Sheffield City Council (202008976)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008976

Sheffield City Council

28 April 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant whose tenancy commenced on 19 November 2018. The landlord is a local authority and has described the property as a one-bedroom flat.
The landlord has a tenancy conditions booklet that shows that tenants and their visitors should not ‘do anything which is illegal, dangerous or which would cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm or distress to other people’. It includes examples such as excessive noise and drug use as examples of this kind of behaviour and says that a breach of this tenancy condition could lead to legal action.
The landlord has a policy setting out its approach to anti-social behaviour (ASB) that shows that it will:
1. ‘provide a victim focused service by assessing the impact on people and tailoring support based on individual needs’
2. keep in regular contact with victims and witnesses throughout an investigation so they understand the action being taken
3. support vulnerable perpetrators by working ‘with the person responsible for causing anti-social behaviour to identify support needs which may address the underlying causes of their behaviour’
4. ‘use ‘informal’ interventions and give perpetrators of anti-social behaviour a reasonable amount of time to change their behaviour before escalating a case’
5. apply informal non-legal actions such as warning letters, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts where appropriate
6. undertake legal actions such as possession proceedings where ‘a serious incident or breach of tenancy has occurred or… continuous and/or escalating incidents which have been not resolved by informal means’
7. regularly review ASB cases and close them if the matter is resolved or no further action is possible.
The landlord’s website shows that residents can request a Community Trigger where they have reported three separate ASB incidents over the previous six months.
The landlord has a corporate complaints policy that sets out a two-stage complaints process with responses required within 20 working days at each stage.
The resident’s complaint partially concerns a neighbour who is also a tenant of the landlord and is the alleged perpetrator of ASB. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s ASB records show that it opened an ASB case on 11 December 2018, following contact from the resident. It noted that the resident had moved in and reported a smell of drugs in communal areas that he believed to be coming from a neighbouring flat plus a flow of visitors to that address. The landlord recorded that it told the resident to report this to the Police but that it would open an ASB case. It noted the following actions over the subsequent nine months:
1. completed a risk assessment in December 2018 that showed a ‘standard’ risk and obtained a report from another neighbour relating to sweeping noise being made in the early hours, drug use and drug dealing
2. liaised with social services and the Police in December 2018 to obtain background information and request additional patrolling
3. visited the alleged perpetrator to discuss the noise issue and issued a ‘warning letter’ in December 2018
4. updated the resident through a visit in December 2018
5. followed up with the resident in January 2019 when he advised that drug use and dealing seemed to be ongoing with visitors urinating in communal areas and making noise
6. liaised with the Police and sent an evidence gathering letter to all residents in the block in January 2019
7. noted feedback from other residents in January 2019 who advised that the noise of sweeping in the early hours of the morning had reduced
8. reviewed the case in February 2019, after which it obtained more information about the alleged perpetrator’s circumstances and the Police advised that they did not yet have enough sufficient evidence
9. reviewed the case in late March 2019 and mid-May 2019, after which it noted that a neighbour said there was still drug use in communal areas
10. liaised with the Police in June 2019 who advised that they had received no recent reports and reiterated to the resident that month that he should continue to complete incident diary sheets
11. visited the alleged perpetrator on three occasions June-July 2019 to discuss ASB reports and advise that his tenancy was at risk
12. arranged for four warden patrol visits to the block during July 2019 that established no ASB
13. discussed the case with the resident again in July 2019, after which it agreed to send more evidence gathering letters
14. arranged for three more warden visits in August 2019 that established no evidence of ASB
15. followed up with the resident in September 2019 who said he had not completed diary sheets of late because the problems had reduced so it was agreed that the case would be closed if the following weekend was also quiet.

The landlord closed the ASB case file on 12 September 2019.

The landlord’s ASB records show that it had opened new ASB cases on 19 August 2019 and 27 September 2019, following contact from a neighbour and the resident. It noted that the resident reported the ASB had worsened with visitors to the block using drugs and buying them from the alleged perpetrator. The landlord recorded the following actions over the subsequent six months:
1. assessed the risk to the resident as ‘medium’ in September 2019
2. followed up with the resident in early-mid October 2019 who said that he was completing diary sheets and that his wife had been taken to hospital due to the smoke in the block
3. received information from the Police in October 2019 about action it had taken against the alleged perpetrator – the Police advised that there was no evidence of drug dealing and their actions would therefore be limited
4. interviewed the alleged perpetrator in late October 2019, putting the concerns about drug use and noise to him
5. received diary sheets from the resident in November 2019 (covering the period June-September 2019) with incidents such as visitors to the alleged perpetrator’s block taking drugs in communal areas plus the resident asked about a potential move given concerns he had about his pregnant wife living in the block
6. attended the block on 21 November 2019 to consider a report of cannabis use in the block (it identified a smell and interviewed the alleged perpetrator)
7. arranged for four warden visits (with no ASB witnessed) and repairs to the communal door security in late November 2019
8. arranged for six warden visits in December 2019 with no ASB witnessed albeit they did note a cannabis smell during one of the visits
9. received an update from the resident on 2 January 2020 that he would no longer complete diary sheets as he felt they were not achieving anything
10. spoke to the resident on 31 January 2020 about closing the ASB case file but he advised that drug use and dealing was ongoing
11. installed signs in the block in early February 2020, reminding residents to close communal entrance doors behind them
12. took legal advice in February 2020 that indicated legal action for the type of nuisance reported was unlikely to be successful and that further action would only be recommended if reports persisted after warning letters were sent
13. passed on the legal advice to the resident on 11 February 2020.

It closed these ASB cases on 31 January 2020 and 11 February 2020 respectively – it noted this was due to lack of evidence and lack of contact from the neighbour.

The landlord’s ASB records show that it opened three separate ASB cases during May-July 2020, following contact from neighbours about the alleged perpetrator having visitors into his flat to take drugs. It recorded the following actions around this time and over the subsequent five months:
1. issued a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator on 24 April 2020
2. received a report from the resident on 7 May 2020 that the alleged perpetrator had started a fire in his garden
3. received a report from a neighbour in early June 2020 that drug taking in the block was regular
4. interviewed the alleged perpetrator in early June 2020 who said he had not had any visitors for more than a week
5. received a report from the resident in late June 2020 that things had been quieter recently but the alleged perpetrator had again had visitors smoking in communal areas the previous week
6. wrote to the resident on 20 July 2020, advising that it had closed a previous ASB case in February 2020 as it had not been able to establish evidence of the allegations after liaison with the Police, wardens and other neighbours
7. received a report from a neighbour in July 2020 that items left outside his flat door had been stolen by visitors to the alleged perpetrator’s flat
8. interviewed the alleged perpetrator in late July 2020 who denied the allegations
9. received a report from the resident in early August 2020 that visitors had entered the alleged perpetrator’s flat and there had been drug smells – the landlord noted that the resident had advised this was at the same time as he experienced distressing personal events so it had offered advice on potential health support
10. received a report from a neighbour in late August 2020 that the alleged perpetrator was sweeping at anti-social hours again
11. received reports from a neighbour in September-October 2020 of the alleged perpetrator taking, and possibly selling, drugs.

It closed these cases on 7 August 2020 and 15 March 2021 (as the neighbour had moved away from the block).

The landlord’s ASB records show that it opened a new ASB case on 7 August 2020, following contact from the resident. It noted that he had reported drug use in the block over two consecutive days and recorded the following actions over the subsequent three months:
1. received further reports from the resident in late August 2020 of drug use and arguing in the block related to the alleged perpetrator’s property
2. liaised with a support worker in early September 2020 who indicated that the resident’s wife had possibly had health difficulties due to the ASB
3. interviewed the alleged perpetrator in early September 2020
4. received further reports from the resident during September 2020, advising that the resident was making noise in the block again and this was waking up his baby and the communal door was broken so visitors were on the communal stairs smoking, drinking and fighting
5. completed an ‘ASB priority application form’ and received a report from the resident that he had been attacked by a visitor to the block in early October 2020
6. issued a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator in early October 2020
7. received further reports from the resident in late October 2020 to early November 2020 of drug use in the block, breach of Covid lockdown restrictions and arguments.
The resident approached this Service in November 2020 – he advised that his neighbour was smoking drugs and allowing strangers into the block and that he wanted the landlord to take legal action. This complaint was forwarded to the landlord by this Service on 19 November 2020.
The landlord noted that it reviewed ASB diary sheets on 1 December 2020 which the resident had brought in on 27 October 2020. These showed nine incidents between mid-September and mid-October 2020 (one of these related to the smell of drugs).
The landlord’s records show an ASB case review was done on 2 December 2020 that concluded visitors to the block were difficult to link to the alleged perpetrator. It recommended a warning letter be sent to the alleged perpetrator but that further action was not possible as the diary sheets did not show serious ongoing ASB.
The landlord issued an initial complaint response on 4 December 2020. It advised that it had spoken to the resident on 26 November 2020 and concluded that:
1. completed diary sheets had been brought into the office by the resident on 21 October 2020 but it had failed to pass these onto the relevant member of staff for which it apologised
2. the member of staff had been on leave anyway so his team leader had been passed the case and spoken to the resident accordingly
3. its ASB specialist had not established that any further actions could have been taken by it given a lack of evidence of serious and ongoing ASB
4. it had made a formal disclosure request for information from the Police and was already aware of a couple of Police incidents but did not believe they were tenancy breaches
5. it would actively monitor the situation and review any information provided by the Police and the resident should complete incident diary sheets in the meantime.
The landlord received an appeal dated 5 December 2020 from the resident regarding a priority housing application – he provided a letter from a health visitor dated 3 December 2020 that said that he and his wife had been affected by ASB.
The landlord issued a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator on 8 December 2020 that mentioned drug use, noise nuisance and ASB by visitors to his flat.
The landlord’s contact records show that it spoke to the resident on 10 December 2020 – its notes indicate that it reiterated that the Police were still involved, told the resident that indoor cannabis use was difficult for it to act against, agreed to send more diary sheets and offered to escalate the complaint if the resident wrote to advise exactly why he remained dissatisfied.
From December 2020 to March 2021, the landlord’s records show the following actions:
1. it received a report from the resident in mid-December 2020 of the alleged perpetrator sweeping the stairs at anti-social hours
2. it received a report from the resident in early January 2021 of the alleged perpetrator walking through communal areas smoking drugs
3. it interviewed the alleged perpetrator on 1 February 2021 about concerns that he had been standing outside the resident’s property for no reason
4. it received a report on 3 February 2021 from a neighbour that the alleged perpetrator had been on the communal stairs with drug paraphernalia
5. it received an update from the Police on 4 February 2021 of the actions they were taking against the alleged perpetrator
6. it spoke to the resident on a few occasions in early March 2021, noting that it could not divulge further details of the ASB investigation to him but that he had been awarded Band C priority for re-housing (it sent a decision letter to him on 4 Mach 2021 advising that the priority was on support and hardship grounds rather than due to ASB or harassment)
7. it received diary sheets from the resident for the period 11 December 2020 to 10 March 2021
8. it received reports from the resident on 18-19 March 2021 of drug smells in the block and the alleged perpetrator smoking drugs with his flat door open
9. it interviewed the alleged perpetrator on 19 March 2021 when it also obtained a report from its contractor that they had seen drug paraphernalia in his flat and witnessed an argument between him and a neighbour
10. it interviewed the neighbour on 22 March 2021 who denied there had been any aggression from the alleged perpetrator.
The resident contacted this Service in early March 2021 and advised that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions. This Service passed on the resident’s complaint escalation request to the landlord on 5 March 2021.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 23 March 2021, concluding that:
1. it had received a request for a review of a re-housing priority decision on 5 December 2020 but not received a complaint escalation before March 2021
2. it was still receiving ASB diary sheets from the resident and had spoken to the neighbour about the noise he makes when sweeping and he had promised to stop doing this at night
3. an ASB warning letter was also sent on 8 December 2020 but the case was reviewed and it was decided that the evidence about sweeping and banging was insufficient for further action at that stage
4. it was in regular contact with local Police about the cannabis smell and drug-taking allegations and may be able to take more tenancy enforcement action if a criminal conviction was secured
5. it was satisfied that it had acted in accordance with its ASB policy and it asked the resident to continue completing diary sheets
6. a Band C priority had been added to the resident’s re-housing application and it understood he was actively bidding to move.

Summary of Events after landlord complaint process

The landlord has recorded the following actions during the three months after the resident’s complaint exhausted its complaints process:
1. reviewed video footage received from the resident on 7 April 2021 but concluded it just showed visitors to the alleged perpetrator and not any ASB
2. opened a new ASB case on 9 April 2021, following contact from a neighbour
3. received reports from a neighbour in late April 2021 of arguing and fighting involving the alleged perpetrator
4. received reports from the resident and a neighbour in early May 2021 that the alleged perpetrator was still smoking drugs and having visitors to his flat
5. liaison with the Police in early May 2021 who confirmed their investigations were ongoing but the landlord should action the ASB issues
6. received advice from the Police on 12 May 2021 that, when they have attended the block and found visitors in communal areas, they have done searches when lawfully able to but not found drugs
7. received diary sheets from a neighbour in mid-May 2021 that covered the period February-May 2021 and listed various drug-related incidents
8. conducted a case review on 27 May 2021 that concluded that ASB reports had not been corroborated by staff, warden and Police visits, diary sheets had been sporadic and a strong warning letter should be sent to the alleged perpetrator with an attempt at night time visits
9. the resident made further reports to the landlord in early June 2021 that he had contacted the Police about more incidents involving the alleged perpetrator.
The resident told this Service on 29 June 2021 that he had smelled drugs being used when he left for work that day and had reported this to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

It is not disputed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for him and his family and that there have been genuine concerns about visitors to the neighbouring property and the use of drugs in the block. Nevertheless, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The resident reported ASB at his block shortly after he moved in during November 2018 and consistently advised the landlord between then and the end of its complaints process in March 2021 that ASB was ongoing. The behaviour reported by the resident, and some of his neighbours, has been of drug use in the alleged perpetrator’s flat and in communal areas of the block plus arguing, fighting and noise nuisance caused by the alleged perpetrator sweeping the corridor at anti-social hours. These fell under the landlord’s definition of ASB so it was appropriate that the landlord opened several ASB case files during 2018-2021.
The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to adopt a victim-focused service assessing risk to residents and offering support accordingly. The landlord has evidenced that it completed risk assessments for the resident in December 2018 (standard risk) and September 2019 (medium risk); it also signposted the resident for additional mental health support when it became aware in August 2020 of personal circumstances that could have increased his and his family’s vulnerability and risk. These were appropriate actions on the part of the landlord and demonstrated that it attempted to take a victim-focused approach as its ASB policy required.
The level of contact between the landlord and resident similarly shows that it acted according to its obligations in keeping in regular contact as its ASB policy requires. For instance, the landlord offered updates to the resident in person (in December 2018), discussed its investigations with him (in July 2019, December 2020 and March 2021), advised him when it closed ASB case files (in September 2019, January 2020 and July 2020), updated him with the result of legal advice (in February 2020) and liaised with the family’s support worker (in September 2020). Therefore, although there was a delay in the landlord processing diary sheets from the resident during October-December 2020 (which it apologised for), overall the landlord maintained open communications with the resident to keep him updated on its investigations.
Between late 2018 and early 2021, the landlord took the following steps to investigate the ASB allegations:
1. liaised with the Police (in December 2018, January 2019, June 2019, October 2019, February 2021 and May 2021)
2. sent evidence-gathering letters to the block (in January 2019), interviewed neighbours and arranged for the resident and neighbours to complete incident diary sheets
3. interviewed the alleged perpetrator (in December 2018, June-July 2019, October 2019, June 2020, July 2020, September 2020, February 2021 and March 2021)
4. arranged for multiple warden visits (in July 2019, August 2019, November 2019 and December 2019).

These were all reasonable steps on the part of the landlord to engage with other agencies and use its own resources to try to evidence the ASB that the resident had reported to it.

Despite the investigations undertaken by the landlord, it obtained limited evidence to corroborate the resident’s ASB reports and link these to the alleged perpetrator. The resident has suggested the landlord should pursue enforcement action against the alleged perpetrator but a decision to take possession of a property can only be made through a court of law. Further, legal action, such as eviction, cannot usually be undertaken except as a last resort where all other efforts at resolution have failed, and where a robust case has been built to present to the courts. Building a robust case requires a range of evidence to be obtained such as the landlord attempted in this case. The landlord undertook case reviews in February 2020 and May 2021, neither of which recommended legal action given the lack of evidence of serious and ongoing ASB – there was therefore no service failure on the part of the landlord in it not commencing legal proceedings against the alleged perpetrator.
Nevertheless, there were several occasions when the landlord was able to evidence potential ASB by the alleged perpetrator such as Police updates about action it was taking against him (in October 2019 and March 2021), two incidents where cannabis was smelled in the block (in November 2019 and December 2019) and an occasion where a contractor had observed drug paraphernalia (March 2021). In response, the landlord issued tenancy warnings to the alleged perpetrator in December 2018, April 2020, October 2020 and December 2020. These actions were in line with its ASB policy to use non-legal sanctions and were therefore appropriate.
The Police indicated to the landlord in May 2021 that it should lead on ASB enforcement action against the alleged perpetrator and it was apparent by this point that the previous informal warnings had not led to a reduction in ASB reports. A case review that month recommended a stronger warning and night time visits – this occurred after the end of the landlord’s complaints process and a recommendation is made below in this regard.
In summary, the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy in its response to the resident’s ASB reports by assessing the risk to him and his family, conducting appropriate investigations, communicating regularly with him and taking informal actions against the alleged perpetrator.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports.

Reasons

The landlord conducted appropriate investigations into the resident’s ASB reports between late 2018 and early 2021 and took informal actions when evidence was obtained.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. update him on its current action plan to remedy ASB and whether it has issued the stronger warning letter and engaged night time visits as the May 2021 review recommended (if not, it should consider these recommendations and update the resident accordingly)
2. offer to complete an updated risk assessment based on the current circumstances
3. explain how he can apply to access the Community Trigger recourse.

The landlord should confirm its intention in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.