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

Brent Council (201905225)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201905225

Brent Council

12 February 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 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
  1. anti-social behaviour
  2. counter allegations

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
  1. counter allegations
  1. The resident complains about allegations of anti-social behaviour against him being on the landlord’s files, and his desired outcome is for the information to be removed. In correspondence, the resident confirms he was contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) concerning removal of the data. It is also noted the issue was primarily complained about after the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint.
  2. 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.”
  3. The Information Commissioner’s Office investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data, and therefore it is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate them.
  4. The complaint about anti-social behaviour is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and has been considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure flexible tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced in 2015.
  2. The landlord’s Anti–social Behaviour (ASB) Policy confirms it will typically deal with ASB including neighbour disputes and individuals making threats. Full details of any ASB report will be recorded on the case management system. ASB reports are classified between low and high risk and the landlord responds in one to five working days depending on level of risk; within one working day if a report involves threat of violence. For investigation of ASB, activities expected to be considered including victim contact; accused contact and intervention; evidence collation; partnership working; and ASB enforcement. ASB cases can be closed if the investigation finds insufficient evidence or if reported problems have been resolved or abated.
  3. The landlord’s Community Trigger webpage explains this allows complainants of ASB to demand action and a case review where persistently reported problems have not been addressed. It explains it can be used if three qualifying complaints about ASB have been made to the landlord or police in the last six months and there is dissatisfaction with progress or response.
  4. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one it aims to respond within 20 working days and at stage two it aims to respond within 30 working days. The policy confirms that when the landlord has done something wrong and it has had an adverse impact on a customer, it endeavours to put things right.

Scope of the Ombudsman’s Investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the complaint that the landlord considered also addressed repairs issues and a contact restriction that the resident was subject to. The landlord’s final response of 19 December 2019 addressed all three of these issues. However, in referring his complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation, the resident advised that he only wished for the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. Accordingly, the Ombudsman has only investigated and determined this part of the complaint.
  2. Whilst this investigation focuses on the ASB reports, the landlord’s actions in respect of the resident’s contact restriction affected how it then dealt with his ASB reports. The Ombudsman has therefore made reference to the contact restriction in this report and has also made a recommendation in relation to how the landlord manages such restrictions in the future.

Summary of events

  1. In August 2019 the resident contacted this Service to complain the landlord had not responded to reports of ASB from neighbours, which included verbal threats and burglary. The resident complained the landlord had not acted on a Community Trigger he applied for two years before. The resident reported difficulty progressing the issues as a result of a ban from the landlord’s offices, which he had not been notified about in writing.
  2. On 18 September 2019 the landlord issued its stage one response after the Ombudsman referred the complaint to it. The landlord advised the resident’s allegations were investigated by the community protection team which found no evidence to substantiate them. The landlord advised that there was no record of a Community Trigger. The landlord stated that the resident should document further ASB via diary sheets and the police should be contacted about threats to safety. The landlord provided staff details to submit ASB reports.
  3. On 19 December 2019 the landlord issued its final response, following an escalation request from the resident this Service has not had sight of.
  4. In regard to the resident’s contact restriction, the landlord advised the resident was sent a letter notifying him of the restriction in March 2015. The landlord advised that in March 2016, it reviewed and extended the restriction for one year. The landlord noted there was no evidence a letter was sent to the resident or that the contact restriction was reviewed after this date.
  5. In regard to the Community Trigger, the landlord explained Community Triggers were for reported problems that had not been addressed. The landlord noted that on 16 August 2018, the resident submitted a Community Trigger about being burgled as a result of neighbour action; and about a neighbour’s note that threatened to kill him if he left the communal door open. The landlord noted that on 4 September 2018 the resident was advised the application did not qualify as a trigger, but the issues were referred to its housing department. The landlord explained the application had not qualified because while incidents were listed, detail was not provided about three complaints that had been made to the landlord or police which there was dissatisfaction about. The landlord advised the resident he did not qualify for a Community Trigger in 2018 but likely did now, and provided information to progress an application.
  6. In regard to ASB, the landlord noted contacts from the resident about ASB between 9 October 2018 and 9 April 2019. The landlord noted there was some evidence of the resident speaking to officers and being dissatisfied with action. The landlord noted that in February 2019, the resident was informed concerns would be followed up, after which there were no records and staff involved had left. The landlord advised it was clear some action had been taken but it was not possible to assess how thoroughly concerns were investigated. The landlord noted that due to the contact restriction, the resident was not visited to discuss ASB, but there was no evidence he was informed in writing that no home visits would take place. The landlord noted that in July 2019, the resident was invited to the landlord’s offices to discuss his concerns about ASB and the Community Trigger. It noted that, due to lack of clear record keeping, officers were not aware the resident was banned from its offices, and when the resident attended he was escorted away by security. The landlord referred to its stage one response about lack of evidence to substantiate allegations, and confirmed staff details to report ASB.
  7. In response to issues it identified, the landlord apologised for lack of clarity about the restriction, and about ASB not being investigated and documented as thoroughly as it should have been. It confirmed action would be taken to remind staff to keep better records.
  8. The landlord recognised the issues complained about were linked and officers had not yet assessed evidence such as the note from the resident’s neighbour, as officers had thought visits were restricted. It acknowledged restrictions should be reviewed regularly and clearly communicated to customers. The landlord advised it was taking action for staff to be reminded of this and the resident would be written to about his being subject to any contact restrictions. It also confirmed it was reminding staff to address “all salient points” in complaint responses.
  9. As remedy for injustice experienced, the landlord confirmed it would take action to remove over £400 rent arrears.
  10. Following the landlord’s final response, the landlord confirmed on 28 January 2020 that the contract restriction had been lifted. The resident then contacted the Ombudsman to confirm he wanted this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of ASB reports about his neighbour and any counter allegations.

Assessment and findings

  1. In regard to the Community Trigger, the landlord provided explanation about how the resident’s previous application had not qualified, and how to re-submit an application. This was reasonable as there is no evidence the resident complained about the landlord’s ASB handling prior to the complaint. In regards to other issues, it is not disputed by the landlord that there were service failures in regards to its handling of the resident’s ASB and record keeping.
  2. The landlord confirms it is unable to evidence how it handled the resident’s reports about ASB. This means this Service is unable to assess the landlord’s actions against its policy, such as what reports the resident made; how they were classified; what was discussed when they were responded to; and what investigation was carried out before case closure. This is not appropriate as this Service cannot conclude the landlord took reasonable action in accordance with its ASB policy in response to reports of ASB from the resident for a considerable period of time. The landlord has a responsibility to maintain accurate records of ASB reports it receives and its actions taken in response. This is both to effectively manage its own ASB team and to have an audit trail in the event of a dispute or complaint, or subsequent legal proceedings. The landlord is then obligated to provide such evidence to this Service.
  3. The landlord confirms failings concerning ASB were compounded by its failing concerning contact restriction, and led to it not fully investigating the resident’s reports due to its restrictions on home visits. This demonstrates the landlord’s failing in one area impacted another, and impeded its obligation to conduct “thorough and effective” ASB investigation, which is not appropriate.
  4. The landlord confirms failings concerning contact restriction were compounded by its failing in record keeping, and led to the resident being escorted from the landlord’s offices having been invited by the landlord to meet there. This demonstrates the landlord’s failing will have caused avoidable and unnecessary distress to the resident, which was not appropriate.
  5. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. In this case the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has identified and acknowledged a number of service failures in its management of this case. This further assessment considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes
  7. After the resident formally complained in August 2019, the landlord raised and responded to complaints within reasonable timeframes at both stages of its procedure, and followed up its December 2019 final response commitment in a relatively timely way to provide its decision to the resident about the contact restriction.
  8.  The landlord’s initial response to the complaint was unsatisfactory, as it did not address all of the issues the resident had raised, such as the contact restriction, or identify any service failings. However, the landlord’s final response was comprehensive and addressed all issues complained about, and also confirmed it was taking action to ensure all issues are addressed in complaint responses.
  9. The landlord provided an apology and explanation about steps it was taking to address its failings and improve service, which was appropriate. The landlord also confirmed it was providing financial remedy for injustice caused to the resident, by waiving in excess of £400 rent arrears. The landlord advises it seeks to follow published Ombudsman guidance when assessing compensation and does not have its own internal compensation policy.
  10. In its Remedies Guidance the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy provided by the landlord in its final response falls in the second highest range, where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes failures over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy to respond to antisocial behaviour. Accordingly, the financial remedy provided by the landlord was in accordance with the Service’s Remedies Guidance and, considering all of the circumstances of the case, was in the Ombudsman’s opinion suitable financial redress.
  11. The above demonstrates the landlord appropriately carried out a full and fair investigation of the complaint, acknowledged its service failings and was sympathetic to the injustice to the resident. The landlord was then resolution focused in its response and sought to make suitable redress to the resident, as well as to identify learning from the complaint to improve its future service and prevent similar situations from recurring.
  12. Overall, the landlord’s final response evidences the landlord appropriately put things right and learnt lessons from the case, in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles, remedies guidance and new Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made reasonable redress for the service failures identified in its response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by acknowledging service failures and providing appropriate remedy, in the form of apology, compensation and taking steps to improve service.
  2. Whilst the landlord’s initial response to the complaint was unsatisfactory, the landlord’s final response was comprehensive and addressed the issues complained about.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the compensation of £400 referenced in its final response if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord to ensure it maintains accurate records in regards to issues identified, particularly of ASB reports and its actions in response to them. The Ombudsman notes that a similar recommendation has been made to the landlord in case reference 202007978.
  3. The landlord to review its approach to contact restrictions, to ensure reviews are carried out in a timely manner and that residents are informed of outcomes.