Notting Hill Genesis (202011274)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011274

Notting Hill Genesis

19 January 2022

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports of harassment by his neighbour.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
   3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 6 February 1989.
3. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two.
4. On 6 December 2020, the resident contacted the police regarding an incident with his neighbour where the resident alleged that his neighbour kicked his door and shouted at him through it. The police attended and there was no damage to the door. An independent witness heard shouting words to the effect of “let me into the flat” but could not confirm whether this was towards the resident or towards a relative in his own flat. The police contacted the landlord thereafter and asked it to speak with the resident, noting that there seemed to be ongoing issues.
5. On 11 December 2020, the landlord attended the resident’s property, as agreed with the resident, to discuss what had happened on 6 December 2020. The resident had gone out, however, so the landlord was unable to speak to him. The landlord therefore spoke to the neighbour concerned about the incident on 6 December 2020 and called the resident thereafter. There is no information as to what the outcome of those conversations were.
6. On 5 January 2021, the resident contacted this Service, advising that he was having problems with harassment by his neighbour, which he had been complaining to the landlord about since 2013. The resident also felt he was subject to surveillance in the property, by the same neighbour. This Service advised the resident to make a formal complaint.
7. Meanwhile, on 11 January 2021, the landlord spoke to the police, who said that no further reports had been made and confirmed that no further action would be taken.
8. The resident contacted this Service on 18 January 2021, advising he had not yet received a response to his complaint, after having made it two working days previously and this Service advised that the landlord has ten working days, rather than two, to respond and to wait for this period of time.
9. Three months later, on 15 April 2021, the landlord issued a stage one response to the complaint, apologising for its delay in doing so.  It did not uphold the complaint, explaining that there had been no further police reports and that the file had been closed by the police.  It advised that it did not notice any monitoring devises in the neighbour’s property – which the resident had also alleged – at an annual visit in December 2019.  It is not clear whether this date was an error and was meant to read “December 2020”.  The landlord added that the neighbour was “vulnerable and not very mobile”, which would “make it difficult to monitor [the resident’s] moves”.
10. On 22 April 2021, the resident contacted this Service expressing his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and again on 12 May 2021, at which point this Service agreed to contact the landlord. The landlord was due to provide a response at stage two by 11 June 2021.
11. On 27 May 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss the complaint. During the call, the resident stated that his neighbour was “burning him with radiation”, sending this through the ceiling and into his property. He also stated that the neighbour had installed surveillance in his property, so knew where he was at all times, that the landlord, police or neighbour had released mice into his property, as well as his neighbour leaving fingerprints in his property and leaves in his water filter and said that the neighbour follows him on walks outside the property and had reported him for carrying a knife when in fact it was a pair of tweezers.  The resident advised he had reported the issues to the police who had said they would not be taking any action, as there was no evidence.
12. The landlord sent its stage two review response thereafter, on 14 June 2021. It did not uphold the complaint, finding that there was no evidence to support the resident’s concerns.  It offered mediation between the resident and his neighbour and suggested that the resident contact his housing officer about any holes in the property that could be letting in mice. It advised that it was in receipt of a text from the resident, dated 3 June 2021, and it would be following this up with the police.

Assessment and findings

Harassment and surveillance

13. Where there has been a report or reports of harassment or Antisocial Behaviour (ASB), it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the incident(s) occurred.  Instead, it is the role of this Service to assess how the landlord responded to any reports and whether its response was in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
14. In this case, the report was made to the police rather than the landlord and when the police contacted the landlord about it, it responded appropriately by contacting the resident and arranging to visit him and speak with him about it.  The landlord’s response was appropriate because notwithstanding that the matter could have amounted to a criminal one, which would be in the remit of the police to consider, the landlord retained a responsibility to respond to any reports of ASB and to take steps to investigate, de-escalate and help to prevent a recurrence as appropriate.
15. Having agreed to meet, the resident was not available at the property, having gone out and so the landlord took the opportunity to discuss the issue with the neighbour and called the resident thereafter. There is no information as to what the outcome of those discussions were.
16. Although the police make reference to there being an ongoing neighbour dispute and the landlord has referred to allegations of the neighbour installing surveillance in the resident’s property and letting mice into the property, there is no further information or evidence as to when reports were made and how the landlord responded to them – besides mention of a visit to the neighbour in December 2019. 
17. As an evidence-based Service, in the absence of evidence, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to assess how the landlord responded to reports made and, in this case, there is also no information or evidence as to the reports themselves.
18. The landlord’s offer of mediation in its stage two response was appropriate, however, and demonstrated an attempt to seek to resolve the issue by this option.  Its suggestion for the resident to contact his housing officer about any infestation was also appropriate, demonstrating that it took the matter seriously and was similarly, keen to resolve any issues for the resident.

Complaint handling

19. The complaint that was made by the resident has not been provided to this Service; the resident said he made a complaint in January 2021.  Notwithstanding this, the landlord acknowledged a delay in its response, which it provided in April 2021.  While the landlord appropriately apologised, it did not explain its reasons for the delay as it should have done, however.
20. Responding to a complaint is an opportunity for a landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the issues and a chance to put things right.  Even in circumstances where a complaint is not upheld, this is an opportunity for a landlord to demonstrate understanding and express empathy for any stress that has been experienced, for instance.  This does not imply acceptance of fault but demonstrates that the landlord has taken the matter seriously and goes towards preserving the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord also missed the opportunity to empathise with the resident in its response even as it explained that there was no evidence of the alleged ASB.
21. The complaint response also provides an opportunity to show what investigation a landlord has carried out and how it has reached the conclusions it has.  There is no information, besides the conversation on 11 December with the neighbour – of which there is no information as to the outcome of this discussion – and a visit a year prior in December 2019, as to what the landlord did to investigate matters. Explaining how a matter has been investigated, helps to reassure complainants that there has been a thoroughness in the landlord’s investigation, and this was not done here, leaving the issues without closure.
22. The stage two complaint response was also delayed and even though only by a few days, there was no recognition, apology or explanation for this, as should have been the case. 

Record keeping

23. The Ombudsman has not been provided with information or documentation showing how the formal complaint was made – whether this was in writing or by telephone – and if by telephone, of any call notes made in respect of this. 
24. Further, there is reference to the issues having been ongoing for some time and reports of the resident notifying the landlord that he believed to be subject to surveillance in the property, but there is no information as to when or how these reports came in and what action the landlord took in response to them. 
25. Full records of complaints and associated documentation, such as associated correspondence which does not constitute the formal complaint, should be made and kept by the landlord; this is explicitly set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.  The absence of records in this case therefore results in an additional finding of service failure on this basis. 

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its handling of reports of harassment by the resident’s neighbour.
27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.
28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

29. Evidence for only one incident has been provided to this Service and in response to this, the landlord acted appropriately.  It acted appropriately by speaking to the resident and arranging to visit him to discuss further and by speaking to his neighbour.  It was also appropriate to offer mediation and to investigate the source of entry of mice.
30. The landlord’s response was delayed at stages one and two, with no explanation for this at either stage and no acknowledgement or apology at the second.  There was insufficient information in the complaint response as to how it had investigated the issues it made reference to, and it did not use this opportunity to recognise any stress the resident felt.
31. There is no record of the formal complaint, nor other records including the notifications of harassment and surveillance that the resident refers to and is acknowledged in the landlord’s complaint response.  The absence of records is counter to the requirements of the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code. 

Order and recommendation

Order

32. The landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £75 for the service failure identified in its complaints handling.
    2. £75 for the service failure in respect of its record keeping.
33. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

34. The landlord to review its record keeping procedures and in future cases, to clarify if there was little contact by a resident or other issue which has rendered a lack of records.