Arun District Council (202125542)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125542

Arun District Council

30 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

The complaints is about:
1. The landlords response to the resident’s request for a transfer to another property.
2. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of asbestos.
3. The landlord continually requesting vulnerability and disability information from the resident.
4. The landlords response to the residents request for a single point of person contact arrangement.
5. The landlord not advising the resident of a contractor attending.
6. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a member of staff attending their property unannounced.
7. The landlords handling of the resident’s report of ASB from the neighbour.
8. The landlords refusal to escalate the resident’s complaint about a member of staff being too involved in her case.
9. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour installing a bench outside their property.

Background

The resident and her partner hold a joint secure tenancy, with the landlord which is a council. The property is a 1st floor 1 bed flat, and the tenancy commenced on 22 Feb 2017.
There are vulnerabilities within the household. Both the resident and her partner have a number of health and wellbeing issues. The resident has difficult to control asthma, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder ( PTSD) as a survivor of domestic abuse. Her partner has a mobility issue and has difficulty with stairs. Both are supported for their mental health by MIND.
The resident and her partner had raised various issues with the landlord that they were not happy with from the time their tenancy began. In May 2017, the residents were advised that the volume of their correspondence was excessive, (60 emails March – May 2017) and a disproportionate amount of officer time was being used in responding to it. A correspondence management process was implemented providing a single email address for the residents communication. This was further amended to a commitment that concerns could be raised to that email address, but only responded to once a week by the landlord.
During 2022, the resident made a number of formal complaints which included the way they were required to communicate, which they considered unfair, repairs to their flat and the communal area, fly-tipping, antisocial behaviour from a neighbour below and issues with staff and contractors.
The landlord said that to manage the high number of complaints and escalation requests received from the residents during this period it was providing the resident with one combined stage 2 response, which covered 10 formal complaints and escalations that were outstanding as of December 2022.
In summary its response said
1. For the single point of contact (SPOC), the email address allocated to them was a SPOC for all housing related matters and as the volume and nature of the residents contact had not changed, the process would remain in place.
2. Advanced notification of any visiting contractor to the block had not been agreed. Advanced notification for the landlords contractors attendance at the block, had been trialled but it was not workable, and they could not continue to commit to this.
3. An unannounced visit by the housing officer had been acknowledged and apologised for and an explanation on the purpose of viewing the ring doorbell had both been explained in the stage 1 response. This issue was therefore adequately resolved, and the complaint not upheld.
4. An ASB incident at Christmas, over a generic landlord letter about dog fouling, was attended to by the police who issued the perpetrator with a Community Order. The landlord approached the neighbour and her visitor about the unacceptable behaviour which was followed up with a written warning. There was no further harassment from the perpetrator, it was satisfied it had responded promptly and appropriately. The complaint was not upheld.
5. It was happy to refer them for mediation, but the resident needed to arrange this herself with the external provider. It noted the resident did not want to pursue this at this time as she was shielding from Covid.
6. Not accepting the escalation request in relation to a staff members involvement with their case, was considered justified as there were no grounds and instead, they had been trying to arrange face to face contact to discuss and resolve the issues.
7. The bench outside the neighbours property was not a breach of tenancy, the area was designed for seating. Investigations into the use of the bench for illegal purposes (cannabis smoking) had been completed and no evidence was found to support this. This meant there were no grounds for the landlord to insist the neighbour remove the bench.
8. In regard to the neighbour having a BBQ under the residents window, the neighbour was approached and advised this was not allowed, they had not had a BBQ since, so the matter in the landlords view was resolved, and the complaint was not upheld.
9. The issue of the landlord asking for further medical information. It was noted that the resident had advised of medical conditions previously unknown to the landlord such as long covid and sleep apnoea. It had not had any medical information since 2019, so asked for any updates and the impact they had on the resident.
10. It found the request was not unreasonable, but accepted that it had not explained the purpose of the request to the resident, and could have used an alternative method to obtain this information.
11. The landlord did not agree it had ignored the resident as she had suggested, but agreed there had been some confusion due to the volume and mixed messages received. The resolution was to re-instigate the original method of contact, though the designated email address with weekly responses.

Post Internal Complaint Process (ICP)

In January 2023, the residents were issued a warning by the landlord about their ongoing excessive email correspondence, formal complaints, escalations, and SAR requests. It re-iterated its expectations for the residents communication with them and confirmed it had accepted the residents request for MIND to be copied into all responses.
On 19 December 2023, the landlord said its unreasonable behaviour policy was implemented by the landlord. It said that despite its efforts, the volume and nature of the residents communication had increased, for example, during November 2023, it received 42 separate emails to the designated email address. This did not include emails that had been sent to individual members of staff and other team inboxes.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme paragraph 42(j), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
When the landlord is a council, matters outside of its functions as a landlord, fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
Transfers of accommodation through the council’s housing needs register and the councils allocations policy, are part of a council’s strategic housing function and not its functions as a landlord. This means that the residents complaint about her request for a transfer cannot be included as part of this investigation as these matters can only be considered by the LGSCO.
The landlord said its records showed that the resident asked to withdraw her complaint about asbestos issues.
In accordance with paragraph 49(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that have not exhausted a landlords complaints procedure. As the landlord considered the residents complaint had been withdrawn, the residents complaint on the asbestos issues did not proceed through the landlords full complaints procedure. As such, this aspect of the residents complaint cannot be included in this investigation.
If the resident still wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she will need to discuss this with the landlord.

The landlord continually enquiring about vulnerability and disability information from the resident.

The Equality Act 2010 (EA), came into force on 1 October 2010, providing a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all, and applies to all organisations.
The EA also states that landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who do not have a disability.
Section 20 of the Equality Act imposes a duty on landlords to make reasonable adjustments. There are three ways landlords may make adjustments:
1. Take reasonable steps to avoid any disadvantages presented by a provision, criterion, or practice.
2. Take steps to avoid a disadvantage presented by a physical feature.
3. Provide extra aids or services (auxiliary aids and services).
While it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a resident has a disability, it is our role to look at whether the landlord had considered whether they had any other protected characteristic where its responsibilities under the Act would apply.
It was evident in much of the residents communication to the landlord that she had highlighted that members of the household had protected characteristics. She also stated on several occasions that she felt the landlord had not appropriately considered her disabilities when handling issues she had raised.
In order for a landlord to determine if a resident has disabilities, and consider whether it might have duties under the act, it needs to know if a resident has any health and wellbeing issues that could constitute a disability. It would also need to know what these are and how they impact a residents day to day life in order to consider any reasonable adjustments they might be able to provide.
The landlord had noted, following complaints from the resident about the location of a post box and the impact this was having on her partner, that the medical information held on their file was not up to date. On 22 February 2022 in response to one of her emails about the post box it notified her that someone would be in contact to discuss their medical issues.
This caused the resident alarm. She had recently provided full medical information to another part of the council, the housing needs team, in relation to a transfer, and she had shared medical information in the past with her landlord. She believed the landlord had lost all her medical records and that there had been a data breach, she approached her local MP for assistance.
The resident then considered 2 further attempts by the landlord to update her medical information as harassment. The residents concern overall was understandable as the landlord had not explained why it was asking for these records.
In addition the councils functions as a landlord (council housing) are carried out by a completely different department to its functions as a strategic housing provider (housing needs register, allocations). Information provided to one department is not automatically known to the other, many residents are not aware of this, and assume they are the same department.
The landlord did however acknowledge that this was an error in its communication. It recognised it should have notified the resident why it was asking, and it could have used other methods to obtain the information, such as a medical release form to contact the G.P. It apologised to the residents which was appropriate.
While there were failings in its communication to update the residents medical information, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to try to obtain it. It demonstrated that the landlord was considering its duties under the equality act which was appropriate.

The landlords response to the residents request for a single person point of contact.

For historical context, the resident was put on a correspondence management plan in May 2017, this was 3 months after their tenancy began. It was introduced by the landlords Chief Executive Officer, because the landlords staff were becoming overwhelmed by the volume of correspondence received from the residents, and the landlord had a duty of care to their staff.
The resident had made it known that they were not happy with the contact process imposed on them. The reason for this was that they felt their emails were not being responded to, through the current route, and as this was a shared email box they did not know who was accessing their complaints or information.
In January 2022, the landlord formalised its management of correspondence by developing and implementing an Unreasonable Behaviour(UB) Policy. The landlord adopted the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s definition of unreasonable behaviour as “complainants who, because of the nature or frequency of their contacts with an organisation, hinder the organisation’s consideration of their, or other people’s, complaints.”
Some examples of the behaviours the landlord includes are:
1. Adopting a ‘scatter gun’ approach: pursuing parallel complaints on the same issue with various service areas and organisations.
2. Making excessive demands on the time and resources of staff with lengthy phone calls, emails to numerous staff, or detailed letters every few days, and expecting immediate responses.
3. Submitting repeat complaints with minor additions/variations the complainant insists make these ‘new’ complaints.
4. Raising a formal complaint for very minor problems.
If the policy is implemented a decision will be made at a senior level as to how communication is dealt with going forward. Examples included that all communication must be made to one email address only and that unless in the case of an emergency response, the complaints will be limited, for example, to once per week. It also allows for the landlord to consider taking legal action if the behaviour does not improve.
Once implemented the residents will be written to, with the reasons their conduct has been treated as unreasonable; any restrictions placed on the complainants contact, how long any restrictions will last (for example 6 months, 1 year, etc); and the complainant’s right to a review of the decision.
When the landlord originally imposed contact restrictions in 2017 it said it had acted under its duty of care to its employees, which it had an obligation to do, and was prior to having a policy in place. However once the landlords policy was introduced in January 2022, any restrictions imposed on the resident from that date on would need to meet the requirements of the policy.
The volume of emails were still such by January 2022, that the landlord had made moderations to the SPOC agreement. It set out in its email to the resident 6 January 2022 that it had been implementing a plan for 1 response per week to all issues the resident raised that week. In making this decision it said it had had regard to the residents disabilities, particularly her anxiety when matters are not responded to immediately.
Its email of 6 January 2022, also contained significant annual data on the number of emails received from the residents, as well as the numbers of formal complaints and subject access reviews for that year. It is for the landlord to determine what it considers excessive or unreasonable contact.
The data capture demonstrated that the residents level of contact had been monitored and reviewed and that it had evidenced its decision to continue to have a correspondence management system in place. Which is what its new policy required.
It set out again the SPOC contact email that the resident should only email for all written correspondence. An email address for repairs only, and an email address for data subject access requests.
However the email advised the resident they should treat this letter as “notice that the UB policy may be implemented” should they continue to contact the landlord other than in the way it had set out.
This was confusing, the UB policy stated that where the landlord decides to operate the policy, a consequence could be that the landlord may decide to implement certain measures when dealing with future complaints or contact from the same individual, details of which we have set out in paragraph 33earlier in this report.
The landlord putting any restrictions on contact in place, was, implementing the UB policy. In accordance with its policy, a warning would be relevant prior to any restrictions being put in place. This meant that the landlord had not correctly implemented its UB policy.
As the UB policy was in effect being implemented by continuing to restrict correspondence, to the residents, they should have been notified how long for, when it would be reviewed and how they can appeal the decision. This information was not provided as it should have been. This may however have been an oversight as the policy was so new and only just in the process of being implemented.
In a letter from the residents representative from MIND, 13 October 2022, the resident said they wanted the process changed, she wanted a single ‘person’ for contact and not the single ‘point’ of contact email address, they had been given. The representative also said this would support the residents anxiety and fears relating to her PTSD and this would allow them to feel confident that someone was paying attention and considering their needs appropriately.
The landlord would not agree to the request for a single person point of contact. It advised the representative that this was because the correspondence management process had originally been introduced because members of its staff had previously been overwhelmed by the volume of emails and complaints received from the resident.
In addition since the correspondence management process had been put in place, there was evidence that the residents had continued to send excessive amounts of emails, and also to other staff and teams within the organisation and not just the requested email address, which was in breach of the agreement.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the residents have vulnerabilities and act in this way because they are anxious and require a quick response. However the level of correspondence was significant, and the landlord has a duty of care to its staff, and must assess any risk to their health and wellbeing.
In light of the fact that, in accordance with its policy the level of correspondence was monitored and reviewed, and was not reducing. Along with evidence the residents were not just using the SPOC email address, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to lift the restrictions and refuse to allocate one person to the task of responding to them.
Furthermore the residents representative, having made a case for the need for contact through 1 person, in the same email, he said the residents also wanted permission to communicate with the neighbourhoods team. This was contradictory and did not support the earlier claim of the need for, or the benefits for the residents of communication via one single person contact, it was therefore not un-reasonable for the landlord to reject the request.
However at the point of reviewing its decision and advising the resident of the outcome, the landlord’s UB policy had been in place for 10 months. Its policy required that the landlord advised the resident how long the restrictions were in place for, and when it would be reviewed. It was also obliged to advise the resident of the right to appeal this decision. It was not evident that the landlord did this.
We would have expected to see its decision not to amend the correspondence restrictions and why, set out in a response to the letter of 13 September 2022 from MIND. This response should have included the unreasonable behaviour policy’s requirements with information on the timescales for restrictions and review, as well as the residents appeal rights.
It was unclear if the landlord responded to the MIND advocates letter of 13 October 2022, and provided this information, as this Service has not been supplied a copy which was not appropriate.
This issue was however covered in detail in the landlords combined stage 2 response of 20 December 2022. It set out its decision and why stating “over a period of time, you have continued to send correspondence directly to officers or to other landlord email addresses in addition to using the notified address. We find that this volume of correspondence has prejudiced its ability to respond to your issues and has caused a disproportionate amount of time to be spent by different staff simultaneously to investigate and respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints and other correspondence.” This was reasonable and in accordance with its policy requirements.
The information however on the timescales for restrictions, period for review and the residents right of appeal was not included. The landlords failure to demonstrate that it had provided this information, as its policy requires was a service failure.

The landlord not advising the resident of a contractor attending.

The landlord is required to give reasonable notice before attending a residents property to inspect it or carry out repairs. The residents tenancy agreement sets out reasonable notice as at least 24hrs before. Once notice is given the resident is required to provide access. Refusal to do so, can result in the landlord obtaining a court order to gain entry.
There is no requirement for the landlord to give notice to residents for repairs externally or in communal areas. It is however good practice to notify residents of any works to these areas that will cause some inconvenience, require scaffolding, or will render an area unusable for a period of time.
At some point, the exact date was not clear, the landlord had programmed in a significant amount of work for compliance in the block and particularly in the communal areas.
Although it was not a requirement the landlord gave the residents assurances to keep them informed of when to expect the compliance contractors at the block to complete works.
At the time the residents were shielding in response to the pandemic. The decision to notify the residents in advance, when compliance operatives were attending the communal areas, demonstrated the landlord had acknowledged the residents vulnerabilities and considered whether it had responsibilities to the residents under the Equality Act 2010. As a result this reasonable adjustment was agreed by the landlord to support their shielding requirements.
There was an instance where the residents had cause to complain, because a contractor had attended the block to paint the front doors, and they had not been advised in accordance with this agreement. The exact date of the complaint was not clear.
The landlord acknowledged this failing in a stage 1 response. The stage 1 response was not provided to this Service, but an extract was, with the complaint reference number, the exact date it was sent is unknown. It apologised and explained it was a miscommunication, the contractor did not realise notice was required when they attended the block and not just the property. The landlord apologised and assured the residents the contractors had been updated, which was reasonable.
On 30 August 2022, the resident emailed to complain that they had been pre-notified that contractors were attending to fit a new door to a neighbour’s property, and the contractors did not attend. This was a source of inconvenience as the resident had cancelled an online appointment and food delivery order un-necessarily.
On the same date the resident enquired about another contractor who had entered the block that they had not been pre-notified about. The landlord investigated and found that none of its contractors were scheduled to attend that day and that this was a contractor employed by another resident.
This communication initiated a review by the landlord of the arrangement to give the residents prenotification of the compliance contractor visits to the block. Its findings were that this arrangement was leading to increased email contact from the resident, such as queries about exact times of attendance, duration of works, level of noise and comments on attendance and punctuality.
The landlord said this increased contact suggested that advance notice was creating more anxiety with the resident rather than relieving it. Contractors had the ability to work to their own schedule and the landlord was often not able to answer the residents queries, and on occasion it generated additional work for them to find out.
As stated earlier once a disability is identified, Section 20 of the equality act imposes a duty on a landlord, to make reasonable adjustments. However ‘reasonable’ means that a landlord can consider whether such an adjustment would be practical and/or affordable and the resources available to the organisation making the adjustment. The landlord made the decision that the reasonable adjustment of the pre-notification agreement had not been successful and was not sustainable. It was therefore not unreasonable to withdraw it.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a member of staff attending their property unannounced.

The landlord had become aware of the residents need for advance notification and consistency when dealing with the maintenance of their property. On 15 July 2022, an annual gas safety check was arranged, an operative known to the residents was booked in. On the day, the operative booked could not attend, as his van had broken down. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident, explained the situation, and advised a different operative would attend.
To assist the residents with the last-minute change, it was suggested by the maintenance team that it might be helpful if the housing officer was in attendance. This was reasonable, and was recommended to support the residents with the appointment, and not to antagonise them.
The resident complained that the officer turned up unannounced which was a breach of the tenancy conditions. She said paragraph 44 of the residents tenancy agreement states that the landlord will give residents 24hrs notice of any visits.
The resident had been notified in advance of the appointment for the gas inspection, but had not been told that the housing officer was coming to support that inspection. The landlord had, technically complied with the obligations in the tenancy agreement, it had given prior notice of the appointment, and it is the decision of the landlord which staff or operatives it sends to that appointment.
Nevertheless the landlord gave due consideration to the residents vulnerabilities, and recognised that this had upset the residents. This was not its intention, it apologised and agreed that visits with any staff and contractors to their property would be prearranged with sufficient notice in the future, which was reasonable.

The landlords handling of the resident’s report of ASB from the neighbour.

On 24 December 2021, around 3pm the resident emailed the landlord to report an incident that had just occurred, whereby a neighbours visitor, was banging aggressively on their front door, consistently ringing their doorbell for a minute and a half, and shouting at them.
The police attended, when they arrived the perpetrator approached them with a generic letter that had been sent to all residents by the landlord about dog fouling. He then accused the residents of being the ones complaining about it, which they had not.
The resident advised the police had given issued the neighbours with an order relating to a public offence, and they had advised them to report the incident to the landlord. They requested the landlord do something about it, as they were really scared and worried. They wanted the landlord to contact them that day with an action plan going forward.
The landlords ASB policy states that when ASB is reported it will take a victim centred approach. It commits to consider the complainant’s needs and the harm the ASB causes them (and others). It will consider the risks and work with other agencies where appropriate and possible to protect their safety, provide support, investigate the ASB and take action to stop further incidents.
This aligns with the statutory guidance for frontline professionals, which states that harm, or the potential for harm to be caused to the victim, is an important consideration for the landlord in determining its approach, as the more vulnerable can be less resilient to anti-social behaviour. The residents were known to the landlord to be vulnerable.
On 10 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask who was dealing with their ASB case. They said the police had advised them that the landlord could provide support and mediation.
The fact that the residents had had to contact the landlord to find out who was dealing with the ASB suggests that the resident had not been contacted by the landlord in relation to the incident, of 24 December 2022. While the incident did take place just prior to the landlord closing for the Christmas break, 9 working days had passed and the landlord had not contacted the residents. This does not demonstrate a victim centred approach that statutory guidance or the landlords ASB policy required.
Furthermore the landlords policy commits to undertake a risk assessment on the potential harm of the ASB with victims and offer referrals to support agencies where appropriate. The statutory guidance promotes the use of risk assessments in cases of ASB as, whilst they cannot provide a definitive assessment of someone’s needs, they can assist in determining an appropriate response.
There was no evidence that the landlord had completed a risk assessment even though they knew that the residents were vulnerable. This was a service failing by the landlord. A risk assessment may not have determined that the risk to the residents was high, but this is a key part of the landlords assessment process and without it, it cannot determine whether its response was appropriate.
On the same day, the landlord told the resident that it had visited the neighbour and her visitor that day. The resident had been advised that she was responsible for anyone visiting her property and that she would be receiving a written reminder of her tenant responsibilities. It apologised to the resident for the disturbance and upset they had been caused by the incident, and if there were any further occurrences to let them know immediately. This was reasonable.
The resident approached the landlord on 11 January 2022, because following the ASB incident and having had previous experience of domestic abuse, the police had suggested she ask for permission for a ring doorbell. She had been advised she needed permission from her neighbour, but she was shielding, she asked could the landlord approach him.
On 18 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again about the ASB incident, she wanted something done about the neighbour telling her friend they were the source of the complaint of the dog fouling, when they had been shielding inside for 2 years. She said the incident had exacerbated her PTSD as she thought it was her ex-partner banging on the door. They were told following a previous incident of ASB in 2019 that if anything else happened the neighbour would be dealt with.
The landlord responded the same day advising that it was unable to prevent neighbours speaking to their visitors. It had been explained to the neighbour that the letters were sent to everyone. The landlord advised it deals with matters in a confidential way and at no point had the neighbour been advised that the resident had made the complaint. It said if the resident was concerned about what the neighbours were discussing with one another or their visitors, it suggested she seek legal advice which was appropriate.
On 24 January 2022, the landlord gave permission for the resident to install a CCTV ring doorbell, the response for this was timely and appropriate.
The resident made a formal complaint on 24 August 2022, she asked for the situation with the ASB incident to be reviewed, she did not think enough was done about the incident on Christmas Eve, the situation had not improved and there had been a lack of progress with mediation.
The complaint investigation response 20 December 2022, noted the landlords ASB officer visited the neighbour, whose visitor was still present and owned a dog. They were advised the behaviour of 24 December 2021, to the resident was unacceptable. Both apologised and assured the landlord this would not happen again.
It was not evident that this level of detail about the perpetrators response had previously been shared with the resident and it might have been a bit more reassuring to them had it done so.
The landlord noted the resident had referenced the incident in correspondence to them a further 14 times (dates given) since it had happened, and that it had responded a further 7 times. Its position was that a community order was in place, no further incident of this nature had occurred since, it had responded appropriately and timely and the matter was closed. This was reasonable.
The resident had raised other incidents about the neighbours that she considered to be ASB. She reported on 16 July 2022, that the neighbour had a barbeque in the communal area, the whole area smelt of paraffin and it had caused the resident to have an asthma attack. When the residents complained to the neighbour, she said they laughed at them.
The landlord responded on the 18 July 2022; it said it would speak to the neighbours. While this incident was an inappropriate use of the communal space, there was no evidence that this was designed to harass the resident. As a result of the landlords contact, there were no further BBQ’s in the communal area. The landlord considered the matter to be resolved, which was reasonable.
The other issue that had been raised was the neighbours smoking of cannabis. The landlords response to this is set out further on in the report, in relation to the neighbours installation of a bench at the block.
The landlords stage 2 response, said it understood the resident was looking for mediation as a resolution, its records noted in an email on 15 March 2022 it had asked the resident if she was interested in mediation/conflict coaching. Her response the same day stated that she would let the landlord know after she had spoken to her support worker. The landlord said on review of its information there was no record of the resident coming back to it on this issue.
However communication from victim support on 1 April 2022, states the resident had asked for more detail about this, but had not received a response. It would appear that the residents email on 15 March 2023, also asked if the mediation would be just with the neighbour and not the visitor, but a response to this part of the email appears to have been overlooked.
The landlord said in a follow up email dated 12 April 2022, that it sent details of mediation / conflict coaching, to the resident, this Service has not had sight of this email, so this has not been verified. It also said that the resident was offered mediation again at a later date, (the exact date is unclear) but did not want to take it up at that time as she was shielding and had long covid.
There has however been some dispute from the resident on what was or what was not agreed by her in respect of her response to the mediation. In an email 5 October 2023, she said she refused conflict coaching and not mediation, which the landlord has appropriately recorded.
The resident, however, did not want the mediation to be face to face. She proposed that a housing officer act as a go between and relay messages between the two parties. The landlord advised the resident that this was not how mediation worked, and the landlord does not get directly involved with mediation between neighbours.
While the landlord might not get directly involved, the type of mediation that the resident was referring to, does exist, it is called “shuttle mediation” and is offered by many mediation providers. It would have been appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to enquire on the residents behalf whether this was something its mediators could provide.
This was not however considered a service failure, this might not have been a service that was available in the area, this was just an action the landlord could have considered to show support for the resident and progress mediation.
Overall the police had led on the incident of 24 December 2021, diffusing the immediate threat, and serving a public offence order. The landlord visited the neighbour and perpetrator, soon after the incident and warned them about their behaviour and reminded the neighbour of her tenancy conditions. It secured an apology from both the neighbour and her guest.
However, the policy requires a victim focused approach, and that the landlord completes a risk assessment. The landlord failed to proactively contact the resident following the incident and has not evidenced that a risk assessment was completed.
This incident had understandably shaken the resident and made them feel unsafe, had the landlord implemented the victim focused response it commits to, the residents may have felt supported and that their fears and concerns had been taken seriously. The landlord did not adhere to its policy, which has led to a determination of service failure.
However as the residents experienced no further incidents since the outburst on 24 December 2021, and a public offence order was in place. There is nothing further, that this Service would reasonably expect it to do.

The landlords refusal to escalate the resident’s complaint about a member of staff being too involved in the resident’s case.

In July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman published a new complaint handling code, with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. Landlords were required to complete a self-assessment against the Code and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was in line with the Code, by 31 December 2020. The Code became statutory in April 2024.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord that a member of staff was too involved in their case, and as a resolution she wanted that member of staff not to be involved with their housing issues in the future.
The member of staff concerned, was responsible at this point for providing the weekly response emails. The resident complained that information provided to her under a subject access request contradicted the information that she received in an email update from the member of staff. This was regarding things that were said or not said between the resident and a neighbour’s carers.
In addition, in one of the residents’ previous complaints there had been some miscommunication about the housing officer attending a gas inspection unannounced, to support the resident, for which the landlord had apologised. However, the resident believed this member of staff was responsible for the housing officer to attend unannounced.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response, 31 August 2022, in which it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it was evident that the member of staff had not been involved in the appointment for the gas safety check. Other responses from the member of staff were not to the records the resident referred to from the SARs request and were in relation to other emails the resident had sent. It could find no evidence that the member of staff concerned was unhelpful or purposely tried to upset her.
On 1 September 2022, the resident had requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. The complaints manager contacted her the same day and tried to arrange a zoom call to sit down and discuss the issue. There was no evidence that the resident responded to this request.
In its stage 2 response, 20 December 2022, the landlord said that it found no grounds for escalating the complaint, as the stage 1 had been comprehensive.
The Code states that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint.
While the landlords complaints policy in place at the time, contained reason for not accepting a complaint, it did not contain reasons whereby it would not accept request for escalation. As such, refusing to accept the escalation request did not comply with its complaint handling policy and furthermore this rendered the policy not Code compliant. This was a service failure.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour installing a bench outside their property.

On 17 June 2022, the resident made a complaint about the neighbour in the flat below. She said they had put a bench outside of their back door, and a visitor was sitting on it smoking a pipe. This did not smell nice, and the resident has asthma.
The landlord sent a response in the following weekly update on 23 June 2022, advising someone from the neighbourhoods team would visit and investigate, which was reasonable.
It was noted in internal correspondence that there was paving outside the back doors, and a number of residents had seats which was not unreasonable. It was not clear however if this view was shared with the resident which it should have been.
The resident raised the issue again in a formal complaint on 25 August 2022, an extract from the complaint said, “People are using the bench to doss on, our neighbour from 31 and other people sit on it to smoke both cigarettes and cannabis”.
In the landlords stage 2 response, 20 December 2022, it empathised with the impact smoking can have on someone with the residents respiratory condition. However it advised that the activities of sitting on an outside bench and smoking cigarettes was not unlawful and as such the landlord could not intervene. This was reasonable, this behaviour was not unlawful and not in breach of the landlords tenancy conditions.
In relation to the illegal use of the bench, by sitting on it smoking cannabis, the landlord approached the neighbours concerned, who denied the allegation. The housing officer had carried out sporadic visits for a significant time period, and found no evidence of anyone using or having used cannabis in the area, so was unable to take any further action.
It suggested calling the police should the resident witness it happening again, and they revisited the possibility of mediation with the neighbour, as making them aware of the residents health condition might lead to the neighbour voluntarily adjusting their behaviour.
It was noted in the landlords records that the resident was shielding and suffering from long Covid and did not want to take up the opportunity to engage in mediation at that time. In the Ombudsman’s view there was no more, that the landlord could reasonably be expected to do.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of requesting vulnerability and disability information from the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the residents request for a single point of person contact arrangement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord not pre-advising the resident of a contractor attending the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was Reasonable Redress in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a member of staff attending their property unannounced.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s report of ASB from her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords refusal to escalate the resident’s complaint about a member of staff being too involved in the resident’s case.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour installing a bench outside their property.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. apologises to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident the total sum of £300 made up as follows.
  1. £100 for the service failure identified in the landlords handling of the residents request for a single point of person contact.
  2. £100 for the service failure identified in the landlords handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
  3. £100 for the service failure identified in the landlords refusal to escalate the resident’s complaint.