London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202338725)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first-floor flat. She and other neighbours have private gardens alongside communal spaces. There is a history of the resident reporting problems with her neighbour, including their security cameras filming her property, their garden being overgrown, and them reporting her to the police for “minor” issues, such as cutting their hedges. The resident is unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with her reports and how it also handled investigations into reports of ASB made against her. She was receiving treatment for cancer at the time of the events concerned and the landlord’s records state she has mobility problems.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
   2. Her concerns about staff conduct.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. The complaint.
4. We have found no maladministration in its handling of her concerns about staff conduct.

           We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found that the landlord:
   1. Reasonably explained why the resident’s reports did not constitute ASB.
   2. Did not show it had considered acting under its neighbourhood management policy to consider solutions to her reports instead.
   3. Used records and policies to investigate the resident’s complaint about staff conduct to reach an evidenced based decision.
   4. Did not follow its complaints policy in its handling of the first complaint, including failing to escalate it, which caused avoidable time and trouble to the resident.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

6. It is undisputed that some of the events the resident referred to in her initial complaint were historical. We have also seen there were long gaps in the records between the resident’s reports. So, it was reasonable for the landlord to apply its timescale and to focus on any issues that were recent or still live. Like the landlord, we may not investigate events that occurred more than 12 months before a complaint was made, so we have taken a similar approach when assessing the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
7. Before complaining, the resident contacted the landlord in May 2022 and March 2023 about her neighbour reporting her for incidents she believed were minor or false. The landlord’s ASB policy required it to assess if a report met the threshold for investigation or action. In both cases, the landlord spoke to the resident within a day of the report and advised her at the same time it would not be investigating for ASB, which was prompt. However, the policy states it will consider acting under its neighbourhood management policy and there is nothing to show that it did. The landlord has a relationship with the police to tackle ASB and it could have considered obtaining information about the incidents, while also managing the resident’s expectations about the possible outcome. It could also have spoken to the neighbour to explore if there was an emerging problem and ways it could help prevent it from escalating. This was though a shortfall rather than a failing.
8. The landlord considered the padlocking of the communal gate as a neighbourhood management issue, rather than ASB, which was reasonable. Its position that the padlock was agreed as a security measure is supported by the evidence. While the landlord was entitled to do this, it should reasonably have considered the impact this would have on residents requiring access through the gate. It could have consulted with or informed them beforehand as the transparency may have helped understand why the gate was padlocked.
9. After the first complaint process ended, the resident continued to report that the padlock was still on the gate, despite the landlord’s comments that this had been removed. The records show some of the actions the landlord took in relation to the padlock. Such as inspecting on 12 October 2023 where it found one was still in place. We have not though seen any actions it took after this point. Its final position on this matter in the second complaint was not satisfactory because it implied the padlock was still in place but gave no reason for its change in stance. It was also inappropriate because the resident had said in her second escalation that she needed access through the gate to water her garden and there is no evidence the landlord considered this and her vulnerabilities. Its poor handling of this issue has, understandably, caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to take action to put right this failing.
10. According to the landlord’s website, tenants can have security cameras but only if they are pointing at their respective property. There is no explanation on its website or in any policies seen that it has a specific approach to dealing with complaints about security cameras. Or that the recording a communal area by a tenant is considered ASB. However, it would be reasonable, and in line with good neighbourhood management practice, for the landlord to explore concerns because it has an obligation to its residents and staff to ensure tenants follow its rules. It is not evident that the landlord has done this in the past and the resident complained it has never addressed it.
11. The records show that the landlord was preparing to address this issue in response to the resident’s 19 June 2023 email but, for reasons unknown, did not. That it has not evidenced that it has done everything it reasonably could to explore and address the resident’s concerns is a failing. We have ordered the landlord to take action on this. However, it should be noted that the landlord’s powers are limited to satisfying itself that the positioning of the cameras comply with its requirements and it cannot be held responsible for how any recordings may be used.

12. The landlord has a code of conduct that it requires staff to follow which includes acting in a professional manner, being respectful, and following relevant policies and procedures. In its responses, the landlord said its investigation found the officer complained about followed its ASB policies and procedures. We agree that records show the landlord’s officer followed its ASB policy in assessing and triaging the report received on 12 June 2023. They also discussed the incident with the resident and recorded her perception, which was reflected in the warning letter. The landlord said the officer took this action because there was substantial evidence to warrant it. Its position is supported by the records which contain several witness statements to the incident.
13. It was also evidenced that the landlord received a report of noise transference (a humming sound) from the resident’s flat during unsociable hours. It was in line with its policy for the officer to investigate this further. The records support the landlord’s account that the officer listened to recordings and heard the noise themselves. This was after they had made an initial enquiry with the resident about whether she used equipment that could be causing it.
14. The landlord said in its responses that the officer acknowledged in emails to the resident that she was unwell and undergoing treatment, and their tone was “appropriate and supportive.” We have seen that records show the officer empathised with the resident’s situation and explained they were seeking a solution to the noise problem. The records also show the landlord was still receiving reports of the noise, so it was reasonable and in line with its neighbourhood management policy for the officer to continue to explore a solution. Even so, the landlord appropriately recognised the resident’s perception of this and the distress inadvertently caused.
15. A report was received in early-October 2023 of an incident involving the resident and her neighbour to which the police were called a month prior. The resident complained that the officer contacted a neighbour about the matter in December 2023. The landlord’s response to this was broadly reasonable because it explained it was part of its procedure to gather information following ASB reports and this is confirmed in the policy. However, it did not address the timeliness of the enquiry, which was inappropriate.
16. The resident implied that the officer’s actions led to her being cautioned for the original incident. The landlord’s response to this was unclear because it did not directly address her concern. However, the broader point it made, that a caution is issued when a person agrees to it, was factual. It would have been better if the landlord had also explained that this was a criminal matter and that the resident could complain to the police if she believed she was coerced into agreeing to the caution.
17. Considering the above, we are satisfied the landlord’s investigation and response was, overall, reasonable and evidence based. It is apparent it considered the documentary evidence alongside its policy and procedures to arrive at its decision that the officer acted professionally.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time aligned with the timescales and principles of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It was required to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
19. It took the landlord only 3 days to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s first complaint. This was prompt and well within the required timescales. The resident challenged the accuracy of the landlord’s position on the same day that the padlock had been removed. On receipt of the resident’s communication, the landlord should have escalated the complaint. There is then no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s challenge or escalated it to stage 2, even though internal emails show it was preparing to. She had also raised a new aspect to do with the security cameras and, according to its complaints policy, it should have considered escalating this as a separate complaint. Its stage 2 response was prompted by the resident chasing it in September 2023, which was inappropriate and caused her time and trouble.
20. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint led to the stage 2 response being sent around 40 working days over the published timescale. This response was more detailed. It also showed empathy for the resident’s situation and appropriately encouraged her to report any specific, new incidents. However, it failed to acknowledge or take any steps to put right its failure to escalate the complaint.
21. Both responses to the second complaint were a marked improvement. They were sent within the required timescales. The responses also contained an appropriate level of detail to explain the decisions. The stage 1 response to the second complaint also showed empathy for the resident’s health and how she had been affected, which was in line with the “personal touch” the complaints policy aimed to give. The better standard of responses is likely, in part, due to improvements the landlord made to its complaints handling following our special report in July 2023.
22. The resident said she did not receive the stage 2 response and she also copied us into her email of 28 November 2024 to the landlord chasing it up. We have seen no record that the landlord resent its response or that it replied to her email. This is a failing that further delayed the complaints process for the resident and caused her a degree of time and trouble.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record–keeping)

23. Generally, the records provided were clear and we were able to establish a timeline of events. Where they fell short was in showing what actions and decisions were made to do with the security cameras and padlock, particularly after the first complaint process ended. The landlord should consider how it can ensure consistency amongst staff in its record-keeping.

Communication

24. We saw communication with the resident during the events concerned in the complaint was generally reasonable. However, there were failings to respond to her emails during and after the complaints process that caused her avoidable time and trouble. The landlord should consider adopting measures to ensure emails are responded to during the complaints process.