London Borough of Islington (202212645)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212645

Islington Council

31 October 2023

Amended 6 February 2025

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 implementation of fire safety measures, including how it conducted a fire risk assessment (FRA).
2. The resident’s residency check as part of a tenancy audit.
3. The resident’s reports of a roof leak.
4. The resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
5. The resident’s accessibility to its services.
6. The associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in 1996. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the upper floor of a converted Georgian property. The property has an unusual layout:
1. Both flats have separate external front doors at the front of the property, which is the designated means of escape in a fire.
2. Both flats also have access to the rear garden via a shared internal communal staircase and hallway, located to the rear of the property.
3. The resident’s flat on the upper floor has access to the communal hall and stairs from the ground floor hallway. The lower flat has access to the communal stairs and hall via a door at basement level.
There is a tenancy management organisation (TMO) responsible for carrying out housing management functions on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has recorded that the resident suffers from dyslexia which requires the use of voice recognition technology (VRT). It has also recorded that he suffers from a “physical condition”.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy conditions state that the resident “must allow access to the landlord, TMOs or utility services to come into the property at all reasonable times…for other management purposes. These include but are not limited to carrying out tenancy audits, dealing with complaints including responding to complaints of ASB and neighbour disputes”.
The TMO has an ASB policy which states that it will:
1. Conduct an interview with the victim and outline limitations, setting expectations from the start of a report of ASB. The interview will take place within 5 working days, or 24 hours in serious cases
2. Consider vulnerability and risks posed to both the victim and alleged perpetrator.
3. Look to take appropriate action against those responsible, where there is evidence. It will consider a range of non-legal actions including mediation and referrals to housing related support. Any action taken would be reasonable and proportionate.
4. Investigate allegations of drug or alcohol misuse, and work with partner agencies to address ASB.
The TMO has provided the Ombudsman with copies of their fire safety policy, communal areas policy and health and safety policies.
The TMO states that it takes complaints seriously and will respond to complaints within 10 working days. The complaints procedure will not operate if the resident is reporting an issue for the first time, or complaining about an issue that happened more than 12 months ago.
The landlord had a complaint policy during the timeline of the resident’s complaint which stated that:
1. A complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction about a lack of action or standard of service. Residents do not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be referred as a formal complaint.
2. Any complaint that was not responded to the landlord within 12 months would not be accepted unless there was good reason for the delay.
3. TMOs have their own complaints investigation procedures, but they are required to log complaints on the landlord’s system and respond within the timescales set by the landlord.
4. It operates a 2 stage complaint procedure. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 21 calendar days, stage 2 “chief executive stage” will be responded to within 10 working days.

Summary of events

The TMO had an open ASB case for the resident from July 2019. The resident reported that his neighbour was shouting, screaming and banging his head against the wall. Over a period of a year, the TMO made enquiries with other residents and partnership agencies. After October 2019, there were no further reports from the resident and the case was closed in July 2020.
On 25 January 2022 the TMO conducted a fire risk assessment (FRA). It noted that there were items obstructing the top hall of the rear communal area. Photographs showed miscellaneous items had been stacked up and included a suitcase, a block of wood and refuse sacks. A TORT notice was issued and both residents were informed of the intention to dispose of the items if they were not removed by 11 February 2022.
On 8 February 2022 a member of the TMO’s staff took details of a complaint from the resident over the phone, due to his dyslexia. He said:
1. The TMO had trespassed onto his property to gain access to his neighbour’s flat. He was unhappy that the TMO was standing on his staircase taking photos. He felt his tenancy agreement said he had a right to leave his belongings in the stairwell. If the TMO came to remove the belongings, he would call the police.
2. His neighbour was not following fire safety measures as he was covering his smoke alarm. He felt unsafe in his home due to his neighbour’s drug use.
3. A fire safety door he had requested from the TMO had not been provided and this caused him stress.
The following day, the TMO made contact with his neighbour about the resident’s concerns about drug use and misuse of the smoke alarm.
On 17 February 2022 the TMO wrote to the resident and explained that the landlord had a “safe and clear” approach to communal areas to reduce the risk of fire. All communal areas should be clear of items at all times.
On 2 April 2022 the resident contacted the TMO and said he had received no response to his complaint. The TMO tried to contact the resident on 2 occasions without success and wrote to him to ask that he made contact to advise when it was convenient to call again.
The TMO attended the property to conduct a tenancy audit on 26 April 2022. The same day, the resident contacted the TMO and said he had been a resident for 30 years and would not be granting access. He was a disabled resident who struggled with the stairs and had a right to privacy. He asked the TMO not to trespass on his property. He referenced that the TMO “don’t seem to have a functioning complaint procedure”. He also said he had issues with a roof leak that had never been fixed.
On 11 May 2022 the resident sent several emails to the TMO, accusing it of trespass. The TMO explained the purpose of the tenancy audit and that he had a requirement to allow access under the terms of his tenancy. It explained that audits would be unannounced and were a contractual obligation. It said no one had trespassed on his property.
On 12 May 2022 the TMO wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said:
1. Its records had shown that he had asked for support to write a complaint on 8 February 2022. Although the ASB team contacted his neighbour about the issues he raised at the time, it did not provide a formal response to his complaint for which it was sorry. It wanted to offer him £25 for the inconvenience.
2. With regards to the removal of his belongings following a FRA, it managed the property on behalf of the landlord and had an obligation to ensure it complied with health and safety guidelines. The officer who did the assessment did not trespass on the property because the staircase was a communal area. In line with procedures, a notice was served asking for the items to be removed within 14 days. He should take steps to remove the items as soon as possible.
3. With regards to his reports of a roof leak, on 11 April 2022 the repairs team attended and completed the necessary repairs. If there were further leaks he would need to report these.
4. With regards to his concerns about the tenancy audit:
  1. Staff were not trespassing his property. It referred him to the terms of his tenancy agreement which stated that he must allow access to staff for management purposes, including tenancy audits.
  2. It explained the purpose of the tenancy audits and that by their nature, they needed to be unannounced. Refusal to allow staff to carry out an audit put him in breach of his tenancy conditions. It encouraged him to cooperate and allow audits to be carried out when required.
5. It was partially upholding his complaint on the basis that he should have received a response to his complaint from February 2022, however no further service failures had been found. If he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint then he would need to make contact within 20 working days.
Between May and June 2022 the resident asked the TMO for an escalation to his complaint. He said:
1. He had rights to privacy and would not be discussing elements of his tenancy and disability with anyone on his doorstep. The landlord should be aware of who he is as he had been a resident for a number of years. The TMO was aware he had issues with his neighbour and found the check on him “distasteful in the extreme”. He had been informed the process was random, but he had 2 such checks in the last 2 years
2. He found it “ridiculous” that it was saying that the staircase directly outside of his door was a communal area, and disputed he was putting anyone else at risk of fire.
3. The TMO had failed to answer concerns he had about a roof leak, fire safety and issues with his neighbour. He had been unable to pursue a mutual exchange because of his neighbour’s behaviour.
On 6 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord several times and said that the police had been called out to see his neighbour because he was on drugs screaming. He included a video showing his neighbour in the garden topless and in distress. Within his correspondence he stated “tell [the TMO] not to contact me”. The landlord’s complaints team advised the TMO not to contact the resident as per his request.
On 13 September 2022 the Ombudsman prompted the landlord to respond to stage 2 of its process. The Ombudsman said that the resident was awaiting a response about issues he had with his neighbour, including excessive noise.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 October 2022 and apologised for the length of time it had taken to respond to his request for an escalation to his complaint. It said that as the resident had not raised complaints about how his ASB case had been handled during his correspondence in February or April 2022, it would not be responding to this element of his complaint. A separate complaint had been raised for investigation.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident with a “chief executive stage complaint”. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the delay in responding to his complaint at stage 2 and wanted to offer him £75 in compensation.
2. With regards to the FRA, it was satisfied that the TMO followed the correct procedure and that the doorstep and landing to his property were communal areas. It acknowledged that it would have been courteous to let the resident know it was inspecting the hallway at the time of the assessment. It apologised if he had not been informed.
3. With regards to concerns about his neighbour’s smoke alarm, it could assure him the TMO had spoken to the neighbour but it could not provide further detail due to data protection reasons. It’s complaint investigation highlighted that further inquiries could have been made into his allegations the smoke alarm had been covered up.
4. With regards to his concerns about a fire safety door, it had reviewed records following a fire safety visit the resident had requested in July 2019. No recommendation was made to alter the existing communal stairway or install a new stairway. 2 fire doors were installed to his kitchen door and hallway and works were completed in October 2019. If he had further concerns about fire safety, he could make further contact.
5. With regards the tenancy audit, it acknowledged his concerns about a lack of privacy about enquiries made on the doorstep. If he preferred the discussion to take place inside his home then it could be arranged. It had noted he had alleged that an audit check was done twice in 2 years. However records had shown the last tenancy audit was in November 2018. It was satisfied that it had carried out the audits within policy and good practice.
6. With regards to roofing repairs, they were originally raised in October 2021, but were concluded in April 2022. Whilst the source of water penetration was not easy to trace, it could have identified the root cause in its earlier inspections. It was sorry for the delay and inconvenience caused.
7. With regards to rehousing, it had not seen the correspondence he referred to. The housing options team had received no application for housing and the mobility team had no record of an application for an exchange. If he wanted to apply for rehousing, it had enclosed the relevant forms that needed to be completed.
8. Overall it was partly upholding his complaint on the basis that the smoke alarms had not been adequately investigated and addressed and there were delays to roofing repairs. In recognition of his time and trouble pursuing his complaint, it wanted to offer him a further £175, a total of £275 minus the £25 it had already paid at stage 1. If he remained dissatisfied he could contact the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted the landlord the same day and said that the attachment for which it had sent its complaint response was unreadable for the software he was using. The landlord responded to the resident and apologised. It asked him to confirm the correct format that was required. In the meantime, it copied the body of the complaint response into an email.
Over the weekend of 14 October 2022 the TMO received in excess of 20 emails from the resident. Within his correspondence, he raised dissatisfaction about the handling of ASB, concerns the fire door was inadequate and that he was unhappy at the way he had been treated because of his dyslexia, HIV and various other physical health conditions.
On 18 October 2022 the TMO wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process regarding the handling of his reports of ASB. It said:
1. Records had shown that the ASB team had investigated complaints about his neighbour between 2019 and 2020. Since then, it found no record of him making a formal complaint about ASB until it was informed by the Ombudsman of his concerns. It had tried to discuss his concerns further. However he had specifically asked that it did not contact him about the matter. It was limited in what investigation it could take if it could not contact him to discuss his concerns. It encouraged him to make contact so it could discuss his reports in depth and see if he required a referral to any support agencies.
2. It had spoken to his neighbour about his smoke alarm and further enquiries had been made to conduct a visit to the property.
3. It was sorry if he felt that it had a lack of awareness of his health condition, especially his mobility issues. It had record of him having dyslexia but not a physical disability. Its housing team had tried to make contact with him to discuss a referral to the occupational therapy (OT) team, without success.
4. It found no failure in service for the additional issues he raised with the Ombudsman and could not uphold his complaint. If he was dissatisfied with the response, he should contact it within 20 working days to explain his reasons.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord’s complaints officer wrote to the resident. It thanked him for discussing all aspects of his complaint in a recent telephone call. It said that:
1. Records show that on 20 October 2019, a kitchen fire door and an internal door to the rear of the property was fitted in October 2019. There was no requirement for the side door that leads to the garden to be fire resistant. If he had repairs concerns, it would be happy to attend and inspect accordingly. It could not find any service failure and was unable to uphold his complaint.
2. It had noted that he had raised a separate matter about repair responsibility for taps in the property. It included correspondence it had sent from February 2020 in which it had acknowledged that it should have made clearer what the repairs responsibility was for the fixtures he had supplied. It referred him to his tenancy conditions with regards to improvements.
3. It he remained dissatisfied he should make contact within 20 working days to explain his reasons.
The same day, the TMO wrote to the resident and informed him that an unannounced visit had taken place at his neighbour’s address and no concerns were found. It asked him to confirm if the video evidence he had provided the landlord’s complaints team was recent, as it appeared to be the same as what he had provided during its investigation in 2019. It advised that it was happy to investigate an ASB case if the issues he was reporting were recent and ongoing.
On 3 November 2022 the TMO spoke to the resident about his concerns. The resident said that the police had attended about 4 weeks ago to his neighbour who was taking drugs, screaming, shouting and banging his head against the wall. The TMO followed up the call in writing and said it would be making appropriate enquiries with the police.
The following day, the police confirmed that they had been called to concerns around the time the resident had specified. They attended and searched the premises but no concerns and no offences were identified. There were no ongoing police investigations.
On 28 November 2022 the landlord informed the resident that he had sent several emails and wanted to ensure it understood all elements of his complaint. It offered 6 appointment slots for a teams call and 3 in person appointments. The resident responded and said “there will be no further communications to central complaints apart from phone calls, requesting an ETA”.
Between November 2022 and January 2023 the resident said he was unhappy with the complaint responses he had received and wanted the matter escalating to stage 2. Within his correspondence, he said that:
1. He was dissatisfied with the way the landlord handled complaints he had made as far back as 2019. The TMO had not appropriately considered his accessibility to services or made reasonable adjustments.
2. He needed a fire door installed to protect him from his neighbour, and he wanted the TMO to replace his taps or compensate him for the cost.
3. He was not convinced it had effectively investigated his concerns about his neighbour’s behaviour. He stated he was living above someone who “sounded like they were being killed downstairs – pretty much 24/7”. He forwarded correspondence from a medical professional which explained the resident had reported extreme distress, poor sleep and constant stress as a result of noise made by the neighbour.
4. He was unhappy about the garden access arrangements with his neighbour and felt half of his garden had been “taken”. He intended to withhold rent if he was not offered appropriate compensation and was considering taking the mater to court.
On 1 December 2022 the landlord offered again to have a discussion with the resident about the detail of all of his complaints so that they could respond fully at stage 2. It offered for the meeting to take place face to face or over a teams call. It also offered to discuss a recent request he had made for a social worker.
On 21 December 2022, in response to the TMO asking the resident to discuss his concerns about his neighbour further, the resident said “I am no longer willing to deal with your department regarding this issue until my complaints are responded to”. In response, the TMO said “further to emails sent to you in October and November 2022, we want to try and help you if you will allow us to do so”. The resident was also provided with a copy of the floor plan for the property, which did not make reference to or show the garden.
In December 2022, the landlord asked the resident if he would like to be referred to its new service for short term, focused support. On 24 January 2023 it explained what support it could assist with, this included personal resilience and wellbeing. It offered to contact the resident to discuss suitability for the support service as part of its assessment process. It explained the purpose of the call would be to discuss how it may be able to help and if it was the right service for him. On 25 January 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that its offer of support was not what he required help with. He wanted assistance writing letters, obtaining access information requests from the police and navigating websites. He stated he would not be willing to speak on the phone or meet face to face with the landlord to discuss the matter further.
In January 2023, records show that the landlord conducted various investigations into the resident’s complaint. On 20 January 2023 it held a meeting with various members of staff including the fire safety team (FST) to discuss his concerns. The FST said that the communal area was not a designated fire escape route, but they would still consider the feasibility of fitting a fire door to alleviate the resident’s concerns. They discussed how they could work together to best support him, giving consideration to his dyslexia and his request to correspond via email. It also conducted enquiries with building control and legal services with respect to use of the garden at the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident a “chief executive stage complaint” on 31 January 2023. It said that it was sorry for the delay in responding to his complaint and wanted to offer him £75 in compensation. It said that:
1. It would not investigate his dissatisfaction with its complaint responses from 2019 as they were outside of the timeframe of its complaint policy.
2. With regards to his complaint about ASB:
  1. It realised his neighbour’s behaviour could impact other residents. It wanted to acknowledge his strong belief that little has been done to resolve the situation. However, it found much had been done by the TMO to address the problems he had experienced, within the remit of their responsibility for tenancy management.
  2. It found no evidence of a service failure in terms of how reports of ASB were handled. However the TMO failed to provide the complaints team with relevant documents from 2019 at an earlier stage. It wanted to offer £100 in compensation for the oversight and apologised for the additional time, effort and any distress caused to him in pursuing that part of his complaint.
3. With regards to his complaint about the fire door, it found no further grounds to uphold his complaint. However it was mindful of his concerns for safety in his home. The FST had agreed to arrange a fire safety survey which would look at the unusual layout of the rear hallway. A member of the team would be in touch within the week to arrange an appointment, and he would have the opportunity to discuss concerns about fire safety directly with the surveyor. It apologised for an error it had made in its complaint correspondence of 10 October. It had since noted that the door to the hallway was not replaced with a fire door and apologised for the previous misunderstanding.
4. With regards to his complaint about tap repairs, it found no grounds to uphold his complaint. The TMO was under no obligation to replace his existing non-standard staps with standard taps or to compensate him for the cost of his taps. The TMO was responsible for repairs to the water supply pipework or any standard taps he had in his home. It provided details of where to report a repair, if required.
5. With regards to his complaint about accessibility to services:
  1. It was satisfied that his dyslexia and use of VRT had been considered. It had responded to him via email as requested and had pasted letter responses into the body of emails, rather than sending attachments. It was also able to send copies by post if he required it.
  2. Induction training to customer service advisors covered communication in general, but not specifically services for those with dyslexia. It acknowledged this was unsatisfactory and would now include it as part of their programme.
  3. It had updated its vulnerability records to show that he had dyslexia and a “physical condition”. If he wanted notes to specify the exact nature of the condition, he would need to provide permission to include the information on the vulnerability register.
  4. It found no evidence of a service failure or discrimination. It was satisfied reasonable adjustments had been made.
6. With regards to his complaint about rights to the back garden. It had consulted its legal team who said that equal access for both flats to the rear garden would indicate it is for communal use. His tenancy agreement did not include rights over the garden and therefore it was satisfied that both flats had equal access.
7. Overall, it found no evidence of service failure or grounds to uphold his complaint, apart from the complaint delays and oversight in providing records from July 2019 when investigating his complaint in October 2022. Its offer of £175 was final, but did not affect his right to approach the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted the TMO and landlord several times between 1 to 9 February 2023. He said several elements of his complaint had been unanswered. He stated that carrying out a tenancy audit was a breach of the equality act 2010 and made a separate complaint about a water rates refund. The landlord wrote to the resident addressing each of his points on 20 February 2023. Within its correspondence the landlord:
1. Referred him to previous complaint responses which had answered his specific questions.
2. Clarified the process with regards to adding vulnerabilities to its register. It assured him that dyslexia and a physical health condition was showing on his record.
3. Advised him that whether carrying out a tenancy audit was a breach of the equalities act 2020 was a matter that would come under the remit of a judicial review.
4. Advised it had passed his complaint about the water rates refund to its complaints team to investigate separately.
The landlord noted that the resident had sent in excess of 300 emails between June 2022 to March 2023. Since January 2023, it recorded that most of the contents referred to complaints that had been concluded on 31 January 2023. On 9 March 2023 it wrote to the resident and said it had taken into consideration his dyslexia and how the use of VRT affected the way he communicated. It asked that he was mindful of excessive contact for matters in which it had already responded. It advised it would no longer respond to issues which had already been addressed within the stage 2 response, but would respond to new issues.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the landlord has said:
1. Although the resident has made complaints about how his ASB case was handled, he declined to engage with the TMO during 2022 for the matter to be investigated. The TMO has not received any further complaints or contact about his neighbour since February 2023.
2. From October 2022, its housing options team were in contact with the resident regarding rehousing, but he withdrew his application on 26 November 2022.
3. An inspection into the communal areas took place on 22 February 2023. Although a fire door to the rear exit from the resident’s flat to the communal area was not deemed not required, they agreed to fit one to alleviate his concerns about safety. There was a delay in gaining access to the flat below to conclude surveying the property and to order the door, but eventually it was fitted on 26 September 2023.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that:
1. He has numerous issues about the way the his tenancy has been handled over decades. He feels that the landlord was slow to respond to his complaint and it should have considered how it handled his ASB case in 2019.
2. When he has tried to contact the TMO by phone, records do not seem to be passed to the right department. In particular, he has had considerable difficulty in accessing the complaints process. He does not feel that the landlord has addressed his concerns of disability discrimination or appropriately trained its staff.
3. He still has issues with his neighbour, but “not to a level he can complain about”. He said the video he shared with the landlord and the Ombudsman is indicative of the behaviour he has had to put up with on a daily basis for approximately 7 years, and it should be taking action.
4. He has provided character references and evidence from a neighbour who has lived at her property for 45 years who supported that he should have access to the whole of the back garden. He wants the landlord to reconsider its stance on ownership of the back garden.
5. The fire door recently fitted by the landlord was installed poorly and he has difficulty opening it.

Assessment and findings

The implementation of fire safety measures, including how it conducted a fire risk assessment (FRA).

The landlord has an obligation under the regulatory reform (fire safety) order 2005, and health and safety legislation to remove, reduce and mitigate fire risks. In order to do this, it is obliged to carry out fire safety inspections known as FRA across its housing stock on a periodic basis. It was appropriate for the TMO to have attended the property to carry out the FRA on behalf of the landlord.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to his view that the internal rear staircase forms part of his property and therefore the TMO was trespassing at the time it conducted the FRA. It is not disputed that the layout of the property is unusual and therefore there is a part of the building not usually accessed by anyone other than the resident. Both the TMO and landlord’s explanations that the area outside of the resident’s front door is considered a communal space is consistent with the internal floor plan layout that it has provided to the resident and the Ombudsman. There is no evidence that the TMO trespassed onto the resident’s property as part of its FRA.
Photographs show a number of refuse sacks, a suitcase and other personal items stored in the stairwell. These items could reasonably be considered a fire risk. It was appropriate for the TMO to have served a TORT notice and informed residents that any items within the communal areas needed to be removed within 14 days. The TMO acted appropriately on behalf of the landlord and in accordance with its relevant procedures by writing to the resident to inform him of this.
The TMO and the landlord have explained clearly to the resident the reasons for the FRA and why it asked him to remove his personal items. They have also given reasonable explanations as to why the rear stairwell is considered a communal area and not part of his flat. The communication from both parties on the matter has been fair and consistent.
Part of the resident’s complaint about fire safety related to allegations that his neighbour was covering up his smoke alarm. The TMO acted promptly to his concern, contacting his neighbour the next day. However, its initial investigations did not go far enough to follow up with a further visit which was highlighted in the landlord’s complaint response in October 2021.
In this case, the TMO took steps to put matters right by visiting the neighbour on 31 October 2021. In doing so, it was able to confidently conclude that there were no concerns about the neighbour’s smoke alarm which was reasonable in concluding this element of the resident’s complaint.
It is acknowledged that the resident still had concerns about fire safety within the converted building generally, particularly in relation to fire doors. Records show that the landlord considered fire safety measures with the resident in 2019. However when he expressed further concerns in February 2022, it was appropriate for it revisit the issue again to ensure that all reasonable steps were being taken to ensure that the resident was safe in his home. The landlord was delayed in its response to addressing these specific concerns causing him distress. It was not until January 2023 that it referred the matter back to its FST to reconsider what measures it could put in place to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case, the landlord’s FST confirmed that whilst a fire door was not required in the rear exit it agreed to fit one to alleviate the resident’s concern. This was a reasonable action to take and by doing so it was able to demonstrate that it has taken steps to put matters right and had committed to finding a resolution for the resident.
It is noted that since the installation of the door, the resident has said that he has difficulty opening it. A recommendation has been made for the landlord reinspect the door and ensure that it is fully functioning.

The resident’s residency check as part of a tenancy audit.

It is recognised that the resident has lived at the property for a long period of time. Landlords have a contractual obligation to conduct tenancy audits on an ad-hoc basis as part of their housing management function. The purpose of a tenancy audit is to ensure that the landlord has appropriate record of who is living at the address to minimise instances of tenancy fraud. No suggestion has been made by the landlord that the resident had obtained his tenancy fraudulently, or that he had been dishonest about who was living at the property. Nonetheless, it still had an obligation to arrange for the TMO to conduct an tenancy audit on its behalf.
The TMO visiting the property unannounced was good practice. The nature of the tenancy audit meant that the visit needed to take place at random. It is recognised that the resident was unhappy that discussions about his tenancy should take place on his doorstep. The landlord explained to the resident in its stage 2 response in October 2022 that if he preferred the discussions to take place in his home, it could arrange to do so. This was a reasonable suggestion from the landlord and demonstrated an understanding of his concerns about privacy.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy check as part of a tenancy audit. Records demonstrate that the TMO attended the property in line with procedure and best practice. Furthermore it has communicated clearly the reasons for the audit and appropriately explained that access needed to be granted as part of the resident’s tenancy conditions.

The resident’s reports of a roof leak.

Records show that the resident first reported an issue with the roof leaking into the communal area on 5 October 2021. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will attend to communal repairs within 20 days unless the repair is deemed an emergency. The landlord’s contractors attended the property within 3 days and scaffolding was erected within a week of the resident’s report which was appropriate.
It is noted that elements of the resident’s complaint about the roof leak progressed into a complaint about access to the rear garden for scaffolding. The resident alleged that the rear garden formed part of his property, and although he has allowed his neighbour to use it, he has asked for recognition that it belongs exclusively as part of his tenancy. The resident has provided evidence from a long standing neighbour who has offered her recollections of who the garden belongs to.
Records show that the landlord consulted the resident’s tenancy agreement, building control services and sought legal advice on the matter. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not include rights over the garden, and the landlord was entitled to rely on the legal advice it had obtained. It is therefore reasonable for the landlord to have concluded that the garden is a shared access area for both properties, with equal access rights.
Finding the source of a leak can be complex and can require a number of interventions before they are resolved. The landlord attended the property a number of times between December and April 2022, which caused the resident evident frustration. In this case, there were delays due to heavy rain which were unavoidable. However there was also an instance where the landlord attended with less than the required operatives, which caused an additional delay. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response in October 2022 that the delays the resident experienced were unreasonable and made an apology for this, upholding his complaint. Its offer of compensation of £175 in recognition of the inconvenience he had experienced was sufficient to put matters right for the resident.

The resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. It is noted that the resident reported ASB from his neighbour in 2019 and following no further reports from the resident, the case was closed in 2020. This assessment is therefore focussed on the events from February 2022 onwards, which is the date from which the resident raised new reports of ASB from his neighbour.
It is acknowledged that the situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
In responding to resident concerns of ASB, it is important that the landlord and the TMO acting on its behalf can distinguish between a report of ASB and a complaint about how it handled ASB. In this case, it is clear from the resident’s correspondence on 8 February 2022 that he felt unsafe and had concerns about his neighbour’s drug use. The TMO discussed the concerns with the neighbour the following day which was appropriate. It also engaged with partnership agencies and another witness around the same time. However there is no evidence that an ASB case was opened for the resident or that it contacted him to obtain further detail, which was inappropriate.
The next record of ASB was reported to the landlord in September 2022 when the resident alleged that the police had been called out to the neighbour who was “on drugs screaming yet again”. He specifically asked that the TMO did not contact him to discuss his concerns further, and the TMO was informed of this. However there is no evidence that promptly referred to the police to obtain their version of events until November 2022. Whilst the police noted that there were no concerns at the time or ongoing, the 2 month delay in consulting with a key partner agency at an earlier opportunity was unreasonable.
In accordance with its ASB policy, the TMO will take appropriate action where there is evidence of a breach of tenancy. As part of his evidence, the resident resent the landlord a video clip from around 2019 of his neighbour displaying concerning behaviour in the garden. Whilst the resident stated that the video was indicative of what he had experienced over some years, it was reasonable that the TMO could not take action on it as it was not recent evidence.
The TMO’s ASB policy states that it will take action that is reasonable and proportionate to its findings, with eviction or legal action being a last resort. This means that it can consider non-legal intervention including referrals to support services in an attempt to change or improve behaviour, and has a responsibility to consider vulnerabilities of both victims and perpetrators. In this case, the TMO was not at liberty to discuss with the resident in depth what support mechanisms it had put in place to work with his neighbour. However records show that it had engaged appropriately with partner agencies on receipt of more detailed concerns provided by a different witness.
The TMO had an obligation to consider the impact and effect the ASB was having on the resident. It experienced difficulties in being able to do this effectively as the resident refused to work with it to discuss the matter further. Records show that from October 2022, the TMO made several offers to open an ASB case for the resident and discuss his concerns in more depth which was appropriate. The resident stated that it would not engage further with the TMO about his report of ASB until his complaint had been responded to, which hindered its ability to investigate his concerns. As a result, the TMO has been unable to conduct a risk assessment or complete an action plan with the resident in line with good practice.
Both the TMO and landlord’s complaint responses were empathetic to the resident’s concerns. They acknowledged that he was impacted by the reports of ASB he had made and encouraged him to work with the TMO so that it could investigate how it could effectively support him. The landlord made an appropriate apology that it had not provided a full picture of the ASB he had experienced as part of its stage 1 complaint investigations. The landlord’s offer of £100 for this oversight was appropriate.
Overall, the TMO and landlord have taken reasonable steps to investigate the ASB the resident reported, particularly since October 2022 based on the evidence he has provided. Both parties have demonstrated that they are committed to working with the resident and the neighbour. Evidence provided to this service demonstrates proactive partnership working with key partner agencies and a willingness to explore what support it can offer the resident. However there was a service failure where the landlord failed recognise an ASB case should have been opened for the resident in February 2022 and that there had been a delay between September and November 2022 in obtaining police disclosure, causing the resident unnecessary frustration.

The resident’s accessibility to its services

The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. As a local authority, the landlord would be required to comply with provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act, the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. As such, a landlord and the TMO acting on its behalf should have due regard to the general equality duty during its decision making process, design of policies and delivery of services.
In bringing his complaint, the resident stated that the landlord has discriminated against him on the grounds of his disability. It may help to explain the scope of the Ombudsman is not to make a finding of whether the landlord discriminated against the resident. This would normally be a matter for judicial review. However the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord had due regard to the Act, and made reasonable adjustments for the resident.
The resident stated that he struggled with managing the stairs because of his disability, and therefore the landlord should waiver its obligation to conduct a tenancy audit to reduce the need for him to use excessive steps. As explained, tenancy audits are common practice and landlords have a duty to monitor who is living in their homes to reduce tenancy fraud. It would be inappropriate for the landlord to exclude residents from audit checks on the grounds of disability, or for any other reason. Doing so would not be fair to other residents and would hinder the landlord’s ability to conduct the checks at random in line with best practice.
It is appreciated that the resident stated that on answering the door to a tenancy audit, he would not feel comfortable answering questions about his tenancy or discuss any element of his disability on his doorstep. The landlord sympathised with this concern, but made it clear that the check was to ask only for the name and proof of identity of who was living in the property. Its complaint response in October 2022 offered to arrange to have any further discussions which arose inside the property, which was reasonable.
It is understood that the resident has dyslexia and therefore requires the use of VRT to read and write. He has stated that his inability to write down names of officers he has spoken to has hindered his access to the complaints process. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes it clear that landlords should make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels through which a complaint can be made. The landlord’s complaint policy and the TMOs complaint procedure support this. When the resident complained over the phone to the TMO on 8 February 2020, his concerns were recorded and were passed to the correct team. Whilst the TMO did not recognise the contact as a complaint, as will be assessed below, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was able to access the landlord’s complaint process.
The landlord has demonstrated that it has tried to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate use of the VRT and acted reasonably. On 10 October 2022, the resident stated that the format in which the landlord had included its complaint response was not compatible for his VRT system. The landlord responded the same day, copying the content of the complaint response into the body of the email. It asked him what format would work best for the system he was using and refrained from sending further attachments. It also offered to send correspondence to him by post.
The landlord and the TMO have tried to understand how they can best support the resident. For example, both parties have offered to discuss his ASB and complaint concerns further by telephone, teams call or in person at various times. These included joint visits between the TMO and landlord to understand all elements of his complaint. In October 2022 it offered to make an OT referral, and in December 2022, the landlord asked the resident if he would like to be referred to its new service for short term, focused support. This included personal resilience and wellbeing. Whilst it is noted that the resident declined these offers, the landlord and TMO have made reasonable attempts to engage with the resident to explore what support they could offer.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint was his concern about how his vulnerability information was stored on the landlord’s system, stating that in addition to his dyslexia he had other physical conditions including HIV and long covid that needed to be taken into consideration. Records show that the resident’s vulnerability records did show dyslexia and “other illnesses”. Following his complaint, they were updated to reflect dyslexia and a physical condition. The landlord offered to put the exact nature of his conditions onto the system if he wished, but would need his permission to do so. This was a reasonable approach and demonstrated that it was trying to appropriately reflect his vulnerabilities within the scope of its system input mechanism.
Overall, there is no evidence of a service failure of the landlord in considering what reasonable adjustments it could make to allow full accessibility to its services. Its communication with the resident has been consistent and fair, and it has demonstrated empathy within its own internal correspondence when considering how it could best support him. In investigating his complaint, the landlord recognised it could do more to highlight dyslexia within its customer service training and has demonstrated it is committed to listening to what it can do to improve its service for those with additional needs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

It is appreciated that given the volume of correspondence the resident sent the landlord and that various issues were raised across an extensive amount of emails, the landlord has tried to address each of his complaints in full. This has resulted in multiple complaint correspondence covering a wide range of issues. For the purpose of this investigation, the Ombudsman will consider complaints the resident raised from 8 February 2022 up until the landlord’s final response on 31 January 2023. Complaints made after this time, for example, in relation to the water rates, will not be considered for investigation as they were brought to the attention of the landlord after its final response.
It is clear that the resident made a complaint to the TMO on 8 February 2022. Details of the call were taken and passed to the appropriate team, however it failed to formally log the complaint and the resident had to chase it on several occasions causing him time, trouble and inconvenience.
There were discrepancies in the timescales the resident could expect a response between the TMO and the landlord’s complaint procedure in place at the time of the complaint. For example the TMO stated it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, whilst the landlord’s policy said it should respond within 21 calendar days. The difference in timescales was confusing and did not set out clear expectations of when the resident could expect to receive a response. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy has since been updated to reflect the same timescales as the TMO which is appropriate.
The complaint was acknowledged on 2 April 2022 and records show the TMO made several attempts at contact to discuss the matter without success. It is recognised that the resident’s preferred method of contact is by email, and in his correspondence he raised additional concerns about the roof which the TMO appropriately included in the complaint. The stage 1 response on 12 May 2022 was sent late and outside of the timescales that could be expected within the TMO complaint procedure. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to respond within the expected timeframe, apologised and appropriately compensated him for the delay.
The resident experienced further delays in escalating the matter to stage 2 of its process, causing him evident frustration. He highlighted that the landlord had failed to address his ASB concerns and the Ombudsman had to intervene. It is understandable why the resident felt it had failed to address his ASB concerns as part of the complaint process. His report about the smoke alarm was responded to in isolation, rather than considering the impact of his wider concerns of disturbances as a result of his neighbour’s drug use. As a result his complaint about how his reports of ASB had been handled were not responded to until 18 October 2022 under a separate complaint. The delay in addressing all aspects of the residents complaint was inappropriate and caused him evident distress.
It is understood that the landlord had difficulty establishing whether the resident’s concerns about his neighbour were recent or historic. It was important to make this distinction to be able to respond to his complaint and deal with more recent ASB concerns simultaneously. The Code states that a complaints policy must clearly set out circumstances in which a matter will not be considered, and these should be fair and reasonable. In this case, the TMO explained that it could not consider how it handled his ASB case in 2019 as part of the complaint, because of the amount of time that had passed which was reasonable. The stage 1 response about ASB went on to explain the limitations it had in investigating how it had handled the recent ASB where he refused to engage with its service. It encouraged him to make contact so it could discuss what support it could offer, which was appropriate.
There was a delay of approximately 6 months between the resident’s request to escalate his complaint and responding at stage 2 of its process in October 2022 for his original concerns. The delay was unreasonable and the landlord apologised, offering £75 which was an appropriate amount of compensation for his time and trouble. The stage 2 response was written in depth, and with the exception of his reports of ASB, addressed each element of his complaint in detail. In doing so, it recognised that it could have done more to address his concerns about the smoke alarm which was appropriate. Records show it made prompt arrangements to revisit his neighbour and the resident was updated of the outcome in a timely manner. This demonstrated that the landlord was committed to putting right what it had agreed in its complaint response.
It is important that when responding to complaints, TMOs and the landlord have the opportunity to discuss the complaint in more depth so that it has a full understanding of what the resident is dissatisfied with. It is noted that between November 2022 and January 2023 the landlord tried to engage with the resident to discuss his complaint in more detail over the phone or in person on several occasions. Internal correspondence noted that the landlord was aware that the final response would be issued late, but it wanted to ensure it had captured everything, which in this case was appropriate given the volume of emails it was receiving around that time. The resident’s decline of an in depth discussion hindered the landlord’s ability to fully understand his concerns. Nonetheless, the landlord’s response was comprehensive.
The landlord’s final stage 2 response was detailed and empathetic. Given the difficulties it had in discussing the complaint with the resident, it still took appropriate steps to list out each element of dissatisfaction it was aware of and responded to it in full. It compensated the resident £75 for the delay in handling his complaint which was appropriate. It took ownership of administration errors and apologised where it had caused misunderstanding which was reasonable.
Whilst the landlord found no service failure in regards the specific elements of his complaints, it still took learning points. This included that it could have provided a better acknowledgement of his historic ASB concerns to provide context to his complaint, and that it could incorporate dyslexia into its induction training for customer advisors.
In investigating complaints, the Code encourages landlords to “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. In this case, in concluding the resident’s complaint in January 2023 the landlord made reasonable attempts to address all that the resident was dissatisfied with. It acknowledged where it had fallen short in its service and it offered appropriate compensation. Furthermore, it took learning points from the complaint to better its future service. It has demonstrated good partnership working with its TMO in the handling of the resident’s complaint and its communication was empathetic and professional throughout.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the implementation of fire safety measures, including how it conducted a fire risk assessment (FRA), which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s residency check as part of a tenancy audit.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s accessibility to its services.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s associated complaints prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord had a legal obligation to conduct a FRA and it followed procedure when it asked the resident to remove his belongings from the communal area. In assessing whether the property required an additional fire door, the landlord was delayed in referring the matter back to its FST. Once it had done so, it was able to establish that a further fire door was not required. However, it agreed to install one anyway, demonstrating empathy to the resident’s concerns.
The TMO acted in line with best practice by conducting the tenancy audit. It has communicated clearly with the resident the reasons for the audit and the access it required under the terms of his tenancy agreement.
There were delays in repairing the roof leak. The landlord acknowledged these and appropriately compensated the resident for the inconvenience. It also addressed his concerns about access for scaffolding and appropriately relied on legal advice with regards to ownership of the back garden.
The TMO’s ability to fully investigate the ASB has been hindered by the resident’s refusal to engage with its staff. Records show it still took steps to engage with partnership agencies and has made several offers of support to the resident. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to open an ASB case at an earlier stage and there were delays between September and November 2022 in obtaining police disclosure.
The landlord has made reasonable adjustments to assist the resident to fully access its services. It has made offers to discuss matters in more depth with the resident in person or on the phone Its written communication has been detailed and comprehensive. It has appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and has made several offers of support.
The landlord failed to log and respond to the complaint the resident made in February 2022 and there were delays at responding at both stages. In investigating the resident’s final response, the landlord offered to discuss the matter in depth with the resident. Where he declined the landlord’s offers, it responded comprehensively to each of his concerns to put matters right, based on the information it had available. It acknowledged there had been delays, accepted where there were failures and compensated the resident appropriately.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failure in the handling of his reports of ASB as identified in this report, within 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears.
This investigation has identified service failings in relation to the handling of ASB. The Ombudsman’s special report published in October 2023 has recommended the landlord review its approach in this area including having regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints. The landlord should consider this case when assessing what further action it needs to take in response to relevant recommendations.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended that the landlord arrange to inspect the internal fire door recently stated which the resident reports he has difficulty opening.