Southwark Council (202015091)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015091

Southwark Council

3 June 2021

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder.
The property is a one-bedroom first-floor flat.

Legal and policy framework

Complaints policy

The landlord had provided this Service with a copy of its complaints policy. This details the landlord’s two stage process and indicates that:
1. At stage one, or “the complaint phase”, the resident’s complaint will be responded to within 15 working days.
2. At stage two, or “the review phase”, the landlord will issue a response within 25 working days.

Tenants’ Handbook

The landlord has also provided this service with the Tenants’ Handbook. This sets out the landlord’s expectations of its tenants and its subsequent response where its tenants are involved in ASB. Of particular relevance, it explains:
1. If a report of ASB is received, the landlord will investigate the complaint made by or against its tenants and will consider the most appropriate action to resolve the issue.
2. The landlord will acknowledge the report, contact the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit (ASBU), make an appointment to see and interview the reporting party, send incident diary sheets for the accrual of evidence, and a course of action. It may also need to contact the person carrying out the ASB, the police or other agencies, and other neighbours / potential witnesses.
3. The ASBU is a multi-agency team which includes officers from housing and the police. Once the case has been referred, the ASBU will hold a case conference to consider the best course of action.
4. The Noise and Nuisance Team will also respond to reported noise disturbances. If noise is witnessed and considered a nuisance, it may issue a warning, serve an Abatement Notice or, where this is breached, take prosecutorial action.

Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy

Finally, the Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s ASB policy. This reiterates the points above but also explains that as a means of remedy, the landlord may:
1. Refer parties for mediation and/or to support services.
2. Commission a Professional Witness Service.
3. Draw up acceptable behaviour contracts.

Scope

The resident has suggested that as a result of the landlord’s management of the ASB, her physical and mental health has deteriorated. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Summary of events

On 12 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She explained that on the previous day, the police were called as her neighbour had dropped a samurai sword onto her balcony. She asserted that he was very aggressive after the police had left and had urinated from his window. A bag of rubbish was also thrown on to the ground floor.
The resident expressed that she had not had a peaceful nights sleep since moving to her property as the neighbour often screamed and shouted during the evenings and the TV was on all night at full volume. While the police had asked him to keep quiet after 10pm, the neighbour continued to shout “police handcuff me because of this white girl”.
The resident expressed that she did not feel that she could go onto the balcony or open her windows as this provided easy access to her flat. She asserted that throwing rubbish was not a new habit for the neighbour as when she moved in, there was a significant amount of rubbish on the ground floor.
The Ombudsman has been unable to identify when (or how) the landlord responded to the resident’s report but notes that contact was made with the resident, and that an incident diary was sent to her.
On 18 May 2020 the resident confirmed receipt of the incident diary and that she would use it to record and supply information relating to her neighbour. She further reported:
1. On 10 May 2020 she approached the neighbour and asked him to keep the noise down between 10pm and 7am. He made it clear that he was unwilling to cooperate and made further racial comments. He was also asked to stop throwing rubbish, however stated he would not change.
2. At 5am on 18 May 2020 the neighbour was playing his tv at full volume and shouting on the phone. She stated that she again approached him to keep the noise down and he responded with abusive language.

The resident stated that she had made every attempt to reason with the neighbour however this had not worked. She was unable to get to sleep and believed that there was a risk of the neighbour being physically violent. The police were called.

On 19 May 2020 the resident reported that her neighbour had made racially abusive comments towards her. A further report was made on 20 May 2020 in which she stated that the neighbour had been swearing, cooking / banging appliances with his windows open, listening to his TV loudly, and had thrown a mirror and beer can from the communal balcony onto the ground floor. She alleged that further comments were made towards her and noted that his aggression was escalating.
On 21 and 22 May 2020 the resident made further reports to the landlord of loud noise, shouting and beer cans being thrown from the window. She added that the neighbour had also urinated from his window. The police were again called.
On 22 May 2020 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had discussed the neighbour’s behaviour with him. The landlord advised that while the neighbour had been asked not to play his TV too loudly, it was unable to stop him from using his kitchen in the evening. The landlord explained that the neighbour also apologised for his language.
The resident responded to the landlord on 2 June 2020 clarifying that her issue was not with the late-night cooking, but rather the use of heavy objects including kitchen appliances which, she alleged, the neighbour shouted racial abuse with every bang.
The landlord informed the resident that it would visit the neighbour on 5 June 2020. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord also proposed mediation, however this was declined by the resident. She expressed that she had already attempted to approach the neighbour without success.
On 7 June 2020 the resident explained to the landlord that due to the things that had been thrown by her neighbour, she did not believe she could use the balcony. She therefore wished to know if she could protect herself by installing a canopy/cover. The landlord confirmed that it would seek advice on this.
On 10 June 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the police had to be called again. She explained that at 2am the neighbour had been playing loud music. She stated that she knocked on the wall and the neighbour opened his window and remarked “I will kill you, white bitch”. She requested that the landlord move her to temporary accommodation.
On the same day, after speaking with the noise team, the resident wrote to the landlord (after being informed that a warning could be issued) to discourage it from contacting the neighbour. She stated that while it may have been reasonable to write to a rational neighbour, she did not believe that this was appropriate in this instance. She stated that she had been advised that it might be more appropriate to escalate this matter with the police (who had visited earlier in the day).
Later (still on the same day) the landlord informed the resident that it was unable to provide her with temporary accommodation as she was a leaseholder. She was asked whether she had any friends or family that she could stay with for respite. It advised that it would be meeting with the resident’s neighbour again, on 12 June 2020. It also advised that the noise team would be offering external assessments between 7-11am and 5-10pm (due to a reduction in service because of Covid-19).
On 24 June 2020 following a visit to her property, the resident wrote to the landlord. She stated:
1. Her neighbour frequently made gunshot sounds which intensified throughout the evening. She stated that she began paying more attention to this after her neighbour had threatened to kill her.
2. She had been contacted by the Safer Neighbours Team who confirmed that her case was being investigated and someone would be in touch.
3. Contrary to the landlord’s understanding, her neighbour had a black samurai sword as well as a wooden one. Both were identified by the police but not confiscated.
4. She had made a series of calls in the previous week and had requested that someone visit her property to witness the nuisance, however she was informed that the noise team would not be visiting. She was disappointed by this.

The resident additionally shared a number of recordings which she asserted the landlord would be interested in.

The landlord responded to the resident on the same day. It advised that the recordings would be reviewed by a senior member of staff and would be discussed on the following day to establish how it could move forward. In relation to the alleged black samurai sword, the landlord explained that it had spoken with the police. It therefore advised the resident to contact 999 if this was ever seen in a public space.
On 29 June 2020 the resident chased the landlord requesting an update on her case. She re-requested permission to install a canopy on the balcony.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord spoke with the resident on 1 July 2020. Notes of this call were shared with the resident on 3 July 2020, in which the landlord noted:
1. It had advised the resident that others on the estate had been contacted to ascertain what had been witnessed/heard. As two neighbours were willing to give evidence, a meeting would be set up with the ASBU to consider the evidence and next steps. It would update the resident once the meeting had taken place. The landlord also explained that on the advice of its Fire Risk Assessment Team, it was unable to approve the balcony canopy. An explanation was provided for this.
On 9 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and her local MP. She requested to know whether the ASBU had met and what the outcome was. For the benefit of her MP, she explained:
1. Since purchasing her property, she had been a victim of her neighbour.
2. As the property was near a school, every time her neighbour exposed himself it was in clear view of this.
3. It was impossible to sleep as the neighbour frequently made loud noises, banged, and dropped heavy objects. He often shouted about killing and murder.
4. She was unable to open her windows, use her balcony, sleep during the night, or go out after dark. Other residents also felt frightened. She had requested to be moved to temporary accommodation however this was declined by the landlord as she was a homeowner.
5. Her neighbour was breaching the terms of the tenancy agreement through his criminal and intolerable behaviour. She stated that she therefore wished to know the landlord’s final decision. She would look to take legal action if she was dissatisfied with this.
6. She wished to know how she could protect herself from the urine, rubbish, and samurai sword that the neighbour had thrown on her balcony.
7. Since asking the resident not to throw rubbish, she had been directly targeted and racially harassed many times.
On the same day, in an internal email, the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident on the previous day (8 July 2020) and advised that it would be looking to take more action (in relation to the noise). It noted, however:
1. Pictures of rubbish shared by the leaseholder offered no clear evidence that the perpetrator was her neighbour.
2. The allegations of her neighbour urinating had not been corroborated by any other resident who had been spoken to on two different occasions.
3. The rubbish mentioned was at the side of another property.
4. In relation to the sword and glass (mirror), the police had visited and only identified a wooden sword. When the neighbour was consulted on the glass (mirror), he explained that this fell over by accident while he was cleaning.
5. No reports (to the landlord or police) had previously been made of the neighbour exposing himself to her or to children at any time.

The landlord stated that it had advised the resident that nothing could be done about the neighbour shouting, singing, and swearing in his home. It recognised that the lyrics of the neighbour’s music did contain mentions of murder and gunshots.

The landlord spoke to the resident and her neighbour on 10 July 2020 noting the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with her neighbour. On 11 July 2020 after some discussion, mediation was agreed. The resident cancelled this on 17 July 2020 expressing that the neighbour was still shouting and making gunshot noises.
On 22 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on the action it was planning to take. She was again advised that the complaint was being investigated and that she would be contacted once it had concluded. She chased this again on 9 and 12 August 2020.
It appears that the ASBU held a case conference on 31 July 2020. The Ombudsman has not seen any details relating to this.
On 14 August 2020 (although dated 11 August 2020) the landlord wrote to the resident. It stated that it had conducted its investigation which involved:
1. Interviewing and discussing the issue with the resident
2. Completing a risk assessment
3. Requesting and receiving a police risk assessment
4. Interviewing neighbours regarding the incidents
5. Meeting with the police, ASBU and Home Strategy Team.
The landlord concluded:
1. There was insufficient evidence to suggest that the resident was being harassed or threatened by her neighbour.
2. It would write to the neighbour regarding noise nuisance and detailing the conditions of the tenancy agreement to ensure that he was aware of his responsibilities.
3. The police and ASBU had also reviewed the video evidence provided in which the resident could be heard using offensive language to her neighbour. She was reminded that this behaviour was unacceptable.

The landlord explained that while noise nuisance had been found, the resident’s other allegations had not been substantiated. Therefore, any similar allegations received about her neighbour could be viewed as harassing and this would be a breach of her lease resulting in action being taken against her. The resident was advised to reconsider mediation with her neighbour.

On 15 August 2020 the police wrote to the landlord noting that it had met with the resident regarding the ongoing neighbour dispute. The police explained that while the resident had new recordings of noise nuisance, she felt that she could not report this following the landlord’s letter. She was now interested in mediation however, and also enquired about installing CCTV at the front and rear of the property. It was noted by the police that installing a noise box could also put her at ease and either support or disprove the noise complaint.
In further internal emails on 16 and 17 August 2020 the landlord noted that the case would be referred for mediation. No CCTV had been organised as it did not believe that the resident’s case met the threshold. Noise boxes also were not being fitted due to COVID-19.
On 7 September 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint. She disagreed with the landlord’s decision that her allegations were unsubstantiated. She expressed:
1. After throwing a large blade on to her balcony, the neighbour shouted at her demanding that she return the offensive weapon or he would climb down and retrieve it. He subsequently urinated out of his window onto the ground floor, threw his rubbish out and verbally abused her. She could have been seriously hurt or even killed.
2. The neighbour had thrown glass (mirror) on to the ground floor while he was arguing and shouting at someone. This showed that he was aggressive and unpredictable.
3. As well as throwing rubbish, the neighbour screamed, shouted and dropped heavy objects repeatedly until early hours of the morning.
4. On 10 June 2020 the neighbour directly threatened to murder her. She acknowledged that she retaliated with offensive language but stated she had done this as she was incredibly scared and in threat of real danger.
The resident expressed that she felt threatened and intimidated by the landlord’s letter of 14 August 2020 and claimed that this was an attempt to silence her. She requested:
1. An explanation of how the landlord had concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated.
2. That the landlord re-review the police attendance at her property and the comments of her other neighbours.
3. The installation of CCTV to cover the area, which she was happy to pay for.

The resident advised that she believed the rubbish on the ground floor had been thrown by the neighbour and that a DNA test would prove this. She would also be willing to engage in mediation, if arranged in a safe environment.

On 28 September 2020 the landlord provided the resident with its stage one response. It reiterated that it had interviewed the neighbour in question, sought evidence from other residents, reviewed the noise recordings and discussed the matter with the police. It explained:
1. Evidence of noise nuisance had been found. A warning letter had subsequently been issued.
2. No evidence was found to substantiate the remaining claims and no other parties had confirmed witnessing these actions.
3. After speaking with the neighbour, it appeared that the incident with the sword and glass (mirror) was an accident. The police were informed of this, and no further action had been taken.

The landlord concluded that on this basis, it could only take action to address the noise nuisance issue. The resident was encouraged to continue to keep diaries.

On 15 November 2020 the resident submitted her stage two complaint form. She again disputed the landlord’s findings as:
1. In respect of the shouting, verbal and racial abuse, the landlord had previously confirmed that the neighbour apologised. She stated that the landlord was now contradicting itself.
2. Voice recordings shared captured the neighbour chanting “I will kill / murder you”, followed by gunshot sounds.
3. She asserted she had been subjected to torture and aggression. Other neighbours had witnessed this and the police had been called numerous times.
4. In relation to the rubbish and urination, she had provided several photos of the ground floor full of rubbish. She had also provided pictures of the wet ground where she believed the neighbour had urinated. She wished to know what the landlord had done to investigate this, what the outcome was, and what evidence she was expected to produce.
5. She had requested CCTV to monitor the situation and the installation of a noise box. She questioned where the landlord was with this.
6. The neighbour’s suggestion that the sword/mirror were blown over was untrue. She asserted that he was arguing with someone and threw the glass in anger. This showed how dangerous he was.

The resident concluded that the landlord’s letter attempted to bully and discourage her from reporting the situation and she believed that this was a breach of her human rights.

On 18 November 2020 the resident reported further noise and littering. She stated that while she was warned not to make any more complaints, she believed that this was the right thing to do.
On the same day, the landlord asked for further details of the noise and whether a statement could be given by any witnesses. The landlord additionally explained that the resident would not be sued for making further reports. It stated that it had clearly explained what actions could and could not be taken, where allegations could not be substantiated.
Expressing further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s letter and findings, the resident also explained:
1. She had woken up to find takeaway chicken and boxes scattered on the ground floor. Her next-door neighbour was able to confirm this.
2. The Noise Nuisance Team were contacted. On 28 October 2020 at 17:30 the neighbour started to break, smash and crush things. This frightened the next-door neighbour too.

The resident again enquired about the provision of CCTV and a noise box.

On 20 November 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that it was duty bound to inform her that the neighbour could take the view that he was being harassed. Still, it apologised that the resident believed she was unable to make reports. It reiterated though, that none of the resident’s reports, besides the noise nuisance, could be substantiated. The pictures provided proved that there was rubbish but did not evidence who had thrown it and no evidence had been provided by other residents which indicated anything other than noise. The landlord requested details for any other witnesses.
The landlord also explained that due to the pandemic, its Noise Nuisance Team was not putting noise recording equipment in resident properties and was unable to offer a timeframe for when this would resume. The landlord advised the resident to continue to report the matter to the Noise Nuisance Team however, and that depending on the time it was reported, it may be able to attend the property to witness the matter. CCTV was permitted but only within the boundaries of the resident’s property.

In relation to the garden/ground floor, it advised that the relevant services had been engaged to address the litter and those responsible for the garden.

The Ombudsman notes that the landlord spoke with the resident on the phone shortly after. It noted in a summary email:
1. Pictures of rubbish did not evidence who had thrown it and no witness statements had been provided.
2. The rubbish would not be DNA tested as this was not a resource it had.
3. Enquiries would be made to establish whether the Professional Witness Service would be appropriate.
4. CCTV could not be installed to cover a wider area than the resident’s property. It would not permit this or offer a 24/7 monitoring plan.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident additionally requested that the landlord take employment action, expressing that her neighbour also worked for the local authority. The landlord advised the resident that while this may have been the case, the matter related to the neighbour’s tenancy and not his employment responsibilities.
The landlord later confirmed receipt, on 23 November 2020, of the next-door neighbour’s witness report. It explained to the resident that while this confirmed the incident on 28 October 2020, it made no mention of the rubbish being dumped. The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s next-door neighbour confirmed this in later correspondence.
On 24 November 2020 following a further report of littering, the landlord advised that it would write to the entire block to remind residents of their obligations under their agreements and not to throw rubbish. The landlord highlighted that while the resident suspected her neighbour, the front garden was by a public footpath and so the rubbish could have been left by anyone. It would look into putting up signs as a deterrent also.
The resident disagreed that the evidence did not point to her neighbour. She stated that chicken takeaways could be no one but him and that it was technically impossible for anyone else to do so, given the location. She added that this part of the block was a dead end and so it was unlikely that the public had passed it.
On the same day, the landlord advised the resident that unless she was able to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the issue could not be investigated. The landlord additionally provided the resident with a picture of the block, highlighting that there was a public pathway to the right of the property and a communal walkway.
On 11 January 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its final response. It highlighted that it had:
1. Addressed the resident’s allegations at stage one and interviewed the resident, the neighbour, and others on the estate.
2. Assessed the noise recordings and discussed the matter with the police who confirmed no further action.
3. Issued a formal written warning to the neighbour in relation to noise nuisance found.
4. Advised that no evidence had been found to substantiate the other claims and no witnesses.
5. Arranged mediation with the neighbour.
6. Reviewed the photos provided and advised that this could not be used as evidence as it did not indicate who the culprit was. A witness statement was needed for this and for the urine allegations.
7. Confirmed that written warnings had been sent to all residents and signs put up to prevent littering.
8. Advised that CCTV could be installed but would not be paid for by the landlord and could only film within the boundaries of the property. There was mobile CCTV within the estate which could be used to try to capture fly tipping, however.
9. Advised the resident to log incidents in the form of a diary and also to contact the noise nuisance team should she continue to experience this. She was also advised to contact the police if she felt threatened at any time.

It therefore concluded that the matter had been adequately handled following the resident’s report.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and while the reports were still ongoing following the landlord’s final response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s approach was reasonable and in accordance with its ASB policy.
The Ombudsman notes that following the resident’s initial report of ASB, the landlord provided the resident with incident diary sheets. This was in line with the landlord’s process and was necessary in gathering evidence if the accusations were to be put to the neighbour or any enforcement action was to be taken.
Due to the nature of the resident’s reports, and as the resident had already made contact with the police, it was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the police and to consider the police’s response in order to determine the appropriate (and proportionate) course of action.
Following a series of complaint reports between 18-22 May 2020, in which the resident reported loud noise, racial abuse, foul language, urination and littering, the landlord began taking investigatory action. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 22 May 2020 and following this, advised the resident that the neighbour had been asked to keep the noise down and had apologised for his language. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord informed the resident that further visits would be made and this was done on 5 June 2020 and 12 June 2020. This was appropriate. It is unclear whether the accusations of littering and urination were raised with the neighbour at this time, however it was not unreasonable for the landlord to require more evidence before doing so.
In respect of the resident’s assertion that her neighbour had made several racially abusive comments, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this accusation with the neighbour. What’s more, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have followed up any alleged death threats or threats of violence (with both the resident’s neighbour and the police). The Ombudsman is content though, that the landlord sought to do this. It is noted that on 10 June 2020 after advising the resident that a warning letter would be issued, the resident discouraged the landlord from writing to the neighbour, in fear that this could provoke a response. It was therefore proposed (by the neighbour) that she would continue to liaise with the police.
As per the landlord’s ASB policy, both the resident and the resident’s neighbour were interviewed, and while it does not appear that the resident completed any incident diaries (as the Ombudsman has not seen any), the resident’s case was progressed. After further noise reports on 24 June 2020 and on receipt of further recordings, it was confirmed for the resident that surrounding tenants had been spoken to in order to corroborate her assertions, and a meeting would be organised with the ASBU to consider the evidence. This was appropriate and in accordance with ASB procedure. It appears that all matters were discussed within the case conference, on 31 July 2020.
Following an assessment of the evidence, the landlord confirmed that there had been noise nuisance. It therefore advised the resident of this in its letter on 14 August 2020. As a means of intervention, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord issued a warning to the resident’s neighbour to remind him of the conditions under his tenancy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a proportionate response to the resident’s reports of shouting, singing, gunshot noises, the banging of heavy objects and reports of late-night TV. While it may have been reasonable for the landlord to have installed noise recording equipment too, as requested by the resident and suggested by the police, the Ombudsman notes that due to COVID-19, installations had been temporarily suspended (and this was explained to the resident). The Ombudsman accepts that Covid-19 has impacted on some of the services which a landlord is able to deliver.
In respect of the resident’s reports of urination, littering, intimidation and harassment, the landlord explained that it was unable to substantiate her claims. The Ombudsman has considered the reasons for the landlord’s conclusion and is satisfied that at this was fair. This is as the resident had provided (and the landlord had been unable to obtain, including from other neighbours) no evidence which corroborated or evidenced her assertions.
Looking at the resident’s allegations that her neighbour had been responsible for the littering, the Ombudsman notes that the resident had only provided images of the litter, but no evidence which identified the neighbour in the act. There was therefore no proof that her neighbour was the perpetrator. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord also sought to investigate this claim by questioning other tenants, however was unable to obtain eye-witness testimony. While the Ombudsman notes that the resident’s next-door neighbour had written to the landlord to confirm that she had woken up to litter, this too only confirmed the existence of rubbish.
The Ombudsman therefore accepts that the landlord was unable to take further action against the resident’s neighbour without adequate evidence. It was reasonable that the landlord did recognise the resident’s reports of litter in general however, and wrote to all residents of the estate to remind them of the expectations under their agreements, while also installing signs to deter littering by the general public also. It was also appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that it did not undertake DNA tests and to demonstrate that due to the public pathway, rubbish could have been thrown by anyone.
In relation to the resident’s assertion that her neighbour had been urinating out of his window, this too failed to be corroborated by other neighbours. While the resident did provide pictures of a wet floor, the resident’s neighbour was not witnessed urinating and no evidence was captured as such. Furthermore, it does not appear that any reports were made to the police of the neighbour exposing himself in clear view of the school. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that there was insufficient evidence for the landlord to act on this.
Lastly, the landlord suggested that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the resident’s neighbour was threatening / harassing her. The Ombudsman cannot comment on whether this was or was not taking place. The Ombudsman is satisfied though, that the landlord was in regular communication with the police and therefore (as the resident called the police on each occasion and shared the crime references) remained up to date with the events that had occurred. The landlord noted that no further action was taken by the police and was unable to determine from the recordings captured, that the resident was being threatened. The Ombudsman accepts this. While the Ombudsman may not have heard all of the recordings provided to the landlord, these were listened to by the landlord, the ASBU, the police and the Home Strategy Team.
The Ombudsman recognises that in the resident’s stage two complaint, she pointed out that her neighbour had offered an apology on 22 May 2021 and suggested that this was proof of the racial and verbal abuse. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the neighbour’s apology appeared to be in recognition of his inappropriate language.
In respect of the samurai sword, while the landlord could not confirm its existence after speaking with the police (only of a wooden sword), it advised the resident that she needed to contact the police if this was ever spotted in a public place. This was reasonable as possession of an offensive weapon in public would fall within the jurisdiction of the police and not the landlord.
Moreover, as the neighbour reported being frightened to open her windows, to use her balcony, and to go out after dark, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to repair the relationship between the resident and her neighbour. As well as liaising with the police and encouraging the provision of further evidence, the landlord (and police) encouraged mediation as a means of remedy. This was reasonable and in the Ombudsman’s view, was practical for the improvement of the resident’s living conditions.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident wished to be moved to temporary accommodation and raised this with the landlord on several occasions. It was not unfair for the landlord to decline this, however, on the basis that as a leaseholder, the resident was not entitled to temporary accommodation unless under extenuating circumstances. While the Ombudsman has not had sight of the risk assessments undertaken, it is noted that they were completed by both the landlord and the police. The landlord therefore satisfied for itself that the resident’s case did not meet its criteria for temporary accommodation and the Ombudsman cannot see that any recommendations were made by the police for the resident to be moved. It was reasonable, nonetheless, for the landlord to attempt to explore with the resident whether she had access to friends or family that she could stay with for respite.
In light of this, it was fair for the landlord to approve the resident’s CCTV request. While the landlord explained that this was limited to the boundaries of the resident’s property and would need to be purchased by the resident (as a leaseholder), this would have enabled the resident to capture evidence of any future ASB involving her property. This was reasonable. It would have been inappropriate to allow the resident to film outside of the boundaries of her property to capture the public space due to data protection and privacy rules.
It was not unfair to inform the resident that further allegations of a similar nature could be viewed as harassment by her neighbour, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this could have been communicated to her in a better way. As the matter was still ongoing, the landlord should have considered the way in which this statement was positioned in order to avoid discouraging the resident from supplying useful evidence. The Ombudsman is content, nonetheless, that the landlord did explain (although not until 18 November 2020) that the resident could still make reports and later offered an apology for the misunderstanding. This was fair.
The resident did also mention that as her neighbour worked for the local authority, she believed that the landlord needed to take employment action. It was therefore appropriate to advise the resident, that this was a housing matter which related to the conditions of the tenancy agreement. It would be inappropriate for the landlord to intervene in other areas of the neighbour’s personal life.
Finally, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and while the Ombudsman is content that the landlord responded within the appropriate timeframe at stage one, the landlord did delay in offering its stage two response. As per the complaints policy, at stage two of the process, the landlord should provide the resident with a review response within 25 working days. The Ombudsman notes, however, that despite the resident submitting her stage two complaint on 15 November 2020, the landlord failed to offer the resident an official response until 11 January 2021. The landlord therefore exceeded the deadline for its review response and the Ombudsman cannot see that it apologised for this or attempted to manage this delay in any way. This was inappropriate. The Ombudsman has therefore made a recommendation below to improve the landlord’s service. The Ombudsman has not concluded that there was a service failure in this instance as no further action was required, and therefore its delay resulted in no adverse effect. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord was otherwise engaging with the resident regarding her concerns during the period

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted reasonably following the resident’s reports of ASB. In line with the landlord’s ASB guidance, the Ombudsman notes that it undertook an appropriate (and proportionate) investigation and involved the relevant services in order to assess the resident’s reports. Where ASB was found, the landlord took reasonable action to address this (within the capabilities of its service at the time) and also advised the resident of the action it had taken at both stage one and two of the complaints process.
It was fair to advise the resident that further evidence was required, in respect of some of her allegations, which more clearly evidenced her neighbour’s behaviour. The Ombudsman is content that the evidence available to the landlord did not substantiate the resident’s reports and therefore has considered it reasonable that the landlord took no enforcement action in this respect. The landlord did, however, take steps to tackle the general concern with litter and this was fair given that it was unable to identify the culprit. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident advised the landlord against writing to her neighbour, in respect of the alleged threats, on the understanding that the police were handling the matter.
Noting the resident’s allegations and reported experience, it was reasonable to recommend/arrange mediation between the resident and her neighbour. It was also reasonable to provide the resident with permission to install her own CCTV cameras, but within the boundaries of her property solely. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s actions did not put an end to the reported ASB and that attempts at mediation were still ongoing after the landlord’s final response. The Ombudsman is satisfied, however, that up until this time, there was no maladministration.

Recommendation

The landlord should ensure that it adheres to the timeframe set out within its complaints policy. This will ensure that complaints are dealt with as per the complainant’s expectation and that they are able to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman Service, should they wish to do so, within a reasonable amount of time.