Hounslow Council (202109038)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109038

Hounslow Council

29 April 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning antisocial behaviour from his neighbour.
the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder. The lease started on 10 July 2017. The property is a flat on the fourth floor of the building. The neighbour whom the ASB reports concern, lives next door to the resident and is a tenant of the landlord.
The landlord is a Council.
The resident made noise and ASB reports regarding his neighbour to the landlord between March and November 2018. This Investigation will not consider the landlord’s handling of the events in 2018 as they were not raised as a formal complaint until March 2020 which is more than six months after the events occurred, as the Ombudsman expects formal complaints to be made within a reasonable period of the matter arising which is usually six months. Any reference to these events is for context only.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 March 2020 complaining that he and his family were having sleepless nights and he had been signed off sick from work because of loud noise and banging from his neighbour. He said these issues had been happening for two years. The landlord acknowledged his report and subsequently interviewed the resident on 11 March 2020 however this service has not been provided with any notes of this meeting.
On 13 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord advising the noise nuisance kept happening and he wanted urgent action to be taken. He said he would like to raise the matter as a complaint and copied in the complaints team.
In a reply on the same date, the landlord advised it would start the investigation immediately and the resident would be kept up to date with their progress.
On 16 March 2020, the resident reported there had been loud music and banging all night for the last three nights from his neighbour. He said that the neighbour was also verbally abusive which frightened his children. The resident said he was “tired of complaining”. He said the matter was urgent and he requested that the landlord take action or evict his neighbour. He followed this up with further reports on 17 and 18 March 2020 advising of “hammering” noises.
On 18 March 2020, the landlord advised that the matter will be investigated as soon as possible and asked that the resident to be sure to record incidents in diary sheets in the meantime.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 March 2020 complaining about the length of time taken to act on his reports. The landlord advised the resident on the same date that the neighbour’s care worker had confirmed that his neighbour had been taken to hospital that morning for treatment. It said it would provide an update as soon as possible.
On 14 April 2020, the resident requested an update from the landlord.
On 14 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report further instances of loud music and banging early in the morning. He said that he had been complaining for two years. It kept happening and he was “going around in circles”.
On 29 May 2020, the landlord replied to the resident apologising for the noise he was experiencing. It advised that there was an ongoing investigation about the issues he has raised. Further, here were complex issues relating to GDPR so it was unable to discuss matters relating to the neighbour. It reiterated that he should continue to complete diary sheets and send them to his Housing Officer (HO). The landlord said it would contact him again in four weeks with an update.
The resident replied later the same date asking for a permanent solution to the issues.
On 8 June 2020, the resident reported that there had been a burning smell coming from his neighbour’s flat the day before; they could not breath while waiting for the lift. He asked the landlord to contact another neighbour who would confirm this. He complained about the risk to the whole block and said he could not keep calling the Fire Brigade. Further he said that the “warning signs” were there, and action needed to be taken before something serious happened.
The landlord’s internal file note dated 9 June 2020 show its ASB officer interviewed the resident’s neighbour about noise and ASB reports raised by the resident. This service has seen evidence that the ASB officer discussed the situation with his care worker. The ASB officer said he had contacted police to see if they had any concerns about the neighbour and they await their response. Further, that other neighbours said the noise was mainly in the evening and usually stopped at around 9 pm. The conclusion by the ASB officer was that they would write to warn to the neighbour about the noise nuisance but that they were “not convinced” there was a case to investigate or keep open any longer.
This service has not seen any evidence to show the landlord wrote to the neighbour to warn him about the noise nuisance at this time.
On 12 August 2020, the resident and another neighbour reported to the landlord that there had been smoke from his neighbour’s flat at 2.45 am that morning. Five Fire Brigades attended who knocked on the doors of residents in the block. The resident said that he had previously mentioned this serious and dangerous behaviour to the landlord and so far, no action had been taken.
The landlord visited the neighbour who confirmed that he was burning paper to which the landlord warned him about the dangers of doing this. It arranged a joint visit with its Fire Officer to inspect the neighbour’s flat the following week and requested a meeting with the neighbour’s care coordinator to discuss the incident.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 August 2020 confirming that they had visited the neighbour’s flat. It advised it would take the necessary action and that it had requested a report from the Fire Brigade.
It followed this up with an email to the resident on 14 August 2020 advising his report had been logged and requesting him to record the times/dates of the alleged noise nuisance and ASB in diary sheets. It said if issues continued and legal action was required, it would require such evidence to support the legal case. It advised of the contact details for the Council’s Enforcement team who it said were available depending on the type of nuisance.
The landlord’s internal record dated 19 August 2020 confirms it visited the neighbour’s flat with its fire officer and that a smoke detector was fitted. It was noted that there were no burn marks and flat was tidy.
The landlord carried out a risk assessment on 27 August 2020 with the neighbour following which it discussed their case with other agencies and identified an action plan to assist and support him.
On 3 September 2020, the resident called the landlord to report hearing loud music from his neighbour’s flat at 1.45 am that morning.
The landlord’s internal notes show it contacted Adult Mental health team who confirmed which team the resident was under the care of. The landlord’s internal communications show it updated the action plan in September 2020 to reflect this.
On 13 September 2020, the resident provided the landlord with records of noise nuisance from 3 September to 12 September 2020.
On 7 October 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that there had been loud music from the neighbour’s flat throughout the night. On the same date, the landlord made a safeguarding referral in respect of the neighbour.
On 6 November 2020, the resident called the landlord to report he could smell burning coming from his neighbour’s flat. There is no evidence to show the landlord acted on this report.
On 19 January 2021, the resident reported that there was a burning smell coming from his neighbour’s property two days earlier. His children had to cover their mouths and he had spoken to another resident who was also aware of the incident. He had already raised his concerns previously and his safety was important. He said that he wanted reassurance that the case was high priority.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord confirmed it was still working with the neighbour.
On 22 March 2021, the resident reported that there was a burning smell coming from his neighbour’s flat and referred the landlord to his previous emails. He asked for an update as he believed that landlord had been working with the neighbour for almost four years.
On 24 March 2021, the landlord provided an update to the resident that it was meeting with other agencies that week. It said that it wanted to assure him that they were working with the neighbour. It advised him to call the Council’s Enforcement when there was a smoke incident.
The landlord’s file notes confirm it had a joint meeting with the relevant support teams on 24 March 2021 to discuss this case and what action to take going forward. The risk to other resident was raised as a concern.
On 8 April 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord relating to the length of time it had taken to act against the neighbour for nuisance. The resident said the issues had gone on for years.
The landlord replied on the same date advising that it appreciated that the issues were reported over 12 months ago but they had not yet been resolved. It said that the investigation was still ongoing and was being carried out satisfactorily and in accordance with its policy.
On 8 April 2021, the resident made a further report of noise nuisance and a burning smell coming from his neighbour’s flat. He said he was concerned about calling the Council’s Enforcement team as he did not want to jeopardise his or his family’s safety.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it was working with other departments, and it had a meeting booked next week. It said if the resident felt in danger, then he should call the Council’s Enforcement team and leave a message and insist that they visit the flat. It also said it would keep him updated on the progress.
On 13 April 2021, the neighbour made a self-referral for support. The document detailed the reasons for the referral as due to allegations of anti-social behaviour from residents. The request was for the neighbour to be transferred to alternative accommodation which might work better for the neighbour.
The landlord’s file notes confirm that on 16 April 2021 it had a further joint meeting with the relevant support teams to discuss progress with the action plan.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response. It said it appreciated that the issues were reported over 12 months previously, but they had not yet been resolved. The complaint was logged with the Housing Officer in August 2020. The complaint was not upheld as it said the investigation was still ongoing and was being carried out satisfactorily and in accordance with the landlord’s policy.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord visited the neighbour to deliver him a warning letter stating he was breaching the terms of his tenancy. The landlord discussed the allegations with the neighbour which he denied.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord assessed whether it was proportionate to escalate the action it was taking against the neighbour taking into account his vulnerabilities.
On 4 May 2021, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two. He said that the landlord had provided incorrect details of when he contacted the HO He said he contacted them in 2018 and not 2020. The HO did contact him about his complaints, but they were never resolved, and he was in the same position with no changes. His original complaint had not been dealt with satisfactorily.
On 4 June 2021, the landlord provided a stage two final response. Within its response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident initially raised concerns in 2018 and then further concerns were raised throughout 2020 and to date. During the investigation, the ASB Team and HO worked with the police and other agencies to find a resolution to the issues raised about noise nuisance from the neighbour. The outcome of the investigation was that there was insufficient evidence of noise nuisance for it to take enforcement action.
However, the landlord said that its HO continued to monitor the situation which resulted in periods when the nuisance stopped. Having reviewed the actions taken it was satisfied that the case was managed satisfactorily. The landlord assured the resident that a great deal of effort was involved in resolving the issues and the case was overseen at a senior level. It acknowledged that the issues raised about the alleged nuisance from the neighbour were still ongoing however it had responded to the matters raised in accordance with its policies. Its actions were appropriate with no delays or service failures.

Post final response

The resident, and others on his behalf contacted the landlord during July and August 2021 about the neighbour’s alleged behaviour and the fire risk. There was a further incident in August 2021 when the police had to gain entry into the neighbour’s property in the early hours.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord told the Ombudsman that:
1. the neighbour was temporarily house elsewhere from 13 January 2022 which was agreed for six months.
2. It was working with other services to assess the resident’s vulnerability and explore the possibility of moving him to an alternative accommodation on a permanent basis.

Policies

The landlord’s policy says on receiving the initial report, the HO would make an initial assessment to determine a plan of action and to make a referral to the ASB team for Grade 1 & 2 cases. Grade 1 cases include damage to property. Grade 2 cases include noise nuisance outside of permitted hours and verbal abuse. Where an ASB case is graded as 1, the Housing Officer must refer it to its ASB team, completing a risk assessment. The landlord will then open an ASB case and send the reporter a letter acknowledging the report.
The landlord’s policy refers to interviewing the reporter and providing incident diary sheets where relevant. It also says it will contact/interview the alleged perpetrator notifying the reporter of the outcome. To manage and tackle ASB the landlord may send the perpetrator an ASB warning letter, engage with agencies including the police, social services, community mental health teams or other support agencies. It may consider legal action against those in breach of their tenancy agreement however possession is a last resort in abating ASB.
The landlord’s policy also states it is important to establish if residents who report or are allegedly causing neighbourhood issues have care or support needs to ensure that appropriate measures are taken throughout the case. Where a tenant at risk has a support network the HO/HAO should always seek to involve the support agency or advocate in order to assist the tenant in the process.
If tenancy action is being considered against a person who may be at risk, the HO must be confident that everything possible has been done to resolve the issue using alternative remedies. Any disability as defined by the Equality Act 2010 must also be taken into account before possession is pursued. Any disability as defined by the Equality Act 2010 must also be taken into account before possession is pursued against a disabled person. Before referral to court the HO must undertake an assessment to establish whether the possible outcome of any court action would affect the health and safety of any person in line with the Equality Act.
The landlord’s ASB policy also says it will maintain contact with the reported of ASB throughout the case who must be update on the progress of the investigation.

Assessment and findings

It is evident the neighbour is suffering from serious mental health issues. Whilst the landlord has to take steps to address ASB in line with its ASB policy, it has a responsibility to balance this with the needs of its vulnerable residents including those who may be the perpetrators of ASB. In this instance the landlord’s ASB policy states the landlord should work with other agencies and service providers in order to determine the best course of action to take in order to resolve the situation. The landlord’s ASB policy makes clear that it must do everything possible to resolve the issue using alternative remedies before considering tenancy action.
Having reviewed the landlord’s actions from the date of the resident’s initial reports of ASB made in March 2020 until the final response on 4 June 2021, whilst the neighbour’s ASB was not resolved during this timeframe, the landlord took some steps to address the issues being reported as well as support the neighbour to maintain his tenancy as per its policy. At times however it is evident that the landlord failed to act appropriately or reasonably when handling the resident’s reports.
On receiving the resident’s report on 6 March 2020, the landlord interviewed the resident and asked him to complete incident diary sheets. This was appropriate as incident diary sheets provide first-hand evidence of incidents. It also told the resident it would investigate his reports. However, there is no evidence of the landlord opening an ASB case, of it referring the case to its ASB team or interviewing the neighbour or his care worker to discuss the allegations. Further, despite the resident reporting further instances of loud music, “hammering” and banging over the subsequent two weeks, there is no evidence to show the landlord acted on these reports. The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy in this regard.
The landlord’s advice to the resident on 20 March 2020 that his neighbour had been taken to hospital that morning for treatment indicates it had been in communication with his care worker at this time. Nonetheless, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any update following this despite telling the resident that it would. Neither did it respond to the resident’s request for an update on 14 April 2020 or to his further report made on 14 May 2020 of loud music and banging early in the morning.
In its response of 29 May 2020, the landlord told the resident that: “there were complex issues relating to GDPR so it was unable to discuss matters relating to the neighbour”. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord must adhere to rules when sharing personal data from one party to another, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations about what action it was taking to tackle the issues and provide regular reports of its progress. The landlord also reiterated to the resident at this time that there was an ongoing investigation.
Therefore, from March to June 2020, apart from contacting the resident to discuss the issues and asking him to complete diary sheets, there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the landlord properly assessed or investigated the resident’s reports despite agreeing that it would. It is noted that the country was in lockdown during this timeframe as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic which may have impacted on the landlord’s ability to provide its usual service. However, there is no evidence of the landlord explaining this to the resident which is reasonable to expect if that was the case.
The landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s ASB reports after he first reported burning smells from the neighbour’s flat in June 2020 which was appropriate. The landlord’s ASB officer spoke to other residents in the block as well as the neighbour’s care worker. They concluded at this time that there may not be a case to investigate or keep open any longer but said they would write to warn to the neighbour about the allegations as well as contact the police. However, there is a lack of evidence to show the landlord followed up on the actions identified at this stage.
In view of the reported burning smell implying a potential risk to the health and safety of the residents, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have also undertaken a risk assessment at this time however there is no evidence to suggest it considered this.
In August 2020, the police and Fire Brigade attended the resident’s floor to investigate smoke in the communal corridor and it was identified that the source of the smoke was the neighbour’s flat. Following this incident, the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss his behaviour, which was appropriate. The landlord’s notes reference that the neighbour had confirmed during this visit that he was burning paper in this flat. The landlord subsequently returned to his flat with its fire officer and fitted a new smoke detector.
Shortly afterwards, the landlord undertook a risk assessment and began engaging with other agencies about what action could be taken to address the situation. An action plan was agreed in August 2020 which included several actions both to address the ASB and mitigate the effects of his ASB, which was appropriate. There was a referral in October 2020 in respect of the neighbour to the appropriate agency, however there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took the other steps identified in its action plan at the time.
There is also no evidence of the landlord following up on a further report from the resident of a burning smell from the neighbour’s flat on 6 November 2020. Despite the resident making further reports to the landlord of the same issue in January and March 2021, there is also no evidence of the landlord engaging with the relevant support agencies again until the end of March 2021. The landlord did make the resident aware that he could contact the local authority’s Enforcement team to report any such incidents if he felt in danger which was appropriate. Nonetheless, the lack of action or engagement with other agencies during this timeframe was unreasonable.
During the joint meetings that it had with the relevant agencies at the end of March and in April 2021, one of the actions identified was for the landlord’s HO to visit the neighbour to advise him of tenancy conditions; this happened on 30 April. Around the same time, its HO carried out an Equality Impact Assessment to determine if it was appropriate to take further steps regarding the neighbour’s tenancy. This shows the landlord considered legal action to evict the neighbour however as its ASB policy sets out legal obligations the landlord has to vulnerable residents including when pursuing possession, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have contacted its Legal team for advice on this issue to ensure it was fully aware of all options.
In its final complaint response to the resident, the landlord advised that there was insufficient evidence to take steps to possess the neighbour’s property. It also explained that whilst there were some discussions with the neighbour about a possible move this was not something he wanted to do at that time. As at the date of its final response on 4 June 2021 the landlord advised the resident that its investigation into his ASB reports about his neighbour was ongoing.
Therefore, from August 2020, the landlord engaged with other parties whereby an action plan was agreed to address the issues. However, not all of the actions were progressed in a timely manner and there is no evidence to show the landlord followed through with some of the actions in its plan. Whilst it did consider the option of enforcement action and attempts were made to move the neighbour by gaining his consent, due to the difficult circumstances, this was not possible. It is understandable that due to the ongoing issues experienced and the safety risk posed by some of the neighbour’s ASB, the resident seeks a permanent solution to the situation. However, because the landlord also has to balance the needs of the neighbour who is vulnerable, the lack of a permanent solution provided would not indicate any failure in the service provided by the landlord.
It is evident however that the landlord did fail to sufficiently communicate with the resident during the period of this review. This includes occasions when it failed to respond to the resident’s communications within a reasonable timeframe, only responding after the resident contacted it to chase for a response. There were also instances of it not providing updates when promised. Moreover, the landlord’s updates were invariably advice that its investigations were ongoing. This inevitably caused the resident distress as they were concerned about the possible consequences of some of the neighbour’s actions although it did advise him to contact the local authority’s Enforcement team in event he felt in danger. The landlord failed to acknowledge these issues in its complaint responses.
Whilst this review has not investigated events after the final response, it is noted that the neighbour was absent from the flat for a while although the resident has indicated that the neighbour may have recently returned to their property. The landlord has said it is considering the possibility of a permanent move.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint process states it will log a complaint when it receives one.
It is clear that the resident started complaining to the landlord as early as March 2020. On 13 March 2020, he stated that he wanted to raise a formal complaint. There is no evidence of the landlord logging a complaint prior to April 2021. This is evidence of the landlord failing to follow its complaint’s process. By the landlord failing to log a complaint in March 2020, this delayed the complaint process which was unreasonable.
In its stage one complaint of 29 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident had been making reports for more than 12 months however said that it logged the ASB complaint in August 2020. It did not explain why it had not logged a complaint when the resident had first made reports in March 2020 or during the interim period up to August 2020 despite further reports by the resident. This and the lack of detail and explanation given in its responses was unreasonable and evidence of poor complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports concerning ASB from his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

Due the neighbour having mental health issues, the landlord had a responsibility to engage with support agencies in order to help him maintain his tenancy and also establish an action plan to address and mitigate the impact of ASB on those affected including the resident. It did engage with other agencies and support services after an incident involving the police and Fire brigade. However at times there was little or no progression of the action plan despite on going reports from the resident. The landlord also failed to sufficiently communicate with the resident in response to his ASB reports and did not provide information on the progress of its investigation.
The landlord did not log a complaint when the resident requested this in March 2020 showing it failed to follow its complaints policy. Despite the resident expressing dissatisfaction with its service on further occasions, the landlord only logged a complaint in April 2021. The complaints responses did not sufficiently detail its investigation into the handling of the issues raised and it did not explain why it had not logged an ASB complaint prior to August 2020, which was unreasonable.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. pay the resident total compensation of £600. This is comprised of:
  1. £450 for its failed to adequately deal with his ASB reports and communicate with the resident.
  2. £150 for its service failures when handling his complaints.
2. Provide the Ombudsman and the resident with further details in relation to its statement that it will explore securing a permanent move for the neighbour as referred to in its 8 April 2022 communication. This should include a likely timeframe for any action outlined. The landlord should seek legal advice if necessary.
3. Comply with above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord provide regular updates to residents who report incidents of ASB on the progress of its investigations, in accordance with its policy.