An ombudsman has ordered the council to pay compensation to a retired railway worker living in sheltered housing in a row over a nightmare neighbour who threatened to kill him.
Tony Earnshaw, 61, of Rose Hill Court, Brighton, went to the housing ombudsman about Brighton and Hove City Council’s response to his complaints about a neighbour’s anti-social behaviour.
The ombudsman ordered the council to pay £100 for distress and inconvenience, ruling that the council delayed dealing with Mr Earnshaw’s initial complaint – and failed to cover all the issues at the next stage.
The anti-social behaviour itself was said to have been dealt with in line with council policies and procedures although there were gaps in record-keeping.
The ombudsman did, however, recommend that the council review its anti-social behaviour case management processes and contact residents to discuss their concerns.
Mr Earnshaw’s formal complaint dated from April last year. He had already emailed the council with repeated complaints about a neighbour’s anti-social behaviour.
The council looked into a specific incident on Friday 28 March and sent the neighbour a written warning because he was in breach of his tenancy agreement. The council said that this was “reasonable and proportionate action”.
In May, Mr Earnshaw reported another incident to the police after the neighbour threatened to kill him.
A security guard was brought in and the council completed a risk assessment and referred the incident to the complex case team.
The council said that neither the police nor adult social care staff had taken further action and it could not show the reports or complaints made by other residents.
Statements were taken from witnesses though and a written warning was issued to the neighbour over the April incident.
Tony Earnshaw
Mr Earnshaw was given a single point of contact at the council, mediation was arranged, the security guard was kept on until June and police community support officers were asked to visit.
In response to Mr Earnshaw’s “stage two complaint”, the council corrected inaccuracies in the earlier “stage one letter”.
The ombudsman found that the council had followed its policies and had taken steps including referring Mr Earnshaw to support groups, provided a single point of contact and brought in a security guard.
The ombudsman said: “We accept that the resident was upset with how the landlord dealt with the anti-social behaviour case.
“However, where anti-social behaviour is sporadic, the landlord must deal with events as they arise and apply its policy fairly.
“Its policy says that it hopes to support a change in any problem behaviour and it will only end a tenancy where this approach fails or is not suitable.”
The ombudsman said in its ruling that it would not make landlords pay compensations for the effect of other tenants’ behaviour.
But the council failed to acknowledge Mr Earnshaw’s complaint within the required timeframe of five working days and then a further 10 working days when a stage one complaint was submitted.
The stage one complaint response was sent nine days outside the timescale.
The council also failed to respond to all the points in the complaint and did not make reference to issues with staff conduct raised in another complaint as it should have done.
Mr Earnshaw said: “It is indicative of the poor way they (the council) treat victims of egregious anti-social behaviour that we become the problem and are dealt with in ways they wouldn’t treat the actual perpetrators.
“Our lives are made miserable yet the perpetrator gets away with it.”
Labour councillor Gill Williams, the council’s cabinet member for housing, said that the council had apologised to Mr Earnshaw and would comply with all the recommendations made in the ombudsman’s report to improve how it managed complex cases and supported residents.
Councillor Williams said: “We have fully taken on board the findings from the ombudsman’s report.
“We were pleased to see the investigation confirmed that, overall, our approach was in line with policy, that we communicated well and that we followed good practice in managing anti-social behaviour.
“However, we accept there were areas where we could have done better and have already taken steps to address the issues identified around how complaints are handled outside the ombudsman’s investigation.”