Summary: The Council is a fault for allocating Mr X, a vulnerable man, a flat beneath a person with a history of anti-social behaviour. It caused injustice because Mr X endured 13 months of severe and sustained harassment. To put this right the Council will apologise and make a substantial payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council allocated him a property underneath a person with a known history of anti-social behaviour. He says the Council then offered him an inadequate remedy for this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the complaint Mr X made and discussed it with him. I asked the Council for information and considered what it sent.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision and considered what they said.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mr X says he was homeless for about 4 years before the Council offered him a flat in November 2017. He says the flat was perfect for him, it was on the ground floor and had a small garden. He says as soon as he moved in other residents warned him about the behaviour of the woman who lives above him, Ms Y.
8. The Council’s records show it had served a Notice Seeking Possession on Ms Y in September 2017 because of neighbour nuisance.
9. Within days of Mr X moving in, Ms Y made untrue allegations to the Council about Mr X. She also called the police and fire brigade to Mr X’s flat.
10. Ms Y’s behaviour towards Mr X intensified and now included banging on his ceiling through the night. Ms Y went to the place where Mr X volunteers and accused him of rape. Ms Y made this untrue allegation to other people.
11. In February 2018 the police gave a harassment warning to Ms Y. The Council considered getting an injunction against Ms Y and took statements from Mr X.
12. In March 2018 Ms Y made a false allegation to the police that Mr X had attacked her. This resulted in the police interviewing Mr X. The Council suggested to Mr X that he should move. Mr X was not keen on this because of the difficulties he had getting a home.
13. In April 2018 the police arrested Ms Y for harassment. As part of her bail conditions Ms Y could not contact Mr X or cause nuisance to him. Within weeks Ms Y broke her bail conditions and hammered on Mr X’s door and shouted she would not move.
14. In May 2018 the Council got an interim injunction against Ms Y. This said she must not

• Contact Mr X or go to his place of volunteering.
• Scream, shout, or bang on his walls or doors.
• Cause a nuisance or act in a threatening manner.
• Take photographs and tape recordings.
• Make false allegations to the police.

15. Ms Y broke the injunction. She called the fire brigade to Mr X’s flat and made false allegations about him to other people. The Council asked Mr X if he wanted a weekend’s respite in a B&B. Mr X said he would consider this.
16. In July the Council offered Mr X another property, a first-floor fat with a rent nearly £50 higher than his current rent. Mr X refused the property as he said he wanted a garden and the rent was too high. He thought the high rent might prevent him getting a job. In August Mr X told the Council he did not want to move as he had done nothing wrong. He wanted the Council to move Ms Y.
17. In August the Council looked at other flats for Ms Y but did not think she would accept them.
18. On 10 September 2018 the police told the Council that since it arrested Ms Y in April, she had made more than 30 complaints to them about Mr X.
19. Mr X says he often stayed with his brother and friends to avoid the problems. He said when at home he hardly dared go out because of Ms Y. He said he could not have guests as he worried what Ms Y would say or do.
20. On 29 September the Council got a full injunction against Ms Y. She broke the injunction and started to follow Mr X in the street. Someone started to cover the outside of Mr X’s flat with eggs and other substances. The Council said it could not prove it was Ms Y.
21. On 4 November 2019 the police arrested Ms Y for breach of the injunction. The court set a trial date of 12 December. Soon after someone smeared the door and windows of Mr X’s flat with faeces. The Council said it could not prove this was Ms Y.
22. The next day the Council offered Mr X a ground floor flat with a garden, with a similar rent to his current. Mr X refused it because it was too close to his current home and Ms Y might find him. Later that month the Council offered Mr X another flat. He refused this as it was in an area Ms Y often went to.
23. On 12 December Mr X attended court as a witness. Ms Y’s defence applied for, and got, an adjournment until May 2019. Mr X was extremely upset.
24. In January 2019 the Council offered Mr X a first floor flat. Mr X refused it and said he did not want to move. Mr X said he hoped it would work out where he was. He said that since the New Year things had been ok.
25. In March 2019 Ms Y accepted another property and moved.

The Council’s complaint response

26. In July 2018 Mr X complained to the Council. He was not happy with its responses. In August the Council referred Mr X’s complaint to an external Complaint Investigator. On 13 August the Complaint Investigator spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X was clear he did not want to move. He said the Council focused on moving him, when he had done nothing wrong. He though Ms Y should move.
27. On 9 October the Complaint Investigator sent his findings to Mr X.
28. The Complaint Investigator found the Council knew Mr X was vulnerable because of his mental health. It also knew about Ms Y’s behaviour towards the two previous tenants of his flat. He found the Council did not consider all the information it held so did not carry out a risk assessment. It did not consider whether it should offer Mr X the tenancy. He found because of this Ms Y subjected Mr X to an avoidable sustained period of harassment and distress.
29. He found the Council did not review what it could tell Mr X about Ms Y.
30. He found the Council was taking appropriate action to deal with Ms Y now and had done since January 2008. He said the Council had identified a suitable flat for Ms Y to move to.
31. The Complaint Investigator recommended the Council should review its risk assessment process for lettings to consider the known behaviour of existing tenants and the vulnerability of an applicant.
32. The Complaint Investigator recommended the Council should pay Mr X £750 compensation for the distress caused in not doing a risk assessment. He said this was to cover the period November 2017 to January 2018 as the Council then took appropriate action to deal with the anti-social behaviour. He recommended a further £100 for the distress caused by not reviewing what it could tell Mr X about Ms Y.
33. On 10 October Mr X asked the Council when Ms Y would move. The Council said it hoped this would happen soon but could not guarantee it.
34. On 26 October the Council accepted the Complaint Investigator’s findings. It made the changes in practice he suggested.
35. The Council and Complaint Investigator say they used our guidance on remedies for distress when calculating a remedy. They say we suggest a moderate sum of between £100 an £300, but up to £1,000 can be justified for prolonged or severe distress.
36. The Council says it was not at fault after January 2018 as it correctly dealt with the anti-social behaviour. It says it also offered Mr X four suitable alternative properties and respite stays.

Analysis

37. I cannot investigate how the Council dealt with Ms Y as this concerns housing management. Mr X made a complaint about this to the Housing Ombudsman.
38. My investigation concerns the allocation the Council made to Mr X. The Council accepts it was at fault for this. I do not consider the Council has recognised the extent of the injustice it caused Mr X.
39. The injustice the Council caused is that Ms Y harassed Mr X from almost the day he moved in. What happened to Mr X would be unbearable for anyone; but Mr X was vulnerable already and what Ms Y put him through made his mental health worse. The harassment did not stop when the Council involved the anti-social behaviour officers. Therefore, the injustice caused by the fault continued until the end of 2018. What enforcement action the Council took to deal with Ms Y is a different issue to the injustice caused to Mr X by allocating him the flat beneath Ms Y.
40. I do not consider the Council’s offer of respite and alternative accommodation mitigated the injustice.
41. Whether the properties offered were suitable in housing terms for Mr X is not the issue. I accept there is shortage of social housing and the Council could not offer Mr X a like-for-like property. Mr X likes the flat he has. He did not want to move to a property he liked less. Mr X did nothing wrong. He should not have to move to a property he does not want to live in because someone is severely harassing him. This would also be an injustice.
42. Mr X gave reasons he did not find the first three offers suitable. The first offer In July 2018 was first floor and £50 a week more expensive. The Council did not make further offers until November 2018. Mr X explained he thought Ms Y could find him at these addresses. The Council next made an offer in January 2019. Mr X said he wanted to stay as Ms Y had left him alone recently.
43. In August 2018 Mr X was clear he did not want to move, he believed Ms Y should move. The Council gave him a reasonable expectation it could achieve this. In October 2018 the Complaint Investigator and Council told Mr X it had found a suitable property for Ms Y. This was before the Council made the second offer to Mr X.
44. Mr X arranged his own respite by staying with his brother and friends at no cost to the Council. While away, he still had the anxiety of what would happen when he went home.
45. I am pleased the Council consulted our guidance on remedies. However, it has only considered the guidance on distress. Our guidance also has sections on housing remedies. Where a complainant lives in unsuitable accommodation because of a fault in the allocation process we would usually recommend between £150 and £350 a month. In this case the accommodation was unsuitable because of the severe and sustained harassment Mr X faced. This started at the end of November 2017 and did not stop until the end of December 2018. Mr X was vulnerable because of his mental health and this increased the impact on him. I consider the impact of the injustice on Mr X is at the highest end of our guidance.
46. I have taken into account the Council has already paid Mr X £850 for the distress he suffered before the Council started enforcement action against Ms Y. My proposed remedy covers a longer period because the harassment Mr X suffered did not stop until the end of 2018.

Agreed action

47. To put matters right for Mr X the Council has agreed that within one month of my final decision it will:-

• Apologise to Mr X, and
• Pay him £3,800 for the injustice caused in allocating him the flat, this is £350 a month for February to December 2018.

Back to top

Final decision

48. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to the recommendations I made to put this right. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman