Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Mid Devon District Council (202304164)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304164

Mid Devon District Council

18 February 2025

 

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and hate crimes.
    2. Concerns about its failure to safeguard him and breach of his human rights and the Equality Act 2010.
    3. Concerns about staff conduct.
    4. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a flexible tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since September 2019 (with a starter tenancy for the year before). The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident due to his physical and mental health conditions.
  2. On 24 July 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of his reports of ASB and hate crimes. He said he had been subjected to harassment and abuse by a group of neighbours for the last 4 or 5 years, with them also making false reports of ASB about him. He said the landlord had failed to safeguard him and breached his human rights and the Equality Act 2010.
  3. In August 2024 the resident added other points to his complaint about the breakdown of relationship with his housing officer, his application for rehousing, his attempts to serve a notice to quit (NTQ), and the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure. He was also unhappy with the advised timescales for the landlord’s response to his complaint.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 23 August 2024, it apologised for the delay in its complaint response due to a backlog. It said the resident’s reports had been investigated in line with its ASB policy, with warnings issued and all parties interviewed, but it could not take further action due to a lack of evidence. It said the police handled hate crimes and all instances should be reported to them, which would help the landlord in its investigation and deciding next steps.
  5. The landlord said it was working closely with the police to gather evidence, but both had been unable to substantiate the reports of threats of violence and homophobic abuse. The police had not been able to evidence a crime was committed regarding his recent report. It encouraged him to continue reporting all incidents to the police and if he felt in immediate danger then to call the emergency number. It said he had declined to attend a meeting with it and police because he did not feel intervention would help, but it urged him to work with both to help resolve the ongoing issues.
  6. The landlord apologised that the resident felt let down but explained it had investigated his reports, provided the support it could, and signposted him to relevant agencies for more support. It acknowledged he felt his neighbours’ reports of ASB about him were harassment but explained that it had an obligation to investigate them. It explained it could not stop his neighbours from making reports or refuse to investigate them when raised, but would only take formal action with evidence of the alleged behaviour taking place.
  7. The landlord said over the course of the resident’s tenancy it had made several safeguarding referrals to his GP and the council’s adult services, but had been informed he had the capacity to make his own decisions and the means to choose and pay for a care provider should he need one. His housing officer kept in regular contact with him, supported him, and made referrals for additional support to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, and Churches Housing Action Team.
  8. The landlord said it had investigated the resident’s concern that his housing officer was not handling his ASB reports effectively and had found that he acted per its policies and procedures. It said duty officers were available to deal with enquiries where the housing officer was unavailable. It also said the resident had not submitted an NTQ despite having been sent the forms. It gave advice on the next steps and said his housing officer would be in touch to explain the implications of serving an NTQ. It found no service failures in its handling of the resident’s reports and concerns.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 August 2024 and contacted the landlord several times following this, adding to his complaint. He said the housing officer had taken annual leave during the period of his ASB action plan and failed to undertake the promised actions, and that the landlord/tenant relationship was irreparably broken.
  10. In its stage 2 response of 12 September 2024 the landlord largely reiterated its response of stage 1. It added that the resident had made complaints about hate crimes, ASB reports, its ASB policy (November 2023), safeguarding (March and August 2022), complaint handling, and various issues over the years that went through its complaint process, with referral rights given for us. It said it would only address the new issues and referred him back to previous responses for repeated concerns.
  11. The landlord clarified its stage 1 response on the number of call back requests made by the resident, the cancellation of a visit by the police (which was later declined by the resident when a reschedule was requested), and addressed his concerns about the housing officer’s annual leave. It said the action plan had been followed as set out up until that date, but if it was not followed in the future the resident should make a separate complaint about this. It reminded him that staff were entitled to take annual leave, and this could sometimes fall during the period of an active action plan.
  12. The landlord said it had interviewed the housing officer and noted the resident did not wish to communicate via email or phone, so the officer was liaising with him by letter. While the resident said the housing officer had not provided him with an ASB reference number, this had been given to him in its letter of 9 August 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the 2 identified errors in its stage 1 response but upheld the decision it had reached overall.
  13. The resident referred the complaint to us in October 2024 as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought compensation for the upset and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord has received ASB reports from the resident since 2022 and previously responded to a complaint from him about its ASB policy in November 2023. These complaints were not referred to us at the time and are not, therefore, assessed as part of this investigation. However, they are considered in so far as they provide context to the current complaint.
  2. The resident also complained about the council’s housing allocation system but, as this is not an activity the landlord is responsible for, this is not considered further. If the resident remains unhappy on this point he should make a complaint directly to the council in its capacity as local authority (not as the landlord). This would then be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to consider.

ASB and hate crimes

  1. It is not our role to establish the validity of the ASB reports made by the resident or about him. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of the reports he made to determine whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it responds to reports and explains what amounts to ASB and what does not; signposting residents to a toolkit to aid with this. In the first instance, it expects residents to try to resolve disputes between them before it intervenes. It says it works with partner agencies, such as the police, and signposts residents to appropriate support services where it is not able to proceed with a case.
  3. It further says that, in handling ASB reports, the landlord will use warning letters, interviews, action plans, and mediation before escalating to any formal action. It sets out that there will be behaviour and/or activities which might be considered ASB but do not meet the threshold for formal legal action. When ASB is reported, the neighbourhood/housing officer leads on the response, assessment, and actions for resolution.
  4. Evidence shows that the housing officer logged the resident’s ASB reports on the landlord’s system. Risk assessments were conducted, all parties were contacted and interviewed, site visits were made, an action plan was drawn up, and warning letters were sent. The landlord took a multi-agency approach and liaised with the police to share information, gain advice, and arrange joint visits to the site and residents. This is in line with its ASB policy, industry good practice, and our expectations.
  5. As the landlord has explained, hate crimes are a criminal act and are, therefore, within the remit of the police to investigate. While the landlord investigated the resident’s report, it was unable to independently substantiate the conduct described, so it was reasonable for it to liaise with and rely on the police to investigate this and use their findings to inform its approach for next steps. This is in line with what we expect.
  6. The landlord must respond to reports made by its tenants impartially. Therefore, where it received reports from neighbours about ASB by the resident, it was obliged to follow its process in the same way it had done for the resident’s reports. In adherence with its ASB policy, the actions taken by the landlord were to prevent escalation and to reach a resolution as early as possible. This investigation has found that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps in that regard.
  7. While the resident might wish for the landlord to have taken more robust and formal action against his neighbours, to do so it needed to have evidence to support that action. In this instance, it did not. Any formal action it took against the neighbours without supporting evidence of the ASB, it would inevitably have had to take against the resident (as an alleged perpetrator also). Without evidence, this would not be a fair or appropriate thing to do for either party.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to, and handled, the resident’s report of ASB and alleged hate crimes in line with its policy and procedures. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB and hate crimes.

Safeguarding and breach of human rights and the Equality Act

  1. It is not within our remit to determine whether an individual’s human rights have been breached or whether a landlord has acted unlawfully in relation to its equality duties. That would be for the courts to decide. Instead, during the course of our investigation, we have considered whether the landlord has given due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 in its dealings with the resident.
  2. The landlord’s safeguarding policy sets out that consent is a legal requirement for safeguarding adults, unless they either lack capacity or there is a significant or immediate risk of harm. It is not for the landlord or us to determine whether the resident lacks capacity; this would be established by trained medical professionals. The resident’s GP was contacted by the landlord multiple times and has not disclosed that he lacks capacity. It therefore follows that any action the landlord took would consider the resident’s wishes on the matter.
  3. The landlord has made multiple referrals to the resident’s GP and the council’s social services in order to safeguard him. While it required consent from the resident for most of its safeguarding attempts, evidence shows that it had undertaken immediate and prompt safeguarding action where it considered the resident to be at immediate and significant risk by calling the police and ambulance. It has investigated the reports made to it by the resident, taken all appropriate action within its remit, given advice, guidance, support and signposted him to other appropriate agencies where relevant.
  4. The landlord has openly acknowledged that the resident has complex needs. It has worked with the police and attempted to arrange meetings jointly with the resident’s GP and other relevant agencies in consideration of those needs to take a more comprehensive view of his situation and support required. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that when it has tried to do so, the resident has either withdrawn previously given consent or declined to give it at all.
  5. It is difficult to say what more the landlord, in its capacity as the resident’s housing provider, could do to safeguard him. It has made safeguarding referrals, noted the resident’s needs on its systems (keeping these in mind when communicating or liaising with him), met its obligations under its relevant policies and procedures, changed how it communicates with him when requested, appointed a single point of contact in the past, and actively attempted to work with him and other agencies to investigate concerns and reach appropriate resolutions.
  6. The landlord has limited resources and is accountable for its public spending, and it must bear this in mind when undertaking any housing related activity, including the support and resources it allocates to the resident. The investigation shows that the landlord has given due regard to its obligations under the above acts. In light of this, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s safeguarding.

Staff conduct

  1. Our investigation of this complaint is focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. We have assessed whether it adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. It is not our role to investigate or establish the actual conduct of staff. Such personnel issues are better addressed by the landlord internally and are beyond our remit to determine.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about his housing officer. The resident was unhappy that the officer was in charge of the ASB investigation but this was in line with the ASB policy. He was further concerned that the officer took annual leave during the time the action plan was in place. As the landlord explained, staff are entitled to take annual leave, and this might sometimes fall during the period where diarised tasks become due. In this instance, key actions such as interviews and warnings were issued in line with the plan before the officer commenced his leave.
  3. During the period of absence, a scheduled check-in did become due, but the landlord considered it and decided this could be given by the housing officer on return. It explained this was because there was no one else available due to conflicting priorities. While it would have been ideal for someone to undertake this task in the officer’s absence, it is not unreasonable for the landlord to manage available resources in order of priority, particularly given the significant activities completed prior to the leave.
  4. Evidence shows the landlord investigated the concerns raised by the resident about his housing officer. It reviewed that the officer was communicating with the resident in line with his preferences, that he had adhered to the action plan as advised, provided relevant information such as the reference number, and generally acted in line with its policies and procedures. In light of this, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time set out a 2-stage process. It said all complaints would be resolved within 10 working days at both stages 1 and 2. Where additional time was required, the customer would be informed, and the response would then be provided within a maximum of 12 weeks.
  2. The landlord did not provide its complaint responses at either stage within the specified 10 working days. However, it did inform the resident at the outset (in its complaint acknowledgement) that it would be unable to do so due to the volume and backlog of complaints it was handling at the time. This was in line with its complaints policy.
  3. The responses were then issued within the stipulated extension period and within a reasonable time. The landlord also apologised to the resident for the delays and inconvenience caused. Therefore, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and hate crimes.
    2. Concerns about its failure to safeguard him and breach of his human rights and the Equality Act 2010.
    3. Concerns about staff conduct.
    4. Associated complaint.