星空传媒

A tenant complained to the ombudsman that his social landlord failed to take appropriate action in response to an incident during which he was physically assaulted, and his wife and child threatened with violence, by their next-door neighbour.

The tenant stated that he sustained physical injuries in the attack and he provided evidence that both he and his wife were on antidepressant medication as a result of the distress. He was particularly aggrieved that, despite being aware that the assailant had accepted a police caution, the landlord viewed the problem as just a "tit-for-tat" dispute between neighbours. He felt that the landlord's actions following the attack demonstrated partiality towards the perpetrator and was unhappy that it did not take possession proceedings against him.

The ombudsman found maladministration in the way the landlord dealt with the incident and its immediate aftermath, and in its failure to consider possession proceedings against the perpetrator at that time.

The investigation revealed that the landlord's inquiry into the incident was inadequate and that, overall, its approach was inappropriate. It failed to provide the tenant and his wife with the type of supportive response that tenants of registered social landlords should be able to expect when they are victims of violence from a neighbour.

One of the landlord's most serious failings was that its housing officer conducted an interview with the neighbour before interviewing the victims, and accepted his account of the incident without obtaining full details of the allegations against him. The neighbour admitted attacking the complainant, but said he had been provoked by the complainant. A verbal undertaking was accepted from him with regard to his future behaviour, but he was not at any point issued with a written warning confirming this undertaking and the consequences of any future breaches. All in all, the neighbour's version of events had a disproportionate influence on the housing officer's assessment of the situation and clouded his judgment and that of his managers in their decision-making in the months that followed.

Of particular concern was the fact that the landlord failed to give appropriate weight to the significance of the police caution. It accepted the neighbour's argument that he was provoked and that he had only accepted the caution due to ignorance of his legal rights. The landlord was unjustified in looking behind the caution in this way, particularly as it had no good reason to question the soundness of the investigation conducted by the police. Had it taken the caution at face value as it should have done, it might have decided that it had sufficient grounds with which to pursue possession proceedings against the perpetrator.

The landlord failed to give any timely consideration as to whether it should issue possession proceedings

It was also a matter of concern that the landlord attached undue weight to a very brief and vague statement made by one witness in order to validate its already adopted stance that the complainant provoked the assault. Furthermore, even if it was justified in taking the view that there was provocation, it failed to consider very compelling evidence that the neighbour's reaction to the alleged provocation was grossly disproportionate. For example, it ignored the complainant's written and oral statements that he lost consciousness in the attack and sustained physical injuries for which he required medical attention. The landlord failed to investigate these statements and this was characteristic of an overall lack of openness to the victim's point of view.

Similarly, the landlord ignored the complainant's statements concerning the effects of the assault on his and his wife's mental health and several months later claimed to have been unaware that they had been receiving medical treatment for depression. This was viewed by the ombudsman as a further indication of its general lack of support to the victims.

The landlord failed to give any timely or meaningful consideration to whether it should issue possession proceedings against the neighbour in the period immediately following the assault. Its records indicated that it felt it unnecessary to consider such proceedings unless the neighbour breached his verbal undertaking. It sought advice from the local authority's antisocial behaviour unit one year after the assault, by which time the complainant had already contacted the ombudsman. Unsurprisingly, the authority's stance was that too much time had elapsed for there to be any reasonable likelihood of success in possession proceedings.

The ombudsman could find no conclusive evidence of partiality on the landlord's part in its handling of the complainant's allegations. However, he expressed concern at the lack of objectivity demonstrated by it both in its response to the assault and in its responses to his scheme's enquiries. The landlord called the complainant's integrity into question on a number of occasions in its communications with the scheme, and all of its submissions in this regard were found to be without substance. The ombudsman criticised it for adopting such an objectionable approach in its handling of the complainant's grievances. The ombudsman recommended the landlord to provide the complainant and his wife with a written apology for its failure to respond in a supportive way to the trauma they experienced. He also awarded them a total of 拢1150 in recognition of the distress they suffered, and for the time and trouble taken in pursuing the complaint.