Platform Housing Group Limited (202322896)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322896

Platform Housing Group Limited

29 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s claim that the landlord retracted a managed move.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom house and is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced in November 2020.
The landlord said it is aware of the resident’s mental health and vulnerabilities.
On 25 August 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord via an online portal. The resident was dissatisfied and said that:
1. The landlord had poorly managed the reports of on-going ASB from their neighbours.
2. They had complaints about the landlord’s employees, which included formal warnings and the landlord’s engagement with the police.
3. The landlord had not taken into consideration their mental health or supported their health, disability, and wellbeing needs.
4. The landlord had previously offered a managed move, yet this has since been denied by the landlord.
On 29 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. This included the following:
1. It acknowledged a number of historic reports of ASB but confirmed that there were no open cases.
2. It stated that all historic ASB reports were investigated thoroughly and where applicable, dealt with in partnership with the police.
3. It was aware that on 6 September 2023, the resident requested to re-log all the historic ASB cases. However, it said all complaints had been previously actioned and where appropriate, proportionate action was taken in line with its ASB policy.
4. It explained that a managed move was not offered as the resident did not meet the criteria for a managed move and that it had informed the resident of this both verbally and in writing.
5. It explained that it was unable to uphold the complaint as the ASB cases had been handled in line with its policy and that a managed move had not been offered to the resident.
The resident escalated the complaint on 17 January 2024 to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident said:
1. The wrong person had been approached for information regarding the previous offer of a managed move and that there is an email and a witness regarding this.
2. That there was a lack of ASB records and evidence due to a hack of their data.
3. Their vulnerabilities and reports of ASB had not been taken into consideration regarding the request for a managed move.
4. Their health had been affected, and it was “unreasonable to expect them to remain in the property at the hands of their abusers.”
5. According to the law and NHS England, they are regarded as “high priority, high need” and there were safeguarding issues if they remained in the property.
6. The landlord’s employees had been unreasonable, had conducted an ineffective investigation, made poor decisions, and falsified information in order to uphold the decision regarding the managed move.
On 6 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said the complaint had been thoroughly investigated and referred to the same findings in its stage 1 response. Further, it said that:
1. It had spoken to the staff member named by the resident, and they confirmed that a managed move was not offered and that they did not have the authorisation to make such offers.
2. Letters were sent to the resident in November 2022 and February 2023, which confirmed that the threshold to be considered for a managed move had not been met.
3. Several ASB cases had been opened and the team involved had worked with a range of other agencies to investigate the reports and understand the resident’s needs.
4. Where appropriate, warning letters had been issued to perpetrators in relation to the ASB and this was a proportionate response based on the evidence available and in line with the ASB Policy.
5. It was satisfied that the resident’s needs had been considered through conversations with him directly, family members, and agencies that were working with them.
6. A vulnerability risk assessment had been completed, which highlighted potential risks and resulted in multi-agency forums with the appropriate professionals to provide the required support.
7. Decisions around next steps in relation to ASB were made based on evidence available and the most appropriate course of action and not on any belief or assessment that a false account was provided.
8. The complaint was not upheld. It acknowledged that it was not the resolution the resident was seeking but hoped the response provided clarity.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42.a. of the scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. It is noted that during the resident’s stage 1 complaint, they said that the complaint was not a full and final complaint and wanted to provide further details at a later date. However, there is no evidence that further information was provided and therefore the landlord agreed to respond only to what was provided at that time. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. this service is unable to consider the resident’s other complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaint process. The resident may wish to contact the landlord to make a complaint about these issues, which could then be brought to the Ombudsman if they are not satisfied at the end of its complaints process.

Scope of investigation

It is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident since 2022 and on-going past the internal complaints process. This investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports from 2023 through to the end of the internal complaints process in March 2024. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Any reference to other events will be to provide context only.
We do not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their vulnerabilities and subsequent impact on health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if they wish to pursue this option.
It is relevant to acknowledge that ASB cases involving reports and counter-allegations over an extended period of time, sometimes with limited or no corroborating evidence, can be among the most difficult for a landlord to manage. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important our assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy highlights the procedure and tools it should use to manage cases of ASB. This includes risk assessments, action plans, and referrals to other agencies where appropriate. It describes reasonable and proportionate intervention as non-legal remedies such as visits, mediation, and warning letters. It states that when it considers a case for closure, it will consult with the complainant to review the current circumstances and obtain their views. The landlord states that it will respond to any hate incidents within 1 working day and all other reports of ASB within 3 working days.
Between January 2023 and March 2024, the resident reported several incidents to the landlord which included:
1. Hate crime, targeted graffiti, and harassment.
2. Noise nuisance.
3. Verbal abuse and threatening behaviour.
4. Neighbours taking photos both outside and inside of their home.
5. Suspected phone and Wi-Fi hacking by the neighbours.
6. Drug taking (cannabis).
7. Damage to a new door.
8. Attempted forced entry to their property.
9. Windows sprayed with a substance to distort the view of the camera.
The evidence indicates that in response to these reports, the landlord recorded and responded to the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately and in line with its ASB policy. It opened ASB cases, contacted the resident, and kept adequate records of each incident reported, its communications, and the actions it had taken in response to these reports. Where the resident did not respond to phone calls or visits, the landlord wrote to the resident with its findings.
The landlord took the following actions to investigate the ASB:
1. Interviewed neighbours and listened to recordings.
2. Liaised with the police regarding the ASB reports.
3. Collected and reviewed evidence.
4. Liaised with the resident’s support network and attended multi agency meetings on 28 June 2023 and 1 August 2023. This included the Police, local authority, adult safeguarding team, social workers, and medical representatives.
5. Advised upon and provided tools to support the resident to obtain evidence of the ASB. This included providing access to the noise app, signposting to environmental health, requests that the resident keep diary / incident logs and suggested a door camera for the property.
6. Completed action plans and vulnerability risk assessments with the resident.
As a result of the landlord’s investigations, it identified that:
1. There were some credible incidents of ASB, although many of the incidents reported by the resident were disputed by the alleged perpetrators.
2. The resident had not reported any noise incidents either to environmental health or via the noise app.
3. The police were aware of the allegations, but no action was taken.
4. There was limited or no evidence in relation to most of the allegations.
The evidence indicates that by March 2024, the landlord had:
1. Taken enforcement action against both the complainant and perpetrators by issuing written warnings / CPN’s, where evidence was provided, and it was appropriate to do so.
2. Told the resident that if further evidence were provided it would continue to act upon reports of ASB.
3. Closed cases where evidence had not been provided and advised the resident that in order for a landlord to act against perpetrators of ASB, it must be sure that it would be a justified and proportionate response and have the evidence available to it.
In the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaint, the resident said that the landlords employees were unreasonable and said that they were unhappy with the actions of staff members. The landlord has not commented upon this within the complaint responses or sought to obtain further information from the resident regarding this. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to respond to the residents’ concerns and resolve this element of the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable and there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of ASB. This is because the evidence indicates it took the resident’s reports seriously, was proactive in investigating the incidents, gathered evidence, kept the resident adequately informed, and took proportionate action to address the cause of the ASB in line with its ASB policy.

Management move

The landlord has a managed move policy, which aims to address an exceptional urgent housing need by enabling residents, who meet the threshold for referral, to move to more suitable accommodation. A managed move is considered on a case-by-case basis and is only considered when all other options have been explored. A decision on a managed move will be made by a panel, who are subject matter experts. Residents cannot make a direct application for a managed move.
The resident states that the landlord verbally offered a managed move. The landlord disputes this and said that the resident does not meet the threshold for consideration of a managed move. Based on the evidence available to us, we are unable to find evidence in support of the resident’s claims.
Where such a complaint is made, it is reasonable for a landlord to consult its records and make enquires with the parties involved. In this case, it is evident that the landlord spoke with the relevant officer involved and was unable to conclude such an offer was made. This was a reasonable investigation in the circumstances.
While this Service acknowledges that the resident is disappointed that the request for a managed move was not approved, the landlord has advised the resident by letter on 7 February 2023 that if medical evidence were provided, which indicates that the current property is no longer suitable, then a review could be considered. The landlord has also provided the resident with their housing options and advised accordingly.
Given the above, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, as it is not obligated to authorise such moves without sufficient grounds, and it carried out an appropriate investigation of the resident’s complaint in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the resident’s claim that the landlord retracted a managed move.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, provides a detailed reason in writing why the resident does not meet the threshold for a managed move.