Cornwall Housing Limited (202331715)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroombungalow. She has referred to her mental ill-health and suicidal thoughts but the landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for her.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.
   2. Rent arrears by offering the resident a smaller property.
   3. Data protection and confidentiality.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears by offering the resident a smaller property.
   3. The resident’s complaint about data protection and confidentiality to be outside jurisdiction.
   4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not complete risk assessments or communicate what it defined as ASB and the level of evidence it needed to investigate. It did not consider taking alternative approaches to gathering evidence of the ASB reports in line with its policy. It did not recognise its failings or offer compensation to put things right.
5. The landlord responded to the resident’s rent arrears in line with its policy. Its offer to rehouse her was supportive and was based on her agreement. It could have supported her to apply for a benefit exemption sooner in recognition of her vulnerability and to prevent rent arrears.
6. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigates data protection matters.
7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy. Its compensation was not proportionate to the impact its poor complaint handling had on her.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

8. The resident said the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and complaints affected her mental health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did consider

9. This investigation looks at the landlord’s handling of matters from 12 months before the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 23 November 2023 onwards.
10. Between October and December 2023, the resident told the landlord it had not investigated her reported “attacks from her neighbours”. In its complaint responses, it said this was because she did not engage with its contact attempts. The landlord could, however, have used other methods to record the ASB, such as email or telephone, when its visit attempts failed. It also could have suggested the resident use its Noise App or diary sheets to gather evidence of ASB. The fact it did not was not in keeping with its ASB policy and was a failing, given she reported “attacks” and suicidal tendencies.
11. The resident said the landlord ignored the ASB reports she reported in December 2023 and January 2024. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment to decide whether to open an ASB case file. It also did not agree an action plan or contact the resident’s neighbours about the reports, contrary to its policy. If the landlord decided the ASB was not at a level it could investigate, it should have told the resident to manage her expectations. It also could have explained what evidence it needed to investigate.
12. The landlord tried to interview the resident at home and said it would bring a surveyor to assess the property repairs. It would have been better if the landlord focused on her ASB reports separately.
13. The resident said she would install her own CCTV to gather evidence in January 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with advice about using CCTV, as there are ICO regulations about this. It would also have been reasonable for it to agree an action plan and reassure her about her personal safety concerns at this point, but it again did not do so, which was a failing.
14. The resident recognised her relationship with the landlord had broken down. She suggested mediation as a solution in January 2024, which the landlord agreed to. This was positive. It would have been better if the landlord suggested this solution to show it looked to put things right and learn from outcomes, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord took an unreasonable time to find mediation services and did not update the resident until she asked for information about it in February 2024. It later withdrew its agreement to enter mediation because it decided the resident’s communication was “abusive”. It did not explain this meant it would not take part in mediation. This caused the resident further distress and frustration.
15. The landlord offered to consider an action plan and complete a vulnerability risk assessment with the resident in March 2024. This was positive and in keeping with its ASB policy, but it should have done so sooner. Once again it said it would attend the property with a surveyor, suggesting it had not learnt from the outcome of its previous offer to do so.
16. The landlord asked the resident in December 2023 to share any vulnerability or support needs so it could signpost her to support agencies or put support in place. This was positive and showed it considered her mental health, in line with its ASB policy. It later asked the resident’s permission to speak to her support worker, which was appropriate under the circumstances. The resident declined this request. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain why it wanted to speak to her support worker and how this could help.
17. The resident said the landlord sent the police out for safeguarding purposes. The landlord was not responsible for how the police responded to its reports. It was reasonable for the landlord to speak to other agencies when responding to ASB and vulnerability in line with its ASB policy. It arranged a multi-agency meeting in May 2024 to discuss the resident’s housing and support needs. This was positive and in keeping with its ASB policy, but it would have been better if it did so sooner.
18. The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s ASB reports in its final complaint response. It said it had genuine concern for her welfare and wished to engage with her to support her. This was positive. However, its description of the resident’s behaviour as showing a “pattern” of her not engaging with it is concerning and did not fully consider the resident’s circumstances. The landlord did not recognise its own failings and did not consider offering compensation for them in line with its compensation policy. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £600 compensation to recognise her time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience from its failures in handling her ASB reports. This is the highest amount recommended by our remedies guidance’s compensation band for such failures that adversely affected the resident.
19. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to consider her ASB reports and whether to open a new case for them, giving her its decision in writing. We have recommended it reconsiders entering mediation with her to improve its communication and relationship with her.

20. The tenancy agreement says the resident must pay rent while living at the property. She claimed housing benefit but there was a shortfall between this and her rent, or ‘bedroom tax’, because the benefit team previously thought she under-occupied the property. The resident did not previously apply for a ‘bedroom tax’ exemption for her ill-health, and so she got rent arrears between 2018 and 2023. The landlord applied to the court in October 2023 for possession of the property because of the arrears, which was in line with its income management policy and the tenancy agreement.
21. Before a court hearing in December 2023the landlord offered the resident a repayment plan to clear her rent arrears, which she agreed to. It also offered to apply for a ‘bedroom tax’ exemption for her and said, if she wished to downsize by moving to a smaller property, she could use a downsizing payment to clear her arrears. The landlord offered these options to help reduce her arrears in line with its income management policy. It asked the judge for a suspended possession order based on the agreed repayment plan, which was more supportive and helpful for her to keep her tenancy than asking to take possession of it.
22. The landlord then applied for a ‘bedroom tax’ exemption on behalf of the resident in January 2024. It would have been better if it did so sooner to prevent the rent arrears. The resident received the exemption and a backdated benefit payment in April 2024 that paid the shortfall between her rent and benefit from April 2021 onwards.
23. The landlord continued to ask the resident if she wished to move and it offered to help her complete a housing application, which was reasonable. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident she had to move under any circumstances.
24. The landlord could have applied for the benefit exemption sooner by acting on information the resident previously provided to it from March 2023 about why she needed a second bedroom. It also would have been better if it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and the possibility of an exemption before it applied to court, as this caused her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. In view of this we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards up to this amount for such delays in getting matters resolved. We have also recommended it discuss and assess her rehousing options based on the property condition and ASB due to their health effects.

25. We do not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this case, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of confidentiality and data protection is within the ICO’s jurisdiction. This is because the ICO investigates and decides on data protection matters. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s data protection and confidentiality. The resident may contact the ICO for further advice.

26. The resident escalated a separate complaint on 23 October 2023, which referred to the subject matters in this complaint. The landlord said it would not investigate matters that took place more than 6 months before in keeping with its complaint policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this but it should have raised a new stage 1 complaint. This caused the resident time and trouble from raising the complaint again.
27. The complaints policy says the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It acknowledged and responded to the resident’s 23 November 2023 complaint within these timescales on 24 November 2023 and 1 December 2023, respectively. It did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s 1 December 2023 escalation request within these times. It did not acknowledge or reply to the resident’s stage 2 complaint until over 6 months later on 18 and 21 June 2024, respectively, which was unreasonable.
28. The resident said she felt ignored and disrespected by the landlord for not replying to her complaints. She also said this affected her mental health and she did not want to live any more. The landlord did not recognise the distress its poor complaint handling caused.
29. The landlord offered £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This was in line with its compensation policy and showed it looked to put matters right. However, it was not proportionate to the time, trouble, and distress its failings caused the resident under our remedies guidance. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and instead pay her £200 compensation for this, in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures adversely affecting the resident.

Learning

30. The landlord should have considered the resident’s mental health concerns and her vulnerability, including the possibility of a benefit exemption for them, sooner when managing her rent account before her arrears increased and it applied for possession. By doing so it would have avoided costs, time, and trouble in pursuing possession and the benefit exemption later. It also would have prevented the distress and inconvenience its possession proceedings caused the resident.
31. The resident’s willingness or ability to engage with the landlord should not have prevented it investigating ASB by other means. The landlord could have interviewed the neighbour and other residents or installed CCTV. There is no evidence the landlord considered such measures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord did not provide evidence of an opened ASB case file or evidence of its investigations, or its use of intervention tools to gather evidence. We have not seen evidence of internal communications it may have held with the police and social services.

• The landlord did not keep up to date records about the resident’s disclosed mental ill-health and vulnerability. This is important to ensure it considers any reasonable adjustments and provides support where necessary when responding to her. We have therefore recommended the landlord review and contact her about her circumstances, so its records are up to date for any health issues, and review if its staff need further training or if it needs to review its safeguarding and vulnerability policies.

Communication

33. The landlord’s complaint responses were appropriately detailed and showed compassion for the resident’s view of matters. However, to rebuild the resident’s confidence, it could have offered alternative engagement options. It would have been reasonable to offer to review the contact restrictions it put in place and its mediation offer to show it looked to put matters right and learn from outcomes.