Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southwark Council (202102035)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102035

Southwark Council

29 June 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, and;
    2. response to reports regarding staff conduct.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a local authority. The property is a three bedroom flat in a block.
  2. The resident occupies the property with two adult children and one child under the age of sixteen.
  3. In 2020, the resident alleged antisocial behaviour towards her from a neighbour and complained to the landlord. The landlord investigated and recommended the parties participate in mediation with an external mediation provider.
  4. The mediation did not commence but the offer of mediation was left on the table for the parties to consider.
  5. In May 2021, the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about its handling of the neighbour dispute and the conduct of a landlord staff member. The staff member will be referred to as ‘officer’ throughout this report. Specifically, that the officer did not listen to her complaints, ignored her efforts to get matters resolved through a mediation process with the neighbour, and complained the officer was biased against her in its approach to the investigation.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response found that there was a lack of evidence against the neighbour but nonetheless, the neighbour received a warning. The landlord provided incident diaries for the resident to complete and return to the landlord. The landlord found no evidence that the officer was biased in the handling of the resident’s complaints about her neighbour.
  7. Between June and October 2021 matters between the resident and her neighbour escalated sharply and on 9 November 2021 the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service seeking advice and support.
  8. Accordingly, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord escalated the resident’s stage 1 complaint made in May to stage 2 of the complaints process and reviewed the matters complained about.
  9. The landlord’s final stage 2 response was that it had adequately addressed the issues and advised the resident of her right to bring her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and complained to the Housing Ombudsman. To resolve the issues the resident would like to move away from the property and compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

  1. 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.

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing in 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.
  2. The role of the Ombudsman in anti-social behaviour cases is not to determine whether the behaviour complained of actually occurred. Our role is to decide whether the landlord acted fairly in all the circumstances of the case – considering the available evidence. We consider whether the landlord followed a reasonable course of action, in line with its policy and procedure.

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

  1. On 16 October 2020 the resident complained to the landlord about her neighbour. The alleged issues were her neighbour’s son not parking in the correct bay, slamming the communal door in the resident’s daughter’s face, and breaching social distancing rules. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute between October 2020 and July 2021.
  2. The landlord’s ‘guidelines for case management’ set out in its anti-social behaviour policy state as follows ‘The council aims to take a problem-solving approach to resolving complex ASB cases and will work to find suitable solutions through a multi-agency approach.’
  3. On 28 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report issues with her neighbour. The landlord advised the resident that it had received counter-allegations about her and suggested that the parties consider mediation. This was appropriate in the circumstances and in keeping with the landlord’s guidelines for case management and ‘non legal remedies’ guidance contained in its antisocial behaviour policy.
  4. The documents demonstrate on 4th February 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident’s neighbour to recommend she participate in a mediation process with the resident, however the neighbour declined to take part.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident to advise her that her neighbour did not wish to enter mediation and acknowledged this was not the outcome the resident was looking for. The offer of mediation was left on the table for both parties to consider at any time.
  6. There is no evidence to suggest any new issues were reported to the landlord by either party between January 2021 to April 2021.
  7. On 3 May 2021, the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of an incident between her and her neighbour that occurred the previous year in October 2020 and the approach of the landlord’s officer. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute and the officers conduct was not upheld.
  8. On 9 June 2021 there was a verbal confrontation between the parties that was reported to the police. Documents provided indicate the landlord spoke to the neighbour the following day and emailed the police to request details of the incident and an update on police actions. The landlord liaised with a colleague at Southwark antisocial behaviour unit. As a result, the Safer Neighbourhood Team included the resident’s address on their patrol route.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident requesting contact to gain her perspective on the incident. The parties were asked to keep a diary of any issues.
  10. On 1 July and 8 July 2021, the resident reported two further incidents involving other members of the community (not the neighbour) to the landlord. On 12 July 2021, the landlord activated a community trigger on behalf of the resident. On 19 July 2021, the landlord made a comprehensive and detailed referral to the mediation provider. On 29 July 2021, the landlord followed up the community trigger request and convened a multi-agency meeting to look at the issues.
  11. Additionally, on 25 August 2021, the landlord provided the resident with practical assistance in respect of her rehousing application and provided information on how to bid for a property.
  12. The Ombudsman finds the landlord took clear steps in line with its policy and procedure to deal with the issues. Mediation was offered at an early stage, it persevered in encouraging the parties to participate in mediation, it shared information proportionately and appropriately with external agencies such as the police, Southwark anti-social behaviour unit and Crime concern and convened a multi-agency meeting to consider solutions and agree an action plan.
  13. Correspondence sent to the resident was factual and neutral in tone. The resident was provided with the direct email addresses of the officers managing the case. In respect of the landlord’s response times to incidents, at times the landlord bettered the timescales than stated in its policy.
  14. Accordingly, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of anti-social behaviour.

The response to reports regarding staff conduct

  1. The resident alleged unfavourable bias towards her in the landlord’s handling of the neighbour issues and made a complaint. Specifically, the resident alleged the officer had personal relationships with residents on the estate that affected the officer’s impartiality and complained the officer was quicker to respond to her neighbour’s complaints compared to when the resident made complaints about her neighbour.
  2. The landlord allocated a different officer to manage the resident’s case while the investigation into the alleged bias was underway and a senior member of staff reviewed the officer’s handling of the case.
  3. This was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances and shows the landlord took the complaint seriously.
  4. The landlord’s internal investigation found no evidence of bias or impartiality on the part of the officer. The resident’s complaint was not upheld, and the officer was reinstated as the case manager.
  5. Accordingly, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s approach to investigating the officer’s conduct.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports regarding staff conduct.