Bolton at Home Limited (202207243)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207243

Bolton at Home Limited

29 June 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 the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour and her request for a managed move.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 4 December 2017. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor, adapted flat.
The landlord’s records note that the resident has vulnerabilities due to her medical conditions. The landlord is a housing association.
The Ombudsman has seen historic reports (of theft, attempted assault and loitering by unknown people outside her property) made by the resident to the landlord between 3 March 2021 and 2 July 2021. There is evidence of interaction between the landlord and the police and also with the resident regarding her concerns. In these reports, the resident informed the landlord that she did not feel safe in her home, and it asked her to move her to another property as a priority.
The evidence shows that the landlord passed on information provided by the resident to the police for investigation on 18 March 2021, but they concluded that the persons were unknown. The landlord nonetheless asked the police to keep an eye out for the individuals on their patrols and noted that the offenders were possibly opportunists, not targeting the resident. It continued to respond to reports about loitering from the resident. On 5 July 2021 it provided the resident safety advice as it noted from viewing video footages sent by her that her front door was usually open. It also advised her to continue to express an interest in properties online as she did not meet the threshold for a management move.
This Service has not seen evidence of further reports by the resident until April 2022, when she reported an incident that occurred outside her property. This investigation therefore focusses on events that occurred from 27 April 2022 raised and addressed through the landlord’s complaints process.

Policies and procedural information

The Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines anti-social behaviour as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or, conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
1. It takes responsibility to investigate reported complaints of ASB where it either directly or indirectly affects its housing management function.
2. It will take responsibility for receiving and investigating ASB reports from its residents regarding any subjects of any tenure.
3. It will not lead on the investigation of drug crimes either at a property it manages or in the locality but rather work in partnership with the police who lead on such matters to tackle them.
4. In some cases, it can provide additional security (target hardening) to properties, such as window and door locks and chains.
5. It cannot effectively deal with a case where the report relates to unknown youths whose identity are unknown. It would make efforts to confirm the identity of the youths, note the incident details and contact any potential residents in the locality who may know their identity.
6. In exceptional cases it can support residents to move to a new property through a management move. This is subject to evidence that the resident is in imminent danger and whether any risk of harm can be successfully reduced through a prohibitive order being sought and secured.
The housing allocations policy agreed by the local authority states that it maintains a common housing register on behalf of its partner landlord’s (including the landlord). It operates a choice-based lettings scheme which allows customers to make express their preference for both the area and property they wish to live in. Partner landlord’s are expected to let their properties through the scheme and customers can apply for housing through their local authority.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint handling process. It will acknowledge complaints within five working days and respond to:
1. Stage one complaints within 10 working days.
2. Stage two complaints within 15 working days.

Summary of events

The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 April 2022 and said this was in response to her ASB complaint made on 27 April 2022 about local youths. It advised the resident that it had contacted the police for further information and that it had tried to contact her on several occasions to discuss her complaint. It asked her to contact its neighbourhood safety team to discuss her concerns. In an internal email to staff it noted that:
1. The resident reported that she had been threatened by a group of people who terrorised the area. She said the resident’s lived in fear as they had been harassing the neighbourhood for too long.
2. She did not know them, so it advised her to report the matter to the police as it was a criminal act.
3. The resident wanted to move as she is disabled and unable to defend herself.
4. She had a wooden door with no chain or spyhole and no security round her windows. It suggested target hardening of her property, but the resident advised it would not stop the perpetrators from getting in.
The landlord contacted the police regarding the resident’s report and asked if they could visit to get a description of the perpetrators. It said that it could offer target hardening, but it could not move her unless she was at risk and confirmed by the police.
The landlord’s records noted that the following occurred on 29 April 2022:
1. Its internal emails noted that it requested some emergency works to be completed including, sash jammers, star bolt lock, replace wooden door and install security chain to the resident’s property.
2. It discussed the resident’s phone call received that day where she had stated that the police agreed that she needed a managed move.
3. It noted that it heard the police state that it would be ideal for her to move out of the area. It also asked the relevant officer dealing with the case to contact the resident with an update.
On 3 May 2022, the police wrote to the landlord and advised on enhancing the security measures to the resident’s property.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 10 May 2022. She generally expressed discontent with how the landlord had responded to her concerns. She said she did not feel safe in her home and that the landlord was not taking adequate steps to resolve the problem.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2022 regarding her complaint. It asked her to provide some additional information that could assist with its investigation of her complaint. The communication noted that it would not consider the 10 working days timescale until it had received the additional information. The resident responded the same day and said:
1. She did not feel safe in the streets being a vulnerable person, due to the hostel in the area and the on-going drug issues.
2. It was mentally and physically draining not knowing when they would try to break into her property again.
3. She was living in fear and the incident where a man armed with a knife tried to get in was the final straw.
4. The landlord had been unhelpful and dismissive of her concerns.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 May 2022 and said that it aimed to respond to her within 10 working days.
The landlord’s internal feedback to its complaints team on 13 May 2022 noted that it was aware of the reports and that the advice that had been given to the resident was appropriate. It stated that it had been in contact with the policing team who had visited the resident regarding the issue. It concluded that the report did not meet its criteria for a management move to be offered, as there was no evidence of risk or threat of life notice issued by the police, and that they had not recommended that a move was needed. It based its findings on the below report received from the police following their investigation of the matter:
1. The police attended on 27 April 2022, and advised that the offender was arrested for possession of a bladed article and common assault but later released the same day at around midday.
2. At around 22:30hrs the resident rang the police and reported that the same offender was being threatening outside her address and a crime for a section 4A public order offence was submitted.
3. When the police attended it found that the threatening behaviour had not actually been witnessed by the resident or anyone else in her household.
4. The CCTV footage at the property had picked up a conversation between the offender and another male that was near the resident’s property. The conversation between the two males was loud and so could be heard on the CCTV, but not very clearly.
5. One of the males identified himself as the person who was arrested previously for the bladed article and assault, The male made threats to harm and referred to a female but it was unclear who they were referring to. The conversation took place at 21:50 pm. The police noted that the only reason the resident became aware of the conversation was because she had CCTV.
6. The resident had CCTV with audio attached to her home and this was connected to the television, so she was able to monitor what was going on outside her home whilst no one was home.
7. The offender did not aim any threatening behaviour or language towards the resident as she was not present at the time of the conversation. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to state that a public order offence had occurred and very little evidence that would not have had realistic prospect of a conviction.
8. It was not unable to take any further action as the police were not pursuing the matter, but it had arranged for some target hardening to be undertaken. The resident had a wooden door, so it had asked for this to be inspected.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 27 May 2022. It summarised the above report and also advised that:
1. Its enforcement team had liaised with the police who advised that they were unable to pursue the matter as there was insufficient evidence to state that a public order offence had occurred.
2. The perpetrators were unknown to the landlord, so it was not pursuing further action.
3. The policing team had discussed her housing options with her and ways in which she could make her property feel safer.
4. It was sorry that she felt the staff member who dealt with her report was dismissive. The officer had been spoken to and they apologised that this was not their intention.
5. It confirmed that the staff member had provided her with the appropriate advice following her reports, as the incidents she had reported were criminal offences and therefore a police matter, which it would not be to investigate.
6. It takes anti-social behaviour reports very seriously and due to the information provided, its enforcement team had arranged an inspection to look at replacing her wooden front door with a UPVC door, fit sash jammers to her windows, star bolts and a security chain.
7. It was unable to approve her request for a managed move as she did not meet the criteria, but she could seek a move to a different property by for housing transfer with her local authority.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 June 2022 and stated that she remained dissatisfied with the response to her complaint. She said:
1. Her previous reports had all been dismissed.
2. The police had advised her to move away, and she was doing everything she could to move.
3. She was doing everything within her power to protect her family including putting bars at the windows, but the landlord was not being helpful.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint 14 June 2022 and advised her that it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s records noted that it telephoned the resident on 4 July 2022 to discuss her complaint. It noted that the following issues were discussed with the resident during the call:
1. She spoke generally about robbery and drug crime, but she could not give any names or addresses.
2. She was unhappy with the lack of police action to tackle crime and drugs.
3. The landlord had not supported her home move.
4. She described a robbery at her home, but when asked for further details, this was a robbery of a delivery van in the streets outside her home.
5. She felt the hostel and refuge in the area were contributory factors for the ASB. The landlord noted that the hostels were not owned by it.
6. It clarified the role of the police and that it worked in partnership with them and shared information. It said that crime and drug crime were however within the remit of the police, and it would not take action unless it identified that its resident’s were involved in the crimes thereby breaching the terms of their tenancy.
7. She is disabled and her health was being impacted by the crime in the area.
8. She was in contact with the police and victim support to report any incidents.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 7 July 2022. It said:
1. It had reviewed the related case files and confirmed that the reports made on 29 April 2022, regarding a threat made against her, were recorded and actioned. As this was also a criminal case, the investigation was undertaken and lead by the Police. It reviewed evidence provided by the police along with the CCTV evidence to establish if a crime had been committed and to identify the person involved.
2. It was unable to share the detailed police information within the case file due to data protection regulations, but it could advise that no further action could be taken and that none of its resident’s were identified.
3. If she wished to obtain a copy of the case files, she should submit a subject access request through its website.
4. It does not have the same legal powers as the police and would not take the lead on drug and the other crimes she had indicated were happening in her local area.
5. It noted her concerns that the crime and ASB in the area was linked to the resident’s and visitors at a local hostel, which was a concern, but it did not own or manage hostels in the area.
6. It is a key partner within the community safety partnership, and it would work with other services including the police and the local authority to tackle and prevent crime and ASB.
7. Regarding her request for a supported move due to the crime and ASB in the area, it advised that if a ‘specific’ risk to harm existed and that risk was directed at her or her family, then the police would conduct an investigation and assess what action would be required. If deemed appropriate and exceptional, the police would alert it to request an assessment to move the resident and family to another location. The new location would be identified by the police as part of the risk assessment.
8. It explained that this was not a process that is led by it but rather the police. It advised that resident’s have several options to help them move home and it provided a link to its website for more detailed information. It also passed her details to its homefinder service for an officer to contact her and offer more information on her moving options.
9. The police officer who worked on the case placed a request for additional works to improve the security in her home. The request was submitted on 29th April 2022.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair.
Put things right.
Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
It is clear from the evidence seen by this Service that the resident had concerns about the behaviour of some local youths in the neighbourhood and of her safety. She described their behaviour as threatening and that they had terrorised the neighbourhood for too long.
In response to her report received on 27 April 2022, the landlord contacted the resident within 1 working day as specified in its ASB policy. It interviewed her and tried to obtain some information about the incident and the identify of the person who had threatened her. The resident informed the landlord that she did not know the person, so she was advised to report the matter to the police, as it was a criminal act. The landlord also reported the matter to the police and asked for their assistance in identifying the perpetrator. The landlord’s actions here were reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident following the update received from the police regarding its investigation of her report. It explained to her in its stage one response on 27 May 2022, that it was unable to pursue the matter as the offender was not known to it and the police. It relayed the report provided by the police and said that there were no witnesses or any evidence of threatening behaviour towards the resident. Whilst the evidence shows that the landlord had acted within the remits of its policy, this Service appreciates that it must have been disheartening for the resident to hear this.
The landlord nonetheless took appropriate steps in implementing some safeguarding measures (sash jammers, star bolt lock, replace wooden door and install security chain), as advised by the police and in line with the provisions in its ASB policy. It referred to this as target hardening in its policy and the evidence shows that it requested additional works to be completed in the resident’s property to strengthen the security to her home. In response to our request for evidence it informed this Service that:
1. It fitted a new upvc door with security features on the 6 June 2022, and that there was no requirement for a door chain.
2. It found that the resident had also installed her own bars to the windows, as she wanted to be able to open her curtains and windows, therefore, sash jammers were not fitted.
3. It had asked its fire safety team to arrange an inspection for retrospective permission. It further said that if is deemed that the property is at risk of fire safety risk, it would ask the resident to remove the bars and arrange to fit the sash jammers to give her additional security instead.
The landlord’s actions here demonstrate that it took the resident’s concerns seriously in completing these works within a reasonable period of time. It worked in partnership with the police as outlined in its ASB policy, but it concluded that the offender was not one of its resident’s or known to the police. The landlord acted in line with ASB policy, which states that it cannot effectively deal with a case where the report relates to unknown youths.
The resident, in her formal complaint, also raised concerns about drug crime and that she did not feel safe in the streets being a vulnerable person. She also felt that the hostels and refuge in the area were one of the main causes. The landlord’s policy however states that it would not lead on investigations related to drug crime, but that it will work collaboratively with the police and other partners to tackle them. It will open an ASB case should evidence of drug crime linked to a property it owns be confirmed by the police and or the court.
The evidence also shows that the landlord worked with the police in sharing information, which assisted it in ascertaining that the offender was not one of its residents. It advised the resident that it would not take action unless its resident’s were identified in the crimes, thereby breaching the terms of their tenancy agreement. It’s advice to the resident on 4 July 2022, that it was unable to lead an investigation into robbery and drug crime was therefore reasonable as the resident had not been able to provide the landlord with names or addresses of the offenders.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about the hostels in the area, the landlord advised the resident in its stage two response that it did not own or manage the hostels in the area. In response to our request for evidence, the landlord also informed this Service that the women’s refuge and bail hostel, were not managed, run or owned by its organisation. It further said that it could not assume that the people in either the hostel or refuge would cause any trouble or anti-social behaviour, as it had not received any other reports from its residents of anti-social behaviour relating to the refuge or the hostel.
Whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident was disappointed that her request for a managed move was not approved, given her experience, the landlord explained that she had not met the criteria. It explained that the police had not supported her request with a report confirming that a specific risk to harm existed and that the risk was directed at her or her family. This is in line with its ASB policy which states that it can support resident’s to move, where there is evidence that they were in imminent danger. It nonetheless advised the resident of her housing options, and it also referred her to a team that could provide further assistance. The landlord’s actions here were reasonable, as it is not obliged to authorise such transfers without sufficient grounds. It is acknowledged that the incidents that occurred would have been distressing for the resident, there is no evidence to suggest that any incidents were targeted at the resident to her household, thereby not meeting the threshold for a managed move.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB in her local area is reasonable based on the evidence seen. It took steps to investigate the resident’s complaints and it worked with the police in an attempt to identify the perpetrator. Whilst it was unable to take any action against them as they were not known or one of its resident’s, it followed advice from the police to strengthen the resident’s home security and it assisted with advice on moving home. It is noted that there is some provision in the landlord’s policy to deal with complaints about youths in the area, but it notes that it cannot effectively deal with cases where their identity is not known.
The landlord therefore acted in line with the provisions of its ASB policy, as the reports made by the resident were crime related and more suited to the police to investigate. The landlord worked in partnership in an appropriate way and provided advice, support and target hardening measures to assist the resident in feeling more secure in her home. There was therefore no evidence of maladministration on this basis.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord, in its handling of the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour and her request for a managed move.

Reasons

The landlord responded accordingly to the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour by the youths in her area. Whilst it was unable to pursue the resident’s reports about crime in her neighbourhood, it worked in partnership with the police and took steps to provide additional security to the resident’s home. It also offered advice on her housing options and referred to the relevant service for further assistance.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that options open to the resident regarding moving home is reiterated in writing. It should also advice on any assistance it may offer in facilitating a move to her desired area.
The landlord should raise the resident’s location at a multi-agency ASB forum and consider if any further community reassurance could be undertaken collectively in the neighbourhood, if similar incidents of crime and ASB continue to be reported.