London Borough of Sutton (202333652)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333652

London Borough of Sutton

7 August 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about securing her property.
2. Concerns about staff conduct.
3. Request for a management move.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO), who is responsible for the day-to-day management of housing services. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom, first-floor flat and has lived there since 2017.
In late 2022, the resident was relocated to emergency accommodation after reporting that she had suffered domestic abuse in her property. At some point in November 2022 the resident left the emergency accommodation. Our Service understands she went to stay with her mother.
The landlord raised concerns on 11 January 2023 that the resident had been seen at the property, despite her safety concerns. That same night, the resident called the out-of-hours number to report her keys had been stolen and someone had broken into the property. The incident was not reported to the police. The next day, an operative went to the address and told the landlord that two unknown people were in the property with drug paraphernalia and that the property was in poor condition.
On 6 February 2023 the resident was advised to visit the ‘one-stop shop’ for a further assessment to see if she could be assisted with housing, as she was still living with her mother. The landlord completed a domestic abuse, stalking, harassment and honour-based violence assessment (DASH) and referred the resident to the multi-agency risk assessment co-ordinator (MARAC) in addition to completing a management transfer application.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to inquire about the installation of the security measures requested on 3 February 2023. These measures included a door entrance camera, a fireproof letterbox and safety chains for the door and windows. The resident responded on 19 March 2023, stating that none of the requested installations had been completed and asked about the status of her management move.
On 20 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident after being informed that the resident was not engaging with her independent domestic violence advocate (IDVA). The landlord said it could not proceed with a management move until she engaged. It offered to meet the resident the following day to discuss a way forward.
On 6 June 2023, internal emails confirmed that the property’s gas safety check was overdue. Neighbours had reported antisocial behaviour (ASB), the property being used for illegal purposes and an unauthorised man was living in the property. The landlord was unable to contact the resident to verify the situation. On 18 June the landlord authorised the installation of a security door after the property had been left unsecured.
The landlord contacted the local authority to ask if the resident had been in contact regarding rehousing as her property had been abandoned. The landlord confirmed that cats had been left in the property and referred the matter to the RSPCA.
It appears that the resident contacted the landlord in early July, however, we have not seen any documentation to confirm this. The landlord emailed the resident on 7 July 2023 and requested a meeting to discuss the property condition and the animals that had been left, before it would remove the security door. The landlord also provided photographs to the resident. In response, the resident denied leaving the property in the reported condition, claiming that the property had been ransacked. She also expressed feeling unsafe at the address.
On 9 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to remove the security door so that she could return to the property. The following day the landlord confirmed that the property was accessible. On 22 August 2023, the landlord asked if the resident had returned to the address or granted permission for anyone else to reside in the property.
The gas safety engineer spoke to the resident on 23 August 2023 to arrange a gas safety check which was overdue. The resident said she was not living at the property as it was unsafe.
On 15 September 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that she was harassed by a member of staff and let down by the landlord since moving into the property. While she was on holiday, her property was ransacked, and she claimed she was coerced by a member of staff to attend a ‘one-stop-shop’ to report the incident to the police so that the security door could be removed. She went into emergency accommodation in November 2022 but felt compelled to return as she was threatened by the landlord with a security door and needed to return to feed her cats. The landlord left threatening notes regarding repossession, which impacted her mental and physical health.
On 25 September 2023 the resident was served with a notice to quit (NTQ) because the resident was not occupying the property as her main and principal home.
On 6 October 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 response confirming that the property was fitted with a security door on 18 June 2023 as the property was left unsecured, and it had received multiple reports that unauthorised individuals were entering the property. Attempts to contact the resident had failed. It was aware that the resident had previously been placed into temporary accommodation after experiencing domestic abuse the previous year, but when she was sighted at the address, she was asked why she was there, given her safety concerns. The landlord confirmed it would make an additional referral to MARAC, and she was advised to contact the local authority for housing assistance.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 16 October 2023 and confirmed that she was seeking legal advice regarding the landlord’s bullying.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 20 October 2023 and did not uphold the complaint. It confirmed it would proceed with MARAC to assess the level of risk and provide support. It acknowledged the concerns raised due to the NTQ being served but stated that it was standard practice when residents were not using the property as their main and principal residence.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and requested our Service investigated her complaint. She asked to be moved to another property as she said she was unsafe in her property. The landlord’s staff had reportedly been rude and threatening, and she was upset that a security door had been installed.

Assessment and findings

Security of the property

In February 2023 the landlord appropriately completed a DASH risk assessment and made referrals to appropriate support agencies after being made aware of the resident’s reports of domestic abuse. It was positive that the landlord recognised and assessed the vulnerability of the resident, initiated a safeguarding referral and referred the matter to MARAC. This ensured the landlord had a full understanding of the resident’s situation. It appropriately used early intervention tools to provide additional support to the resident.
The landlord’s management supported transfer procedure confirms that when a resident is suffering domestic abuse or violence all options to resolve the situation should be considered, the primary objective should be to enable the resident to remain safe in their home. For example, increasing home security.
It was appropriate and in line with its policy for the landlord to request additional security measures at the resident’s property. However, despite the request being made on 3 February 2023, the resident confirmed on 19 March 2023 that the safety measures had not been installed. The evidence shows that the landlord experienced difficulties in contacting the resident which may have contributed to some of the delays.
There was a lack of proactive action on the landlord’s part to initiate the security measures following the resident’s contact. The landlord missed opportunities to complete the installation in February 2023 when it said it would, and following the resident’s contact in March 2023 it failed to provide a time and date that the security measures would be installed. After March 2023 there is no evidence to show efforts on the landlord’s part to secure the property to ensure that the resident felt safe to return. If the resident was provided with reassurance that her property was secure, she may have felt more comfortable returning.
In July 2024 the landlord confirmed to our Service that it had not completed the installation of the security measures because it had not been able to contact the resident. It is evident that at the time of our contact, the landlord was not certain if the security measures had been installed. The lack of follow-up and delayed response indicate a failure on the landlord’s part to prioritise the safety of the resident.
If the landlord had installed the additional security while she was living with the threat, and awaiting an outcome to her management transfer request, it might have provided her with some additional protection and reassurance that her situation was being taken seriously.
The resident has said she was unhappy that the landlord installed a security door to the property. While this is likely to have caused distress to the resident, the action taken by the landlord was appropriate. The evidence shows that between January 2023 and June 2023 the landlord received reports of unknown individuals occupying the property, ASB and evidence of drug paraphernalia in the property. Despite efforts to contact the resident, the landlord was unable to reach her. To protect the property from further damage, to ensure that swatters were not utilising the property and to prevent further ASB, the landlord safeguarded the property and took decisive action by installing a security door. The landlord has said that it left contact details for the resident on the front of the door, but we have not seen evidence of this.
In July 2023, the landlord detailed its concerns regarding the condition of the property which the resident disputed was her fault. At this point, she reiterated her concerns regarding her safety at the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed the benefits of installing additional security while exploring alternative options to move from the address.
The landlord informed the resident that cats had been left in the property without access to food and water. It also said that it had been back and forth to the property to ensure they had been fed. While the resident said that she had arranged for someone to feed the cats, the evidence does not conclude this happened. Therefore, in the interests of the animal’s welfare, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the RSPCA after it was unable to contact the resident.
The landlord advised the resident that it was unable to progress with a management move if she did not engage with support services. The landlord wanted to understand why the resident was reluctant to engage with support and offered to meet with her to discuss her concerns. This showed a willingness to address the lack of engagement and agree on a way forward.
The resident explained that she was unhappy that her gas supply had been capped. Despite attempts to carry out an annual gas service in June 2023, the gas engineer was unable to access the property. The landlord is required to ensure that any gas fitting is maintained in a safe condition and checked for safety at intervals of no more than 12 months. The Service has considered the extent to which the resident’s action contributed to the situation they found themselves in. Had the resident provided access, the impact of the situation could have been minimised. It is also worth noting that when the resident was contacted to arrange the gas service appointment, the resident said she was not living at the property.
While it is evident that there have been lapses in communication with the resident and difficulties contacting her, there are various ways in which the landlord could have been more sensitive to the resident’s needs as a survivor of domestic abuse. Demonstrating an understanding of her experiences and the impact of incidents on her would have enabled the landlord to build a more trusting relationship with the resident, within which she may have felt more able to accept support and advice.
The failings identified amount to maladministration. Our Service has had regard to the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance and considers it appropriate to award £150 compensation for the failings identified by not implementing additional security measures and its lack of communication with the resident. The Ombudsman has considered the mitigating factors in this case when awarding compensation.

Staff conduct

The resident’s complaint concerns the actions taken by a member of staff. She said that she felt bullied and forced to return to her property, which she said was unsafe. Our Service recognises that the concerns she has reported have affected and caused distress to her.
Based on the evidence, the measures taken, including the installation of a security door, requesting that the resident report incidents to the police and ‘one-stop shop’ and referring to support services were solely intended to safeguard the resident. Our Service has not seen evidence which would support the residents reports that she was bullied by the staff member.
The resident reported feeling distressed after receiving a NTQ which she said was threatening. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain the process for issuing a NTQ and offered an apology for the distress this had caused. The landlord made numerous attempts to contact the resident after the security door was removed in August 2023, following reports that the resident was not living in the property. As social housing is in high demand, a landlord needs to ensure that its limited stock is used to house people in need. For that reason, it used its powers correctly to initiate the process for regaining possession of the property, which it believed was not being occupied by the resident.
Our Service has not found evidence which would suggest that the resident was bullied by the landlord. However, we have not seen any documentation to evidence an investigation into the resident’s reports. By failing to provide evidence that the complaint was investigated, or acknowledge the concerns that the resident raised, the landlord was unable to reassure the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously. The lack of evidenced investigation amounts to a service failure.
Our Service has considered the landlord’s compensation policy in line with our own remedies guidance and has ordered £50 compensation for the landlord’s failure to adequately address her concerns which likely caused distress and inconvenience.

Request for a management transfer

Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord did not offer a move to another property. According to its management transfer policy, the landlord can offer a management move in exceptional circumstances if there are significant issues with the resident’s occupation that have led to imminent personal risk or detriment. The landlord appropriately completed a management move request on 6 February 2023, in line with its policy.

We have asked the landlord on two occasions for the outcome of the resident’s management transfer application. The landlord has not been able to confirm whether the application was approved. It is unclear whether the resident has been informed of the outcome. It is inappropriate that the landlord is unaware of the outcome of the application because it may have impacted the resident’s ability to secure a transfer to another property.

As the request was made over 12 months ago, the landlord should be aware of the outcome of the request. The lack of awareness is inappropriate and does not demonstrate transparency.

The Service therefore finds that the landlord failed to correctly follow its own policy and procedures. This caused further delay and inconvenience to the resident with regards to her management move request and would have caused distress and uncertainty. This amounts to maladministration and an award of £150 has been ordered for the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused because of the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about securing her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £350 comprised:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her safety.
  2. £50 for failing to investigate the resident’s concerns of bullying by a member of staff and for the distress and inconvenience this caused.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
3. The landlord should work with the local authority to reconsider the resident’s suitability for a management move, if it has not already done so. The landlord must inform the resident of the outcome.
4. The landlord should contact the resident and clarify her living situation. The landlord should proceed with the installation of the additional security measures if the resident wishes. The outcome should be shared with our Service, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its response to domestic abuse, including training of frontline housing management staff, to ensure it delivers a trauma-informed and victim-focused service.