Lambeth Council (201915129)

COMPLAINT 201915129

Lambeth Council

23 December 2020

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 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 response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by his neighbour.

Background and summary of events

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord.
Various non-contemporaneous records of correspondence between the resident and other parties including the landlord and the mayor’s office indicate that the resident began experiencing anti-social behaviour from a neighbour starting in late November 2019.
On 25 November 2019 the resident was decanted to temporary accommodation while major repairs were carried out to his property.
On 17 January 2020 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord that he was experiencing anti-social behaviour from a neighbour, consisting of various forms of behaviour including loud noises, abusive language, damage to his personal property and alleged drug use. The landlord however was unable to raise the complaint on its system until 7 February 2020. It explained that this was because of the temporary change in the resident’s residential address. During the intervening period, the landlord’s tenancy enforcement officer and the head of tenancy enforcement were in correspondence with the resident via email.
On 20 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with blank witness statement forms advising him and his witness to fill these in requesting specific details on the incidents of ASB. Once this was provided to the landlord it would be able to make a request for police disclosure regarding the neighbour who allegedly was the source of the ASB and commence court action.
On 29 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord reporting finding drug paraphernalia outside the neighbour’s property as well as what looked like an engine smashed on the pavement. The landlord replied on the same day noting it was seeking an update from the tenancy enforcement team and the relevant housing officer.
On the same day the landlord wrote again to the resident noting it had referred the case to its legal team to start proceedings for an injunction order against the neighbour. It noted that signed witness statements were required from the resident and witness, and that these had previously been supplied and should be sent back to the landlord by the next day. It also asked whether the resident or his witnesses would be attending court. It asked him to contact the landlord if the resident required any help with the statement or had any concerns about the court process.
The same day a separate staff member noted that the resident’s witness had provided her witness statement but the resident had not.
On 7 February 2020 the complaint was formally raised and an acknowledgement sent to the resident. On the same day the landlord wrote a letter to the neighbour who was the perpetrator of the ASB and submitted a police disclosure request regarding reports made by the resident at the property.
At some point in February the resident met with his social worker to complete a social care assessment, which established that he did not need any ongoing service so his case was closed.
On 24 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord reporting that since the start of the year he had been subject to abuse and harassment from his neighbour. He mentioned having had a plant outside his door stolen, eggs thrown at his home, insulting language and death threats by the neighbour.
On the same day, 24 February 2020, the landlord’s internal emails noted that the resident’s witness had withdrawn her statement.
On 27 February 2020, the landlord’s internal emails note that it had sought advice from its internal legal services as to how it could progress the case. The internal legal team responded on the same day noting that, having reviewed the reports made by the resident it had come to the following conclusions:
1. Despite requests by the landlord, the resident had not provided dates, times, locations and other details of the alleged ASB, with the narratives being “more like sweeping general statements”.
2. To pursue an injunction it would require clear facts as to the allegations. Specifically it would need a witness statement to verify all the facts he had stated in various reports were true, including references and supporting witness statements from friends or neighbours who observed or witnessed any of the assaults.
3. Without any statement from him or other people in support, the evidence to support an application for an injunction was “painfully thin”. As a result, the landlord was not in a position to pursue an injunction in court.
On 10 March 2020 the resident attended the landlord’s offices to make a formal witness statement in support of his allegations. Upon attending he was told that his witness had withdrawn their statement in support, at which point he left the offices without making a statement.
On 18 March 2020 the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord. Some time in March 2020 the resident temporarily moved out of the property to stay with family and friends for a matter of some weeks.
On 7 April 2020 the landlord sent a new police disclosure form to the police, as the police noted it had not previously followed the correct procedure in undertaking this.
On 9 April 2020 the landlord issued its complaint response, in which it apologised for any unnecessary discomfort/inconvenience that the resident was facing. The Tenancy Enforcement Team advised that they had already received the resident’s log of complaints, and the response set out the actions the team had taken to this point:
1. A letter was sent out on 7 February 2020 to the neighbour warning them about the allegations of ASB against them. The landlord was also waiting on a response from the police after submitting a police disclosure request.
2. The tenancy enforcement officer who was dealing with the case worked closely with the witnesses provided by the resident, but the witness later requested her statement be retracted due to fear of reprisal attacks.
3. A referral had been made to the mental health team to provide support to the resident and the case officer was named.
4. The officer managing the ASB case sent an email to the resident but never received a response from him.
5. The tenancy enforcement officer had also met with the resident on 10 March 2020 to take his witness statement, but he had left the meeting after being told that the witness had withdrawn her statement.
6. The resident had told the officer who was dealing with the case that he did not have any witness available to make a statement in support of the ASB allegations at the time, and that he would contact it when he returned with the witness to make a statement.
It stated that it was sorry for the inconvenience the unreasonable behaviour by the neighbour had caused but assured him that the enforcement team was doing all it could to resolve the issues. It noted that it was hopeful the issues would be resolved shortly but told the resident not to hesitate to contact the officer dealing with the case if he needed further information or advice on the matter.
On 24 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it had become aware of “another incident” which the resident had not informed the landlord about. The landlord requested an update as to whether there had been any improvements after speaking with the neighbours, while also noting that it would not be able to carry out visits or face to face meetings with the neighbours due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It noted that it could give both verbal and written warnings to the neighbours as necessary. It had tried contacting him repeatedly via telephone but had been unable to speak to him. It noted that it was vital for the resident to contact his case manager if there were any new changes/incidents.
On the same day, 24 April 2020, the resident replied to the landlord noting he was preparing to take legal action in regards to the matter. The landlord responded on the same day and asked if he could provide an update on the situation with an aim to resolving the issues. The resident replied advising the landlord to contact the local police station.
On 27 April 2020 the resident called the landlord’s social worker in the mental health social work team requesting support in dealing with the ASB he was reporting. The social worker reported to the landlord that in the ensuing conversation the resident stated that he did not want to speak to a mental health team, however it sent a follow-up email to the relevant case officer at the landlord in the hope that it would assist with communication. The landlord noted in its email that there was likely to be “a lot going on behind the scenes” regarding contact with the neighbour allegedly committing the ASB that the resident could not be informed about due to confidentiality. In the same email, the social worker copied in a housing advocate who had been offering support to the resident.
On 1 May 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated. He stated that the neighbour who he was reporting ASB from had threatened to kill him, smashed his windows in and carried out homophobic hate crimes against him. He noted his property had been broken into and that cameras were installed at the front entrance of the communal entrance outside the building and his front and back doors, the combination of factors which he considered to “put his life at risk on a daily basis.”
On 13 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in acknowledgement of the escalation response and noted that a response would be provided by 18 June 2020
On 19 May the resident’s social worker wrote to the resident providing a copy of the email sent by the former to the landlord on 27 April 2020 noting that it had been discussing the matters with her in an attempt to find a resolution.
On 27 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident’s social worker noting that the resident was refusing to speak to it and had instead advised it to contact the social worker and the police. It stated that the neighbour had been sent a warning letter and also been given a verbal warning in regards to the alleged behaviour. The social worker responded the next day noting that she had spoken to the resident and explained she would not be able to deal with this on his behalf, and reported to the landlord that he wasn’t currently open to seeing any mental health team. She asked what the landlord’s next steps would be in such situations.
On 28 May 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord and asked it to contact the police and his support worker to assist with the ASB situation.
On 29 May 2020 the landlord replied to the resident’s social worker noting it had spoken to the resident the previous day, who had refused any offer to help and refused the landlord referring him to mental health team. At that point it stated it was unsure what further support it could give to him, and asked the social worker to enquire as to whether he needed any additional support from the mental health team.
The social worker replied on the same day noting that it had had occasional contact from the resident and that she had spoken to him and the landlord when issues had arisen. It had been explained to him by her each time that he needed to work with the relevant services.
On 29 May 2020 the landlord was in email contact with the police disclosure team, noting that the resident had refused all of its offers to assist him or deal with the situation at hand.
On 8 June 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response, noting it had reviewed the correspondence at the previous stages of the complaint about the issue, spoken to its staff within the Tenancy Enforcement Team and reviewed its ASB policy. It noted the series of events that had taken place over the course of the complaint:
1. The complaint was raised on 17 January 2020 though it was not logged until 7 February 2020 due to problems with the landlord’s records systems. However the tenancy enforcement team maintained contact with the resident via email over this period. On 7 February 2020 the complaint was formally acknowledged and a warning letter was sent to the neighbour.
2. A plan was made to pursue an injunction against the neighbour, however this process was paused because the resident had not sent through his witness statement. The resident’s witness also withdrew her statement.
3. The tenancy enforcement team stated that a safe-guarding referral was made and that the resident was assigned a support worker. A referral to a mental heath specialist was also made because of the purported effects of the ASB on the resident, but he had declined the suggestion.
It set out the following:
1. It apologised for not logging the complaint before 7 February 2020, explaining that this was due to the change of the resident’s address. It noted that its staff had communicated regularly with him from when the report was received on 17 January 2020
2. It considered that its staff had acted in line with its relevant policy and had collaborated with police in an attempt to resolve the complaint. It stated that due to lack of communication from the resident however, officers had been unable to take the necessary actions to address the matter, given they could not gather the necessary evidence to substantiate the claims. It had attempted to call the resident multiple times but had often not heard back from him. It noted the conversation on the 28 May 2020 in which the resident had asked the landlord to contact the police and his support worker.
3. On the basis of the review, the landlord concluded that there appeared to be nothing more that could be done by officers to address the matter, and suggested that the resident contact the landlord’s officer dealing with the reports for the matter to be taken forward. Considering that it was of the opinion that officers had taken reasonable steps to deal with the complaint, the landlord stated it had not upheld the complaint.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two stage process:
1. At stage one a response will generally be provided within twenty days, unless more time is required due to the nature of the case and the resident will be kept updated during any additional time period.
2. An escalation request should be made within twenty days explaining why the original response was inadequate. The policy does not set out a time limit for the stage two complaint response.
The landlord’s tenancy documents note that a resident must not:
1. do anything which is, or which is intended to, or which is likely to be a nuisance or danger to other people, or which causes damage to the landlord’s property or the property other tenants and lessees, including leave rubbish, damage private or communal property, play loud music or make other noise to a level that is intended or likely to annoy another person.
2. Be violent, abusive or threatening towards any other person.
3. Be discriminatory towards any other person.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy sets out that the landlord will undertake legal measures where necessary against ASB where other types of intervention such as use of mediation and warning discussions, letters have failed to resolve the issue.
The landlord will use measures such as inunctions to resolve ASB issues where necessary. It will explain to witnesses and reporting persons how the information they provide will be used. It notes its staff will be fully trained on how to manage and support witnesses, undertake interviews and prepare witness statements.
ASB cases will be closed if no evidence can be found to substantiate the allegations. The reporting person will be advised 7 days prior to this giving them the chance to raise further points.

Assessment and findings

The resident has raised a number of issues and provided a significant volume of evidence, largely comprising of correspondence with the landlord dating back over a period of approximately ten years. This investigation is concerned with the elements of the complaint that have been raised with the landlord regarding ASB arising since November 2019, which has progressed fully through its complaint process and then been brought to the Ombudsman for further consideration. It considers correspondence and evidence between the various parties involved since this period.
The Housing Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether or not ASB has taken place. Instead we rely on the evidence provided by parties, which includes records of ASB, to establish what was communicated to a landlord in terms of both the reporting of ASB and the complaint, before then considering the steps taken by the landlord to address and resolve the issue. As set out in the landlord’s communications with the various parties and particularly its final complaint response, it has undertaken various steps with this goal in mind.
The resident has repeatedly communicated to the landlord that the alleged ASB by the neighbour was causing a strong negative impact on his mental health and his ability to live uninterrupted in the decant property. The severity of the ASB as reported by the resident and the frequency of the reports by the resident gave rise to a reasonable expectation for the resident that the landlord would undertake steps to investigate and resolve the problem. In response to this, the landlord took steps to address the situations by liaising with its own teams, the resident, the neighbour and police. Various staff members met with the resident in an attempt to investigate the extent of the ASB so as to have proper documented records of it.
The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s frustration that the alleged ASB was having a significant impact on him. As set out with its communication with the resident from January 2020 through to the complaint responses in April and June 2020, the landlord requires evidence of any alleged anti-social behaviour to take action, as set out in its Anti-Social Behaviour Policy. To this end, it followed its policy and procedure in attempting to gather evidence in support of the resident’s reports by providing the resident with blank witness statement forms to be filled out by himself and a witness he stated would substantiate his claims. It noted that with these documents it could commence taking legal action to seek an injunction against the neighbour.
While it was waiting on the witness statements to be provided, it also sought legal advice on its position. It was reliably informed that the evidence provided by the resident to that point would have little chance of resulting in enforcement action being taken by the court, given the allegations made were too vague and had not been substantiated. On this basis it repeatedly encouraged the resident to make his formal statement. It attempted to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining why this process needed to be followed, while also maintaining that it would take the necessary steps for enforcement action if the resident was able to cooperate with it.
The landlord has also made appropriate enquiries with the police in an attempt to gather evidence with the stated aim of seeking enforcement action against the neighbour. Despite receiving minimal information that would assist with enforcement action, it maintained communication with the police over the course of the complaint, seeking updates on reports and whether the situation had changed.
Following the resident’s decision not to make the formal witness statement, when he attended the landlord’s office and was told that his witness would not be making a statement, the landlord nevertheless continued to contact the resident to seek further updates on the ASB that he was experiencing. It made a safeguarding referral for the resident, assigned him a social worker and offered him a referral to a mental health specialist, though this was declined. The records indicate that the landlord had difficulty getting in contact with the resident despite regular attempts over the period of the complaint, as the latter did not want to engage with it. Nevertheless it made regular contact with his social worker, sometimes in response to enquiries by the latter and other times proactively reaching out for an update on the situation given the resident refused to have in-depth communication with it and asking what mental health and other support it could provide. The landlord noted in its internal communications and in speaking to the resident that it was continuing to reach out to the resident, but that at a certain point the resident had “refused all of its offers to assist him or deal with the situation at hand.”
The landlord has a responsibility to act fairly towards all parties in an attempt to resolve the dispute, given it has obligations to both its leaseholders and tenants. As part of this, it is required to contact the neighbour to lay out the allegations made against them. It has demonstrated taking a proactive approach with the issues of ASB by attempting to address the issues directly with the neighbour, with its communication records indicating that it had provided both verbal and written warnings to the alleged perpetrator about the behaviour. Nevertheless, the lack of specifics regarding the allegations against the neighbour meant it was limited in taking enforcement further steps under its policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has taken reasonable and proactive steps in response to the reports of ASB by the resident, though it has been limited in its response by a lack of evidence. While it is clear that the alleged anti-social behaviour has caused great distress and concern to the resident, the landlord has attempted to engage with him to substantiate the claims he has made so as to allow for it to take stricter enforcement action against the neighbour. It has repeatedly made contact with him, his social worker and the police in attempts to work out the best response to the allegations. It has attempted to take a statement from him to substantiate the claims he made and sought further statements from supporting witnesses. It sought legal advice from its internal team as to the prospects of taking enforcement action against the neighbour, and then sought further evidence with this goal in mind when it became clear that enforcement action was unlikely to succeed. It has also offered to provide mental health support to the resident and maintained proactive communication with him over the process.