2020. It said that the delay was caused by getting the parts.
On 1 October and 5 November 2020, the landlord told residents in the block that there were delays in the lift repair. The later letter suggested an estimated date of 18 November for the issue to be resolved and explained this was due to a problem receiving the necessary parts to complete this major repair. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and explained this was due to a problem receiving the necessary parts.
On 10 November 2020 the resident told this Service that his service dog had passed away the previous month but that he was due to get another one soon.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said that the landlord only started to deal with the tenant from flat Z when he was seriously physically assaulted. He said the reason for all the previous verbal and physical assaults was that he had to use the stairs with his service dog four times a day as the lift was out of order so frequently. He said he was supposed to shield during lockdown but could not because he had to take his service dog outside; referrals from the local authority for help with his dog had been turned down due to the building being dangerous for potential helpers.
The resident also said he was concerned by the lack of “support and concern” from the landlord. He said he had asked for alternative accommodation at least until the lift was repaired or replaced. The resident said he was seeking compensation and a move.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
There is much evidence of the circumstances in which the residents of the block were living and both the resident and other residents in the block made many, and regular, reports to the landlord of ASB from at least when the resident moved into the property in June 2019 to when the tenant from flat Z was evicted in July 2020.
In response to these reports the landlord took various action, including:
1. Visiting the tenant with the police in June 2019 (paragraph 12).
2. Speaking to the tenant in August 2019 (paragraph 14).
3. Obtaining a Notice of Seeking Possession for flat Z by August 2019 (paragraph 14).
4. Visiting the block with the police in October 2019 (paragraph 19).
5. Liaising with the police so they could execute search warrants in October 2019 and May 2020 (paragraphs 20 and 43).
6. Visiting the block in January 2020 (paragraph 23).
7. Writing to residents to say that unauthorised occupants should be reported to the patrol team and police in February 2020 (paragraph 24).
8. Requesting daytime and night-time patrols to the block in March 2020 (paragraphs 27 and 32).
9. Telling residents that any incidents should be reported to the police and/or the patrol team in March, April and June 2020 (paragraphs 27, 33, 39, 49).
10. Telling the tenant he should not have visitors to his flat under the covid-19 lockdown rules in April 2020 (paragraph 36).
The evidence suggests that the landlord spoke to the resident following his first report of ASB in August 2019 (paragraph 14) and set out how evidence would be gathered in line with its the harassment procedure (paragraph 6). There is no evidence that it discussed with the resident how his personal safety could be increased or that an action plan was put in place in line with those procedures.
The landlord acted appropriately by obtaining a Notice of Seeking Possession and said it required further evidence for successful possession proceedings in the form of statements from residents or evidence from the police (paragraph 14).
Residents in the block subsequently made the landlord aware of incidents in September 2019 (paragraphs 15, 16 and 17). The landlord told the resident that it would need evidence to link the tenant to the perpetrators of ASB. While the landlord noted it would continue to ask residents to call the police and/or its patrol team, there is no evidence that it made this clear to all residents in the block at that time. There is also no evidence that demonstrates what the landlord was doing at that time to gather evidence itself to support further action.
There were further incidents reported from December 2019 to February 2020 (paragraphs 21 to 25) which the landlord responded to by asking all residents to report any incidents to the police and the patrol team. There is no evidence that it met with the resident following his reports of verbal assault and/or physical threat in January, April and May 2020 (paragraphs 22, 35, 38 and 42); that it discussed with him how his personal safety could be increased; or that an action plan was put in place in line with its harassment procedures. Those were serious failings.
By March 2020 the evidence shows that the ASB had worsened with several residents reporting rough-sleepers and drug use within the block as well as an allegation of finding drugs on the stairs. Again, the landlord encouraged the residents to report these matters to the police; however, there is no evidence as to the action the landlord itself was taking to gather evidence – either obtaining statements from residents or visiting the block itself to monitor activity there and gathering evidence. It is acknowledged that there were criminal elements to this matter and that the landlord had to work closely with the police in respect of those, which it evidently did. However, the landlord also had a responsibility to respond because drug-related issues fall under the heading of ASB and it has a responsibility to respond to that under its harassment policy (paragraph 4).
By April 2020 the landlord had it confirmed that the tenant was a “known drug dealer” (paragraph 37) and noted the situation had to be resolved “urgently”. By this time the residents of the block had been living with these conditions, although not seemingly continuously, since at least June 2019. Later that month, a resident reported human faeces in the communal area. Despite this being a clear health risk to the residents, there is no evidence the landlord visited the block to gather evidence of these incidents.
The evidence suggests that firm action was taken after a further warrant carried out by the police identified drug use at flat Z (paragraph 43). (A previous warrant had not been successful (paragraph 20)). It was not clear if that warrant was sought following the assault by a visitor to the property on the resident at the start of May 2020 (paragraph 41).
While the landlord took some action in response to the reports of ASB made by the resident and others in the block, its actions were not appropriate as it could have done more itself to gather evidence for further action against the tenant. It should have also made an action plan to deal with the reports of ASB and discussed with residents how they might increase their personal safety. The landlord took at least nine months to instigate the daytime and night-time patrols, had it done so sooner that might have given some reassurance to the residents; it might also have given it a much better understanding of what was happening in the block. Had it taken all this action, residents would likely have felt safer in the property; it is possible also that the situation might have been resolved sooner had the landlord taken pro‑active action to gather evidence itself to take further action against the tenant. This lack of action and support represents maladministration and meant that residents had to live in evidently difficult circumstances for longer.
As part of its complaint handling, the landlord offered the resident £150 for the inconvenience and distress caused by the time it took to resolve the ASB issues at the block. In offering this compensation the landlord recognised that there had been delays.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Furthermore, we do not seek to punish landlords for something having gone wrong. We also do not award damages in the way that a court may. The Ombudsman cannot order compensation for any poor health that a resident claims they have experienced because we are not qualified to establish a causal link between the health effects that the resident says are linked to the landlord’s failures. What we do consider when looking at compensation amounts is any distress, inconvenience or time and trouble experienced by the complainant as a result of any failures identified or in pursuing the complaint.
In this case, given the impact on the resident, the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate. The evidence suggests that by December 2019 the ASB has restarted and by the start of March 2020 it was becoming more serious and regular (the evidence does not suggest that reports of ASB were made from 20 September to 2 December 2019). Had the landlord been more proactive in dealing with the reports of ASB and in line with its procedures, it is likely that the situation could have been resolved more quickly.
This Service considers that there was likely a two-month delay and that compensation of £300 would be proportionate redress for the inconvenience and distress caused (£150 a month). This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been a failure over a period of time to appropriately address ASB.

Lift repair

The landlord did not provide evidence of the lift breakdowns and action it took in response to them. However, it is not disputed that:
1. There had been thirteen breakdowns between 2 April and 17 July 2019.
2. By 20 August 2020 the lift had been out of service since 11 June 2020.
3. The lift was not repaired until at least November 2020.
This Service understands that there is only one lift in the block and the lift being out of order would be an inconvenience to all residents. However, the detriment to the resident was increased due to his ill-health (a known respiratory condition that makes exercise and physical exertion difficult) and the fact he had to use the stairs with his service dog who required taking out of the building several times a day for toileting purposes (paragraph 2).
There is no evidence that the landlord was aware of the problems experienced by the resident as a result of there being no lift until July 2020. In response to the resident’s reports of the effect the lift breakdown was having, the landlord said it would look into temporary relocation (paragraph 55) but there is no evidence that it did so. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have followed up on its offer to decant the resident in once it became aware of the problems he was experiencing as a result of the lift breakdown.
The landlord did not carry out the repair to the lift within a reasonable timescale. It is acknowledged that the landlord had problems sourcing appropriate parts for the repair; however, that does not detract from its repair obligations. The landlord had an opportunity to mitigate the impact on the resident with temporary accommodation but it did not progress this. The delay and lack of action by the landlord amounts to maladministration; it meant that the resident continued to experience evident distress and inconvenience by having to go up and down 58 (or 44 steps) with COPD several times each day until October 2020 when, sadly, his service dog passed away (paragraph 68).
While the landlord apologised for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the lift being out of service, it did not consider if compensation was appropriate. This Service considers that the sum of £300 is proportionate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident here (£75 a month from June to October 2020).

Complaint handling

This Service has not seen a copy of the resident’s original complaint to the landlord or its stage one response under its formal complaints procedures. In May 2020 the resident asked about the escalation of his complaint (paragraph 46) and a final response was issued on 20 August 2020 (paragraph 64).
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not appropriate because it did not respond at stage two within the timescales set out in its policy – taking at least three months. That delay was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of reports of ASB.
2. Response to reports of the lift being out of order.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord took a range of appropriate action in response to the reports of ASB, it did not take effective action to gather evidence of the drug use in the block. This meant that action to remedy the circumstances being endured by residents was delayed. It also did not make an action plan or discuss how the resident could increase his personal safety following verbal and/or physical assaults.
The landlord did not meet its repair obligations as there was an unreasonable delay in repairing the lift. Also, having offered to look into temporary relocating the resident, the landlord did not do so. This meant the resident continued to experience inconvenience and distress by having to use the stairs to regularly take his service dog out of the building each day.
There was delay by the landlord in issuing the final response under its formal complaints policy.

Orders

The landlord shall, within four weeks of the date of this report, take the following action:
1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £600 for inconvenience and distress comprising:
  1. £300 for its failures in relation to its handling of the reports of ASB.
  2. £300 for its delays in repairing the lift and its failure to take action to try to relocate the resident during the period of the lift breakdown.
2. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that, if there is another lift breakdown, the landlord contacts the resident to find out what, if any, help he requires with his service dog and take appropriate action to assist.