Grand Union Housing Group Limited (201906126)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906126

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

3 August 2021

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move properties.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a parking space for his property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his neighbour’s dog barking.
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move properties.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The resident has complained about the landlord’s allocation of his desired transfer property to another resident in March 2019, its subsequent refusal on 30 September 2019 to obtain information from the police to support his application with the local authority, and its awarding him a low priority banding for a housing transfer on 1 March 2019. These events took place in 2019, at least 15 months prior to the complaint being raised on 28 January 2021. Therefore a determination will not made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and currently holds an assured tenancy.
The Ombudsman expects complaints to be raised within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, while historical information may be included for context, this investigation focuses on events from July 2020 onwards, this being six months prior to the resident raising a formal complaint.

Historical background

On 5 April 2017, the landlord wrote to the resident, in response to a prior enquiry, to inform him that it could consider giving him permission for a driveway at his property once his tenancy converted from a starter tenancy to an assured tenancy on 20 June 2017.
The resident made a property transfer application on 12 February 2019. He completed a medical and needs assessment form on 14 February 2019 to explain his medical reasons for needing a property that enabled him to park close to his front door; he added in this that he also received “verbal abuse” from a neighbour regularly linked to his current parking arrangements.
On 28 February 2019, the resident enquired with the landlord about moving into a neighbouring property which he felt would suit him better as it had a disabled driveway and prevent him receiving “abuse” for his current parking arrangement. It confirmed with him on 1 March 2019 that it had received his application, which was in low priority banding, and that it would be sourcing the applicant who was most in need for the property through its transfer list or council nomination list. The landlord suggested that he register with the local authority’s housing register to improve his chances of being offered a property.
The resident raised a historical stage one complaint with the landlord on 31 March 2019 in which he noted that the property had been allocated to another applicant by the local authority. He contended that it had not given due consideration to his application to transfer to the property and had not taken into account his medical needs and his being subjected to “abuse” from his neighbours.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 August 2019 to ask if it had received a letter from his GP to support his property transfer. He also highlighted that the new resident of the property which he had wanted to move into did not appear to have a medical need for it and furthermore did not appear to be at the property regularly. The landlord replied later that day to advise that it could not comment on the new resident’s circumstances and that, in any event, residents were permitted to be away from their properties. It enquired as to whether he was registered on the local authority’s housing register alongside his application with it for a property transfer. The landlord confirmed that it was contractually obliged for 75% of its properties to be allocated by the local authority annually. It informed the resident that it had no record of receiving medical information from the resident’s GP.
The landlord received an email from the resident’s GP on 11 August 2019 which said that they could not confirm his current health situation and was unable to make any comment on the suitability of his housing. The landlord spoke to the resident on 22 August 2019 about this and advised this information was unlikely to increase his transfer banding priority. During the conversation the resident advised it that he had yet to register with the local authority’s housing register; it transpired that he had contacted the wrong local authority.
On 30 September 2019 the resident asked the landlord when it would obtain information from the police about his reports of ASB to support his housing application with the local authority. It replied to him later that day to advise that this was not something it did and directed him to seek these records himself.
In January 2020, the resident made reports of a dog barking from a neighbouring property. The landlord replied to direct him to the local authority’s environmental health team to identify the property where the barking was coming from and informed him about their noise app which he could use to record the noise.

Background to current complaint

The resident contacted the landlord on 3 July 2020 to say that he had not been offered any properties to move to, which he was keen to do as he was experiencing “harassment” from his neighbours which he had reported to the police. It called him that day to ask if he had been recording incidents of the dog barking in an incident log, to which he said he had been. The landlord provided information on how to register for a mutual exchange and the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with being removed from the local authority’s housing register due to his contention that it should have provided information to it from the police.
The resident reported to the landlord on 11 August 2020 that the dog barking continued and the property from which the dog barking came from was occupied by its tenant. On 27 October 2020, the resident made a further report of the dog being left outside barking. On 7 December 2020, he emailed the landlord to report that the dog barking had resumed and he had visited the property concerned. The resident added that the landlord should again write to the neighbour about the dog barking. It replied to him on 9 December 2020 to acknowledge his report and referred him to its previous advice to use the noise app supplied by the local authority. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 25 and 26 January 2021 to discuss his reports of dog barking but was unable to make contact.
The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 28 January 2021. His complaint, firstly, concerned the handling of his application to transfer to the neighbouring property which he felt was more suited to his needs on the basis of his age and medical conditions. The resident said that staff had not given him correct information about the process and he was unhappy that the property had since been allocated to a resident who he did not believe to have sufficient medical need for it.
The resident also asserted that priority should have been given to his application due to the “years of harassment” he had received from one of his neighbours. He said he had received conflicting information from the landlord about whether it would seek a police disclosure to assist his application to move. The resident asked the landlord to call him to discuss his complaint and asked it to obtain the information necessary to increase his banding priority for a move.
The resident’s second complaint concerned his reports of a dog barking from his neighbour. He held that the landlord had done nothing to investigate or enforce the neighbour’s tenancy conditions but had only directed him to the local authority. The resident asked it to address the dog barking issue otherwise he would consider legal action.
The landlord issued a response to the resident on 17 February 2021. It was unclear if this was a complaint response as it did not confirm that it was responding within its complaints procedure, nor did it provide information on how to escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied. In this, it stated that his complaint related to issues he had raised in March/April 2019 and which it had already “spent a lot of time” responding to. The landlord summarised the resident’s complaint as:
1. His dissatisfaction that he was not awarded a higher priority banding on its internal transfer list.
2. That it did not obtain information from the police to assist in his application to the local authority for re-housing.
3. He was unhappy that he was not offered the property next door to him when it became vacant, explaining to him that allocations were made by the local authority.
The landlord explained that it could not change the resident’s banding priority as it considered him to be adequately housed considering his disability, and this was the reason why he was not moved into the neighbouring property. It noted that it had received communication from his doctor and the content of this was insufficient for changing his banding.
The landlord relayed that the resident had been advised to submit a housing application to the local authority and he had asked it to strengthen his application by obtaining information from the police. It asserted that it had previously informed him at the time that it would not do this as the police had no obligation to provide information to it about ASB, and this would be his or the local authority’s responsibility to obtain. The landlord advised him to resubmit his application to the local authority and directed him to its Well Being and Support Services should he require assistance.
The landlord said that it was unable to comment on the new occupant of the property which the resident wanted but advised that it had passed his concerns onto its Tenancy Enforcement Team. It noted his comments about ASB from another neighbour and could find no evidence him reporting any concerns since 2017. The landlord directed him to report the dog barking issue to the local authority. It noted that the local authority had advised it that had it opened a case due to the resident’s previous report, but this was subsequently closed due to no evidence being submitted.
The resident emailed the landlord later on 17 February 2021 to highlight that it had not contacted him to discuss the complaint as he had asked. He also said that it had not addressed his complaint fully.
On 18 February 2021, the landlord called the resident to offer a call back for the following day. The same day, the resident escalated his complaint to the final stage. In this, he said that the landlord had not followed its complaints procedure as it had not contacted him to understand the complaint, nor asked for his desired resolution.
The resident requested that the landlord remove his neighbour’s hedge to allow him to park his car within the curtilage of his property and offered to pay £3000 towards the cost of this. He asked the landlord to consider his health when deciding on this and highlighted that a driveway had previously existed on the property. The resident stated that this constituted a reasonable adjustment by the landlord in respect of his physical and mental health issues. He also said that the parking situation at the property was leading to him being a victim of harassment and having access to off road parking would alleviate this.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord referring him to the local authority regarding the barking dog issue; he insisted that, as his landlord, it had a responsibility to tackle the issue. He stated that the persistent dog barking, which he said started in the summer of 2020, had now affected his health due to the noise preventing him from resting.
The resident held that the landlord had not dealt with his request to transfer into the neighbouring property correctly, and relayed that it had not been honest in informing him that the local authority allocated the empty properties. He said that he had been told by the local authority that the landlord held back 25% of properties for their own use, which contradicted previous information he had been given that the local authority allocated 100% of the landlord’s properties. The resident questioned why his GP letter had not been sufficient to change his banding priority and equated this to a form of discrimination. He held that the resident who subsequently moved into the property did not have a medical need for it. The resident complained that the landlord had not applied its allocations policy correctly.
The resident contended that the landlord had not assisted him for 12 months in his application to the local authority for a transfer, which included not obtaining a police disclosure to be submitted with his application. He contended that this indicated it was biased in its approach.
The landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on 12 March 2021, in which referred to a recent conversation with him. It summarised his key points of point as:
1. Dissatisfaction with its complaint handling.
2. Dissatisfaction with its handling of his reports of dog barking.
3. His request for off road parking at his property.
4. His request for an investigation into how his neighbouring property came to be allocated.
The landlord accepted that the resident was correct in stating that it should have called him on receipt of his stage one complaint to attempt to resolve his complaint. It said that its response was “factual but not sympathetic” and apologised for both of these issues and assured him that it had spoken to the staff member in question to ensure that it met its service standards in future.
The landlord clarified that the reason why it referred residents to the local authority for reports of noise nuisance was because they were better equipped to record ongoing noise nuisance. It said that it was not possible for it to send out staff at short notice to witness dog barking. The landlord informed the resident that it did contact the neighbour concerned in September 2020 to remind them of their tenancy conditions. When the noise reports continued, it decided that it needed to monitor the situation through the local authority’s noise recording app, the use of which it had explained to him. The landlord said that it worked closely with the local authority in instances of ASB and noise nuisance and confirmed that they did originally open a case, but when they did not receive any evidence from the resident, this was closed.
Regarding the resident’s request for the alteration of the property to provide off road parking, the landlord said that it considered that the best way forward was for this to be assessed by an occupational therapist. This would additionally provide it with more information about his specific housing needs and any adjustments that needed to be made. The landlord asked the resident to contact it to make arrangements for this.
Regarding the allocation of the neighbouring property which the resident originally wanted to move into, the landlord said it was “satisfied” that the property had been allocated in line with its and the local authority’s allocation policies. It clarified that the local authority had 75% allocation rights over its empty properties and apologised if he had been misinformed. The landlord confirmed that this was its final response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 March 2021 to say that it had failed to address his complaint and declined to undergo an assessment by an occupational therapist. He pointed out that he had submitted medical information to it previously.
The resident advised this Service on 15 March 2021 that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint as it had “ignored” his request for the addition of a disabled parking space on the property. He was also unhappy that it had not answered why it had not sought information from the police to support his housing application made to the local authority. The resident said that the landlord had not explained why his previous submission of a GP letter had been insufficient for it to alter his transfer priority banding. He considered the occupational therapist assessment it had offered him to be inadequate as the occupational therapist would not have access to his medical records.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property and will keep the installations for space and water heating, sanitation and gas or electricity supply in good working condition. This agreement also states that the resident does not have the right to improve the property until the tenancy becomes an assured tenancy. After this time, the resident may carry out improvements with the permission of the landlord.
The landlord’s allocations policy confirms that it will allocate properties to applicants with the highest housing need either through nomination or via the relevant local authority scheme. This also confirms that it operates a transfer list for residents living in the resident’s local authority area where it may allocate 25% of its properties to residents on its internal transfer list. This policy also confirms that it may restrict transfer requests to only those residents with an urgent priority banding.
The landlord allocations policy provides conditions under which it awards priority bandings. To qualify for medium banding, the transfer applicant must receive secondary care to support community living and “the housing situation is a significant factor… and mental health is likely to deteriorate if housing needs is not addressed”. Furthermore, the applicant must have “increased difficulties accessing essential facilities e.g. toilet, bathroom, bedroom and this is likely to worsen” and their independence is affected by this with a “medium level of care/support from family or home carer” required. To qualify for a low priority banding the applicant must have “minor medical needs” where “occasional care/support from family/home carer” is needed and the home is “slightly unsuitable to meet their needs with a low risk of harm”.
The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it considers ASB to be an urgent priority one case where there is “evidence that the household is at risk of serious assault or in any danger or there is persistent harassment”. In this case the resident must be responded to the same working day and an investigation commenced within one working day. A priority two case may feature ASB related to noise and “pets/animals” and in this situation the resident is to be responded to within ten working days which should include a home visit and completion of a risk assessment where appropriate.
The landlord’s ASB procedure confirms that it does not consider “dog barking -one off” to be ASB and will encourage the resident to work with their neighbours to resolve such a situation. In the case of noise issues it states that “in some situations it may be more appropriate for the matter to be referred to the Environmental Services team within the Local Authority”.
The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it considers a complaint to be where a resident “believes [it has] done something wrong; failed to do something [it] should have done” or “not followed [its] policies”. This policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure and does not specify time limits for responses at either stage, but states that its objective is to deal with complaint in a “timely manner with [its] customer’s agreement of timeframe”.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payments of compensation to be offered to a resident where its “service has fallen below what [it] would expect to deliver”. Its guidance provides for payments of £25 where minor distress or inconvenience has been caused, and payments of £50 where there was major distress or inconvenience.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a parking space for his property

As per the tenancy agreement, above at point 36, the landlord may consider the resident’s request for an alteration once his tenancy became eligible. It should be clarified that while the landlord has an obligation to repair and maintain a property, it is not obliged to improve the property. As such, the addition of off-road parking or a driveway would be considered an improvement and therefore it had no requirement to provide this. Given that, in 2017, the landlord informed the resident that he could request permission for a driveway once his tenancy converted from a starter tenancy to an assured one, the resident may have submitted a request for permission to undertake this alteration to the property. However, there is no evidence that he sought permission from it for this and, therefore, no evidence that it unreasonably denied permission for it.
The resident requested in his complaint escalation, on 18 February 2021, for the landlord to install a driveway as a reasonable adjustment for his medical needs. This framed his request as an adaptation at the property to accommodate his medical needs and, as such, would be installed at a cost to the landlord. Landlords have a responsibility to ensure that their funds are used responsibly to ensure the adequate provision of housing for their residents. It is, therefore, reasonable for a landlord to assess the suitability of any request for an adaptation through an assessment by an occupational therapist. This was suggested by the landlord in its final stage complaint response and was therefore a reasonable response from it.
It is noted that the resident declined, on 14 March 2021, to engage with the occupational therapist. As he had mentioned, in his complaint escalation on 18 February 2021, that he was prepared to contribute to the cost of installing a driveway, the landlord should consider contacting him to discuss his making a request for permission to carry this out as an alteration at the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his neighbour’s dog barking

As stated in the landlord’s ASB procedure, above at point 40, dog barking is not considered to be ASB if it is an infrequent occurrence. The resident reported dog barking on 3 July, 11 August, 27 October, and 7 December 2020 when he indicated that the barking had abated for a period of time before recommencing. Considering that the intervals between these reports were more than a month apart, this did not indicate a persistent issue.
While the resident confirmed to the landlord on 3 July 2020 that he had been keeping an incident log of the dog barking, there is no evidence that this was submitted to it. For a landlord to take action in response reports of ASB, it must act on evidence of this ASB. As there was no indication that the resident submitted evidence that would support tenancy enforcement action, nor that he engaged with the local authority to supply evidence of the dog barking, it was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take further action.
The landlord’s ASB procedure, above at point 40, provides for certain noise issues to be referred to the local authority. It therefore acted in accordance with this when it directed the resident to the local authority’s environmental health team on 9 December 2020, 17 February 2021 and in its final response to him on 12 March 2021 when it clarified why it had directed him to the local authority. There was no evidence of a failure on the landlord’s part as it acted in accordance with its procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord acknowledged, in its final stage complaint response on 12 March 2021, that it had not followed its complaints procedure on receipt of the resident’s complaint on 28 January 2021. Its complaints policy, above at point 42, confirms that it will respond to a complaint in a timely manner after agreeing a timeframe with the resident. It is evident that the landlord did not contact the resident to agree a timeframe or discuss the complaint before issuing its response on 17 February 2021.
Furthermore, this response was unclear as whether it had been dealt with the resident’s complaint through its complaints procedure. If a landlord declines to progress a resident’s complaint through its internal complaints procedure, then it would be expected to explain why. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, we would expect a landlord to clearly identify at which stage of the procedure a complaint had been considered at and provide clear information on how to escalate the complaint. This was omitted from the response on 17 February 2021.
It is evident that this failure by the landlord to contact the resident before it responded to him caused further dissatisfaction and prompted further involvement from him to seek resolution of his complaint. While it acknowledged that it had not handled his complaint in accordance with its policy, it did not provide any compensation to recognise the likely inconvenience of distress caused by this, which was not in accordance with its compensation policy, above at point 43. This states that when the landlord finds that its service has fallen below expectations compensation may be payable to the resident. Therefore, compensation of £50 should be paid to the resident by the landlord for this failure. This award is broadly in accordance with our remedies guidance where “there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a parking space for his property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his neighbour’s dog barking.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord suggested a reasonable course of action to assess the resident’s need for a driveway as an adaptation and there was no evidence of it refusing this unreasonably.
The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB procedure in referring the resident to the local authority to gather evidence of the dog barking.
The landlord did not follow its complaints policy in the handling of the complaint and did not offer compensation in recognition of the resulting inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing the complaint further.

Orders and recommendations

Order

Within 28 days, the landlord is to pay compensation to the resident of £50.

Recommendation

The landlord should contact the resident to re-offer an assessment by an occupational therapist, and should he decline this, provide information to him on how to seek permission for the driveway as an alteration.