Ipswich Borough Council (202108079)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108079

Ipswich Borough Council

6 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. response to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
   2. handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant occupying a one-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority which owns and manages the block of flats. The landlord’s records identify that the resident has a major depressive disorder. 
3. The resident reported incidents of ASB to the landlord from June 2020. These reports related mainly to a neighbour living above in a leasehold property although some incidents involved three other neighbours. A formal complaint was logged by the landlord on 5 July 2021 following the Ombudsman writing to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The letter confirmed that the complaint was regarding the handling of a neighbour dispute and that the resident was asking to be moved to another property as a resolution. The resident later clarified that she wanted the landlord to deal with the ASB and harassment though would accept rehousing as a final resort.
4. In its decision on the complaint the landlord acknowledged that there were seven reports of ASB over the previous six months which had not been responded to, for which it apologised. It confirmed that in future that the resident would receive an acknowledgement and response from the officer responsible for any further reports. It confirmed that the reports, which mainly centred around her neighbour causing problems with plumbing, electrics and hot air in her home had been discussed with the relevant staff internally and there was no evidence to support the allegation of interference by her neighbour. It confirmed that an inspection of the plumbing and electrics in her home had not found any underlying maintenance issues. It also stated that in recognition of her being unhappy in her accommodation, and the impact this was having on her mental health, that a review of her housing application banding had taken place and she had been awarded additional priority on welfare grounds.     
5. The resident spoke to the Housing Ombudsman on 30 November 2022 stating that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and believed her landlord had not dealt with her reports of harassment by the neighbour who lived above her.  

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour 

6. Within this report, the Ombudsman has sought to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB were reasonable and appropriate. In doing so, this Service has reviewed the landlord’s ASB policy.
7. The resident made reports of ASB to the landlord from June 2020. These were made primarily to the landlord’s weekday customer service centre and its out of hours emergency service, though some were made directly to the landlord’s Housing Officer. The initial report related to a neighbour shouting through her letterbox and intercom. The landlord’s records note that the resident was called back by a Housing Officer but that there was no reply. It is not clear if a message was left.
8. Following this the resident made two further reports of ASB during August and September 2020. The first was that a visitor to another neighbour had exposed himself outside the resident’s window. She confirmed that she had reported this to the Police but when they attended the man had gone. The resident requested that her Housing Officer contact her. The second was that sewerage smells were coming from two neighbour’s flats and that these neighbours were shouting and banging in their properties and were shining coloured lights at her windows. There is no evidence that the resident received a response to these reports.
9. These initial reports were not dealt with in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. The ASB policy makes clear that ‘all reports of ASB will be taken seriously’ and that the landlord ‘will liaise with the complainant to ensure that they are kept updated on the progress of their case’. The policy also states that ‘all reports of ASB will be treated as an open case until it is agreed with the complainant and the Council, that the case can be closed.’ The landlord did not demonstrate it had taken the reports seriously, didn’t liaise with the resident to keep her updated nor make it clear if there was an open or closed ASB investigation.  
10. On 15 October 2020 the landlord’s Housing Officer was approached by the resident when visiting the area on another matter. The landlord’s file note identifies that a number of ASB issues were discussed. The resident raised concerns regarding the neighbour above matching her movements around the flat, sending smells through her smoke detector and having a device which tampered with her tv and cooker and her access through the communal door. The officer sought to reassure the resident that what she was reporting would not be possible or would be very unlikely. It was also noted that the caretaker checked the door and her fob that day and it was found to be functioning normally.
11. During this time, the resident also raised concerns that the neighbour above was forcing human waste smells into her property. The officer confirmed that checks regarding smells had been made previously by emergency services and nothing was found. The evidence does show that there was a visit by the fire service in September 2020 to investigate ‘fumes’ following the resident contacting the Police regarding car fumes and sewerage smells. No issues were found and the Housing Officer also stated they observed no smell during their visit. It was also noted in respect of her concern about a neighbour shouting through her intercom and letterbox that the Police had addressed that issue and it had not happened again. The resident also raised that cannabis was being smoked by a neighbour and the Housing Officer advised her to contact the Police regarding the matter. Although prompted by the resident this showed that the landlord did verbally respond on issues raised at that time.
12. However, at the end of the file note the officer noted that the landlord was likely to send a letter to the resident informing her of what it could get involved in and the type of evidence she would need to accrue; that past complaints would not be investigated; and advising she should speak to her GP if the situation was causing her stress and anxiety. There is no evidence that this letter was sent, or that the resident was encouraged to make a diary of the incidents occurring, to accrue evidence to support the landlord’s investigation. Such a letter could have helped the resident to understand what sort of evidence was required and what steps the landlord could reasonably take.  
13. There were four further reports of ASB during October and November 2020 all to the landlord’s out of hours emergency service. The resident reported that her neighbour was pointing a camera through the spy hole in her door causing the taste to be taken from her food, her electrics and lighting being controlled and bottles were being moved and their tops undone. She was advised by the call handler that these were Police matters and informed that the emergency service would not be sending anyone. Following this the resident reported that the heat was being taken away from her property and she was advised to report the matter to the repairs service and that tenancy services would be informed. The note on the report also indicated that this had been checked by the maintenance service in the past. The next two reports were both that her electrical appliances were being interfered with. She was advised to call back during normal working hours. While these immediate responses from the emergency out of hours service were not unreasonable, the nature of the reports and the history of other reports should have prompted further discussions with the resident by the landlord’s Housing Officer.
14. The landlord had also not shown a pro-active approach to engaging other agencies at this stage. While there had been contact with the Police and Environmental Health team, and there was contact with the NHS mental health team from November 2020, this came from those agencies reporting matters or making enquiries to the landlord. 
15. Communications with the mental health service did continue through to the beginning of February 2021 and the Ombudsman can see that this led to the landlord providing a Tenancy Support Officer to assist the resident in exploring her housing options. However, following this, until a meeting in August 2021, there was just one communication from the landlord to the mental health team. This was an email in May 2021 which asked if the team was still working with the resident as she may need some support. The landlord did not therefore consistently seek assistance from the mental health team to discuss matters with the resident, where it was concerned by the contents of her reports.
16. In December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour above was pouring water into her flat. An operative attended to investigate a potential leak but no problem was found. It was also noted on the report that an operative also attended earlier in the month following a similar report and no water penetration from above was found. This does show that this report was taken seriously by the landlord.    
17. The resident made four further reports of ASB to the landlord from 6 February 2021 to 2 July 2021. Two of the issues raised were similar to previous reports regarding two neighbours interfering with her door/intercom and her electrics. The others were new issues relating to the neighbour above interfering with her plumbing, blowing hot and cold air into her property and using a camera and mirror to look into her flat.
18. On a number of occasions, it was confirmed to the resident that the information would be passed onto the appropriate person and on one occasion a specific commitment was made that the officer responsible would be in contact. The Landlord’s Duty Officer did call the resident on one occasion though this was to collect further details which were then passed onto the Housing Officer. Apart from this the resident was not contacted regarding the matters she raised despite her request that she be contacted. These reports were also not dealt with in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
19. Following the formal complaint being logged on 5 July the resident made a further two reports of ASB prior to the landlord sending its stage 1 response. Both of these related to previously raised issues of hot air being put into her flat and her communal door fob being tampered with. It was confirmed that the information would be passed to the Housing Officer and in one instance also the Environmental Health team. Again, there is no evidence of follow up action by the landlord.
20. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 16 July 2021. It confirmed that it was satisfied that appropriate advice was given in respect of each nuisance report. It also pointed out that the Police and Environmental Health Team had found no evidence to substantiate the claims. In addition, it identified that a tenancy support worker had provided assistance with a rehousing application and offered further assistance if required. This response did not therefore address the inadequate communication and investigation identified above.
21. The resident made a further report of ASB on 24 July 2021 to the out of hours emergency service regarding the neighbour above interfering with the plumbing to her WC. The call operative provided advice that, if necessary, as a temporary measure a bucket of water could be used to flush the WC. No further follow up action was identified. 
22.  In its stage 2 response the landlord did acknowledge the resident had made seven reports of ASB over the last six months which had not been responded to. It apologised for this. While it is positive this was acknowledged it is not clear why the landlord’s response only looked at ASB reports over the previous six months. The landlord’s stage 1 response referred to issues commencing from March 2020 and gave no indication that the period of the complaint was being restricted. The landlord’s complaints policy does not specify a timescale by which a complaint should be made following an incident occurring.
23. The landlord’s response should therefore have considered the full history of the ASB reports. The inadequate response to the resident’s ASB reports over the full period does represent a service failure which would have been likely to cause substantial frustration and distress to the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation should have been offered and this is addressed in the Order below. 
24. Whilst the stage 2 response did confirm that there was no evidence of ASB, and therefore no action had been taken, it did not adequately explain the approach to investigating the matter. This lack of explanation would not have helped reassure the resident that the matter had been properly investigated. 
25. In addition, the main alleged perpetrator of the ASB had not been interviewed as part of the investigation at this stage. This did not happen until after the landlord’s stage 3 complaint response. It would have been appropriate for this to have happened earlier as this would have helped reassure the resident that the matter had been fully investigated.   
26. The stage 2 response did include a commitment to inspect the plumbing and electrics in the resident’s property. This was a positive action by the landlord to provide reassurance to the resident as some of the problems reported related to these services. These checks took place in August 2021 with no problems being found.
27. It was also reasonable that within the stage 2 response, following the resident’s concerns that her communal door fob was being tampered with, the caretaker visited on two occasions to test the resident’s fob (confirming that it worked) and provided a replacement in case there was a malfunction. The caretaker confirmed for the resident that her neighbour did not have cameras viewing into her property. In later conversations with the resident and following similar reports of ASB, the landlord explained to the resident that no evidence of ASB was found and therefore no further action could be taken.
28. The landlord did also liaise with the NHS Mental Health team following the stage 2 response. It met with the Mental Health team in August 2021 and further communications followed in September 2021 relating to the resident’s housing issues. This does demonstrate that during this period the landlord was seeking to work with this agency to help deal with the resident’s concerns.  
29. The stage 2 response also included a commitment to acknowledge and respond to any further reports. While this was positive, this would have benefited from an explanation as to how further reports of issues that the landlord believed had already been investigated would be dealt with. This would have provided greater clarity for the resident and help the landlord manage future calls. The resident continued to regularly report ASB of a similar nature following the stage 2 response and following the final response. Some issues were responded to but there were still reports which did not get a specific response. Whilst the landlord may have believed it had already responded on many of the issues raised and had made clear that no action could be taken without evidence, more should have been done to manage the resident’s later reports of the same issue.
30. The resident requested a stage 3 review of her complaint as she felt that nothing had been done to address the problems. The landlord sent a stage 3 response on 26 October 2021 which confirmed the findings of the stage 2 response. It stated that the plumbing and electrical checks had been carried out and no underlying maintenance problems had been identified. It also confirmed that the communal doors had been checked and that the resident was provided with a new fob. In addition, it confirmed that it had investigated the resident’s reports that her neighbour was using a generator to force hot air into her home, and that no generator noises could be heard. This response was useful in summarising the actions taken. Still, however, it did not fully recognise the extent of the previous service failures.     
31. It was reasonable that the final response confirmed for the resident that her housing application had been reviewed and that she had been awarded additional priority on welfare grounds. As the resident had identified being moved as a means of resolving her complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to share this information.
32. Overall, there was a service failure in dealing with the resident’s reports of the ASB. This was particularly around communication with the resident and the way the investigation was conducted which was not in line with its ASB policy. While some matters were investigated there was not a consistent approach by the landlord. The landlord did apologise for the lack of response to reports of ASB for a specified period and arranged for plumbing and electrical checks. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that financial compensation should be offered for the full extent of the service failure that occurred.
33. For completeness, although this Service is aware that the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord after the landlord’s final complaint response, the Ombudsman’s investigation only covers events reported, and the landlord’s handling of matters, up until the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints policy. Subsequently, if the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her later reports of ASB, she will need to make a further formal complaint to the landlord. 

Handling of the complaint

34. The resident stated to the Ombudsman that she raised the complaint with the landlord by telephone prior to the Ombudsman contacting the landlord in July 2020. The resident also identified that she requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 3 in August 2021, prior to the Ombudsman making contact to chase the final response in September 2021. The landlord stated it had no record of the formal complaint and escalation request prior to the Ombudsman’s communications. As the Ombudsman has no written evidence to verify these matters it is unable to make a judgement on the issues.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. 
36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

37. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendations

38. That the landlord reviews it complaints policy and makes clear the timescale by which a formal complaint should normally be made following an issue arising.