Lewisham Council (202120967)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120967

Lewisham Homes

26 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder in a property managed by the landlord. The freeholder of the property is the local authority. The lease began in August 2005.
The landlord is a registered housing provider, managing homes on behalf of the local authority.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it would respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days. If it required, an extension to provide its response, it would give reasons for this to the resident and would provide a response within a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states it uses tools which fall into three main types of activity to tackle ASB. These are preventative and diversionary methods, support, and enforcement. It states the landlord works with other agencies and partners to share information and tackle ASB in a coordinated and effective way. The policy links the user to the local authority’s website in relation to the community trigger. The policy also states:
1. It would respond to category A reports within 24 hours.
2. It would agree an action plan for every case and be clear about what actions it could take. Cases would be managed by an ASB officer or Domestic Abuse Support officer, and a risk assessment would be completed in all cases.
3. As part of the action plan, it would agree how it would keep in contact with the resident whilst investigating the case, and it would let them know once the investigation was concluded, and the outcome.

Summary of Events

The resident reported several ASB issues in his estate to the landlord such as:
1. On 9 April 2021 where he had witnessed a machete attack. On 12 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged this along with the video clips sent to it by the resident. It advised it had sent the video clips to the police to see if the alleged perpetrators could be identified, and allow it and the police to take coordinated, multi-agency action against them. The landlord explained it would provide feedback to the resident once it received a response from the police.
2. More knife crime on 21 April 2021 and he advised the landlord, that residents no longer felt safe in their homes as this was a reoccurring issue. He told the landlord it needed to investigate by adding CCTV in the estate.
3. On 9 May 2021, he reported to the landlord, that his neighbour was having a party with at least 50 people. He explained a huge fight had occurred and multiple police cars, and over 10 officers attended. He detailed he had tried to contact the landlord’s witnessing service before 3am but there was no response. He further emailed the landlord and explained the party continued throughout the night and into the morning, stopping at 8am and provided video evidence.
On 11 May 2021, the police provided the landlord with details of the events reported by the resident on 9 May 2021, and actions it had taken against the neighbour and everyone who attended the party. On the same day, the resident chased progress from the landlord on the two knife attacks he had previously reported. He stated these were serious incidents and he had expected more follow ups and communication from the landlord. He reiterated residents no longer felt safe due to increasing drug activity and other issues. No evidence of a response to the resident’s query has been provided to this Service until the landlord provided its Stage one response.
There is evidence from the landlord which shows the landlord served the resident’s neighbour with a notice seeking possession on 17 June 2021.
From the evidence provided, the date the resident made his formal complaint is unclear to this Service, however it is explained that it was made in “early June”. On 29 June 2021, the landlord provided it stage one response to the resident’s complaint. In its response it addressed the issues raised by the resident and stated:
1. The increase in ASB demonstrated the actions it was taking were not working. There had been a huge increase in ASB reports since COVID-19. It had taken proactive steps to respond to the challenges created by lockdown and the limited access to support services.
2. In response to the issues on the estate, it agreed the large party held was completely unacceptable and the resident responsible had been served with a notice of seeking possession in relation to the incident. It explained this was the first step in taking formal possession action to end the tenancy.
3. In response to the machete incidents, it acknowledged the incidents were terrible and that it understood the residents concern with its passive role in responding to the case, but it disagreed with the resident. It explained these were criminal acts and were the remit of the police to investigate and respond to. It did not believe it was its role to actively tackle criminal acts.
4. In response to the resident’s question on how its ASB team liaised with its development team when designing new spaces, it explained it conducted a review and this took place at the design stage. It stated it made recommendations in what is called the target hardening review and explained the different factors it considered in the review. The recommendations were then considered during the ongoing development of a site.
5. It explained it had regular multi-agency meetings with its colleagues in the Council’s Crime Enforcement Regulation Service, the police’s Safer Neighbourhood Teams and ASB team as well as with its other statutory partners. In the meetings they specifically addressed hot spot areas and properties in a proactive way. It provided an example of where they took a successful multi-agency approach to prevent an illegal block party during lockdown from taking place.
On the same day, the resident raised enquiries about the landlord’s stage one response and again proposed the use of CCTV. He also asked for an update on his reported ASB cases. The landlord acknowledged this on 30 June 2021 and promised to respond. The resident chased progress of his enquiries on 12 July 2021 and 17 July 2021. It responded to the resident on 21 July 2021 stating his enquiries should usually be dealt with within ten working days. He responded on the same day and asked for an update on his ASB cases.
On 23 July 2021, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two as he had not had a proactive follow-up from the landlord even to explain why the response was delayed.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint and stated it would provide a response by 16 August 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 July 2021 chasing a deadline for a response following his email of 21 July 2021, around an update for his ASB cases.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 16 August 2021 to the resident, in which:
1. It explained the actions it had taken around the ASB issues in the estate such as obtaining an injunction, working with the police, and serving a notice of seeking possession.
2. It stated it was not considering installing CCTV in the area and apologised for the delays in responding to his request for information.
3. It provided the resident with a main point of contact for any ASB concerns who had been asked to provide fortnightly updates on the residents ASB cases. It stated the ASB Manager was speaking with its legal representatives to determine what additional actions it may be able to take.
There was more correspondence between the resident and the landlord on:
1. 16 August 2021 where it updated him on his ASB cases and apologised for the delay in responding. He also emailed on the same day and raised two follow up queries around the landlord’s stage two response. These were:
  1. How it liaised with wider teams within its organisation to implement new estate wide measures, such as installing lighting or improvements to reduce ASB.
  2. What physical measures had been put in place over the last few years in the estate.
  3. Confirmation that the landlord decided not to undertake a target hardening review of the estate infill development given the rise in ASB cases and rise in crime since early 2020.
2. 25 August 2021 where it responded to queries raised by the resident following the stage two response.
3. 26 August 2021 where he asked for updates on his ASB cases, and the landlord explained its officer would provide a response once he returned to the office.
Between 6 September 2021 and 28 September 2021, the resident chased the landlord for his promised fortnightly update as per its stage two response as he had not received any updates.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord responded to the resident and accepted, the promise of fortnightly reports had not been met, and apologised. It provided an explanation for the delay and stated it had decided to move all his cases to one officer who would review them and provide a detailed, proposed plan of action for each case and an agreed schedule of contact.
The resident’s complaint was escalated to the landlord’s independent adjudicator. It is unclear when this was done. The independent adjudicator upheld the landlord’s response. On 19 November 2021, the resident contacted the local authority as he believed the landlord’s standards for tackling ASB on the estate were poor.
The resident attempted to activate the community trigger on 13 December 2021. He stated he had made three other reports to his landlord between 11 June 2021 and 8 July 2021 of ASB by a neighbour involving fighting, noise, and drug use.
In response, the local authority informed him on 23 December 2021:
1. An individual must have reported ASB to the local authority, police and/ or the landlord three times about separate incidents in the last six months and it was perceived that no action had been taken.
2. He could not activate the community trigger as it had no record of any ASB reports being made.
3. It had not carried out an investigation into the reports of ASB occurring within the last six months.

Assessment and Findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident had raised concerns with the local authority about its refusal to accept his application to activate the community trigger. Although the matter had exhausted the local authority’s complaints process, under paragraph 42 K of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, this service is unable to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This is because it is the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to investigate complaints about a local authority’s decision not to progress a community trigger.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports

The landlord provided the resident with a detailed explanation in its stage one, and stage two responses, of the steps it had taken to tackle the ASB issues which were identified within the resident’s estate. It provided an example of where its cooperative approach with other agencies led to the prevention of an illegal block party. The landlord and the police also acted against the resident’s neighbour for the ASB he reported by issuing COVID breach fines and a notice of seeking possession. It also said it would review the camera footage which the resident supplied of a machete attack to aid the police’s investigation.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has acted positively to the reports of ASB within the resident’s estate through its actions against the alleged perpetrators and acted in line with its ASB policy. It took proactive, preventative measures through securing an injunction, followed through on breaches of tenancy, as seen through issuing a notice of seeking possession and working with residents. It worked with other agencies in the community and supported further investigations by working with the police. It has taken several different approaches in attempting to reduce the ASB being reported not only by the resident but also by other residents.
Within the landlord’s stage one response, it mentions the issues of knife crime were criminal issues and as such, within the police’s remit as these were serious crimes, so it could not investigate them. The landlord is correct about the nature of the crimes being serious and within the remit of the police. However, In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have shown to the resident that it took such matters seriously by taking some action. For example, the landlord could have taken a multi-agency approach, and sent out information request letters in conjunction, with other agencies it worked with to its residents to identify if anyone could provide further information on the attacks. This is especially important as, if such incidents affect its residents, it affects the landlord’s housing management in turn.
The landlord also stated in its stage two response that it would not be actively considering installing CCTV in the local area. Whilst this is the landlord’s decision to make, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been good customer service for the landlord to have explained the reasons why it was not considering such a measure.
The landlord only appears to have acknowledged one of the ASB reports raised by the resident in April 2021. There is no evidence it acknowledged or responded to his second report within the 24-hour timeframe provided in its policy. Across both reports also, there is no evidence that in line with its ASB policy it:
1. Agreed a clear action plan with him.
2. Provided the resident with information of the officer responsible for dealing with his reports.
3. Completed a risk assessment.,
4. Agreed how it would keep in contact with the resident while investigating the case.
5. Provided him with the outcome of the cases.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s failure to abide by its own policy added to the resident’s frustration and dissatisfaction with it. Although it tried to explain COVID-19 played a part in the delays in its stage one response, it could have explained this at an earlier point to the resident. The Ombudsman understands that COVID-19 was a challenging time for landlords due to additional pressures on resources and services. However, any delays in responding to residents should have been made clear, and if an action plan had not been completed, this would have been an opportunity for it to complete one, so the resident had a clear understanding of the service he could expect. Had the landlord acted in line with its policy, the resident would have been kept properly informed around the developments with his cases and not left chasing his required updates which left him frustrated.
Witnessing serious ASB would have been very distressing and challenging for the resident. He had already reported that he felt unsafe in his home, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have been more supportive and proactive in its responses. Having fortnightly updates and creating an action plan would have helped the resident to understand how the landlord would communicate with him and what he could expect during the case. There was also no mention of risk assessments, and these are a good way to determine if the resident had any vulnerabilities or additional support needs that would have helped the landlord manage the resident’s case better.
Following the resident’s ASB reports, and the stage one response, he was left chasing updates around his cases. He was not provided with a timeframe in which he could be expected to gain a response, which would have been frustrating for him. It then took the landlord 26 days to provide the resident with an update around his cases following his request. Although it apologised for the delay when it did respond, he was left waiting and chasing further updates. The lack of updates also led the resident to reporting the ASB issues to the local authority. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not go far enough to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident went to, to chasing responses from it, which is unreasonable and based on this, there has been a failure around the landlord’s communication in this case.
In the landlord’s stage two response, it raised the resident’s expectations by stating it would provide fortnightly updates on his ASB cases. It then failed to do this, and the resident was left chasing the fortnightly updates. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this shows poor customer service by the landlord as it failed to abide by its promise to an already distressed resident and leads to a failure. However, the landlord acknowledged and explained why it had failed to meet the resident’s expectations in its response of 7 October 2021 and proposed an agreed schedule of contact with the resident, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was positive.

Complaint handling

Following the stage one response, the resident asked follow-up questions about the landlord’s response to his complaint. He received a response about some of his questions the following day, on 30 June 2021, but then had to chase twice before being provided a timeline for a response to his final query. The landlord then failed to provide a response within the prescribed timeframe which led to an escalation of his complaint to stage two. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the delay in providing a response was unreasonable. Had the landlord provided a response or even revised time scales to the resident, this might have de-escalated the issue from progressing to a stage two complaint.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there have been failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports and complaints handling. This is because as evidenced, on several occasions, the landlord failed to meet the deadlines and promises it had set, and the resident was left chasing responses. Although the landlord apologised at every opportunity, it continued to leave the resident frustrated by a lack of responses over several issues. When considered, the continued failings were not rectified by the apologies offered as it continued to not respond or provide updates as agreed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The resident was left chasing updates to his ASB cases from the landlord. Despite the request for updates, the resident was not provided with a timeframe for a response and was left frustrated by the landlord’s failure to respond.
The resident was also left chasing the landlord for response to his queries and was left waiting for responses, for long periods of time, sometimes outside of prescribed timeframes.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £200. This is broken down as:
  1. £100 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident around its response to the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling failure.
2. Provide evidence of compliance with the order.

Recommendations:

The landlord should consider:
1. The overall management of its communications in respect of ASB and identify any lessons learned to allow for training for its staff.