Antisocial Behaviour Reports (October 2023)
Mr S was not satisfied with the length of time taken to resolve reports of ASB from a neighbouring property, request to be rehoused and the way his complaint was handled.
Summary
Mr S had been represented by his friend during Poplar HARCA’s complaints process and the HOS investigation process. Poplar HARCA had no vulnerabilities recorded for Mr S. Mr S’s friend had informed Poplar HARCA that he suffers from mental health issues and learning difficulties.
Mr S’s neighbour mistakenly accused him of burglary and became angry with him. He was frightened to leave his property and reported his neighbour’s behaviour to Poplar HARCA. Some time had passed before Poplar HARCA interviewed the neighbour . Shortly after, Poplar HARCA’s enforcement team attended Mr S’s property unannounced. This upset Mr S, who felt Poplar HARCA’s visit had drawn attention to him and that this could lead to reprisals from his neighbour.
Mr S asked the Poplar HARCA not to interview his neighbour as he felt too much time had passed since the incident. Following these events, Mr S believed he was left with two options: make himself homeless, which Poplar HARCA suggested, or change his lifestyle and routine to avoid any contact with his neighbour. Mr S continued to report that his neighbour was continuing to behave in an antisocial way. Poplar HARCA requested information from the police, but failed to update Mr S.
Poplar HARCA attempted to interview Mr S’s neighbour, but they did not attend. Mr S continued to report ASB of his neighbour. Poplar HARCA liaised with the police, who had an open investigation and also referred the case to the hate crime panel. Poplar HARCA informed Mr S that it intended to apply for an injunction against his neighbour and if he would be prepared to give a court statement.
Mr S advised Poplar HARCA that he felt providing a statement in support of an injunction, rather than eviction, would not be helpful. ASB continued happening which frustrated Mr S.
Poplar HARCA’s housing advisor contacted Mr S and presented him with options, which were; remain in the property while the enforcement takes place; approach his local authority’s homeless department for an immediate move due to ASB; register with the local authority’s allocations scheme for a transfer; seek a mutual exchange; or use a different external transfer scheme.
Assessment
ASB Reports
When Mr S reported issues with his neighbour, Poplar HARCA did not respond within the timeframe set out in its ASB policy. Although the neighbour’s previous threatening and intimidating behaviour towards the resident would have met Poplar HARCA’s definition of ASB. the behaviour he reported the HOS found it was more fitting of its definition of nuisance.
HOS found that Poplar HARCA clearly considered the neighbour’s behaviour to be serious enough to warrant an injunction application, it underestimated the effect of the situation on the resident. HOS appreciates that injunction applications can be resource intensive and that Poplar HARCA would have been coordinating a number of processes as well as managing other witnesses. However, it should also have given equal consideration to those who were affected by the situation and not directly involved in the proceedings, allocating additional resources where necessary to meet its customer care commitments. As a result of its oversight, it did not identify the extent of the resident’s vulnerability and missed opportunities to provide relevant support.
In summary, the HOS found some positive elements in Poplar HARCA’s approach, it focused on tackling the ASB issue but some opportunities to support Mr S.
Rehousing Request
The HOS found the Housing Options information given to Mr S regarding routes for rehousing were reasonable, and appropriate.
Complaints Handling
Complaint targets weren’t met, and deadlines were missed. Mr S was not kept informed, and he had to continually chase Poplar HARCA. Poplar issued its final response more than a year after Mr S had first complained. Poplar HARCA apologised for the additional distress caused and acknowledged it should have done more to keep in contact with him. The protracted complaint handling compounded the significant distress already caused to Mr S by his experiences of ASB.
Outcome
Poplar HARCA engaged with the Housing Ombudsman and provided the correspondences for their investigation.
HOS Findings:
- Service failure in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports
- No maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused
- Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint
HOS ordered Poplar HARCA to reiterate its apology to Mr S for its failures in responding to his ASB reports and associated complaint. Pay Mr S a substantial amount of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Review its internal communications process and provide further training when it relates to dealing with vulnerable residents and keeping residents updated. Review its internal complaints handling process and to complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.