Wandsworth Council (202104702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104702

Wandsworth Council

31 May 2023

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:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in relation to a neighbour.
2. The resident’s request to be rehoused using the landlord’s management transfer policy.

Background and summary of events

The property is a one bedroom flat on the second floor of a four-storey block and the resident has a secure tenancy, which began on 17 December 2001.
On 1 October 2017, the resident completed a housing application form requesting to be rehoused. The form listed various medical conditions and stated that the resident had been verbally insulted by drug dealers who were visiting the block regularly.
The resident informed the landlord on 11 September 2019 that she was experiencing problems with her neighbour.
On 17 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that she had reported a noise nuisance on 14 April 2020. The landlord advised the resident that it had investigated the report but had not been able to establish that a noise nuisance was occurring. Therefore, it would not be taking any further action.
On 7 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the police to say it had received several complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in relation to the neighbour’s property. It had received allegations that the property was being used as a ‘crack house’ and the frequent visitors to the property were causing a disturbance to the resident. The landlord advised the police of CAD numbers that the police had provided to the resident after contacting them to report ASB. The landlord requested information on whether any arrests had been made. It is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord received a reply to its enquiry.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 26 May 2021 to report that her neighbour and his visitors had been causing ASB for ten years.
Following contact between this Service and the landlord, the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman on 5 July 2021 to advise that it had written to the resident on 27 May 2021 and 3 June 2021 to obtain further details about the resident’s complaint but had not received a reply. The landlord’s records show that it also wrote to the resident on 5 July and 15 July 2021 requesting more details about her complaint.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that an appointment had been arranged for the resident to attend an interview at the landlord’s office on 10 August 2021. The landlord also sent the resident a housing application form and medical form on 3 August 2021.
On 8 August 2021, the resident completed the housing application form requesting rehousing on medical grounds and because of ongoing problems with ASB caused by the neighbour.
On 10 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and supplied police CAD numbers that she had received when reporting ASB in relation to the neighbouring property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 August 2021 to confirm the outcome of the interview it held with the resident on 10 August 2021. The landlord explained that without corroborating evidence from the police, it would be limited in terms of the action it could take against the neighbour.
The landlord wrote to the police on 11 August 2021 and supplied photos of apparent drug use near the block and a knife that had been placed near the entrance of the block. The police replied on 16 August 2021 to confirm that it had carried out a ‘weapons sweep’ of the area, but had not found the knife. However, the police confirmed it would increase patrols of the area.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 August 2021 to advise her of the feedback received from the police regarding the ‘weapons sweep’ and its intention to increase patrols of the area.
On 8 October 2021, the Ombudsman assisted the resident by submitting a community trigger application to the local authority on her behalf.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 October 2021 to confirm that it had received the resident’s complaint via the Ombudsman and had therefore now logged a stage one complaint.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 15 October 2021, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord became aware of the resident’s complaint on 27 May 2021 and as a result it attempted to contact the resident on various occasions. The landlord also visited the property on 2 June 2021 and left a calling card.
2. The resident had contacted the landlord on 3 August 2021 and an appointment was then arranged to interview the resident on 10 August 2021.
3. The resident had raised various concerns at the interview about the neighbour and his visitors smoking drugs and causing noise nuisance. The resident had also alleged that a knife was kept by the neighbour near the block entrance.
4. The landlord had contacted the police who were unable to locate the knife, but said they would increase patrols of the area.
5. The landlord stated that it was aware there had been “a long history of dispute” between the resident and the neighbour and was unable to act because of a lack of evidence to support the resident’s “assertions” about her neighbour.
6. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 29 October 2021, the council contacted the landlord to confirm it had received an application for a community trigger review and therefore it required information from the landlord regarding any related reports of ASB.
The landlord wrote to the council on 3 November 2021 with details of contact with the resident in the previous 12 months regarding ASB.
On 10 November 2021, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and requested it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two.
On 25 November 2021, the landlord sent its stage two reply to the resident, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had liaised with the police regarding the reports of ASB, but the allegations made by the resident “could not be substantiated”.
2. The landlord had provided the resident with a housing application form, so that her rehousing request could be assessed. However, the resident had not returned the completed form.
3. The landlord advised the resident to complete the form with all of the relevant supporting information so that the resident’s management transfer application could be assessed.
4. The landlord concluded that there was an ongoing dispute between the resident and her neighbour and there was insufficient evidence to take tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour.
5. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.

Events following the landlord’s stage two response

The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2021 and provided copies of the police CAD numbers and photos she had given to the landlord on 10 August 2021. She also confirmed that she had been given a receipt to show she had handed in the completed housing application form.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the photos and CAD numbers and advised the resident that it would contact the police regarding the CAD numbers and would then contact the resident once the landlord had concluded its investigations. The resident replied on the same day to say that her mental health was deteriorating because of the situation and she had been sending daily updates to the council’s team dealing with the community trigger application.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that management transfer applications should normally be supported by the police. The resident replied on 23 December 2021 to confirm that she wanted to proceed with her management transfer application.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 January, 11 January and 12 January 2022 to report that the police had been called to the neighbouring property on various dates in December 2021, the neighbour was openly supplying drugs from the premises and one of the neighbour’s visitors had damaged the communal main entrance door at the front of the block.
On 25 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to enquire whether the landlord had assessed her housing application form submitted in August 2021, and on 26 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request a management transfer.
On 14 February 2022, the landlord received a letter from Victim Support, which quoted several police CAD numbers that had been provided to the resident during November 2021 to January 2022 in relation to reports of ASB and harassment. The letter confirmed that Victim Support supported the resident’s request for a transfer.
The landlord replied to Victim Support on 23 February 2022 and said it would contact the police to check whether they supported the resident’s request for a management transfer. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 February 2022 to confirm it was checking with the police whether they would support the resident’s management transfer application.
On 4 March 2022, the council wrote to various stakeholders and agencies, including the police and the landlord, to advise them of the community trigger review. The conclusions of the review panel were:
1. Agencies were clear that there needed to be a “more improved multi-agency approach”.
2. The resident should report all incidents immediately to both the police and the landlord.
3. The police would submit an alert for the address on their internal systems.
4. The police would refer the case to the Community MARAC (Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference) to ensure there would be multi-agency scrutiny at their regular meetings.
5. The MARAC and landlord would continue to consider whether the tenancy conditions had been breached and whether enforcement action was required.
6. The police and the landlord should work more closely together to consider the range of available options, including part or full closure of the address.
7. The police and the landlord should make enquiries with the neighbours as part of their investigations.
On 21 March 2022, the landlord advised this Service that the housing application form completed by the resident in August 2021 had been sent by the resident to the council rather than to the landlord.
On 6 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that her management transfer application had been refused due to a lack of evidence that she was in danger and because the police did not agree that an urgent transfer was justified.
The neighbour was evicted from the property on 8 March 2023 as a result of possession action taken by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

On 26 May 2021, the resident wrote to the Ombudsman to report that her neighbour and his visitors had caused ASB for ten years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, while the information about ASB in earlier years provides contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on the reports of ASB from 2021 when the resident made her formal complaint to the landlord (via the Ombudsman).
This Service is aware that events relating to the resident’s reports of ASB took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 25 November 2021. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaints response. This assessment can, therefore, only consider the landlord’s response to issues and incidents up to the date of the final response. This approach is consistent with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states: “When ASB is reported [the landlord] will discuss the problem with the complainant and agree an appropriate plan of action. This could include:
1. Talking to the perpetrator, if appropriate;
2. Interviewing or writing to the perpetrator;
3. Arranging a mediation interview;
4. Progressing legal action to resolve an ASB incident;
5. Involving and working with partner agencies.
The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that residents can request a ‘community trigger’, the purpose of which is to give victims the right to request a review of their case by the local authority and other agencies. The threshold for the community trigger is that a resident has reported the same problem on three separate occasions in the last six months and believes that nothing has been done to resolve the problem. The policy confirms that the community trigger is dealt with by the local authority, rather than by the landlord.
Following contact from this Service about the resident’s complaint, the landlord made various unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident to discuss the complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 May 2021, 3 June 2021, 5 July 2021 and 15 July 2021 to obtain further details. The landlord therefore made reasonable efforts to contact the resident regarding her complaint about ASB.
The landlord met with the resident on 10 August 2021 to discuss her reports that her neighbour and his visitors were regularly engaged in ASB and criminal behaviour, such as drug use. The following day, the landlord sent photos of apparent drug use by people associated with the neighbouring property to the police. The landlord also sent a photo of a knife, which the resident had reported was left by the neighbour outside the front main entrance to the block. As the photos had shown possible criminal activity, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the police. However, neither the landlord’s stage one or stage two letters gave any indication that the landlord had carried out its own investigations into the reports of ASB, such as interviewing the alleged perpetrator or neighbours. The landlord’s stage one and two letters suggested that the police enquiries had been focussed on criminal matters, such as the possible presence of weapons near the main front entrance and drug-related robberies in the area. Therefore, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to investigate whether the neighbour and his visitors were causing a nuisance to other residents, which may have been in breach of the tenancy conditions. It was also, unreasonable for the landlord to state in its stage two letter that there was insufficient evidence to take enforcement action, without having demonstrated that is had carried out its own investigations into the reports of ASB.
Although the landlord met with the resident on 10 August 2021, this Service has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord agreed an action plan containing clear timescales with the resident in line with its policy. The landlord’s failure to agree an action plan with the resident was inappropriate because without such a plan, the resident would be unaware of the next steps to be taken by the landlord and when they would be taken. This would undoubtedly create more uncertainty and anxiety for the resident.
This Service has also not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out an up to date risk assessment to assess the resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm. The Chartered Institute of Housing’s Respect ASB Charter for Housing, which the landlord has been signed up to since 2012, recommends that a risk assessment is carried out at the outset following a report of ASB. The landlord’s failure to carry out a risk assessment was unreasonable because without such an assessment, the landlord could not reasonably determine the level of risk faced by the resident taking into account any vulnerabilities. Furthermore, without a current risk assessment, the landlord could not effectively identify whether the resident had any specific support needs. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that “support for complainants is key to dealing with ASB…”.
The landlord’s ASB policy gives a commitment that it will keep the resident informed at key stages. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord wrote to the resident on 17 August 2021 to advise her of the police response regarding their ‘weapons sweep’ and their agreement to carry out increased patrols. However, following this letter, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with further updates during the next four months. Although the landlord had sent its stage one and two replies during this period, the complaint responses were not, in the view of the Ombudsman, a substitute for providing regular progress updates in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB. This lack of contact was inappropriate and meant that the resident was unaware of whether any action was being taken by the landlord and of the outcome of the additional police patrols. This lack of information prompted the resident to contact the Ombudsman in October and November 2021 to raise her concerns.

The resident’s request to be rehoused using the landlord’s management transfer policy

For clarification, the local authority operates a housing allocation scheme and considers requests from applicants who are seeking housing and from existing council tenants who wish to transfer. This function is separate to the management transfer scheme, which is administered by the landlord. Any concerns about the local authority’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application, such as concerns about points, bandings or size of property offered are outside the remit of the Ombudsman. Such matters may be investigated by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) once residents have exhausted the local authority’s internal complaints procedure. The Housing Ombudsman has, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer as the landlord has responsibility for administering the scheme and for making the final decision in relation to management transfer applications.
The landlord’s management transfer policy and procedure states that a management transfer is where a council tenant needs to move from a situation of immediate risk where the applicant or a member of his / her household is being threatened or harassed or is subject to other exceptional circumstances.
The landlord’s policy says all enquiries about a management transfer should be made to the landlord’s Area Housing Manager (AHM) who will investigate and determine the appropriate action. Further, where the AHM has considered all the evidence and decided that the application does not warrant an urgent move and therefore should not be given management transfer priority, the tenant can request a review of this decision within ten days of being informed of the decision.
The Ombudsman’s role in this case is not to decide whether the landlord should have agreed a management transfer for the resident, as this is a decision for the landlord to make taking into account its policy requirements and the individual circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer was in line with its policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord sent the resident a housing application form and medical form on 3 August 2021 and the resident completed the forms on 8 August 2021. The resident included information about various medical conditions and set out the reasons she believed the property to be unsuitable for her needs. The forms also mentioned the impact the problems with the resident’s neighbour were having on her mental health.
The landlord’s stage two letter sent on 25 November 2021 advised the resident that it had not yet received the completed housing application form and that the form should be returned to the landlord at the earliest opportunity so that it could assess the resident’s request for a management transfer. The stage two letter therefore indicated that the housing application form had originally been given to the resident to enable her to apply for a management transfer.
The landlord’s management transfer policy states that where a resident is seeking a management transfer, prior to giving the resident the housing application form, the landlord must write on the form that it is an application for a management transfer and that the form should be returned to the landlord rather than to the local authority. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord did not write this information on the form. The management transfer policy also states that the landlord will “talk the tenant through” the ‘information for management transfer applicants sheet’ to ensure the resident has understood the information. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord explained clearly to the resident, either verbally or in writing, the process to be followed after she had completed the form. The landlord’s failure to clearly show on the housing application form that the resident was applying for a management transfer and the lack of clear information given to the resident about the process for submitting the form were inappropriate. The result was that the form was sent to the council’s Housing Services Team, rather than to the landlord’s Area Housing Team, which delayed the resident’s application being considered by the landlord under its management transfer scheme.
The resident advised the landlord in December 2021 that she had returned the completed housing application form and medical form (to the council) in August 2021 and that she wanted to proceed with her application for a management transfer. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 December 2021 and explained that management transfer applications usually required support from the police. In this case, as there was evidence that the police had carried out investigations in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB and possible criminal activity, it was reasonable for the landlord to check with the police whether they would ‘support’ the need for the resident to be urgently rehoused.

Events after the landlord’s final response letter

The landlord has supplied this Service with additional information about the events following its final response letter. These events included arranging for the police to patrol the estate from June 2022 onwards, the police working jointly with the landlord to obtain a closure order on 10 November 2022 in relation to the neighbouring property and an eviction of the neighbour taking place on 8 March 2023. Although these events have not directly formed part of the determination, they have provided useful information to show the steps that were taken by the landlord to resolve the ASB issues in relation to the neighbouring property.
The landlord made its decision regarding the management transfer application on 16 August 2022 and, because this occurred after the landlord’s final response letter, the Ombudsman has not investigated whether the landlord’s decision was reasonable. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision, then she should consider submitting a complaint to the landlord about the decision and going through the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in relation to a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused using the landlord’s management transfer policy.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out its own investigations to determine whether the neighbour and his visitors were causing ASB. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not agree a suitable action plan with the resident, nor did it carry out an up-to-date risk assessment. Finally, the landlord did not provide adequate updates to the resident regarding her reports of ASB.
The landlord did not add a clear note to the housing application form to show it was intended for use in assessing the resident’s management transfer request, nor did it take appropriate steps to help the resident understand about the management transfer scheme and to whom the form should be returned.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £400 in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused using the landlord’s management transfer policy.