Tower Hamlets Homes (202005444)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005444

Tower Hamlets Homes

4 February 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 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 refers to:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The landlord’s decision not to install an intercom door entry system at the resident’s property.
    3. The resident’s application to move from her property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: The Resident’s application to move from her property.
  3. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.

 

  1. The Ombudsman can only consider matters which have been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint and which the landlord has issued a final response to, under its complaints procedure. This is so the landlord can resolve the complaint itself, before the Ombudsman becomes involved. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s application to move property as part of this investigation. In view of this, the current investigation focuses on the period up until the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB on 18 September 2020. 

 

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a property owned and managed by the local authority landlord. The property is a flat within an ‘open-access’ block.
  2. The complaint was raised by the resident and, at times, by her partner. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her partner as “the resident”.

 Summary of events

  1. In February 2020 the resident reported noise and drug use (sometimes by groups of youths and at other times by older people) on multiple occasions both inside and outside of her block. She expressed concern about ASB in the area particularly drug dealing, drug use, and associated behaviour including loitering, public urination and defecation. The landlord responded and provided diary sheets for the resident to complete.
  2. On 4 May 2020 the landlord called the resident as there had been no further reports of ASB since February 2020. The resident confirmed that there had been no further incidents and it was agreed that the case would be closed. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2020 to confirm that it had arranged for patrols to take place and following these patrols it had found the majority of the area to be clean and clear. It confirmed that it had made arrangements for the case to be closed.
  3. The landlord’s records show that on 10 July 2020 the resident called to report further issues in relation to ASB and drug use in her block.
  4. On 16 July 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord and stated that she was increasingly concerned about ASB in and around her block. She stated that she had raised the issues of drug-use, loitering, urination and defecation, as well as intimidating behaviour with the landlord previously, but her case had been closed due to no evidence being found. She stated that the issues were affecting her health and her son’s development and requested that the landlord install an intercom door to the property for health and safety. She stated that, alternatively, she would like to be moved to a ground-floor property.
  5. A telephone conversation took place on 17 July 2020 and the resident stated that she was still experiencing drug-use in and around the block on random days and at random times. She stated that people were urinating and defecating in the block, and she had not seen any evidence of rough sleepers.
  6. The landlord provided a written response to the resident on the same day and stated that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it would not be able to conduct any home visits in person. It advised the resident to report any further incidences of ASB to the Police. It provided further diary sheets for the resident to complete and stated that it would contact the resident as soon as it was able.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 17 August 2020 and stated the following:
    1. It confirmed that it had received reports of ASB from the resident on 16 April 2020 and it had arranged for patrols to take place in and around the block. Following these targeted patrols, the landlord stated it had found no evidence of ASB. The resident had confirmed that there had been no further incidents on 4 June 2020, and it was mutually agreed that the case would be closed.
    2. On 23 July 2020 a telephone call took place to discuss the incidents of ASB again and the landlord arranged for patrols of the block to take place again.
    3. It acknowledged the resident’s request of an intercom door to be installed at the block but explained that it had a limited budget which would be available for minor improvements needed to deter incidents of ASB. It stated that this would not cover major works such as the installation of intercom systems for blocks. It advised that this could be considered as part of the major works due at the block, scheduled for 2023–24.
    4. It stated that if the resident remained dissatisfied at the response, she could escalate the complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process.
  8. The resident requested for her complaint to be escalated on 18 August 2020. She explained that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and felt that it had been neglectful of her personal circumstances and that she did not feel safe in her current property. She stated that she was unhappy that she would need to wait three to four years for the landlord to consider putting doors on the entrance to her block. She stated that if the landlord refused to put doors on the block, she wanted to relocate and asked the landlord how it would support her to do this.
  9. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 18 September 2020 and stated the following:
    1. although it had a budget for carrying out minor works, major works, such as the installation of an entry system intercom, would require a higher investment and planning to complete. It had established that as part of the major works planned for the block in 2023–24, an entry intercom may be considered, although this would be subject to consultation with all residents of the block.
    2. it appreciated that this would be some time away and advised that its patrols of the block would continue in order to identify those who were causing the ASB and to take appropriate action against them to prevent further incidents. It stated that since the patrols commenced on 22 July 2020 there had been 17 visits to the block. On the last two visits there was evidence of drug use on the stairwells, but no one had been present. Following this the landlord had arranged a joint operation with the Police which was planned between September and October 2020. These patrols would seek to identify the perpetrators of ASB.
    3. It stated that the resident had agreed to send any details of the perpetrators that are known for further investigation. It acknowledged that the resident now wished to move property and had advised the resident to make contact in order to begin the process. It stated that it would provide a statement about the ASB in the block to form part of her application.
    4. It apologised that it had acknowledged the resident’s escalation request a day later than expected in line with its timescales.

Assessment and findings

The Landlord’s handling of the Resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The resident has said that the reported ASB has caused her to experience problems with her health. It is not the role of this Service to draw conclusions as to the causation of issues with the resident’s health, nor is this Service in a position to do so.
  2. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB, including declining her request to install an intercom door entry system, was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says that some incidents will always be classified as ASB, including young people congregating in groups creating a threatening and intimidating atmosphere; The landlord’s ASB Policy says that it aims to investigate all reports of ASB. Therefore, the landlord would have been expected to investigate and take reasonable steps to resolve the ASB which had been reported.
  4. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, such as written warnings, injunctions etc. the landlord would require evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. landlords should usually attempt to resolve ASB informally in the first instance, such as through mediation and by contacting the parties involved to discuss the matter. However, it is noted in this case that the personal details of any perpetrators may not be known. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord would need to take steps to identify the perpetrators first.
  5. In this case, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek evidence of the resident’s reports of ASB by increasing patrols around the resident’s block and asking the resident to complete diary sheets. It was reasonable for the landlord to initially close the resident’s ASB case as no further reports had been made between February 2020 and May 2020. The landlord has provided evidence of the records following the patrols to the resident’s block between 22 July 2020 and 15 September 2020 which show that there had only been evidence of drug use on two occasions and there had not been anyone at the site on the visits. Following this evidence being discovered, it acted reasonably in referring this matter to the Police and began joint patrols of the area. This was reasonable as the use of Class A and B drugs and any other illegal activity would be a Police matter.
  6. The landlord acted reasonably and provided the resident with clear information in regard to how it could help resolve the ASB issues. This Service finds no maladministration in the Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. 

The Landlord’s decision not to install an intercom door entry system

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairs in communal areas such as door entry systems. However, it is under no obligation to install a door entry system at the property.
  2. The landlord said that it would not be able to install an intercom door entry system at this stage. It explained that installing a door entry system would be considered a major work which could be considered as part of its major works programme scheduled for 2023–24. This work could not be considered at this stage due to its limited financial resources.
  3. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to install an intercom door entry system at the resident’s property. Its response was reasonable as any decision to install an entry system would be discretionary, so it was reasonable for the landlord to take cost into account when making this decision, especially as social landlords are subject to a limited financial budget.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to install an intercom door entry system to the resident’s building.

Reasons

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord has acted in line with its ASB policy following the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. To carry out any formal action the landlord would need to have evidence of the alleged ASB and identify any perpetrators. The landlord acted reasonably by increasing patrols of the area and referring the matter to the Police, as ultimately the use of drugs and any other illegal activity would be a Police matter.
  2. The landlord has provided a reasonable explanation as to why it would not install an intercom entry door at the resident’s block. Social landlords are subject to a limited financial budget and the landlord would not be obliged to carry out any major works at the resident’s request. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise that this may be considered as part of its major planned works in 2023–24.