Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (202003681)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003681

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

8 March 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
  1. handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. handling of antisocial behaviour reports against the resident.
  3. complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. It is noted that the Ombudsman has been provided with evidence of further ASB reports raised by the resident after the landlord’s managing agent issued its final response letter dated 22 July 2020. In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, the focus of this report will be on the issues and complaints raised during the managing agent’s complaints process (up to its final response dated 22 July 2020) although information about later communications may be referenced for context.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a one-bedroom flat within a block comprising of four flats.
  2. The landlord is the Council and the property is managed by a managing agent (MA) acting on behalf of the landlord.
  3. Section 2.3 of the tenancy agreement (under tenant obligations) states “it is your responsibility to make sure that every person living in or visiting your property, do not do anything which is likely to cause nuisance to harass, annoy, or distress any person who either lives in or has lawful business in the neighbourhood…you must not act in any way, which causes or is likely to cause nuisance alarm or distress to any person, or act in any way, that is antisocial”.
  4. Under Section 8.1 of the MA’s Housing Management (HM) policy, it states that it will utilise all tools and powers available to it when responding to ant-social behaviour (ASB), tenancy breaches and safeguarding. Further, it states that it will carry out a thorough investigation into all complaints received to ensure the most appropriate action is taken to resolve the issues. It views eviction as a last resort and will make every effort to work with perpetrators of ASB and obtain the necessary support to improve their behaviour.
  5. The MA’s ASB policy under s. 9 of its HM policy refers to ASB as “conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person and which directly or indirectly relates to, or affects the housing management of a relevant landlord”. It states it will respond to ASB reports within up to five working days (depending on priority). Further, under ‘ASB Tools and Powers’ (s.9.6), it states it will work with partners and “utilise all tools and powers available” to it when responding to ASB (including repossessions, demoted tenancies and civil injunctions), however, it will “always” undertake a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case to ensure the action is appropriate and necessary before commencing enforcement action. This includes taking into consideration any vulnerabilities and/or mental health of the perpetrator/s and victim/s.
  6. The MA’s Compliments, Comments and Complaints policy (complaints policy) defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction with any aspect of its services, policies, actions or the actions of staff members (section 4.1). It states that it operates a two-stage complaints process (section 6) whereupon if the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they have a right to appeal at Stage two; its Appeal stage. The MA’s Complaints procedure states that all appeals will be investigated in full by an independent Appeals Panel who will review and resolve complaints where the complainant is unhappy with the response at Stage One of the complaints process.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident first reported an incident to the MA in early March 2020. According to the resident, there was a noisy “drunken” argument between a neighbour (y) and their partner. He said this occurred in the early hours of 18 January 2020, whereby the police had attended and removed the partner. The resident raised this with the MA during a meeting about other matters, including his use of CCTV, on 5 March 2020. The MA advised it would not be investigating the incident of 18 January 2020 as it happened several weeks previously and not been reported by the resident at the time nor had it been made aware of the disturbance by the police.  The resident’s use of CCTV was also discussed and it was confirmed this had been moved from the communal area to his property.
  2. On or around 20 March 2020, the resident reported to the MA that there had been further incidents of “drunken” behaviour from two neighbours (x and y) involving them shouting and swearing on entering the block. The resident advised that such behaviour had previously prompted him to put up a sign stating “24/7 Audio Surveillance in progress to assist with the prevention of Anti-Social Behaviour” (the audio surveillance sign) which had been removed by somebody on 20 March 2020. He said he confronted x and y about this, one of whom admitted taking down the sign.
  3. The MA’s Case Action History (CAH) report evidences that the MA phoned the resident to gather more information and that it then phone x and y. It spoke to y on 26 March 2020 but its attempts to speak to x on 26 and 27 March 2020 were unsuccessful. It issued a “first warning letter” to each neighbour; y on 26 March 2020 and x on 31 March 2020. It later spoke to x on 3 April 2020. Both x and y alleged the resident had shouted at them about removing the audio surveillance sign.
  4. The resident reported that a further ASB incident happened in April 2020 whilst neighbour x had been in the communal garden with friends and family.  The resident reported that he had been the target of their swearing and also that the gathering in the garden was in breach of Covid-19 restrictions.
  5. The MA’s CAH report includes details of its phone and email communications with the resident in April 2020 regarding this ASB report and evidences that it tried to call the perpetrator, neighbour x, on 17 April 2020 but had to leave a voice message. There are no later entries in its CAH report but in its response to the resident’s MP dated 21 April 2020, it advised it had spoken to one of the resident’s neighbours about having visitors to their home/communal garden and given advice about the legislation and told her if it received any further reports, it would be reported to the police.
  6. In the same response, the MA also advised of its action taken so far in response to the resident’s other ASB report concerning rubbish being thrown into the communal garden. It said this related to an occupier of a neighbouring property who was not a tenant of the landlord and that when the same issue had been raised a year ago, it came to light the occupier had a young autistic son who was throwing the rubbish over the wall. It said following reports from the resident this was happening again, it had contacted the Council’s Environmental Heath (EH) team to issue a warning to her about this and for this issue to be monitored.
  7. The resident complained to his MP on 4 May 2020 about an email he had received from the MA regarding placing the audio surveillance sign on a lamppost which he disputed. In its response to the resident’s MP dated 21 May 2020, the MA advised it was responding to someone reporting the resident for putting his own sign up in the communal area. However, the MA also acknowledged that after raising the matter with the resident, it knew he had not put up any sign on the lamppost and that the audio surveillance sign he had put up in the communal area, had now been removed. In the same response, the MA also responded again to the reports of rubbish thrown into the community garden advising this was being spot checked on a weekly basis.
  8. The resident reported to the MA (and other third parties) that further ASB incidents had occurred on 24 and 25 May 2020 when he had been the target of harassment and threatening behaviour from neighbour x’s daughter. He reported that she had shouted and sworn at him and called him a “bully” whilst in the communal area of the block. The resident also said this person was visiting in breach of Covid-19 restrictions. The resident reported these incidents to the police and was given crime reference numbers.
  9. The resident emailed his MP on 28 May 2020 detailing the above incidents  and also advising that neighbour x had lodged complaints about him to police alleging that he was the instigator and that she was also given crime reference numbers. However, the resident said this accusation had been proven false and could be clarified by ringing the police.
  10. In its response dated 2 June 2020 (to the resident’s MP), the MA reiterated its position in relation to contact made with the resident regarding the allegation about the audio surveillance sign being placed on the lamppost and also explained why it had not investigated the incident on 18 January 2020 involving an argument.
  11. The MA also advised in this response that it was aware of the incidents on 24 and 25 May 2020 and had been in contact with the police about this. It said the police had interviewed both the resident and his neighbour (x) who were both claiming they were verbally abused. It also advised that neighbour x’s daughter had confirmed she had shouted/sworn at the resident and called him a bully but that she had also alleged that this was a reaction to the resident’s shouting at their mother (neighbour x), through her kitchen window, causing her to feel intimidated.
  12. Within its 2 June 2020 response, the MA also explained the police had said they were not taking any further action as it was one person’s word against another and gave details of its discussions it had had with the resident over the phone following this incident (on 27 May 2020). Amongst other things, the MA advised it had reminded the resident during this call of the terms of his tenancy and that if it was found that he was making threats and being verbally abusive to others, action could be taken against him.
  13. On 2 June 2020, the MA’s internal communications show that x’s daughter contacted the MA about concern for her mother’s safety due to alleged “unpredictable” behaviour from the resident citing one occasion since the 24/25 May 2020 incidents, when the resident approached her mother whilst she sat in the garden with a neighbour. However, there is no express reference to foul language or threatening behaviour by the resident.
  14. The evidence indicates that the resident complained to the MA, his MP and other third parties via email and phone calls on occasions during July 2020 regarding previous and also new reports of ASB, including washing being dried in the communal areas and further incidents of rubbish being thrown into the communal garden.
  15. On 9 July 2020, the MA issued a breach letter to the resident regarding his behaviour citing “foul and insulting language against others and they feel intimidated”. It said it gave a verbal warning over the phone yet it had continued to receive complaints. It said it had again discussed his use of abusive language during its telephone conversation with the resident on 7 July 2020 and stated that despite its advice, he had not yet remedied the situation and he was still in breach of section 2.3 of the tenancy agreement.
  16. On 10 July 2020, the resident emailed the MA complaining about the conduct of two members of staff in their handling of the dispute between him and his neighbours saying they were biased. The resident subsequently spoke with the MA about this complaint, including on 13 July 2020. 
  17. On 22 July 2020, the MA sent a complaint response to the resident in which it advised that a senior member of staff had investigated his complaint which included speaking to the officers in question and undertaking a detailed analysis of the case file and the actions it had taken. It identified ten issues that had been raised by the resident to date and responded to each, as detailed below:
  1. The allegation about him placing a notice on the lamppost and the resident feeling it had not treated him fairly. In response, the MA said its previous complaint responses had explained that its officers had not been able to check the lamppost as they had not been working outside due to Covid-19 restrictions.

 

  1. Police crime reference numbers and the resident’s dissatisfaction about its officers saying reports were made against him and not acknowledging that he made the reports to the police regarding these crimes. In response, the MA stated it was satisfied this had been answered in previous complaint responses in that it had liaised with police in regards to the complaints they received from both the resident and also his neighbour, and on investigating, the police felt it did not warrant further action.

 

  1. Abuse from his neighbour’s daughter on 24 May 2020 when visiting his neighbour which also breached lockdown restrictions. In response, the MA said it had reviewed what action it took in response to this and it could see it had liaised with police and talked to his neighbour’s daughter about calling him a bully who said this was a reaction to abuse from him.

 

  1. His claim that the occupier in adjacent property was not a “credible witness” to reported ASB incidents due to her dumping rubbish in the communal gardens. In response, the MA said it had raised this with the occupant and there are mitigating circumstances surrounding occasional rubbish dumping by her young son. It stated the occupant does clear the rubbish when she knows it has happened and that it would monitor this but was satisfied it had dealt with this matter appropriately.

 

  1. A member of staff accusing the resident of being the instigator of problems during one phone conversation (on 27 May 2020). The MA accepted it had said the resident was contributing to the dispute by his actions towards his neighbours and had advised this did constitute a breach of the tenancy. This advice was appropriate and did not mean staff were conspiring against him.

 

  1. The resident denied he was given a verbal warning with regards to breaching his tenancy and feels staff were telling lies in this respect. In response, the MA said its member of staff did advise the resident during a conversation on 27 May 2020 that they had spoken to his neighbour who admitted her daughter had called him a bully but said this was in reaction to verbal abuse that he had started. Its staff did advise that verbal abuse constitutes a breach of his tenancy conditions.

 

  1. The incident on 18 January 2020 when the police attended and removed someone from one of the neighbouring properties. In response, the MA stated it had explained in previous responses that it had not been informed at the time. It said whilst it works closely with the neigbourhood policing teams, if an incident is responded to by the police response unit, it is not necessarily reported to it unless it is an ongoing issue which requires a multi-agency approach.

 

  1. That its phone numbers are withheld during calls and that members of staff have refused to provide him with a direct contact number. In response, the MA explained amongst other things that it is normal for calls from large organisations to automatically show as ‘caller ID unknown’ and that direct numbers have been provided in its letters.

 

  1. His neighbour drying washing over the handrails in the communal area. The MA said it received this complaint on 14 July 2020 and that it would ensure that tenants have been advised that this practice is prohibited and must be stopped and it would continue to monitor this.
  1. In its 22 July 2020 response, the MA also advised that the findings of its investigations did not in any way support his allegations of corruption or conspiracy by any officers and that it was upholding the 9 July 2020 breach letter sent to the resident as it felt this was an appropriate course of action. It also stated it must remind the resident that further incidents may lead to further tenancy breach enforcement action being taken against him but said it did not want this to happen as it always responds to complaints with the desired outcome being resolution. It advised the resident he had a right to take his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman as he had exhausted all of its complaints procedures.
  2. On 27 July 2020, the MA wrote to the resident’s MP. This letter reiterated the contents of its 22 July 2020 sent directly to the resident.
  3. On 27 July 2020, the resident spoke to the MA in a booked phone call about the ASB issues and his treatment by two of the MA’s members of staff previously complained about.
  4. It is noted that in a subsequent response to the resident dated 31 July 2020, the MA advised that as he had asked for the two members of staff complained about not to contact him or deal with his complaint, it had appointed a different member of staff to deal with any further reports of ASB from the resident.
  5. In an email dated 15 September 2020, the resident informed the Ombudsman that he is dissatisfied with the MA’s handling of his ASB reports because he considered that it “twisted” the version of events and accused him of instigating crimes based on “hearsay” from neighbour x’s “friends and associates”. The resident also alleged that the MA lied about giving him a (first) verbal warning over the phone and said this should be in writing in any event. He advised the MA has since agreed to revoke the verbal warning and tenancy breach letter. Furthermore, the resident informed this service that he was dissatisfied that the MA failed to tell him that the Ombudsman does not commence investigations until eight weeks after the date of the final response.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is acknowledged that in the process of responding to the resident’s reports about ASB from neighbours, the MA received counter-allegations from these alleged perpetrators against the resident himself. In this situation, the MA has a duty to balance the needs of all parties in an objective manner in order to respond accordingly. These two sets of ASB reports are considered below as well as the resident’s complaint about the MA’s conduct when dealing with his ASB reports.

The MA’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. In response to the resident’s report of an ASB incident on 20 January 2020, the MA explained to the resident that as he had reported this in March 2020, several weeks after the event, it would not be taking any action in relation to this incident. As this disturbance was not reported to the MA at the time and as it had not received any report of this incident from the police, this is a reasonable response by the MA.
  2. In relation to the further instances of “drunken” behaviour and swearing from neighbours x and y, reported by the resident on or around 20 March 2020, it is noted the MA contacted the resident the next working day to gain more details about the incident. It then called x and y on 26 March 2020 (fourth working day) to discuss the claims, sending warning letters to each shortly afterwards. Therefore, the MA acted reasonably promptly to this report and within the timescales stated in its ASB policy. Further, based on the resident’s ASB report, the above action taken by the MA was reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the incident.
  3. The resident reported a further ASB incident in April 2020 alleging that neighbour x had sworn loudly at him whilst sitting in the communal garden with friends and family, that he said was in breach of Covid-19 restrictions. The MA’s CAH report shows it logged this report and phoned the resident on 17 April 2020 to gain more understanding of the incident. During this call, it explained that any breaches of Covid-19 legislation should be reported to the police. The police are responsible for investigating alleged Covid-19 breaches as oppose to the MA, therefore the MA’s advice in this regard was appropriate. 
  4. The CAH entries demonstrate that the MA then called the individual in question on the same day but was unsuccessful in its attempt although left a message for her to call back. There are no further CAH reports for the period after 27 April 2020 and whilst the MA advised in its response dated 21 April 2020 that it had spoken to neighbour x about Covid-19 breaches, it is noted that there are no call notes for this timeframe to support this. It was appropriate for the MA to make a further attempt to contact the alleged perpetrator, therefore it is of concern that it is unclear from the evidence available whether the MA did this and failed to keep a record of any attempts made.
  5. The resident reported further ASB incidents that occurred on 24 and 25 May 2020 involving neighbour x and her adult son and daughter whom the resident said had been threatening and verbally abusive towards him. The MA received counter allegations from neighbour x against the resident concerning verbal abuse, with both parties claiming the other was the instigator of such behaviour. 
  6. It is acknowledged that the MA spoke to both the resident and neighbour x and her daughter to gain more information. It is clear this was an attempt by the MA to establish the facts and de-escalate the dispute and this was a reasonable course of action. The evidence also shows that the MA liaised with police regarding these incidents. Due to the counter-allegations and as both parties had reported these incidents to the police, it was appropriate for the MA to contact the police for their view and this was in accordance with its ASB policy which permits it to work with partners when investigating ASB. It is noted that the police advised it was not taking any action against either party because there was insufficient evidence to support this as it was “one person’s word against another” although police advised a witness had “backed up” the account given by the resident’s neighbour. It appears the police outcome informed the MA’s decision not to take any further action beyond advising the resident, during their phone call on 27 May 2020, that verbal abuse on his part constituted a breach of his tenancy conditions.
  7. It is clear the MA explained its position in relation to these incidents to the resident including in its response dated 22 July 2020 and in responses to his MP dated 2 June 2020 and 27 July 2020. The MA has a responsibility to deal with ASB allegations and counter-allegations in an objective and balanced manner and the evidence indicates that the MA appropriately responded to the reported incidents on 24 and 25 May 2020 in this manner. 
  8. In relation to the resident’s reports of rubbish being thrown into the communal garden from an adjacent property (located on a different street), it is evident the resident had first reported this issue to the MA a year previously (in 2019) but raised this again on or around 20 March 2020, providing supporting photographs. As this did not involve a tenant of the landlord, the MA was limited in the action it could take in response to this issue and it explained this to the resident. It referred the matter to EH and also added the communal garden to its list of “hot spots” to check and clear any rubbish on a weekly basis, starting after Covid-19 restrictions had lifted. The evidence shows it took steps to monitor this problem and ensured this issue continued to be raised with this individual. The MA’s approach to this complaint raised by the resident was appropriate in the circumstance and proportionate to the issue complained of. 
  9. It is acknowledged that the resident also made a complaint on 14 July 2020 about neighbours drying washing over handrails of the communal area. The MA confirmed in its 22 July 2020 response this practice was prohibited under the tenancy agreement and stated it advised tenants of this and that it would monitor this. This was a reasonable course of action to follow.
  10. Overall, the MA has demonstrated that it responded appropriately to the resident’s ASB reports by investigating the claims made, including by interviewing perpetrators, liaising with police and other third parties and then taking proportionate action where relevant. Sometimes this was talking to the individuals involved in an attempt to get them to modify their behaviour, however, tenancy breach letters were also sent.  These actions were proportionate to the reported issues and in accordance with its HM and ASB policies which provide that the MA “work with perpetrators” of ASB as well as using all tools and powers available to it when responding to ASB.
  11. However, there were some incomplete call records, therefore I have made a recommendation below in regards to the MA’s record-keeping practices.

The MA’s handling of ASB reports raised against the resident.

  1. On receiving a report about the resident putting his own sign up on a lamppost, the MA emailed the resident regarding this matter in April 2020. The resident was unhappy that the MA had not checked the lamppost before sending him the email as he had not placed any sign on the lamppost. The MA explained in its responses dated 21 May 2020 and 22 July 2020 that its officers were not working outdoors at the time due to Covid-19 restrictions and therefore were unable to check before emailing the resident. After contact with the resident, it acknowledged the resident had not placed any sign on the lamppost and that the audio surveillance sign he had placed in the communal area had been taken down. It would have been more appropriate if the MA had checked the lamppost to corroborate the report before raising this issue with the resident, however, in light of the Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time, it was reasonable for the MA to raise this by email in order to establish what had happened.
  2. The MA sent the resident a tenancy breach letter dated 9 July 2020 citing “foul and insulting language against others and they feel intimidated”. It stated this had been sent as it had continued to receive ASB complaints after the verbal warning given to him over the phone (following those received in relation to 24 and 25 May 2020). This is the only tenancy breach letter addressed to the resident that has been submitted as evidence. It is acknowledged that the resident is unhappy about this being a “second breach” letter as he says he had not previously received a verbal warning from the MA either during the conversation on the phone with it on 27 May 2020 or at any other time. The letter is worded in such a way it is clear this was a “second breach” letter. In its final response dated 22 July 2020, the MA in effect said it had been correctly issued as its staff member had given the resident a verbal warning about his behaviour over the phone previously on 27 May 2020, advising this constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement under clause 2.3.
  3. The MA has provided contemporaneous internal communications which detail its call with the resident on 27 May 2020. This indicates that it advised the resident at this time that verbally abusing his neighbours would amount to a breach of the tenancy. Whilst this supports the MA’s explanation that it had given a warning over the phone, depending on the exact wording, it is acknowledged that the resident may not have construed this as a formal warning and it is noted that the MA did not confirm any such warning in writing to the resident. This caused confusion when the MA subsequently sent a “second” breach letter to the resident on 9 July 2020. On balance, it was reasonable to expect the MA to put any formal warning in writing to the resident, primarily to avoid the risk of resident’s misconstruing any verbal conversations about this.
  4. Also, as it is clear that the basis of the MA’s tenancy breach letter to the resident of 9 July 2020 was due to “continued” ASB complaints, evidence of these complaints should be provided to demonstrate this was justified. However, the available evidence indicates that only one report was made to the MA after the report about the 24 and 25 May 2020 incidents. Based on the MA’s internal email dated 2 June 2020, a report by x’s daughter was made to the MA who said she was concerned about the resident’s “unpredictable behaviour” and reported that the resident had spoken to her mother, x, whilst in the communal garden. However, there is no suggestion of “foul” or “insulting” language being used by the resident and there is no express reference to his behaviour being intimidating, as stated in its letter. Further, there is no evidence of further ASB reports raised against the resident following this and prior to the 9 July 2020 breach letter.
  5. Therefore, due to the lack of a “first” warning letter and also insufficient supporting evidence to show continued ASB complaints had been received as per the statement in its 9 July 2020 letter sent to the resident, this amounts to evidence of service failure by the MA. In his communication to the Ombudsman dated 15 September 2020, the resident advised that during a meeting with the MA on 9 September 2020, it confirmed the tenancy verbal warning and breach letter would be revoked. The MA’s evidence confirms that during a face-to-face meeting with the resident on 9 September 2020, it agreed to remove the verbal warning and revoke the letter “to draw a line under” the matter. By agreeing to the resident’s request in this regard, it has since fairly resolved the above mentioned service failure, providing reasonable redress to the resident. A recommendation has been made below for the MA to confirm this in writing to the resident if it has not already done so.

Complaint about MA’s staff conduct

  1. With regards to the resident’s complaint raised on 10 July 2020 that the MA was “corrupted” and biased when handling the ASB reports, it is acknowledged the resident felt that two members of the MA’s staff had sided with the perpetrators whom he believed had conspired together and lied about his behaviour. Whilst the MA’s evidence indicates these members of staff responded to complaints made against the resident mainly by raising the issues directly with him and on one occasion sending a tenancy breach letter, this does not demonstrate bias against the resident; the MA had a duty to investigate reports made against the resident in the same way it had a duty to investigate his reports of ASB from neighbours where it followed a similar approach.
  2. The resident has specifically said the occupant in the adjacent property whose son throws rubbish over the wall, was not a credible witness. It was reasonable for the MA to take into account evidence from anyone who may have witnessed reported ASB behaviour, regardless of whether they were neighbours as long as such evidence is assessed objectively within the context of the case. The MA was in communication with the police from May 2020 onwards about the resident’s ASB reports (and counter-allegations) and it is clear any action taken against the resident, was also informed by the outcomes of police investigations. This includes their investigation into the incidents on 24 and 25 May 2020 when the police advised the MA that a (unnamed) witness had confirmed ASB by the resident although this was deemed to be insufficient evidence to justify any further action. Therefore, the verbal warning given to the resident over the phone on 27 May 2020 was based on sufficiently robust evidence and there is a lack of evidence to support the resident’s claim that members of staff had sided with his neighbours whilst investigating the ASB reports. 
  3. It is evident that on receiving the resident’s complaint about the conduct of staff, a senior member of staff investigated the resident’s claim by examining records and its actions taken as well as talking to these members of staff.  In its response to the resident dated 22 July 2020, it advised that a senior member of staff had found no evidence in her investigation to support the resident’s allegations of corruption or conspiracy by any officers when handling his case. It is also noted that the MA subsequently appointed a different member of staff to deal with any further reports of ASB from the resident. This was appropriate given the resident’s complaint raised and shows the MA took reasonable steps to improve its relations with the resident. 
  4. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the resident’s claim that the MA sided with neighbours when investigating the ASB reports as such the MA has demonstrated that it dealt with the resident’s ASB reports in a fair and objective way. Furthermore, the MA handled his complaint about its staff in a fair and reasonable way.

Complaint handling

  1. The MA operates a two-stage complaints procedure and there is nothing in its policy to suggest ASB related complaints cannot be dealt with under its complaints process. However, it is evident that it did not deal with the issues raised by the resident or on his behalf, through its complaints procedure prior to 22 July 2020, when the MA advised the resident that he had exhausted its complaint procedure.
  2. It is acknowledged that ASB reports do not necessarily need to be dealt with via a landlord/MA complaints procedure, however it is reasonable for a complaint about how a landlord has dealt with ASB to be dealt with under its complaints procedure. Whilst the resident’s communications since March 2020 were primarily to report ASB, some do contain complaints about how ASB reports were being handled by the MA, for example, in his email dated 4 May 2020, the resident complained about an email he received from the MA regarding the audio surveillance sign on the lamppost. Therefore, the MA missed an opportunity to register a formal complaint earlier and deal with subsequent correspondence under its complaint policy. This resulted in a prolonged complaints procedure.
  3. There is also no mention of the MA having referred the resident’s complaint to its ‘Appeal Panel’ in accordance with stage two of its complaints procedure. This meant the resident did not have an opportunity to ‘appeal’ its 22 July 2020 final response, in accordance with its complaints policy.
  4. Therefore, the above instances are evidence of the MA failing to follow its complaints procedure when dealing with the resident’s case. These service shortfalls amount to service failure by the MA.
  5. In relation to the resident’s complaint that the MA failed to advise him that the Ombudsman does not investigate complaints until eight weeks after the date of the final response unless referred by a designated person, it is noted that at the date of its final response of 22 July 2020, there was no obligation on the MA to advise the resident of this, only of his right to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman, which it did. It is also noted that the MA did state the resident: “could go to the Ombudsman after 8 weeks have passed from the final response…”. Therefore, the MA’s advice in relation to this was appropriate.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b), there was reasonable redress by landlord which resolves the service failure in respect of its handling antisocial behaviour reports against the resident.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

  1. The MA responded to the resident’s ASB reports appropriately by taking reasonable and proportionate action where justified including by raising these with alleged perpetrators and sending tenancy breach letters.
  2. Whilst there was no evidence of bias by the MA when handling complaints made against the resident, it failed to confirm in writing a verbal warning given to him over the phone. This caused confusion when it later sent a “second” tenancy breach letter to the resident. There is also insufficient evidence to show the MA received continued ASB reports of foul or insulting language or threatening behaviour by the resident, as stated in the tenancy breach letter. This is a service failure, however, the MA has since fairly resolved this by agreeing to remove the verbal warning as well as revoking the tenancy breach letter that it sent to the resident. 
  3. The MA delayed in logging a formal complaint when dealing with the resident’s complaints about how it handled his reports of ASB. There is also no evidence of the MA referring the complaint to an Appeal panel at stage two in accordance with its complaints policy. This meant the resident was not provided with an opportunity to appeal the response.

Orders and Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the MA should:
  1. Pay the resident £75.00 in compensation for complaint handling errors.
  2. This payment should be provided to the resident within 4 weeks.
  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the MA should:
  1. Confirm in writing to the resident its agreement to remove the verbal warning and revoke the tenancy breach letter, if it has not already done so.
  2. Ensure it keeps call notes for all calls in relation to a resident’s ASB reports.