Waltham Forest Council (202111795)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111795

Waltham Forest Council

10 August 2022


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the Council’s response to the resident’s report of an incident of anti-social behaviour (ASB) on 9 October 2020.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident was a non-secure tenant of the Council. The tenancy was granted under Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 Housing Act 1985 pursuant to the Council’s functions contained in Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness). The tenancy commenced on 3 October 2019 and ended on 18 April 2021 when the resident secured a permanent tenancy with another provider.
  2. On 11 October 2020, the resident reported being physically threatened and verbally assaulted on 9 October 2020 by a man who was not known to her, and that the concierge who was on duty did not do anything to help the situation.
  3. The Council advised resident that she needed to follow this up with the Police and said that it would discuss the incident with the concierge and make a victim support referral.
  4. The Police forwarded photos of the alleged perpetrator to the Council, which it circulated and as a result they were identified as being a resident of the block and a tenant of the Council.
  5. In November 2020, the Police advised the resident that the alleged perpetrator had been invited for an interview under caution, which he attended and that all the evidence would be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The resident advised the Council of this and the Council said that once the CPS had made a decision it would then be able to take the necessary tenancy actions against the alleged perpetrator.
  6. On 15 April 2021, the Police contacted the resident to say that they had had a response from CPS and that they needed to carry out a more in-depth investigation to locate witnesses to the incident. In their email the Police said that they had been trying to get hold of the Council but had had no response.
  7. On 10 May 2021, the resident logged a formal complaint with the Council about:
    1. Its officers not responding in a timely manner to repeated requests from the Police for information and assistance in their investigation into her reports.
    2. That the concierge on duty at the time of the incident did not intervene
    3. Whether an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) was issued to and signed by the alleged perpetrator, who was a tenant of the Council.
  8. The Council issued its Stage One response on 1 June 2021. The Council said that:
    1. Its initial response to the resident’s report on October 2020 was appropriate. A formal case was not logged on the system because the resident had told the officer that she intended to take the matter up with the Police. The Council acknowledged that this conversation was not noted in its system and the officer failed to confirm this in writing. However, the officer did advise the resident that a successful prosecution would enable action to be taken to end the tenancy of the alleged perpetrator.
    2. It could not find any records of interview notes with the concierge taken by its staff.
    3. There was an unreasonable delay in responding to the Police’s request for assistance with trying to trace a potential witnesses.
    4. Its attempts to contact the alleged perpetrator were not recorded in its records, in contravention of its ASB Procedure.
    5. It would ensure further training is provided to its staff and that the officer be formally reminded of the need to keep written records of all actions taken and that future compliance with its ASB procedures is pro-actively monitored.
  9. The Council issued its Stage two response on 24 June 2021. The Council said its stage one response provided a comprehensive and reasonable response to the resident’s complaint.
  10. The resident bought her complaint to this service on 20 August 2021. The resident said that her landlord had failed to properly investigate the incident of ASB on 9 October 2020 and to respond in a timely manner to the Police’s request for further information.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. Complaints that concern the management of temporary accommodation, under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  3. At the time of the reported incident the resident occupied the property under a temporary accommodation non-secure tenancy, under Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 Housing Act 1985 pursuant to the Council’s functions contained in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness). Her complaint is about how the Council responded to her report of ASB whilst living in temporary accommodation and therefore relates to its responsibilities for the management of temporary accommodation.
  4. This complaint therefore falls properly within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO and as such is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider under paragraph 39(m).