Wandsworth Council (202234263)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202234263
Wandsworth Council
28 June 2024
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).
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident held a flexible tenancy with the landlord which started in December 2019. The property is a first floor flat of a 3 storey block.
- The resident’s husband has acted as a representative throughout this complaint therefore the resident and her husband will be jointly referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
- The resident began reporting ASB in February 2022 along with other tenants of the block. The resident informed the landlord that there had been multiple evenings where their neighbour had been “drunk” or “on drugs” and shouting abusive language or arguing with others. The resident was advised to report incidents directly to the police and keep the landlord informed.
- The resident made a further report on 17 March 2022 stating that he had suspicions that illegal activity was taking place in his neighbour’s property. In response to this, the landlord reiterated its advice that the resident should report such issues to the police and attempted a visit to the neighbour’s property, however, no one was in.
- On 13 April 2022 the resident reported that his neighbour was sleeping in the communal areas outside of his property and provided images to support this. The landlord made a referral for tenancy support and identified that support was already in place for the alleged perpetrator.
- On 9 June 2022, the resident informed the landlord that he believed a “drug den” was being run from the property and he had reported this to the police. The resident also reported that there were “youth” who were not tenants of the block going in and out of the property. The landlord attended the property and internal notes show that the entry door was secure and no one was in the communal areas. The resident chased the matter on 10 June 2022 seeking an update on what action the landlord would be taking.
- The resident made an additional report of ASB on 11 June 2022, stating that a visitor to the neighbour’s flat appeared to be concealing a weapon and the police who attended had confirmed the presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia in the property.
- Subsequently, the resident wrote to the landlord complaining about its handling of their ASB reports as they felt they had not been supported by the landlord.
- The resident submitted a community trigger application to the relevant authority on 13 June 2022. On 14 June 2022 the resident reported that “non tenants” had left the property on scooters, and the resident believed they had keys to the property. Part of the reports received by the landlord from the resident and other neighbours in relation to the ASB, were that they suspected ‘cuckooing’ to be taking place at the alleged perpetrators property. In response to this the landlord sent out a leaflet about reporting ASB to all residents and provided diary sheets. A multiagency visit which consisted of the landlord, support services and the police was conducted at the alleged perpetrator’s property on 16 June 2022. Although the alleged perpetrator was not in the property at the time, they gave permission for the locks on the property to be changed by the landlord.
- The resident reported on 17 June 2022 that the alleged perpetrator had returned to the property and immediate action was requested. Between 21 June 2022 and 29 June 2022, the resident and their mother made several reports of ASB ranging from, loud music, shouting and buzzing on the resident’s door. The landlord was also notified that the resident was 7 months pregnant and the ongoing issues were impacting her mental health.
- The resident made a formal complaint on 31 July 2022. The resident explained that he felt the landlord had breached their duty of care to its tenants and questioned the landlord’s decision to place the neighbour in their block. The resident also explained the significant impact the ongoing issues were having on him and his family. The complaint was acknowledged on 4 August 2022 and the landlord advised a response was due within 20 working days by 31 August 2022.
- During this period the landlord was assisting the police in obtaining a closure order against the alleged perpetrator in order to prohibit access to the premises for a period of time. On 8 August 2022, the landlord notified the resident that the closure order had been served to the alleged perpetrator which meant no one other than the police and landlord could enter the property. The locks to the property had also been changed.
- The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 31 August 2022. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it stated it felt the actions taken in response to the resident’s reports were “reasonable and proportionate” given the vulnerabilities of the alleged perpetrator. The landlord set out the actions it took and stated a multiagency approach meant that it was able to obtain a closure order and change the locks to the property, therefore resolving the nuisance.
- The Community Trigger panel review was completed on 6 September 2022 and 6 recommendations were made, this included a recommendation for the landlord to communicate with complainants in a professional and empathetic manner and for all communication to be recorded in a log with details of discussion, including emails and phone calls.
- The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 12 September 2022. The resident sent a detailed response outlining that he still felt that the landlord had breached its duty of care and that it had not followed its ASB policy. He explained that many of his emails had been ignored by the landlord and that this had not been investigated at stage 1. The resident reiterated the impact on his wife’s mental health and informed the landlord she had been diagnosed with anxiety. The complaint was acknowledged on 14 September 2022 and a response was to be issued within 15 working days, no later than 4 October 2022.
- As the closure order was soon due to come to an end, the landlord communicated with external agencies such as the police and its legal team to explore the alternative options available. It was recommended by the landlord’s legal team to arrange a management transfer for the alleged perpetrator as a resolution to the complaints.
- The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 28 October 2022. The landlord agreed that there were delays in its ASB team responding to the resident’s reports and there was an error in that not all the conversation the team had had with the resident were recorded. The landlord stated that it should have written to the resident with an action plan and set out what it could and could not do in order to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord also agreed that greater support should have been provided to the resident in recognition of the impact of the ongoing ASB. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint as it stated there should have been better communication and records in its handling of the ASB case and £100 compensation was awarded in recognition of this. The landlord noted that a more proactive approach would be adopted following the resident’s complaint and training needs for its staff would be identified.
- The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 1 March 2023. He explained that the lack of support from the landlord led to anxiety and breakdown of their trust in the landlord. The resident did not feel the landlord had taken the matter seriously.
- The resident has since informed this Service that they have relocated and the tenancy has ended. The resident stated that while the ASB ended with the closure order, the mental impact remained ongoing. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident would like the landlord to ensure it follows its ASB policies and procedures in future and the resident would like to be compensated for the period they experienced ASB.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of ASB
- It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but rather, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the residents’ anti-social behaviour reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, and best practice.
- The landlord has provided details of the alleged perpetrator’s circumstances to this Service which includes information assessed as not being suitable for further disclosure. Whilst we appreciate this may be frustrating for the resident, all the information has been carefully considered and taken into account when reaching a decision on this case.
- The landlord’s ASB procedure states that following a report of ASB the incident should be logged onto the ASB database and incident sheets should be sent to the resident within 5 working days. Incidents which require an immediate response, such as domestic violence, harassment, all forms of hate crime which may involve other agencies such as the police should be responded to within 24hours.
- The landlord’s procedure also emphasises the importance of support for victims and perpetrators of ASB who may be vulnerable. The procedure also states the landlord should have been keeping in touch with residents at key stages about action taken and the information needed from residents. The procedure encourages multi agency partnership working and the importance of joint working with the police where there are serious ASB activities in council properties.
- In accordance with its policy, the landlord could consider various intervention and enforcement actions in response to reports of ASB, including, mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts, civil injunctions, community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders, closure powers and possession notices.
- With effect from 20 October 2014, new closure powers to close premises came into force for the purpose of dealing with, or preventing, public nuisance and disorder. The process to close premises comprises two stages, the issuing of a closure notice followed by the issuing of a closure order. A closure notice prohibits access to the premises for the period specified in the notice. Only the police or a local authority can initiate the process to close premises which are causing antisocial behaviour, if they reasonably believe that there is, or is likely to be either:
- a nuisance to members of the public
- disorder relating to the premises and in its vicinity
- Following the resident’s initial reports of ASB, the landlord advised them to report the incidents to the police. Given that the nature of the ASB reports concerned illegal activities, it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to the police at this stage. However, as the resident had mentioned there had been “multiple” similar incidents, the landlord should have logged the ASB reports to its ASB database and provided diary sheets to the resident within 5 working days of the initial report.
- Diary sheets were not provided to the resident until approximately 107 days after their initial report. This was a failure by the landlord. Completion of diary sheets would have built the evidential picture and ensured that there was an accurate record of all potential ASB incidents. The failure to gather all of the available and relevant information in the case prevented the landlord from being able to understand the full extent and nature of the prevalent ASB. As a result it was unable to fully understand if its actions were proportionate to the circumstances and whether it was making appropriate and timely interventions pertaining to the circumstances as they existed.
- In addition, if the landlord was aware of actionable information and intelligence sooner, it would have allowed it to make appropriate interventions sooner, with a view to de-escalating and reducing ASB before inappropriate behaviour escalated. Its failure to capture the relevant information sooner was unfair upon the resident and a missed opportunity to resolve the situation sooner.
- In response to the resident’s report on 17 March 2022 regarding their suspicions of illegal activity, the landlord appropriately advised the resident to report this to the police and also attempted a visit to the alleged perpetrator’s property on the same day. However, following this, there is no evidence to show the landlord attempted any further intervention action until the resident made another report the following month.
- There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided support to the resident or kept in regular communication following the initial report, as it should have done in accordance with its policy. While the police are responsible for investigating criminal activity such as the use and supply of illegal substances, the landlord still had an obligation to conduct investigations and take actions to attempt to stop the behaviour and ensure residents occupied their properties in accordance with their tenancies and that it appropriately exercised its responsibilities to tenants who reported ASB.
- Following the resident’s ASB report about the alleged perpetrator sleeping in the communal area, the landlord made a referral to tenancy support for the alleged perpetrator. The landlord’s policy encourages support for perpetrators of ASB, and as such it was appropriate for the landlord to make a referral. However, given the circumstances, in that there had been previous instances of ASB by the alleged perpetrator, it is unclear why such a referral had not been made at an earlier opportunity. The landlord’s lack of proactive case management, evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with the relevant parties contributed to the delay in tenancy support referral., or a review of what support the alleged perpetrator was receiving in order to sustain them through their tenancy. This was a missed opportunity for earlier intervention and resolution.
- The resident and their mother made several ASB reports throughout June 2022, and the lack of response from the landlord resulted in the resident submitting a formal complaint and community trigger application. The community trigger is a ASB case review which can be requested by a victim of persistent ASB. It requires the relevant bodies in a local authority area, including the local authority, police, support workers and providers of social housing to take up a joint problem solving approach to identify a solution for the victim of ASB.
- Only after the community trigger application was submitted did the landlord provide diary sheets and work with external agencies to conduct a multi-agency visit to the alleged perpetrator. While this intervention was appropriate, it should not have had to been prompted by the resident’s escalation of matters. The landlord’s procedure encourages multi-agency working and the importance of working with the police where there are serious reports of ASB. Therefore, the landlord should have been more proactive from the start in working with external agencies such as the police to agree an action plan and resolve the ASB.
- The resident and other neighbours had made reports of suspected “cuckooing” in June 2022. In this context, cuckooing is a form of action, termed by the police for situations where the home of a vulnerable person is taken over by a criminal in order to use it to deal, store or take drugs. In consideration of the serious allegations made by the resident and other residents in the block, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to work with the police and take appropriate action to investigate the reported concerns. The landlord’s decision to visit the property and change the locks to the alleged perpetrator’s property was a proportionate response and a reasonable interim attempt to stop the reported ASB and resolve the resident’s complaint.
- The landlord appropriately identified and acknowledged its failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB case in the stage 2 response. It acknowledged that communication was not recorded appropriately and it failed to agree an action plan with the resident at the start of the ASB case. It also appropriately identified that it had failed to provide adequate support to the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to identify its failings and offer compensation as a remedy.
- However, in relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
- In summary, while it was the responsibility of the police to deal with alleged cuckooing and drug use as a criminal offence, it was the landlord’s responsibility to work in conjunction with the police and resolve reported incidents as ASB and provide appropriate resolution to the resident’s complaint. The evidence in this case shows the standard of communication from the landlord does not indicate that the resident was at the centre of the action plan and updated accordingly.
- The resident was not clear on what the action plan was and this is evidenced by them repeatedly making reports and chasing for updates as well as making contact with external agencies. The landlord’s actions in relation to communicating effectively resulted in a loss of confidence in the landlord’s process by the resident. Furthermore, the landlord should have also taken into consideration that the resident was pregnant at the time of the ongoing ASB and that the impact of the ASB was likely to have been greater on the resident.
- The Ombudsman does not deem the offer of £100 as a fair offer in consideration of the impact the poor communication and lack of support would have had on the resident. It is evident that the resident experienced ASB issues for 5 months which made her and her husband feel unsafe in the property. It would have been beneficial for the landlord to have reassured them that the matter was being taken seriously and intervention action was being taken throughout the ASB case. Its failure to do so appropriately exacerbated the impact of the ASB. It’s failure to provide diary sheets at the start of the process would have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of their reports.
- The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB and orders the landlord to apologise to the resident and compensate an additional £400 for the distress and inconvenience suffered due to the identified failings. While the landlord acknowledged failings and made an attempt to put things right, it failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This order is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Complaint handling
- In accordance with the landlord’s complaints procedure a complaint must be acknowledged at stage 1 within 2 working days and a full response issued within 20 working days of the date the complaint was received.
- Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 25 working days. Where there may be a delay in responding, the complainant must be kept fully informed of the delay and told when they can expect a response.
- Following the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 12 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 September 2022 and informed the resident a response would be issued no later than 4 October 2022. However, a response was not issued until 28 October 2022. This was approximately 34 working days after the resident’s escalation request, which is outside the 25 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s procedure. The landlord failed to inform the resident that there would be a delay in issuing a stage 2 response and therefore failed to adhere to its own policy. It is important for the landlord to adhere to its policy the keep resident’s updated on the progress of their complaint. Failure to do so is likely to negatively impact the landlord and tenant relationship.
- The landlord also missed an opportunity in its stage 2 response to acknowledge and apologise for its failure with regards to its complaint handling. In recognition of the identified service failure, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of anti-social behaviour.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord, in its handling of the associated complaint.
Orders and recommendations
- The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
- Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident the sum of £450 for the impact of those failings made up of:
- £400 in recognition of its service failures in its handling of her reports of ASB.
- £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
- The landlord is ordered to conduct an internal review to identify why its ASB policy was not followed in this case, specifically in relation to the delay in providing diary sheets and its failure to record communication with the resident in its case management system. Any learning from the review should be shared with the relevant teams. The case review should be shared with this Service.