London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202111700)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111700

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

5 September 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:
1. The resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a flat within a converted building comprised of similar properties. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s relevant ASB policy shows:
1. It assigned priority to cases based on the type of ASB reported. High priority cases would be logged and assessed within 1 working day. All subsequent incidents for the same case would be assessed within 1 working day.
2. A vulnerability risk assessment matrix (RAM) would be completed on all high priority cases. This would be reviewed upon assessment of further evidence in the same case. It would consider the risk related to all parties during its investigations.
3. It would keep in regular contact with the reporting party and provide advice and support through an agreed action plan.
4. It would take prompt, decisive action and use the full range of tools and legal powers available. It would consult with partner agencies before deciding on legal action.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint policy which states:
1. At stage one, residents will receive an acknowledgement within five working days, and a full response will follow within ten working days
2. If the resident is unhappy with the response, they can request to escalate to the next stage. The complaint will be reviewed by another member of staff and a final written decision will be sent within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, then the landlord will explain why and write again within a further ten working days. Any new deadlines will be agreed with the resident.

Summary of events

The resident said that she had an incident of post being stolen in 2017. Around this time, she provided her contact number to the neighbour who lived on the floor below her. This was because she was out of the property for work 6 days a week and he had agreed to assist with parcel deliveries. The resident said she had no issues with the neighbour until August 2020, when she started to receive harassing text messages from him.
Police records note 14 distressing text messages were sent to the resident by the neighbour between 31 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Each incident was reported to the police. Despite her repeated requests to ask the neighbour not to message her or knock on her door, his behaviour continued. The situation escalated on 27 November 2020:
1. The resident returned home and found 12 letters scattered over the communal area which had allegedly been written by the neighbour. The letters said “call the police, I know and see you in your home, every movement, and know what you do. I don’t know, I love you all”.
2. As she was reading the letters, her neighbour approached and cornered her in the communal doorway. She asked him to step back and threatened to call the police. When he did not do this, she had to push past him and ran into her flat to call the police who attended within half an hour.
3. The police reviewed doorbell video footage and arrested the neighbour for harassment. He was released the following day and given bail conditions not to contact the resident.
4. The resident went to stay with a friend. She returned to the property on 30 November 2020 and notified the landlord of the incident.
The landlord followed up the call in writing. It advised:
1. It needed to see screen shots of the text messages, associated police reference numbers and any specific contact details she had for police officers leading on the case.
2. She could approach the local authority for temporary accommodation if she felt this was appropriate. In the meantime, she should contact the police if she suspected any breach of bail conditions. She should also record any further incidents on diary sheets.
3. In the meantime, it would investigate the case and liaise with other agencies.
The landlord attempted to contact the neighbour by phone on 17 December 2020 but was unsuccessful.
The resident chased the landlord several times for an update between December 2020 and January 2021, and advised there had been further incidents. On Christmas Day, the neighbour approached her property and she had to call the police. They attended he was questioned under caution for breaching his bail conditions. On 4 January 2021 he had approached her door again and rung the bell. Video footage had been provided to the police.
On 29 January 2021 the resident told the landlord that her neighbour had broken into a neighbouring flat in the early hours of the morning, and had been arrested. The landlord informed the resident that a warning letter had been sent to her neighbour and a police disclosure had been requested. It said it would review the evidence from the police before considering legal action. In the meantime, the resident should continue to log incidents and call the police as appropriate.
The police made contact with the landlord on 30 January 2021 they said there had been “multiple occasions” where the neighbour had caused issues with other residents. He had been arrested multiple times and charged with offences. Residents in the locality had provided video footage and were fearful for their safety. They wanted to know what actions the landlord was taking. The police chased the landlord again on 4 February 2021.
On 5 February 2021 the landlord requested full disclosure from the police. The following day the police said they had tried to make contact with the landlord without success. They provided it with a reference number, details of the leading officer, and a witness statement from another resident.
The landlord responded to the police on 9 February 2021 and queried the level of risk on the case. It said if there was evidence to show the neighbour had breached his tenancy, then it would take “escalation actions”. The police replied and said the landlord could obtain all the evidence it needed from the resident.
Between 11 and 16 February 2021 the resident notified the landlord of 3 further incidents where her neighbour had breached his bail conditions. She said her neighbour was continuing to harass her and “something needed to be done”. She detailed a particularly concerning incident on 13 February:
1. She had seen a female neighbour outside the property. They got talking, and described she was experiencing the same issues. They agreed to walk to their flats together for safety reasons
2. When they approached the first floor, they saw the neighbour stood outside the resident’s front door. He pushed past the 2 of them, and entered his flat. The police were called and when they attended they found he had a pocket full of condoms
3. The neighbour was posing a risk to her and other women in the block. Private residents had started complaining and collectively they felt he was a “danger to the community”. The landlord was providing no support and she was in contact with her local MP and the Ombudsman.
The landlord called the resident on 22 February 2021. It advised her that it was awaiting police disclosure and in the meantime she should refrain from communicating with the neighbour, and call 999 as appropriate. It said it had 2 other ASB cases about the incident but they lacked substantial evidence. The landlord said it would send the neighbour a pre-legal action warning letter, advising him of its intention to refer the matter to court for an injunction and possession.
The same day, social services confirmed to the landlord that the neighbour was not known to them. They provided it with a referral form.
The landlord referred the matter to its legal team on 23 February 2021 for consideration for an injunction. The solicitor responded the same day and said a number of key documents were missing from the information it had sent which hindered its ability to comment on the case. This included video evidence, statements, a copy of the tenancy agreement and warning letters. They said it had concerns about the pre-legal action warning letter it had sent the neighbour.
On 12 March 2021 a further incident took place where the neighbour kicked and damaged the communal entry door. The resident was away from the property at the time, and asked the landlord what actions it was taking. It advised the case had been referred to its legal team.
The same day, the landlord told the solicitor that it had chased the police disclosure that morning, but a statement from the resident was “not available”. It advised it wanted the solicitor to obtain an injunction with a power of arrest.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord told the resident that in order to draft the legal paperwork, it needed a chronology of events in a word format. The resident provided the landlord with information it had requested 2 days later.
The resident reported 3 further incidents to the landlord which took place between 23 and 27 March 2021. She said the neighbour had caused criminal damage and breached his bail conditions. On one occasion he tried to access the key safe used by carers for an elderly neighbour who had dementia. He had encouraged her to leave her property, and she wasn’t found until the following evening. The resident said that there were issues on a “daily basis” and she had only “kept it together” for the sake of her mother, whom she was supporting following the sudden death of her brother.
On 15 April 2021 the neighbour pleaded guilty and was convicted of harassment. He was sentenced to prison for 6 weeks, suspended for 12 months. The reason for the conviction was noted as “so serious because of the nature of his offence. Persistent harassment causing significant harm and distress to the victim”. The neighbour was placed under curfew with electronic monitoring for a period of 8 weeks. In addition, he was given a restraining order until 14 April 2023, with conditions not to contact the resident directly or indirectly.
On 21 May 2021 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said the officer for her ASB case had taken “literally no action” despite 19 incidents where the neighbour had breached bail conditions. A restraining order had been put in place by the police until 2023. She wanted the neighbour evicting and asked if the landlord was “waiting for [her] to be killed or die from stress”. She was struggling with her mental wellbeing and trying to grieve her brother at the same time.
On 23 May 2021 the landlord’s officer dealing with the ASB case contacted the resident about her complaint. She said she had referred the case to its legal team in February and since then the situation was “out of [her] control”.
The resident made another complaint to her landlord on 17 June 2021. She said that:
1. It was the second complaint she was making to the landlord. The first had been responded to by the person she was complaining about, who simply replied “I’ve received your complaint” but took no further action.
2. She wanted to be contacted by a manager and a review undertaken of how her ASB case had been managed. She warned she wanted this done before she ended up being “removed from this property in a body bag”.
On 29 June 2021 the landlord was successful in obtaining an interim injunction with a power of arrest attached. A return date had been scheduled on 9 July 2021. The injunction forbid the neighbour to:
1. Threaten or use violence to intimidate any person in the locality of the property
2. Cause nuisance annoyance or distress to any person in the locality of the property
3. Damage or threaten to damage property.
On 30 June 2021 the landlord noted that it spoke to the resident about her concerns:
1. The resident said she had received sporadic updates from the person managing the ASB case, and felt it was not being taken seriously. Her neighbour had breached his restraining order and the police were looking for him. She was scared to leave her property and pass his door to go out
2. It explored with the resident whether she wished to move and she declined, as she liked her property. It informed the resident that the case had been referred for an injunction and it would request an exclusion term. Once it had been obtained, it would review further legal action.
On 6 July 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the neighbour had breached his restraining order by banging on her door and shouting. He had been arrested.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord attended the county court for a return hearing in relation to the neighbour’s injunction, and requested an exclusion order be attached. The solicitor noted:
1. Service was deemed sufficient as the neighbour attended the hearing. However he attended alone and did not seem to understand what was going on. The neighbour had said:
  1. He thought he was a carer for a resident in the building and didn’t realise that his services were no longer required
  2. He needed help and for someone to speak on his behalf. He suffered from illnesses which required hospital treatment
  3. His property was in disrepair and he needed assistance. He objected to the exclusion order and wanted the opportunity to defend himself
  4. He agreed for the landlord to contact social services on his behalf
2. The injunction order remained in place. An exclusion was not agreed by the judge as part of the order.
3. A witness statement needed to be provided by the neighbour by 6 August 2021. A final hearing would take place after 20 August 2021.
Between 21 July 2021 to 7 September 2021 the resident noted 10 incidents of the neighbour blocking the communal entrance, smoking cannabis and causing nuisance.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman, her MP and the landlord on 13 August 2021. She said:
1. The landlord was not taking her seriously. Since her neighbour was arrested in November 2020, it had taken no action. The police had attended numerous times but had always bailed the neighbour back to the property.
2. In March 2021 he was found guilty of breach of bail and on 15 April 2021 he was given a 6 week prison sentence, a restraining order and a tag. The order said he was not to contact the resident directly or indirectly but he continued to harass her, and on 15 June 2021 he was arrested again. The new criminal hearing was to be held in October 2021.
3. On a daily basis she woke up to the smell of cannabis and the neighbour was causing a noise disturbance for others. There had been an incident where he climbed onto the balcony of a neighbouring resident who was bed bound at the time, so he was directly under her bedroom window.
4. The landlord sought legal advice 3 months after the first incident, and she was told an injunction had been applied for, but it was never shared. She did not feel safe in her home.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord requested a copy of the injunction order from its solicitors and forwarded communication from the resident relating to a possible breach. Around the same time, a manager notified the ASB case officer a RAM needed to be completed for the resident.
On 19 August 2021 the landlord emailed specific police officers a copy of the injunction. The email said “it would like to serve the attached order on the neighbour”, but gave no further detail.
The resident informed the landlord on 8 September 2021 that the situation was “very much still ongoing”. She had been unable to enter her property due to intimidation from members of the neighbour’s family. She had also witnessed an altercation involving the neighbouring private residents. The landlord responded a week later and said it had forwarded her concerns to its solicitor.
The solicitor responded to the landlord and said that the courts had confirmed a return hearing for the injunction had took place on 31 August 2021. The court had not issued a notice of hearing, so no one was aware it had taken place. An order was made for the injunction to remain, but a request for an exclusion was rejected. They asked for the landlord to consider what further steps it wanted to take.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord apologised for not responding to the resident further about her complaint. It asked if it could discuss the issues again during a telephone conversation. The resident responded and said that due to her experience, she wanted the landlord to correspond with her in writing. The same day, the solicitor chased the landlord for an update as to whether it wished to take further action.
The landlord updated the resident of the injunction on 8 October 2021. It advised her if there were further incidents she needed to report them to the police to take action. The resident responded and said:
1. The police had no record of the injunction, as far as she was aware the landlord had only emailed a copy to “random police officers”. She wanted to know what was being done to inform other residents that the order was in place.
2. The police had told her the only order it had on its system was the restraining order they had obtained as part of the criminal case. It was not her responsibility to do the landlord’s job and inform the right people that an injunction was in place.
The landlord asked the resident to provide details of the local police sergeant to investigate her concerns they did not have a copy of the injunction. Around the same time, the solicitor told the landlord that it would advocate that it made others in the same building aware of the injunction. If it was obvious certain other neighbours in the same street were affected, it could make them aware also.
On 10 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and summarised the conversation it had with her on 30 June 2021. It advised her of the outcome of the court hearing on 9 July 2021. It said that:
1. The handling of her case had been discussed at length with staff involved and they were aware of the importance of progressing the case in a timely manner
2. It could see there had been further incidents and it was in the process of “devising a notice of seeking possession (NOSP)” to be served on her neighbour
3. It wanted to discuss over the phone any further concerns she had and how it could compensate her for its failings.
The resident responded to the landlord and reiterated she wanted communication to be in writing. She advised that there were a number of discrepancies in its response which were not a true reflection of the conversation that took place in June. In addition, she said:
1. She was unwilling to accept the case had been progressed in a timely manner as it took the landlord over a month to update her of the outcome of the injunction hearing.
2. It failed to update her, the police or other residents who had witnessed the behaviour that an injunction was in place and the need to contact the police.
3. A NOSP should have been served months ago, when she advised that her neighbour had been convicted of harassment. No explanation had been given for the delay.
4. The fact that it had taken the landlord 3 months to get back to her and ”dismissed it as a delay spoke volumes”. She was “disgusted” with how she had been dealt with “at a time when we are seeing more women attacked and killed”. The situation was making her unwell and she reiterated the landlord should correspond with her in writing.
On 12 October 2021 the solicitor said the landlord had still not sent them a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. It was provided the following day, and a NOSP was sent to the neighbour on grounds 12 and 14. The accompanying letter noted:
1. There had been 42 reported incidents of harassment, breach of bail conditions and criminal damage from 31 August 2020 to 8 September 2021
2. The neighbour had 2 weeks to respond as to whether he had any special circumstances he wanted to be taken into account.
Around the 16 October 2021 the landlord offered to visit the resident and the neighbour at the same time. It said it had been delayed in visiting her because of Covid 19 restrictions. The resident responded and said, as it had been almost a year since she was assaulted, she could not see how a joint visit would not be beneficial. She wanted future communication to be in writing.
The landlord emailed specific police officers on 19 October 2021 to ask whether the injunction order had been recorded on its systems. One officer responded and advised that they were no longer involved in the case and asked the landlord to refrain from sending them email updates.
On the 6 December 2021, the landlord told the resident it was “aware that [she] had asked it to stop contacting [her]”, but wanted to know if there had been any further incidents. The resident responded the same day, she said:
1. At no time had she told it to stop contacting her, all she had asked was their communication was to be kept in writing.
2. The neighbour had continued to cause a disturbance, he was banging around and smoking in the communal areas. On 29 November 2021 he kicked open the communal door, despite having a key to get in. The police were called.
3. He had started putting nails around the tyres of her car. The same nails could be seen littered in the communal areas. Her neighbour was opening his front door and staring at her whenever she left the property.
4. The communal light had been reported months ago but not fixed. “Are you just waiting for me to be killed by [the neighbour], or perhaps you are waiting for him to burn the block down?”. She wanted to know if the injunction had been served correctly, and if it had been shared with neighbours. She wanted to know if legal action had commenced.
The landlord contacted a colleague about the communal light not working, and asked if it could arrange for a priority repair because there were ASB issues. The colleague responded and said “couldn’t the tenant chase this up? The resident needs to raise the issue again as a new job, and provide access”.
On 13 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said that:
1. It apologised for its failure to respond to the complaint within the appropriate timeframe.
2. It had reviewed the case in full and found there were significant delays in progressing her ASB case. It could see that the case had not been progressed in line with its ASB policy, however its records show that a copy of the injunction was shared with the resident and the police by email on 17 August 2021. It could not comment why the police had informed the resident they were not aware of it.
3. The injunction had been breached on several occasions and a NOSP had been served on her neighbour. Its solicitors had started to issue proceedings for possession.
4. It was sorry about the impact the situation had on her wellbeing. It wanted to offer £600 in compensation, broken down as:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience in the handling of the ASB case
  2. £100 for the service failure in handling the complaint.
5. It was taking her case seriously and it would continue to work with its solicitors to reach a conclusion. A member of staff would continue to liaise with the resident to provide further updates on progress.
6. If the resident was dissatisfied she could escalate the matter to stage 2 of its process, or contact the Ombudsman.
On 25 January 2022, the resident forwarded the landlord an email that she had received from the police. The police had notified her that:
1. Following receipt of medical reports, the neighbour was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial for breach of the restraining order
2. As a result, the courts conducted what was known as an “actus reus” hearing (a trial of the facts). The court found the facts proven, but this gave them limited disposal options. Having received further medical reports, the court decided that the only option was “no order”.
The landlord shared the outcome of the criminal investigation with its solicitor around a month later. The solicitor said that it could not take further action until the landlord had:
1. Provided it with further information. This included whether the neighbour had made any statements in response to the serving of the NOSP.
2. Considered all circumstances relating to the neighbour’s capacity. They wanted to know if the neighbour had someone appointed to make decisions on his behalf.
3. Provided copies of psychiatric assessments, medical evidence and support from social services.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 March 2022 and said that she wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2. She said that:
1. The landlord was failing to provide adequate updates or act in a timely manner. She felt the neighbour had breached his tenancy agreement and the landlord was able to take action on mandatory grounds. It had not done so, and he continued to cause a nuisance. He had thrown a bottle of urine onto the communal corridor, was smoking cannabis and had caused damage to the communal door.
2. She wanted to know what action had been taken since the service of the NOSP. The situation had a detrimental effect on her physical and mental health. Her diabetes had worsened through stress, and the medication she was on was impacting her ability to conceive. She had been unable to get a full night’s sleep due to the noise and smell of cannabis which emanated into her property. It had also impacted her ability to work.
3. As a resolution, she wanted a new case handler who could provide timely updates, the neighbour removed and further consideration as to its offer of compensation.
In investigating the complaint escalation request, a manager asked the case officer what they had been done to update the resident. They advised they had not had the opportunity to contact the resident, but as she had not been in further contact, assumed that there was nothing further she wanted to report.
On 25 May 2022 the resident contacted her local MP and the landlord. She stated it had been over 2 months and she had not received any acknowledgement or response to her complaint escalation request. She said that whilst the landlord was successful in obtaining an injunction, her neighbour had breached it several times and was continuing to cause a nuisance. She said:
1. Her neighbour had been urinating in the communal area and caused criminal damage. He was burning items, smoking cannabis, and banging excessively in the early hours of the morning. He continued to frequent the first floor, where her property was located. This was a breach of his bail conditions.
2. On 8 April 2022 she went to place her bins outside and her neighbour tried to approach her. When she ignored him he closed the communal door on her, so she was left outside in her dressing gown until another neighbour came home. Later that night, the landlord had the “audacity” to contact her to ask for assistance to let her neighbour in as he had called them to say he was locked out of the block.
3. The mental health team had attended her neighbour’s property several times, and when they could not gain access, they would knock on her door. It was quite clear that her neighbour suffered from mental health issues, but it was not clear what the landlord had done to liaise with the mental health team themselves.
4. She was mentally and physically exhausted. She had to let her employers know that she was struggling. She could not understand why her landlord had not shown any concern for her wellbeing, and left her waiting months for a response.
The following day, the landlord noted that it needed to contact social services to see if the neighbour lacked capacity.
The landlord’s complaint officer had difficulty obtaining an update from colleagues in order to respond to the resident. They noted on 21 June 2022 “I’m unable to get any information for this case, despite chasing multiple times over the last 3 weeks” and asked when the resident was last provided an update. The landlord responded by saying “I can’t give you an exact date, but it’s been a while”.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process. It said that:
1. It had arranged for another member of staff to take over the handling of the existing ASB case. They would be in contact to ensure she was aware of developments.
2. The landlord was working with relevant agencies to address the concerns she had raised and legal action would be considered. For confidentiality reasons, it could not disclose further details. It asked she continue to provide a log of incidents to the landlord and the police as necessary. Any evidence would be considered should the matter proceed to further court action.
3. It was clear the level of service was not reflective of the high standards it wanted to provide. It recognised her concerns could have been managed more effectively, and delays had occurred “due to a backlog”. It wanted to award further compensation of:
  1. £100 for the delays in complaint handling
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced in the handling of the ASB case
  3. Taking into consideration the offer in its stage 1 response, a total of £950
4. It included details of third party support organisations and advised if she remained dissatisfied with its response, to contact the Ombudsman.
On 29 June 2022 the resident informed the landlord she was dissatisfied with its complaint response. She said that:
1. At 4.10am on 26 May 2022 the neighbour tried to enter her property “by force”. The police were called and he was arrested for breaching his restraining order. They were unable to locate the injunction the landlord said it had put in place.
2. The resident was bailed with the condition not to return back to the property. The case was heard in court on 15 June 2022, but she was unable to attend so was awaiting the outcome. She provided the landlord with a reference number.
3. Whilst she appreciated there were some elements of the case the landlord could not disclose for confidentiality reasons, the neighbour still resided at the property. She wanted to know when the new case officer would be contacting her.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 September 2022 to advise she had not received a response to her contact in June. The new officer dealing with her ASB case had contacted her once, advising her he had tried to call her but she had no missed calls. He made assurances he would provide a full update by 23 September 2022, but she had not heard from him since. She said “each time I am provided with an action plan there is no follow through”. She felt “beyond frustrated and confused” as to why she had to keep complaining to the landlord.
The landlord contacted the resident the same day and said it was sorry to hear the ASB was ongoing. It was in contact with the local authority and “had put an action plan together”. It said it would contact her on a weekly basis.
On the 9 November 2022 the landlord sent the resident another stage 1 response. It said that:
1. It was upholding her complaint that she had experienced ASB for a significant amount of time. It had requested a capacity assessment before it could obtain possession of her neighbour’s home
2. It would contact her weekly as part of her ASB case but would close her complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord and advised there must be some confusion on its part, and the situation was far from resolved. She stated:
1. The only action the landlord had put in place was an injunction the police were unable to use. She had been told that the landlord was starting possession proceedings by her previous case officer, now it was saying it needed to do a capacity assessment.
2. The police had been able to establish the outcome of the capacity assessment already. If the landlord had sought appropriate disclosure, it would be aware that her neighbour was staying in a mental health facility.
3. The landlord’s contact had been poor. She hadn’t received weekly contact as it had promised, and it had made attempts to contact her by phone when she had stated several times she wanted it to communicate in writing. She had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and had referred the matter to the Ombudsman.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord asked the solicitor where it was with the ASB case. The solicitor said that it had contacted the landlord in October 2021 to ask what its intentions were following the service of the NOSP, but had heard nothing further. As a result, it had expired. There was an injunction order in place, but the expiry date had been omitted from the paperwork. If challenged in court they suspected a judge would consider it had expired also. If it wanted to apply for a new NOSP it would need a chronology of events from October 2021 from the landlord. Internal correspondence shows the landlord wrote “don’t we ask for advice from solicitors…sigh”.
The landlord contacted the resident and asked her for the chronology of events. On 20 February 2023 the solicitor arranged a conference call with the landlord to discuss the case. Records show that the solicitor attended the meeting, waited 10 minutes for the landlord to attend, but it did not show.
In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. In its last correspondence to her on 15 May 2023, the landlord said it was waiting for information from social services and its legal team. She had not heard anything further, and did not know whether the ASB case remained open.
2. The neighbour had not been in the property for several months. The police had informed her that he had been sectioned and released to a supported housing facility, but they were under the impression he would have the ability to return to his property. A restraining order remained in place and the neighbour is awaiting charges relating to a time he kicked the communal door.
3. The landlord had been totally unsupportive. Since November 2020 she has feared for her safety, and had to install her own camera because the landlord offered her no extra security. The landlord did not approve of the camera, but it had helped her provide significant evidence to the police.
4. The landlord had never met with her to ask for a witness statement. It made one offer of a joint visit in October 2021 which was a year after her first report. It had made a series of errors, including serving the injunction paperwork incorrectly, and had not worked in partnership with the police. Several other residents had been affected by the behaviour and to her knowledge, their experience of the landlord had been the same.
On 25 August 2023 the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had been in communication with the resident, the local authority and the police. It was waiting for further information from social services before serving a NOSP. The neighbour remains in temporary accommodation whilst the local authority establishes whether there is a duty to permanently rehouse him.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord was obliged to prioritise and effectively investigate reports of harassment and stalking, in accordance with its ASB policy. Records show that when the resident first reported the issue to the landlord on 30 November 2020, it acted promptly by speaking with the resident on the same day. However, contrary to its ASB policy and best practice, it did not seek to complete a RAM to consider vulnerabilities and risks posed to the resident at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a structured action plan, but it did follow up in writing on the same day what actions it proposed to take. It included assurances that it would investigate the matter with partner agencies. Key to the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is a multi-agency approach between landlords, local authorities and the police. The timely sharing of information and a victim-centred approach is essential to identify risk and take action within an appropriate time frame. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord took ownership of the resident’s concerns and it was not proactive in contacting the police or other agencies in a timely manner.
Whilst it is accepted that some of the enforcement action against the neighbour required significant action from the police, the landlord failed to recognise the gravity of the resident’s situation and identify that there were crucial steps it could take to promptly investigate the matter itself. It failed to make arrangements to visit the resident promptly to obtain a witness statement. It put the onus on the resident to provide it with details of the police reports several times, but made little attempt to work in collaboration with the police themselves.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it is proactive in developing partnership working arrangements with other agencies. However, records show that it was not until 5 February 2021, 47 working days after the resident first reported she was being harassed by her neighbour, that the landlord sought formal police disclosure. When it did, evidence shows that it experienced difficulties getting the information promptly as it was unsure of the process and who to approach. The delay was inappropriate, particularly given the nature of the harassment, and that the resident had informed it on several occasions that the neighbour’s behaviour was escalating.
No evidence was seen that the landlord offered to visit the resident until 16 October 2021, almost a year after her first report of harassment. It advised that the reason for the delay was because of Covid restrictions. This was not a satisfactory explanation. Most legal limits on social contact had been removed in England within this time, and the landlord had failed to consider other actions it could have taken using the Ombudsman’s guidance on best practice during the pandemic. The resident lived in close proximity to the neighbour who was harassing her. The layout of the property meant she was unable to access her home without passing her neighbour’s front door. Failure to meet with the resident at an earlier opportunity contributed to her mistrust in the landlord’s ability to manage the situation, and increased her feelings of being unsafe.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to keep a diary record of the instances she was being harassed, without taking steps to offer her any additional security. It failed to recognise the severity of the situation, which caused her significant distress. It was not proactive and did not take ownership of her concerns that the communal internal light had been broken for some time. When she asked it “Are you just waiting for me to be killed by [the neighbour], or perhaps you are waiting for him to burn the block down?”. The landlord did not respond. It failed to empathise her situation and this is evident from its correspondence dated 16 December 2021 in which it stated, “couldn’t the resident chase [the broken light] up [herself]?”.
As a result the resident sought to implement her own security measures, and fitted her own video doorbell. Internal correspondence shows that the landlord disproved of the installation of the camera, but took no steps to review security in the building itself or consider what else it could do to assist. This was inappropriate, and there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about being a vulnerable female, particularly following the incident on 13 February 2021.
The landlord was slow to consult with its legal team. There is no evidence that the landlord spoke to its solicitors promptly to consider what actions it could take. It was not until 23 February 2021, 59 working days after the neighbour was arrested, that it sought advice about applying for an injunction. The delay was inappropriate and was prolonged due to the landlord not providing the appropriate evidence. The landlord appeared confused as to what information it required to take legal action, including the provision of key documents. For example, evidence shows that the solicitor had to chase the landlord on several occasions for a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement.
Once the landlord had instructed solicitors, it passed the onus of the progression of the ASB case with them and failed to take ownership to maintain regular contact with the resident. This is evident in the landlord’s response on 23 May 2021 in which it said the situation was with its legal team and therefore “out of its control”. This response was inappropriate. There were a number of key actions outstanding for the landlord, including speaking to other neighbours and obtaining a comprehensive witness statement from the resident. Contrary to the landlord’s claim that a witness statement was “not available”, no evidence was seen that it sought to obtain full details from the resident, in line with the police recommendation on 9 February 2021.
From evidence seen and contrary to its ASB policy, the landlord has not shown that it has robust relationships in place with the police and this has had a considerable impact on its handling of the case. For example, after it emailed a number of police officers a copy of the injunction, it received a response from an individual who said they were no longer involved in the case. It was unreasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to provide it with further details for particular police officers, and there is no evidence that it considered referring the matter to its local community safety partnership or multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC).
The resident reported multiple incidents to the landlord and included details of 19 times that her neighbour had breached his bail conditions. The landlord did not take prompt action to investigate her concerns. It failed to respond to the resident on several occasions and when it did, it failed to effectively review the case and provide the resident with an accurate update. For example, on 30 June 2021 it informed her that it had referred the matter to court for an injunction. However, the court hearing had already taken place the day before. It also informed the resident that it had sought police disclosure on 29 January 2021, but evidence shows it had not yet done so.
The lack of clarity of what actions it was taking caused the resident evident frustration, to the extent that she had to insist that it corresponded with her in writing. Despite the resident making this request clear on several occasions, the landlord wrongly assumed that this meant she wanted no communication at all. Its response on 6 December 2021 was inappropriate and failed to consider that its relationship with the resident was strained, and there was more it could do to support her.
It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord failed to appropriately serve the injunction. Records show that it emailed individual police officers stating it wanted to “serve the order on the neighbour”, at least 42 days after the hearing that took place on 9 July 2021. The situation was serious, and with evidence of further breaches it was pertinent that the landlord was certain that all parties and particularly the police, were aware of the terms of the injunction because it had a power of arrest attached. However it failed to do this, and it was not until 19 October 2021, approximately 103 days later that it sought to check whether the police had saved a copy to its systems.
When the neighbour was convicted on 15 April 2021, it was for a serious offence which could have been considered by the landlord for legal action under ground 7a of the Housing Act 1988. By continually breaching his bail conditions, the neighbour had also breached a provision of an injunction under section 1 of the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. There is no evidence that the landlord met with solicitors to discuss fully what evidence it had and on what basis it wished to continue with legal action. When a NOSP was served on 13 October 2021 approximately 6 months later, it was served under discretionary grounds 11 and 12. The service of the NOSP was never followed up by the landlord as is clear in the solicitors’ correspondence dated 30 January 2023.
The landlord failed to consider the risk to both parties on several occasions, including when it was in receipt of new evidence on the case. There is no evidence that the landlord acted promptly to the resident’s concerns that she was struggling to “keep it together” and that her feelings were intensified following the death of her brother. The landlord failed to recognise the risk to the resident or offer her any form of support, demonstrating a lack of empathy to her situation. It is not until the stage 2 response on 24 June 2022 that it signposted her to third party support organisations.
There were failures in the case management of the ASB case. Records demonstrate that there were at least 6 manager reviews which took place between 23 August 2021 to 24 June 2022. The reviews failed to identify that there had been a significant lack of appropriate action and engagement with the resident on the case. For example, there is no evidence that the RAM a manager requested on 17 August 2021 was ever completed, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord does not have robust ASB case management procedures in place, based on this case.
The delays in engaging with the resident and the neighbour were unreasonable. For example, the landlord has not shown that it attempted to contact the neighbour to discuss the resident’s first reports of harassment until 17 December 2021, 14 working days later. When it was unsuccessful at telephone contact, a warning letter was not sent for a further 29 working days. It is unclear what the future holds for his tenancy, and there is no evidence that it has consulted its legal team or updated the resident further since 15 May 2023.
The landlord has acknowledged it had failed to adhere to its ASB policy. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider a discretionary payment where it has failed to follow procedures or guidelines, and as a result there has been a negative impact on the resident. It’s offer of £750 did not go far enough to recognise there had been a significant duration of unavoidable distress and a serious impact on the resident. Further, it made assurances in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that it would be in regular contact with the resident, but evidence shows that it failed to do this. As a result the detriment to the resident remains and she is confused as to whether she has an ASB case open or not.
Overall, there were serious failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB which amount to severe maladministration. It did not adhere to its ASB policy and failed to adopt a victim-centred approach. It was slow to act on serious allegations of harassment and there is no evidence that it considered the risk posed to either party at the earliest opportunity. The landlord’s responses lacked empathy with the resident’s situation and failed to appropriately engage with partner agencies and its own legal team. Its communication with the resident after the stage 2 remained poor and demonstrated that it had not learnt from previous outcomes.
In considering compensation in this case, it is important to note that the Ombudsman does not award payment for damages in the way a court might. However, it is recognised that the resident was likely to have been feeling anxious and upset during the period of time the harassment was ongoing. Her concerns about her safety were valid and she suffered distress on a regular basis where she felt the landlord was not taking her reports seriously. Had the landlord been more proactive in its approach, identified the risks and engaged with appropriate agencies at an earlier date, the impact on the resident could have been reduced.
Therefore to remedy the cumulative failures highlighted in this report, compensation has been considered alongside the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, taking into consideration that the landlord failed to fully recognise the severity of the situation and the impact on the resident’s wellbeing. It has also raised expectations within its complaint responses and made assurances of regular contact which it has not followed though. Compensation has therefore been ordered as follows:
1. £75 for every month for a period of 33 months, which covers the history of the landlord’s involvement in this case from November 2020 to August 2023
2. The amount totalling £2,475 to be paid directly to the resident, minus the £750 it had previously offered if not already paid.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is evident that the resident made several expressions of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her ASB case since her first report in November 2020. When receiving a complaint about ASB, it is important that the landlord distinguish whether the resident is complaining about the ASB itself, or the handling of the landlord’s ASB case. The danger of not recognising the difference can lead to delays in the matter being formally investigated in line with its complaint policy, as was seen in the handling of this case.
It is clear that there were missed opportunities for it to investigate the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint at an earlier opportunity. The resident’s email of 16 February 2021 was a clear expression of dissatisfaction. The resident had said “something needed to be done” and she would be contacting her local MP and the Ombudsman. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint, supporting the resident’s reports that she was experiencing considerable difficulty in raising and escalating complaints.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that complaints must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient reliable information from both parties so that fair findings can be made. When the resident complained about a particular ASB case officer on 21 May 2021, it was not appropriate for the same officer to respond to her complaint. The response did not form part of a formal stage 1 response, and therefore obstructed the resident’s access to the formal complaints procedure.
As a result, she had to make a “second complaint” on 17 June 2021. No evidence was seen that the landlord responded promptly to her concerns. The resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions and seek the support of her local MP and the Ombudsman to progress the complaint. The Ombudsman had to intervene and prompt the landlord for a response on 16 September 2021 and again on 6 December 2021.
The landlord did not send the stage 1 response until 13 December 2021, at least 210 working days after the resident first said she wanted to make a complaint. The delay was inappropriate and significantly outside of the timeframe expected in the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay for a “number of factors” and assured the resident that it had reviewed the case in full. In doing so, it accepted it had not progressed the ASB case in accordance with its policy and the complaint was upheld.
The stage 1 response was an opportunity for the landlord to identify what went wrong and put matters right. It offered the resident £100 for the delay and made assurances that it was taking her case “extremely seriously”. However, it provided the resident with no indication as to when she could expect it to next be in contact, only that she would be provided with updates. It failed to acknowledge that there were outstanding actions it needed to take, including conducting a RAM and agreeing an action plan with the resident.
As a result, the resident requested that the matter be escalated to stage 2 of its process on 9 March 2022. She made it clear that the landlord was not providing her with the updates it had agreed, and she was unclear of the action it was taking. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident and the Ombudsman had to intervene again on 25 May 2022. This did not demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes since its stage 1 response, and it had repeated the same mistakes in terms of lack of contact with the resident.
Records show that the complaint’s officer had significant difficulties obtaining updates from colleagues in order to respond to the resident. It was unreasonable that the officer had to chase colleagues on several occasions with no response. A stage 2 response followed on 24 June 2022, 73 working days later after the resident had requested an escalation of her complaint. The additional delay was unreasonable and would have contributed to the resident’s distress.
The landlord offered a further £100 for the time and trouble in responding to the resident’s request for an escalation of her case. It made assurances that a new officer would be in regular contact, but failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failures and did little to provide the resident with appropriate ongoing support, other than to signpost her to third party organisations. Its stage 2 response also gave contradictory information to the stage 1 response in relation to the service of the NOSP.
It is unclear why the landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 9 November 2022, and it was already aware that the resident was dissatisfied with the actions of the landlord. It acknowledged again that it had not kept her regularly informed of process and that she could expect weekly contact. It continued not to follow up on its assurances, causing the resident evident frustration.
The Code makes it clear that any remedy a landlord offers as part of its complaint responses are reflective of the extent of the service failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. Any assurances it gives must appropriately manage the expectation of residents. In this case, the landlord failed to follow up on assurances made that the new officer would be in regular contact.
Overall, there was severe maladministration of the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to identify that the resident was dissatisfied with the handling of her ASB case at an early opportunity and the Ombudsman had to intervene on several occasions to progress the complaint. It’s level of compensation did not go far enough to put matters right and made assurances that it would be in regular contact about her ASB case but it continually failed to do this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adopt a victim-centred approach and respond promptly to serious allegations of harassment. It failed to regularly communicate with the resident to support her, and there is no evidence that it liaised closely with partner agencies. The landlord failed to support the resident with appropriate safety measures and it did not take ownership of the case once it had consulted with solicitors. It has not communicated with the resident for approximately 3 months and she remains unclear as to whether or not the ASB case remains open.
The landlord failed to put matters right for the resident and did not learn from outcomes. It repeatedly made the same mistakes in terms of its delayed communication with the resident, and the Ombudsman had to intervene on several occasions. There is no evidence that it followed up on assurances or maintained weekly contact as referenced in its most recent complaint correspondence dated 9 November 2022.

Orders

The landlord’s chief executive to apologise to the resident in person for the failures noted in the handling of this case, within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay directly to the resident a total of £3,550 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £950 that it offered on 22 June 2022 as part of its stage 2 response, if not already paid.
2. £2,475 for the distress an inconvenience caused in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. £125 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to reassign the ASB case to a senior ASB leader/manager to be a single point of contact for the resident, within 4 weeks. The new case manager should:
1. Arrange for a multi-agency meeting to take place involving various stakeholders to ensure all parties are aware of the case and what actions need to be taken
2. Obtain up to date legal advice from its solicitors following the outcome of the above meeting
3. Confirm what actions it will put in place to support the resident.
The landlord carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices, within 6 weeks. The review must include:
1. A full review of its training to staff on its ASB policy and procedure, with particular focus on the use of the RAM and action plans.
2. A full review of its training and information available to staff specifically around high priority ASB including harassment and stalking, to ensure that staff are confident in dealing with reports of a similar nature in the future.
3. A review of its management oversight on ASB cases, with particular focus on recording actions, outcomes and case closure decisions.
4. A review of its collaboration with partner agencies when dealing with high priority cases, with particular focus on its process for obtaining police disclosure.
5. A review of its process for referring cases for legal consideration, ensuring that staff have followed pre-action protocol correctly. A review of its training for staff around service of legal documents, for example, injunctions.
6. A review of its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required.
7. A programme for training its staff on complaint handling to include the principles noted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.