Southern Housing (202313307)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313307

Southern Housing Group Limited

21 June 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 application for a management move and its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background 

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a one-bed, fourth floor flat, which the resident has lived in since December 2018. The landlord’s records indicate the resident has vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident enquired about a management transfer in November 2022, and thereafter contacted the landlord about the application process and the nature of the property she required. An application for a management move was then submitted on 16 May 2023. The landlord considered and rejected the application on 17 May 2023, and this was communicated to the resident on 19 May 2023.
  3. On 24 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that the police were attending her property on 30 May 2023, following an incident with a neighbour. In response to the resident’s query about how an injunction against the neighbour could be obtained, the landlord said it could do this once the resident had made her statement to the police. On 30 May 2023 the landlord completed an ASB action plan and wrote to the neighbour asking her to attend a meeting.
  4. On 14 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about appealing its decision to reject her application for a management move and seeking additional time to submit evidence in support of this.
  5. On 21 July 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that she had been subject to intimidation by the neighbour. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the report and said it would respond within 5 working days.
  6. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 12 August 2023. She reported ASB which involved the neighbour and reiterated that she had already informed the landlord that she had been assaulted by the neighbour. The resident said that in her application for a management move she had set out that living at the property and its proximity to the neighbour were detrimental to her mental and physical health. The resident said that the stress of living in the property had caused her to be unfit for work thereby reducing her income. The resident said that she needed to be rehoused to a new property with a garden.
  7. On 5 September 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it required longer than the target 10 working days to respond and that the resident would receive a response at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint process within the next 10 working days. On 5 September the resident contacted the landlord to report ASB involving the neighbour.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 15 September 2023, noting:
    1. It was unable to consider the handling of the resident’s management move request as this was part of a separate process.
    2. Apart from an incident on 8 April 2022, the ASB reported by the resident was low level. While the police did not act in response to the incident, the landlord had agreed to consider an injunction. The landlord said it had not, however been explained to the resident that injunctions were only used when there was strong evidence of threat of harm.
    3. A report of ASB made by the resident on 30 May 2023 was assessed as low risk. The landlord could not find evidence to support the allegation. On 16 June 2023 the resident made a further report. The landlord investigated the report but did not consider it to be ASB.
    4. There were allegations and counter allegations between both resident and the neighbour. As neither could be proven to be ASB the landlord would look to close both cases. It suggested both parties engage in mediation and offered a noise app to record future noise incidents.
  9. On 2 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that due to the time that had elapsed since its decision to refuse a management move, it could not review the decision. The landlord told the resident that she had taken months to submit the necessary information to appeal the decision. However, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to tell the resident that it did not routinely grant extensions to evidence deadlines. The landlord said that because of this omission it had decided it would hear the case again and the meeting to consider the resident’s application and the additional supporting information would take place within 5 working days.
  10. On 10 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that the panel had agreed the resident’s application for a management move on medical grounds. It explained the resident had joined a list of others who required a move urgently and that the landlord would only make 1 offer of alternative accommodation when a property became available.
  11. On 11 October 2023, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation request on 26 October 2023. It said it required additional time to respond to the complaint and would provide a stage 2 response within the next 10 working days.
  12. On 9 November 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 response, noting:
    1. It apologised for the delay in its response to the resident’s request to appeal its decision to refuse her management move application, and for the resident having to contact the landlord about this multiple times.
    2. The resident’s application for a management move had now been agreed.
    3. It reaffirmed its stage 1 findings regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    4. It apologised for the delay in providing a stage 2 response.
    5. The landlord awarded the resident £165 compensation. This comprised £50 for complaint handling, £15 for failing to respond to the resident, £25 for failing to respond within timescales, £75 for inconvenience, time, and trouble.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of an application for a management move

  1. The landlord’s Housing Options and Lettings Policy states that in some limited circumstances the landlord may offer a management move. The landlord’s records show that a management move application form was requested by, or for the resident on 7 November 2022. The records show that the resident called the landlord on 9 December 2022 and asked to speak to a manager about moving. Following the resident’s call, the landlord made internal inquiries and noted that the resident should be sent a blank application form, not the application the landlord had already. The landlord returned the resident’s call on 12 December 2022, then emailed an application form and asked that the resident complete the sections specifying area and property size requirements and the application form thereafter.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022 stating the location and type of property she required. The landlord responded on 15 December 2022 and said that to process the request the resident must complete the application form. It emailed the resident again on 20 December 2022, to clarify that she actually needed to complete the application as part of an initial eligibility check, which would be conducted by phone. The landlord also asked the resident to call to schedule the eligibility check as part of the application process.
  3. The landlord’s document ‘Your Moving Options’ provides information to residents on mutual exchange, moving to a local authority property and moving within the landlord’s property stock. It is unclear if or when the resident received the ‘Your Moving Options’ document. The document refers residents to customer services or the landlord’s website and its ‘priority policy’ for further information on management moves. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to provide clear and accurate information on its processes. However, when the resident contacted the landlord, she did not initially receive accurate information about the application form or how it was used in the process. Furthermore, the ‘priority policy’ document is not available on the landlord’s website. The lack of a timely and accurate response by the landlord resulted in time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. On 14 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about her application. She said a staff member had completed the form on her behalf in November 2022 and asked how the application was progressing. There is no evidence that the landlord answered the resident’s question. The application was clearly important to the resident, and she had told landlord that she was requesting a move due to experiencing racism and harassment. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to have responded to her enquiry and provided a meaningful update on the progress of her application. The landlord should have established if an application had been completed and submitted, and if not, advised the resident about the process that needed to be followed.
  5. It is unclear from the evidence if, following the resident’s enquiry, the landlord located the application the resident said was completed in November 2022. However, on 16 May 2023 an application for a management move for the resident was submitted. The landlord considered the application on 17 May 2023, and it was rejected. The decision and reasons for it were communicated to the resident by letter on 19 May 2023. The landlord’s records show that on 14 June 2023 the resident requested an extension to enable her to submit evidence for a review of the landlord’s decision. Thereafter, the resident contacted the landlord about the application between 9 August and 19 September 2023 seeking updates on the application.
  6. The landlord responded on 2 October 2023, stating that due to length of time it had taken for the resident to provide additional evidence, it could not review the original decision. It did, however, recognise that there was a delay in responding to the resident’s queries about the appeal process and therefore the panel would reconsider the application. This meeting took place on 5 October 2023 and the application was approved based on new medical evidence provided by the resident.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it apologised for the delay in responding to the resident about the application appeal. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had to contact it multiple times to get a response. It offered the resident £115 compensation, comprising:
    1. £15 for repeat failure to respond to the resident’s enquiries.
    2. £25 for failure to respond within timescales.
    3. £75 for inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  8. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  9. The landlord’s apology dealt with the delays around the review of its decision on the management move application, and the compensation offered did reflect these failings. However, the landlord failed to consider its earlier handling of the application, which as this investigation has identified was not done in a timely, accurate or resident-focused manner. Furthermore, by not considering its actions prior to the review process, the landlord missed the opportunity to learn from its service failures. Therefore, the apology and compensation provided do not constitute sufficient redress for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  10. In summary, the landlord did not handle the resident’s application in a timely, accurate or customer-focused manner. As a result of these failings, there was maladministration in this case. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, and to pay a further £150 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

 The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. On 24 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that the police were attending her property on 30 May 2023 to take a statement following an incident with her neighbour. The resident asked the landlord how an injunction against her neighbour could be obtained and was advised the landlord could do this once the statement had been given. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that a risk assessment matrix (RAM) should be used to assess the vulnerability of a resident reporting ASB. The evidence provided does not include a RAM for the incident and the landlord acted inappropriately in not conducting an assessment. The failure to conduct an assessment meant the lresident could not be assured that the necessary steps had been taken to assess and manage any potential risk.
  2. The landlord completed an ASB action plan on 30 May 2023. The ASB procedure sets out that it is good practice to map out actions. In the plan the landlord recorded that it would contact the neighbour that day about the allegations, and the evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the neighbour on 30 May 2023 to ask her to attend a meeting about the issues.
  3. It was also recorded in the plan that the resident would like to be put in touch with support services and would be provided with a copy of the action plan and informed when contact was made with the neighbour. The plan recorded that the landlord would contact the resident every 2 weeks. The evidence provided does not demonstrate that the landlord undertook these actions. These were commitments designed to support the investigation of the ASB and to support the resident. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not fulfil these commitments, and it was unreasonable that the resident did not receive the communication and support that was promised. In not adhering to the commitments the landlord undermined its relationship with the resident and the resident’s confidence in it.
  4. On 21 July 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that she had been subject to intimidation by her neighbour and provided ring doorbell footage. The landlord acknowledged receipt and said the report would be considered within 5 working days. It then sent an internal email requesting the resident’s case continue to be “looked into”. The ASB procedure states that if a case already exists subsequent reports should be recorded against that open case. The landlord acted appropriately in adding the latest report to the resident’s case. However, the evidence provided does not demonstrate that the landlord contacted the resident about the report thereafter. It was unreasonable for the resident not to have her report followed up and conveyed to the resident that the landlord did not take her reports seriously.
  5. The evidence shows that the resident made further ASB reports concerning the neighbour to the landlord on 12 August 2023 and 5 September 2023. The evidence provided does not demonstrate that the landlord added these reports to the resident’s case. The landlord acted inappropriately in not updating the ASB case to incorporate the resident’s reports and is further evidence of ineffective case management by the landlord.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2023 the landlord said apart from an incident in April 2023, the reports made by the resident were ‘low-level’. The landlord’s ASB procedure stipulates that on receipt of an ASB report, it conduct a RAM. In order to determine the severity of an incident and risk to the resident it is necessary to conduct an assessment of the incident. However, the evidence provided does not demonstrate that risk assessments were conducted. It was inappropriate of the landlord not to carry out the assessments in accordance with its policy and, in the absence of assessment, unfair to the resident to characterise the incidents as ‘low level’ and inappropriate to do so in respect of its case management.
  7. The landlord did acknowledge in its stage 1 complaint response that it had not explained to the resident that injunctions could only be used when there was strong evidence of a threat of harm. It concluded it had acted unreasonably in April 2022 when it initially advised the resident that an injunction could be pursued and upheld this element of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not, however, apologise or offer compensation for this failing.
  8. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord failed to consistently comply with its ASB procedure. It did not demonstrate that it conducted risk assessments of the resident’s reports or followed up all the actions in the action plan. This resulted in time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience being caused to the resident. As a result of these failings, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay the resident £75 compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be responded to withing 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 12 August 2023. The landlord’s policy states that following receipt of a complaint it will contact the resident within 5 working days. The landlord acknowledged receipt on 5 September 2023 and said it required an additional 10 days to provide a complaint response. The landlord acted unreasonably in taking 17 working days to acknowledge receipt of the resident’s complaint. This meant it acknowledged receipt after its target response time.
  3. Although the landlord acted in accordance with its complaints policy by explaining to the resident that it required extra time to provide a stage 1 response, it acted unreasonably in not communicating this information ahead of the target response time. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 15 September 2023, in which it did not apologise, or account for the delay.
  4. The stage 1 response stated that the landlord was unable to consider the handling of the resident’s management move application as this was subject to a separate process. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it is unable to consider within its complaints process, “decisions made in accordance with its statutory obligations”.
  5. However, how the landlord handled the resident’s application for a management transfer, is a distinct and different complaint matter to its decision on the application. The landlord’s explanation about why it could not consider the handling of management move application as part of its response was inadequate and was not in accordance with its policy. Furthermore, if the landlord considered that it was unable to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint at that time, it should have set out if there were alternative ways that the complaint could be considered. It was unreasonable for the resident to have her complaint refused without a full explanation as to why, and without being provided with details of any alternative process whereby it could be considered.
  6. On 11 October 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed. On 26 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s review request and explained that it would require an additional 10 working days to provide a complaint response. It took 12 working days for the landlord to acknowledge receipt of the complaint. This meant that landlord only acknowledged receipt of the complaint, after its target response date had passed. The landlord did acknowledge this failing in its stage 2 response and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the failing.
  7. In summary, the landlord took too long to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. At both complaint stages the landlord took too long to communicate that a response would be delayed. The landlord’s handling of the issue of the management move in its stage 1 response was inadequate. As a result of these failings, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay the resident a further £50 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of an application for a management move.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to reports of ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from 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 compensation of £275. This sum is in addition to the compensation awarded at stage 2 and should be paid directly to the resident and not to a rent or service charge account. The compensation comprises:
      1. £150 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her application for a management move.
      2. £75 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
      3. £50 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.

The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and must not be paid to a rent or service charge account.

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must review the information provided to residents and held on its website about management moves and the associated application process. The landlord must write to this Service confirming that this information is clear and up to date. At a minimum, the landlord must publish:
    1. The application process for a management move.
    2. The decision process for considering applications and communicating outcomes.
    3. The associated timelines.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must deliver refresher training on management moves to relevant staff, including all customer service staff. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman summarising the content of this training, the number of staff identified to receive it and the number that have completed the training.
  3. The landlord should replay to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.