Manchester City Council (202228374)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228374

Manchester City Council

20 September 2024

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling is also considered.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy. From May 2018 to December 2023 the resident lived in a 1-bedroom, first-floor flat. The complaint concerns reports of ASB the resident made about the his neighbour (‘the neighbour’) at this property. In December 2023 the resident moved to a different property provided by the same landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has multiple vulnerabilities that are recorded with the landlord.
  2. The resident submitted an ASB report about the neighbour to the local authority antisocial behaviour action team (ASBAT) on 7 August 2023. The resident reported on 26 August 2023 that the neighbour’s dog had tried to attack him. The ASBAT subsequently told the resident it would not be investigating and advised he contact his landlord. The resident submitted an ASB report to the landlord on 29 August 2023, which the landlord visited him on 31 August 2023 to discuss.
  3. The landlord’s records show that on 18 September 2023 the resident requested an ASB case review.
  4. The resident attended a meeting with the landlord on 21 September 2023, in which he expressed his fears about the neighbour. The resident was provided with an incident diary. At the resident’s request the landlord then spoke with the resident’s friend, whom the resident said had witnessed the incidents.
  5. The landlord opened an ASB case on 21 September 2023. The case notes state the resident was vulnerable, with complex mental health needs.
  6. A police report provided to the landlord on 22 September 2023 states the resident had complained of harassment, an incident with a dog, and believed the resident’s visitors were tryingto intimidate him. The report concluded that at present there was no evidence of harassment.
  7. The landlord met with the resident and his support worker (‘the support worker’) on 26 September 2023. The landlord’s records state the resident was fearful but had not been threatened. The records state the landlord told the resident it would not move him as he was not subject to threats or violence. On the same date the landlord wrote to the neighbour setting out her tenancy obligations and inviting her to a meeting on 3 October 2023. The evidence shows that the neighbour did not attend the meeting.
  8. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 4 October 2023.
  9. On 5 October 2023 the landlord issued a tenancy warning to the neighbour.
  10. The landlord conducted a case review on 9 October 2023. It concluded there was clear evidence of ASB, which, although ‘low risk’ was detrimental to the resident’s mental health.
  11. An ASB case review meeting was held on 10 October 2023, and it was agreed the landlord would visit the resident’s property to assess fencing, lighting and foliage. It was agreed that if the neighbour did not respond to the warning letter the landlord would visit with the police.
  12. On 11 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the neighbour and invited her to attend a meeting on 19 October 2023.
  13. The landlord provided a stage 1complaint response on 13 October 2023. The landlord said it opened an ASB case in September 2023, had weekly ‘check-ins’ with the resident and the resident was submitting incident diaries. The landlord said the issue with the neighbour’s dog had been resolved. The landlord said the neighbour had received a tenancy warning letter and it would reiterate warnings about ASB to the neighbour at their forthcoming meeting. The landlord said that if the noise continued it would consider providing the resident with a noise app and consider applying for an injunction. The landlord said although it recognised the resident felt intimidated, there was no evidence of threats to the resident and the focus was on resolving the ASB rather than rehousing the resident. The landlord said it had installed additional security measures at the resident’s property and would assess the communal spaceand the lighting. The landlord said it would ask the police to place an‘urgent marker’ against the resident’s address. The landlord noted the resident had CCTV and wore a body camera. The landlord said there was no evidence to suggest the resident was unsafe, but it would continue to try and resolve issues with the neighbour.
  14. The neighbour did not attend the meeting with the landlord on 19 October 2023.
  15. On 20 October 2023 the resident said the ASB was continuing and raised a stage 2 complaint to the landlord.
  16. On 24 October 2023 the landlord told the neighbour it would conduct a home visit on 26 October 2023.
  17. On 25 October 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that his complaint was at stage 2.
  18. The evidence shows the visit to the neighbour’s property scheduled for 26 October 2023 did not take place. The support worker contacted the landlord that day about the ongoing noise nuisance, which she said was affecting the resident’s mental health. The landlord said it was awaiting a decision from senior management about a managed move for the resident.
  19. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 27 October 2023 he had been approved for a managed move. The resident said he wanted to move to a specific religious community, and he wanted to move as soon as possible.
  20. The landlord’s provided a stage 2 complaint response on 27 October 2023. The landlord concluded it had acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports of ASB and did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said it did not believe there was any risk to the resident in his current property but recognised the situation was preventing the resident from accessing therapy. The landlord acknowledged that the activity around the resident’s home would be traumatic for the resident given the past events he had experienced. The landlord said it did not appear it could allay the resident’s fears and therefore it would approve a move to another property. The landlord set out concerns that even if the resident moved somewhere quiet and comfortable, in the future, he might become agitated. If this happened, the landlord would expect the resident to deal with this. The landlord said it would discuss with the resident the areas he felt comfortable and assist the resident with the move.

Events following the completion of the internal complaints process

  1. A case review meeting took place on 31 October 2023. It was noted that since the previous case meeting the resident had submitted 12 reports of banging, 5 reports of a male the resident thought to be a drug dealer outside the property, 2 reports of shouting and 1 report of a key left on the resident’s bin. The landlord and police visited the neighbour on 30 October 2023 and identified that a door at the property needed to be rehung. It was noted that the resident had been approved for a managed move. The landlord would search for a property within specific areas close to a specified religious community and then widen the search. It was noted that no further reviews or meetings would take place.
  2. On 9 November 2023 the landlord advised the resident it hoped to move him to a new address, which was close to its offices. The landlord has told this Service the resident wanted to move to a specific religious community, but it did not have properties in the desired area and had identified a property nearby. The property was near the landlord’s offices, which the landlord said it thought would be helpful.
  3. The landlord told this Service that it believes the resident moved in the week after he signed for the new property. The resident has told this Service that he is experiencing ASB in his new property and that he is fearful for his safety. The resident has submitted further complaints to the landlord about the handling of the move and its response to his reports of ASB at the new property. The landlord has subsequently told the resident that it will move him to a different property.

Assessment and findings

  1. This Service is unable to investigate whether ASB occurred, rather, the investigation examines the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB that it received. This investigation examines the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between August and November 2023. It does not examine the landlord’s handling of ASB at the property the resident moved to in December 2023, as that is subject to a separate complaint.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The evidence shows the resident first reported concerns about his neighbour to the ABSAT on 7 August 2023. On 26 August 2023 the ASBAT advised the resident that it would not be investigating and for him to contact the landlord. The resident submitted an ASB report to the landlord on 29 August 2023. In the report the resident said he felt fearful as his neighbour’s dog had tried to attack him, and he felt intimidated by visitors to the neighbour’s property. The resident said he had witnesses to these events and the situation was affecting his mental health. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the message on 29 August 2023 and said it would contact him again on 31 August 2023 to arrange a visit. On 31 August 2023 the landlord arranged to visit the resident that afternoon. The landlord’s document ‘our service standards’ states it will conduct an interview within 5 working days of receiving an ASB report. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s ASB report and subsequent phone calls. The landlord acted appropriately in conducting a visit 2 working days after the resident reported ASB.
  2. The landlord’s record of the visit on 31 August 2023 states the resident was not sleeping. The report states thelandlord said it would contact the neighbour to ensure her dog was always on a lead, and advised the resident to contact the police if he was attacked.The landlord said it could assist the resident with a housing applicationfor a differentproperty and that it would call him the following week to check how he was getting on.The landlord’s ASB policy states that when a report is made it will interview the person reporting the incident to confirm the facts and discuss an action plan.The landlordacted reasonably in exploring the nature of the resident’s concerns and circumstances, and in setting out the next steps.
  3. The landlord’s ‘service standards’ document states it will take preventative action to avoid complaints becoming more serious. The evidence provided does not, however, demonstrate that following the meeting, the landlord contacted the neighbour about the dog. Furthermore, the resident’s initial report to the landlord said there were witnesses to the incidents. The landlord’s records of the visit do not show that it discussed whether these witnesses could be contacted. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have explored this as part of the interview and to have demonstrated to the resident it was considering all aspects of his report.
  4. The landlord phoned the resident on 11 September 2023 and the resident advised there had been no further incidents with the neighbour’s dog. The landlord acted appropriately in following up with the resident, however, it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have done so within the timeline it gave at the interview. On 31 August 2023 it told the resident it would contact him the following week, however, it did not phone until 11 days later. The evidence shows that the resident was concerned and becoming increasingly anxious about his safety. It is reasonable, particularly given the resident’s vulnerability, to have expected the landlord to have adhered to its commitment to contact the resident the next week.
  5. Following the phone call to the resident on 11 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident’s support worker to discuss its concerns about the resident’s welfare. The landlord’s ‘safeguarding adults’ policy states it will adopt a multi-agency approach and work openly and proactively with other agencies to share information to protect vulnerable adults. The resident reported further concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour to the landlord on 13 and 14 September 2024. The landlord then contacted the support worker on 14 September 2023 to ask if further support could be put in place for the resident.
  6. On 18 September 2023 the resident requested an ASB case review and emailed the landlord on 19, 20, 21 September 2023. The landlord opened an ASB case on 21 September 2023. The landlord’s records state it did not classify the resident’s initial reports about the neighbour’s dog and visitors as ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it will not investigate actions considered to be everyday activity and reports of people staring. The landlord’s records confirm that at the meeting with the resident on 31 August 2023 it sought to explain what constituted ASB. However, the fact that the resident requested an ASB case review on 18 September 2023, suggests the resident mistakenly believed a case had been opened. The landlord went on to say that after receiving the report of noise nuisance from the resident, it opened an ASB case.
  7. The evidence confirms that the landlord asked the resident to submit diaries of future incidents. Prior to the meeting between the landlord and resident on 26 September 2023 the resident sent several reports, emails and videos relating to the neighbour. At the meeting the landlord said it would not move the resident as there had been no threats made against him, nor had he been subject to any violence. The landlord’s document ‘part VI scheme for the allocation of social housing’, allows for the use of discretionary powers to allocate properties outside of its allocations scheme rules. The discretionary powers can be used in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a threat to life. The landlord had concluded there was, at the material time, there was no evidence of a threat to the resident. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider the use of discretionary powers appropriate at this point. It would, however, have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have reiterated that this did not preclude the resident from submitting a housing application, and to have set out the support it could extend to the resident to assist with the submission.
  8. On 26 September 2023, the landlord also wrote to the resident setting out her tenancy obligations and inviting her to a meeting on 3 October 2023. The landlord’s ASB states it will assess each case and take proportion action, applicable to the circumstances of the case. The policy confirms that a warning interview is one of the informal methods the landlord may consider to address ASB. Following the meeting, the evidence shows the landlord sought information on the resident’s health and ongoing support, as well as information from the police on its involvement. This was proportionate and in accordance with the actions agreed at the meeting.
  9. On 4 October 2023 the landlord installed additional security features at the resident’s property and on 5 October 2023 the landlord issued a tenancy warning letter to the neighbour. The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB in taking a proportion action that was applicable to the circumstances of the case. This was also consistent with the landlord’s position that the emphasis was on resolving the issue and making the resident feel safe in his own home.
  10. The landlord reviewed the resident’s case on 9 October 2023. The notes from the meeting indicate it was held after 3, rather than 4 weeks due to the volume of updates. The notes state there was clear evidence of ASB, which was “low risk” but detrimental to the resident’s health. The notes state the situation needed to be monitored following the warning letter, and that the landlord should contact another resident who had previously corroborated the resident’s reports. The evidence shows the landlord contacted this resident on 10 October 2023, and the individual reported there had been no recent issues with the neighbour.
  11. A multi-agency ASB case review meeting took place on 10 October 2023. The notes record concerns the resident would flee his home to escape the situation. It was discussed that a move would not necessarily be the best option, as the resident would be moving from an area he loves, where he had a support network, and instead potentially to an area with where there were also issues present. It was agreed the landlord would visit the property to assess the fencing, lighting and foliage. The evidence shows the landlord completed these actions, however, it was unable to separate the resident’s and neighbour’s communal front garden. It was also agreed at the meeting that if the neighbour did not respond to warning letter, the landlord would conduct a visit with the police.
  12. The evidence shows the landlord spoke with the neighbour on 11 October 2023 and invited her to attend a meeting on 19 October 2023, but she did not attend. On 24 October 2023 the landlord told the neighbour it would attend her property on 26 October 2023, however, the visit did not go ahead, and the resident told the landlord “his cries for help were being ignored”. It is unclear from the evidence why the visit did not take place, however, the landlord’s notes state it told the resident it was due to “unfortunate circumstances”, rather than deliberate delay. The landlord said the case was being reviewed by senior managers and consideration would be given to the resident’s request to more.
  13. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 27 October 2023. The landlord said it did not believe there was any risk to the resident, however, it recognised it had not been able to allay the resident’s fears, and this was having a detrimental effect on the resident’s mental health. The landlord said it would therefore approve a move to an alternative property. A managed move is a process by which a direct let is offered to an existing tenant outside of the landlord’s allocations policy. The landlord’s ‘Part VI scheme for the allocation of social housing’, provides for the resolution of exceptionally urgent housing need using managerial discretion. The landlord has advised the decision to move the resident was part of the stage 2 complaint resolution and would therefore fall under the category of ‘other exceptional circumstances’.
  14. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord undertook a range of proportionate and appropriate measures in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It also shows that the resident had asked to be rehoused and the support worker had expressed concern about the detrimental effects of the resident’s living situation. The evidence also recorded concerns that a move would deprive the resident of his support network, remove him from an area he loved and from access to services. While it is recognised that the landlord tried to employ a trauma-informed approach to address the ASB reports and respond to the resident’s complaint, this was a complex case. In making its decision to approve re-homing for the resident, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have undertaken and documented a risk assessment of the resident remaining in his property and an assessment of the resident moving property. The evidence provided does not demonstrate that the landlord carried out these assessments and this was unreasonable.
  15. In the stage 2 response the landlord stressed that if, following the move, the resident started to feel anxious, the landlord would expect the resident to resolve this. While the landlord might have been trying to communicate that it was an exceptional measure to authorise a property move, it is unfortunate that this messaging was ambiguous and could have conveyed to the resident that he was ‘on his own’ after the move. Furthermore, it was unreasonable as it could have potentially deterred the resident from reporting incidents in the future.
  16. The stage 2 response said that the landlord would discuss property location and support the resident to move. The landlord has told this Service that it did not have any properties in the areas the resident wished to live but did have an available property nearby. The landlord has said the resident signed for the property on 7 December 2023 and it understood the resident moved the following week. The landlord has said the resident received 6 weeks’ assistance from a new tenancy officer. A key factor in the landlord approving the management move was the resident’s significant vulnerability. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to have adopted a multi-agency approach and sought to plan and support the resident in the move and in settling into the property, however, the evidence does not show this happened, which is unreasonable.
  17. In summary, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. In making this determination, it is acknowledged the landlord did a lot in respect of case management. The evidence shows the landlord demonstrated empathy to the resident’s situation and acted in a proportionate and mainly timely manner to the resident’s reports of ASB. It is apparent that the landlord did try to resolve the resident’s compliant in a trauma-informed manner.
  18. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response gave the impression that it expected the property move to resolve the resident’s problems and that any further issues would be for the resident to resolve. However, given the documented risks associated with the resident moving property, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have sought to mitigate these risks and to have considered additional support measures to maximise the chances of a future move being successful. It is not apparent from the evidence provided that the landlord acted proactively to mitigate these risks. This Service notes that the subsequent move did not resolve the issues, the resident is significantly distressed following the move and the landlord has subsequently agreed to move the resident again. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and to pay the resident £500 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 4 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt on 4 October 2023 and provided a stage 1 response on 13 October 2023. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process, and its complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord acted appropriately in responding within the timeframes set out in its policy.
  2. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2023. It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord formally acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint, however it is noted that the landlord was in contact with the resident during this period and it is recorded their conversations referred to the complaint having been escalated. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 27 October 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord acted appropriately in responding within the timeframe set out in its policy.
  3. In summary, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The compensation must be paid direct to the resident and not to a rent or service charge account.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, to conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. The landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman with a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on understanding the issues surrounding the resident’s rehousing, specifically:
    1. How it will improve the process for identifying and assessing the risks associated with moving vulnerable residents to a new property.
    2. How it will improve the process for utilising risk assessments in its decision making on whether to rehouse vulnerable residents.
    3. How it will improve the process for supporting vulnerable residents once it has decided whether to rehouse and tailor this support to individual circumstances.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the timescales set out above.