Peabody Trust (202202917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202917

Catalyst Housing Limited

17 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) as well as the formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and she resides in a three-bed flat.
3. The resident has raised multiple complaints to the landlord, over a period of several years, related to ASB. The resident stated that the ASB was taking place within the communal areas of her block, within the spaces outside the main entrance and an adjoining alleyway. This has included noise, litter, drug paraphernalia and unauthorised access to the property’s communal areas, including a lady who was seen topless on the landing. The resident has reported finding people sleeping on the landings and balcony and more generally, feeling intimidated by groups congregating on the stairwells. The resident attributes much of this behaviour to an upstairs neighbour, who she states has given out the building’s door codes on numerous occasions to facilitate the supply of illicit substances.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 11 April 2022 seeking a resolution to the ASB. The landlord’s response on 1 June 2022 did not uphold the complaint as it could not find any evidence of service failures. The landlord did acknowledge that its complaint response was delayed and offered £100 compensation.
5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 1 July 2022. She said that the landlord’s ASB team had not the property and had not been in regular contact. The landlord issued its stage two response on 30 August 2022. It stated it had undertaken visits, changed door codes and discussed the behaviour with the alleged perpetrator. It did not uphold the substantive complaint, but did offer a further £50 compensation for a second delay in its complaint response.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman seeking the actions that had previously been agreed in January 2022 to be completed, namely an upgrade to the door entry system, improved lighting and fencing of the adjoining alleyway.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. Whilst it is not disputed that this has been a longstanding issue, this Service will not usually consider matters over an extended period, prior to being raised as a formal complaint. For this reason, the scope of this investigation has been limited to examining evidence presented from January 2022 onwards.

Reports of antisocial behaviour

8. The landlord’s policy adopts the definition of ASB given in Part 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, namely behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance. The policy specifically excludes normal household noise, “lifestyle differences” and “minor disagreements between neighbours”. The policy divides ASB into three categories, each with different actions and response timescales, as follows:
   1. Personal – this includes racism, threats of violence, criminal damage and arson. The landlord commits to responding to these reports within one day, conducting a risk assessment and completing an action plan within 48 hours.
   2. Environmental – this includes fly tipping, ‘tagging’, waste accumulation, fouling and hoarding. For these reports, the landlord states that it will arrange (not conduct) a visit within five working days.
   3. Nuisance – this includes gangs, loitering, drug dealing and noise. The majority of this complaint relates to this category of ASB. The landlord commits to following up on these cases within five working days of receipt, unless they are deemed to be ‘high risk’. The policy also states that an action plan must be started within 48 hours for “some” nuisance ASB, but does not define this further. The policy highlights that any alleged criminal behaviour would be reported to the Community Safety Unit.
9. Within its policy, the landlord outlines a range of possible interventions it could utilise, including warning letters, acceptable behaviour agreements, mediation and ultimately tenancy warnings or eviction. It is also noted that the landlord could temporarily rehouse a complainant if this was felt to be in their best interest.
10. The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the Act’) sets out a range of powers that the local authority, police or courts can utilise in cases of antisocial behaviour, including injunctions, community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders, closure orders and public space protection orders. Whilst the landlord could not apply many of these options directly, it could, at any point have referred the matters for action or made an application to the court for these interventions.
11. Within the file, there is evidence of the landlord attending the property on several occasions to undertake a “walkabout”. This was sometimes completed with the police in attendance, as well as representatives from different departments of the landlord. The ‘walkabout’ conducted on 26 January 2022 highlighted several actions including follow-up meetings with the police, discussions with asset management regarding fencing of the alleyway, an upgrade to the communal door entry system and further walkabouts to assess the suitability of the current lighting.
12. There has been no evidence provided that these actions were completed beyond the landlord changing the door codes. There was limited evidence of the landlord considering fencing the alleyway, but this was not pursued due to a perceived issue with closing the public right of way. Nothing within the correspondence seen by this Service indicates that legal advice was taken on this.
13. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered mediation or applying for an injunction, closure order or community protection notice.
14. Overall, there is sufficient evidence for this Service to conclude that there has been persistent ASB taking place around the resident’s address for an extended period of time, which is still continuing at the time of this investigation. As the landlord has failed to complete its own previously-identified actions and has not taken action through other legal routes available, it has not taken all reasonable steps available to it to stop the ASB. Due to the ongoing impact this has on the resident this amounts to maladministration.
15. There was also evidence within the file that the landlord was under-resourced to be able to sufficiently manage the demand that its ASB service was receiving. In particular, the landlord noted in correspondence that it could not sufficiently review CCTV as it “[did] not have the man hours to do this”. This is reinforced in correspondence with the resident who stated that the ASB team no longer reviewed the building’s internal CCTV and had stated that this required a request from the police before it would do so.
16. This case was further compounded by insufficient internal communications, which led to complaint responses being delayed and a request from this Service being missed. Once identified, the landlord pushed for an urgent response to enable it to “put together a response letter to the resident […] and also get the Ombudsman off our back.” Whilst the compensation offered previous is a suitable remedy for the delays experienced by the resident, more widely this demonstrates a culture of both poor record keeping and accountability which the landlord will need to address going forward.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, I have determined that:
    1. The landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the ASB; and
    2. The landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

18. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident £1,300 compensation, as follows:
       1. £1,100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the antisocial behaviour and failing to complete the works it promised; and
       2. £200 for the time and trouble of pursuing this issue over an extended period.

This replaces all other awards of compensation offered by the landlord. The landlord can deduct compensation it has already paid.

2. arrange a full survey/inspection of the building and complete any outstanding upgrades required to reasonably prevent future ASB (see paragraphs 19 to 21 for more information)
3. conduct a full review of the ASB reports, including all reports, and evidence such as diary sheets, CCTV noise and police reports – and consider whether the landlord should utilise any of the options open to it under the Act.

The survey order

19. The purpose of the inspection/survey is to assess all previously identified actions at the property including:
    1. An assessment of lighting, including any additional lighting required.
    2. An assessment of upgrading the communal door, including the entry control system, to prevent unauthorised parties being able to enter the building.
    3. An assessment, including taking legal advice, of the viability of fencing (or otherwise enclosing) the alleyway adjoining the property, to prevent it being used as a congregation area or means for unauthorised persons to leave the building, when the police attend.
20. Once the survey is complete the landlord must share this with the resident and this Service within 5 working days of receipt.
21. The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure the actions are completed within the timescales set out in the report.

Recommendations

22. The landlord should:
    1. Take legal advice on the remedies available to it for resolving the ASB from the alleged perpetrator, such as injunctions or closure orders.
    2. Review its complaint handling processes to ensure that complaints are responded to in a timely way, in accordance with the landlord’s policies and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
    3. Review its record keeping practices, to ensure that correspondence related to complaints and substantive issues are actioned in a timely way.
    4. Review its staff training to ensure that all staff have a more positive and accountable approach to complaint handling and record keeping.