Islington Council (202403851)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202403851
Islington Council
31 October 2024
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 of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.
Background
- The resident has a lease with the landlord. The property is described as a 2-bedroom property.
- The reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise disturbance relate to the resident’s neighbour who will be referred to as “Tenant A” within the report. The tenancy agreement for Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation.
- The resident made reports of ASB to the landlord on 30 September 2022. The resident said that since he refused permission for Tenant A to create a roof terrace on his flat roof, Tenant A began to throw peanuts onto the flat roof which disturbed him. The resident also alleged that Tenant A was responsible for a fire that had burnt a hole in the flat roof. The date of the fire is not provided.
- The resident went on to say that he found Tenant A’s behaviour aggressive and threatening. He requested that the landlord stop Tenant A accessing the flat roof and added that he was concerned about the wellbeing of Tenant A.
- On 5 October 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would write to Tenant A about the reports that the resident had made. In response, the resident advised on 27 October 2022 that he appreciated the action taken by the landlord and that further action was not required as Tenant A’s behaviour had stopped.
- There is a gap in the records until 30 April 2023, when the resident made a new ASB report. Further reports of ASB were sent to the landlord in May 2023, August 2023 and September 2023. The resident’s reports related to Tenant A accessing the roof to leave food, threats to the resident and his partner and an allegation of a marijuana cigarette left in the communal area.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 3 December 2023. The resident said:
- The landlord was aware of Tenant A’s behaviour for the past 9 years and had not acted.
- Tenant A accessed the roof at early hours of the morning, fed wildlife and he believed that Tenant A was responsible for the fire to the flat roof.
- The landlord only acted after Tenant A complained about the installation of the CCTV in July 2023. The landlord concluded that the CCTV was correctly sited. After this, Tenant A had vandalised the CCTV camera. When challenged, Tenant A had abused the resident’s partner.
- Tenant A had responded to the landlord’s contact by trying to kick in the resident’s door and ringing the doorbell repeatedly. The landlord had advised that it intended to issue the resident with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NSP).
- The landlord had failed to act and keep him updated. It took 4 months to contact the police after Tenant A had threatened to kill him and his partner.
- It should arrange for Tenant A to be moved to another property. The landlord had not started action to issue the NSP to Tenant A.
- The landlord had failed to respond to his emails and phone calls, consequently he felt disappointed, helpless and ignored.
- His preferred outcome was for the landlord to progress the NSP and for Tenant A to be moved to alternative accommodation. The resident stated that he wanted the issue resolved as his life was in danger and he requested that the landlord provide an action plan with timescales.
- The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 5 January 2024. The landlord said:
- The general data protection regulations prevented it providing information about Tenant A. However, it had reviewed the information received from the police regarding the incidents reported the previous summer.
- Warning letters had been sent to Tenant A regarding the alleged ASB, damage to the resident’s property and his general conduct.
- It had limited authority to act regarding the resident’s reports of threats and harassment. It advised him to report the harassment to the police and it would work with the police to see if it had evidence to obtain a prosecution.
- The police had informed the landlord on 22 November 2023 that the resident had stated that he did not want to take any further action. Therefore, the police had closed its case.
- It recognised the difficulties experienced by the resident and the distress to his family.
- It concluded that the complaint was not upheld and encouraged the resident to report any further instances of ASB to the police.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint.
- The landlord provided its final complaint response on 6 February 2024. It said:
- The resident had made ASB reports over the past 2 years. It acknowledged he had escalated his concerns as he did not feel safe living in the property.
- It could not investigate complaints that had not been raised within the past 12 months.
- It acknowledged the empathy shown by the resident towards Tenant A.
- Action had not been taken following the report on 30 September 2022 that Tenant A had accessed the flat roof, as the resident had reported that Tenant A’s behaviour had stopped.
- It had sent a warning letter to Tenant A on 11 August 2023 following the ASB reports received on 30 April 2023 and in May 2023. The landlord accepted the delay in sending the warning letter was unacceptable.
- It had not reviewed the video/audio evidence provided by the resident in August 2023 about incidents in July and November 2022 as the information involved third parties. It had reviewed video evidence received on 19 January 2024, which related to an incident involving Tenant A that occurred in July 2022. However, it did not believe that the behaviour of Tenant A was reported at the time of the incident.
- The resident requested the landlord issue Tenant A with a NSP after threats were made by Tenant A to his partner on 10 August 2023 and to the resident in September 2023. It recognised that during the visit in August 2023, it may have discussed the possibility of issuing Tenant A with a NSP. However, it did not have sufficient evidence to do so. It apologised for not making this clear in its communication with the resident.
- After an ASB case file was opened on 18 September 2023, an information request was sent to the police on 16 November 2023. The police advised that the resident did not want them to take further action. The landlord stated that it was aware there had possibly being a misunderstanding as the resident expected the landlord to progress the eviction proceedings.
- After receiving the information from the police, the landlord obtained advice from its legal team. The discussions with its legal team were ongoing and it intended to contact Tenant A once the discussions were concluded.
- The management of the ASB case was transferred to its intensive tenancy sustainment officer who met with the resident and his partner in January 2024.
- It had not found any service failings in the:
- Handling of the ASB reports made in September 2022 and October 2022 that Tenant A had trespassed onto his roof.
- Reports of ASB made in April 2023 and May 2023, which were similar to those received in 2022.
- Sending of warning letters to Tenant A in line with its ASB policy.
- It had found service failures in the:
- Lack of explanation to the resident that it did not intend to serve Tenant A with a NSP.
- Delay between August 2023 and January 2024 in interviewing Tenant A following the reports of harassment and aggressive behaviour.
- Failure to complete a risk assessment or action plan to assess the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance.
- Insufficient reassurance to the resident that it would continue to investigate his concerns even though the police investigation had ended.
- Lack of clarity around its role when residents do not want to report incidents to the police or residents decide not to take further action.
- It recognised that the resident wanted it to take more immediate action but it had to consider the evidence it had. A point of contact was provided for the resident.
- A compensation award of £300 was made. This was broken down as: £100 for its failure to follow its ASB procedures and lack of communication, £100 for distress experienced and £100 for inconvenience, time, and effort.
Events after the complaint process ended
- The landlord discussed the resident’s report of ASB with Tenant A on 13 February 2024. Tenant A denied causing the fire to the roof and said he had not accessed the roof since the previous summer. During the interview, Tenant A made counter allegations about the resident. Tenant A accused the resident of burglary, making threats to him and harassment due to his religion and sexuality. Tenant A stated that the resident had also harassed his mother.
- Following the interview, the resident was informed on 14 February 2024 that it was unlikely that the landlord had sufficient evidence to take formal legal action against Tenant A. It would get further legal advice and update the resident.
- The landlord served Tenant A with a community protection warning letter on 8 April 2024.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has said that the landlord has been aware of concerns about the behaviour of Tenant A for a long time. This investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from 30 September 2022 onwards that was considered during the landlord’s complaint process. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live” and sufficient evidence is available.
Landlord’s policies
- The landlord’s ASB policy uses the definition in the Crime and Policing Act 2014 to define ASB. This is:
- Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
- Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
- Conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
- The ASB policy states that a point of contact will be provided once a report is received. It will have regard to the feelings, wishes and circumstances of its residents and will manage expectations of those reporting ASB. Risk assessments will be undertaken of residents and alleged perpetrators of ASB for the landlord to comprehensively understand the issues. The landlord may make referrals to other agencies.
Handling of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance
- 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.
- From the resident’s submission, it is clear that the reported ASB and the landlord’s lack of communication caused him distress. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman’s role in such situations is to look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and assess whether the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
- The Ombudsman also recognises that the landlord has to balance its responsibility towards the resident, under his lease and the obligations outlined in its anti-social behaviour policy. With its obligations to support Tenant A under his tenancy and other relevant legislation.
- The resident made a report on 30 September 2022 that Tenant A was accessing the flat roof and feeding the birds. He this this caused noise disturbance from the banging to the flat roof. Within 5 working days, the landlord informed the resident that it would write to Tenant A. The landlord’s records do not give the date that it wrote to Tenant A. This is not reasonable as the landlord’s submission to this Service should evidence its compliance with commitments outlined in its ASB policy.
- However, by 27 October 2022, the resident informed the landlord that Tenant A had stopped the reported behaviour. It was reasonable for the landlord to therefore conclude that the ASB had been resolved.
- Further reports of ASB were received around 6 months during April-May 2023. In its complaint responses, the landlord recognised its delay in sending a warning letter to Tenant A and apologised to the resident for this. It also identified that it should have conducted a risk assessment and action plan when it received the resident’s ASB report. The landlord recognised the serious nature of the resident’s report regarding harassment and the related personal safety concerns meant that a risk assessment and action plan were required. The landlord acknowledged that had it completed these actions, this may have gone some way to alleviate the resident’s concerns about the action that it was taking and the timescale in which he would receive a response.
- The landlord opened an ASB case file on 18 September 2023 after it received a new complaint from the resident. The resident reported that Tenant A had banged on his door and been threatening and aggressive. The landlord took 43 working days until 16 November 2023 to undertake a police disclosure. The was not reasonable.
- The police informed the landlord in November 2023 that it had received a report that Tenant A had been accessing the roof and damaged the solar panel when trying to hit a CCTV camera. The resident had said that Tenant A was confrontational but informed the police that he did not want to take further action. After the landlord made a further request, the police gave the landlord information regarding an incident reported on 22 December 2023. This was about threats to kill and criminal damage. It is not disputed that the resident did not want the police to take further action as he was expecting the landlord to undertake legal proceedings.
- After the resident and his partner were threatened by Tenant A, the resident requested that the landlord take formal tenancy action against Tenant A. It is acknowledged that those experiencing ASB will have an expectation that their landlords have the authority to take possession of a neighbour’s property where there is evidence to support the reports of ASB. This was an outcome the resident was seeking. In practice, a social landlord does not have the authority to take possession of a property unless it is granted this right through a court of law.
- For a landlord to successfully take any formal action for such as an injunction or eviction proceedings, it would be required to provide extensive evidence proving the alleged behaviour of Tenant A. At the time of the resident’s request that that landlord start proceedings, the landlord did not have the sufficient level of independent, corroborating evidence required. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord took informal tenancy action such as speaking to Tenant A and issuing warning letters.
- The landlord has a responsibility to its residents to help them maintain their tenancies and take appropriate action in response to any reports of alleged ASB that it receives. The resident is unhappy with the lack of formal legal action taken by landlord. However, the landlord must be guided by the available evidence. The landlord took legal advice. Therefore, while it did not agree to take formal legal action requested by the resident, it liaised with its legal team to see what action it could realistically take. This was reasonable.
- In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delays experienced by the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised that its initial complaint response gave an incorrect impression to the resident about the action it could take. It was necessary that the landlord clarified its position once the resident informed the police that he did not want them to progress a prosecution against Tenant A. The landlord explained the remit of the police regarding criminal investigations. However, this did not prevent the landlord assessing whether its residents have met their obligations under their tenancy or lease agreements and taking action accordingly. The landlord recognised the uncertainty its initial complaint response caused to the resident.
- It is clear that the resident expected the landlord to issue a NSP and his communication with the landlord requested its progress in doing so. The resident also asked the landlord’s opinion on obtaining a restraining order against Tenant A. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not manage the resident’s expectations at that time about the legal enforcement that was possible. This resulted in the resident believing it wastaking steps to issue a NSP, when it was not. The landlord apologised for this as it should have earlier made its position clear about its intentions regarding Tenant A’s tenancy.
- In its final complaint response, the landlord accepted that it had not communicated well with the resident and that some emails had gone unanswered. The delays in the landlord’s contact resulted in the resident having to chase and complain about the issues. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep residents informed to manage expectations about the action they can take.
- The landlord made a compensation award of £300 through the complaints process. This reflected its failure to follow its ASB procedures during the second half of 2023 and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says awards between £100 to £300 should be payable for time, trouble and distress caused. This Service’s remedies guidance states that compensation awards between £100 to £600 are payable to recognise service failures that have adversely affected a resident. The compensation payment is therefore considered proportionate as the landlord recognised its service and communication failures.
- It is noted that when interviewed in February 2024, Tenant A denied the allegations made by the resident regarding the fire to the flat roof, and Tenant A maintained he had not accessed the flat roof since the previous summer. The resident continued to expect the landlord to take stronger action regarding Tenant A.
- The landlord has demonstrated that since the end of the complaints process, it re-considered the available enforcement options and issued a community protection warning to Tenant A in April 2024. This indicates that it learned lessons from the outcome of the complaint investigation and took steps to put things right as it proposed in the final complaint response.
- Ultimately, the landlord used the complaints process to fairly acknowledge the failings in its handling of ASB reports during the second half of 2023 when it delayed taking appropriate actions and did not communicate reasonably. It made apologised, made a proportionate compensation award and subsequently took enforcement action against Tenant A. Given all the circumstances of the case, including the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions, its apology, compensation award and learning from the complaint warrant a finding of reasonable redress.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.
Recommendations
- If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 it awarded in its final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress finding is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
- The landlord should review its actions since February 2024 and contact the resident to consider whether this has been successful in reducing the ASB. As part of this, it should offer to conduct a new risk assessment to establish if there is any support it can provide to the resident. If ASB is ongoing, it is recommended that the landlord creates a new action plan and shares this with the resident.
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should reply to this Service to confirms its intentions with regard to this recommendation.