Southend on Sea City Council (202344463)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344463

Southend-on-Sea City Council

12 November 2024

 

 

Amended at review.

 

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 handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling is also considered.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy, which began on 7 September 2020. The property is a one-bed flat on the third floor of a high-rise building. The landlord is an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO) for a local authority. The landlord’s records state that the resident is vulnerable.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 15 February 2023. She said that she was desperate to leave the property but was unable to secure a mutual exchange. The resident said prostitutes used the building, a neighbour was a drug dealer, the fire alarms went off constantly and homeless people congregated in the stairwells. That day, someone had urinated in the stairwell and the lifts were out of use because of a police investigation. The resident said there were no security doors on the building, women were vulnerable, and people could tailgate into the building. The resident said she would like someone to contact her urgently, and that the landlord needed to hold a meeting with residents to understand the issues at the building.
  3. The landlord spoke with the resident on 16 February 2023 and the resident described her experience of living at the property. The landlord offered to refer the resident to a counselling service, which the resident declined due to the fact that she was already undergoing therapy and did not want both to conflict with one another. The landlord said it was unsure how to address the issues but would find out how to.
  4. The resident contacted her MP on 17 February 2023 to request assistance to move property. The MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and the landlord responded on 2 March 2023. The landlord said the resident did not qualify for a management move and had declined its offer to assist her with a housing application. This was disputed by the resident, who asked the MP to clarify why the landlord had said she had refused its assistance. The MP raised the question and the landlord responded on 10 March 2023 and said the resident refused assistance during a conversation on 15 February 2023.
  5. On 6 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that she did not feel safe in the building. She provided pictures which she said illustrated there was drug taking in the stairwell of the building. The resident said that unauthorised people continued to access the building.
  6. On 13 March 2023 the resident spoke with the landlord. The resident said that she was vulnerable and recovering from cancer. The resident said unauthorised people were accessing the building and that there was potential drug dealing taking place at a neighbour’s property. The landlord advised that drug dealing needed to be reported to the police. It explained to the resident that the local authority had declined her application as it said she was adequately housed. The landlord said her other options were a private let, mutual exchange or a hard-to-let property but none were available at present.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 16 March 2023. It said it had responded by phone to the points in the resident’s email and a residents’ meeting was held on 14 March 2023. The landlord said there were daily security patrols of the building. It said the patrols reported issues to the landlord and said that it hoped this would result in a reduction in the type of incidents reported by the resident. The landlord said the options available to the resident if she wished to move were a mutual exchange or a housing application. It noted that the resident would be considered as being adequately housed, therefore it suggested the resident provide evidence, such as letter from her GP, in support of any housing application.
  8. On 28 and 29 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about a neighbour, who she said had tried to intimidate her. The resident also reported homeless people were staying in the block and the details of a recent assault that had occurred. The landlord responded on 30 March 2023 and said it would undertake several actions which included, contacting the resident who was allowing homeless people into the block, to visit a vulnerable resident, and speak with a resident about an abandoned caravan in the vicinity of the building. The landlord asked the resident what action she was seeking in regard to the assault victim she had referenced. In response, the resident said the landlord needed to investigate issues and she feared if she made more reports she would be victimised. The landlord responded on 31 March 2023 and said any incident of crime needed to be reported to the police, and the landlord should be provided with the corresponding crime reference number (CRN). The resident told the landlord on 3 April 2023 that she was asking for the incident with the neighbour to be documented and that she would not report it to the police.
  9. On 20 April 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 28 April 2023. It said the advice provided in its stage 1 response about the resident’s options for moving home was honest and correct and offered to assist the resident to complete a housing application. The landlord said it took community safety seriously. It said a new door entry system had been installed in the block and if used correctly, would prevent unauthorised access to the building. It said it had also increased security guard patrols. The landlord said that following the residents’ meeting in March 2023, it had not received any reports of crime or nuisance. It said that unless incidents were targeted at the resident and substantiated by the police, the incidents would not be considered as grounds for a move.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policydefines intimidation or harassment as ASB. It states that all ASB reports will be recorded however, it will not investigate isolated incidences of some types of reports.
  2. The policy states that the landlord will exercise judgement to establish an appropriate response to a report of ASB. The factors to be considered include, the nature of the incident, the harm caused or risk of harm, the frequency of incidents, availability of evidence and the vulnerabilities of those involved.
  3. The landlord’s website states that it will assess ASB issues that are reported to it, arrange an appropriate response, and respond via the resident’s preferred contact method within 10 working days. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its ASB procedure.
  4. The evidence shows that on 6 August 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that a neighbour was harassing her. The landlord responded on 8 August 2022 and told the resident that she needed to report the incident to the police and then provide the landlord with a CRN. The landlord acted appropriately in contacting the resident within its target 10 working days timeline, and acted reasonably in advising her, as a victim of crime, to contact the police.
  5. The evidence provided indicates the resident did contact the police, however, it is unclear if a CRN was issued. There is no evidence that the landlord recorded or followed up the resident’s report, or that it conducted a risk assessment. None of these actions would be contingent on the resident providing a CRN and it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have documented and assessed the resident’s report and advised, the outcome accordingly and in the event of any risk to the resident to have liaised with the police.
  6. The evidence indicates that the resident next contacted the landlord about ASB when she raised a complaint on 15 February 2023. In the complaint, the resident said that sex workers and homeless people accessed the building and that a neighbour was dealing drugs. The resident also expressed concerns for her own safety. She said there were no security doors, which meant people who did not live there could access the building by following residents through the entrance. The resident asked to be contacted urgently and the landlord acted reasonably in calling the resident the next day.
  7. During the call to the resident on 16 February 2023, the landlord offered the resident access to a counselling service. The landlord acted reasonably in offering access to the service, however, this on its own would not constitute a reasonable response to the issues in the block that the resident had raised. The landlord’s ASB policy states that every report of ASB should be recorded. Without adequate records it would be difficult for the landlord to have a clear picture of ASB in the building. This in turn, would impede its ability to address and remedy the issues. The resident had clearly referenced behaviour in the block that could constituted ASB, however, there is no evidence that the landlord recorded the resident’s report as such.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 16 March 2023. In this, the landlord said it had responded by phone to the points raised in the resident’s email. This meant that the landlord had not formally recorded the resident’s report of ASB in the block, or its response to it. The complaint response went on to say that the landlord had held a residents’ meeting on 14 March 2023. The landlord acted reasonably in arranging a residents’ meeting, however, this Service would expect minutes to have been taken at the meeting, for the landlord to have summarised the meeting, and that actions that were agreed as part of its subsequent complaint response. It is reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord fulfil its record keeping obligations and provide a full response that conveyed it took her reports and concerns seriously. Not doing so was a communications failure by the landlord.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 and 29 March 2023 about a neighbour, who she said had tried to intimidate her. The resident also said that homeless people were staying in the block and referenced an assault that had happened recently. The landlord followed the timescales set out in its policy by responding on 30 March 2023 and setting out the actions it would take in response. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord recorded these reports as ASB or conducted a risk assessment. Following an exchange in which the resident told the landlord that she thought it needed to investigate issues, and she feared being victimised, the landlord told the resident on 31 March 2023 that she needed to report any incident of crime to the police and provide it with the corresponding CRN. This was the same message as was conveyed to the resident in August 2022 and is reasonable to conclude for the resident that the landlord was only willing to act if an incident was considered to by the police to be a potential criminal offence. The landlord’s communications which led to this point were unreasonable, as its own policies set out that ASB takes many forms and does not have to be a criminal offence to meet the necessary criteria. The resident told the landlord on 3 April 2023 that she was asking for the incident with the neighbour to be documented. This was a reasonable request and in accordance with the service levels she could reasonably expect. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or if the incident was recorded.
  10. In its stage 2 response on 28 April 2023 the landlord said that a new door entry system had been installed the previous year, and, if used correctly, would prevent unauthorised access to the building. The resident had reported issues with unauthorised access after the installation of the new door entry system. It was reasonable to have expected the landlord to have addressed that issue and to not solely rely on the prior installation of the door system to answer the complaint point. By only suggesting that if used correctly the issues would not arise, the landlord gave the impression that it believed the responsibility for addressing the issue lay with residents. The response went on to state that it had not received reports of crime or nuisance since the residents’ meeting on 14 March 2023. This was factually incorrect as the resident had reported issues to the landlord on 28 and 29 March 2023.
  11. In summary, the landlord did not demonstrate that it recorded and assessed the resident’s reports. It told the resident that she needed to report issues to the police and provide it with a CRN. Whether intended or not, this risked conveying that it would only act if a crime had occurred, when in fact the landlord should have recorded, assessed, and responded to the resident’s reports. When the resident explicitly asked for an issue with a neighbour to be documented, the landlord failed to respond. Although the landlord held a residents’ meeting in response to the reports of issues in the building, it did not document the actions arising from that meeting. The landlord did not record or adequately respond to the resident’s reports of unauthorised individuals accessing the building. As result of these failings, and the detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer

  1. The evidence shows that the resident had an application to join the local authority’s housing register declined on 4 August 2022. The resident’s housing application is outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because the local authority’s administration of decisions regarding its housing register comes under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care (LGSC) Ombudsman and therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This investigation will, however, consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property, in regard to the management move process.
  2. The landlord has provided the local authority’s decant and management move procedure. It states that a management move can be requested when it can be demonstrated that remaining at the current tenancy could result in the resident being placed at high risk of physical or mental harm. It states that if a resident is fleeing harassment, violence or abuse and can remain in the city but not their current tenancy, a report should be prepared by the relevant officer involved with the case. The report should be accompanied by supporting evidence from relevant third parties, such as the police or medical professionals. It states that the management move request will be clearly documented and the result provided to the resident.
  3. On 15 February 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was at breaking point and desperately wanted to move. She said that she had been told she was adequately housed and had attempted to secure a mutual exchange, but no one wanted to swap because of conditions at the building. The landlord contacted the resident the next day and offered her counselling, which the resident declined because she was undergoing therapy at the time and did not want both to conflict with one another. The landlord said it was unsure how to assist the resident with her situation but it would find out.
  4. The evidence does not show that the landlord responded directly to the resident, however, on 2 March 2023 it responded to an enquiry the resident’s MP made on her behalf. The landlord told the MP that the resident did not qualify for a management move and had refused its offer to assist with completing a housing application. The resident disputed the landlord’s assertion that she had refused its assistance and the landlord responded to say the resident had done so during a conversation on 15 February 2023. The landlord’s contact report for that conversation notes that the resident was frustrated, however, it does not record that it offered her assistance with a housing application.
  5. In its stage 1 response the landlord said if the resident wanted to move, her options were a mutual exchange, or housing application. It noted that the resident would beconsidered as beingadequately housed, therefore it suggested sheshould provide relevant evidence in support of a housing application. It is unclear why the landlord’s correspondence to the MP referred to a management move but this information was not conveyed in the complaint response. For clarify and accuracy the landlord should have provided the same information on different moving options in both responses.
  6. In its stage 2 response on 28 April 2023 the landlord said its advice on the options for moving provided in its stage 1 response were honest and factual. The evidence shows this was not correct. The response referred to a mutual exchange and a housing application. It did not reference a management move. As part of its complaint response, it was reasonable and fair to expect the landlord to have provided clear and accurate information on the different routes to secure a housing transfer and the criteria for accessing these.
  7. In summary, the landlord did not provide clear and accurate information to the resident about the possible routes to move property. The resident was asking for a housing transfer and was essentially requesting a management move as a result of conditions in the building and because of her own vulnerabilities. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to have provided clear, accurate and timely information about the management move process. If it believed the resident did not qualify for a management move, and therefore did not consider it a possible option, the landlord should have set out its position clearly and with reference to the criteria for a management move. As a result of landlord’s ineffective communication, the resident would have experienced distress and inconvenience. As a result of the failings, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will log and acknowledge receipt of complaints within 5 working days and provide stage 1 and 2 responses within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 15 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt the next day and provided a stage 1 response, 21 working days later on 16 March 2023. This landlord acted inappropriately in providing the response 11 working days after its published response timeline.
  3. In its response the landlord said it had responded by phone to the points in the resident’s emailed complaint. Paragraph 5.5 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) stipulates that a stage 1 response must address all points raised by the resident. If the landlord had dealt with aspects of the resident’s complaint in a phone conversation, it should have documented the nature of that conversation in the complaint response. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to have provided the resident with a full record of the complaint response.
  4. On 20 April 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed and the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 28 April 2023, which was within its target response timeline.
  5. In summary, the landlord did not provide a stage 1 response within its target response timeline and failed to record in writing the full details of that response. As a result of these failings the resident was inconvenienced and delayed resolution to her complaints. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a property transfer.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £525 compensation, comprising:
      1. £400 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
      2. £75 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.
      3. £50 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review its ASB procedure. The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of the review, actions arising, staff training identified and communication to staff detailing the relevant processes. The landlord should ensure that the procedure sets out the entire process and responsibilities for dealing with reports of ASB, and must include:
    1. The process and associated timeline for recording all ASB reports received by the landlord.
    2. The process and associated timeline for conducting and documenting the risk assessment of all ASB reports.
    3. The process the landlord will undertake and document for establishing the approach it will take to each ASB report.
    4. How the landlord will communicate this approach to the resident and establish the appropriate communication plan going forward.
    5. How it will ensure that when the landlord directs a resident to make report to the police the landlord also documents the ASB and takes the appropriate action.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.