Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Leeds City Council (201902442)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201902442

Leeds City Council

18 January 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 is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour including its communication with the resident.

 

Background and Summary of events 

 

Background 

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 3-bedroom terrace.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord does not tolerate anti-social behaviour (ASB) and will take action whenever necessary and/or when appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states, amongst other things, that it will seek to tackle anti-social behaviour at the earliest opportunity through a tiered approach of prevention, enforcement and support and resettlement. It states it will endeavour to progress casework ‘quickly and efficiently’ in accordance with local and national guidance and standards (clause 2.2 of Part A). Further, that it will contact the reporting person or victim to discuss their report to fully understand the nature and complexity of their problem. It states where reports are linked to persistent problems or incidents where there is the potential for harm, an ASB case officer will be allocated to investigate (clause 4.2). It states that they will arrange to meet with the reporting person and conduct a thorough investigation and agree an appropriate course of action. The case officer will be advised by a senior manager or supervisor as to whether reported problems might be resolved using interventions and/or warnings or whether enforcement action may be necessary (clause 4.4).

 

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that in addition to its core casework, its anti-social team will, where requested by partner agencies and where it is appropriate to do so, also engage in proactive area based initiatives to prevent crime, disorder and anti-social Behaviour (clause 4.8).

 

  1. The landlord’s Compliments and Complaints policy states that at initial investigation (stage one), it will acknowledge the complaint within three working days and issue a response within 15 working days or if it cannot response in full within 15 working days, it will provide updates at least every two weeks. Further, it states that if the resident is dissatisfied following its initial investigation, they may ask for a review (usually within 28 days of the date of its stage one response). In the review it will look at how it dealt with the original complaint and it will also respond to any further related issues that has been raised with them (although not new complaints). Its policy is to respond in full within 15 working days of receipt of their complaint, wherever possible.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) provides that the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints about providers of housing services which are members of the Scheme.  It is evident that since completing the landlord’s Complaints procedure on 11 November 2019 (operated by the Council’s ASB team) in respect to the complaint raised on 26 July 2019 regarding antisocial behaviour, the resident subsequently reported to the landlord that people were fly tipping in her garden. It is noted that the Council’s ‘Cleaner’s Neighbourhoods Team’ subsequently opened a new complaint through which this issue was considered in its 26 May 2020 stage one response. It is relevant to note here that this Service cannot consider this complaint response because it is not from the landlord (it was from a different department at the Council). However, reports of fly tipping are referred to below and may be considered if relevant to the complaint about ASB, however this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB issues raised during the landlord’s Complaints process between 26 July 2019 and 11 November 2019, including any actions agreed in the final response.

 

Summary of Events

  1. On 30 May 2019, the resident reported to the landlord she had been a target of ‘antagonistic and threatening’ behaviour from other residents (including on account of her nationality) from 15 May 2019.  The landlord recorded the incident and an ASB caseworker visited the resident at her property on 30 May 2019 to gather more information.  It was agreed that the landlord would take action including collecting information from the police (as the resident had reported this incident to the police) and visit the addresses of alleged perpetrators. The landlord also told the resident to keep a log of further incident/threats and report to police if she feels in danger.
  2. The case history shows that the resident continued to report ASB incidents to the landlord and that its caseworker visited addresses of alleged perpetrators and issued at least one prohibition notice during this period (in June 2019) to keep them away from the resident’s property.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 26 July 2019 regarding the ASB issues that she said had been experienced for the past two years. The resident said she is a single mum and has a young child and an 18-year-old and that it has been a “nightmare” living at the property. She advised that the issues experienced included loud music, harassment and abuse from teenagers (they shout and swear, sell drugs and trespass in her garden and recently threw an egg at her door). She stated that she has called the landlord’s ASB team but was told there was nothing they could do and also that she has called the police at least 20 times within the last two months. The resident said she wanted to move because of the danger she and her family were in and advised that she has re-registered to bid on properties and is waiting to be re-housed.
  4. On 15 August 2019, the landlord issued a stage one response to the ASB complaint. It explained that the resident had been told by its ASB team to call the police when she had reported targeted incidents that made her feel threatened as its caseworkers are not response officers. It said its records show one report of loud music to its out of hours team in April 2019. The landlord stated it had attended and spoke to the occupants at no.23 who turned the music off and were amicable with its staff. In response to her comment that it has not dealt with the ASB issues in the area, it said it can assure the resident that it has spoken to nearby properties and their occupants and issued warnings around general behaviour. It explained the difficulties it faced with taking firm action against any one individual as when dealing with groups of people, there is often a lack of evidence of who is responsible. However, it said where it can take civil action it will and advised that it will continue to investigate her reports of ASB and that she should report any further issues to her caseworker. It also said it was assisting with the resident’s request to move home, which it hopes will happen soon.
  5. The landlord’s case history document shows that the landlord was in contact with the resident during August 2019 regarding a further report of ASB and it issued further prohibition notices and letters to relevant perpetrators on 4 September 2019. 
  6. The resident contacted this Service on further occasions including on 4 September 2019 and on 24 October 2019 regarding the ASB issues and the landlord’s handling of this matter. This Service wrote to the landlord on 24 October 2019 advising the resident had been in touch and was dissatisfied about its handling of the reported ASB. We explained that the resident was also unhappy with the lack of adequate communication and asked the landlord to treat this communication as a formal complaint if it has not already logged one.
  7. On 11 November 2019, the landlord issued a stage two response to the ASB complaint. Within this response, it assured the resident that it took all reports of ASB seriously and advised it aims to investigate these promptly and impartially. The landlord apologised for the resident feeling as though the service received did not meet the expected standard and for any delays. It said it had put the measures in place to correct things and ensure its investigation going forward is rigorous. Further, it advised that it had upheld her complaint and arranged for a new officer to contact her as soon as possible and gather further information so it can take action against those responsible. It also said the caseworker would keep her fully informed going forward.
  8. The case history document indicates that the resident’s new caseworker was in regular contact with the resident over the subsequent months due to further reports of ASB by the resident. This evidence shows the landlord visited the resident on 11 November 2019, 28 November 2019, 3 December 2019, 3 February 2020 and 10 February 2020 in response to reported incidents or to follow up on previous incidents. The evidence shows the resident’s case was passed back to the original caseworker in February 2020 due to them already dealing with a number of the youths in the area involved in ASB that the resident had been a target of (so preventing duplication of work). The resident confirmed to the landlord that there had been no new or further incidents in February and most of March 2020.   
  9. The resident reported an issue with fly-tipping in her garden to the Council on or around 1 April 2020 and this was added to her open case about ASB. An Environmental Action Officer visited the property in respect to this issue on 23 April 2020. Due to further report(s) of this, the Council’s ‘Cleaner’s Neighbourhoods Team’ subsequently issued a stage one response dated 26 May 2020 in respect to this issue.
  10. The landlord’s case history document shows that following further reports from the resident of her being the target of antisocial behaviour, her case was referred to a Multi-agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) which took place on 21 April 2020. Notes by the ASB caseworker show action points including liaising with police to see where they were with their investigations and the nature of the resident’s ASB complaints made directly to the police.
  11. On 21 May 2020 the resident contacted this Service and advised the ASB issues had gotten worse and also that people were fly tipping in her garden. Further, she complained about the landlord’s communication with her regarding the issues. This Service contacted the landlord at this time and on 9 July 2020 and again on 16 August 2020 requesting that it provide updates to the resident, copying in this Service.
  12. The case history document indicates that the resident and landlord were in regular contact throughout May, June and July 2020 regarding further reported ASB issues experienced, including a report concerning a male circling the resident on his motorbike goading and intimidating her on 9 June 2020. The evidence indicates however that the landlord did not deem some matters reported during this timeframe to be ASB (for example a report of her neighbour having a BBQ and a neighbour parking their motorbike outside her house). However, the evidence also shows the landlord liaised with other departments and was proactive in assisting with the resident’s housing application during this timeframe which led to the resident moving home at the end of August 2020.
  13. The landlord’s evidence shows a further MARAC meeting took place on 21 July 2020 in which the resident’s case was discussed.
  14. On 26 August 2020, the landlord contacted this Service advising that the resident had been through its Complaint procedure regarding reported targeted ASB. In regards to the resident’s reports of fly tipping, it said this complaint had been through stage one of the Complaints procedure and that further to this, its Housing department had authorised clearance of the fly tipping although the resident was told she was responsible for removing her own bulky waste. Clearance of the fly-tipping was completed on 28 May 2020.
  15. On 31 August 2020, this Service confirmed to the resident that her complaint will be investigated.

 

Assessment and findings 

 

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of Anti-social behaviour including its communication with the resident. 

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord opened a case, recorded the type of incident and allocated an ASB caseworker in response to ASB reported by the resident on 30 May 2019. This is in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy requiring the same where reports are linked to persistent problems or incidents where there is the potential for harm.
  2. The case remained open until the resident moved out of the property on or around 6 September 2020 (as advised by the landlord in its 13 October 2020 communication with this Service). During this timeframe, the landlord issued two complaint responses to resident’s formal complaint raised on 26 July 2019 regarding its response to the ASB issues reported. In the landlord’s final complaint response dated 11 November 2019, the landlord stated that a caseworker would contact the resident to gather further evidence so it can take action against those responsible and that the new caseworker will keep her fully informed going forward. Therefore, in light of this agreed action by the landlord, it is appropriate for this investigation to include the timeframe after the landlord’s final response up to when the landlord closed the resident’s open ASB case in or around the beginning of September 2020 on the resident moving.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord was in regular communication with the resident throughout the timeframe in question, often with multiple communications each month. On occasions when the resident reported new incidents, the evidence indicates that typically the landlord would record the incident, visit the resident to take details, collect evidence from her if relevant (often she had video footage) and agree a course of action. In the majority of incidents reported to it, the landlord deemed it was ASB. It is noted that in its stage one response the landlord explained that it was often difficult to take firm action against specific individuals where ASB had been reported, due to a lack of evidence of who is responsible. It explained this is a common problem it faces when dealing with groups of people. Nonetheless, it is clear that the landlord was able to take action against individuals following some of the incidents reported by the resident; this may be due to video footage supplied by the resident which enabled it to positively identify individuals.  The case file includes comprehensive records of incidents and perpetrators.
  4. It is evident that the action taken by the landlord included talking to perpetrators in person and on the phone (who it appears from the evidence were also tenants), issuing written warnings and prohibition notices and liaising with police whom the resident had made many reports to regarding ASB incidents. The evidence also shows that it carried out risk assessments and attended MARAC meetings on two occasions to discuss the resident’s case (and risk to her). Furthermore, the landlord was proactive with liaising with relevant departments within the Council to progress the resident’s application to be re–housed. It also wrote a referral to a housing support service as requested by the resident and offered to refer her to Victim Support following targeted incidents of ASB. The above happened alongside a community resolution order between the resident and one individual, facilitated by the police.
  5. It is acknowledged however that the resident complained to both the landlord and this Service, about the level of communication from the landlord. As referred to above, the evidence submitted to this Service indicates there was regular contact from the landlord throughout the 15-month period the resident’s ASB case remained open with it. However, it is accepted that there is a lack of evidence to show the landlord sufficiently followed up on an incident reported on 14 August 2019. Whilst its investigations of this incident led to prohibition notices being served on individuals on 4 September 2019, there is a lack of evidence of it contacting the resident over the next two months either to update her or check in with her, which this Service considers to be reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. In its stage two complaint response dated 11 November 2019, the landlord apologised for the resident feeling as though the service she had received did not meet the expected standard and for any delays. It also advised that it had put the measures in place to correct things and ensure its investigation going forward is rigorous.
  7. This Service notes that subsequent to this, the evidence indicates the following pattern of communication: multiple interactions following reported incidents with the ASB caseworker generally visiting and calling the resident at the time of the report and in the immediate aftermath and; during periods the landlord had not heard from the resident, it phoned her to check if there had been any further problems (for example in February and March 2020). The evidence suggests that its responses were on the main part, timely and sufficiently reactive after November 2019.  It is noted that its records show communication with the resident every month during this timeframe up to when her case was closed at the beginning of September 2020 after she moved home.
  8. Therefore, whilst there were some delays, this Service considers that overall, the landlord communicated and engaged with the resident reasonably and sufficiently. Furthermore, we consider that the range of actions taken by the landlord, including issuing warnings and prohibition notices, regular contact with the police and other agencies (to manage the situation) and supporting the resident in her application to be re-housed, shows it applied a tiered approach (prevention, support and resettlement) in the resident’s case. Whilst it is noted that the landlord did not take civil action against perpetrators as alluded to in its final response, this Service considers that overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. It is also noted from the evidence that the landlord received counter- complaints (during the timeframe in question) against the resident, in particular about her video recording perpetrators or perceived perpetrators and as such, it is acknowledged that the landlord had to also deal with such issues alongside the resident’s case.
  9. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord agreed to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB and take action where it was able to do so. It also said it would assist with her request to move home. It acknowledged a service shortfall in its stage two response and committed to keeping the resident fully informed and assured that its investigation going forward would be rigorous. This Service is satisfied the responses were reasonable and that for the main part, the landlord did what it said it would do, followed its ASB policy and met its obligations under the tenancy agreement when handling the resident’s reports of targeted ASB. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers there has been no maladministration by the landlord. 

 

Determination

  1. After carefully considering all of the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB including its communication with the resident.

Reasons

  1. The resident reported to the landlord multiple and ongoing incidents of her being the target of ASB from neighbours and individuals living in the area, some of which were very serious. In its complaint responses, the landlord agreed to investigate all the resident’s reports of ASB and take action in instances of ASB and where it was able to do so as well as assisting with her request to move home.
  2. Whilst the landlord did not sufficiently follow up on one incident, in its stage two response, it assured that its investigation going forward would be rigorous and it committed to keeping the resident fully informed. The Ombudsman is satisfied that, overall, the landlord did what it said it would do, followed its ASB policy and met its obligations under the tenancy agreement when handling the resident’s reports of targeted ASB. Further, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s responses and the remedies offered were appropriate and reasonable and the tiered approach (prevention, support and resettlement) applied to tackle the ASB issues experienced by the resident, was proportionate. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord.