London Borough of Islington (202339077)

Background

1. The resident and her 3 children live in a 2-bedroom flat on the tenth floor of a block on an  estate. She has repeatedly raised concerns with the landlord about antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block caused by rough sleepers gaining unauthorised access to the building.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We have seen no evidence the landlord completed an ASB risk assessment or that it explained to the resident the approach it would take to address the ASB issues being reported. It has not provided us with evidence of the actions it says it took in its complaint responses.
7. The landlord did not meet its response timescales at stages 1 and 2 of its complaints procedure.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

8. Our remit only applies to the local authority’s function as a provider and manager of social housing. Therefore, this investigation is limited to the local authority’s housing function in its capacity as the landlord. It will not extend to the actions of other local authority departments, such as local councillors or environmental health, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
9. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has told us she has lived with ASB issues for the duration of her tenancy, which dates beck to December 2013. She raised a formal complaint on 10 October 2023. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issues. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate matters relating to ASB that occurred before 10 October 2022.

What we did investigate

10. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will:
    1. Take a preventative approach to try to deter ASB from occurring in the first place.
    2. Be responsive and empathetic, adopt a victim-centred approach, and deliver good customer service at all times.
    3. Be honest and transparent about what is and is not possible in terms of enforcement and outcomes.
    4. Work in partnership with other agencies and teams to tackle the root causes of ASB.
    5. Take robust enforcement action where its efforts do not work.
11. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps us to understand its actions and decision-making at the time. If there are disputed facts and no supporting evidence, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
12. In this case, we have seen no evidence of the landlord’s direct response to ASB concerns raised by a local councillor on behalf of the resident and others living in the block on 9 March 2023. The executive member’s reply, dated 13 March 2023, referred to an emergency meeting with senior housing and ASB officers on 10 March 2023 and set out an action plan, including communal repairs and gathering residents’ views on ASB in the block. While the landlord’s stage 1 response also referenced various forums it had held to gather feedback/intelligence, it has not provided us with evidence of the outcome of these meetings or actions taken.  Nor have we seen evidence of any ASB reports it received from the resident in the 12 months preceding the complaint and/or its actions on receipt of the individual reports made.
13. These omissions amount to a record keeping failure and/or a failure to provide us with relevant information for our investigation. Consequently, we cannot assess if the landlord dealt with reports in an appropriate and timely manner.
14. A key theme in the communications between the resident, councillors and the landlord was the challenge in responding to ASB issues given the low number of incidents reported by residents. We note the resident felt it ought to have used alternative means of gathering information about the prevalence of ASB issues, such as reports from building caretakers, as she felt the process of reporting issues was “bureaucratic and slow, with no effective solutions in sight”. The stage 1 response stated that “since April 2023 the caretakers have not reported witnessing any ASB or drug issues” in the building. This showed the landlord was willing to consider evidence received from other sources. We also recognise its efforts to gather intelligence on ASB issues in the block through door-knocking exercises and other forums, as stated in its complaint responses, and which is not disputed by the resident.
15. Generally, our view is that the primary responsibility for reporting ASB lies with residents, which is consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy. This was also reflected in the executive member’s email of 25 April 2023, which explained they did not have enough reports of ASB to demonstrate a ‘pressing need’ for CCTV to be introduced on a temporary or permanent basis. In all the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely in the main on residents’ reports (or the lack thereof) to inform its actions and ensure a proportionate response in this case.
16. Upon receiving the local councillor’s email in March 2023, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether it was necessary to open an ASB case and/or carry out a risk assessment, in line with its ASB policy. There is no evidence it did so, which was unsatisfactory. Also, it is unclear what, if any, actions it undertook in response to the ASB reports (noted in the stage 1 response) of 31 May 2023, 1 June 2023 and 20 September 2023. As noted above, we have not seen evidence of those reports, so it is unclear if these were relevant to the resident’s complaint.
17. Similarly, the landlord seems to have overlooked the resident’s report on 15 September 2023 of “drug users gaining access to our building”, “a concerning encounter with a drug dealer who followed me when I refused to open the entrance door”, and “feeling extremely frightened and perpetually unsafe within and around my home”. It is not clear from the evidence if it considered and/or agreed to take any actions to address the resident’s concerns or any issues identified at the time. This was inconsistent with its ASB policy and resulted in the resident feeling ignored and unsafe.
18. The landlord has not evidenced clear and timely communications with the resident regarding ASB issues prior to the complaint correspondence, which was a key failing on its part. To some extent, the impact of its communication failure was somewhat mitigated by the executive member’s involvement as they provided updates to the resident on actions being taken. For instance, their update on 30 August 2023 noted that the ongoing ASB was being proactively monitored through police patrols. Although the mitigated impact is reflected in the compensation we have awarded, this does not absolve the landlord of its responsibility for keeping the resident informed and it should not rely on third party intervention.
19. To the landlord’s credit, its complaint responses provided a clear explanation of its approach. It addressed the resident’s request for heightened security measures in the building, albeit belatedly. It stated it was working with the police and other agencies to try to resolve ASB in the block. As the allegations of ASB related to rough sleepers gaining unauthorised access, and engaging in drug use and other criminal activity, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to report such matters to the police. This is because the police have powers in these circumstances that the landlord does not have.
20. The resident continued to report ASB after concluding the landlord’s complaints procedure. There was a clear escalation in the seriousness of the issues being reported in June 2024, when the resident stated she was threatened and harassed by an unidentified male. The landlord promptly conducted a risk assessment, in line with its policy, considered temporary accommodation for safety reasons, and contacted the police for further information. All of these actions were appropriate and demonstrated an improvement in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports, which was positive. While we note the resident’s concerns that ASB issues are still ongoing, we recognise the nature of the issues reported are such that they are better dealt with by the police.
21. The landlord’s poor record keeping, lack of communication, and failure to consider the ASB reports in line with its policy caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. That said, we consider a significant proportion of the impact resulted from the ASB itself. In all the circumstances, we have awarded compensation in recognition of the increased impact only.

22. The timescales provided in the landlord’s corporate complaints policy are, for the most part, in line with the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) in place at the time. Specifically, the policy states it will:
    1. Acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days, as per the Code.
    2. Provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days, as per the Code.
    3. Acknowledge a stage 2 escalation request within 3 calendar days, whereas the Code provides a 5-working-day timeframe.
    4. Provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days, as per the Code.
23. Against these timescales, the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 2 working days, which was timely.
    2. Issued its stage 1 response within 11 working days, 1 day outside its prescribed timescale.
    3. Acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request on the same day it received this, which was timely.
    4. Issued its stage 2 response within 28 working days, 8 days outside its prescribed timescale.
24. The slight delays in the landlord responding at both stages of its complaints procedure were not acknowledged within the responses themselves, which was inappropriate and contrary to the Code. The impact of this oversight, and the short delays was minimal.
25. There were aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling that were positive. For instance, it addressed the issues raised by the resident in her complaint and escalation request, clearly explaining its approach in her case. It was empathetic to the issues she was experiencing and appropriately signposted her to report criminal activity to the police. However, it failed to identify or put right its omissions against its ASB policy. Therefore, we have found its responses were not consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes).
26. In all the circumstances, we have concluded there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In line with our remedies guidance, we have awarded compensation in recognition of the adverse impact this had on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. There are significant gaps in the records provided to us by the landlord, which have hampered our investigation into this complaint.

Communication

The landlord’s communications with the resident following her ASB reports were inadequate.