London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202322535)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322535

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 August 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s subsequent request to be rehoused.
3. A safeguard referral to the council.
The Ombudsman has also considered the complaint handling in this case.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house on an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that began in 2011. The resident has physical and mental health disabilities.
The resident reported ASB to the landlord in December 2021. The allegations involved a neighbour and included reports of loud music, drug use and vehicles coming and going in a disruptive way. The landlord responded to the resident mid-January 2022 when it gave her details of services who may be able to support her. The resident did not want the landlord to contact the alleged perpetrator as she was frightened. The landlord therefore did not take action.
The resident continued to contact the landlord in January 2022 and February 2022 about ASB concerns and in February 2022, the resident said the landlord told her she could apply for a housing move on medical grounds.
The resident submitted an application to move on medical grounds towards the end of February 2022. The resident continued to contact the landlord about the alleged ASB when she reported the situation had escalated and there were threats of violent behaviour towards “others” and intimidation towards her.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord opened an ASB case, however, it soon closed this as the resident was frightened and she did not want the landlord to contact the alleged perpetrator. The resident contacted her MP and local councillors for assistance. Her GP and the headteacher at the school her son attended sent in letters to support her case.
At the beginning of September 2022, the landlord told the resident it had not assessed her case for a move on medical grounds firstly because it had a backlog of applications and then it decided the resident’s application did not warrant a move on medical grounds as she had applied to move due to ASB. The resident therefore complained to the landlord and it registered a stage 1 complaint which it responded to at the end of September 2022. The landlord reiterated its position that the resident did not qualify for a move on medical grounds, because the reasons for a move were related to the ASB. The landlord did, however, recognise it had delayed in assessing the resident’s housing application and there had been a lack of communication. The landlord therefore offered the resident £100 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint the same day and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response at the end of November 2022. It apologised for its late response and reiterated its position about her application to move. It said it required detailed evidence of ASB. The landlord recognised it could have managed communication better and it increased its compensation offer to £300. However, at the beginning of December 2022, the landlord sent the resident the same stage 2 complaint response letter and this time, it had increased its compensation offer to £440 in recognition of its failures.
There is evidence of a high volume of contact by the resident with the landlord after the complaints process ended between December 2022 and March 2024. The resident continued to report allegations of ASB to the landlord and provided it with a large file of alleged incidents. The landlord conducted 2 risk assessments relating to the resident’s reports. The resident liaised with the police and council’s environmental health department, following which sound equipment was installed at her home in March 2024 as a means to capture evidence of ASB directed at her.
The resident submitted a new medical request for rehousing and the landlord refused the resident’s application for a move on medical grounds.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of a safeguard referral to the council.
The resident complained to the landlord in June 2024 because she found out through a ‘subject access request’ that it had made a safeguarding referral to the council. The details of this referral are unknown to this Service. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 June 2024 at stage 1 of its complaints procedure.
This complaint point has not yet completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The landlord must first be given the opportunity to address the resident’s complaint through its own processes and if necessary to put things right. As the matter has only been considered by the landlord at stage 1 of its complaints process, the resident should contact the landlord and progress her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process if she remains dissatisfied.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The resident’s complaint and supporting evidence refers to her and her family’s health conditions being affected by the ASB and the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We do not doubt that the resident feels affected by events, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, where we identify landlord failings, we can assess the distress and inconvenience sustained by the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions.
On 3 December 2021, the resident reported a neighbour was causing ASB to the landlord and potentially dangerous behaviour in the vicinity. The allegations included reports of loud music, drug use and vehicles coming and going in a disruptive way. The resident said the ASB was scaring her son. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it responded to the residents initial reports.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord noted the resident did not want to provide the landlord with details of the persons committing ASB and she did not want to contact the police as she was frightened. The landlord gave the resident advice about services who could help support her that included:
1. A visit to her GP.
2. Contact with victim support.
3. Advice about how the resident’s mother could register as her carer.
4. Advice about housing options that included how to submit an application for alternative accommodation.
5. Assessment of her home needs through an occupational therapy referral.
6. Referral to adult social care, however, the landlord noted the resident did not want a referral to adult social care at that point.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalates. The resident was clear she did not want the landlord to contact her neighbour because she was frightened. The landlord respected her wishes and gave her advice about support services who may be able to assist her, however, it was unreasonable that it did not provide its response until 6 weeks after the residents initial report.
The landlord’s ASB policy states upon receiving a report of ASB, it will “log and decide upon the report based on the information received, even if it is unconfirmed or unsubstantiated.” It should do this in 1 to 3 days depending on the severity of the case. The ASB policy says it “will review all reported incidents and will consider the risk in each case. “In cases of serious crime, it usually requires that the complainant/reporting party report the incident to the police before it can carry out further action.” Further, the policy refers to assignment of a priority for the case based on the type of ASB reported and assess reports using the evidence available. It commits to conduct a vulnerability risk assessment (RAM) on all priority cases and where relevant on some standard cases.
It is acknowledged the landlord was restricted in its options for action because it did not have the consent of the resident to take action against the alleged perpetrator. However, the resident had highlighted to the landlord that she was frightened and this should have prompted the landlord to take action to log and respond to the resident’s report in accordance with the ASB policy timeframe of 1 to 3 days. The landlord has not provided evidence of the discussion it had with the resident to determine the basis of its decision to not investigate and risk assess the case. The failure to comply with its policy in these circumstances was inappropriate.
The landlord has not demonstrated it considered options with the resident as to how it could assist her without the need to contact the alleged perpetrator. This could have included an agreed action plan of how it could obtain the evidence it required such as diary records and sound monitoring equipment that did not require contact with the alleged perpetrator.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 January 2022 as she was unhappy the landlord was not helping her. The resident requested an urgent meeting with the landlord. The resident did not receive a response from the landlord.
The resident sent another email to the landlord on 7 February 2022 to ask the landlord’s housing officer to chase up the lettings team for a response about her rehousing request. The resident told this Service, the landlord’s housing officer responded and told her to arrange a break away from the property. The resident then said the officer told her she could either apply for a move on medical grounds or wait until April 2022 after the landlord had restructured job roles. This Service has not evidenced the landlord’s emails and therefore an assessment of the facts of the discussion cannot be made. However, it was clear the resident was desperate for help and the landlord’s failure to provide timely advice and support to the resident was unreasonable.
The resident continued to contact the landlord about alleged ASB in March 2022. The resident also contacted MPs for assistance and in April 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord’s chief executive officer for help. The resident made it clear she did not want to complain about her neighbour as she believed it would put her and her family at risk. The resident wanted to transfer properties on medical grounds. The resident reported the ASB had escalated to threats of violent behaviour of others and intimidation towards her. It is unclear from the evidence who “others” were that the resident referred to. The resident said the ASB was an everyday occurrence of fights, parties, noise disturbance day and night.
The landlord had received a letter from the resident’s son’s headteacher that described the adverse impact of anxiety caused by the ASB. It said the ASB involved “excessive noise nuisance, screaming, shouting and threatening behaviour”.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord told the resident it did not have a previous report of ASB and it had opened an ASB case. The same day, the resident replied to the landlord and said, she had not asked the landlord to investigate her reports of ASB and she did not want it to be actioned as she believed her and her family would be at risk and she was “frightened”. The landlord responded the same day and said it would not take any action, it had not contacted the neighbour and it closed the case.
The landlord demonstrated it respected the resident’s wishes to not make contact with the alleged perpetrator, however, it was unreasonable for the landlord to close the ASB case without a discussion with the resident to reassure her it could assess the ASB, gather evidence and provide her with support that would not compromise her safety. The landlord could have offered to meet the resident, assess the priority of the ASB, discuss an action plan of how it could obtain the evidence of ASB that did not involve contact with the alleged perpetrator. It would have been reasonable for the action plan to incorporate a plan of support that either the landlord or third parties could offer the resident.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 9 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2022 and sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 September 2022. The landlord’s response did not address the ASB and instead concentrated on the resident’s request for rehousing and the resident’s request for a move on medical grounds. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated her complaint on the same day.
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to the resident on the substantive complaint issue of ASB and therefore it missed an opportunity to review the ASB case and put right its failures by applying the principles of its ASB policy to the case in its risk assessment and assignment of priority. It would have been an opportunity for the landlord to reassure the resident of its plan to gather evidence and its commitment to support the resident throughout the process.
The resident and landlord continued regular communications throughout October 2022 and November 2022. The landlord visited the resident at her home on 6 October 2022 to discuss ASB and her request for a house move. The landlord has not provided the record of the visit to show if any actions were agreed with the resident. Another landlord record of 31 October 2022 stated it had visited the resident and it did not believe the case required prioritising in terms of physical risk. However, there is no evidence it had conducted a RAM risk assessment of the case in accordance with its ASB policy and therefore it is unclear on what basis this assessment had been concluded.
The headteacher at the resident’s son’s school wrote to the landlord on 4 November 2022 expressing “extreme concerns” about the child. It said ASB was having a “detrimental impact” on the boy’s mental health and wellbeing as a result of him hearing “shouting, swearing, screaming and threatening behaviour” from a neighbour. The family had been “subjected to abuse when entering and exiting their property” and were using an alternative route.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response dated 23 November 2022. It acknowledged its response was late and it apologised to the resident and said it had raised this as a training issue. It gave the resident the following details:
1. It could refer the resident to the council’s social services to see if a support worker could be allocated to her. However, the resident had confirmed she did not want this to happen.
2. It had previously suggested the resident contacted her GP to allocate a medical support worker to refer her for housing and social care. The landlord gave the resident advice about services who could provide support and assistance such as police, victim support, doctor and citizens advice bureau.
3. The resident was concerned about her safety and the landlord told her to contact the police. It requested that the resident should provide it with a crime reference number, dates and times of alleged incidents.
4. The landlord raised an ASB case on 11 May 2022 about allegations of noise from a neighbour’s property. The landlord contacted the resident and she did not want the alleged perpetrator to be contacted.
5. The landlord recapped the chronology of events and contacts she and the landlord had, that included MPs, the Victims Commissioner and Councillor.
6. The landlord gave the resident advice about how to pursue a liability insurance claim on health grounds.
The landlord did not inform the resident of how it could gather evidence of the ASB without contact with the alleged perpetrator. Neither did it inform her how it could work with other partners such as the police and council to tackle the ongoing ASB in accordance with its ASB policy. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it could proactively manage the case and gather evidence while respecting her wishes.
The resident continued to contact the landlord during December 2022 to January 2023. She reported noise nuisance, shouting and swearing from the neighbour. The resident said this was an ongoing daily occurrence. The landlord contacted her, however, she made it clear she did not want the landlord to contact her neighbour. The landlord also asked the resident to send diary sheets of incidents and it would review the case.
On 26 January 2023, the landlord evidenced it conducted a risk assessment (RAM) of the ASB but it has not provided its rationale or scoring method to support its assessment. The resident had said the neighbour’s behaviour towards her was unpredictable and she feared for her and her family’s safety. The landlord noted the resident did not want it to investigate the reports as the resident was fearful.
The resident provided this Service with a copy email she sent to the landlord dated 7 February 2023 that referred to an attached file of recorded incidents of alleged ASB. The resident specifically asked the landlord not to contact the neighbour and the purpose of the evidence was to support her move to a “safe environment”. The resident has advised this Service the landlord did not receive her evidence and she did not hear from the landlord until 1 December 2023.
The resident provided evidence to this Service that she continued to communicate with the landlord in March 2023. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the case and requested a copy of the information the landlord held on her case file.
The resident requested the council install sound equipment at her home on 3 November 2023. However, it could not install the equipment as it was faulty awaiting repair. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to investigate and decide whether noise is a statutory nuisance and if so, it can serve a noise abatement notice on the perpetrator. While this course of action is not within the remit of the landlord, the landlord’s ASB policy reinforces collaborative partnership working with agencies such as police and council. It would have therefore been reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the council to gather evidence of the alleged noise nuisance at a much earlier point in the ASB reports, and also to take the initiative to work with partner agencies, rather than the resident undertaking this work.
Communications continued between the resident and landlord between December 2023 to January 2024 in attempt to resolve her housing situation. On 8 February 2024, the landlord conducted a risk assessment (RAM). It referred to ASB activity on a daily basis, a broken fence, litter, a neighbour knocking on the resident’s door, music and household noise. It recorded the resident was stressed and the situation was affecting her sleep. The landlord conducted a RAM assessment, however, it has not provided the evidence to show its rationale or risk assessment matrix to determine the level of risk.
Furthermore, the landlord has not provided information to evidence what action it took in relation to the resident’s reports or outcome of the risk assessment. It is of concern that the landlord’s record keeping is limited at times throughout the case in relation to its record of resident contact, visits and the RAM risk assessment. Without robust records, the landlord cannot evidence and recall events to effectively manage the ASB case. The landlord must have in place a system of record keeping which allows it to record relevant information to allow for effective case management. Its record keeping must support its complaints process and be able to be interrogated respectively to facilitate learning and continuous improvement. The failure of the landlord to have in place or demonstrate the ability to undertake these actions is unreasonable and has contributed to ineffective case management of the resident’s reports.
On 13 February 2024, the landlord told the resident noise equipment was not available due to repair work and it said it would get the equipment installed as soon as it was back from repair. On 22 March 2024, the sound recording equipment was installed at the resident’s home.
In conclusion, the landlord failed to provide the resident with timely action in relation to the handling of ASB. While it should be noted the landlord may have been limited in tackling the ASB as it respected the resident’s wishes and did not contact the neighbour, it was clear the resident was desperate for help and was fearful for her safety.
The landlord did not evidence it followed its ASB policy. It did not log an initial ASB report and therefore did not risk assess or assign a priority to the case. Further, the landlord delayed in providing the resident with advice and support. Its record keeping was limited throughout the case which resulted in a lack of evidence to show it had proactively managed the case and worked collaboratively with partner organisations such as police and council.
The landlord stepped up its actions after its complaints process had ended, however, this appeared to be because of the resident’s high volume of contacts with the landlord when it was clear she was becoming increasingly distressed by the landlord’s lack of action. The landlord’s lack of timely action and communication and its failure to follow its ASB policy were inappropriate and amount to maladministration.
The landlord did not recognise its failures within its complaint handling and neither has it evidenced a clear plan forward on how it intends to gather evidence and tackle the ASB. The impact of its failures caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience. The landlord should therefore compensate the resident £350 for its failures and the adverse impact caused to the resident. This amount of compensation is aligned to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent request to be rehoused

Scope of Investigation

The resident requested to move on the basis the ASB she was suffering was detrimental to her health and wellbeing.
Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 is the legislation that governs the assessment of housing applications, including the award of points and banding for housing applications and decisions regarding reasonable preference or eligibility for property types. The jurisdiction for these matters rests with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. As such, the landlord’s handling of decisions in respect of housing allocations under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 is out of scope for this investigation. The resident should therefore contact LGSCO directly if she wishes to pursue this part of the complaint.
This investigation will, however, encompass the landlords response to the residents request to be rehomed in regard to its actions and decisions it undertook in support of the resident to apply for rehousing under its direct let allocations policy.
On 11 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said she wanted to move to another property. This was because of her concerns about the alleged ASB and how it was impacting her and her family’s health. The landlord gave her advice on how to apply for a move. The resident continued to contact the landlord and on 7 February 2022, the resident said the landlord told her she could apply for a move on medical grounds.
The landlord’s lettings policy sets out how it provides advice and support to its resident’s in general needs homes who wish to move. Some of the options open to its resident’s are:
1. A move through a mutual exchange that enables social housing tenants to swap their homes.
2. An application to the council to join the housing register.
3. A direct let through its rehousing list where the landlord needs to rehouse a tenant as an emergency either on a temporary or permanent basis.
For a resident to be added to the landlord’s housing list to be considered for a direct let they must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. “The resident is at immediate risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang related violence, high level anti-social behaviour or hate crime where there are no other solutions to reduce the risk”.
2. “Either the resident or an original member of their household has a significant medical need, or disability which means that if their condition carries an immediate risk to life by remaining in their home or if they cannot access parts of their home due to a medical condition or their home cannot be adapted, they may qualify.”
The resident submitted a housing application to move on medical grounds on 25 February 2022 and the landlord acknowledged this on 28 February 2022. It advised her it had a backlog of applications and it would respond within 10 to 12 weeks. It told the resident it had closed its internal transfer list, however, it had a small number of properties and it would prioritise those with severe and urgent need to move through a ‘direct let’. It advised the resident to consider a mutual exchange and gave her details of how to apply.
The resident requested the landlord expedite her transfer request. The landlord responded on 7 April 2022 and said its relevant team would update the resident. However, there is no evidence the landlord provided an update to the resident.
The resident provided the landlord with a GP letter dated 9 May 2022 in support of her request to move. It explained the resident’s health conditions and how the ASB was exacerbating her symptoms as she was suffering a constant lack of sleep. The GP expressed concerns that the resident’s health condition would deteriorate if she remained in an environment where sleep remained disturbed.
Between June 2022 to September 2022, the resident contacted her local councillor and MPs for assistance to move. Communications between the resident and landlord continued. The resident was concerned about the impact of the ASB on her and her family and that she had not received an outcome of her application to move on medical grounds.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on a number of occasions in July 2022 to discuss her rehousing request. However, it did not manage to contact her and on 2 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and told her it had not sent her medical assessment to its independent GP. This was because the landlord stated that as the resident wanted to move due to ASB, her case did not warrant a move on medical grounds.
Given the resident had applied for a move on medical grounds and was awaiting her medical application to be assessed since February 2022, the landlorddelayed unreasonably by 7 months in making its decision.
Further, it is unclear if or why the landlord would advise the resident to apply for a move on medical grounds if it would not forward the case to the panel on the basis that it considered she was not a medical case but had applied for rehousing on ASB grounds.Given the lack of investigation of the ASB cases, it is reasonable to assume the landlord would not advance her application to move because of ASB. As such, there is no criteria upon which the resident was likely to be considered for rehousing and it is therefore inappropriate that the landlord allowed the resident’s expectations to be raised.
On 9 September 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2022 and sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged and apologised it had delayed in sending the resident the outcome of the medical assessment which was received by the landlord on 28 February 2022 and it did not inform the resident of the outcome until 23 September 2022. The landlord offered the resident compensation for its failure of £100 as follows:
1. £40 lack of communication.
2. £40 delay in responding.
3. £20 time and effort.
The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord and it responded to her at stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 23 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged its response was late and it apologised to the resident and said it had raised its failings as a training issue. It gave the resident the following details:
1. It was unable to consider a transfer move without detailed evidence of ASB. It said its officers had visited the resident and they were willing to assist if the resident provided the evidence of ASB.
2. The landlord’s rehousing list was closed due to a lack of properties.
3. It told the resident about the mutual exchange register and said this would be the quickest way to move.
4. The landlord recognised it could have managed the resident’s lettings enquiries more effectively and that it had delayed in its complaint responses. In recognition of its failures, the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation as follows:
  1. £100 distress, time, effort and inconvenience.
  2. £100 gesture of goodwill for the delay in the medical assessment outcome.
  3. £100 late stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses and complaint handling.
The landlord sent the resident another stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2022. This appeared to be the same response letter that was sent to the resident on 23 November 2022, however, it had increased its compensation offer from £300 to £440. The additional £140 compensation was for “any additional service failure the resident felt the landlord had caused”. The resident asked the landlord to contribute towards costs to install a security camera and pay an advocate to assist with her complaint. The landlord did not agree to the resident’s request for further additional compensation.
The resident submitted a new medical form for a move on 3 January 2023 and the landlord replied on 27 January 2023 to say an independent medical advisor would review her case. The landlord sent the resident a direct offer medical outcome letter on 4 May 2023 that did not approve a move on medical grounds.
In conclusion, even though the resident applied to move on medical grounds, it was clear within her medical application that the substantive issue was ASB related. There is no evidence the landlord assessed whether the resident was at immediate risk if she stayed in her home in accordance with its lettings policy and therefore the landlord mishandled its whole approach to the resident’s application to move.
Further, it took the landlord 7 months to process the resident’s initial application to move on medical grounds, and it was rejected by the landlord before an independent medical assessment was made, or the case was put before a panel. This was unreasonable as the landlord knew from the onset of the resident’s application that her case centred around the detrimental effect of ASB was having on her. The landlord was capable of making its decision on the merits of the application much sooner and allowed the resident’s expectations to be unfairly raised.
The landlord did recognise its failures when it responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure and offered £340 compensation. 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 to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered her compensation which is aligned to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that caused adverse impact to the resident by way of distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord has put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 9 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 September 2022. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2022) states landlord’s must acknowledge and log a stage 1 complaint within 5 days of receipt. The landlord was slightly late in acknowledging the resident’s complaint by 2 days.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 September 2022, 12 working days later and slightly outside of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 10 working day target.
On the same day, the resident escalated her complaint and the landlord acknowledged this as a stage 2 complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a stage 2 complaint must be responded to within 20 working days. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received which should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The landlord responded in 41 working days on 23 November 2023 and there is no evidence it agreed an extension with the resident. However, the landlord recognised its failures within its stage 2 complaint response and offered her £100 compensation for its handling of the complaint and the delay in responding to the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint. 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 to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord appropriately recognised its failures in complaint handling and put things right by its reasonable offer of £100 compensation. This amount of compensation is aligned to the Ombudsman’s dispute remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a safeguarding referral to the council is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of ASB.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused under its lettings policy.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should apologise in writing to the resident and provide this Service with a copy of the letter.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £350 to the resident in relation to its handling of the ASB.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with an update on the ASB that includes an action plan of how it will provide the resident with regular updates on the case.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 10 weeks, it should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman with a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include, but may not be limited to:
1. the landlord’s approach to the reports of ASB and opportunities for it to be proactive in evidence gathering, with emphasis placed on improving evidence and intelligence gathering with vulnerable residents and those with a reticence to pursue a formal investigation.
2. Its ASB record keeping with a view to improving retrospective review and systems which support dependencies such as its complaints process and rehousing applications. The landlord should utilise the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Knowledge and Information Report (May 2023) as a reference to assess and guide its review.
3. The landlord is free to include other issues. Identified improvements should be cascaded to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with an update on her housing application. The landlord should also advise the resident of her right of appeal status against the landlord’s refusal of a ‘direct offer’ of alternative accommodation.
Reasonable redress is contingent on the landlord paying the offers of compensation made during its complaints process. It should provide evidence of payments made totalling £440.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.