London Borough of Croydon (202205866)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205866

London Borough of Croydon

31 August 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
This report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaints handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a one-bedroom flat which the resident moved into in November 2021. The landlord has stated to this Service that the property is situated on the second floor in a block. However it appears that the property is actually situated on the third floor.
The landlord has explained there is a possible vulnerability for the resident however it has said this has not been verified or provided any further details.
The landlord’s ASB policy explained that the landlord aims to acknowledge every complaint it receives from a complainant, partner agency or other party in relation to ASB within three working days.
The ASB policy also explains that the landlord will contact complainants regularly to update them on the progress that it is making on the case. It will also inform complainants when it feels there is no further action that it can reasonably take, setting out the reasons for this when it proposes to close the resident’s case.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains that to address ASB there is a wide variety of powers available both including informal actions and formal actions. Informal actions include mediation, warning letters and acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) which are signed by the alleged perpetrator and sets out the conditions under which they are expected to abide and which acts as a precursor to legal or enforcement action through courts. Formal actions include notice of seeking possession where the tenancy conditions have been breached, possession action which are dealt with by courts and Community Protection Notice (CPN). The CPN is intended to deal with particular, ongoing problems or nuisances which negatively affect the community’s quality of life by targeting those responsible. This can include anti-social behaviour noise and environmental issues. The Council will take reasonable steps to halt the behaviour before the issuing of a formal notice including a written warning.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that in relation to the use of CCTV and direct surveillance that it can be used dependent on the type of ASB being complained about and with due regard for the provisions of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). However as it could be challenged under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights the use of direct surveillance should be carried out by officers of the landlord or contractors acting on the landlord’s behalf, properly authorised by an authorising officer.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises two stages. At stage one it will acknowledge the complaint within five working days and aim to provide a response within 20 working days of receiving the complaint. In the event that the complaint takes longer than 20 working days the landlord will keep the resident updated on the progress.
If the resident remains dissatisfied they can escalate the matter to stage two. The complaint will then be reviewed and an acknowledgment will be sent within five working days and the target response time would within 20 working days.

Summary of Events

The resident emailed the landlord on 30 December 2021 to ask if he was able to speak to his tenancy officer the following day. He explained that he had moved into the property recently and encountered some teething problems which he wanted to sort out. This included gaining access to the utilities cupboard as neither the caretaker nor the repairs line could assist with sorting him out with a key. He also wanted to provide an update on developments concerning ASB from two of his neighbours. He explained he had a crime number in relation to threatening behaviour by the resident of the flat directly below him. He also made a comment concerning another neighbour relating to drugs and to a dangerous dog.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 31 December 2021. He noted that some of the landlord’s staff were on annual leave. The resident explained he understood that there were investigations into malicious allegations made against the flat below him by some of his neighbours and he wished to comment on his interaction with that neighbour since he had moved in. The resident explained he had kept a track record of ASB and he set out the dates and times these had occurred. The resident also explained there was a persistent issued with cannabis in the block as well as dog mess.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 January 2022 to explain he had been woken up during the middle of the night. He explained the police had attended after he had called them. The resident explained that here had been loud noises and a tirade of foul language used by the occupants of the flat below him. He added he had a job interview on that day which he considered would be impacted by his tiredness from being awake. The resident included a link to a video which had made to demonstrate the noise he had experienced.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 13 January 2022. He explained:
1. There had been a further disturbance and when he had reported it, he had been informed by the operator that he was not the only one to have reported it. He explained there had been loud noises coming from the flat below which he had recorded and attached to the email.
2. He had a job interview the previous day, during which even with the windows and doors shut shouting and arguing was still coming from his neighbours which he had apologised for.
3. He had been unable to speak to anyone over Christmas about the matter due to leave and he was concerned with this and the landlord’s approach of only having a single point of contact in place specifically due to the issue of leave.
4. Having spoken to the landlord’s duty manager, that individual’s concerns were more centred around the neighbour who the resident had complained about and not him. He stated the duty manager had suggested he spoke to her which given the previous threats he had experienced he was not happy with.
5. He was left feeling very unsupported and not able to have a peaceful enjoyment of his property due to the constant ASB.
6. He wanted to discuss a number of issues with his tenancy officer when she had returned from leave.
The resident sent a further email shortly after the initial one on 13 January 2022. This was as a result of receiving a bounce back to his previous email. The resident asked the landlord to read back the earlier emails he had sent from 30 December 2021 onwards. He set out that he had been trying to speak to someone since November when he had moved into the property. However he had been unable to do this.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 16 January 2022. He explained:
1. He had been mistaken and that it was not the flat directly below him who was responsible for all the noise and disruptions but instead it was the occupants of the flat two floors below him who had been responsible for it.
2. The flat below had also raised concerns about that individual and the resident explained that the council was aware of the matter and the individual had been removed for six months.
3. He had purchased a rug for his flat to try and prevent some of the noise from his walking around his flat. He had also purchased chocolates for the occupant of the flat below due to wrongly believing that the noise was coming from her.
4. He was frustrated that the council despite being aware of the perpetrator of the ASB was not speaking to him. He requested someone called him to discuss the matter as it could not continue.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 17 January 2022. This explained there was a further disturbance and that he understood arrests had taken place. He provided a reference number for this. The resident included a video clip of the occupant of the flat taken after the police had left. He asked whether the landlord would take any action concerning a breach of tenancy based on a conviction.
The resident completed an online complaint form on 18 January 2022. He stated:
1. He had tried to contact his tenancy officer and manager a number of times providing crime reference numbers. Having just moved into the property he explained he needed support but despite sending a number of emails he stated he was being ignored.
2. He felt that as there was a single point of contact that staff absences should be covered by another individual.
3. He wanted the individual causing the ASB to be removed as well as the landlord addressing the drug issues and to issue warning letters.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 January 2022. He explained he had made a formal complaint the previous week and that since moving in no contact had been made with him. He added there had been a further issue concerning the flat two floors below him during the night. The resident explained that the landlord was well aware that there was a problem with the occupier of that flat as multiple neighbours had complained. Yet it appeared noting was being done about the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 January 2022. The email came from the tenancy officer who the resident had initially been emailing. The landlord explained that she had been on annual leave for three weeks over the festive period and had placed her out of office on so was unsure why the resident had not been aware of the absence. Following returning to work she had been catching up with the backlog and there was a delay to responding to emails for which she apologised. The email also explained that whilst the resident had said he had not been contacted since he had moved to the property he had been in touch with another officer and the tenancy officer had also introduced herself to him.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2022. He stated:
1. Whilst he understood the tenancy officer had been on leave no cover was in place at the time. He felt to receive no response from early December 2021 to 26 January 2022 was unacceptable.
2. He had contacted the offer member of staff, referred to in the landlord’s last email, only once and he been phoning up the landlord and chasing ever since with no joy.
3. With regards to the tenancy officer’s recollection she had introduced herself to him when attending the block of flats, he had introduced himself to her and not the other way round. He had also been told she could not discuss a dispute he was raising on the same day as it was raised.
4. He had received the out of office emails when he had emailed her. However following her intended return he had received another out of office message for a further week.
5. As he had not been able to get a key to the utilities cupboard he had been unable to provide his utility company with readings or been able to set up Sky to enable him to work from home.
6. When he had got through to someone at the landlord it had told him to wait on the tenancy officer’s return or directed him to another individual (her manager) who had not responded to any of the emails which he had sent.
7. He had multiple complaints and issues and he wanted a response to every single issue. The lack of response had led him unable to sleep and living in fear.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 28 January 2022 to set out another disturbance which had taken place. The resident:
1. Provided a crime reference number and attached some videos of the issue.
2. Explained that one of the occupiers of the flat two floors below him had knocked on a neighbour’s door seeking shelter and had then stolen their iPad.
3. Set out that there had been continuous arguing all day which had made it impossible for him to work at home.
4. Explained that the police had attended on two occasions following the resident having called them but they were unable to do anything.
5. Set out that he had been verbally abused by a young female who had been at the flat in question.
6. Asked the landlord to provide him temporary accommodation whilst the residents of the flat two floors below him were removed. He explained that his mental health was deteriorating and he was fed up with making reports and being dragged into the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident back on 28 January 2022. It explained.
1. It had been contacted by the neighbour who had suffered the theft. It was trying to confirm the name of the officers who were investigating the incident so it could speak to them about the matter.
2. It had been in touch with the ASB team to arrange an urgent meeting in the following week to deal with issues to do with several residents of the block.
3. It would be writing to all residents concerning the matters and it would be carrying out a door knocking exercise to address the issues.
4. It did not tolerate ASB and it would take action where necessary to deal with complaints.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 February 2022. The email followed on from a call between the landlord and the resident on 28 January 2022, details of which have not been provided to this Service. However following the call the landlord had sent the resident a copy of the diary form in relation to the ASB. The resident explained:
1. Since the telephone call matters with the ASB perpetrator had continued and he provided a crime reference and video of another incident during the early hours.
2. The best time to do a door knocking exercise would be in the evenings to ensure most people were in. The resident added the police had suggested an alternative would be for the residents to jointly contact the LL with their names and comments.
3. He had lost his job as a result of the ASB. The resident stated he had stayed elsewhere and he had missed a meeting and as a result his contract had been cancelled as a result.
4. He had passed onto the police the landlord’s direct email address. He added the police had stated it had a long list of multiple reports from a number of residents relating to this one flat and that it was only the landlord that could take any action.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 February 2022 to ask for an update on the situation. He stated the resident of the flat two floors beneath him needed to be moved. The resident confirmed that he was staying elsewhere temporarily as it was not safe to be in his flat. He added he had called and left messages for the emergency housing line.
The landlord emailed the resident back on 8 February 2022. It apologised for not having replied to his email from the previous week. It added it had met with the police and that a joint visit by it and the police had taken place on 8 February 2022. The flat causing the concerns had been made secure. The landlord explained it was unable to advise him of any further information at that time.
The landlord received an incoming call on 9 February 2022 from the occupier of the flat which had been made secure by it and the police the previous day. This had been as the locks had been changed and a note left to the front door of the flat. The occupier was invited to attend for an office interview on the following day.
The occupier of the flat had a face-to-face meeting with the landlord on 10 February 2022. The occupier confirmed she had allowed some friends to stay at the property whilst she was away and she had returned to the property following the incident on 8 February 2022. However as the locks had been changed she was unable to gain access to the property. The landlord confirmed that it would discuss her case and get back in touch following this.
The landlord’s internal communication on 11 February 2022 noted that the resident had made further complaints concerning ASB which had been affecting him. This included threats of violence against a child, blood being present on the walls of the block and the possession and usage of drugs in the block. The internal email asked someone dealing with the matter to call the resident. A response was sent back in which the landlord stated it was aware of the case and that it had visited the block on 8 February 2022 conducting a door knocking exercise however the resident had not been in. It would therefore attempt to call him on that day.
The landlord issued the stage one response to the resident on 14 February 2022. The email noted the resident’s complaint to be:
1. An inability for the resident to be able to contact his tenancy officer and her manager on a number of occasions.
2. The resident had not received a response to his multiple emails containing evidence and considered he was being ignored. The resident also raised concerns that the landlord’s staff were attempting to get away with not prioritising a response.
3. The resident had raised further concerns on 11 February 2022 which had left him at his wits end concerning the ASB in the block. He had made over 10 police reports and he was aware other residents in the block had also reported the matter.
The landlord’s stage one response explained:
1. Both the tenancy officer and her manager had been on leave over the Christmas period. Whilst this had occurred at the time, it was a rare occurrence.
2. Following returning to the office there was a backlog to be dealt with and the manager had contacted the resident on 28 January 2022 at which point a diary form had been issued. It had also explained the actions it was taking with the police and it had encouraged that the form be completed.
3. A meeting of the landlord with the police had taken place on 1 February 2022 at which point a meeting to the property was arranged.
4. The landlord had emailed the resident on 8 February 2022 to provide an update at the time.
5. The landlord had contacted the resident on 11 February 2022 to provide an update to him. By this time it explained the blood from the communal areas in the block had been cleaned up.
6. It had identified a property in the block and it would take action against any resident who allowed visitors to behave in the manner whilst in the building.
7. It was taking action against residents involved in ASB in the block. The police were aware of the situation and it was working with them to address the ongoing issues.
The landlord’s internal notes show that on 15 February 2022 the complaint was handed over to the ASB team following a case discussion between the tenancy officer and the landlord’s ASB officer. Under agreed actions it had been noted that the occupier of the flat would be interviewed and that following the interview a decision would be made on how to proceed. The case would be managed by the ASB officer.
The resident sent the landlord an of email on 1 March 2022. He explained:
1. The locks on the communal utilities cupboard had still not been changed. He had spoken to the caretaker who himself did not have a key. He had emailed the repairs team who had emailed the housing officer. The Housing officer had emailed back to say it was his responsibility change the communal locks following a mutual exchange.
2. He was dissatisfied by the response of the tenancy officer who he considered was not aware and who had shown a lack of action to date on a number of matters.
3. He was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s slow action which had caused him hardship in the form of a job loss and mental health deterioration.
4. He had yet to receive a response to his formal complaints which prevented him from escalating the matter through the landlord’s complaints process.
5. Due to the loss of his job he wished to seek loss of earnings of £125,000.
6. The failure to obtain the keys to the utilities cupboard had meant that he was unable to provide meter readings which due to the rising costs and inflation had provided him anxiety. He had also had to cancel the installation of a sky contract.
7. No mention had been made in the warning letter issued by the landlord to the block of the cannabis being smoked in the property.
8. He was amazed no action had been taken in evicting the resident who had been causing the ASB.
The landlord replied to the resident on 1 March 2022. It asked the resident to clarify which complaint he wished to escalate to stage two. It asked him to provide the case reference number or provide the response it had issued to help identify the correct one.
The resident replied on 1 March 2022 to explain that he had not received anything in writing from it even an acknowledgment. Whilst he had a few emails and he had some calls from the landlord these did not contain a reference number. He added he had a number of emails to share as part of the stage two complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 March 2022 to explain it had found two complaints raised on 19 January 2022 which had been logged together. These concerned the cost of a letterbox key being his responsibility since the previous resident had not handed it over and the resident trying to obtain a key for the utilities cupboard. This complaint was still open and a formal stage one response had not been issued.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 March 2022 to confirm that his main complaint concerned the ASB and he questioned whether a complaint had been set up. He accepted he was responsible for the letterbox key, but not for the utilities cupboard and so the first complaint could be closed but not the second one.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 March 2022. It apologised and noted that a stage one complaint for the ASB issue had been sent by it on 14 February 2022. It sent the resident a copy of its response.
The resident replied on 2 March 2022. He confirmed that he wished to escalate the complaint about ASB to stage two. The resident also confirmed that he wished to link the complaint about the utility locks to the complaint about ASB. The resident explained that he wished someone higher up than the tenancy officer and her manager (who had issued the stage one response) to look at the matter and that he had received a substandard service from them.
The landlord’s internal notes show that on 21 March 2022 it had contacted the ASB officer to ask for an update on the complaint. The ASB officer explained that whilst he had been passed the case he had then been on leave and so there had been limited activity on it. He did however confirm that he was planning on interviewing the individual of the flat two floor below the resident in the following week.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 31 March 2022. It explained:
1. In terms of communication it accepted that it had not provided the level of service which should be expected. It apologised for this and noted that it should use a variety of different methods of communication when supporting residents. It noted that a senior member of its staff had visited the resident on 21 March 2022 to discuss the matter and understand how the resident was feeling.
2. In terms of the housing officer and her manager being off on annual leave at the same time, that it was experiencing staff shortages at present. As a result on occasion some staff might be off at the same time as had been the case here. It added this was not common practice and that it was reviewing the procedures within the Housing directorate to address the matter of communication with residents.
3. In terms of the utility cupboards keys this had been scheduled to be changed on 28 March 2022 and he would be provided with keys. It acknowledged that the matter had taken time and that communication on the matter could have been better.
4. In terms of ASB it noted a dangerous dog had been removed in December 2021 and the use of cannabis at the block had subsided at that time, following a joint investigation by the police and the landlord. It added for cases of ASB the landlord had to document evidence to show it was acting within the constraints of the law and to provide the opportunity for individuals to recognise their behaviours and correct any wrongdoings before escalation. In relation to this it had:
  1. It had sent several warning letters to all residents and issued diary sheets to the resident in January 2022 to record instances of ASB.
  2. It had carried out a carding exercise in February 2022 where residents were asked anonymously to report any concerns.
  3. It had met with the police on 1 February 2022 and undertaken a joint visit to the block on the following week.
5. The ASB matter was still ongoing and at that time was unresolved. Whilst it noted the resident’s frustration it added it needed a thorough investigation and multi-agency cooperation. It had noted the residents’ concerns on each occasion and the matter had been passed to the ASB officer who would be in touch over the next couple of weeks to go through the next steps. The landlord added that all of the videos sent by the resident had been forwarded to him.
6. In terms of the smoking of cannabis in the block that this would be monitored. It added the resident’s suggestion of draught excluders being applied in the flats for noise and smells would be noted and considered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

Since the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure the resident has contacted the landlord in relation to a number of issues. These included issues of cleaning, car parking, the caretaker being missing, further issues of ASB from the same individual as well as the issue of subletting. He stated in terms of the latter that the ASB perpetrator had moved back to the property, having been absent for a while together with her son in the summer of 2022. In terms of these matters these will not be addressed as part of this investigation as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure nor been addressed to the landlord in the first place. Whilst the issue of ASB was one that has been considered as part of this complaint given there had been a gap following the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure and final response it will not be looked at as part of this complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour.

The purpose of this Service’s investigation is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB to ensure it was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the landlord’s policies and best practice.
Where a landlord investigates ASB, this Service would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Equally as important, the landlord must also measure a resident’s expectations as to what action it can take, especially as the actions available to it may fall short of a resident’s preferred resolution. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that its “officers will decide what the appropriate action should be based on the information/evidence they have when their initial investigation is complete”.
In terms of the resident’s initial reporting of ASB he had initially indicated that the issues were caused by the flat directly below him and he referred to several conversations which had been held with the resident of that flat which related to the noise nuisance being caused by him and allegations by that individual relating to other family members who had been staying with him. It was only on 16 January 2022 that the resident had realised that the noise nuisance and ASB was actually coming from the flat two floors beneath him and not from the flat directly below him.
It was not unreasonable for the resident to clearly know where the ASB noise nuisance had initially been coming from as the flats he suspected were directly above each other, both below his flat. As he had covertly recorded some of what had happened he may not have directly been in a position to know from which flat the ASB had been coming from. However as the resident was initially mistaken this meant that the landlord had to weigh up and re-evaluate the allegations which the resident had made in terms of the initial disturbances he had reported and for which he had crime numbers.
In terms of the resident’s video recordings of the disturbance the landlord explained that this would be passed to its ASB officer to review. However under the landlord’s ASB policy it would not have been possible for it to have used this for the purpose of recording ASB against the alleged perpetrator. The landlord did not inform the resident of this at any point. He had sent it a number of recordings and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed him following receipt of the first few that it could not use the covert recordings going forwards.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 28 January 2022 and following this it issued him with diary sheets to record the incidents of ASB. The landlord has explained that it has no record of receiving back any completed diary sheets from the resident. No call notes have been provided about the contents of the call with the resident on 28 January 2022 so it is not clear what the landlord had told the resident about the need to return the completed diary sheets. However the landlord did not reiterate the need to complete these when sending the diary sheets to the resident via email. This was a failing of the landlord in terms of explaining that it needed to collate evidence before it would be able to address whether there had been ASB and consider the appropriate response.
The landlord has confirmed that it liaised with the police in the investigation of some of the criminal behaviour reported by the resident. These related to the drugs being smoked in the block as well as the reports of noise nuisance. The police are the appropriate body to investigate criminal behaviour. However whilst it was the responsibility of the police to do this the landlord still had a responsibility to satisfy itself that it has appropriately investigated the behaviour reported by the resident, especially as he had made multiple reports over a short time frame. In this case the resident had also informed the landlord that he was not alone and that other resident’s had also reported the ASB from the same individual. Given these comments it would have been a reasonable course of action for the landlord to have followed up with the resident’s neighbours on the matter. Whilst the landlord has provided some information on ASB reports by the resident’s neighbours to this Service this does not appear to relate to the same individual and flat that the resident had repeatedly referred to. Instead it related to a different individual and flat.
Regarding the actions taken by the landlord directly, it spoke to the police on 1 February 2022 and following this it made a visit to the block on 8 February 2022. This was just over a month after the resident had initially raised his concerns about ASB via a series of emails and a few days after the landlord had called him. The joint visit would have required time to be arranged given it involved multiple parties. In addition the landlord states it had sent out a warning letter to the residents of the block prior to the visit. Given this the landlord did take actions on the reports being made by the resident. It explained that it had jointly with the police previously attended to the block in December 2021 which had coincided with a fall in the smoking of cannabis there so it was aware that a further visit could have an effect on the issues being reported and indeed when the subsequent visit was carried out arrests had been made. The landlord did not confirm to the resident what the arrests had been in relation to.
The landlord has also provided this Service with an ABC for the alleged perpetrator which was dated 28 April 2021. This ABC set out the future conduct which had been agreed by that individual and it specified that she would not allow members of her household or visitors to cause noise nuisance or disturbance or to swear at her neighbours. There was also an additional commitment that there would not be the smoking or taking of any illegal drugs for the occupier as well as any visitors to the flat. The ABC did not contain any term over which it would be valid. Given that it appeared that some of the conditions of the ABC appeared to being breached by the occupier of the flat two floors below the residentit would have been appropriate for the landlord to have spoken to the occupier about the allegations being made about the conduct of her and her visitors. The landlord has stated that the ABC had expired in November 2021 however no such date or any other expiry date had been recorded on the ABC which was signed by the resident of the flat as well as the landlord and the police.
When the complaint had been handed over to the ASB team by the landlord on 15 February 2022 the ASB officer had noted that an interview would be arranged with the occupier. However no such interview took place at that time. This was also mentioned by the ASB officer when he was asked for an update prior to the landlord providing the resident with the stage two response. The landlord confirmed that an interview had been scheduled for July 2022. This had followed on from further reports of ASB made by the resident after the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The landlord has explained that it had not carried out the interview earlier as the occupier was not living at the flat and that reports of ASB had diminished at that time. However given that the landlord was aware that the occupier was not living at the flat, it would follow that any instances of ASB would also cease if she was not there. The landlord’s approach was not in keeping with what had been agreed by it in February 2022 and also in March 2022 and by it not updating the resident, it led the resident to believe that the occupier may have been removed by the landlord at the time. Although the landlord had a duty of confidentiality and so could not have disclosed specifics with relation to the occupier of the flat two floors below the resident with him, it also had a responsibility to keep the resident updated on the SB matter which it did not do.
The landlord’s stage two response explained to the resident that the ASB issue remained unresolved at that time and that he would be contacted by the ASB officer over the next couple of weeks. However the landlord has not provided any evidence that the ASB officer had been in contact with the resident until several months after the stage two response and this had only followed after the resident had copied him to a number of emails also sent to the tenancy officer. The landlord failed to follow up with its agreed plans and keep the resident updated on the issue.
Although the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the actual warning letter sent out to the block the resident did confirm that a warning letter was received which he stated failed to address the issue of the drugs being smoked in the block. This action in providing a warning letter was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy under informal actions and what the Ombudsman would consider good practice.

The landlord’s complaints handling

Following the resident having emailed the landlord at the end of December 2021 and then almost daily from 12 January 2022, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaints about ASB within three working days as per its ASB policy. Whilst the landlord has explained that the tenancy officer and her manager had both been on annual leave over the festive period, the first email acknowledgment to the resident was not until 26 January 2022, some six days after he had completed an online complaint. The email response from the landlord explained the officers had been on annual leave and explained the resident had been contacted by the tenancy officer previously. It did not address the resident’s ongoing complaints about the ASB.
The landlord failed to send the resident an acknowledgment email to his complaint at both stage one and stage two. Whilst it did respond to the resident following his request to escalate the complaint to stage two on 1 March 2022 this had been to try to determine which complaint the resident had wanted to escalate.
Whilst the landlord did respond to the resident with the stage one response in accordance with its complaints policy, it failed to do so at stage two. The response at stage two was issued 22 working days after the resident had asked for the complaint to be escalated. Whilst the landlord’s complaints policy does set out that the response time may exceed 20 working days, it did not keep the resident updated in the interim or explained why its response had not been issued in time.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Whilst the landlord has provided copies of the emails to and from the resident, some of these emails mention that they had followed on from a telephone conversation with the resident. In addition to their being an absence of call notes from the conversations the housing officer and her manager had with the resident the landlord has also been unable to provide a copy of the warning letter issued to the residents of the block in January/February 2022. It has also been unable to confirm if any completed diary sheets were returned by the resident. The lack of any contemporaneous evidence from the landlord at the time is a failing on the part of the landlord. Landlords need to maintain an audit trail of its actions and the evidence which it is relying on regardless of whether this constituted a “formal” investigation or not. In this case this did not occur.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This includes the investigation of complaints received. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s complaint about the ASB. Neither was there any record of the resident’s vulnerability. Instead the landlord indicated there may be one but it had not been verified. These recording failures all amounts to a significant failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

While the landlord undertook some appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB, it failed to respond to the resident’s initial contact in December 2021. Although it explained this was due to multiple staff being on leave at the same time, even when the staff returned there was a delay before it responded to the resident. In addition the landlord failed to clearly set out how long its investigation would go for, and the potential outcomes of that investigation. It also failed to appropriately manage the resident’s communications. This led to the resident having an unrealistic expectation of the outcome of his reports.
The landlord did not send the resident an acknowledgment to his complaint at both stage one and stage two. It also issued the stage two response outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy. In addition it failed to acknowledge the resident’s ASB complaints in line with its ASB policy.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the phone conversations which took place between the landlord and the resident as well as discussions held with the landlord’s staff when considering the complaint. In addition, the landlord had no record of the resident’s vulnerability noted.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total amount of compensation of £600, comprising:
  1. £400 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its communication in relation to its ASB investigation.
  2. £50 for the complaint’s handling.
  3. £150 for the record keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
The landlord should review its ASB staff training to ensure that they are aware of how to manage communications and manage expectations when it comes to its ASB investigation outcomes.