Home Group Limited (202229518)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229518

Home Group Limited

20 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including safeguarding concerns;
2. request for rehousing.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the property, a 2-bedroom second-floor flat, since 2020.
The resident lives with his 2 children. He and his children have disabilities known to the landlord, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
The tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. The landlord’s responsibilities include providing specified services. The tenant’s responsibilities include not behaving in a violent, menacing, threatening or abusive manner, and not damaging or threatening to damage property belonging to the landlord. Tenants must not behave in a way that causes or is capable of causing nuisance, distress or annoyance to their neighbours, or harass, disturb, or cause offence to any person on the grounds of a protected characteristic (such as disability). They also must not engage in criminal activity. The tenancy agreement states that, if a tenant commits a crime in their home or neighbourhood which affects any person with a right to reside in one of the landlord’s properties, the landlord may take legal action to evict them.
The landlord’s ‘tackling ASB’ policy recognises that “living where there is ASB can be a horrendous experience, causing widespread misery to individuals”. The policy states that the landlord is committed to preventing ASB wherever possible and tackling cases effectively. In particular, it does not tolerate harassments, threats or acts of violence towards customers (and others). It also takes account of any hate dimension when investigating incidents of harassment. In dealing with ASB it will record all incidents, keep customers up to date, inform them when it decides to close a case, use early intervention tools to stop problem behaviour before it escalates, and take swift action to protect individuals. The policy further states that the landlord investigates reports of ASB within an agreed timescale and uses a risk assessment matrix to prioritise the most serious cases. It works with partner agencies such as the police to tackle ASB and uses professional witnesses to validate instances of ASB where appropriate. It will take appropriate enforcement action against perpetrators of ASB where it has sufficient evidence and powers to do so.
In its safeguarding policy, the landlord states its belief that every person has the right to live in safety, free from abuse, harm or neglect. Its adult safeguarding work is underpinned by 6 key principles of empowerment, prevention, proportionality, protection, partnership, and accountability. The landlord also accepts its responsibility to promote the welfare of children and to keep them safe. The safeguarding policy states that the landlord will work in partnership with the local authority to protect adults who have care and support needs and who are experiencing (or at risk of) abuse and neglect, where they are unable to protect themselves because of their needs. The landlord’s support practice policy states that the landlord takes a person-centred approach and is committed to providing effective support services to meet customer needs.
The landlord’s allocations policy states that it may use management transfers to move existing tenants to alternative accommodation in circumstances where their life is at immediate risk and/or they cannot enter their home for medical or other reasons (such as due to safeguarding concerns). All allocations follow the landlord’s room requirements criteria, which set out the size of properties it will offer, although it can deviate from these requirements “where there is a clear business need to do so”.
The landlord’s privacy policy states that it may share tenants’ personal information with third parties – including the police, local authorities, social services, and doctors – for specified purposes. There may be a legal basis for the landlord to process and share information if the processing is necessary for a contract it has with its tenant, or in order to comply with the law.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It will then respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. In handling complaints it holds itself to 8 ‘standards’, including: taking a positive approach; communicating in ways its customers prefer, and taking account of protected characteristics by making reasonable adjustments (where appropriate); responding in a timely and effective manner; and awarding discretionary compensation where it is fitting for it to do so. No tariff or guidance regarding levels of compensation has been made available for this Service to inspect.
Other than the complaints policy, the Ombudsman has not seen any document which sets out the landlord’s usual response times to different types of enquiry. Such information is not contained in the policies provided and could not be located on the landlord’s website. Within the documentation reviewed, the landlord’s records make frequent references to service level agreements (SLAs) and to target response times of between 1 and 10 days, but it is unclear how these are calculated or communicated to customers.

Summary of events

In October 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that his gas meter was being “tampered with on a regular basis”. He noted that he had young children and asked if CCTV could be installed. It is unclear from the records provided whether the landlord took any action in response.
In October 2022, a neighbour whose flat was on the ground floor of the resident’s block (referred to in this report as ‘Neighbour A’) allegedly told another neighbour that the resident was “a nutter who beats his children”. Neighbour A also reportedly approached the resident’s social worker and asked them for information about him around this time.
In November 2022 the resident informed the landlord of Neighbour A’s alleged comment about him in October 2022. He said Neighbour A “thinks he hits his kids all the time”. He also said that Neighbour A had been knocking on other neighbours’ doors asking for lifts, and described other issues in the block including cannabis smoking and fly tipping. He again reported that his gas was being repeatedly turned off, causing his property to be cold. The landlord opened 3 ASB cases on 3, 7 and 10 November 2022. Of these, 2 related to unknown perpetrators and 1 related to a known perpetrator who was not Neighbour A. On 23 November 2022 the resident informed the landlord of an issue with meter numbers being allocated to the wrong flat numbers, meaning that he had inadvertently been paying his neighbour’s energy bill.
At around 10pm on 19 February 2023, the resident noticed that his gas supply was switched off, which caused his heating to switch off. The resident was at home with his children at the time. He went outside to turn the supply back on, and spoke to Neighbour A whose window was next to the gas meter. The resident told Neighbour A to “stop [expletive] turning the gas off”. This led to a physical altercation during which, according to the resident, both parties were “swinging for each other” and ended up “fighting on the floor”. The resident sustained an injury to his face and a steak knife fell from Neighbour A’s pocket. The altercation ended when another neighbour intervened, and the police were called. On 20 February 2023, Neighbour A was arrested on suspicion of assaulting the resident and being in possession of a bladed article in a public place. There was insufficient evidence for the police to charge Neighbour A with assault, but they were charged with possession of a bladed article. They were given bail conditions not to enter the resident’s property or interfere with him.
The resident reported the incident involving Neighbour A to the landlord on 20 February 2023. He described the altercation and told the landlord that Neighbour A had now turned his gas supply off “at least 20 times”. The landlord told the resident it had filled in a safeguarding form which would be sent to all housing managers for his area, and one of them would call him within 24 hours. The resident highlighted the urgency of the situation and his concerns about his family’s safety, and requested a callback the same day. The landlord advised that the callback would probably be the same day, but could be the following day. The landlord’s officer then returned the resident’s call on 20 February 2023. During the call, the resident requested copies of the landlord’s safeguarding and support practice policies, which he said he had unsuccessfully tried to access via the landlord’s website. The resident and landlord also discussed the possibility of a management move, and the landlord told the resident it would seek internal advice on this.
On 21 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to chase “a safeguarding issue previously raised”. The call taker sent the relevant officer an instant message to request an update. At the resident’s request, they also provided an email address which the resident could use to request copies of the landlord’s policies. After receiving a reply to their message, the landlord’s call taker called the resident to update him. The resident subsequently reported on 22 February 2023 that he felt the landlord “wasn’t taking him seriously” following Neighbour A’s “attack”. He again requested a callback, noting his concern that Neighbour A had been allowed to return home after being arrested. Also on 22 February 2023, the resident sent a text message to the landlord in which he said that his property had once more been without gas in the morning, requested a meeting with the landlord’s senior management, and repeated his request to be sent copies of the landlord’s relevant policies.
The landlord returned the resident’s call later on 22 February 2023. It discussed the incident involving Neighbour A with the resident and his associated request for an internal house move. The landlord outlined the evidence that would be required to support a management move, such as evidence from the police of a threat to life. It noted that the police and landlord would investigate the incident and that it would consider previous disputes, the resident’s allegation of harassment by Neighbour A, and any police action. Following the call, the resident sent text messages to the landlord expressing his concerns about its handling of the incident and the “lack of urgency being shown”. On the evening of 22 February 2023, the landlord received information from the police regarding the altercation between the resident and Neighbour A and a separate harassment investigation (relating to the gas meter tampering).
On 23 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase an escalated callback he had been promised. He asked if the landlord could call between 11am and 12.30pm if possible, as his support worker would be with him during this time. He repeated that he did not feel his safety was being taken seriously, and that he did not have copies of all of the landlord’s policies and procedures. An internal email by the landlord advised that the resident should be directed to make a complaint about the callback so it could “work through that process”. The landlord subsequently logged a complaint on the resident’s behalf the same day. It summarised this as follows:
1. The resident was currently having a dispute with his neighbour.
2. The police were involved, and the neighbour had been arrested and charged for pulling out a knife on the resident.
3. This resulted in the resident needing to move, as the neighbour was harassing him and his family and it was unsafe for them to live in their current property.
4. The neighbour also kept turning the resident’s gas off repeatedly.
5. The police were willing to support a house move for the resident, as he was unsafe.
6. The resident felt the landlord was not taking the situation seriously and that there had been no effective communication.
As the resident had not received a call from the landlord, he again chased the escalated callback at 3.49pm on 23 February 2023. He requested that an instant message from the call taker to the relevant officer was logged and time stamped. The landlord did this. The message stated that the resident had been “trying to speak to [the officer] all day”.
On 24 February 2023 the resident phoned the landlord 2 more times. He said he would be requesting copies of the landlord’s safeguarding policies. He also noted that his children would be staying with their mother at the weekend, which removed any immediate risk towards them. The same day, the landlord sent the resident its safeguarding and support practice policies as requested. It also sent its allocations policy and drew his attention to its criteria for management moves. In addition, it provided a diary sheet for the resident to log incidents of tampering with his gas meter. The landlord said it hoped to talk to the resident the following week “to reassure you and try to move things forward”. The resident subsequently contacted this Service for advice.
On 27 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord regarding a management move. He noted that an email from the police was needed in order for the landlord to begin the management move process, and asked if the email sent by the police on 22 February 2023 was adequate. He pointed out that this did not refer to the risk to his children’s wellbeing, or the fact that he could not avoid passing Neighbour A’s windows and front door when coming and going from his property. The landlord replied that it needed to know what action the police would be taking before it could discuss the resident’s housing options. It also referred to the resident’s frequent contacts and said that, while it was not ignoring him or failing to take his concerns seriously, it could not be available to respond to his communications outside its service level agreement.
During further correspondence with the landlord on 27 February 2023, the resident said the landlord had initially indicated that he was eligible for a management move following the incident with Neighbour A, and had since apparently changed its position. The landlord confirmed that it would begin the management move process if evidence from the police supported the criteria, and advised the resident to contact the police “for any developments”. The resident was unhappy that the landlord previously told him it was trying to obtain updates from the police, but was now asking him to obtain them himself. He asked what action the landlord planned to take and over what timeframe, noting that his mental health was being “adversely affected by the lack of progress and direct communication”. He asked for verbal updates to be followed up by email.
The landlord discussed the resident’s case internally on 27 and 28 February 2023. It noted that its customer service centre had received 13 recent calls from the resident, who wanted to speak to the officer dealing with his case, and mentioned the possibility of a contact plan. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on his behalf on 28 February 2023.
On 1 March 2023 an email from the landlord to a partner agency stated that the resident did not meet its criteria for the management move due to a lack of supporting evidence from the police. It noted that no charge had been brought against Neighbour A for the assault on the resident, despite the presence of visible injuries, and it understood the altercation was 2-way. It also noted that no actions had been recommended by the police in order to mitigate the risk, and that the resident did not meet the local authority’s criteria for an emergency move. It concluded that it had no evidence of a tenancy breach and would await the outcome of the police action. The same day, the landlord asked the police for an update and also asked the resident if he had received an update from the police. The resident told the landlord that he had received no police update so far, and that his gas had just been switched off and on again (at 1.34pm). He asked the landlord what support it could offer, saying that “my children waking up freezing cold is not tolerable”.
The police then replied to the landlord, advising that their investigation into the incident on 19 February 2023 was complete and awaiting the court hearing in May 2023. The harassment investigation was ongoing. On 2 March 2023 the police officer dealing with the harassment case told the landlord that the resident was “extremely upset” that his neighbour kept turning off his gas supply, but despite several reports there was no proof that Neighbour A was doing this. The headteacher of the resident’s children’s school also contacted the landlord to advocate for the resident on this date. On 3 March 2023 the landlord told the police that it was difficult for it to take the action the resident wanted without proof of the gas meter tampering, but that it was looking into options for making the meters more secure. It asked if the police felt the resident was unsafe living at the property. The police replied advising that forensic tests of the gas meter box had come back negative, and that they believed the resident was at risk of further incidents. They noted his fear that his children would be harmed too.
The landlord then contacted the resident and proposed setting up weekly phone calls to update him. It also replied to the resident’s MP. The resident again expressed concerns about the way the landlord was handling his case, referring to information not being recorded, “inept” assessments, and an urgent situation being taken more seriously by the police and his MP. He repeated his request for a management move and asked the landlord to “present a coherent pathway to expedite the situation effectively”. On 6 March 2023 the resident told the landlord he felt it was placing undue emphasis on the gas meter tampering and asked it to confirm in writing its understanding of the “pivotal issue” in his management move request, ie the risk to his family’s safety from Neighbour A. He again requested urgent contact.
The same day (6 March 2023), the landlord submitted a safeguarding report for the resident at 12.07pm. It told him it would call him within 6 hours of logging the report. The resident later called the landlord to follow up this call, reiterating that he believed the landlord was not taking him seriously and that he had been “threatened with a knife”. His children’s headteacher also contacted the landlord for a second time via live chat.
On 8 March 2023 the resident phoned the landlord again. He told the call taker he felt its investigating officer was “out of [their] depth”, had provided the wrong information, and communicated poorly. He said the landlord’s handling of the issues was not in keeping with its values. The landlord later returned the resident’s call and apologised for its missed callbacks and delays. It directed him to its complaints process regarding its lack of action and communication issues, and restated its need for evidence in support of a management move request. The resident agreed to weekly calls.
A note by the landlord dated 14 March 2023 stated that it was awaiting further information from police regarding a management move application and an internal update regarding options for added gas meter security. It committed to managing any reported breaches of Neighbour A’s bail conditions. The same day, the landlord confirmed to the resident that its ASB case remained open, but due to the police taking no further action (in relation to the assault and gas meter tampering), this suggested a lower risk level. It referred to its ASB action plan and proposed calling the resident to go through a risk assessment. It also provided a management move application form for the resident to complete. The landlord’s records indicate that an ASB case relating to the resident’s reports of issues with Neighbour A was in fact opened on 15 March 2023.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord attempted to make a weekly call to the resident, but he was unable to speak due to a medical appointment. The same day, the resident gave the landlord written permission to share information regarding his tenancy and health with other involved agencies. A note by the landlord also stated that it had introduced a contact plan to manage the volumes of contact from the resident. On 17 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to arrange completion of its risk assessment, which he said must be important for it to understand his situation and respond appropriately. He also requested acknowledgement of his queries and email updates going forward. On 20 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that it would provide updates by email in future, although response times may vary.
On 21 March 2023 the landlord completed an ASB risk assessment with the resident. This was based on the resident’s perceptions and scored 35 (high). The same day, the police contacted the landlord regarding the resident’s reports of issues involving Neighbour A. The police’s email stated that Neighbour A was suspected to be continually turning off the gas supply to the resident’s property, and was also thought to have spread rumours among other neighbours about the resident which had caused him considerable distress. The police officer who wrote the email stated that “I feel the only solution will be to move one of the parties to alternative accommodation.”
On 23 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that it had shared the police’s assessment with senior management for consideration of a management move. The police replied that they now had potential corroborating evidence regarding Neighbour A turning off the resident’s gas supply. They highlighted the potential dangerousness of turning off the gas and asked what the landlord was doing to secure the gas boxes. The police stated: “I believe this will now not stop and the harassment of the resident will continue until one of these parties is moved.” They further said that: “I fear violence may be used again and the resident will be subject to abuse from [Neighbour A] if this matter is not dealt with.” The landlord chased security measures with its maintenance team.
On 27 March 2023 the resident requested a face-to-face meeting with the landlord. On 28 March 2023 he suggested holding the meeting on 30 or 31 March 2023 when his support worker was available. The landlord agreed to a meeting, but told the resident it would need to be the following week. The same day, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord following contact from the resident and asked it to log the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, then respond within 10 working days. On 29 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord for “a list of the policies you have adhered to in the way you have handled my family’s situation”, together with details of how it had followed them.
On 31 March 2023 the landlord attempted to contact the resident to complete a risk assessment in relation to ASB from different neighbours, but he did not answer. Also on this day, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of a long-standing repair issue. On 3 April 2023 the landlord responded to a Subject Access Request made by the resident. The same day, the resident emailed the landlord, referring to a face-to-face meeting with his support worker, the repair issue, and his neighbour’s email (which he said he had forwarded to the landlord) regarding comments made by Neighbour A. He also noted that the gas box belonged to the gas supplier.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint about his ASB reports and rehousing request on 4 April 2023. It apologised that it had not been able to resolve the matter sooner, and said that it would now carry out an investigation of the complaint and respond within 10 working days. On 5 April 2023 the landlord met with the resident’s support worker. It then provided its stage 1 response on 6 April 2023, stating that:
1. It thanked him for his time and patience in allowing it to investigate his concerns regarding its handling of his ASB reports.
2. The resident had advised that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his ASB case and the fact that it was unable to assist with his request for a management move.
3. It had investigated his complaint alongside colleagues and the police.
4. The complaint was raised on 23 February 2023, but as its complaints team were experiencing unprecedented demand, it was not picked up until 29 March 2023. The complaint was then acknowledged on 4 April 2023 according to its complaints process.
5. Due to earlier contact from the resident’s MP, its investigation had already been completed by this time.
6. It had reviewed the resident’s reports of ASB and had no evidence for enforcement action to be taken in relation to a breach of tenancy by Neighbour A. It contacted the police who advised that, following the altercation between the resident and Neighbour A in February 2023, no charges were made in respect of the altercation against either party.
7. It was awaiting the outcome of any further police action, and any new information would be reviewed in line with its policy.
8. Following the incident involving Neighbour A, the resident informed it he would like to move to a 3-bedroom property in the same area due to his support networks. He did not meet the criteria for a management move. It had explained his options around mutual exchanges. The local authority had also advised that an emergency move was not warranted under its policy.
9. Rehousing was not always the best approach in dealing with ASB. However, based on the police action, there may be other support it could offer.
10. The police continued to investigate the resident’s reports of Neighbour A tampering with his gas meter. It was looking into ways of making the meters more secure.
11. It advised the resident to work with the police to report any breaches of bail conditions. It was hopeful the bail conditions would deter any further issues. It advised the resident to avoid all contact with Neighbour A.
12. The resident had questioned the abilities and experience of certain officers. He had spoken to a number of customer service advisors who had not been aware of his case details. It was sorry he felt he had been misinformed or not taken seriously.
13. Due to the volume of his contact, it had set up a contact plan for a named officer to contact him weekly on Thursdays. This was to ensure he had a single point of contact and received clearer communication. Although the officer was relatively new in their role, they had years of experience in the housing sector and it was confident their actions and responses had been correctly guided by its policies and procedures.
14. The resident recently told it he did not wish to continue the weekly contact. Without any changes in his circumstances, there would be no further updates for it to provide in relation to his case.
15. It hoped he understood the importance of working with it going forward. He had direct contact details for the relevant officer and knew how to contact them if anything changed. If he wished to raise any other concerns, or report an emergency or repair issue, he could contact its customer service centre.
16. This concluded stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. It was sorry he had cause to complain, and hoped its letter showed that his feedback had been fully considered. If he was dissatisfied with its response, he should reply within 8 weeks explaining why and what outcome he was seeking.
Also on 6 April 2023, the landlord told the resident it did not recall him forwarding the email from his neighbour regarding comments made about him by Neighbour A. It asked him to send this on. It also asked if and how the neighbour’s concerns were raised with it at the time. The landlord later confirmed receipt of the forwarded email on 13 April 2023, but noted there was “not much it would be able to enforce presently with this information”.
On 11 April 2023 the resident called the landlord to ask for an email address to send an escalation request. Having presumably received this, he then requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 the same day, stating:
1. He was complaining about the way his case had been handled by local management, including line managers. The landlord’s stage 1 responder had been “a key figure in the failings”. He felt this demonstrated a clear conflict of interest and that the complaints process was “circular”.
2. The stage 1 response failed to acknowledge the landlord’s lack of response to his advocates’ enquiries. The landlord had cited the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as the reason for it being unable to discuss him and his tenancy with other agencies/individuals. However, its privacy policy outlined a contractual agreement allowing the landlord to share information with relevant parties such as the police and other official bodies. He felt its misapplication of GDPR was “cynical and inept”. He said its approach to information sharing was also inconsistent, and he intended to raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
3. The landlord had failed to make reasonable enquiries in a timely fashion and had made minimal effort to obtain the information necessary to understand the situation. For example, it only carried out a risk assessment after the resident highlighted the fact that one had not been completed.
4. The risk assessment scored as high. He had asked the landlord what its procedure was in terms of actions following a high-scoring risk assessment. He had not received a response, and had been informed that day that his ASB case showed as being closed. This surprised him greatly.
5. The fact that risk assessments were carried out “well after the event”, and were then ignored, struck him as “a cavalier approach to my family’s safety”.
6. On 13 March 2023 he had forwarded an email from another neighbour who described how Neighbour A had told them he was a “nutter” and commented on his parenting. He had asked the landlord to investigate this. The police were treating the email as evidence, but it had not been investigated by the landlord as ASB.
7. He felt the harassment by Neighbour A was not being taken seriously.
8. His advocates had raised concerns regarding the effect on his and his children’s mental and physical health, but the landlord had not addressed these other than making “a few one-line indications of understanding regarding the distress caused”. He felt its level of effort indicated that it did not understand his family’s distress.
9. The landlord’s reference to his historical enquiries about a management move indicated “a degree of prejudice”. He felt it was irrelevant if he had enquired about a move before. He did not previously apply for one, and had yet to formalise his current application.
10. The landlord had agreed to a face-to-face meeting more than once, but no meeting had taken place. He queried whether its officer was always accompanied on home visits and whether they were uncomfortable visiting him on their own. He felt he was being treated differently because of his complaint.
11. The landlord had threatened him with litigation on 2 occasions – firstly with a charge of libel, and secondly with a restraining order due to his unreasonable levels of contact. However, a housing charity had advised him that if he was unhappy with the way such a serious matter was being handled, calling the landlord every day was not unreasonable. In addition, some of his calls related to other issues such as a front door repair.
12. He believed the landlord’s senior management did not react well to criticism and complaint. The stage 1 responder had told him in an email: “It would be a shame if your repeated calling caused us to view your situation with less urgency.” He found this “disgusting”.
13. The landlord had disregarded his safeguarding concerns twice.
The same day (11 April 2023), the resident sent the landlord a letter from his psychiatrist in support of his management move application. The landlord also opened a new ASB case in relation to the recent issues involving other neighbours. On 12 April 2023 the landlord updated its action plan relating to the ASB from Neighbour A. On 13 April 2023 it confirmed receipt of the psychiatrist’s letter and advised the resident to complete a management move application form for it to review. On 14 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about its allocations policy and said he wanted to complain about the fact Neighbour A was originally allowed to move to his block. The same day, an email from the police to the landlord referred to frequent calls from the resident and said the police would be following up third party evidence of Neighbour A “messing with the gas boxes” that week.
Also on 14 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding his stage 1 complaint outcome and escalation request. Its email stated that:
1. It was sorry he was unhappy with the outcome of his stage 1 complaint and that he felt it had not acted in a timely manner when investigating his ASB reports.
2. When he reported the incident involving Neighbour A on 20 February 2023, he spoke to its officer who discussed support that the landlord could offer along with the possibility of a management move. The officer advised that they would review the information with their manager and discuss the next steps. They had since liaised with the police and were awaiting a response to their request for a meeting with a local police officer. As previously explained, it was awaiting the outcome of police action and any new information would be reviewed in line with its policy.
3. It met with his support worker on 5 April 2023. It would continue to work with his support worker to explore any avenues of support available. Its officer was awaiting colleague availability for a face-to-face meeting with the resident and his support worker at his home; this was standard practice for officers who were new to their role.
4. There had been delays in the resident’s complaint being logged. As it explained in its stage 1 response, its investigation into its handling of his ASB reports and management move request had already been completed in response to an MP enquiry.
5. As it had been unable to resolve the complaint at stage 1, it had arranged for its lead complaints team to conduct a review at stage 2 of its process. The resident would be contacted by this team within 10 weeks.
On 24 and 27 April 2023, internal emails by the landlord noted that the resident had called and asked to speak to senior management about his case. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 28 April 2023. On 3 May 2023 the resident called the landlord about his management move request, but was unhappy with the call taker’s response. He also told the landlord by email that it had not yet acknowledged his escalation request, and requested a named point of contact. An internal email by the landlord on 5 May 2023 stated the resident’s complaint was “in hand”, but that it had had to find a housing colleague out of the area to review it as the resident did not want his complaint to be handled by certain officers. The resident called the landlord the same day and asked for a callback from a manager as he felt his complaint was being ignored.
On 10 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It confirmed that it would now carry out a management review of his complaint regarding its handling of his ASB reports, and regarding the fact that his stage 1 complaint was investigated by 2 members of staff whose actions he had complained about. Its stage 2 responder also spoke to the resident on the phone.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord reminded the resident that he was required to complete a management move request form and return it, together with supporting documentation, in order for the request to be considered. Neighbour A appeared in court on 17 May 2023, and on 22 May 2023 the resident informed the landlord that Neighbour A had received a 12-month suspended sentence. He asked the landlord what it intended to do as he “shouldn’t have to live near his attacker”. He said he should not have to complete the management move request form as the landlord was well aware of the circumstances of the request. He referred to a previous request that was refused despite the fact that he never submitted a form.
The landlord discussed this internally and enquired whether the resident struggled with reading and writing, but noted that he regularly contacted it by email. It reiterated the need for the resident to complete the form. The resident asked why, if it was essential for the form to be completed, the landlord did not provide the form straight away in February 2023 and explain its importance. The landlord explained that it had not initially considered his case to be suitable for a management move. It then offered to send an amended paper form with more space for handwritten information. The resident agreed to complete the form on 23 May 2023. Also on this day, the landlord informed the resident that his complaint about allocations would be included in his stage 2 complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 25 May 2023. This stated that:
1. It had recently contacted the police, who confirmed that Neighbour A’s suspended sentence did not relate to the altercation that took place with the resident in February 2023. It therefore restated its position that it did not have sufficient evidence to take enforcement action against Neighbour A for breach of tenancy.
2. Regarding the resident’s request for a move, it had requested that he complete its management move form and enclose any supporting evidence that may enable it to process the request. When it received the completed form, it would assess his case to see if he met the criteria for a management move. It had previously explained options around mutual exchanges, and the local authority had also given the resident advice.
3. It had investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of 2 officers, and it was satisfied that both had acted professionally and in line with its policy.
4. When going through the case it found that 1 of these officers arranged to contact the resident weekly, but the resident chose not to continue with these calls. It asked him to consider reinstating the calls to enable him to have direct support from the relevant officer.
5. Its stage 1 investigation was assigned according to its standard process. Other officers were also consulted as part of the investigation and reviewed how the ASB reports were handled prior to the stage 1 response being issued. Its stage 2 investigation was then assigned to an officer who had not previously been involved or privy to the handling of the issues, in order to ensure an impartial review.
6. It acknowledged the resident’s contact on 12 May 2023 and his request for details of which officer dealt with allocations. Any queries regarding this could be referred to his housing manager.

Post complaint

On 30 May 2023 the police confirmed that Neighbour A had received a 4-month prison sentence for possessing a bladed article in a public place, which was suspended for 12 months. On 1 June 2023 the landlord replied that it was in the process of pursuing a management move for the resident as he had requested. The resident’s MP referred his case to this Service on 6 June 2023.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord updated the resident’s contact plan, and on 20 June 2023 it marked its ASB case relating to Neighbour A as “completed/resolved following MGT actions”. On 22 June the resident called the landlord and was unhappy that its call taker would not discuss the ASB issue with him. He said he never got a reply, despite requesting this many times. An email sent by the resident to the landlord on 4 July 2022 stated that he did not consider the matter to be resolved. He referred to his previous request for updates in email form, and asked when he could expect a response to his complaint about allocations. On 7 July 2023 the landlord told the resident that his complaint about allocations was addressed as part of his stage 2 complaint. The resident queried this, and after checking internally, the landlord restated its position. On 24 July 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it agreed to update him by email instead of through fortnightly phone calls.
On 15 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord why it was refusing to discuss his complaint and detail what action it had taken. He told it he felt he was being “ignored and treated with contempt”. On 29 August 2023 he requested contact from a manager as the landlord was not contacting him every Thursday in line with his contact plan.
On 30 August 2023 the resident completed a management move request form, and on 5 September 2023 he sent the completed form to the landlord. A note by the landlord dated 31 August 2023 stated that it would call the resident on 1 September 2023 to discuss recent ASB incidents involving Neighbour A. In reply to the resident’s request for an update on his move on 6 September 2023, the landlord told him that it had seen his completed form come through but was yet to review it due to “other more urgent matters needing to be prioritised”. On 13 September 2023 it advised that the resident’s request for a 3-bedroom property would not be considered, as the management move process only permitted a like-for-like move.
On 21 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident after speaking with the police. It told him that, according to the police, there had been no reports received since March 2023 that met the National Crime Recording Standard criteria and indicated that he remained the victim of a crime. No immediate risk to the resident was therefore identified, and the police did not recommend a move for him. However, the resident pointed out that the landlord had contacted a regional or national police office rather than local officers with knowledge of his case. Later on 21 September 2023, the landlord discussed the resident’s case with a local police officer. This officer then emailed the landlord and stated that, following recent events which had escalated concerns, “we believe it is in the best interests of [the resident] for him to be rehoused as soon as possible by yourselves”. The local police inspector supported this recommendation.
The resident continued to contact the landlord about his management move application. On 28 September 2023 the landlord put an updated ‘unacceptable behaviour contact plan’ in place after issuing a tenancy warning to the resident. This stated that staff should not engage with the resident verbally (unless he was reporting an emergency or repair issue) and should instead refer him to a named officer. This officer would contact the resident fortnightly.
On 29 September 2023, at the resident’s MP’s request, the landlord provided a list of the supporting documents it would submit to senior management for consideration alongside the resident’s management move request. These included statements and recommendations from his support worker, psychiatrist and police. On 5 October 2023 the resident’s MP forwarded a number of additional documents to the landlord. The landlord confirmed receipt of these, and on 6 October 2023 it told the resident that it was satisfied he met the criteria for a management move. It noted that it would offer him 3 like-for-like (2-bedroom) properties. On 10 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord what it intended to do to ensure his safety until the move took place. He said that Neighbour A appeared to be dealing drugs outside his property.
On 11 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that he withdrew consent for it to contact him. He also asked it to contact him by phone to discuss ongoing ASB and his management move.
On 16 October 2023 the landlord offered the resident a 2-bedroom property. He did not immediately reply, and it repeated its offer on 23 October 2023. The resident declined the property on 24 October 2023 due to issues with transport to his children’s school. He also told the landlord on this date that his gas supply had been turned off twice in the past 4 days. He said he had tried to report this to the landlord, but call takers told him they were unable to take any further complaints from him. He also asked the landlord if it was aware that the gas box belonged to it (not the gas provider). The landlord asked the resident on 31 October 2023 whether he had any evidence of the gas meter tampering, and offered to send him further diary logs. It said it would follow up on the gas box ownership issue.
On 6 November 2023 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord regarding the actions of its housing management team. On 10 November 2023 the resident asked the landlord why he had not been offered a 2-bedroom property that became available in his local city centre. The landlord replied that the property in question was near to a bus stop and subject to increased levels of ASB, which may be why it had not been flagged as suitable.
On 21 November 2023 the resident told the landlord he needed a 3-bedroom property, as his children required their own bedrooms due to their health conditions. The landlord advised him to provide medical evidence.
On 1 December 2023 the local authority wrote to the resident regarding a community trigger request he had made. It advised that, while the request did not meet the threshold for an ASB case review, it appreciated the resident’s concerns and had met with the landlord and police to discuss his case on 30 November 2023. The local authority was satisfied that agencies had responded appropriately and proportionately to the matters reported.
On 8 December 2023, according to the resident, the landlord told him verbally that it would consider revising its offer of accommodation to incorporate his children’s medical needs. The resident contacted the landlord by email to follow this up. He also asked why it would only engage with him over email.
On 12 December 2023 the resident reported a further incident involving Neighbour A, during which Neighbour A reportedly said he was a “dead man walking” at 2.22am. The resident interpreted this as a threat to kill and reported it to the police. He also said he had a video of the incident, which he later sent to the police on 15 December 2023. The landlord replied to the resident’s email of 8 December 2023 on 14 December 2023, and tried to call him (without success) on 18 December 2023.
On 6 February 2024 the resident informed this Service that the landlord took 7 weeks to confirm whether it would offer him a 3-bedroom property as a management move. When it responded, it declined to do so. The resident also said it had not offered him any further 2-bedroom properties, despite potentially suitable properties being available. He said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions in response to his ASB reports and associated request for an urgent move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman understands that the resident has experienced issues with other neighbours (besides Neighbour A) since moving to the property in 2020. He has also experienced issues relating to window locks, cleaning of a potentially hazardous spill, a front door repair, and rent payments. The current investigation concerns the landlord’s handling of issues involving Neighbour A and the resident’s resulting request for a house move, as this was the focus of his complaint to the landlord in February 2023. However, the history and context of these issues have been taken into account, together with all the information provided by the resident and landlord. The resident has the option of making further complaints to the landlord (and, in some cases, has already done so), which he may refer to this Service if he remains dissatisfied with the response.
In addition, under paragraph 42f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints about matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This Service therefore cannot determine whether the landlord’s action or inaction caused or exacerbated a health condition. Such matters are best suited for investigation via an insurance claim or through the courts. Likewise, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s sharing of information are best suited for investigation by the ICO.

ASB reports and safeguarding concerns

It is important to note at the outset that the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the ASB reported by the resident, not the ASB itself. This investigation does not seek to determine whether or not the ASB happened, or to make findings in relation to the behaviour of the resident or his neighbour. Instead, it will examine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its policies, procedures and legal obligations, and whether it treated the resident fairly in the full circumstances of the case. This includes whether it took sufficient account of any vulnerabilities and disabilities.
It is also relevant to highlight that ASB issues can be challenging for a landlord to resolve, particularly where there are evidential difficulties and concurrent criminal prosecutions. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that a landlord has responded to contacts within its stated timescales, taken a proactive and proportionate approach, communicated effectively, worked with partner agencies where appropriate, and explored the options available to it. In dealing with ASB – especially where there is a history or threat of violence – landlords should assess risk, fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities, and be mindful of the specific needs of the parties involved. Due to data protection, landlords may not always be able to inform those reporting ASB of action they have taken against perpetrators, which can lead to understandable frustration and perceptions of nothing being done.
When the resident reported that his gas meter was being tampered with in October 2021, the landlord should have addressed this more proactively. For example, it could have written to all residents in the block about the issue or carried out a survey or consultation. It is noted that the resident reported a boiler issue in January 2022, which caused loss of heating and hot water, so the landlord may have assumed this issue was connected to the disruption of the gas supply in October 2021. It is further noted that, as the resident’s property was a new build constructed in 2020, some repair issues may have been addressed by the relevant defects team in 2021 and 2022 rather than via the landlord’s usual internal process. Nevertheless, the landlord should have confirmed with the resident whether the boiler repair resolved the gas supply issue (if it thought this might be the case), and, if not, investigated further.
The resident then reported a number of ASB issues, including offensive comments allegedly made by Neighbour A and continued tampering with his gas meter, in November 2022. While the landlord correctly opened multiple ASB cases, none of these related to Neighbour A. There is evidence that the landlord took positive action in relation to a different ASB issue, and told the resident that it had issued a warning to the alleged perpetrator. This created an expectation regarding the action it would take and the level of update the resident would receive following a report of ASB.
Despite making a written record of the resident’s verbal report of ASB on 7 November 2022, there is no indication that the landlord took any action in relation to Neighbour A’s alleged comments and gas meter tampering. When the resident later raised the alleged comments again in April 2023, the landlord asked him to forward evidence, and when he did so, concluded that “there would not be much that we will be able to enforce presently with this info”. This suggested that, had the reported behaviour been adequately investigated at the time, action may have been possible. In any case, the landlord should have updated the resident following his report in November 2022, offered appropriate support, and advised whether it was able to take action. If it was not, it should have explained why. Its apparent lack of action meant that it missed an opportunity to obtain a contemporaneous account or statement from the resident’s neighbour who witnessed the offensive comments, which may in turn have generated the necessary evidence. In addition, when the resident informed the landlord that meter numbers had been incorrectly allocated to flats on 23 November 2022, the landlord missed a further opportunity to contact all residents of the block about the meters, ensure they were aware which meter was theirs, and remind them of relevant tenancy conditions. These omissions may have contributed to the continuation of the gas meter tampering, which led to an altercation between the resident and Neighbour A in February 2023.
When the resident reported the altercation to the landlord on 20 February 2023, he told it that his gas supply had now been turned off at least 20 times and that the police and landlord had previously agreed cameras were required. It is unclear whether all of these 20 instances were reported to the landlord, as only 3 (on 7 October 2021, 7 November 2022 and 10 November 2022) were documented. There is also no record of discussions regarding cameras prior to 2023, which may suggest a record keeping issue. As the resident lived on the second floor and would have required the landlord’s permission to install CCTV, this is something the landlord could have been expected to explore with the police and advise on. Given the seriousness with which the police treated the gas meter issue (indicated by their forensic testing and comments to the landlord about potential danger), the landlord should have explored options for provision of temporary or permanent cameras and liaised with partner agencies about this if necessary.
Following the resident’s report on 20 February 2023, the landlord acted appropriately by completing a safeguarding form and accommodating the resident’s request for a same-day callback. There was then frequent communication between the resident and landlord over the next few days, with the resident expressing concern for his family’s safety and requesting to speak to the investigating officer, and the landlord’s contact centre staff being unable to offer detailed advice or share direct contact information for officers. This led to the resident feeling frustrated and that his report was not being taken seriously. The level of contact was evidently challenging for the landlord to manage, and it was at times unclear when a callback would be made and by whom. The landlord later apologised to the resident for some missed callbacks, which was appropriate. However, it failed to effectively resolve the issue by setting clear and consistent expectations regarding contact, addressing internal concerns about demands on call centre staff, and putting in place sufficient support and reassurance for the resident. It also did not immediately carry out a risk assessment (or request an assessment of risk from the police). As referred to in the ‘background’ section above, having easy-to-find published timeframes for callbacks, email replies, risk assessments and other responsive actions may have removed the need for some communications; if these were available to the resident, this was not clear.
Given the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord’s response, he reasonably asked for copies of the landlord’s policies. He repeated this request 5 times before the policies were provided. While the overall response time of 5 working days was not excessive, this was a straightforward request which any member of staff who had contact with the resident between 20 and 24 February 2023 could have accommodated. It was unsatisfactory for a member of staff to tell the resident they were a trainee who did not have access to all policies, as policies should have been readily available to the staff delivering them. When the policies were provided, it was appropriate for the landlord to include its allocations policy in light of the resident’s enquiry about a management move (discussed in more detail below). As the resident had said he was unable to access the policies via the landlord’s website, it would also have been appropriate for it to explore the reason for this issue, as it could have been a widespread IT problem affecting other residents. This would also have helped the resident to feel listened to and understood.
While awaiting an update from the police, improving security of the gas meter box was a proportionate and solution-focused approach. However, the landlord unreasonably delayed in pursuing this. Having indicated that it would look into environmental measures on 3 March 2023, it confirmed that it was exploring this with its maintenance team on 9, 14, 20 and 23 March 2023, and in its stage 1 response on 6 April 2023. However, there is no indication that it pursued this sufficiently or that it highlighted the urgency of the issue to its maintenance team. No internal correspondence has been supplied to this Service for inspection. Ultimately, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any target hardening in respect of the meter box – such as erecting signage, CCTV or lighting, restricting access, or exploring installation of a protective cage. The resident told the landlord on 3 April 2023 that he believed the meter box belonged to the gas supplier, then on 24 October 2023 said he now understood it belonged to the landlord. This was not the resident’s responsibility to establish, and if uncertainty on this matter was preventing the landlord from taking action, it should have taken steps to confirm ownership of the box.
In deciding whether to take action against Neighbour A, it was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy for it to work in partnership with the police. However, it was not obliged to await the outcome of the police’s investigation before it could act, and should have considered the risks associated with doing so. In fact, it did not complete a risk assessment with the resident until more than 4 weeks after the incident on 19 February 2023, and it was the resident who asked for this to be completed as a priority. There was also some confusion regarding the level and assessment of risk. Though the risk assessment dated 21 March 2023 (based on the resident’s perception) scored as high, the landlord had previously assessed his case as being medium risk on 15 March 2023. It had also told the resident on 14 March 2023 that the lack of police action in relation to the assault and harassment “determined lower risk levels” where, although there may be some risk, “actions have been taken to mitigate”. This meant that the resident and landlord had different views of the risk presented, which created misaligned expectations in terms of action. Furthermore, as no matrix was provided for the ‘medium’ and ‘lower’ risk assessments, or any information about how the ‘medium’ assessment was calculated, these assessments appear subjective.
While Neighbour A was not charged with assaulting the resident, it was misleading for the landlord to state in its stage 2 response that “any sentence bestowed … is not related to the altercation”. Neighbour A was convicted of being in possession of a bladed article in a public place at the time of the altercation. Though the resident was considered a witness rather than a victim in the criminal case brought, the landlord was aware of the circumstances of the incident, and should have appreciated the distress caused to the resident as a result of Neighbour A having a knife while fighting with him. The resident sustained visible injuries, and the landlord would need only to be satisfied ‘on the balance of probabilities’ that a tenancy breach had occurred – not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, as with criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord may take action to evict a tenant if they “commit a crime in their home or neighbourhood which affects any person with a right to reside in one of [its] properties”. Neighbour A was convicted of a crime which demonstrably and significantly affected the resident.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord’s decision regarding tenancy enforcement action would have been discretionary based on various factors, and that it may legitimately have concluded that such action was not appropriate in the circumstances. However, it should have informed the resident of its decision regarding potential legal proceedings in which he would have been the key witness, and explained the reasons for its decision. If, for example, its reason was that the altercation was “2-way” (as stated in its email of 1 March 2023), and that action should therefore be taken against both parties or neither party, it could have advised the resident of this. This Service is aware of some action taken by the landlord in response to Neighbour A’s conviction – which cannot be detailed in this report for reasons of confidentiality – but, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it did not take sufficient steps to assure itself of the resolution of the situation and/or the resident’s safety. It also did not make effective use of the non-legal tools set out in its ASB policy.
Relatedly, the landlord did not inform the resident when it closed (or opened) his ASB case, as stated in its policy. Its records indicate that its case regarding “nuisance non-verbal” by Neighbour A was not opened until 15 March 2023, nearly a month after the resident reported the altercation on 20 February 2023. This was unsatisfactory, and may have had an effect on the level of communication the resident received before the case was opened. The records provided to this Service do not state when ASB cases were closed, but the resident told the landlord that he had been informed on 11 April 2023 “the matter shows as closed”. It appears this advice was inaccurate; it may have referred to a separate drug-related ASB report by the resident that the landlord also logged on 11 April 2023, as the landlord’s records later referred to the case involving Neighbour A being marked as “completed/resolved” on 20 June 2023. Though this may seem a minor error, perhaps arising from customer services staff without personal knowledge of the resident’s case passing on updates, the landlord did not identify what had happened or demonstrate an appreciation of the impact of its incorrect advice on the resident.
Throughout the ASB investigation, the arrangements regarding contact between the resident and landlord changed numerous times at the request of both parties. It is not always clear from the information provided what rules were introduced at what point, on whose authority, whether these were formal or informal measures, and how the resident was informed of them. The landlord first discussed the possibility of a contact plan internally on 28 February 2023 and 6 March 2023, and requested call records to support this. However, these records were not provided until 19 April 2023, after a contact plan was apparently introduced on 16 March 2023. A note by the landlord dated 16 March 2023 refers to action taken on 19 June 2023, calling into question the reliability of this record.
There are also references to an ‘unacceptable behaviour agreement’ and tenancy warnings. Copies of these documents have not been supplied to this Service. It is unclear whether the unacceptable behaviour agreement was the same as the contact plan, or an escalated and more formal measure. Likewise, there is no evidence that the resident’s disability (ADHD) and contact preferences were considered when deciding what contact restrictions to impose, or that any restrictions were timebound or regularly reviewed. The landlord had a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to consider any additional disadvantage caused to him in connection with his disability, and to make reasonable adjustments where appropriate. In addition, the restrictions had the effect of frustrating the landlord’s commitment to recording all incidents of ASB, as the resident was unable to report his gas supply being turned off in October 2023. It was unacceptable for the resident to be unable to report incidents – some of which he believed to be an emergency, such as a perceived threat to his life in December 2023 – and receive no prompt response or action. There is evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to manage the resident’s contact and the effect on its resources at times, such as agreeing to his changing requests for verbal or written updates, allocating a designated point of contact, and offering update calls at weekly or fortnightly intervals, but these agreements were not always honoured. This further damaged the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to address his reports and concerns.
In summary, there were numerous significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports and his associated concerns about his family’s safety. The landlord failed to intervene at an early stage in relation to the gas meter issue, and despite telling the resident it was exploring options to improve the security of his gas meter, did not take effective action to stop or deter the tampering. This meant that the resident and his children continued to experience disruption to their gas supply and heating at least 2 years after the issue was first reported. The landlord also placed undue emphasis on the police’s response to an altercation between the resident and Neighbour A on 19 February 2023, when it should have carried out its own investigation and considered tenancy action in circumstances where its policy said it may do so. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inconsistent and sometimes poor, and it introduced confusing and changing contact restrictions which it did not always adhere to. It did not offer the resident any ASB-specific support (such as signposting or offering referrals to relevant support agencies), and its overall treatment of him did not take sufficient account of his disclosed disability and needs. Due to the combination of these factors, a finding of severe maladministration has been made.

Rehousing request

When the resident received a callback from his housing manager on 20 February 2023, he raised the possibility of a management move following the altercation with Neighbour A. He also noted that he had enquired about a move previously due to issues at his property, but this had not been progressed at the time. The landlord’s officer, who was relatively new in post, told him they would seek advice from a manager in relation to this and other aspects of the incident on 19 February 2023. This was an open and appropriate response. The resident later said he felt the landlord had given him false hope that a move would be approved, before changing its position. Since the initial conversation took place verbally over the phone (and no recording of this particular call has been provided), the Ombudsman cannot make a finding in relation to whether unfair expectations were set. The wording of the landlord’s contemporaneous note is neutral and does not indicate the resident’s suitability for a move.
Having been made aware that the resident was keen to move away from his property on 20 February 2023, the landlord did not send him the relevant request form until 16 working days later (on 14 March 2023). The resident later asked (in May 2023) why, if the landlord required the form to be completed before it would consider a management move request, it did not provide it straight away and explain its importance. The landlord responded that it had not initially considered his case as being suitable for a management move due to the “developments and significant information” known to it at the time. However, when the incident was reported on 20 February 2023, the landlord was unable to confirm whether a move was likely to be approved and said it required internal clarification. It would have been a reasonable further step, in the interests of transparency, for it to have emailed the form to him at that point. As the resident did not go on to submit the completed form until September 2023, 6 months after it was provided to him, this does not suggest that significant additional detriment was caused to him as a result of the 16-day delay.
As discussed above, it was appropriate for the landlord to send the resident its allocations policy alongside the other policies he requested, and to draw his attention to the relevant section. However, the section was brief and did not state (for example) the level of evidence required to show immediate risk to life, the number of properties that would be offered as a management move, or that properties offered could only be like-for-like. It also did not detail any location requirements for a management move, or cite circumstances in which a potentially suitable property might not be offered (such as high levels of ASB). Since the landlord was evidently unsure whether the resident was eligible for a management move at the time it sent the allocations policy, it would have been helpful for it to provide or summarise any additional guidance regarding the terms and conditions of management moves. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for it to give advice regarding alternative housing options such as a mutual exchange and an application to the local authority.
The resident first informed the landlord he was having difficulty completing the management move request form on 3 May 2023. The landlord had been aware he had ADHD since at least December 2021, but his difficulties related more to his inexperience with office software and lack of access to computer/printing equipment. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to assist the resident in completing the form. While it appropriately offered to print and send an amended form with a bigger box for the resident to complete by hand, it could have gone further by offering him practical assistance with completing the form or (if possible) an appointment for him to complete it using community facilities. The landlord was in contact with the resident’s support worker and could have drawn on this relationship to arrange, for example, a computer slot at his local library. The support worker may also have been able to help him complete the form. Instead, the landlord’s stance of repeating its requirement for the form to be completed on 11 May 2023 was inflexible, and did not take sufficient account of the resident’s needs and preferences.
When the resident submitted his completed form on 5 September 2023, the landlord delayed in processing it. It told him the following day that it had seen the form come in but was not prioritising it. This was insensitive and unacceptable. Given that management moves are intended for emergency situations where life is at immediate risk, the landlord would be expected to have a mechanism in place for such requests to be prioritised. If such a mechanism was in place, and the resident’s form was deprioritised, this was evidence of him being treated differently. The Ombudsman cannot say for certain whether the landlord departed from any system it had in place and treated the resident unfairly, but its delay of 1 month in reviewing and responding to the request was excessive. It is noted that the decision was made 11 working days after the landlord received an update from the police, and the day after it received further evidence in support of the resident’s request, but nevertheless, there is no evidence that it took adequate steps to identify and pursue missing information.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord received a number of communications from the police between February and September 2023, which indicated varying levels of police support for a management move. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to a management move following the police’s second email of 21 September 2023. However, it is unclear why the landlord initially approached a generic police contact for an assessment of the resident’s case on this date, when it was evidently in contact with local officers who had personal knowledge of relevant events and the level of risk. This action ultimately had no significant impact, but could have changed the outcome of the management move request if the issue had not been identified and the local policing team had not been consulted.
After the landlord approved the resident’s management move request on 6 October 2023, its first offer of a property was made 6 working days later (on 16 October 2023). This prompt response was positive, and it is noted that the resident did not immediately respond to the offer. However, the landlord’s explanation of why a further potentially suitable property was not offered to him in November 2023 was unconvincing. It was unclear how the landlord measured whether a property was in an area with “increased ASB”, how it assessed the impact on a property’s suitability for an individual resident, or indeed whether this was confirmed to be the reason the property was not offered. The landlord’s allocations policy also does not refer to levels of ASB being a factor in its offer of management moves. More recently, the resident has expressed concern that additional available properties were not offered to him. While there may be valid reasons for this, the landlord’s decision-making process obviously remains unclear to the resident, and a recommendation has been made to address this.
Finally, it was unhelpful of the landlord to tell the resident it would consider changing his management move request to a 3-bedroom property if he provided medical evidence, only to tell him 7 weeks later that it would not do so. Though it is generally reasonable for landlords to act in accordance with their published policies, the landlord had not supplied any policy which stated management moves must be like-for-like, and its communication caused the resident to believe – perhaps inadvertently – that its position may have changed. Regardless of whether or not it unfairly raised his expectations, it took an unreasonable length of time to give him an answer. During the 7-week period, the resident may have felt understandably conflicted about accepting any otherwise suitable 2-bedroom properties offered to him. Taking all of the circumstances into account, an order has been made for the landlord to further review any medical evidence provided by the resident in relation to medical grounds for a 3-bedroom property, and if it deems this evidence adequate in relation to medical need, to consider amending its management move offer to a 3-bedroom property. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there is sufficient justification, amounting or equivalent to a ‘business need’, for it to do so.
An overall finding of maladministration has been made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move. This is because, while the landlord did some things appropriately and acted on information it received from the police, it delayed in taking key actions, did not always provide detailed information or make use of its relationships with partner agencies, and again did not make sufficient reasonable adjustments in light of the resident’s disability. It also unreasonably placed the onus on the resident to find solutions to issues, such as completing the management move request form using a computer, and ensuring all relevant supporting information he had supplied was then provided to its senior management team for consideration.

Complaint handling

Despite advising the resident to use its complaints process on 23 February 2023, and producing a written summary of the complaint the same day, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 28 working days later (on 4 April 2023). The length of this delay was unacceptable. The acknowledgement followed intervention by this Service on 28 March 2023, and it is unclear when – or if – the complaint would have been acknowledged otherwise. It is noted that the resident has sent other communications to the landlord during the period assessed, which he has titled or asked to be treated as complaints, and not all appear to have been progressed through the landlord’s formal complaints process. An order has been made in relation to this.
When the landlord did acknowledge the resident’s complaint, it was appropriate for it to apologise for the delay. However, its explanation – that its complaints team was experiencing unprecedented demand – was inadequate, and too late. If it was experiencing resourcing issues which affected its ability to respond to complaints, it should have recognised the potential widespread impact of this issue and put measures in place to address it. This should include informing all residents who had made complaints of the issue, its anticipated response date, and action it was taking to resume normal service delivery. It should also have provided regular updates until it was in a position to respond, and considered whether compensation or another form of redress was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was then issued 2 days after its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint, indicating (as it later confirmed) that it had previously completed its investigation. While the landlord was right to reflect the current status of the resident’s case in its response, its investigation appeared to have been the result of an MP enquiry rather than the complaint itself. The policies and procedures supplied by the landlord do not refer to MP enquiries, and so it is unclear if they are treated the same as formal complaints or differently. Though it cannot be said for certain whether the landlord’s investigation would have been conducted in the same way if it had arisen directly from a complaint, its apparent approach of conflating 2 processes could have caused the resident to feel that he was being denied access to the specific process set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident objected to the landlord’s stage 1 responder being one of the officers involved in the handling of his ASB case. However, the landlord’s complaints policy states that the stage 1 response will be a “frontline response if possible”. To the Ombudsman’s knowledge, at this point the resident had not explicitly complained about staff conduct issues or asked for particular officers not to be involved in his ASB case and/or complaint (other than expressing frustration with speaking to different customer services officers who had no knowledge of his case). It was therefore reasonable, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, for an operations manager from the relevant service area to produce the stage 1 response.
The stage 1 response dated 6 April 2023, though detailed and appropriate in tone, was largely repetitive of the landlord’s email of 1 March 2023 and its MP response of 3 March 2023. As almost a month had passed since these communications, it showed little evidence of recent investigation or a complaint-specific review of the case. Instead, the response mainly summarised events and restated the landlord’s position. Though it apologised for some things, these apologies did not accept responsibility for any failure (“I am sorry you feel you have been misinformed”, “I am sorry you had cause to complain”). The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to formally recognise and offer redress for failures it had previously admitted, such as missed callbacks and delayed responses. Despite referring to the resident’s desire to move to a 3-bedroom property and to the criteria for a management move, it did not clarify that the resident would be unable to upsize from a 2-bedroom property to a 3-bedroom property as part of a management move. It also told the resident he could request escalation of his complaint within 8 weeks, but did not provide a point of contact for him to do so, which resulted in him having to chase this.
It is noted that the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 14 April 2023 regarding the landlord’s original decision to house Neighbour A, with reference to the terms of its allocations policy. There is no evidence that the landlord recorded or acknowledged this as a new complaint. On 23 May 2023 it told the resident that it would address the issue within its stage 2 response. This advice was contrary to this Service’s complaint handling code, which states: “Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant if the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.” The advice was given 5 weeks after the resident raised his further complaint, and 2 days before the stage 2 response was issued. This delay was unacceptable.
In fact, in its stage 2 response, the landlord simply acknowledged receipt of the resident’s contact and advised him to refer “any queries in relation to this” to his housing manager. This was an inadequate response, which did not engage with the substance of the complaint or address the resident’s specific request for details of its officer responsible for allocations. While the landlord would have been limited in the amount of information it could share with the resident regarding its housing of his neighbour, given its data protection obligations and the length of time that had passed, the Ombudsman does not consider that this complaint was responded to in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. This, together with other similar instances of the landlord failing to respond to requests and questions, caused the resident to feel ignored and dismissed.
Following the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 11 April 2023, it is unclear what purpose the landlord’s email of 14 April 2023 was intended to serve. It referred to the stage 1 outcome and escalation request, but was more detailed than an acknowledgement of the escalation request. Given that the landlord went on to send its standard escalation acknowledgement on 10 May 2023, and apparently measured its response time from that date, its earlier email of 14 April 2023 seemed to act as an intermediary complaint response between stage 1 and stage 2. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this constituted a departure from the landlord’s stated 2-stage complaints process, and caused the overall 3-month timeframe of the process to be unnecessarily extended. As a result, it also avoidably prolonged the resident’s distress and frustration.
In view of the above, the timeframe of 19 working days for the landlord to formally acknowledge the resident’s escalation request (from 11 April 2023 to 10 May 2023) was excessive, and almost 4 times the 5-day timeframe quoted in the landlord’s policy. The resident’s growing dissatisfaction was apparent from his email of 28 April 2023, in which he said that the landlord had not dealt with his stage 2 complaint or provided a named point of contact. It was therefore appropriate for its stage 2 responder to contact him by phone to introduce themselves on 10 May 2023, as well as acknowledging the escalation in writing. An internal email by the landlord on 5 May 2023 indicated that the delay may have been at least partly due to it having “to find a housing colleague out of the area to review”. It would have been helpful for the landlord to explain the reasons for any delays to the resident, but it is positive that it assured him of the independence of its stage 2 responder.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 25 May 2023, 30 working days after the resident requested to escalate his complaint (and 11 working days after the landlord acknowledged the escalation request). Though in excess of the landlord’s target response time of 20 working days, this delay was not unreasonable. The landlord’s complaints policy allows for an extension of 10 further working days, although it also says it will provide a written explanation in such cases. Notifying the resident in advance of any delay would have improved his experience and demonstrated a willingness to address the communication issues already identified.
The stage 2 response was again repetitive of emails sent by the landlord on 1 and 3 March 2023, as well as of the stage 1 response. Other than referring to Neighbour A’s suspended sentence, it did not offer additional comment regarding the ASB investigation, and gave limited assurance that this aspect of the case had been adequately reviewed. Similarly, while the landlord appropriately confirmed that it had investigated the resident’s concerns about certain members of staff and stated its findings, it did not detail how it had investigated this (for example, by interviewing the staff involved, speaking to other frontline and management staff with knowledge of the case, or examining written records from different sources). This caused the resident to believe that the landlord had not carried out a thorough investigation or exercised sufficient internal scrutiny. It consequently reinforced his suspicion of the landlord’s resistance to criticism, and his feeling of not being taken seriously.
In view of the obvious relationship breakdown between the resident and his housing manager, the landlord could have considered allocating an alternative point of contact. It had no obligation to do so, and landlords are generally permitted to allocate their resources as they see fit. However, demonstrating that it had considered this option – even if it was unable to take it forward – would have reassured the resident that it was taking his concerns seriously. In assessing this aspect of the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman acknowledges the background of the landlord finding it challenging to manage the level of contact from the resident and the repeatedly changing contact arrangements as discussed above. Despite this, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s approach to the resident’s requests was sometimes inflexible and not adequately informed by an awareness of his disability. The stage 2 response again missed an opportunity to offer financial redress for previously admitted failures, and, significantly, did not address the continuing gas meter issue.
Due to the number and scale of the failures outlined above, a finding of severe maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including safeguarding concerns;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing;
3. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not take effective action to address the resident’s initial reports of offensive comments by Neighbour A and tampering with his gas meter. This caused the situation to escalate over a 16-month period and led to an altercation between the resident and Neighbour A. Following the altercation, the landlord did not carry out its own investigation and unduly relied on the police response. It also unreasonably delayed in carrying out a risk assessment. It did not demonstrate sufficient consideration of tenancy action, and its communication with the resident was often uninformed, unsympathetic, inconsistent, or delayed. The contact restrictions imposed on the resident were confusing and poorly documented. The landlord did not offer ASB-related support or take adequate account of the additional impact on the resident’s family as a result of their disabilities.
The landlord gave conflicting advice about whether the resident was eligible for a management move, and delayed in providing the relevant request form. It failed to provide detailed information about the terms of a management move at the outset, and did not assist the resident with completing the form when he told it he was struggling with this. When the resident submitted his completed form, the landlord delayed in processing it and told the resident it was not being prioritised. The resident’s enquiries regarding supporting evidence revealed that the landlord had not contacted local police officers or included all relevant documentation. After the landlord agreed to a management move, it did not provide adequate explanations regarding why certain properties were not offered to the resident, and delayed in confirming whether it would change its offer to a 3-bedroom property for medical reasons.
The landlord took 28 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and 19 working days to acknowledge his escalation request. Though the responses post-acknowledgement were more timely, they were repetitive of earlier communications and did not evidence a thorough or complaint-specific investigation. The landlord provided an intermediary response between stages 1 and 2 which caused the overall process to be unnecessarily protracted. A new complaint made by the resident on 14 April 2023 was not responded to in accordance with the landlord’s complaints process or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord missed opportunities in its complaint responses to address all the issues raised by the resident, recognise and apologise for failures it previously admitted, and offer financial redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its poor communication, delays, lack of regard for his disability, and unsympathetic approach to his ASB reports, safeguarding concerns, request for a move, and associated complaint. The apology should be made in person by an officer of director level or above, at a convenient time arranged in advance with the resident, and should be followed up in writing.
2. Pay the resident £2,800, comprising:
  1. £1,000 for its delays, inaction and poor communication in relation to his ASB reports and safeguarding concerns;
  2. £600 for its delays and conflicting information in relation to his request for rehousing;
  3. £800 for its complaint handling failures;
  4. £200 for its failure to have due regard for his disability and make reasonable adjustments;
  5. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him as a result of the above failures, and for the time and trouble he invested in pursuing aspects of his complaint.
3. Review any contact plans and/or unacceptable behaviour agreements that are currently in place for the resident, and consider whether these remain appropriate and proportionate in view of the resident’s disability and recent levels of contact. In conducting this review it should have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It should inform the resident and this Service in writing of its decision to continue or withdraw any contact restrictions. If no restrictions are currently in place, it should confirm this.
4. Meet with the resident (either in person or by phone, according to his preference, and in the presence of his support worker if desired) to discuss any recent and/or ongoing ASB he is experiencing. If it has not already done so, it should also carry out an up-to-date risk assessment. It should then agree a timebound action plan with the resident to address any ongoing ASB, and provide a named point of contact for him to report new incidents. If the resident is continuing to experience disruption to his gas supply, the action plan should include consideration of environmental measures (such as signage and additional security) and human measures (such as writing to all residents about the issue). The landlord should then provide a copy of the action plan and a written update to the resident and this Service.
5. Review any medical evidence provided by the resident and confirm to him whether this meets its criteria for a move on medical grounds. If it does not (or if no evidence has yet been provided), it should give the resident a further reasonable amount of time to produce additional medical evidence, and should not unduly delay in assessing this. If the criteria for a medical move are met, the landlord is ordered to review its position and reconsider offering the resident a 3-bedroom property as a management move. If it does so, the resident should be offered 3 suitable properties (with the 2-bedroom property previously declined by the resident not counting towards this total if the offer is changed to a 3-bedroom property). If it declines to do so, it must provide its reasoning and justification to the resident and this Service in writing.
6. Provide to the resident a written summary of the complaints he has made to it since October 2021 and the status of each complaint (for instance, whether it acknowledged and responded to the complaint at stage 1 and/or 2, or whether it declined to investigate the complaint). The landlord should provide the date of each complaint and its response(s), and provide its rationale for declining to investigate any complaint(s). It should also offer the resident the opportunity to request reconsideration of any complaints he made previously that it did not investigate at the time. The landlord should not unreasonably decline to investigate such complaints. It should acknowledge receipt of any further complaints and investigate them in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
7. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its policies, website and other published material, and considers amending these to clearly state its target response times for different types of enquiry. This should include reports of ASB and requests for management moves as well as general enquiries, repairs and complaints.
It is recommended that the landlord considers expanding the section on management moves within its allocation policy, or otherwise considers producing and publishing more detailed information about the process. This should include any restrictions on properties that may be offered and any factors the landlord may take into consideration in different circumstances (for example, proximity to a known perpetrator).