Darlington Borough Council (202014803)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014803

Darlington Borough Council

10 December 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports;
2. the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the property from 19 May 2003. The landlord is a local authority and has described the property as a two-bedroom maisonette. The resident has advised this Service that she vacated the property towards the end of 2020.
The resident’s son advised the landlord during the course of the resident’s complaint that she has ‘several health disabilities that impede her movement and general life’.
The landlord has an ASB policy and procedure that includes verbal abuse, vandalism, dumping of rubbish, intimidation and assault within its definition of ASB. It adds that it will respond to reports within 15 working days, apply a multi-agency approach and use interventions such as warning letters, visits, meetings, acceptable behaviour contracts and restorative mediation referrals. It shows that it aims ‘to provide adequate/emotional support to victims and witnesses of ASB by working closely with relevant agencies to ensure their safety’ and, at the end of the process, it will ‘review the case and discuss closure of the case with the complainant’.
The landlord’s website shows that it uses a ‘restorative hub’ as its mediation option in cases of ‘low-level crime, anti-social behaviour and neighbour disputes’ – the ‘hub’ is organised through the local police. It sets out that it usually leads to ‘a formal written agreement, negotiated by the participants in an effort to move forward in a positive direction’ and that ‘where an agreement is not complied with, the case can be referred back to the police or local authority to pursue enforcement action or impose a formal sanction’.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure which requires it to respond to complaints within 25 working days (at stage one) and 30 working days (at stage two). It adds that the policy does not apply to events that occurred more than six months previously.
The resident’s son has corresponded on her behalf during the period covered by this complaint. For the purposes of this report, this correspondence will be referred to as being from ‘the resident’.
The resident’s complaint partially concerns a nextdoor neighbour who was also a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of Events

During the subsequent complaints process, the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour moved in during March 2019 and that concerns were raised shortly afterwards that the neighbour had issues with the resident maintaining the communal garden area in front of their properties.
The landlord recorded that it conducted a site visit on 26 April 2019 when it confirmed that the gardens were communal and the resident indicated she was happy to engage in a mediation process with her neighbour.
The resident made a report on 8 May 2019, indicating that she was aware she had been secretly recorded by another party; the landlord responded on 9 May 2019 and advised that this would be a matter for the Police.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 May 2019 following a mediation meeting that day. She said that she was upset with some things her neighbour had said, would remove plants to keep the peace and raised concern about whether the neighbour really had a privacy issue given she had placed tables and chairs in a communal area.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 May 2019 – it noted that there had been a discussion about rotary lines, access to the communal garden areas and restriction of privacy to the rear of the neighbour’s property. It proposed that:
1. it re-site rotary lines to the front of both properties
2. the ‘communal area close to both properties will be sectioned alongside the boundary line alongside the boundary line between both properties’
3. should either party not wish to manage the area, it would be returned to the landlord (who retained the right to withdraw the offer)
4. the resident’s son would remove planting and fencing within a timely manner.
The resident made a report on 20 May 2019 that the neighbour was cutting away plants at the front of the property so this had been passed to the Police. The landlord replied the same day – it advised that it did not believe that the garden dispute issue was a Police matter and that it may have to change the area to communal if problems continued.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails during late May to early June 2019 that demonstrate that:
1. the resident had relocated a garden border and some plants and that she reported her neighbour had already been pulling some of her flowers out
2. the border and plants had been moved inside the boundary of the resident’s property as per an agreement made on 24 May 2019
3. the resident hoped they could now all move on, that the neighbour would have her privacy and that no further escalations would occur
4. the resident understood the landlord had attended to take photographs of the new garden arrangements on 6 June 2019
5. the landlord decided on 10 June 2019 to refer the matter to the ‘restorative hub’ given a mutual resolution had not been reached, albeit the resident understood the matter was now resolved.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails on 11 July 2019 regarding a report from the former that other households had been told by the neighbour that an agreement had been reached that the neighbour would be allowed to take the land a few feet in front of the resident’s property. The landlord confirmed that nothing had been agreed.
The resident made a report on 23 July 2019 of the neighbour swearing at her and ‘people hanging about in the vicinity shouting loud and pointing and laughing’. The resident’s son expressed concern on 29 July 2019 about the resident having to be in the same room as the neighbour during the planned ‘hub’ meeting.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 August 2019. She advised that the garden bordering had not been moved and asked when the ‘hub’ meeting would happen. The landlord replied on 2 August 2019 to advise that the ‘hub’ would progress these matters.
The resident confirmed on 7 August 2019 that she had received contact from the ‘hub’. The resident’s son added on 20 August 2019 that the resident had been prescribed with medication due to the impact of the ASB on her.
The resident made a request on 21 August 2019 to get permission to install CCTV cameras to help protect her and the property from crime and harassment. She chased this on 31 August 2019, advising that she intended to put a camera up the next week and that the ‘hub’ was due to propose dates for a meeting.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 September 2019 – it refused the resident’s CCTV request as it said it would mean her filming communal land. The resident replied the same day – she confirmed she was aware of the data protection implications and that she would need to register with the information commissioner’s office (ICO). She submitted a review request of the decision that day.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 September 2019, advising that she had now been told that ‘CCTV is allowed as long as the ICO and GDPR statue is followed’ which she confirmed she would be doing.
The resident made a report to the landlord on 18 September 2019 that there appeared to have been an attempted break-in to her property.
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 10 October 2019, regarding the CCTV refusal. It concluded that the CCTV request seemed to include the likely filming of the neighbour’s access point to their property and ‘given the ongoing dispute… it is highly unlikely that your neighbour will give permission to have their image filmed or stored without further objections being raised’. It offered to approve any further request that only covered the access point to her own property. The landlord and resident appear to have exchanged letters over subsequent days on this subject but copies have not been provided to this Service.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 October 2019 querying why an operative had attended that day to move a rotary line from the rear to the front of the property. She added that she thought that it was agreed on 24 May 2019 that the line could remain where it was. The landlord replied on 24 October 2019 – it referred her to its mediation proposal letter of 16 May 2019.
The resident continued to query the rotary line approach on 24 October 2019 and asked whether all lines on the estate would be moved. The landlord replied the same day – it advised that it was agreed, prior to the involvement of the ‘hub’, that the line would be moved but advised that this could be put on hold pending the outcome of the ‘hub’ meeting.
The resident reiterated on 24 October 2019 that the letter of 16 May 2019 was a proposal only and that it was subsequently agreed on 24 May 2019 that the rotary line was fine where it was.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 October 2019 to request a meeting with a senior member of staff. This mentioned that the neighbour had made a request through the ‘hub’ and landlord that the neighbour take control of the entire garden area and that, when this was rejected, the neighbour had ended the mediation process. She added that she would encounter difficulties drying her clothes if the rotary line was moved and had commenced legal action against the neighbour.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 October 2019. It invited her to a meeting on 30 October 2019 to discuss ASB allegations which it said could lead to possession proceedings. The resident has since advised that she was told at this meeting that a ‘dummy’ CCTV camera she had erected was a breach of her tenancy and a Police officer said that it needed to be removed within an hour to avoid enforcement action against her.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 October 2019. She asked for the reason behind the decision to move her rotary line and said she understood she was to be told this prior to removal but an operative was at the site taking instructions from her neighbour. The landlord replied the same day, explaining that ‘there have been allegations made by both parties concerning the other party looking into windows, by moving the rotary washing lines this will negate any allegations’.
The resident wrote further to the landlord on 31 October 2019. She thanked it for the reason given on the rotary line (albeit she thought this had been resolved), confirmed she would leave her plants in place as they were and made a proposal on future garden maintenance.
The resident made a request on 23 January 2020 that she should be permitted to use the rotary line in the position she had been used to
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 March 2020. She asked to meet to discuss whether she had been banned from hanging washing outside her kitchen window and reiterated that she was frail and would struggle to carry washing any distance. She noted that it was not physically possible to look through the neighbour’s window from the rotary line area and that aggravation had stopped over the winter period but recently re-commenced.
The resident submitted a report to the landlord on 14 April 2020 about broken glass being left outside her front door and her son being verbally abused and spat at during a visit to her property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 April 2020. She asked if it had visited to check the position of the rotary line and if she could start to use it again.
The resident made reports on 23 April 2020 of the neighbour coughing and laughing in her direction and on 24 April 2020 that she felt she could not leave her property for fear of being laughed at by her neighbour and that her turf had been damaged.
The resident chased the rotary line query on 1 May 2020 and made a report on 6 May 2020 that the neighbour had been spreading lies about her to other neighbours in the area.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 May 2020 – it advised that it had reviewed its decision of October 2019 to relocate the rotary line but that the decision remained. It offered to install a line at the front of the property and added that the communal gardens would be returned to its responsibility when the resident vacated (it said it understood from her son that she was seeking alternative accommodation).
The resident acknowledged this decision on 13 May 2020 and asked if any actions were being taken against the perpetrators of ASB given she was being forced to give up her property.
The resident made a report on 27 May 2020 of the neighbour dumping rubbish outside her property and laughing and making spitting motions at her.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 May 2020. It reiterated that a decision had been taken in October 2019 to move the rotary line from the rear of the resident’s property to the front. It noted the resident had objected to this but that it had upheld its decision and the offer to install a line at the front of the property remained open. It added that it understood the resident was seeking to move and that it intended to take back responsibility for the communal area outside the property at that point but, until then, the resident could use the area subject to her tenancy terms and pandemic regulations.
The resident made a report on 1 June 2020 that the neighbour had falsely accused her of complaining about cut grass, laughed at her and intimidated her by shouting, swearing and getting close to her. She added that video footage had been provided. The landlord replied on 2 June 2020 to advise it would be contacting the neighbour about these allegations.
The resident made reports on 4 June 2020 and 15 June 2020 that the neighbour and a friend of the neighbour had damaged her plants. She added that she would take legal proceedings against the neighbour in the coming weeks. The resident chased outcomes on 25 and 30 June 2020, when she also asked if she needed to report vandalism to her security light a few weeks earlier.
The Police wrote to the resident on 1 July 2020. They advised that they had liaised with the landlord and had been told tenancy enforcement action would occur against the neighbour.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 July 2020. She asked who was dealing with ASB issues now a previous officer had left and mentioned that she had been informed by the Police that tenancy enforcement action was being taken against her neighbour that week.
The resident asked the landlord on 9 July 2020 why she had been denied access to an external communal cupboard area.
The landlord replied to the resident on 16 July 2020. It asked for details of the ASB incident and the addresses involved. The resident explained the same day that communication from the landlord had stopped a month ago and added that:
1. she had experienced 12 months of harassment and a security light was recently broken
2. she had asked 18 times why she was stopped from using a rotary line in the location she was used to but had received no answer
3. she had asked why use of a communal cupboard space had been stopped but had received no answer
4. people were laughing at her, staring through her window and damaging her possessions, causing her to have to leave the property
5. she had been stopped from putting up ‘fake’ CCTV cameras.
The resident reported on 22-24 July 2020 that her neighbour had put up CCTV cameras despite her own request being refused by the landlord.
The local authority CCTV manager advised the resident on 5 August 2020 that ‘there are no restrictions on installing a CCTV system with recording facilities on private accommodation/premises, and after a meeting with a representative from the housing section I understand there is no restriction in the tenancy agreements issued by the Council specifically related to the installation of CCTV’.
The resident chased a response from the landlord on 7 August 2020 and 25 August 2020. She acknowledged on 25 August 2020 that the landlord had spoken to her about the CCTV issue albeit it had not addressed why she was threatened with a tenancy breach and who was responsible for considering the ongoing ASB.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 August 2020 – it advised that domestic CCTV was regulated by the ICO, that prior permission was needed to install CCTV on the outside of a property and that images should not be recorded of neighbours’ properties or communal areas.
The landlord signposted the resident to make a complaint on 25 August 2020 and provided a name for a member of staff who could look at current problems with the neighbour.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 September 2020 and 9 September 2020. She again asked it why it had filled in the hole for the rotary line at the rear of the property and advised that this had a particular impact on her due to her disabilities. She explained she had been passed from officer to officer in trying to obtain an answer.
The landlord replied on 11 September 2020. It stated that ‘the rotary washing line was removed as part of an ongoing neighbour nuisance issue… which could not be amicably resolved by mediation’ and that it had ‘been trying unsuccessfully to reach agreement on a suitable alternative location despite various housing officers being involved’.
The resident asked the landlord on 14 September 2020 if her neighbour would be restricted from using the communal space now she had removed all of her plants (she said this had been agreed in May 2020) and reported that the neighbour continued to stand outside her window, heckling and laughing. The landlord replied the same day, offering to meet.
The resident asked on 15 September 2020 for the reason behind the rotary line removal before they met and the landlord and resident agreed on 16 September 2020 to discuss this further.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 September 2020, following a telephone conversation. She asked the landlord to:
1. comment on video evidence she had submitted, noting there was a dossier of 500 pages of ASB incidents logged
2. advise why a rotary line had been moved, particularly as she now needed help to use the line given her disabilities
3. confirm it would maintain the communal garden area now she had removed and relocated items after discussions in April-May 2020
4. fit a security light and additional door locks
5. comment on her report that she was told in October 2019 and June 2020 that formal actions were being taken against her neighbour but that these had been unsuccessful.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 September 2020. The letter advised that:
1. a decision was made in October 2019 to move a rotary line from the back to the front of her property following a dispute between her and her neighbour and the failure of related mediation
2. a decision was taken in September 2020 that communal land to the rear of her and her neighbour’s properties would be maintained by it following discussion with both parties
3. the resident would need to adhere to ‘data protection laws’ if the CCTV system captured images of people outside her property boundary
4. the issues between the resident and her neighbour would be a civil matter and could be reported to the Police
5. a staff conduct issue would be considered by the complaints department.
The resident replied to the landlord on 21 September 2020. She advised that there were unanswered questions about:
1. why in October 2019 a rotary line hole was filled in
2. when the neighbour would be required to remove her possessions from the communal garden area
3. why the neighbour had been allowed to retain CCTV cameras
4. whether it would act in response to the neighbour’s ASB
5. the request for a security light and extra locks.
The landlord replied to the resident on 22 September 2020, advising that:
1. residents must seek prior permission before installing external CCTV in line with the tenancy agreement and this had happened in the case of the neighbour who had also been reminded of ICO guidance
2. an apology had already been offered for previous incorrect advice that CCTV devices were banned
3. the decision to move the rotary line was due to a dispute between the resident and the neighbour
4. a date would be provided as to when the neighbour’s items would be removed from the communal garden area
5. the resident should submit her ASB evidence to the Police
6. the resident could apply for safer streets funding and, if successful, it was willing to install security lighting and additional locks
7. video evidence had been reviewed and showed the neighbour laughing but no actions would be taken for behaviour like this.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 September 2020. She raised concerns that:
1. the rotary line issue had been settled on 24 May 2019 so was not related to the neighbour dispute
2. her neighbour had told other residents in June 2020 that the resident had been asked to move plants so she could take over the communal garden area
3. she held evidence of verbal and physical abuse by the neighbour
4. the neighbour had two security lights and an additional security door.
The resident asked the landlord on 24 September 2020 why it had signposted her to a safer street funding application when that scheme had closed in March 2020. She added on 25 September 2020 that she had been advised that there was a scheme open after all but that individuals could not apply.
The landlord replied to the resident on 28 September 2020, advising that it understood the neighbour would be removing their plants from the communal garden area. It wrote again to the resident on 30 September 2020, advising that it did not have any internal fund for security improvements of the type that the resident had requested.
The resident compiled a 295-page complaint document which the landlord later said it had received on 14 October 2020. The landlord replied on 20 October 2020, setting out that it could not consider an ‘overarching’ complaint as some matters were being dealt with under the freedom of information process.
The resident queried on 27 October 2020 why the landlord had ASB officers if residents were told to report ASB matters to the Police. The landlord replied the same day – it explained that personal threats that contain a risk are a Police matter so this is why she had been signposted as such.
The resident made a report of banging on her walls by her neighbour on 27 October 2020. The landlord replied on 3 November 2020, signposting her to customer services if she was of the view that there was a statutory noise nuisance.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 November 2020. This included comments about freedom of information and subject access requests but also included complaints on the grounds that:
1. she wanted to know the true reason why her CCTV request had been declined and she had been threatened with eviction while other residents had been allowed to use devices
2. she queried who would take responsibility for dealing with ASB
3. she wanted an explanation for the rotary line location being moved in October 2019
4. she wanted to know why she had been refused to erect a small fence when other residents had been allowed to do so
5. misleading advice was given on the safer street fund
6. an agreement to return the communal areas outside her and her neighbour’s properties to maintenance by the landlord had been amended to suit the neighbour and the neighbour had been allowed to keep plant pots and toys on the public footpath
7. information about the resident’s planned move had been disclosed
8. an unannounced visit had occurred on 26 April 2019
9. a previous officer had lied by telling the resident and Police that it had served a tenancy enforcement order against the neighbour
10. there had been no compassion shown to her or actions taken despite continuing harassment by the neighbour and the landlord had not offered updates to her on the handling of her ASB reports
11. access to a communal cupboard space had been removed for no reason
12. a member of staff’s attitude at a meeting (and afterwards) in 2019 was questioned
13. the neighbour was allowed to host barbeques but the resident was not
14. she had her solar security light torn down
15. she was told in August 2019 that there was no information on file about ASB reports but she had already provided evidence to the landlord
16. a member of staff had lied about being absent from work in February-March 2020
17. harassment and aggressions had resulted in her ‘suffering substantial harm to her character, emotional and physical stress, physical harm, and financial loss’
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 November 2020 to confirm it would log a new complaint based on the above correspondence.
The resident made a report on 26 November 2020 of her neighbour putting down weedkiller poison on a public footpath. The landlord responded on 7 December 2020, indicating it had interviewed the neighbour and established that jeyes fluid had been used to clean the paths and prevent slips and that it was not dangerous.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 27 November 2020. It concluded that:
1. the resident had been in contact with both officers who had been responsible for dealing with the ASB – this complaint was not upheld
2. the decision to relocate a hole for a rotary washing line was made due to a dispute between the resident and a neighbour and had been communicated to the resident on several occasions from May 2019 to September 2020 – this complaint was not upheld
3. it found no evidence of a decision about putting a small fence up – this complaint was not upheld
4. it had correctly signposted the resident in September 2020 to a safer streets initiative for funding towards security lights and doors – this complaint was not upheld
5. it was the resident’s decision to remove plants from the front of her property and it had not instructed this but it was happy to maintain the areas outside the resident’s and the neighbour’s properties – this complaint was not upheld
6. it held no record that the resident was due to move to a bungalow so could not conclude that this information had been passed by it to the resident’s neighbour – this complaint was not upheld
7. there was no record that a visit to the resident on 26 April 2019 had been pre-arranged but this was not unusual – this complaint was not upheld but an apology was offered if the resident found any visit to be intimidating
8. there was no record of a tenancy enforcement order being served on the resident’s neighbour – this complaint was not upheld
9. there was no record that the resident had made a report in June 2020 of threatening behaviour by her neighbour but this had been drawn to its attention in September 2020 and she was advised to report threatening behaviour to the Police – this complaint was not upheld
10. it responded to ASB reports in May 2019 by making a referral to the ‘restorative hub’, in October 2019 by meeting with the resident and in September 2020 by signposting the resident to the Police – this complaint was not upheld
11. it had responded to ASB reports promptly and in accordance with its policy – this complaint was not upheld
12. the decision to remove a communal cupboard from the vicinity of a neighbouring property was made in 2018 to allow for more space and security – this complaint was not upheld
13. it found no record that it had refused the resident permission to hold a barbeque due to other residents’ health – this complaint was not upheld
14. it found no record of banning the resident from sitting in any part of the communal areas – this complaint was not upheld
15. it found no evidence that it had removed a solar light from the resident’s property and it would reinstate the lighting if the resident’s safer streets initiative application was successful – this complaint was not upheld
16. it had already acknowledged giving incorrect advice that CCTV cameras were not allowed to be installed outside properties for which it apologised albeit prior permission had not been sought and it had no record of making an eviction threat
17. it found no evidence that it had falsely told the resident that a member of staff was away from work – this complaint was not upheld
18. it could not progress the resident’s concerns about a member of staff during 2019 meetings as this person was no longer employed and the investigating officer was not present at the meetings.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 December 2020 in response to the noise reports of 27 October 2020 – it advised that the noise was related to home improvements and that its definition of ASB did not include occasional DIY.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2020 – she asked to escalate her complaint ‘based on a large quantity of communication and evidence not being referred to, incorrect information in the stage one response and an omittance several areas of the original request’. The landlord replied on 10 December 2020, saying it would await details of what evidence had been missed before escalating the complaint.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails on 14 December 2020 about contact that had been made with the resident and an allegation that the neighbour had used chemicals on a communal path. The landlord added that it was seeking to speak to the Police about allegations against the neighbour and asked for more information about an alleged threat against the resident’s son’s dog
The resident subsequently asked to escalate the complaint on the grounds that:
1. she had faced ASB (‘assault, spitting, broken glass’) from her neighbour since March 2019, of which photographic, video and witness evidence had been submitted and it was confusing who was responsible for considering this
2. she was dissatisfied with the decision, and lack of reasoning, on the rotary line
3. she was refused a 3-foot fence despite other households being allowed these
4. she was given inaccurate information about the safer street fund
5. her neighbour was permitted to keep plant tubs after hers had been moved and after being told the land would return to being communal
6. she was told verbally in June 2020 that the landlord intended to take responsibility of the communal area so the resident moved plants on this basis
7. the neighbour had been talking about the resident moving just a week after the resident’s son had made a comment about this possibility
8. an unannounced visit on 26 April 2019 was based on pressure and intimidation
9. officers lied about having taken tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour and were aware of threats made by the neighbour in June 2020
10. a communal cupboard was changed from a bin store several years earlier and the resident had access to this until the landlord installed an external door in 2020 to block her from using it, with no notice or reason given
11. her neighbour had torn down the security light
12. the complaint about CCTV was partially upheld but the resident queried what actions would occur as a result
13. the behaviour of the member of staff was witnessed by other officers
14. she should be awarded compensation for moving costs as she had been forced out of the property.
The landlord’s records show that it took steps during 18-20 January 2021 to locate evidence of any decision it had made to refuse a fencing request from the resident or order to remove her plants and interviewed staff as to whether information had been divulged about the resident’s intention to move and whether any tenancy enforcement against the neighbour had been proposed.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 8 February 2021. It concluded that:
1. officers’ advice about handling of ASB had been in line with its procedures
2. it found no fault in the way it handled the decision it reached not to allow the resident permission to use a rotary line
3. there was no decision to refuse permission to install a boundary fence
4. it found that the safer street fund was for organisations to apply for funding rather than individuals so it should not have referred the resident to this – an apology was given and assurances offered that staff were to be made aware of who can apply for community safety funding to avoid incorrect advice in future
5. it had changed its decision from May 2020 on it maintaining the communal areas outside the resident’s and her neighbour’s properties but this was the same for both parties
6. it found no evidence that it had breached the resident’s confidentiality on a possible move and it was aware the resident’s son had advised two other people about this move
7. there was nothing in the resident’s tenancy agreement to prevent it carrying out an unannounced visit
8. it found no evidence that it had told the resident that it would issue a tenancy enforcement order against her neighbour
9. it had investigated ASB reports from the resident and her neighbour in line with its policy and procedure
10. it found no evidence of a report from the resident in late June 2020 that the neighbour had threatened to terrorise her
11. it delayed between June-September 2020 in responding to an ASB report containing video evidence for which it apologised and said a recommendation had gone to staff on ensuring ASB cases were responded to in line with its policies
12. it should have consulted with the resident prior to removal of the communal cupboard which the resident said she had used to store garden tools and some bins – it apologised and said staff would be advised to consult before changes are made to communal spaces in future
13. it had searched its records back to 1 March 2019 and been unable to find evidence that it had told the resident she could not have a barbecue but it apologised if this was the case
14. it found no evidence of banning the resident from sitting in any communal area
15. it did not remove the resident’s security light
16. it apologised again for the incorrect advice it gave the resident in relation to installation of fake CCTV cameras
17. it found no evidence that a member of staff had lied about being absent from work
18. it did not find evidence to corroborate the resident’s reports about a member of staff’s conduct at a 2019 meeting and during follow-up communications.
The resident advised this Service during April-May 2021 that the outcome she was seeking was an apology from a senior officer and compensation for the harassment that she experienced that meant she had to leave the property. She added that there were discrepancies in the information the landlord had set out in its complaint responses on the matters of the rotary line, removal of the communal cupboard, fence installation, removal of a security light, advice on CCTV cameras and staff conduct.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

ASB Reports

The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The resident’s initial ASB reports were related to a dispute between her and her neighbour about use, and maintenance, of the communal garden area outside their properties. The landlord’s initial approach during March-May 2019 was to visit the resident and begin a mediation process with her agreement. Given the focus of the ASB was on a specific garden issue, it was appropriate for the landlord to explore the possibility of a mediation resolution as it did.
The landlord wrote to both parties in mid-May 2019 to summarise its proposal to resolve the garden issue and the resident took steps to comply with its suggestions. However, it became apparent in early June 2019 that the dispute was not resolved and the landlord referred to the matter for input from the ‘restorative hub’. This was one of the mediation options that its ASB policy allowed for and so was an appropriate course of action.
However, it is apparent that the landlord does not hold information about an agreement the resident said was reached on 24 May 2019 nor details of the neighbour’s allegations relating to the resident’s rotary washing line. This demonstrates that the landlord’s record-keeping was not sufficient.
According to the resident, her neighbour ended the mediation process in late October 2019. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that a dispute can be passed back to itself if the ‘restorative hub’ is unsuccessful. There is no record though that the landlord took any actions to investigate or remedy the ASB once it was aware that the ‘restorative hub’ process had failed – this was inappropriate.
Indeed, the resident made new ASB reports each month during April-September 2020 that the neighbour had intimidated her – for instance, she reported during this time that her property had been damaged (including a security light), there had been verbal abuse and the neighbour had invaded her space. There is no record, beyond telling the resident it would speak to the neighbour and considering video evidence of one incident in June 2020, that the landlord took any steps to investigate these reports, addressed the allegations with the neighbour or updated the resident on any actions it was willing to take. The landlord’s advice was for the resident to report ongoing ASB to the Police – this was inappropriate given the behaviour reported by the resident fell within the landlord’s definition of ASB.
The resident reported that the ASB had left her feeling uncertain about being seen outside the vicinity of her property and she made it aware at least as early as August 2019 that there had been a medical impact on her. Although the landlord’s ASB policy says that it will provide emotional support to victims of ASB, there is no evidence that it did so in the resident’s case – for instance, there is no record that the landlord assessed whether there was any risk to her and it did not investigate the resident’s claims that she felt pressured to leave the property – this was inappropriate.
A central aspect of the resident’s ASB-related concerns became the location of a rotary washing line. The landlord proposed on 16 May 2019 that this should be moved. The resident made repeated requests for more information behind the decision since October 2019. Although the landlord advised in October 2019 that this was related to an allegation that the resident had looked into the neighbour’s window, no details of this were provided and the landlord failed to consider the resident’s contradictory report in March 2020 that it was not possible to see into the neighbour’s property from her rotary line position. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about her ability to use a rotary line in an alternative location given her disabilities – this was unreasonable.
Through the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that it was at fault in its handling of other aspects of the resident’s ASB reports, namely:
1. it gave inaccurate advice to her about her recourse to make an application for funding through a local safer street funding scheme
2. it gave inaccurate advice to her about its stance on residents erecting CCTV devices
3. it failed to consult with her prior to installing a door during 2020 that prevented her use of an external communal cupboard area.
The landlord did apologise for these failings either before or during the complaints process and took appropriate steps to explain how it would endeavour to avoid similar occurrences in future by giving updated advice to its staff. While this demonstrated that the landlord wished to learn lessons from its service failure, it failed to award compensation to recognise the impact of these errors on the resident and how they exacerbated the ASB concerns she had – it therefore failed to offer sufficient redress for these failures.
The resident also complained that she had been refused permission to install a fence and that she had been ordered to remove possessions from the communal garden area but the neighbour had not been and the landlord had changed its position on taking responsibility for the communal area. The landlord undertook appropriate investigations into these matters through the complaints process, including interviewing staff, but was unable to evidence that it had refused the resident permission for a fence or to retain possessions in the garden. Although the moving of items was part of the mediation proposal in May 2019, there is no evidence that the landlord refused permissions on fencing and garden possessions and so no service failure has been established in this regard.
In summary, the landlord has recognised its errors in its handling of some of the ASB-related issues that the resident reported to it such as the advice it gave on CCTV and funding for additional security. Its initial actions in seeking to resolve the dispute between the resident and her neighbour through mediation were also appropriate. However, the landlord failed to take any meaningful actions to investigate new ASB reports from the resident after mediation attempts ended in October 2019, even after the resident advised how the situation had impacted her health. It also contributed to a lack of clarity on why it had decided that the resident’s rotary line needed to be moved, did not address her concerns about the impact of this decision and failed to offer any compensation for the errors identified through its complaints process.

Staff conduct

When the resident submitted her complaint in November 2020, she reported that she was dissatisfied with the attitude of a member of staff during a meeting in 2019 and afterwards. The landlord’s complaints policy shows that it does not apply to events that occurred more than six months in the past.
The landlord’s complaint responses at both stages set out that the correspondence it had seen from the member of staff was accurate but that the investigation into their actions during a meeting was inconclusive because the member of staff was no longer working for it. Given the events the resident raised occurred more than six months previously, its responses to this aspect of the resident’s complaint were appropriate.
There was also a report raised by the resident that the member of staff involved had lied about being absent from work. The landlord’s complaint investigation records show that management checked the member of staff’s absent records and satisfied itself that the officer had given correct information about the time when they were away from the office. Given the member of staff was no longer employed by the landlord, this investigation was as extensive as it could have been.
In summary, the landlord’s ability to investigate the resident’s complaint about staff conduct in 2019 was compromised given the resident did not raise her concerns until late 2020 and the member of staff involved no longer worked for the landlord. Its decisions that it could not reach a firm conclusion on the matter of staff conduct at the 2019 meeting and that the member of staff had given correct information about when they were at work in early 2020 were reasonable and based on the limited investigations it was able to conduct.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord did not investigate the resident’s ASB reports after the failure of the mediation process in October 2019. There were also errors in its handling of related matters such as the decision to move a rotary line and, given the circumstances of the case, it did not offer sufficient redress for its incorrect advice on CCTV, incorrect signposting for additional security funding and failure to consult with the resident about removal of her access to a communal cupboard.
The landlord undertook reasonable investigations into the resident’s staff conduct complaint.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the service failure in its handling of her ASB reports.
The landlord to ensure it has procedures in place so that it is able to conduct risk assessments when residents report that they have been subject to verbal abuse or threats related to ASB.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.