Wigan Council (202206583)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206583

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

25 January 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.

Our approach

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 is a secure tenant of the landlord, who lived in a 3 bedroom house at the time of this complaint. The resident lived in the property with his partner and two young children.
The resident and his family experienced a range of ASB at their previous address, including threats of violence and / or to damage property and possessions. These incidents were reported to Greater Manchester Police (GMP) who recorded and investigated 5 of these as crimes. Due to an escalation in the incidents, including bricks being thrown at the resident and his car, the family were moved to emergency accommodation on 26 April 2022 and were ultimately permanently rehoused on 26 September 2022.
The resident was dissatisfied with the level of support provided by the landlord in addressing the reported ASB and raised a complaint on 26 June 2022, seeking compensation for the distress and inconvenience of losing his home, along with compensation for damaged possessions. The resident also sought compensation to pay back debts which had accrued and to restart a home-run business. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not uphold the complaint, stating that GMP were the lead agency and that it had supported with re-housing and the provision of a housing support officer.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 September 2022 and the landlord issued its response on 11 November 2022. The stage 2 response did not uphold the complaint on the same grounds as previously outlined in the stage 1 response.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 December 2022 seeking an investigation into the circumstances and £3000 compensation for the displacement from his home.

Assessment and findings

Anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s policy adopts the definition of ASB given in Part 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, namely behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance. The policy specifically excludes normal household noise, “lifestyle differences” and “minor disagreements between neighbours”. The policy divides ASB into three stages, with different actions to be considered at each stage, as set out below:
1. Stage 1 – this is an informal stage where residents are encouraged to ‘self help’ and attempt to resolve the issues informally with perpetrators using guidance available.
2. Stage 2 – this stage involved the landlord undertaking an investigation, prevention work and intervening if necessary. This should include a fact-finding assessment, meeting with the complainant and researching into the current and previous allegations. The landlord may consider verbal or written warnings, mediation, community resolutions, parenting contracts and other similar interventions. This stage will be closed if no further reports are made, if the situation improves, or the complainant no longer wishes to support the investigation.
3. Stage 3 – the final stage includes a full investigation and enforcement, including possible legal action. At this stage, the landlord should consider legal notices, court action, eviction proceedings, or orders available via the courts, such as injunctions or Criminal Behaviour Orders.
Within its policy, the landlord outlines a range of possible interventions it could utilise, including warning letters, acceptable behaviour agreements, mediation and ultimately tenancy warnings or eviction. It is also noted that the landlord could temporarily rehouse a complainant if this was felt to be in the resident’s best interest.
The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the Act’) sets out a range of powers that the local authority, police or courts can utilise in cases of antisocial behaviour, including injunctions, community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders, closure orders and public space protection orders. Whilst the landlord could not apply many of these options directly, it can consider making referrals or applications to other multi-agency partners, where appropriate.
It is not disputed that during the course of March and April 2022, the resident and his family, which included two young children, were victims of various ASB incidents from a group of youths living nearby in other properties owned by the landlord, some of which were reported and logged as crimes. The resident stated that this behaviour was taking place since March 2021 when they moved into the property, however the first recorded report was in March 2022. The ASB incidents included:
1. Verbal threats against the resident, his family and his home, property and car.
2. A brick being thrown at the resident’s car, which bounced off an struck the resident himself.
3. Attempts to break into the resident’s car.
4. Damage to the resident’s car including scratches and damaged tyres.
5. Attempts to light fires nearby to the resident’s car and property.
A previous neighbour of the resident was moved from their property in early 2022 due to ongoing ASB reports by the same alleged perpetrators. This move was undertaken on the advice of GMP who provided a letter of support after the neighbour was the victim of 9 crimes within a 1 year period.
Throughout this process, the landlord asserted in its correspondence and complaint responses that GMP were the lead agency and therefore responsible for managing any interventions. GMP did investigate some of the ASB as criminal actions and arrests were made on at least two occasions. Additionally, the police highlighted the resident’s address by placing an urgent response marker on their system. GMP also commissioned a fire safety assessment, given the threats and attempted arson.
In response to the initial reports of ASB, there is evidence that the landlord discussed the estate and the alleged perpetrators in various multi-agency meetings and encouraged the resident to report potential criminal activity to GMP.
It is acknowledged that the resident contacted the landlord on 7 April 2022 to advise that he had ‘cleared the air’ with the alleged perpetrators and did not expect further problems. On the same day, the resident also withdrew from supporting any criminal proceedings being pursued by GMP. Following this, the landlord closed the resident’s case on 20 April 2022.
On 26 April 2022 a significant incident took place, which resulted in one of the perpetrators being arrested by GMP. As a result, around 20 neighbours attended the resident’s property, making threats against them. At this stage an Inspector from GMP supported an immediate move from the property and placed the resident and his family into a hotel for their own safety.
As part of the move to emergency accommodation and then later into a new property, the resident accrued rent debts and an underpayment of council tax. Combined, these totalled £1871.54 of rent arrears and a further £286.10 in council tax. In correspondence with this service, the landlord has committed to writing off both of these debts. This is correct as, in this case, the landlord would not have had grounds to levy these charges for this period, due to the issues being experienced by the resident. If the landlord has not already done so, it must void these debts immediately, to take account of the resident not being in a position to live in the property, given the significant ASB that he and his family had experienced.
The landlord has provided internal documentary evidence to show that it had projects on going at the time of the resident’s case, which included the resident’s reports. These projects were aimed at tackling the ASB that was ongoing within the area. The work the landlord had done included, attending daily multi agency partnership meetings to discuss ASB reports and in the case of the resident’s reports, due to their criminal nature, it was concluded that the police would take the lead in the cases.
A further project meeting took place weekly specifically targeted at youth ASB and within these meetings appropriate interventions were discussed and arranged.
The landlord has provided extensive evidence of the meetings and the actions it was taking to try to address the matters. Due to the sensitive nature of the projects that are ongoing, I have not included these within the report.
The landlord has explained further that it was unable to take any legal action against individuals because it required conclusive evidence. It has further noted that the first name and surname that the resident provided to it on 30 March 2023 was not identified as one of its residents.
The landlord has provided the Service with the police reports of 24 March 2022, 30 March 2022 and 3 April 2022, all of which advise that the ASB was committed by an unknown individual. In any event, the police did put an urgent marker on the resident’s address. The resident later informed the police that the issue was resolved with the perpetrator and thus no further action was required. A further serious incident took place following this time and the perpetrator was arrested on 26 April 2022, however a decision of no further action was decided by the courts and as such, the landlord was unable to take the matter further. Whilst names were given, there were no actual witnesses to the incidents as evidenced in the police reports.
It is noted that the resident advised the police that he would not support any investigation unless he was moved. The Ombudsman finds this understandable given the nature of the ASB and the risks to the resident and his family if the perpetrator was aware of who reported him to the police. Whilst it was reasonable that the resident did not want to support any investigation by the police, it is important to note that there would be very limited actions that the landlord would be able to take to address the matter with the perpetrator. In line with the landlord’s policy, for criminal ASB, the police would take the lead on the case and the landlord would follow through, following the outcome of the police investigation. Furthermore, in line with the policy, a case would be closed at stage 2 of the ASB investigation process if the complainant no longer wished to support the investigation.
As part of the move to emergency accommodation and then later into a new property, the resident accrued rent debts and an underpayment of council tax. Combined, these totalled £1871.54 of rent arrears and a further £286.10 in council tax. In correspondence with this Service, the landlord had committed to writing off both of these debts which was a reasonable action to take given the issues experienced by the resident. The landlord has confirmed that this reimbursement was actioned in February 2023.
Based on the evidence provided, and the overall case file, I have found that whilst the landlord was unable to take legal action due to evidential difficulties, the partnership between the landlord, police and other services was extensive with the aim to reduce the ASB in the area. As such, I am unable to find a failing with the landlord’s handling of the reports.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a two-stage complaint process with responses being issued within 10 working days at stage 1 and 15 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s complaint responses were issued after 14 working days and 42 working days at stage 1 and 2 respectively. Therefore, both responses were in excess of the landlord’s policy timescales.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did communicate with the resident during the stage 2 complaint to advise that responses would be delayed. It is noted, however, that two of these contacts were made after the previous extended deadline had expired.
With regards to the first response, the complaint was made on 20 June 2022 and the response was issued on 4 July 2022, which was 10 working days. It is not disputed by the landlord that there was a delay in issuing its stage 2 response although it has provided reason for this being that it requested further clarification from the resident, however this was sent to the resident’s old address, rather than the address which the family had moved to.
Whilst the delay in issuing the stage 2 response was a failing, this does not amount to maladministration but rather, service failure. This is because the landlord was trying to obtain further information, which was the reason for the delay, although it is noted that the correspondence was sent to the wrong address in error. The landlord could have also had more empathy within its responses, given the fact that it was aware of the serious ongoing ASB experienced by the resident and others in the area. The landlord was correct to advise the resident that the criminal ASB was for the police to investigate, and their findings would then be fed back to the landlord. Considering the delay in the second stage response, and the lack of clarity and empathy within the response letters, the compensation awarded within the investigation report of £150 is still reasonable.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:

Pay the resident £150 for service failures in complaint handling.
Review its internal processes to ensure that it can issue more timely responses in future complaints, in line with its own policy timescales.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within the respective timescales.