Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202344666)

Background

1. The resident said she was assaulted by her neighbour and requested to be rehoused because of this. The resident has informed the landlord of her vulnerabilities associated with her mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and a related request to be rehoused because it.
3. The landlord’s response to a complaint about a member of staff.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration for its response to reports of ASB and a related request to be rehoused because of it.
   2. maladministration in response to a complaint about a member of staff.
   3. service failure in its response to the complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord cannot evidence it following its ASB policy after the resident’s report. Its decision not to take the resident’s request for emergency rehousing forward was reasonable in the circumstances.
8. The landlord cannot demonstrate that it investigated the complaint about its member of staff to a reasonable level.
9. The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint was delayed.

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.

10. It is our role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the  complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. We cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
11. The evidence suggests that on 4 August 2023 the resident told the landlord she was assaulted by her neighbour on 26 June 2023. The landlord’s ASB policy says that when a report is made to the landlord, it should speak to the resident and agree an action plan. It adds both the conversation and action plan should be documented. In an email, the landlord references meeting and speaking to the resident at the time of the complaint. While it is accepted the landlord did speak to the resident, there is no evidence it documented this conversation or made an action plan. The landlord failed to follow its policy here.
12. The ASB policy says the landlord should then check in with a resident at regular intervals. The landlord sent an email on 28 November 2023 to the resident that described the action it had taken. It said it had spoken to the resident frequently at the time of the complaint. It said it responded to her communications of 26 September and 20 October 2023.
13. We have not been provided evidence of these communications. It is a record keeping failure that the landlord cannot provide evidence of them. While it is accepted that the landlord responded to the resident’s communications, there is no evidence of it checking in with the resident at regular intervals. The above shows the landlord contacting the resident once a month, when the resident contacted it. We do not consider that this shows the landlord checking in. The resident had to chase the landlord to be contacted and the landlord did not proactively contact the resident once. This was a failure of the landlord to follow its policies.
14. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will not approach the alleged perpetrator of ASB without the consent of the reporting resident. The resident did not provide the landlord with consent to discuss the situation with her neighbour. We recognise the resident was scared of the impact that this could have, as she feared a response from her neighbour. Unfortunately, this did limit the actions the landlord could take in this case. Its decision not to approach the neighbour was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
15. The resident asked the landlord to rehouse her due to the ASB, this was the main source of her complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s allocation scheme says that, if a resident is requesting to be moved due to a serious threat, the landlord must gather information about the threat. The landlord requested the resident provide a supporting letter from the police, which was an appropriate step to take in line with this policy. The complaint responses say the landlord was also in contact with the police. Though, we have not been provided with evidence of that.
16. We understand the police did not provide the supporting letter the landlord required. We consider it reasonable for the landlord to need this information from the police to be able evidence the risk to the resident and therefore to progress her request for an emergency transfer. Consequently, we consider it reasonable that the landlord did not process the rehousing request any further without that evidence or any other evidence from the police.
17. While the landlord was in contact with the resident about her reports of ASB, there is little evidence it followed its policies in relation to the ASB. The landlord did not acknowledge this in either of its complaint responses. We acknowledge that the action the landlord could take was limited, though following its policy could have made the resident feel more supported in this matter. The landlord’s decision not to process the resident’s request for an emergency move was reasonable in the circumstances.
18. We therefore find maladministration in the way the landlord handled this matter. Considering our guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation would be £150. This recognises the landlord did not following its ASB policies. But also we recognise that ultimately the impact on the resident was minor as the landlord was limited in the action it could take. The landlord should also write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified here.
19. After the incident of ASB related to assault, on 2 December 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour had racially harassed her. This has not been part of this investigation as the landlord had not responded to these allegations when the complaint responses relevant to this complaint were issued. If the resident is unhappy about the landlord’s response to her reports, she could consider submitting a further complaint.
20. There is evidence that since the complaint about ASB, the resident has requested to be rehoused for different reasons. This investigation has focused on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. We are unable to consider decisions made by a council landlord about a rehousing application. The appropriate service for this is the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). We are aware that the resident has also submitted a complaint to that service.

21. It is not our role to reach a conclusion on the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff. Rather, our role is to consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report was appropriate, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
22. For an investigation into the conduct of staff, a landlord should generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties. Then make an informed decision based on its findings. We rely on the evidence supplied to us to determine what events took place and to reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
23. In its complaint responses, the landlord said the member of staff had adequately supported the resident and had not ignored the residents communications. The complaint responses suggest that the landlord has looked into the matter. However, we have not been supplied evidence that the landlord investigated the complaint beyond what is contained in its complaint responses. It would have been reasonable for it to have disclosed to us if it had spoken to the staff member involved, interviewed witnesses if appropriate, and considered written records. There is no evidence it did so and that was a failing. We cannot conclude that the landlord has investigated the matter to a reasonable level.
24. As there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the matter to a reasonable level, we find maladministration in the landlord’s response. The resident was clearly frustrated with the conduct of the member of staff. Investigating the complaint was an opportunity for the landlord to try and restore confidence in its relationship with the resident. Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe that a reasonable level of compensation would be £150. The landlord should also apologise to the resident.

25. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. The landlord acknowledged both the resident’s complaint and its escalation within its timescales.
26. The landlord’s complaints policy says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being submitted. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 15 working days and the stage 2 complaint in 38 workings days. It’s stage 1 complaint was within its timescales, but its stage 2 response failed to keep to the timescales set out in its policy.
27. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 delay. The evidence shows the resident emailing the landlord regularly in this period. Because of this, the delays to the complaint responses likely contributed to the distress and inconvenience that the resident was experiencing. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should apologise and pay compensation. Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe an appropriate level would be £50.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s record keeping in this matter was poor. This report sets out the instances where the landlord has stated actions that it took but can’t evidence. Landlord’s should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records as they provide an audit trail and increases a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems. Failing to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, or missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate. It can also affect our ability to conduct a thorough investigation. The landlord should be mindful of our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management and what it says about ensuring information is captured effectively. We have made a recommendation because of this.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the complaint was mixed. While it communicated with the resident, it did not do so consistently throughout the complaint. Our report on learning from severe maladministration says that during any ASB case, proactive and empathetic communications is a must. The landlord did not demonstrate this in its actions.