London Borough of Brent (202340120)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340120

London Borough of Brent

21 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

  1. The compliant is about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a second floor flat in a low-rise block. He has held the lease since October 1998 and lives alone. The landlord has told this Service it is aware the resident is disabled.
  2. On 15 June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that children were kicking footballs at his property and there was drug use taking place in the area. On 30 June 2023, the resident formally complained to the landlord that it had taken no action in relation to the report he made.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2023. The landlord said that following the resident’s complaint it had visited his property and sent a letter to all residents on the estate to remind them to be mindful of neighbouring properties when children were playing. The landlord also said:
    1. It had not had any reports of ASB from other residents.
    2. It would put up a “no ball games” sign but this could not be enforced.
    3. Children playing was not ASB, unless they were kicking the ball at the block.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 October 2023. He stated he was not satisfied with the response and felt the landlord was giving other residents the right to harass him and damage his property.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 December 2023. It stated that it had written to the residents of the estate, and no one had claimed to be responsible for the ASB. The landlord recognised it had failed to carry out some actions set out in its ASB policy and offered the resident £100 compensation.
  6. The resident remains dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. In his correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised other ASB matters that occurred before those subject to this complaint, that have not been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 4 December 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
  3. The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on his health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The resident lives on an estate that consists of several low-rise blocks of flats. To the rear of the resident’s block, there is a grassed area, which is used by many of the local children to play football. The resident’s property, on the second floor, has a balcony with a CCTV camera (with audio), which can rotate to capture footage from the side and rear of the property.
  2. On 15 June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that children from the estate had been kicking footballs against the block walls, the windows, and his balcony. He said this was happening despite there being a sign that read “no ball games allowed”, that the landlord had previously erected. The resident also reported that there was drug use taking place in the same area and the noise levels were interfering with his enjoyment of his home.
  3. The resident explained that he was concerned about damage being caused to his property and the behaviour was making him terrified and stressed. He also stated that it was raising his blood pressure and making him more ill.
  4. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 June 2023, after not receiving a response to his report of ASB. He stated:
    1. He had reported ASB in the past and it had not been dealt with.
    2. His disability meant he was housebound.
    3. The children were deliberately targeting him, and the parents encouraged it.
    4. He believed individuals were dealing drugs around the area and identified the addresses of those involved.
    5. He described ‘gangsters’ hanging around the area threatening people.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 July 2023 with the intention of visiting him that day to discuss his ASB report. However, the resident stated he would prefer to be visited at a time when the children would be present. An appointment was made for 25 July 2023.
  6. The landlord’s ASB policy uses the ASB definition set out in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014:
    1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person,
    2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises,
    3. or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  7. In its policy, the landlord states that it expects a “reasonable level of tolerance” among its residents. What is reasonable is subjective and may be affected by a resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident’s previous communications to the landlord evidenced he was feeling harassed and distressed, which is reasonable to assume may have been aggravated further by his disability, as he was unable to leave the property and have respite from the behaviour.
  8. The policy states that when ASB is reported, it will be categorised as low, medium, or high risk and residents reporting low or medium risk ASB will be contacted within 3 to 5 working days. The landlord contacted the resident 13 working days after the resident submitted his report, and only after he made further contact to complain that his report had not been acted upon. It was unreasonable of the landlord to deviate from its policy in this way given the apparent distress the resident conveyed in his original report.
  9. The landlord’s ASB policy also states that a case officer will contact or arrange to visit the resident within 10 working days to complete a number of actions, which include:
    1. Provide the resident with contact details should the resident need to report further incidents.
    2. Complete a vulnerability risk assessment.
    3. Obtain further information about the alleged ASB, including any available evidence.
    4. Agree with the resident how the case will be investigated, what options are available and discuss the resident’s expectations.
    5. Fully explain what is expected from the resident in the circumstances.
  10. The landlord’s contact was 3 days overdue and was a slight deviation from its policy. In a phone call with the resident on 4 July 2023, the Landlord discussed his complaint, however, failed to complete any of the actions detailed above. It was inappropriate for the landlord to cause these actions to be delayed, given the evident distress being experienced by the resident.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 and 11 July 2023 and provided CCTV footage of the problems he was experiencing. The footage shows the balls being kicked towards the resident’s block on numerous occasions and the audio confirms the ball made contact with it. The resident informed the landlord of two children in particular who were ringing his buzzer and running away and provided their addresses. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s emails, causing him to feel further ignored.
  12. The landlord visited the resident at his property on 25 July 2023. It has not provided documentary evidence of a record around this visit. As such, it has not been possible to establish whether it complied and completed the actions set out as part of its initial response and set out in its policy. In the absence of this information, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord fulfilled its obligations and considered the residents specific needs in its approach to tackling the ASB.
  13. On 31 July 2023, the landlord wrote to all blocks on the estate to inform residents that a complaint had been made regarding the playing of football, shouting, and drug use. The letter stated that games using hard balls “really should be avoided in residential areas”, and asked residents to remind their children to respect the property of others. The letter did not mention games involving ringing other resident’s buzzers and running away.
  14. The landlord’s ASB policy states that contact will be made with the alleged perpetrator within 10 days of the case being created and a check list of actions will be completed including interviewing and recording an action plan. It also states that where the perpetrators are under the age of 18, they will be interviewed in the presence of their parent’s (or an appropriate adult).
  15. While the sending of the letter could be considered a step in the right direction to providing the resident with a resolution to his issues, it lacked focus and an appreciation of the full circumstances. The resident had previously provided the landlord with the addresses of individual children involved. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the parents of those children directly, who were also residents or leaseholders of the landlord, and ask them to account for their actions. This did not happen, and the generic letter was not sent out until 6 weeks after the resident made the report of ASB. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the matter at an earlier stage.
  16. The landlord’s ASB policy also indicates it will typically deal with incidents involving drug taking and drug dealing. The policy states it takes a partnership approach to tackling ASB, which involves other agencies such as the police. There is no evidence that the landlord liaised with the police regarding any aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  17. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 July, 4 and 31 August, and 15 September 2023 to chase his report of ASB, provide further CCTV footage, and report other issues including:
    1. Dogs being walked off the lead and owners not cleaning up after them.
    2. Residents having loud parties and barbeques in the park and littering.
    3. Children ringing his buzzer and running away.
    4. Further incidents involving children playing football.
    5. One resident was using the residents’ car park to store untaxed cars.
  18. In each email the resident sent, he identified the addresses of the individuals involved and requested action was taken. The landlord failed to acknowledge any of the emails sent by the resident until 18 September 2023. The landlord said it had written to all residents and no one had admitted to the allegations and arranged to visit the resident again 21 September 2023. It also stated:
    1. The resident should contact the police in relation to allegations of drug misuse.
    2. “Noisy children themselves are not a ‘nuisance”.
    3. A local mediation scheme may be able to help.
  19. By directing the resident to the police instead of taking a multi-agency approach the landlord had again deviated from its ASB policy in relation to drug issues. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have been proactive in establishing contact and passing information to partner agencies, rather than rely on the resident to do so. It also dismissed the resident’s concerns about the children playing football, despite the fact he had previously informed it that the ball was being kicked at the property (something which was evident from the CCTV supplied) and he feared damage would be caused. Furthermore, it was unreasonable of the landlord to suggest mediation as a meaningful resolution option in the circumstances given the warning letter had been ignored by the perpetrators.
  20. The resident made further reports to the landlord on 18 and 20 September 2023 of children playing football at the rear of his block and drug use. The resident included CCTV footage that showed children kicking footballs at the building itself, with some making contact with the property at height. The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 September 2023, to cancel the visit to his property due to his ill health.
  21. The landlord replied to the resident on 22 September 2023 and thanked him for the further reports he had supplied. It reiterated the previous advice it had given and stated, “Children playing in communal areas is not considered anti-social behaviour, unless they are causing criminal damage.”
  22. It was inappropriate for the landlord to make this statement as the definition of ASB in its policy, does not require criminal damage to committed. This statement caused the resident great distress and shows that the landlord had not considered the impact of the behaviour on the resident and his vulnerabilities.
  23. The resident made further reports of similar issues to the landlord on 27 and 29 September, and 9 October 2023. The landlord did not respond to any of these submissions. This failure to respond was evidence of poor customer service, which is likely to have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s motivation to support him in a time of difficulty. This loss of confidence in the landlord will have damaged the landlord and tenant relationship.
  24. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2023. It apologised for the distress caused and stated:
    1. It had sent a letter to all blocks in the vicinity blocks to remind residents if children are playing to be mindful of neighbouring properties and to report to the police if they suspect or witness any drug taking in the block
    2. It had not received any other reports of ASB from neighbouring properties.
    3. It would put up a sign saying “no ball games” but it was not enforceable.
    4. Providing the children did not kick the ball against the wall, it could not stop them playing at the rear of his block.
    5. It would arrange for another letter to be sent to all residents to remind children to be considerate when playing.
  25. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will agree with the resident how the case will be investigated, which will involve gathering evidence. It was unreasonable of the landlord to state it had received no further reports of ASB. While this may have been the case, the landlord had taken no proactive action in order to gather any such evidence. The generic letter it sent out in July 2023 did not invite further residents to come forward. The landlord should be aware that residents might be too scared to make those reports. The landlord should have assessed whether there were further residents with vulnerabilities who might be affected and approach them in a more considered way.
  26. The landlord’s offer to erect a “no balls game sign” demonstrated a lack of understanding of the resident’s reports and was insensitive. The resident’s block already had signs in place, he had informed it of this, and the signs were ineffective.
  27. The landlord’s response lacked empathy for the resident’s situation and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issues he faced. In his initial ASB report, the resident stated the ball was being kicked at the property wall, windows, and his balcony area (situated on the second floor). The subsequent CCTV footage (with sound) evidences that the ball was indeed being kicked against the wall and sometimes at a great height. It was inappropriate for the landlord to suggest sending out a further blanket letter when the resident had provided it with addresses of the individuals who were causing the issues. This Service has not seen any evidence that a second letter was sent out until December 2023.
  28. The resident submitted further CCTV evidence to the landlord on 22 October 2023 and reported further instances of children kicking the ball against his block. The resident named the children involved and stated he was now subjected to racial comments. The CCTV shows the ball being kicked up high towards his balcony, and comments from the children such as “try one more time” suggest the act was deliberate. In places, the audio is distorted due to noise of the camera moving, but the word “Indian” can be heard.
  29. The resident escalated his complaint the following day and stated that he was unsatisfied with the landlord’s response, and he wanted the landlord to “stop giving them the rights to harass us and damaging [sic] our property”. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s further report, and other than sending him an escalation acknowledgement on 3 November 2023, it did not contact him again until it issued its stage 2 response. The lack of communication was a significant failing given the situation appeared to have escalated, there was evidence that the behaviour appeared targeted, and the resident was feeling isolated and unsupported.
  30. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, issued on 4 December 2023, repeated much of the stage 1 response. In addition, the landlord stated:
    1. Its ASB policy stated that unless children are causing criminal damage to property, it does not constitute ASB.
    2. It had taken appropriate steps by visiting the resident and sending letters to the whole estate.
    3. It had recognised that it should have sent acknowledgement emails to the resident’s further reports and its communication levels did not meet its policy expectations.
    4. It recognised that there was CCTV footage that should have been acted upon, such as children ringing the resident’s buzzer and kicking footballs against the block, and specific warning letters should have been sent to the addresses of those involved.
    5. The vulnerability assessment had not been completed for the resident and it would arrange for this to be completed within the next 4 weeks.
    6. It acknowledged the issues in the area where ongoing and it would send out a further letter to all residents asking parents to remind their children not to press buzzers and kick balls against the wall.
    7. The resident should refrain from sending in CCTV of children playing football but if he continued to experience incidents where he was being targeted directly, he should keep an incident diary.
    8. It would investigate the allegation that untaxed cars were being parked in the resident’s car park.
    9. The resident had not provided evidence of drug use or supply and should report it to the police as it was not responsible for this aspect.
    10. It acknowledged the resident had suffered some inconvenience and offered £100 compensation for the lack of communication and not completing the vulnerability assessment sooner.
  31. It was inappropriate for the landlord to state that children needed to cause criminal damage for the matter to be classified as ASB. This was misleading as it was not stipulated as such in the landlord’s policy. It also downplayed and minimised the incidents so as to demean the distress and harassment experienced by the resident.
  32. While it is positive that the landlord identified a number of its own failings, its proposed actions were unreasonable in the circumstances. In accordance with its policy, it is reasonable to conclude given the evidence available that rather than send another generic letter to all residents, the landlord could have sent direct letters to the alleged perpetrators, to start working with those involved to find a resolution. The landlord has not provided a rationale as to why it deviated from its policy position.
  33. In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, it should have completed the vulnerability assessment in June 2023. It was unreasonable for the landlord to make the resident wait a further 4 weeks, following the stage 2 response, for the assessment to be completed given what it knew about his disability made him vulnerable.
  34. The landlord sent a further letter to all residents of the estate on the same day it issued its stage 2 response. The letter contained similar information to previous letters it had sent. It also stated, “children playing in communal areas (unless they are causing criminal damage) is not antisocial behaviour”. The letter did not refer to balls being kicked against the blocks.
  35. This was an inappropriate message for the landlord to give its residents. It effectively gave permission for balls to be kicked at the blocks, so long as damage was not caused, contradicting its stance in its stage 1 response to the resident. It could also potentially hinder other residents, effected by the behaviour, to come forward and report it.
  36. Following the stage 2 response, the resident continued to submit further CCTV footage to the landlord of incidents that made him feel harassed and distressed. In his emails, the resident stated he did not believe the landlord would take the reports seriously. The CCTV footage provided shows that the behaviour had become more targeted and deliberate. The children can be seen to wave at the camera, throw items other than footballs towards the resident’s balcony and they are heard to be shouting to the resident and imitating his accent.
  37. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial ASB report. The landlord’s failure to then apply its ASB policy and gather relevant information from the resident at the earliest opportunity, delayed the matter being resolved. The evidence shows that the landlord misunderstood some aspects of the resident’s complaint, and despite him submitting further evidence that would support his allegations, this information was not reviewed. The actions taken by the landlord were unsuitable, no evidence gathering took place and there was no evidence of partnership working to address the issue. The landlord repeatedly deviated from its policy.
  38. The time taken to progress the matter, the lack of communication and the failure to listen and understand the resident’s issues has caused him significant distress and inconvenience. Recent communications from the resident to the landlord are indicative of a loss in confidence in the landlord to deal with ASB issues, and a breakdown of the landlord and tenant relationship. The evidence shows that rather than the reported issue being resolved, the landlord’s handling of the matter has contributed to it becoming worse.
  39. When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  40. The landlord does not have a compensation policy and uses the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when awarding compensation. The guidance states that £100 may be appropriate redress in cases of service failure, where the impact on the resident is minimal and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. In this case, there was significant impact on the resident and the offer of £100 was unreasonable.
  41. The series of failings identified above, and the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, amounts to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB by the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £750 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2023 and complained that the landlord had taken no action despite his report of ASB 2 weeks earlier. The landlord contacted the resident by phone on 4 July 2023, 2 working days later, and acknowledged his complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its policy.
  3. On 13 October 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint. It stated that the response was waiting to be signed off and would be sent to him the following week. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2023.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that in cases of complaints covered by the Ombudsman, it will issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days where possible. It also states that in circumstances where this is not possible, it will advise the resident of the likely timescale.
  5. The landlord’s stage one response was sent 75 working days after the complaint was made (excluding bank holidays and weekends). While the landlord did provide an update and apologise for the delay, this only occurred 3 days before the final response was issued. This was an unreasonable delay, which left the resident feeling ignored and further damaged the landlord and tenant relationship.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 23 October 2023. He stated he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response as the issues were still causing him to feel harassed. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 December 2023, 30 working days after the complaint escalation. The resident received no contact from the landlord from the time he submitted his escalation request, to the stage 2 response being issued.
  7. The landlord’s complaint policy states that in cases of complaints covered by the Ombudsman, it will issue a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days where possible. It also states that in circumstances where this is not possible, it will advise the resident of the likely timescale. It was unreasonable of the landlord to further delay the stage 2 response, given the delays the resident had already experienced. This minor deviation from policy could have been prevented had the landlord informed the resident there would be a delay.
  8. In its response the landlord acknowledged the substantive complaint and offered the resident £100 compensation. It did not acknowledge the failures in its complaint handling.
  9. The landlord has told this Service that it does not have a compensation policy but uses the Ombudsmen’s remedies guidance when appropriate. The remedies guidance suggests that financial redress is appropriate where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and / or has made no attempt to put things right. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to address its failings in complaint handling.
  10. The extensive delay to its stage 1 complaint response, the lack of communication with the resident and its failure to acknowledge it had deviated from its policy amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in. An order has been for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. This calculation for compensation has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £950 compensation, inclusive of compensation already paid, made up of:
      1. £750 for its failings in handling reports of ASB.
      2. £200 for its failings in complaint handling.
    3. Conduct a review of the resident’s ASB case and identify a proactive action plan which includes:
      1. Consideration of safeguarding a vulnerable adult.
      2. An updated vulnerability risk assessment.
      3. A single point of contact to take a holistic approach to resolving the ASB matter.
      4. Consider its own policy definitions of ASB when communicating with residents and avoid conflicting messages around the types of behaviour that could be considered anti-social, i.e. a criminal threshold does not need to be met, and anti-social behaviour is defined as:
  • 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,
  • or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
    1. Liaise with the resident and review available evidence to make informed decisions in line with its policy to tackle ASB by identified perpetrators.
    2. A multi-agency approach to resolving the issue, including involving the police where relevant.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on:
    1. Understanding why the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had followed its ASB policy, specifically why actions under its policy were not implemented, why further information was not reviewed and acted upon, and any changes it needs to make to ensure it is able to effectively tackle reports of ASB when they are made. The landlord should place emphasis on why it was unable to promptly identify and subsequently action a risk assessment which focussed on the vulnerability of the resident in this case.
    2. Understanding why the landlord was unable to demonstrate the steps it had taken to ensure a multi-agency approach to dealing with the ASB case, and any changes it needs to make to ensure this approach is adopted, where relevant, in future cases.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.