Southwark Council (202308062)

Background

1. The resident lives in the 1 bedroom 4th floor flat. She reported incidents of antisocial behaviour to the landlord between 2020 and 2024. During the timeline of the complaint, a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) managed the property. The TMO was deregistered and the council took back control of the property in November 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB and the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. We found that the landlord:
   1. Did not take reasonable action in response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Did not assess any risks to the resident or the impact the ASB had on her.
   3. Did not use its complaint responses to effectively assess if it, or the TMO, had acted reasonably when dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB.
   4. Did not follow its own complaint handling policy when responding to the resident’s complaints.

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.

5. The resident first complained to the landlord in November 2022. We have seen records that show the resident reported incidents of ASB to the TMO in 2019 and 2020. In accordance with our Scheme, we only consider complaints brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period. Therefore, we have focused our investigation on the landlord’s handling of her reports from January 2022 onwards.
6. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the TMO will investigate and act on reports of ASB for properties they manage. A board of residents from the estate ran the TMO for the mutual benefit of all residents. The establishment of a TMO does not affect the resident’s tenancy rights. The landlord is responsible for the actions of the TMO. It must therefore investigate her concerns about the TMO’s handling of her ASB reports.
7. The TMO had a complaints policy statement published online at the time of the resident’s reports. This said that it took reports of ASB very seriously and would take whatever effective action against perpetrators it deemed appropriate. It set out the actions it would take following a report of ASB:
   1. Assess the seriousness of the complaint within 2 working days.
   2. Arrange an interview with the alleged perpetrator to discuss the allegation. If they failed to attend an appointment within 5 working days, it would remind them of their responsibilities.
   3. If it had evidence to support the report, it would write to the alleged perpetrator within 5 days of the interview date and explain the breach of tenancy.
   4. Write to the reporter within 5 working days of the outcome to confirm that outcome and agree next steps.
   5. If the reports continued, it would consider other action such as mediation or legal action.
8. The resident told the landlord that she was experiencing regular problems with ASB from her neighbour on 19 January 2022. The landlord responded the same day and said it would ask the TMO to contact her to investigate. This was reasonable and followed the landlord’s ASB policy procedure.
9. The TMO did not respond until around 1 month later, on 22 February 2022. It acknowledged the incident in a letter to the resident but did not set out how it would investigate her allegations. It did not show that it was following its complaint policy statement and this was a failure.
10. There is no record that the TMO took any action following the resident’s reports of ASB until after she complained on 1 November 2022. Its records show that it wrote to the alleged perpetrator on 7 November 2022 to invite them for interview. The alleged perpetrator did not attend so it sent a follow up letter on 22 November 2022. There was no evidence that it contacted the resident, discussed her allegations further, or considered if there were further incidents. It did not pursue the report after it wrote the letter on 22 November 2022. This was a failure to comply with its own policy and procedures. It did not treat the resident fairly and the lack of communication likely caused her uncertainty, distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
11. In its stage 1 response on 30 March 2023, the landlord provided some update to the resident. It informed her of the letters the TMO sent to the alleged perpetrator in November 2022. It correctly said that the TMO investigated incidents of ASB and would contact the landlord’s ASB team if necessary. It sought to help progress her reports by asking the TMO to contact her and review the ASB case.
12. However, the landlord did not use its complaint handling effectively to consider how the TMO responded to her reports of ASB. It did not show any investigation into the resident’s earlier reports from January 2022. It failed to consider if the TMO’s actions in November 2022 were reasonable. It took a hands off approach to her reports of ASB and lost sight of its own responsibilities as the landlord. It was not fair, did not learn from outcomes, or put things right in the circumstances. These failures caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience and further time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
13. In its stage 2 response in July 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had no record that the TMO followed up on the actions agreed at stage 1. It was fair to consider the evidence she sent to the landlord in July and September 2023 regarding incidents from 2022.
14. However, it unfairly said the issues she reported were out of scope of the landlord’s complaint process. The matters complained about happened within 12 months of the resident’s stage 1 complaint in November 2022. The resident had continued to pursue her reports in March and September 2023. She also reiterated her concerns in an email to the landlord on 28 February 2024 and her complaint on 21 March 2024.
15. The landlord also failed to fully consider if the TMO’s actions in 2022 and 2023 were appropriate. It was unreasonable to rely solely on the police to act on her allegations of threats and physical violence. It did not consider whether it had acted in response to its wider safeguarding duty to protect the resident. It did not demonstrate if it or the TMO had consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or the risks these incidents may pose to her. These failures have contributed to the resident’s existing distrust of the landlord and a breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship.
16. The landlord’s internal records show that it was acting alongside other services to contact the alleged perpetrator in March, July, November, and December 2024. It missed the opportunity at stage 2 to explain that it was taking wider action regarding the alleged perpetrator. It did not share any information with the resident which could have eased some of her concerns.
17. We find maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB. It did not show that it fully considered the impact of the lack of investigation into the early reports of ASB. The resident told us that she is fearful leaving her home because of the incidents involving her neighbour. There is no record that the landlord or TMO interviewed the resident once she reported ASB. It did not conduct any risk assessment or agree any action plan. The resident has become reliant on other statutory services because of the lack of action from the landlord early in the timeline. There has been no consideration on how the landlord could help mitigate the impact on the resident or allay any of her concerns. These failures have contributed to a lack of trust by the resident in the landlord.
18. The landlord should pay the resident £600 compensation. This is comprised of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £100 for her time and trouble. This reflects our Guidance on Remedies as the landlord has not acknowledged its failings and there has been a significant impact on the resident.

19. The landlord’s complaint handling policy is now compliant with our Code. It has a 2-stage complaint procedure. At the time of her complaint in November 2022, the landlord said that it would respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage 1 and 25 days at stage 2. From 2023 onwards, the landlord changed its policy to 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
20. The landlord acknowledged her complaint of 7 November 2022 the same day. However, it did not issue a response until she took additional time and trouble reiterating her complaints on 30 March 2023. The landlord issued its response the same day. It did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures, consider any points of learning, or take any action to put things right.
21. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 21 March 2024. She had to seek updates from the landlord in April and June before it issued its response on 5 July 2024. In the interim period, the landlord sought only 1 extension to issue its response, which was on 25 April 2024. It acknowledged the delay in its response and appropriately apologised. However, it did not consider the earlier complaint handling failures at stage 1, show any learning from its complaint handling, or put things right in the circumstances.
22. The landlord should pay the resident £200 for its complaint handling failures given the delays of 4 months at stage 1 and over 2 months at stage 2. This reflects the resident’s time and trouble pursuing her complaints and the landlord’s failure to put things right.

Learning

TMO

23. The landlord should have had greater oversight of the actions taken by the TMO. The resident raised concerns through her complaints that they were not responding to her reports. The landlord missed the opportunity to fully consider these failings and this caused breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship. It should reflect on this finding when responding to complaints about its other TMOs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The TMO did not keep clear or accurate records of the resident’s reports or its actions. The lack of information impacted the landlord’s ability to effectively respond to the resident’s complaints. The landlord’s own internal record keeping was much better and did show the actions it was taking.

Communication

25. The TMO did not tell the resident that it had acted on her reports of ASB in November 2022. The landlord did not tell the resident that it was working with the alleged perpetrator and other agencies in March 2024. These failures caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaints.