South Kesteven District Council (202111697)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111697

South Kesteven District Council

02 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. On 1 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that he had made complaints about different neighbours for holding all-night raves, playing loud music at all hours, taking drugs, and verbally abusing him. He questioned why the landlord had not done anything. Within the next few days, the landlord visited the resident, carried out house-to-house enquiries, and agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in the property.
4. Between August and October 2022, the resident reported further similar incidents from his neighbours. He also raised a formal complaint on 5 September 2022, stating that the landlord was not dealing with his complaints fairly. He said he had sent evidence of a neighbour shouting at him and suggested that the officer dealing with his case was lying about there being no evidence of this. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
5. On 13 and 14 October 2022 the resident raised further complaints. He said he had made clear formal complaints about his neighbours who he said had been threatening and verbally abusing him and again accused officers of lying about the lack of evidence. He stated that the Police had listened to his video evidence and confirmed that they could hear his neighbour. On 27 October 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it for a copy of its formal response to his complaint.
6. On 21 November 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, the response said it had reviewed the points the resident had made about harassment from his neighbours, and it had also reviewed the video footage he had shared with it, and that there was no case to answer.
7. The same day the resident contacted the Ombudsman and stated that he disagreed with the landlord’s stage one response. He said that both he and the Police could hear his neighbour screaming at him and that he was sure the officer dealing with his case was lying and that he wished to escalate the complaint. Subsequently, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 December 2022 and asked if it had escalated the resident’s complaint.
8. On 19 December 2022 the landlord issued its final response. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary, the response said:
   1. That the resident’s concerns about ongoing harassment and bullying from his neighbours had been investigated and there was no evidence to proceed with his case.
   2. It had engaged with the Police to support his concerns.
   3. If he felt concerned about his neighbour’s behaviour, he must also report it to the Police.
   4. It had spoken to his neighbours about noise issues and asked them to be mindful of their neighbours.
   5. That officers had undertaken their duties in line with process and policy.
   6. It was concerned about the frequency of his reporting which was often out of context or unfounded.
   7. It had confirmed in writing to him that he must not make malicious complaints and it urged him to accept the help and support available.
9. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said the landlord had treated him unfairly and it had lied about not being able to hear the audio on the videos he had sent it. He said that the landlord had now issued him with a final warning which he was worried would make him homeless. As a resolution he wanted compensation and the warning quashed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The Ombudsman notes that in the resident’s complaint to this service, he said he was unhappy with being issued with a final warning from the landlord. The email indicated that this had been issued after the landlord’s final response to his complaint. While this service understands that this would have been distressing for the resident, the Ombudsman is not assessing this part of his complaint as it has not been through the landlord’s complaint procedure. This is in line with 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states: ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure’.
11. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and its complaint handling in respect of this matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

12. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.  Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.  Put things right, and; 

c.  Learn from outcomes. 

13. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
14. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action, in line with its policies and procedures, however, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord does not have its own ASB policy. Comments have been made on this below.
15. In view of this, the Ombudsman has assessed the complaint on the action it would expect the landlord to take based on best practice, and what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. The landlord’s actions have also been considered in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement which states it will take appropriate action to deal with ASB or harassment.
16. The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its tenants within a reasonable timescale. Following the resident’s report in August 2022, the landlord acted fairly and reasonably by visiting the resident within two days of his report, carrying out house-to-house enquiries, and agreeing to install noise monitoring equipment in his property.
17. Further, the landlord’s records indicated that approximately a week later it wrote to all residents in the block where he lives.  The evidence suggested that the letter included advice to residents on how to report ASB. Overall, the landlord took appropriate action to investigate the resident’s concerns and obtain any supporting evidence.
18. On 1 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of its investigations. The letter stated that it had carried out sound monitoring of his property between 28 August 2022 to 1 September 2022 and that it had not found evidence of any noise nuisance. Its findings concluded that there was insufficient evidence and that no further action would be taken. The landlord acted fairly by investigating the resident’s concerns and providing him with a written outcome within a reasonable timescale.
19. Following this, the resident submitted video evidence to the landlord which he said showed his neighbour ‘viciously shouting’ at him and requested to be moved. The landlord responded and said that it had reviewed the footage and there was no evidence to confirm what the resident was saying. Moreover, the landlord’s records showed that the Police agreed with its conclusion. The landlord advised him to apply for a transfer and provided information to him on how to do this. The Ombudsman has reviewed this video footage and it is this service’s opinion that the landlord’s response to the footage was reasonable.
20. The landlord’s records showed that the resident submitted further video evidence of alleged harassment from a neighbour. The landlord said that the video quality was poor, and it was unable to hear what was being said or who was saying it and therefore it could not act on it. The Ombudsman has reviewed the video footage and while you can clearly hear the use of a swear word, it cannot be determined who said this or who it was directed at. In view of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to state that it would not be able to act on the footage provided. Overall, the landlord assessed and responded to the video evidence within a reasonable timescale and offered appropriate advice to the resident on moving.
21. Additionally, the landlord’s records indicated that it made further attempts to install noise equipment in the resident’s property to try and gather evidence, however, the resident declined this. Given the resident’s continued reports of noise nuisance, this was a fair and reasonable approach to take.
22. On 24 November 2022 the landlord closed the case and informed the resident that it was unable to proceed due to a lack of evidence. Having investigated his concerns and assessed the evidence available it, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case. Further, the landlord acted appropriately by confirming this in writing to the resident. It also sought to manage the resident’s expectations appropriately by explaining that it may need to install noise equipment to evidence any further noise complaints.
23. Prior to the landlord’s final response, it issued the resident with a tenancy warning letter and subsequently a community protection warning notice in relation to what the landlord considered unfounded and vexatious ASB complaints from the resident against his neighbours. Although it is unclear if this matter formed part of the resident’s escalation request, the evidence indicated that the landlord took proactive steps to interrogate its records in response to the resident’s assertions that the landlord had handled his reports of ASB unfairly. It was, therefore, appropriate for the landlord to address this matter as part of its final response. While this part of the response could have been more detailed, it showed that the landlord was acting fairly by addressing all the resident’s concerns.
24. The landlord’s records showed that throughout the complaint it worked closely with the Police. It kept them updated on the situation and shared relevant information. It also made active efforts to engage other agencies and consistently advised the resident to report any criminal activity to the Police and to seek support for his well-being. The advice it provided was appropriate and it demonstrated that it was working collaboratively to try and resolve the resident’s concerns. This showed that it was taking his concerns seriously by exploring all the tools available to it.
25. Overall, the landlord acted fairly. It took appropriate action to investigate his reports and responded to his concerns within reasonable timescales. It also took appropriate action to obtain supporting evidence and worked collaboratively with other agencies. The Ombudsman considers that the approach taken by the landlord was satisfactory and there was no evidence to suggest that the resident was treated unfairly.
26. While the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acted appropriately and fairly in this case, it should, in line with best practice, have its own ASB policy. This will help residents understand what responses and actions can be expected from their landlord. In view of this, a recommendation is made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

27. The landlord’s complaints policy states it has adopted the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint: ‘An expression of dissatisfaction, however, made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”. The policy also says that it will formally respond to complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being submitted.
28. The resident first raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the handling of his reports of ASB on 5 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged this and said that it would ask for his complaint to be reviewed, however, there was no evidence that this happened, and, in any case, it failed to formally respond to him within the timescales set out in its complaint policy.
29. In addition, the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports throughout September and October 2022, yet it failed to log these concerns as a formal complaint. The landlord’s records indicated that it finally logged a complaint after he requested a final response from it at the end of October 2022. The landlord missed serval opportunities to formally respond to the resident’s concerns earlier, which led to the resident approaching this service for assistance. This would have caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
30. Overall, it took the landlord over two months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and it missed multiple opportunities to respond to the resident’s concerns through its internal complaints process. Moreover, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the complaint handling errors in its formal responses. This amounts to service failure from the landlord.
31. In light of this, an order for remedy is made below, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests compensation from £50-£100 is appropriate for instances of service failure of short duration and minimal impact.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Order

34. The landlord must, within the next four weeks, pay the resident the sum of £75 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Recommendation

35. It is strongly recommended that the landlord adopt its own internal ASB policy.