Complaint reference 01288 - Anti-social behaviour

01 Dec 09 | Ombudsman Case Digests

Ms H, who lived with her 13 year old daughter was an assured tenant. Both Ms H and her daughter had mental health problems. She complained about the landlord’s handling of a dispute with her neighbour and its subsequent response to her request for a transfer. We found no maladministration regarding the transfer.

The incidents and investigations

In August 2005 there was an incident between Ms H’s 13 year old daughter and the 12 year old son of her neighbour, Ms L. Ms L alleged that it was racist in intent and called the police. The association decided to wait and see what if any action the police took before deciding whether to handle the matter as a neighbour dispute or in accordance with its Hate Crimes policy. A full record was made of the incident but while the association waited on the police it did not take any pro-active steps such as offering mediation. Following a meeting in September with Ms H and her social workers the association closed the ASB file. However it did give her a warning about possible breach of tenancy; this was appropriate as her tenancy agreement stated that a tenant is responsible for the behaviour of guests, friends and relatives.

In October 2005 there were further incidents between the two children with allegations of racist abuse and counter allegations of assault. The ASB file was re-opened and Ms H informed that the association was waiting on the information from the police, again although the association monitored the situation there was no evidence of it initiating any intervention or management of the situation. A month later it met Ms H, her mental health support worker, Ms H’s daughter and the local youth offending team. The association confirmed that it was not seeking to evict Ms H but was now looking at other options such as arbitration or Acceptable Behaviour Contracts. In the same month Ms H’s daughter was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence, she was convicted of the offence in June 2006.

Ms H believed that her counter allegation of assault in October 2005 was not investigated or taken seriously by the association but as with Ms H’s daughter the association relied on the police’s view and as it had not taken any action against Ms L’s son the association did not pursue the allegation or take any other action.

This was a missed opportunity to try and resolve things between the two families. Whilst it was reasonable wait and see what the police might do it did not absolve the association of responsibility to manage the situation, particularly given the ages of Ms H’s daughter and Ms L’s son. At this stage although Ms H’s daughter had been charged she had not yet been convicted, the information available to the association constituted a series of allegations and counter allegations, which indicated an albeit serious, neighbour dispute.It was also aware of the information gathered as a result of its discussions with Ms H’s family’s social workers.

Ms H felt the association had not been even handed and in May 2006 with the support of her social worker she complained about this to the association and again in June 2006. The housing officer’s internal note of the time referred to Ms H and her daughter as the perpetrators which indicated that the association was no longer adopting an impartial approach.

Whilst this may have seemed reasonable in May 2006 on the basis of the charge against Ms H’s daughter, at the time of the meeting referred to she had not been charged and Ms H had made her own allegations regarding Ms L’s son. However an email between the association and the police in June referred to the situation as 'six of one and half a dozen of the other', and this suggested that the association was if not confused in its approach then at least inconsistent. When Ms H contacted the association in May 2006 she had also informed it of a harassment warning against Ms L’s son. This was significant because the association was relying on the result of police investigations to assist it in deciding what course of action to take.

There were further incidents in June 2006 and following the conviction of Ms H’s daughter the association met two of Ms H’s social workers to review the situation with particular reference to Ms H’s family’s mental health problems. Although eviction was an option the association did not wish to pursue it and all parties agreed that a transfer was the best option. Given Ms H’s specific support needs the association agreed to contact Ms H in writing rather than face to face as she was ‘…better able to cope with this…’. Any meeting with Ms H would be at the association’s offices. However as confirmed in a subsequent internal email from the ASB team of 4 September 2006 contact was made with Ms H by ringing her and, on occasions by the ASB team member going round to see Ms H.

There were further incidents in August 2006 and Ms H was still concerned that the association was not taking her reports of regarding her neighbour seriously. To date, although there had been contact with Ms H and her social workers there had not been any formal or written response to her letters. Following a letter from her solicitors in September 2006 querying this lack of response a team manager reviewed the situation. In summary her review concluded that the association had mismanaged the situation in its early stages and that a neighbour dispute had been allowed to get out of control. Ms H was later offered £50 compensation for the lack of written responses or record of phone calls to her.

Determination

We found maladministration, whilst the landlord’s actions after the conviction court case were pragmatic and proportionate it did not adopt an even handed approach beforehand. Its policy did not adopt a victim centred approach yet Ms H was treated as the perpetrator when it was evident that the landlord generally considered it to be a neighbour dispute, with both parties equally contributing to the situation.

The landlord’s failure to communicate with Ms H by way of the procedure agreed with her in recognition of her individual needs only served to exacerbate the problem. We ordered the association to pay Ms H £200 for poor communications with her, ensure contemporaneous record keeping of all communications with tenants, establish a system whereby tenants with specific or special communication needs can be identified at the earliest opportunity and to ensure it adopted an even handed approach to its management of neighbour disputes.