Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action about issues relating to his social housing and to protect Mr Y from anti-social behaviour. He also complained about its complaint handling. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mr Y, making payments to remedy the avoidable distress, time and trouble its faults caused, and providing evidence of service improvement.

The complaint

1. I am calling the complainant Mr Y. His father, who I am calling Mr X, brought this complaint on Mr Y’s behalf. Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with issues relating to its management of Mr Y’s social housing and also its response to incidents of anti-social behaviour affecting Mr Y. Mr X said the Council:

• delayed the repair of the broken skylight in Mr Y’s flat, and when its contractors did attend, they failed to carry out the repairs properly. The skylight remained inadequately repaired and unreplaced from January until August 2020 when Mr Y moved out of the flat.
• failed to properly secure Mr Y’s flat after gangs had broken into the property.
• delayed unduly in agreeing to a management move.
• failed to respond adequately to, and protect Mr Y from, anti-social behaviour.
• delayed finding alternative accommodation for Mr Y while the anti-social behaviour was ongoing.
• provided Mr Y with unsuitable alternative accommodation.
• failed to respond to his concerns and questions and provided incorrect information.

2. Mr X says the Council’s delays and failures during the period from January to August 2020 left Mr Y in an unsecure and cold property and exposed to anti-social behaviour which led to a significant decline in Mr Y’s mental health

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to the incidents of anti-social behaviour. The last section of this decision explains my reasons for not investigating issues that relate to actions by the Council, in its capacity as Mr Y’s social landlord, including those relating to its management of his housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr X. made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council have provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

The law

9. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (section 2) defines anti-social behaviour as conduct:
1. that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person
2. capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
3. capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person
10. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (section 17) places a general duty on councils to take action to combat anti-social behaviour.  Councils will have a team to respond to and investigate complaints about anti-social behaviour, liaising with the police and other agencies as necessary.

The Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy

11. The Council says it has established a specialist team to deal with cases of anti-social behaviour. The Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy 2017 is published on its website.
12. The Policy sets out the Council’s commitment to effectively dealing with all forms of anti-social behaviour in the borough and says:
1. It will adopt a victim centred approach and take all complaints of anti-social behaviour seriously, carrying out investigations as appropriate.
2. It will seek to achieve this by ensuring support is offered to victims throughout the investigation.
3. At paragraph 6.0, under service standards, when a complaint of anti-social behaviour is made the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) team will record the complaint, assess the type of anti-social behaviour being complained about and apply one of the following categories:

• Level 1

Evidence of danger to the household, at risk of serious assault and/or the household has been subjected to substantial and/or persistent harassment and is at risk of serious mental or physical harm on the grounds of vulnerability.

Victims will be offered an interview/visit within 24 hours where an ASB officer will discuss the incident and agree an action plan with the victim. This action plan will explore the options available and also consider the support requirements for the victim

• Level 2 - In all other cases the victim of anti-social behaviour will be offered an interview/visit within 4 working days. The neighbourhood nuisance officer will discuss the incident and agree an action plan with the victim. This action plan will explore the options available and consider the support requirements for the victim
• The ASB team will complete a harm-based risk assessment to establish and identify vulnerable complainants. This allows the necessary support measures to be put in place at an early stage.
4. At paragraph 7, an action plan will be developed in agreement with the complainant to investigate the problem and agree a level of support and contact. The Council will use all the tools available to ensure that victims and witnesses feel safe and secure throughout the case. This may include:
• Carrying out improvements to their home
• Carrying out a harm-based risk assessment for ASB
• Considering alternative accommodation
• Referrals to other support agencies
5. At paragraph 9, where it is believed any child or vulnerable adult is at risk due to incidents of ASB, the ASB team will make a referral to the appropriate service and follow the Council’s safeguarding procedures.

What happened

13. I understand Mr Y is a vulnerable adult. Mr X says Mr Y has mental health conditions and traumas, including paranoid anxiety disorder. The Council was told about his health issues. Mr Y is on medication and has a Community Mental Health (CMH) worker.
14. Mr Y lives in social housing provided by the Council. In January 2020 the skylight window at his flat suffered storm damage. The Council arranged for a temporary repair. The repair was inadequate. Mr X complained to the Council about the delays and failure to complete the repair properly.
15. On 16 April 2020 the police told the Council’s ASB team, a drugs gang had accessed Mr Y’s flat through the skylight, which had still not been properly repaired. The police asked the Council to secure the skylight and if it was possible to move Mr Y from the property. The police also advised the team Mr Y did not have a mobile phone.
16. The ASB team were unable to visit Mr Y because of Covid 19 restrictions. They asked the police to ask Mr Y to contact them if they visited him again and arranged for contractors to board up the skylight.
17. The ASB team wrote to Mr Y on 22 April asking him to contact them.
18. Mr Y contacted the ASB team on 5 May. He gave the team a phone number. They asked about the support he had in place. My Y told them he had a CMH worker. The team said they had arranged to change the locks at the flat and the contractors had confirmed the skylight was secure.
19. They also told Mr Y they would prepare a report for a management move. This is where the Council agrees to rehouse a tenant who has an urgent and exceptional need to move. The team sent an action plan letter to Mr Y on 6 May advising it would investigate a management move and keep him updated about this.
20. The ASB team phoned Mr Y on 7 and 11 May but there was no response. They spoke to him on 12 May. Mr Y told them a brick had been thrown through his window, he had reported it to the police and the window was boarded. The Council says the team reported the incident to the police and asked them to keep an eye on the address. They also left a message for Mr Y’s CMH worker but received no response.
21. On 12 May the request for a management move was submitted for approval to the Council’s Rehousing Manager. I understand the reason for the request was the significant risk of harm if Mr Y stayed at his property. The Council says temporary accommodation for Mr Y was not considered at that stage as Mr Y did not feel at imminent risk.
22. The ASB team spoke to Mr Y on 13 May. He told them he had returned to the property and found six people there he did not know. When asked to leave they threatened to come back and stab him. The team asked if he could stay elsewhere. Mr Y told them he could not stay with his parents because of Covid 19 restrictions. He refused the offer of a hotel room because he would not be able to take his dog.
23. Mr Y and his mother called the ASB team the next day, 14 May. They told the team Mr Y had been assaulted. I understand a gang had got back into the flat through the skylight and Mr Y had required hospital treatment for a head injury. Mr Y’s mother had agreed to look after his dog so he could stay at a hotel. The team arranged for Mr Y to stay in a hotel room until the decision about his management move was made.
24. The police told the ASB team the assault had been reported to them and they had made a safeguarding referral to the Council’s Adult Social Care team.
25. The ASB team called Mr Y on 15 May to check he had settled into his room, and again on 27 May, when they left a voicemail.
26. The Adult Social Care team told the ASB team on 27 May, they were closing the safeguarding referral made by the police on the basis Mr Y was not currently at risk as he was now in hotel accommodation.
27. The management move was approved on 1 June. On 3 June the ASB team reported to Mr X that Mr Y had told them he was feeling suicidal, was going back to his property and had no phone.
28. Mr X had complained to the Council about its delays and failures to repair the skylight. In its response of 4 June, the Council referred to the incident which had led to Mr Y being moved to temporary accommodation for his safety. It said the ASB team were aware of Mr Y’s situation from 16 April, he had been offered alternative accommodation before the incident in May but had declined this.
29. The ASB team spoke to Mr Y on 10 June. They discussed the need to sort out his medication – a monthly injection – and advised him to contact his CMH worker. Mr Y told the team he was leaving the hotel to walk to another part of the country. They asked if he had spoken to his parents and advised him to ensure he had his injection before doing anything.
30. Mr Y left the hotel on 11 June and returned to his flat. The ASB team was informed of this on 12 June and told Mr X (who already knew).
31. The ASB team told Mr Y on 24 June his management move had been approved.
32. On 29 June a neighbour of Mr Y told the ASB team about loud music and paint thrown at a property. On 15 July Mr Y told the team people had been banging on his door again and pulling the boarding off the roof above the skylight.
33. On 4 August Mr X reported to the Council Mr Y had told him his windows had been broken. Mr Y also told the ASB team someone had tried to break into his flat the week before, but he had locked the door and kept them away. The team again offered temporary accommodation, but Mr Y said he did not want this.
34. On 23 August, the ceiling in Mr Y’s property collapsed. The next day, 24 August, the Council said its allocations team had advised it had a property ready for Mr Y. He accepted this offer and moved to the new property.

Mr Y’s complaint

35. Mr X complained to the Council on Mr Y’s behalf in January 2020 about the delays and failure to repair the skylight properly. The Council provided its Stage Three response to that complaint in June 2020.
36. Mr X also complained to the Council on 24 May 2020 about its failure to protect Mr Y from anti-social behaviour. He said Mr Y should have been moved from the flat as requested by the police on 16 April, and had this been arranged, Mr Y would not have suffered the worry and fear and further anti-social behaviour. Mr X asked for this issue to be dealt with as part of his existing complaint.
37. The Council set up a new case for the complaint and told Mr X it would respond by 10 June. It did not reply until September 2020. It said the reply had been completed some months ago but had no record of it being sent to him. It upheld part of his complaint, about a meeting in February 2020 and accepted there had been mistakes in the information given to him about the purpose of the meeting and the role of one of the managers in attendance. The Council also explained the actions taken by the ASB team since the incident in April 2020.
38. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to us in December 2020.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

39. The information provided by the Council confirms the ASB team assessed the 16 April incident as Level 1, noted Mr Y was a very vulnerable person with mental health and self-harm issues, his property had been damaged and he had been threatened with physical violence.
40. As required by the Policy, an action plan should have been agreed exploring the options available and Mr Y’s support requirements. The team should have completed a harm-based risk assessment (to identify vulnerable complainants), considered alternative accommodation and referrals to other support agencies. The Policy also says, where it is believed a vulnerable adult is at risk due to incidents, the team should make a referral to the appropriate service and follow the Council’s safeguarding procedures.
41. The Council’s information shows the only action proposed regarding Mr Y’s support needs was changing locks and boarding windows, and requesting a management move. There is no evidence the team:

• considered any further options available for supporting Mr Y
• made any safeguarding referral before the referral by the police on 14 May.
• considered referring Mr Y to other support agencies.
• considered requesting input from the CMH team about Mr Y’s support needs before it tried, unsuccessfully, to contact his CMH worker on 12 May. Or in June when its contact with Mr Y indicated he was struggling with his mental health and living in the hotel room.
• considered offering alternative temporary accommodation to Mr Y before 13 May. The police had asked if it was possible to move Mr Y when the first incident was reported on 16 April. The Council says it did not consider this when the request for the management move was submitted (on 12 May) because Mr Y did not feel at imminent risk. But Mr Y was a vulnerable adult. And it was likely a management move would (and did) take some time to complete.
• considered, before 13 May, what alternative temporary accommodation might be available and suitable for Mr Y, in view of his support needs, and had a dog. Mr Y declined the offer of a hotel room on 13 May only because he could not take his dog. He accepted it the next day, following the assault, when his mother said she would look after the dog.
• considered the suitability of a hotel room for Mr Y’s needs. Mr X says the room was very small, Mr Y had to live in close proximity with other hotel residents and was not suitable for him in view of his mental health issues.

42. My view is the Council failed to follow its policy correctly or properly consider the options and support it could offer Mr Y after the first incident of anti-social behaviour in April until the management move could be completed. I think this was fault by the Council.
43. I cannot say what other action the Council might have taken. But I consider the fault caused Mr Y significant injustice, particularly in view of the serious nature of the anti-social behaviour, its effect on him, and the time it took to complete the management move. He lost the opportunity to have his needs fully explored, and the potential provision of additional support and protection to mitigate the impact of the anti-social behaviour, and the distress this caused him, during the period from April to August 2020 while he was waiting to move.
44. I also consider there was an unreasonable delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s complaint of 24 May. He did not receive its response letter until four months later. I note the Council apologised for this, but, In my view, the delay was fault by the Council and caused Mr X injustice; time and trouble pursuing the Council for its reply.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr Y for the failure to follow its policy and properly consider his needs and the options for supporting him in response to the anti-social behaviour
2. Pay Mr Y £400 in recognition of the avoidable distress, time and trouble its faults caused him.
3. Pay Mr X £100 in recognition of the avoidable time and trouble the delay in responding to his complaint caused him.

These figures are symbolic amounts based on the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies.

46. And within three months of the date of our final decision, provide us with evidence it has:

• Issued a briefing note to remind members of its ASB team of the requirements of its published ASB Policy and guidance on how to implement this.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will take the above action as a suitable way of remedying the injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

48. I did not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with the management of Mr Y’s housing, including the management move. This is because the Council is a social housing provider and was acting in its capacity as Mr Y’s landlord (see paragraph five above). Complaints about registered social housing providers must be made to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman