Leeds City Council (202102328)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102328

Leeds City Council

26 September 2023

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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour.
2. The associated complaints handling.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secured tenant and the tenancy began on 24 July 2020. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat of a one storey block. The garden area surrounding the property is communal and the property does not have a driveway but there are communal parking bays.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) procedures explains that it expects to investigate and attempt to resolve the causes of low level ASB issues reported at the earliest opportunity through established processes “using warnings and conciliatory tools as appropriate”.
The landlord’s ASB procedures sets out some examples of issues which could be resolved through the management processes by means of intervention, appropriate advice/instruction, and warnings. These include:
1. Noisy neighbours.
2. Dog fouling.
3. Uncontrolled animals/pets.
In terms of responding to the initial ASB enquiry the landlord’s ASB procedures explain there are two response times. In the case of urgent situations, which can include risk of harm to the person reporting where there are identified vulnerabilities, the response time is one working day for the landlord to contact the resident. In relation to all other enquiries the response time is five working days.
The landlord’s ASB procedures explain that unless a statutory noise nuisance is witnessed by the landlord’s ASB team, it will issue a noise nuisance information pack upon the first report by an individual. This pack would include information on how to resolve the matter themselves including speaking to the neighbour causing the issue.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises two stages. At stage one it will acknowledge the complaint within three working days and aim to provide a response within 15 working days of receiving the complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied they can escalate the matter to stage two. The complaint will then be reviewed by a senior officer and an acknowledgment will be sent within three working days and a full response would be provided within 15 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that in relation to complaints against members of staff that it will “investigate and take appropriate action, in accordance with our policies”.

Summary of events

The resident sent an email on 2 January 2021. It is not clear to whom it was sent however the email was received by the landlord as it stated it tried to call him on 5 January 2021 but was unsuccessful. The resident explained his housing situation had become untenable due to his new neighbours and their two dogs. He stated he did not wish to make a complaint about the neighbours but wished a move as soon as possible. The resident informed the landlord that the neighbours had poured acid on their car and that he therefore had a concern about his own car.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 11 January 2021. He explained he had yet to receive any call from the landlord. The resident’s email explained he did not wish to discuss matters any further and that he would be leaving the property the following day.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 11 January 2021. He explained he had received a call from the landlord but he had been specific in that he did not wish to talk to the individual.
The landlord’s call notes from 11 January 2021 set out that it had called the resident previously but had been unable to speak to him. It added that it had planned on visiting him on 13 January 2021 to leave a card asking for him to contact it. The call notes set out there was a discussion about the neighbours upstairs and that the resident wanted the landlord to speak to them about the dog fouling and noise nuisance including using their washing machine late in the evenings. The resident felt that no risk assessment had been carried out when placing him there given his medical and previous history of being a victim of violence. The notes explained that the resident considered the landlord had failed him as an organisation and that he would be passing the matter to his solicitor.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 January 2021. It explained it had received a text message on 15 January 2021 from the resident in which a number of issues had been raised. The landlord stated:
1. It was unable to comment who had left the gate open. However, having visited the property on 18 January 2021 there was no dog fouling to the front of the property in the communal area.
2. It had spoken to the neighbour, following the resident having confirmed that he would like the landlord to do so. The neighbour had informed the landlord she had spoken to the resident and apologised that she may have missed clearing up after the dog on that occasion. The landlord added the neighbour was happy for the resident to approach her if there were further issues.
3. In terms of the car parking to the front bays that these were not allocated spaces to each flat. It added that the resident might wish to request a disabled parking bay outside the property but that any blue badge holder would be able to use that bay.
4. If the resident did not wish to remain in the property and wished to be rehoused or to consider a mutual exchange he needed to complete an online housing application form.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 January 2021. He stated:
1. He had not informed the landlord that he wanted it to speak to the neighbour.
2. Whilst the landlord had attended the property on that day it was without any real need or his permission.
3. The neighbour had informed him that the landlord’s actions could have put him in danger and that she understood his concerns having been in the same situation herself in a previous property.
4. The dog mess was not limited to a single occurrence but it involved multiple fouling.
5. The landlord had been manipulating the situation to suit its needs and that it was more concerned about the rent payment and when his keys would be handed in than anything else.
6. The resident had tried calling a specific member of the landlord’s staff who he had had previously dealing with. However, that individual had not answered his call. He had then called the safe guarding team who had cancelled his call halfway through. When he had tried again no one had answered.
The landlord’s notes show that the resident contacted it on 9 February 2021. The landlord noted that the call had been to explain that the neighbour’s dogs barked when left alone during the day and also in the evenings. The neighbours also put their washing machine on at night where it ran for up to two hours at a time. The noise was setting off symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and panic attacks for the resident. He added he had moved as he was recovering from cancer and since he had been a victim of domestic violence. He requested a move to a quieter place.
The landlord’s notes show that it had called the resident back on 9 February 2021, having left a message earlier in the day. The notes set out that the resident had wanted to be rehoused without the completion of a new housing application.
The resident contacted the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) on 4 March 2021 to make a complaint. The resident explained that the landlord was refusing to deal or escalate the complaints which he had made. The resident explained that he had made his complaint to the landlord on 3 January 2021. In relation to the issue with the neighbours the resident stated that the landlord had spoken to them in “a gossipy manner” and that he experienced a lack of sleep and his car and tyres had been damaged. He also stated he had dog fouling on the paths and grass outside the property as well as on his bins.
The resident contacted this Service on 28 April 2021. He explained he had made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB however it had not progressed this.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 April 2021. It explained that it had received a complaint from the LGSCO on 28 April 2021 which it had logged at stage one. It explained it would carry out a full investigation which it aimed to complete by 20 May 2021.
The resident replied to the landlord on 30 April 2021. He explained that the original complaint had been sent on 18 January 2021 and that he had made a number of attempts to resolve the matter amicably without success. He stated he had since started legal proceedings. He added that he wished the landlord to admit it was at fault so that he could move away from the area as soon as possible.
The landlord issued the resident with its stage one response on 7 May 2021. It explained that:
1. From the complaint notes the resident had contacted the landlord on 5 January 2021. This was to request contact from it concerning noise issues which he had been experiencing from his new neighbours. He had not wished to complain about the nuisance but rather requested a move.
2. Following speaking to the resident on 11 January 2021 the landlord had spoken to the neighbour in respect of cleaning up after their dogs. The neighbour had advised the resident had already spoken to them over this and about the noise from their washing machine for which they apologised.
3. The neighbour had herself referred to the resident having vacated the property. The landlord had not commented on this or asked the resident directly if he had moved out.
4. It had spoken to the resident about the dog fouling issue and the landlord’s handling of it and as the resident had seemed satisfied with the response, the matter had not been requested to be escalated at that time. The landlord did not specify when exactly this conversation had taken place.
5. The property would be subject to regular spot checks to all the communal areas as the resident stated the dog fouling had continued.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 11 May 2021. He explained he did not want the individual who had issued the stage one response to be involved further in the process as he felt that she had derailed the investigation.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 20 May 2021. The letter explained:
1. It had spoken to the resident on 17 May 2021 who had confirmed that he did not want any help or support with the problems which had been reported and that the resident wanted to be rehoused outside of the area.
2. The landlord had reviewed the initial complaint and the stage one response and was satisfied that it covered all aspects of the complaint. The landlord stated it had spoken to the individuals highlighted in the stage one response.
3. It had followed up on the initial report of dog fouling and visited the property to inspect the mater. It added no details had been disclosed to any other tenants of any complaints made and the resident had not been identified in any way.
The resident has provided both this Service and the landlord with a letter from his GP dated 8 July 2021. This letter requested the resident was re-housed and explained that he had been suffering from his mental health issues and thoughts of self-harm.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Since the final response from the landlord on 20 May 2021 the resident has contacted it to raise further issues and concerns. This included the prevalence of drugs and of discarded needles being dumped in the communal areas. He had also raised a concern about whistleblowing and of theft by the individual with whom he was staying prior to moving to the property. The resident had also complained in early 2022 of further instances of dog fouling in the communal areas of the property and he had written to his MP about it. In terms of these matters these will not be addressed as part of this investigation as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure nor been addressed to the landlord in the first place. Whilst the issue of dog fouling was one that has been considered as part of this complaint given the gap between the final response and the re-reporting of it, it will not be looked at as part of this complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour.

The resident’s initial contact to the landlord on 2 January 2021, did say that he did not wish to raise a complaint about the noise nuisance from his neighbours but that he simply wanted to move at the time. Given the email had been sent out of hours, on a Saturday evening it was unreasonable for the resident to have expected any response to have been provided to him from the landlord until after the New Year weekend. Although the resident may not have wished to raise a complaint at the time, he was seeking a response from the landlord so it needed to intervene in the matter.
The landlord stated that it tried to contact the resident on receipt of his initial email. It has provided its system notes which showed it had recorded the resident’s initial contact with it as a tenancy enquiry and not as an issue of ASB on 6 January 2021. The notes added that it had a left a message for the resident to return its call as it was unable to speak to him. The landlord in its stage one response had stated the call was attempted on 5 January 2021.
The landlord’s comments are in contrast to the resident’s recollection of events. He stated he had not been called after making the initial enquiry, and that the landlord’s first call was not until 11 January 2021, after he had told it not to call him. However irrespective of whether or not the landlord had attempted to contact the resident on 5 January 2021, there is no evidence that it had attempted any further contact until six days later. Even then it had only responded when the resident had emailed it again to explain that he was planning on vacating the property immediately.
Given the initial reporting by the resident and his specific circumstances this delay in contacting him was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with its ASB procedures. Whilst the landlord has stated that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, it was aware from previous communication from him that he had been recovering from cancer and there had been prior reference to domestic violence. As a result, the delay in responding to him was a failing on the part of the landlord.
The resident has explained that he did not want the landlord to speak to his neighbour about the matters and that by doing so, he considers this led to the further issues which he faced including damage to his car and further dog fouling on his bins and in the communal areas. The landlord has said that the resident was aware and had agreed for it to speak to the neighbour about the matter. Whilst there is a dispute between the parties over what had happened, the landlord’s actions in speaking to the neighbour initially was in keeping with its effective management process under the ASB procedure. As the matter had extended to more than simply noise nuisance it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to simply provide the resident with a noise nuisance information pack at that time. Instead, it tried to engage with the parties to resolve the matter during the early stages.
In terms of whether the landlord’s actions put the resident in danger by identifying him as the party making a complaint, both parties have confirmed the resident had already approached and spoken to the neighbour prior to the landlord contacting them on 13 January 2021. Therefore, the neighbour had already been alerted to at least the issues of dog fouling before the landlord’s involvement in the matter.
The resident has questioned the need for the landlord to have visited the property on 18 January 2021, without his permission. As the resident’s concerns involved dog fouling which affected the communal areas, it was reasonable for the landlord to have visited and inspected those areas to see if the issue was ongoing or whether it had been resolved. The inspection also aided the landlord in providing a response to the other issues the resident had raised in his text message which had been sent on 15 January 2021.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The resident has explained that the landlord’s staff had removed the complaints which he had made and it had also refused to escalate them.
In terms of making a complaint the resident stated on the form for LGSCO that this was initially done on 3 January 2021. This date is slightly different from the date on the original email which the resident had sent to the landlord and there is no specific mention of this date in any follow up communication from the resident. In terms of the resident’s initial email, he had specified that he did not wish to make a complaint at that stage about the matter but simply that he wished to be rehoused.
The landlord’s first direct interaction with the resident was on 11 January 2021. The landlord’s call notes indicated that the resident had raised his voice during the call and he was getting angry during the call however there been no indication at that time that he wished to make a complaint. The initial reference to the resident making a complaint was on 18 January 2021. However, despite this the landlord did not treat the matter as a complaint until it was contacted by the LGSCO at the end of April 2021, over three months later. This delay caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has stated it had spoken to the resident on occasions, prior to issuing correspondence to him. This had included both at stage one and at stage two. However, the landlord has not provided the call notes of these conversations although a brief mention of the substantive issues is included in the response letters. The resident did make a request for the calls as part of a subject access request which this Service understands the landlord responded to in March 2022.
Whilst there is no evidence that the landlord had removed any complaints from its system there was a complaints handling failure caused by it in not responding to the resident’s complaint for a prolonged period.

The record keeping.

Little information has been provided by the landlord in relation to the communication held with its housing officer, who the resident has raised a specific complaint about. Whilst the landlord has provided some limited call and system notes, the stage one response had referred to it in a much greater depth. There are no notes of any formal discussion held with the housing officer prior to the landlord issuing either the stage one or stage two response or of the conversations the housing officer may have had with the resident’s neighbours. The lack of any contemporaneous evidence from the landlord at the time is a failing on the part of the landlord. Landlords need to maintain an audit trail of its actions and the evidence which it is relying on regardless of whether this constituted a “formal” investigation or not. In this case this did not occur.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This includes the investigation of complaints received. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s complaint about the ASB including inspections of the external areas of the property. Neither was there any record of the resident’s vulnerability. This was despite the landlord having been made aware of the issues in a number of previous communication and from previous complaints. These recording failures all amounts to a serious failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord did act appropriately in response to the resident’s concerns of noise nuisance and dog fouling it failed to respond to the resident’s initial contact in line with the response time for urgent situations.
There was an extended delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and passing it to stage one of the complaints process.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the conversations including phone calls which took place between the landlord and the resident as well as discussions held with the landlord’s staff when considering the complaint. In addition, the landlord had no record of the resident’s vulnerability noted despite having been made aware of it during previous communications and an earlier complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £350 which is comprised of:
  1. £100 for its failure in not responding to the resident in accordance with the timeframe under its ASB procedure.
  2. £100 for its failure in its complaints handling.
  3. £150 for its failure in its record keeping.
The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service by the same date outlined above.