London Borough of Croydon (202216848)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216848

London Borough of Croydon

26 October 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 is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of proposed actions from multi agency meeting to address reported antisocial behaviour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy for the property which is a one-bed ground floor flat in a block. The tenancy started on 26 September 2016.
The resident has raised concerns around ASB in the vicinity of his home for several years. In 2021, this Service reviewed a previous complaint (reference 202006413)and one of the orders was that the landlord hold a multi-agency meeting to discuss measures that could be taken to reduce the ASB.
Following the multi-agency meeting, the landlord indicated that it would consider proposals that were put forward that day. The resident raised a complaint regarding the lack of action and communication from the landlord but remained unhappy with the landlords response.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy that consists of the following steps:
1. Stage one – Response should be provided within 20 working days. If this cannot be met, the landlord should communicate any potential extension to the resident.
2. Stage two – Response should be provided within 20 working days. If this cannot be met, the landlord should communicate any potential extension to the resident.

Summary of events

On 31 August 2021, the landlord confirmed a meeting at the property to discuss the ASB and potential measures to alleviate it.
A meeting took place at the estate on 9 September 2021 between the resident, his representatives, several representatives of the landlord and the police ASB team. The resident showed videos taken in the local area to highlight some of the issues he had previously reported. Following a walk around the estate, several measures were proposed to alleviate the ASB around the resident’s home. These were as follows:
1. Installation of a CCTV camera.
2. Application of anti-climb paint to a wall bordering his property.
3. Installation of a cage around the ramp.
4. A higher privacy fence beside the resident’s property.
5. Installation of three gates to limit access to parts of the estate.
6. Cut down overgrown vegetation.
Within an internal landlord email of the same day, it noted these proposals and asked for feedback on them from numerous people within the landlord services. This Service has not had sight of any responses to this email, despite its requests.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2021 to chase an update on the proposed actions from the meeting.
The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 23 September 2021 and asked for a response around the proposed works by 30 September 2021.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord responded to the emails from the resident and his representative. The email said “the recommendations are now with the repairs team” and “I hope that the proposals with be authorised”.
The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 3 November 2021, as it had not provided an update on the proposed recommendations. They said that the ongoing ASB outside the resident’s property were “having an impact on his mental health”.
Another email was sent to the landlord on 3 December 2021 by the resident’s representative. They said that as they were still to receive any updates around the outstanding requests, they would be contacting this Service.
Internal emails from the landlord, dated 8 December 2021, show that the previous email was again forwarded to different people within the landlord services.
On 27 January 2022, the resident’s representative raised a formal complaint with the landlord. Within the complaint, the requested resolution was either completion of the proposed works or the landlord to arrange a management transfer for the resident. The complaint was around the following:
1. Lack of communication and updates provided by the landlord around the proposed actions from the meeting on 9 September 2021.
2. Other issues that the resident has not escalated for review by this Service.
Internal landlord emails show that following receipt of the complaint it chased responses from its repairs team on the same day. In one of its emails it said “we’ll need to progress this promptly as this is now severely overdue”.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 10 February 2022. Within its response it said the following:
1. It was obtaining quotes to remove “two sides of the walls surrounding the ramp”. It said once this work had been completed, it could then carry out a “survey to identify the best course of action to close off the area under the ramp”. It said it could not offer a timeframe but updates would be provided.
2. Further enquiries regarding proposed works could be directed to the Repairs Operational Manager and the Members and Residents Services officer. Direct email addresses were provided for both.
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 10 March 2022 to request escalation of the complaint to stage two. Within the letter it said the stage one response only commented on one of the proposed works. Two of the requests for fencing had not been mentioned and to date they have not had any contact around them.
The resolution requested by the resident was for the fencing works to be completed, the contractor to arrange repair work to the drain and an agreement for more regular checks and a higher standard of cleaning. The letter said that if these could not be met, he would like a management transfer from the estate.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord received a quote for works to fence off below the ramp next to the resident’s property.
An internal landlord email from 4 April 2022 said that following further investigation and discussion with the resident, it may change the proposed actions. It suggested requoting the work to install a “steel palisade fence” to “enclose the retaining wall area and ramp completely”.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 10 May 2022. It apologised for the delay in providing its response and said the following:
1. In managing the complaint it said “we should clearly have progressed matters more swiftly”.
2. It had met with the resident on 18 April 2022 and “confirmed that there is a problem with ASB and drug related crime in the immediate area”.
3. It would “now proceed with fencing off the area around the ramp with green mesh”. No date was provided for this work.
4. In relation to a request to screen off the resident’s property from people using the ramp, it said it would not be progressing with this work. It said that this “would not be an appropriate use of limited resources” and “would create an unsustainable precedent” which “could be challenged by other residents”.
5. The requests to install three security gates that would limit access to the estate could not be met immediately. This was because the paths were a public Right of Way and leaseholders would need to be consulted due to the cost of such plans. It said it would begin the process of consulting with the relevant parties about such proposals.
6. The resident’s circumstances did not meet the threshold for a management transfer. It said this would only be considered where “there is a threat to life or limb from members within the immediate household” or when major works were required and the resident cannot remain in then property.

Events post complaint process

On 3 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord as following its assurances in the stage two letter of 10 May 2022, it had still not fenced off the ramp area. The resident requested a response that included a date when the work to the ramp would be completed. He said that bushes and trees in the area remained overgrown, as they had not been trimmed in over three years, despite the maintenance of them being included in service charges he paid. His email also included two reports of ASB.
The landlord responded to the resident by email on 20 September 2022. It responded to his ASB concerns and said that the work around the ramp was with the Asset Manager and said he would be contacted by them “directly”.
On 1 November 2022, the resident brought his complaint to this Service. It was considered duly made on 19 February 2023.
An internal landlord email dated 23 March 2023 shows a request for the trees and shrubs to be cut back. Within the email it said “I have a Mayoral enquiry with respect to this request”.
On the same day, a separate internal landlord email shows a request for the “current protocol with mobile CCTV installation request”. It said this was because “we need a mobile CCTV following numerous complaints of drug dealing and ASB”.
As part of a request for further information in October 2023, the landlord provided an update on the works proposed in September 2021. These were as follows:
1. The CCTV camera was “in the process of being authorised – waiting for camera to be installed”.
2. The wall beside the resident’s property had been painted with anti-climb paint between March 2023 and July 2023. It was unable provide an exact date.
3. Work to build a cage around the ramp was completed on 28 April 2023.
4. It confirmed that it would not install a privacy fence beside the resident’s property. It said the resident could but the landlord has “no responsibility”.
5. The requests for installation of three gates to limit access to different parts of the estate could not be agreed as the landlord is “unable to place a gate on a public footpath”.
6. It said that the overgrown vegetation was cut down in July 2023 and that “maintenance is scheduled to happen every six weeks”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of proposed actions from multi agency meeting.

The multi-agency meeting in September 2021 took place following an order from this Service in a previous investigation. Within the previous investigation, the resident had raised significant concerns of historical ASB around his property. The meeting was arranged to discuss potential measures that could reduce the instances of ASB, or the effects of it, for the resident.
The landlord has shown no effective management or sufficient oversight of the proposals after they were made on 9 September 2021. The resident chased a response around two weeks after the meeting and was told it was “with the repairs team”. After this, the resident chased a response on both 3 November 2021 and 3 December 2021. This Service has not had sight of responses to either email from the landlord. Although it did not respond, the landlord has shown that it did receive the email on 3 December 2021, as it is forwarded the same email to different people at the landlord. However, no response was provided to any of the resident’s correspondence until after the stage one complaint was raised on 27 January 2022. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it has ignored the resident’s correspondence for a total of 12 weeks and only responded after a formal complaint was raised. This resident had felt ignored previously, which had led to the involvement of this Service, and the landlord’s lack of responses would have reinforced this feeling.
It is evident that the works proposed at the meeting in September 2021 were not completed until after March 2023. Throughout correspondence from the landlord, there are assurances that works were being planned or considered, however, no actual work was completed until 18 months after the meeting. This comes 10 months after the complaint process was exhausted in May 2022 and a month after the resident had sought intervention from this Service in February 2023. Although it is understandable that some of these works would have required some consideration around viability and costing, it is the view of this Service that the time taken was excessive. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord, as the resident, who felt progress was being made, invested an unnecessary amount of time and trouble in chasing these works. Further to this, the resident has been left with an impression that it takes him having to go through the complaint process and involve this Service, before any meaningful action is taken by their landlord.
The landlord missed an opportunity to provide the resident with a single point of contact when managing the proposals. It is evident that throughout this period, information was only offered once the resident or his representative had chased it. When it did respond, there were no instances of any actual dates being offered. Its responses were unspecific and in most instances the resident was directed to contact somebody else within the landlord. Had it provided a single point of contact, this should have led to a more consistent and efficient experience for the resident. Instead, they were left not knowing who exactly was dealing with the proposals, leading to delays in both communication and action from the landlord. During this time, the resident has been left to live with the effects of the ASB, that he had already informed the landlord, was affecting his mental health. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it showed no empathy to the resident’s ongoing situation.
The proposal for gates to be installed was refused as the proposed locations were on public footpaths and the privacy fence was refused for financial reasons. It is understandable that not all of the proposals would be possible. However, it took nine months for the landlord to make these decisions, which outside of obtaining a quote for the fence, should have been able to have been decided quickly. Given that both of these decisions were outlined in the stage two letter and not the stage one, it would suggest that these decisions were only made after March 2022. This means that they had not been considered for at least six months after the initial meeting. This is another failing on the part of the landlord in managing these proposals. It has shown no real ownership or urgency to address the resident’s requests, or to provide them with the answers they sought.
Despite the resident chasing the works and exhausting the complaint process with it, the landlord failed to progress or action the proposed works until around March 2023. This is after this Service began a review of the resident’s complaint and, as stated in an internal landlord email, it had a “mayoral enquiry” around it. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord as not only did it take around 18 months to start these works, it only did so after they became subject to a “mayoral review” and a review by this Service. This could only have made the resident feel as though their concerns were only addressed when other parties became involved in their complaints. This would not have offered the resident any reassurance that the landlord empathised with their situation wanted a swift resolution to those problems.
Although the proposals made in September 2021 would not be considered standard actions or repairs, this would not exclude them from being managed and completed within a realistic timeframe. The landlord failed to manage them in a reasonable manner, as between September 2021 and the end of the complaint process in May 2022, none of the proposed works had been completed. Even the works that could not be completed for financial or practical reasons were not communicated to the resident until nine months after the meeting. The resident has been left chasing its requests with no real engagement from the landlord. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaint policy was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
In addressing the stage one complaint, the landlord failed to address the key reason for the complaint, the lack of action around the proposals from September 2021. In its response, the landlord said it was “obtaining quotes” for work that could lead to one of the jobs being completed, the sealing off of the ramp. However, it failed to provide any clarity on any of the other proposals. The Complaint Handling Code says that landlords must detail all elements of the complaint, which it failed to do within this response. Instead it provided email addresses for two other members of staff and directed the resident to contact them. This demonstrates a lack of overall ownership, oversight and an incomplete investigation by the landlord as they had not secured answers from the other members of staff as to the current status of the proposed works. This information should have been sought out as part of the investigation and the findings should have been detailed within the response. This is a significant failing by the landlord as they have not provided an adequate response to the main complaint. This means that the resident was no definitive answers as to what was happening with the proposals following making a stage one complaint. This left them in a position where their only option to secure answers would be to escalate the complaint.
It is evident that following the stage two escalation, the landlord arranged for someone from the repairs function to meet with the resident and discuss the proposals. Following the escalation, internal emails show that the landlord considered changes to the initial plans it made to meet the proposals from September 2021. However, the landlord did not progress with any of these actions following the discussion or its emails. This demonstrates a lack of joined up working and ownership being taken by the landlord as nobody follows through with either arranging the work or chasing for the work to be completed. The resident would have felt further ignored, when no action was taken following another meeting and discussion with the landlord.
The landlord’s response to the stage two complaint was not provided in line with its complaint policy, as it took 41 working days to provide it. This Service has not had sight of any correspondence from the landlord to explain the delay or provide a new timeframe for its response. This would add to the frustration and distress the resident is experiencing due to the delays.
Within its stage two response, the landlord does confirm that two of the initial proposals would not be undertaken and it provided a reasonable explanation for both. However, the landlord failed to provide any further meaningful updates on the other proposals. It said that it would be fencing off the area around the ramp, which it had also said in its stage one response, similarly, no date was offered for this work at this stage. There is no mention of the request for CCTV, application of anti-climb paint and the cutting back of overgrown vegetation within its response.
This demonstrates that the landlord had not fully considered the key elements of the complaint and, as a result, had not investigated it fully. It had failed to obtain updates or provide comment on three of the proposals that were central to the initial complaint. This meant that outside of being told which proposals would not go ahead, the resident was no better off for having raised a complaint and a subsequent review. This could only have been disappointing and frustrating for the resident who had made it clear that the ASB was causing him significant distress. After raising a complaint over three months prior, he was no clearer as to when the works would be completed.
Although the stage two complaint did answer the resident’s question around the possibility of a management transfer. It could have gone further in suggesting alternative methods for the resident to seek a change of property, such as a mutual exchange. This is a failing by the landlord as it leaves the resident feeling as if he is stuck in the current property, when there could be another option that would allow him to move.
In its conclusion of the complaint, the landlord did not indicate whether the complaint had been upheld. Further to this, no actions are proposed when it is clear that there were outstanding works that he had actively chased within his correspondence and complaints. Even if it could not provide dates for the work at that stage, it could have agreed a method by which to keep the resident updated on the progress of those works. This is a failing by the landlord as it did not offer any form of reasonable outcome to the complaint.
Ultimately, the landlord’s investigation of the complaints across both stages lacked any real understanding of the resident’s complaint or empathy for the impact of these issues on the resident. The key reason for the complaint was not addressed over two investigations with several of the proposals having never been mentioned within its responses. The resident is offered no answers as to when the proposals and other repairs would take place at the end of the complaint process. Given that it was also 21 working days late, the resident could only have been frustrated with the landlord’s management of it and the distress experienced while awaiting its response. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of proposed actions from multi agency meeting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of proposed actions from multi agency meeting.

The landlord failed to maintain any form of regular contact with the resident despite significant delays around proposed works being decided on or actioned. The resident requested updates after the initial meeting but after receiving no response, made a formal complaint to the landlord four months later. Despite following the complaint process, no works were completed and the only updates were to advise the resident of works that would not be undertaken. It was over 18 months after the initial meeting before any of the works were completed and some still remain outstanding.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

In responding to the resident’s complaint across both stages, it failed to show a real understanding of the complaint and only provided answers to some of the issues raised. The key concern was always the proposals from the meeting in September 2021 but it failed to ever provide any definitive plans or timeframes for the works to be carried out. Some of the proposals were never mentioned in any of the complaints and others were suggested as being in process. The only definitive answers provided were the landlord stating it would not complete two of the proposals from the meeting. The resident was left no better off for having followed the complaint process.

Orders

The landlord’s handling of proposed actions from multi agency meeting.

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £350 to the resident towards the extended distress and inconvenience experienced due to the landlord’s handling of the proposed actions from the multi-agency meeting between September 2021 and the end of the complaint process in May 2022. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord must review the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within four weeks of the date of this report and provide a report showing that this has been brought into its operations identified improvements within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider at minimum:
1. Ensure adequacy of record keeping and oversight related to any proposal of works outside its repair policy.
2. Ensure residents are given a timeframe for the decision to be made on any proposed works and are kept informed throughout the process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £250 to the resident towards the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble experienced due to the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
If it has not done so in the past six months, the landlord to review its complaint management and oversight process, providing this Service with details of the outcome of the review within four weeks of the date of this report. Its review should be conducted with the aim of ensuring that all relevant staff:
1. Understand the landlord’s complaint policy and the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.
2. Ensure oversight of commitments made in complaint responses through to satisfactory completion.