Islington Council (202348248)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348248

Islington Council

24 October 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 transfer request.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 2013 and occupies a first-floor 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident is vulnerable. She has learning difficulties and physical and mental health conditions that are known to the landlord.
A representative from Citizens Advice has assisted the resident with her complaint to the landlord and this Service. For ease of reading, both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout the report, except where it is necessary to distinguish between them.
In July 2018, the resident reported that she had been sexually assaulted in her property. The alleged perpetrator lived in the local area but was not a tenant of the landlord. The landlord opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case in August 2018 and completed a risk assessment and action plan. The case was subsequently closed in October 2018.
In February 2020, the resident told the landlord she had been assaulted outside her front door by the same perpetrator. She asked for permission to install a camera doorbell and advised it that the police had fitted a panic alarm in her property.
In November 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the perpetrator had been stalking her since February 2020. She said she was scared for her own safety and that of her son. She also said that in June 2020, the police had recommended that she requested an urgent move from her property.
The police wrote to the landlord on 20 October 2021. The letter from the police said that the resident was subject to ongoing harassment and threats to kill from a perpetrator with a history of violence. The letter said that the perpetrator knew where the resident lived and had assaulted her on a number of occasions. The police advised that if she remained at her current address she could be at risk of further violence. They believed moving her to a different property would be a proportionate step to safeguard the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 January 2022. She said she had had to go and live with a cousin because of ongoing harassment at her home. She told the landlord she had received a letter from the police, which stated that she should be moved to a new property for her own safety. She asked to be contacted urgently. There is no evidence that the landlord responded.
Nearly 17 months later, the resident emailed the landlord on 15 June 2023. She listed the assaults and abuse she had faced and said she was scared to leave her property. She asked what action the landlord had taken since it received the letter from the police and requested urgent approval for a management transfer.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 July 2023. It said that it had assessed the case and found no eligible grounds for the resident’s management transfer request to be approved. It said it had not received any reports since the police investigation in 2021.
On 15 August 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She had asked the landlord to move her from her property since she had been attacked in 2018. The police had written a letter to the landlord about the incident.
2. The landlord had told her it could not rehouse her as the allegations were too old. Further incidents had happened recently but she had not bothered telling the landlord because it did nothing.
3. The perpetrator lived across the road from her. She felt stuck and unsafe in her property. The perpetrator had been stalking and taunting her.
4. She was vulnerable and had a number of disabilities. Living so close to the perpetrator had impacted on her mental health. The situation was urgent even though it had been ongoing for 6 years.
5. She asked the landlord to “do its job” by moving her from the property, and to tell her what it was going to do to keep her safe.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 September 2023. It said:
1. As there had been no reported incidents since 2021, there were no eligible grounds to approve a management transfer.
2. It was aware the resident had made a homelessness application because she had not felt safe at her property.
3. She had had a live rehousing application since 2016 that allowed her to bid on studio properties and 1-bedroom flats. She was also able to consider a mutual exchange via the HomeSwapper system.
4. Once it had received a response from the homeless support team about her application, it would inform the resident of the steps it would take to keep her safe.
5. It partly upheld the complaint because it had failed to respond to her email on 15 June 2023 in line with its customer care standards.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 November 2023. The following points were listed:
1. She said a key issue of her complaint was the landlord’s failure to action the police’s letter dated 20 October 2021. The letter detailed the assaults, harassment and threats she had experienced, and made a request for her to be moved for her own safeguarding. She said the landlord should have immediately moved her to temporary accommodation when it received the letter.
2. She had made a subject access request for her housing file which showed she had contacted the landlord about the harassment, abuse and request to move on 13 February 2020, 17 November 2020 and 28 January 2022. She had not received a response to any of these contacts.
3. She felt the landlord had failed to properly investigate and consider her request for a management transfer. She had re-sent the police letter to the landlord on 15 June 2023 and asked for the transfer to be considered again. On 17 July 2023, she had received a 2-sentence reply rejecting her request. She felt this was evidence of a failure to conduct a thorough investigation.
4. On 15 August 2023, an ASB report was emailed to the landlord. The resident had attended the landlord’s offices on the same day and advised she had experienced death threats against her and her son. She felt unsafe in her property and wanted to move. She said the police had given her a panic alarm and provided the crime reference number.
5. She suffered from schizoid personality disorder, severe anxiety and panic attacks. She also had several long-term physical conditions which affected her mobility, caused blackouts, and led to chronic pain.
6. The sexual and physical assaults and the threats to her life had caused a decline in her mental and physical health. She was scared to go out in the community.
7. She wanted the landlord to provide an explanation why the police request and her own request to be rehoused had not been acted upon. She also wanted an apology and compensation for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 December 2023. It listed the following points:
1. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response had been late. It offered £50 compensation, made up of £25 for the delay and £25 for the failure to identify the delay in the stage 1 response.
2. It had checked internally and confirmed it had never received the letter from the police dated 20 October 2021. This was why it had not taken any action to address the recommendations.
3. It had not received any contact from the resident regarding a management transfer due to ASB between 2020 and 17 July 2023.
4. It had informed her that it was unable to use the police letter from 2021 to consider a new management transfer request. This was because the incidents were considered historical.
5. It acknowledged there had been more recent reported instances of harassment that had occurred in the street. It was unable to investigate any incidents occurring in the street and advised her to contact the police.
6. It listed the main points of a meeting between itself and the resident on 28 September 2023.
7. It did not uphold the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

While this report references some historical events for the purposes of context, the focus of this investigation will be on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer since January 2022. This is because, under paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to a member landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. The Ombudsman also cannot directly consider matters that were not brought to the landlord as a complaint, such as its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. However, all the evidence provided by both parties has been taken into account in our assessment of this case.
It is clear that this situation has been, understandably, very distressing for the resident. She has detailed how the ongoing issues she reported have impacted on her mental health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the impact of behaviour such as that reported in this case. However, we are unable to make a decision about any causal link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s deteriorating health. A decision relating to personal injury is a matter for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and any additional distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to her because of failures by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request

The landlord’s staff procedure for managing risk, arranging high risk moves and management transfers states:
1. When the landlord identifies an initial risk it will conduct and record a “quick risk assessment” to establish whether temporary accommodation is necessary to keep the person safe. It will then arrange a 7-day follow-up appointment to go through the risks and situation in more detail.
2. At the follow-up meeting, the landlord commits to conducting and recording a full risk assessment, including its reasons for not approving a higher risk move. Prior to the meeting, officers should obtain information about the risk from other professionals. Where necessary, the landlord asks officers to consider a professionals meeting to better understand the risk.
3. In appropriate cases the landlord will support tenants to apply for a high risk move to alternative accommodation.
4. In evidencing risk, officers are required to carefully investigate the situation and collect evidence to support the application. Sources of information should include council staff, police, social services, and advocates.
5. When considering a management transfer the landlord commits to considering situations where there is no current high risk, but where other risks are present serious enough to jeopardise a tenancy. One example given is where a tenant has a history of being subjected to abuse or other serious harm. While the events may be historical, the evidence suggests the tenant is still experiencing serious and ongoing post-traumatic stress. In such circumstances officers could allow a move if it would alleviate the issue.
In assessing the landlord’s handling of the transfer request, it is also relevant to consider some aspects of its ASB policy. The policy defines ASB as behaviour which adversely affects the quality of life of local people. This includes behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. When the landlord receives a report of ASB its policy states that it will take a number of actions, including determining any vulnerability or risk factors, working with relevant partner agencies, and taking appropriate action (enforcement or supportive).
We acknowledge that the alleged perpetrator is not a tenant of the landlord and that it is limited in the action it can take against such third parties. However, in this situation the landlord still has a responsibility to investigate reports from the resident and to respond in a timely and appropriate manner, considering what measures it can reasonably put in place to safeguard the resident. Such measures may be influenced by the available evidence, the timeframes involved, and its knowledge of the risk.
Prior to the focal period of this investigation, a significant missed opportunity related to the letter sent by the police to the landlord in October 2021. The landlord said it did not receive this letter at the time, and the record supplied to this Service by the resident does not confirm how the letter was sent or to whom. It is regrettable that appropriate action was not taken or considered at the time in response to the police’s recommendation. However, the landlord cannot be held responsible for omissions of which it was not aware. As such, there is insufficient evidence in relation to the police letter to enable the Ombudsman to make a finding on this matter.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 28 January 2022, she referred to the police letter and the ongoing harassment she had experienced. There is no evidence from the landlord to show that it responded to her contact. Aside from the reported harassment, the mention of the letter from the police and the landlord’s awareness of historical incidents should have alerted it to the seriousness of the situation. Upon receiving the resident’s report, it should have contacted her and conducted a risk assessment to determine the correct course of action. This was a failure to respond as required by its ASB policy and would have left the resident feeling alone and unsupported, adding to her sense of vulnerability. The fact that the landlord apparently did not consider a transfer for the resident at this point, in the knowledge that she had felt the need to stay elsewhere to keep safe, was unreasonable.
The resident called the landlord again on 7 March 2023, more than a year later, to request a move from her property due to the issues she had faced. The landlord made one attempt to call her back but was unable to reach her or leave a message. Given there was no facility to leave a message, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not pursue the matter and make further attempts to contact the resident. The landlord’s poor communication led to ongoing frustration and inconvenience for the resident. This meant she had to seek assistance from Citizens Advice to get a response from the landlord, which was unacceptable.
On 6 June 2023, the resident sent a copy of the police letter from October 2021 to the landlord and specifically requested a management transfer. It took the landlord 6 weeks to provide a response, which was unreasonable. The response stated: “We have found there are no eligible grounds for the tenant to be approved for a management transfer.” This email seemed to suggest the landlord had considered the resident’s request in line with its procedure. However, following the procedure would have required a quick risk assessment and then a follow-up appointment within 7 days to conduct a thorough risk assessment. There is no evidence that either risk assessment took place. The Ombudsman is therefore not satisfied the landlord fully considered the resident’s transfer request in line with its published procedure.
Also, having now received the police letter we would have expected the landlord to contact the police to obtain an update on the current risks. Again, it has not shown any evidence that it contacted the police, which is a failure to engage with its partners in line with the ASB policy and management transfer procedure. As stated by the resident, the landlord’s 2-sentence refusal email on 17 July 2023 demonstrated a lack of thorough investigation of her request and the circumstances surrounding it. This further undermined her faith in the landlord’s ability, or willingness, to fulfil its obligations.
In its stage 1 response on 6 September 2023, the landlord advised that it could not consider a management transfer as the events described were historical. In the resident’s email on 12 October 2023 and her stage 2 escalation, she informed the landlord of more recent incidents involving the perpetrator. One took place in spring 2022 that the police had attended, and 2 incidents occurred in July 2023. The basis for the landlord maintaining its previous position was therefore unclear. In its stage 2 response the landlord advised it could not investigate these events because they occurred in the street and said the resident should contact the police. Signposting the resident to the police was appropriate. However, the resident may have felt unable to contact the police again at this point. The landlord should have appreciated the complexity and sensitivity of the situation and sought specialist advice if it needed it. It could also have made further efforts to understand the circumstances of the reported events, such as where the incidents happened in relation to the property and whether the resident felt she could go about her daily routine without fear of being harassed by the alleged perpetrator. The landlord’s response lacked empathy and understanding, and failed to offer any support to the resident, which was unreasonable.
Further to this, the landlord’s management transfer procedure details an example where risk does not need to be current. For situations where abuse has led to ongoing trauma it says it may consider a move. It is unreasonable that it cannot show how it considered the resident’s request and why it did not meet these specific criteria. If the landlord required more information in order to confirm whether or not the criteria were met, it should have informed the resident of this so that she had an opportunity to provide it.
The landlord met with the resident on 28 September 2023. The meeting notes indicate that there had not been any recent incidents of ASB and that the resident said she was unsure if she wanted to leave her property. While the resident was entitled to change her mind about a move, she was also vulnerable and sometimes required support in advocating for herself. We acknowledge the changing position would have presented challenges for the landlord. Having a representative present at the meeting may have assisted the parties in ensuring they were acting in the resident’s best interests and supporting her to make an informed decision.
Accurate and complete record keeping is essential to effective housing management, including landlords’ response to reported ASB and associated rehousing requests. In the evidence seen by this investigation, none of the resident’s vulnerabilities appear to have been adequately considered by the landlord in its actions or decision making processes. Without this information the landlord cannot effectively manage reports or requests that involve an individual or individuals with vulnerabilities.
Further evidence of poor record keeping was apparent in the landlord’s information submitted to this Service, and in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. In July 2023, the resident made a subject access request to assist with the preparation of her complaint. Within the records supplied to her were the reports of ASB she made on 13 February 2020 and 28 January 2022. However, it is clear from the landlord’s complaint responses that it had not reviewed these records as part of its complaint handling, and neither of the ASB reports were provided to the Ombudsman by the landlord. This is possible evidence of disorganisation, teams working in silos and using different systems to record information, and/or failing to communicate effectively. We are aware the landlord’s record keeping was raised in a recent special investigation undertaken by the Ombudsman and is an area the landlord is currently reviewing. We have therefore not made any orders or recommendations related to record keeping.
With regard to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord responded within 16 working days at stage 1. While the delay was not acknowledged in the stage 1 response it was highlighted in the stage 2 response, and the landlord offered £50 compensation for the error. The stage 2 response was 3 days outside of the policy timescale. The delay was not excessive and would not have caused any significant additional detriment to the resident. There were also several date errors in the complaint responses, but again, these would not have caused further detriment to the resident. Had this Service investigated the landlord’s complaint handling separately, a finding of reasonable redress would have been made. As such, it has been considered proportionate to address this as part of the substantive issue.
In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer was poor. It failed to conduct essential risk assessments in line with its policies and procedures. It did not follow up with partner agencies to assess current risk and did not sufficiently consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its decision making processes. There were also instances of poor communication and record keeping. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration. We have therefore made orders to reflect this below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £700 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of her transfer request. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. This is in addition to the £50 previously offered to the resident (which related to complaint handling).
3. Carry out a review of all its records associated with the resident to identify all reports of ASB made by her, or others on her behalf.
4. Confirm to the resident that it has accurately recorded her vulnerabilities, and provide written assurance that the information has been made available to staff on relevant systems and will be taken into account when she contacts it in future.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Obtain an update from the police, including a summary of reported incidents and an assessment of the current risk to the resident. The landlord should also confirm whether the police currently recommend a move for the resident. It may wish to request that any formal police recommendation for a move is endorsed by a senior police officer (ie inspector level).
2. Meet with the resident and her representative to establish if there have been any recent incidents involving the alleged perpetrator, whether the resident currently wants to move, and (if so) what rehousing options are available to her. The meeting should take place after the landlord has obtained the police update.
3. Inform the resident whether it intends to open a new ASB case because of any information obtained. If a new case is opened, it should agree a timebound plan of action with her.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with the orders within the time limits specified.