Canterbury City Council (202412247)

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbouring tenant. The landlord investigated the reports, reviewed evidence, and took enforcement action in response.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible of:
   1. Service Failure in its response to reports of ASB.
   2. Maladministration in its response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord responded to reports of ASB, maintained an open case, reviewed evidence submitted by the resident, sought legal advice and used enforcement tools. However, while the landlord subsequently completed an action plan, we have not seen evidence that this was agreed at the outset of the case in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. This represented a shortcoming in the landlord’s case management and expectation-setting.
5. The landlord delayed its stage 2 complaint acknowledgement and response, did not communicate effectively with the resident about the delays, and did not provide redress proportionate to the impact of its complaint-handling failures. While it apologised for the delay, this did not adequately remedy the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident.

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.

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.

6. The resident’s reports of ASB date back several years and formed part of earlier tenancy enforcement action which resulted in a Suspended Possession Order in 2021. We have considered this history as background context. However, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of reports made from March 2023 onwards, which led to the formal complaint on 23 August 2024. We have not investigated whether ASB occurred or whether tenancy enforcement action should have been pursued. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in accordance with its obligations and ASB policy.
7. The landlord’s policy required it to agree to an action plan with the complainant. However, the earliest action plan is dated March 2024, around 10 months after the landlord opened the case. The action plan recorded how the resident would provide further evidence and how the landlord would respond. The landlord was expected to have established this framework much earlier. This was not in line with its policy and constitutes a failure.
8. The landlord’s ASB policy states that enforcement action should be measured, reasonable, proportionate and based on the available evidence. The evidence shows that the landlord reviewed recordings, CCTV footage and incident reports submitted by the resident and sought legal advice when considering whether further tenancy enforcement action was appropriate. While the resident disagreed with the landlord’s assessment of the evidence, we have seen evidence that the landlord reasonably assessed the information available to it before reaching its decisions.
9. The landlord’s policy also states that it will focus on preventative measures, early intervention and warnings wherever possible to avoid the escalation of ASB. The evidence shows that, following ongoing reports during 2023, the landlord issued a Community Protection Warning on 16 October 2023. This was consistent with the landlord’s policy commitment to use preventative and early interventions where appropriate.
10. Following further reports and consideration of the information available, the landlord escalated its response and issued a Community Protection Notice on 8 January 2024. This was in line with its policy which confirms that it will take enforcement action that is proportionate and supported by the available evidence.
11. The evidence shows that the landlord liaised with the police regarding allegations of breaches of the Community Protection Notice and remained aware of developments in the police investigation during 2024. We are satisfied that the landlord acted in accordance with this aspect of its policy which states that it will continue to place importance on working relationships with partner organisations and share information where possible to support investigations.
12. There does not appear to be any reference to risk assessments in the landlord’s Neighbour Nuisance and ASB policy. In completing risk assessments and focusing upon the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of the ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord considered completing a risk assessment in this case. Given the resident’s reports and the impact, the resident said it was having on them, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to assess the risk. There is no evidence, however, that the risk assessment would have changed the outcome of what followed. Simply it was best practice for the landlord to have completed this. We note the landlord’s updated policy references now include a risk assessment.
13. The resident remained dissatisfied because they believed the landlord underestimated the seriousness of the behaviour, did not adequately consider the cumulative history of the case and should have pursued stronger tenancy enforcement action. However, our role is not to determine whether ASB occurred or whether possession proceedings should have been pursued. Our role is to assess whether the landlord responded to reports in accordance with its obligations and policies.
14. In this case, the landlord investigated reports, assessed evidence, used informal and formal interventions, worked with partner agencies and kept the matter under review. However, the landlord did not implement an action plan when it opened the ASB case in May 2023, as required by its policy. This failure reduced the resident’s understanding of how the case would be managed and what action the landlord intended to take. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 to recognise this service failure and the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing updates. We consider this amount proportionate to the inconvenience and frustration the landlord’s actions caused.

15. The landlord’s complaints policy required stage 1 complaints to be responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The evidence shows the resident submitted their complaint on 4 April 2024 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 April 2024. In the resident’s escalation request, they acknowledged that the stage 1 response had taken longer than the landlord’s published 10 working day timescale. The landlord did not dispute this in its subsequent complaint correspondence. We find that the landlord did not comply with its published stage 1 complaint timescale.
16. The landlord’s complaints policy required a stage 2 acknowledgement to be issued within 5 working days of a request for review. The resident requested escalation on 23 April 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 16 May 2024, approximately 16 working days later. This was significantly outside the landlord’s published timescale and represented a clear failure to comply with its complaints policy.
17. The policy also required the stage 2 acknowledgement to set out the landlord’s understanding of the outstanding issues and the outcomes being sought by the resident. The acknowledgement issued on 16 May 2024 stated that the complaint had been forwarded to an officer for investigation and provided a proposed response date. However, the acknowledgement did not identify the issues under review or the outcomes sought by the resident. The landlord therefore did not fully comply with this aspect of its complaint’s procedure.
18. The landlord’s complaints policy required a stage 2 response to be issued within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 May 2024 but did not issue its final stage 2 response until 23 August 2024. This was approximately 71 working days after acknowledgement and around 51 working days outside the landlord’s published timescale. We find that this delay was unreasonable and amounted to a significant failure in complaint handling.
19. The policy allowed extensions where additional time was required. However, it stated that residents should be informed of the reason for the delay and the expected response timeframe. The landlord advised the resident on 16 May 2024 that the response date “may need to be extended“. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord subsequently provided a revised response date, a detailed explanation for the delay, or managed the extension in accordance with its policy.
20. The evidence further shows that the resident had to contact the landlord on multiple occasions seeking updates regarding the outstanding stage 2 response. This indicates that communication during the delay was largely reactive rather than proactive. Given the length of the delay and reported vulnerabilities, we would have expected the landlord to provide regular and meaningful updates to manage the resident’s expectations. It failed to do so.
21. The landlord apologised within its stage 2 response for the delay in responding. This was a reasonable step. However, the apology did not fully remedy the impact of the complaint-handling failures. The resident experienced avoidable frustration, uncertainty, inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint over several months.
22. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. The landlord did not provide the stage 2 response within its published timescales, and the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates. This caused inconvenience, frustration and avoidable time and trouble. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to recognise that impact.

Learning

23. This case highlights the importance of keeping ASB cases under regular review and maintaining clear records of the evidence considered, actions taken, and rationale for decisions. This assists both residents and landlords in understanding how reported incidents have been assessed and supports transparency where residents disagree with the outcome.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord was able to provide records demonstrating that reports had been received, evidence had been considered, and enforcement tools had been utilised. This highlights the importance of maintaining clear records of incident reports, evidence reviews, enforcement decisions and liaison with partner agencies when managing complex ASB cases.
25. The case also demonstrates the importance of retaining accurate complaint records, including acknowledgements, extension decisions, revised target dates and communications with residents regarding delays. Good record keeping supports effective complaint handling and enables landlords to demonstrate compliance with their complaint procedures.

Communication

26. Our Spotlight reports emphasise the importance of providing clear information, managing expectations and maintaining regular communication with residents, particularly where investigations or complaints are likely to take longer than anticipated.
27. In this case, the landlord provided explanations for its ASB decisions through its complaint responses. However, its communication during the complaint process was less effective. The landlord did not acknowledge the Stage 2 complaint within its published timescale, did not clearly manage the extension process and did not provide sufficient proactive updates while the resident was awaiting a response. This highlights the importance of keeping residents informed when delays occur and ensuring complaint timescales are properly managed.