Flagship Housing Group Limited (202207360)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207360

Flagship Housing Group Limited

6 November 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s acceptance of the tenancy at the property.
2. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. The resident’s subsequent request for a management move.
4. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident lived in a one-bedroom ground floor flat between 31 March 2022 and 19 May 2022. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord’s records state that the resident has mobility restrictions and suffers with his mental health.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has also advised that the handling of these matters by the landlord has led to a deterioration in his mental health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The Landlord obligations

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlines that when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour, agencies must consider the effect that such behaviour has on victims and witnesses. It also states that agencies should recognise and consider the debilitating impact on that persistent or repeated anti-social behaviour can have on victims, more so over a period of time.
Section 3.5 (a) of the Tenancy agreement states that residents must not cause a nuisance or annoyance or do anything that is likely to cause a nuisance or behave in a violent or threatening way towards your neighbours, other tenants, landlord staff, agents, contractors, or anyone lawfully in the area of the property.
Section 3.7 (a) of the Tenancy agreement states that residents will not make, or allow anyone else to make, excessive noise at the property so that it causes a nuisance or annoyance to other people.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour and harassment policy states it will deal with cases of ASB or harassment, it says it will remain sympathetic and sensitive to the needs to the person experiencing ASB. The policy states once a complaint has been raised then the landlord will contact the resident to provide advice, signpost or open a case. The landlord will then complete an action plan which will be sent to the resident confirming next action. The landlord will also complete a risk assessment. The resident will also be supplied with diary sheets to enable to landlord to gain insight into the ASB.
Section 3.22 (a) of the Tenancy agreement states that residents need to give at least one calendar months’ notice in writing, ending on the last day of any month, to end your tenancy.
Under the landlord’s disabled aids and adaptation policy it states that for any major adaptation ‘the customer must contact social services to arrange a visit from an occupational therapist (OT) to assess their needs.
The landlord’s ‘lettable standards’ state that it is committed to making sure all homes are in a liveable, comfortable condition for residents from day one.
The landlord’s management move policy states that moves should only be used when it meets exceptional resident’s needs. This includes:
1. If the resident is at risk of harm if they stay in their current home.
2. The resident had a medical need that is not met in their current home.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure which states:
1. At stage one the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a formal response within ten working days.
2. At stage two, the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within five working days and provide a full and final response within 20 working days following a full investigation of the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it may consider an offer of compensation or good will when it has, through its own actions or inactions, failed to deliver services of an acceptable standard.

Summary of events

The landlord checked the properties electrics on 3 March 2022. A domestic electrical installation certificate was completed with no issues identified.
The resident viewed the property on 28 March 2022 and the resident said he felt pressurised by the housing officer being in a rush. The resident reported that at the time he advised the landlord of his health conditions and safety concerns of the property. The resident said he raised a number of repairs and adaptions required. This included that the property did not have a ground level shower and the small space between the toilet and the sink made it difficult to use. The resident said he was reassured that adaption would take place prior to moving in.
Shortly after the resident moved into the property, another resident moved into the property above. The resident reported noise and ASB issues relating to the new resident.
On 11 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by email. The resident said he had not moved into the property. The resident said he was waiting on carpets to be fitted. The resident said some repairs were required in the meantime. The resident said there was no key lock on the gas meter, also the window keys need replacing. Additionally, some interior doors do not close properly. The resident also requested for the sink to be replaced as he was unable to sit on the toilet due to the shape of the sink.
On 20 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say the sound of people coming in and leaving the property above is a noise nuisance. The resident said the noise levels increased his anxiety levels. Therefore, the property is not suitable. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns. In its response the landlord confirmed that the neighbour had just moved in. Therefore, at this point the neighbour would not have had time to lay any new flooring. The landlord asked the resident to monitor the situation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 and 13 May 2022 with videos. The landlord has recorded the videos as minor shouting and minor noise. The resident in his email to the landlord on 13 May 2022 said he was struggling with the noise levels of the neighbour above.
Also, the resident provided a video recording of a knocking noise on 15 and 20 May 2022.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 16 May 2022, but the resident was unavailable.
On 18 May 2022, the resident started a new application for housing as the resident felt his safety was at risk in the current property.
The landlord completed a risk assessment on 19 May 2022 and an action plan following the resident’s ASB complaints that the neighbour above was causing a noise nuisance. This included that the resident could hear the neighbour above knocking on the floor and heavy footfall. The action plan included:
1. That the resident was clear for the landlord to not contact the other resident.
2. The landlord will contact the police, make a safeguarding referral and make enquires with the local authority about housing. Also, the landlord to contact the resident’s GP.
3. The landlord to contact the resident on 24 May 2022.
The resident moved out of his property on 19 May 2022 as the resident said he overheard the neighbour talking to their friend and was making threats to his life. The resident said someone had tried to break into his flat and he felt scared and terrified. The resident had advised that he reported this to the police who said he should not remain at the flat as the neighbour is known to them. The resident gave notice to end his tenancy on 31 July 2022.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by email. The landlord confirmed it had received the resident’s recordings and planned to listen to them as soon as possible. The landlord confirmed the recording was of a knocking noise from the flat above and the sound of people walking. The landlord advised it was completing its risk assessment and planned to contact the resident in the next 7 days. The landlord also said it will try and access additional support for his mental health.
The landlord went onto say it did not feel that the resident needed to stay away from his home instead the landlord recommended that if he did return to a distance from the neighbour. The landlord also so if the resident did return home to call the police on 999 if he felt he was at immediate risk. The same day the resident replied to the landlord to say he is too scared to return home as he overheard the neighbour making threats about him.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord contacted the local authority. The landlord requested for advice on rehoming the resident. The landlord advised at this stage the resident had raised ASB complaints, but the resident asked that the landlord not contact his neighbour or investigate due to a fear of violence.
The landlord also contacted the police on 20 May 2022 to obtain clarification on what it advised the resident. The landlord confirmed that the resident had left the property as he was too scared and terrified following an attempted break in and threats to his life from the neighbour.
On 23 May 2022, the resident attended a mental health review following a referral from the wellbeing team. The resident reported that his mental health had deteriorated due to housing problems. The resident said he no longer felt safe in the current property.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to request further information. The landlord requested for the pictures the resident and asked the resident for permission to attend the neighbour’s property to discuss the ASB complaints. The landlord also completed an action plan which was emailed to the resident. This included:
1. the landlord should not contact the other resident until the resident agrees.
2. the resident to send in evidence in the form of pictures.
3. the landlord to contact the local authority and other colleagues regarding a move.
4. the resident to provide details of his social prescriber.
5. the landlord to keep in regular contact.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to say it is waiting to speak to a housing provider. In the meantime, the landlord advised the resident to make an appointment to speak to the local authority about moving.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 June 2022 to say it understands the resident does not want any reprisals. However, the landlord needed to follow its ASB process. The landlord confirmed it had contacted the police who said the resident was not at risk, so did not advise the resident to move. The landlord confirmed it had spoken with housing providers including the local authority as they have a duty to rehouse residents. However, the resident was not eligible for a move under the management move scheme.
The resident emailed the landlord a recording of a knocking noise on 2 and 5 June 2022. Also, on 9 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord with a video of an alleged burglary at his property.
The resident contacted the police on 8 June 2022 to request for an update on his case. The same day the police advised the resident it was still investigating the resident’s ASB complaints.
On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm he wanted it to proceed with ASB investigation. The resident said since the neighbour was aware of his complaints more ASB happened. The resident said on 19 May 2022 he overheard the neighbour saying that he wanted to kill him. The resident said at this point he knew he had to move out for his own safety. The resident asked the landlord to speak to the local authority again regarding a move.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email the same day and asked the resident to confirm he was happy for it to contact the neighbour.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 June 2022to look for an update on his case. The resident confirmed that he was currently living with friend’s house and in his car, but it is not suitable due to his disability. The resident confirmed that he emptied his flat of his personal belongings the day previously and has stored his belongings in the meantime.
On 15 June 2022, the police confirmed that it would not be taking any action as there was no criminal case. The police advised that the complaint relates to neighbourhood noise/issues.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 June 2022 to confirm it had viewed the resident’s videos. The landlord confirmed it was due to visit the neighbour to discuss the ASB. Also, it was looking to resolve the noise issues and had a plan to address it.
On 19 June 2022, the resident provided a video which was of a person shouting. The resident also provided the landlord with a video recorded on 20 June 2022 of a person shouting and police attending the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 June 2022. The resident said it was extremely dangerous for him to be in the flat alone. The resident said this was due to threats he had from the neighbour. The resident went onto say that the police advised him to report the ASB and to stay at a friends. The resident explained that neighbour above continuously banged on the floor and screams and shouts to intimidate him. The resident was worried the neighbour would assault him if they were face to face.
The same day the landlord completed a safeguarding referral to adult social services. The landlord confirmed that the resident had reported that his mental health had deteriorated. The landlord confirmed he had advised the resident to contact the police if he felt at risk. Also, that it had contacted the local authority to see if it could support a move and appoint a social worker. In addition, the landlord contacted the safer neighbourhood team to obtain further information. Further, the landlord agreed to contact the resident’s GP. At this time, the landlord confirmed there was not an ASB investigation in place. Therefore, no risk was identified.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2022 and confirmed he had been in contact with the local authority. The local authority advised him that as he was at risk of violence, being disabled and due to his mental health issues, that it was quicker for the landlord to relocate him.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm he was not eligible for a management move. The landlord advised that based on discussions with the police it did not find that the resident was at risk of violence. The landlord went onto say that the resident was at medium risk of generalised ASB and bad neighbourliness from the neighbour living above. The landlord confirmed that if the resident maintains that he was at risk of violence he could contact the local authority. In doing so, the resident would present as fleeing violence and the local authority have a duty to house victims.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 July 2022 to confirm it had visited the neighbour above. The landlord said the neighbour insisted he did nothing wrong and was not open to engaging in the ASB process. The landlord confirmed it had listened to the resident’s recording and agreed it was the neighbour above. The landlord advised that it had contacted other neighbours to establish whether they had heard anything. However, as of yet the landlord had not heard anything which would enable it to progress the investigation. Further, it confirmed it had contacted the police who advised that the resident remains safe to live in his property and that the resident was not at risk of harm. Therefore, the landlord advised the resident to either move back to the flat or contacted the local authority.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 July 2022. The resident complained that when he initially viewed the property, he identified that the bathroom was not the correct layout for his disability needs. The resident said he was told that adaptations would take place before he moved in. However, this did not happen. The resident also complained that the landlord did not handle his ASB complaints correctly. In resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to rehouse him. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
On 12 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say he had contacted the local authority. The resident said the local authority said it is the landlord’s responsibility to rehome him. The resident said he feels that the landlord neglected and discriminated against him. The resident said the landlord needs to rehouse him urgently.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 13 July 2022. The landlord asked the resident if he would return to the property if it resolved the ASB issues. The resident responded the day after to say he would not return as the flat did not meet his medical needs.
On the 14, 15 and 16 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord with a copy of a video recording of a person shouting.
On 19 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. The resident said he provided evidence that ASB was happening but the landlord to did not follow its ASB policies. The resident said he was unhappy that he was still paying for a property that was not suitable, for his physical needs. Also, that he could not continue living in due to a fear of violence and the resident said this left him feeling suicidal.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email the following day on 20 July 2022. The landlord provided the resident with its stage one findings which are detailed below. The resident responded the same day to say he disagreed with its stage one complaint response. The resident said he disagrees that he needs to complete an end of tenancy form before keys are returned as he formally provided notice. The landlord responded and agreed to progress the complaint to stage two.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 21 July 2022. The landlord said:
1. The housing officer who did the viewing when the resident initially looked at the property did not recall agreeing that adaptations would take place. The landlord confirmed that the resident would have to have an assessment with an occupational therapist before adaptations would be agreed.
2. It agreed to check the window handles on 8 and 19 July 2022. However, no one was home on either date to complete the check. The landlord advised the resident that if he does return to the property, it will rearrange the check.
3. In terms of the resident complaints about ASB, the landlord said it handled the complaints appropriately. The landlord advised that it contacted the neighbour and it had arranged further appointments to look at the resident’s videos. The landlord also confirmed it had liaised with the police.
4. It is unable to immediately rehome customers as process needs to be followed. The landlord said the resident had to register on the gateway system which the resident had done. The next stage is that the resident needed to complete its end of tenancy form.
On 26 July 2022, the resident approached the local authority rough sleeping team to say he was homeless. The resident said he had to leave his home as he subjected to abuse. The resident did not provide any details of what abuse.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 20 August 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had spoken to the member of staff who completed the initial viewing of the property. The staff member said no promises were made that adaption work or repair would be completed prior to the resident accepting the property. The landlord said as it was not present at the time it would be unable to make a determination. However, the landlord said it was standard practice for housing officers to raise any required adaptions and repairs if necessary. The landlord said as this did not happen in the resident’s case then the housing officer did not deem it necessary.
2. Prior to a property being allocated the local authority assess the information provided by resident’s and nominate properties based on need.
3. The landlord apologised to the resident felt the property was not suitable for the resident’s needs.
4. It followed correct process and policy in investigating the residents ASB complaints. In terms of the ASB complaint it said:
  1. It offered and completed a victim risk assessment.
  2. It agreed a communication plan with the resident and kept in regular contact with the resident.
  3. It reviewed the evidence provided by the resident and agencies such as the police. The landlord addressed the ASB behaviour with the perpetrator after the resident provided consent.
  4. It made a safeguarding referral for the resident and engaged with the resident’s support agencies.
5. With regards to the resident’s request to move to an alternative accommodation, the landlord acknowledged that since moving into the property the resident felt unsafe. The landlord said:
  1. It engaged with the local authority to establish whether the resident met its criteria for moving. The landlord confirmed it shared the resident’s information including the impact the ASB was having on the resident. However, the local authority did not find that the resident met the local authority criteria for an alternative property.
  2. It acknowledged that the resident disagreed with this, so it liaised with the agencies, the police and local authority supporting the resident. All departments found the investigation into the ASB was not conclusive enough to support a move.
  3. It provided the resident with advice about how to access a move including how to approach the local authority to present as ‘fleeing’ given the resident expression of fear for the other resident.

Post complaint

The landlord closed the residents ASB case on 22 August 2022 as the resident was no longer living in the property.
On 10 October 2022, the resident attended an appointment with an occupational health therapist at the local authority. This identified that the resident needed a ground floor flat, level access shower, and grab rails due to him being risk of falls.
In contact with this Service the landlord advised that since it issued it stage two response it attended the resident’s new home on 14 March 2023. The landlord confirmed on 15 March 2023 it apologised that it did not do better in its handling of the resident’s ASB complaints. The landlord said it could have considered the impact it was having on the resident more and provided more support for his mental health. As a consequence, the landlord said it had learnt from its mistakes and offered the resident £900 to cover two months’ rent the resident paid and storage costs when he was not living in the property between June and July 2022. Additionally, £250 to cover any distress caused by its poor complaint handling as the landlord did not answer all of the resident’s complaints adequately at stage one.
The landlord confirmed it paid the resident £1150 on 16 March 2023. In the resident’s contact with this Service on 28 March 2023 the resident confirmed he accepted this compensation.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. put things right.
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident’s acceptance of the tenancy at the property

The landlord’s lettable standard sets out the minimum standard a property should meet when letting and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs complaints states that new lettings must be free from risks and of decent standard. The report advises that landlords should carry out inspections to determine whether properties meet lettable standards, and accurate records of inspections and post-inspections should be kept, in order to clearly demonstrate with robust evidence that letting standards are met.
The resident said that when he initially viewed the property, he advised the landlord that he had health and safety concerns with the property. The resident reports that in response to this, the landlord agreed to complete adaptations before he moved in.
The landlord in contrast did not recall providing any reassurance that adaptations would take place during the resident’s initial viewing of the property. The landlord said if it thought adaptations were required than a referral would have been made to the occupational therapy team at the local authority. Also, the landlord confirmed that the property was offered by the local authority, and it would have assessed the information the resident provided and established what type of property met his needs. Therefore, if the local authority identified that the resident needed an adapted property this would have been added to his housing applications. Overall, the landlord said as the local authority did not say adaptations were needed, it was not aware this would be the required for the resident prior to moving in.
The records show that the landlord completed void works in the property this included renewing a ply door and door furniture in the hall, lounge and bedrooms. However, the exact date of when this took place is not clear as it just states 2022. The records go on to show that the resident accepted the offer of the property and a sign up took place on 31 March 2022.
For context, the evidence provided to this Service shows that the local authority had previously assessed the resident prior to moving into the property in early 2022. The assessment found that the resident needed a ground floor flat, but no further adaptations were required. The landlord advertised the property through a ‘gateway to home choice’ between 10 February 2022 and 16 February 2022. The local authority short listed applicants based on suitability. The resident successfully bid and local authority completed a pre allocation assessment with the resident on 17 February 2022.
In this case, the landlord does not have documentation of the written record of the viewing. This would have included relevant conversations with the resident on any agreed works. In correspondence with this Service the landlord said that the written record of the viewing was unavailable due to a data transfer error. Whilst this Service recognises that computer errors can happen, the shortcomings in its records placed limitations on this Service’s ability to make findings about how the landlord handled works to the property while empty.
In respect of record keeping, as the landlord did not provide a full account of void works which included a date and explanations. Also, the landlord did not provide a written record of what was discussed during the residents initial viewing. As such, there was a failure on behalf of the landlord to provide comprehensive records.
With this in mind, this Service would be unable to determine what was discussed during the initial viewing. Therefore, we would not be able to make a finding on whether the landlord did or did not follow process in relating to its letting standards policy.
This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping regarding the resident’s acceptance of the tenancy at the property. As the landlord was unable to demonstrate adequately what was discussed during the initial viewing of the property as there was not written records. Also, the landlord did not have a clear record of when void works took place. This hindered this investigation, and the landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident for the resulting distress and inconvenience.

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

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not result in a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
In cases relating to ASB, it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who was responsible. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
In this case, the resident reported that shortly after moving in a neighbour also moved into the property above. The resident said he felt intimidated by his neighbour following threats of violence. The resident also reported that whilst living in the property the neighbour created a noise nuisance to cause distress. The evidence provided to this Service shows that resident initially raised ASB with the landlord on 20 April 2022. The records show that in response to the resident ASB complaints, the landlord responded to the resident’s initial ASB three working days later, on 25 April 2022.
The evidence shows that the resident raised four other reports of ASB in May 2022 to the landlord. This included video of a knocking noise and a person shouting. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss his concerns on 16 May 2022. However, this was unsuccessful.
Following reports of ASB, it is necessary for the landlord to consider and respond to these in accordance with its ASB policies. The landlord’s own ASB policy states it will complete an action plan and a risk assessment.
From the evidence provided to this Service the landlord followed its ASB process and completed a risk assessment and an action plan on 19 May 2022. A further action plan was completed on 24 May 2022. However, as a risk assessment did not take place earlier when the resident first reported ASB on 20 April 2021 there was a delay in the landlord assessing the risk to the resident and to assess his vulnerabilities. This was outside of the landlord’s own ASB policy and the landlord missed the opportunity to understand any support needs that the resident may have had at the earliest opportunity.
In terms of what this Service would expect it was reasonable for the landlord to complete an action plan and a risk assessment. This is also in line with the landlord’s own ASB policy. This Service recognises the resident did not want the landlord to contact the other resident for fear of retaliation. With this in mind, the records show that the landlord listened to the resident’s needs and agreed that it would not contact the neighbour. The landlord also offered the resident appropriate support by contacting his GP and making a safeguarding referral to the local authority. However, this left the landlord with limited actions regarding seeking a resolution at this time.
This Service recognise the impact the ASB had on the resident as he reported that his mental health had deteriorated, and this led to the resident leaving the property on 19 May 2022. At this time, the landlord advised the resident that a management move would not be an option as the resident had not pursued his ASB case. However, the landlord did not explain the implications to the resident of him relinquishing his tenancy early.
The records show that after leaving the property the resident agreed for the landlord to progress his ASB investigation and contact the neighbour on 8 June 2022.
From the information provided to this Service the landlord was proactive in its approach. The landlord worked in partnership with other agencies such as the police and the local authority. Further, between the 15 June 2022 and 16 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions. For the most, the resident provided videos of alleged ASB. The records show that the landlord responded to the resident in a timely way. The landlord provided reassurance that it was taking the ASB complaints seriously.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to obtain evidence of the alleged ASB and to appropriately investigate the matters. This included that the landlord contacted the other resident’s to discuss the alleged ASB. Additionally, the landlord reviewed all the videos supplied by the resident. The landlord also, liaised with partner agencies such as the police, the local adult and community services to check on provision for social care, and the resident’s GP.
This Service has found that following reports of the resident’s mental health deterioration the landlord completed a safeguarding referral on 20 June 2022. In addition, the landlord contacted the resident’s GP. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take to ensure that the resident could access additional support given his vulnerability. Further, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a multi-agency response as per its ASB policy. Therefore, the landlord demonstrated that it supported the resident at this time.
As noted, the resident said he felt genuine concern for his safety, and this led to him moving out. As such, the records show that the resident requested that the landlord rehouse him. In his communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident advised that he wished to move from the property and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to refuse his request to be moved from his property via a management move.

Resident’s subsequent request for management move

Following the resident’s request to move on 18 May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had been in regular contact with the police. In doing so, as well as considering the evidence provided by the resident the landlord was satisfied that it was safe for the resident to return to his home. However, the landlord did make recommendations that included that if he did return to keep a safe distance from the neighbour. With this in mind, the landlord appropriately followed its management move process in that a move is only used in the cases of ASB if the tenant is at risk of harm if they stay in their current home.
This Service does, however, note the resident’s view that at the time there was a high risk to his safety if he stayed in the property. The resident also advised the landlord that the police said he was high risk as his neighbour was well known to the police. In this case, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the outcome of the police investigation into the reported ASB when determining whether the resident was at risk. This is due to the fact the police lead investigations into threatening behaviour. The records show that the landlord was in regular contact with the police to gain clarity on whether it was safe for the resident to stay in the property. With this in mind, it was reasonable for the landlord to determine the level of risk to the resident based on the police’s findings.
From the evidence provided to this Service the landlord contacted the local authority to check whether it could rehome the resident. However, the local authority concluded that the resident did not meet its eligibility criteria. Further, the resident did not meet the landlord’s management move criteria. The records show that the landlord relied upon the ASB evidence it considered which concluded that the resident safety was not high risk.
The records show that the landlord advised the resident of all available options. This included that on the 22 June 2022, the landlord advised the resident that if he feels he is at risk of violence he could approach the local authority as fleeing violence. Also, on 4 July 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it is open to him to keep contacting the local authority or to move back into the property.
There is no evidence to suggest that the police supported his claim that there was a high risk to his safety to stay in the property. There is also no further evidence provided to suggest that either the local authority or other support services had recommended that the resident was moved from his current address due to the reported impact this was having on his health. As such, there is no evidence of any failure on the part of the landlord in its decision. The evidence provided to this Services shows that the landlord was proactive and followed its management move process.
The evidence shows that the landlord clearly explained its position at each stage and effectively managed the resident’s expectations by confirming that a management move would not be facilitated due to the resident not meeting its criteria. The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident of his housing options on a number of occasions and explaining that he could present himself as fleeing.
Overall, this Service had found that the landlord followed its process when considering a management move for the resident. However, there was a service failure on behalf of the landlord that it did not complete a risk assessment earlier in the process to assess the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was not in line with its ASB policy and the landlord missed an opportunity to provide support to the resident at its earliest opportunity.

The associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
The resident initially complaint to the landlord on 7 July 2022 regarding that the landlord did not make adaptations as it said it would when he initially viewed the property. Also, the landlord failed to handle his ASB complaints about his neighbour. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint to same day.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint 10 working days later, on 21 July 2022. However, a day earlier the landlord provided the resident with its stage one conclusion by email on 20 July 2022. This is in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy to provide a response within 10 working days.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage two on 20 July 2022. The landlord acknowledged his request the same day.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 20 August 2022. This was 22 days after it acknowledged the residents request to progress to stage two of the complaint process. This is slightly outside of the Code which states stage two responses should be provided within 20 working days, nor was it in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy.
From the evidence provided to this Service, the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one complaint response. The resident said he was dissatisfied as the landlord did not provide clear explanations to the complaints raised. This Service has found that the landlord failed to address all of the residents concerns at stage one of the complaint process. Therefore, it failed to show effective complaint handling and did not seek to provide a resolution at its earliest opportunity. With this in mind, this left the resident feeling frustrated and not listened too which caused further distress and inconvenience. This Service can see that the landlord provided a more detailed response at stage two of the complaint process. In the stage two response the landlord acknowledged that it provided more of an explanation and detail than in its stage one response.
For reference, the landlord has provided evidence to this Service that following its internal complaint process finished it contacted the resident in March 2023. The records show that the landlord attended a meeting with the resident on 14 March 2023. At this time, the landlord acknowledged that in its stage one complaint response it did not adequately and clearly answer all of the resident’s complaint matters. The landlord said it has reflected on this and has delivered training to all members of staff to ensure that all elements of complaints are answered in a detailed way. The landlord offered the resident £250 in recognition to its failings which the resident accepted.
The landlord’s subsequent offer of compensation was within a range this Service would recommend for poor complaint handling. However, the offer was not made until some seven months after the time of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right and resolve the complaint at its earliest opportunity and missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, and we have therefore found a service failing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping relating to the resident’s acceptance of the tenancy at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a management move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord had poor record keeping regarding its void report and also the landlord did not have a written report of its initial viewing of the property with the resident. This is not reasonable and impacted on the progress of this investigation.
The landlord’s delay in risk assessing the resident’s vulnerabilities when the resident initially raised ASB concerns. As such, it did not take a victim centred approach to provide support to the resident at its earliest opportunity.
The evidence shows that the landlord clearly explained its position at each stage and effectively managed the resident’s expectations by confirming that a management move would not be facilitated due to the resident not meeting its criteria.
The landlord’s complaint process should have represented an opportunity to put things right and learn from the outcomes, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord failed to use the opportunity at stage one of its complaint process to resolve the resident’s complaints at the earliest opportunity.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord will:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £550 made up of:
  1. £250 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor record keeping relating to the resident’s acceptance of the tenancy at the property.
  2. £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment at its earliest opportunity.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
3. Consider whether it can action some of the recommendations in this Service’s knowledge and information management Spotlight report regarding record keeping.
4. The landlord should review its complaint handling failures in this case to identify points of learning to prevent similar situations occurring in the future.
5. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.