London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202005403)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005403

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 January 2022

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:
1. The resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. The resident’s reports of damp and mould at his property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Tenant, in respect of the property, since October 2010.
The property is a one-bedroom (studio) flat.

Scope

Within the resident’s correspondence to the landlord, the Ombudsman can see that he expressed dissatisfaction that despite consistently bidding for properties via the local authorities Choice Based Letting (CBL) scheme (since 2016), he had been unsuccessful.
While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration, this is not a matter that will be considered within this investigation. This is as matters relating to the local authority’s assessment and management of housing applications properly fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).
As paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme explains, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. Therefore, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, he will need to make contact with the LGO.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman can see that the resident first reported (via telephone) the use of drugs on his estate on 15 May 2020. The landlord’s notes indicate that he was advised to report this to the police and further information was sought in regard to who was using the drugs.
On 12 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. He was advised that his report had been referred to the ASB Case Management Team who would make contact to discuss the incident. It is unclear whether this was done.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord made contact with the police to obtain an update on the situation in July 2020.
On 2 August 2020 the resident’s MP shared correspondence with the landlord. Within this, the resident explained:
1. He had been living with his wife, 4-year-old son, and new-born daughter in a one-bedroom property which was far too small to provide living space.
2. Matters had been worsened by the frequent visits of the police to address the drug habits of occupants in other flats. There had been frequent fights, noise, and visitors coming in and out of the block. His wife constantly feared for the family’s safety when he left for work in the evenings.
3. Despite his requests to be urgently rehoused, this had fallen on deaf ears.
On 24 August 2020 the landlord provided the resident’s MP with a response. It advised:
1. There was an active ASB case which was being investigated. The resident had been provided with diary sheets and the noise recording app so that he could record incidents, and this would be used as evidence should it need to take tenancy action.
2. The Case Manager (CM) had requested police disclosure in relation to the matters reported, to aid the investigation. The landlord strongly advised the resident to report future incidents to the police and to update it accordingly to strengthen his case. It had attempted to make contact with the resident’s neighbour also but had been unable to successfully do so. It advised that it would continue to make attempts and would keep the resident updated on the progress of the investigation.
3. It noted the resident’s living situation and that he had been active on the local authorities CBL site since 2016 but had been unsuccessful in his bids. It confirmed that the resident was eligible to bid for a two-bedroom property. The landlord advised that the resident to continue to bid and explained a member of the Lettings Team would be in contact to discuss his housing options.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident also wrote to the local mayor on 7 September 2020, reiterating the points raised on 2 August 2020. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord provided a similar response, additionally explaining that the local authority had 100% nomination rights to its properties, and so all properties available were advertised by the borough and allocated to families based on their priority status. It confirmed that the resident’s priority status had been reviewed, and that he had been listed as a one–bedroom overcrowded priority.
The landlord noted that a member of staff had contacted the resident to discuss his other housing options. It advised that its own CBL site had been suspended, but a member of the Mobility Team would make contact with the resident to see if there was any further guidance it could offer.
On 27 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He again expressed that his housing needs were not being met, that his estate was frequently plagued with ASB, and that despite his efforts to reach out to the landlord, nothing had been done about his living situation.
On 5 November 2020 the Mobility Officer (MO) explained to the resident that it had considered his concerns and sought to arrange a telephone appointment. The landlord requested that the resident confirm the best time to call (with knowledge that he worked nights).
The MO chased the resident, having heard nothing back, on 11 November 2020. It explained that it wished to discuss his concerns but had been unable to. The MO listed a number of rehousing options for the resident but explained that it could not advise him further without speaking with him first.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails that the resident reported cannabis use and drug dealing in the communal area on 12 November 2020. He explained that he and his family did not feel safe.
On 17 November 2020 the MO wrote to the resident. It explained that following a telephone call with him on 12 November 2020, it had considered his complaint regarding ASB and the need to be re-housed. It stated:
1. It had asked the Case Team to make contact with him and that he would need to provide diaries of the incidents to evidence them.
2. As the resident had previously advised that he wished to stay within the borough, he had been advised that he needed to bid on the local authorities CBL page each week. Noting that the resident had since advised that he was willing to move to other areas, and that he was working, the MO provided the resident with details of several other housing options. The MO advised that it would send the resident further examples for renting a property or shared ownership.
The Ombudsman can see that further options were sent later on the same day.
On 18 November 2020 this Service wrote to the landlord. It was highlighted that the resident was unhappy with the action taken by the landlord in respect of his request to be re-housed. The landlord was subsequently encouraged to respond to the resident’s complaint by 2 December 2020 and to set out his options should he remain unhappy.
The resident responded to the landlord on 19 November 2020. He explained that as he was on a zero hour contract, his wages and hours of work varied. He therefore emphasized that his need for social housing was urgent. He further explained that:
1. His property was damp causing his baby of three months to experience health problems.
2. The police had described his property as being unfit for human habitation.
This Service sent further correspondence to the landlord on 10 December 2020 encouraging it to address the resident’s complaint.
On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised that there had been no response and confirmed that the matter had been registered as a new complaint. It explained that it would review its position on the resident’s request for assistance in securing a transfer and provide a response within 10 working days.
On 23 December 2020 the Assistant Director of Lettings (ADL) wrote to the resident following a telephone conversation. It noted from the discussion:
1. It had discussed the housing options available and had encouraged the resident to continue to bid on the local authority’s webpage.
2. It acknowledged that the resident could find difficulty in finding a suitable home swap partner for mutual exchange but recommended that he continue to pursue this too. The landlord signposted further websites, in which the resident could do this.
3. The damp and mould had been reported to its repair team, and this would be addressed when normal repairs were resumed.
4. In respect of the resident’s reports of ASB, it would discuss matters with the Case Team and if sufficient evidence was found, a report would be prepared so that this could be put to the lettings panel for consideration for a direct offer. The landlord explained that while it could not guarantee that this would be approved, this was not something the resident had attempted before.
The landlord’s internal emails show that the ADL contacted the CM and advised that the resident and his wife had received a number of threats in the past. The CM confirmed that it would make contact with the resident.
On 24 December 2020 the resident thanked the landlord for its email. He asserted, in respect of the ASB:
1. He had suffered due to the drug habits of the neighbours in the adjoining flat.
2. There was constant noise and visitors to the property during the day and night. The doors / windows were broken to enter / exit the property.
3. The neighbours fought, threatened each other, and used violent weapons. He often had to clean up the blood. He and his wife had also been threatened and subsequently had made a report to the police. He provided the crime reference number and asserted that the police had not considered it safe for his family to remain at the property.
4. As occupants often broke the external lights, meaning that residents were unable to see the steps, the property was a health and safety hazard. Needles left by drug users were also a hazard.
According to the landlord’s records, it undertook an unannounced visit to the resident’s property on 30 December 2020 and found no evidence of ASB. On the same day, the CM confirmed (internally) that it had spoken with the resident and obtained permission to request disclosure from the police. She noted that an application for an injunction was being considered as the neighbour’s property had been left insecure.
On 4 January 2021 the police responded to the landlord’s request for information. The Ombudsman can see that little evidence was provided to demonstrate ASB from the resident’s neighbour, and while some reports of drug use had been made, no corroborating evidence or individuals had been identified.
On 8 January 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a complaint response. It stated:
1. Following its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint, it referred the complaint to its ADL. It noted that the ADL contacted the resident on 23 December 2020 to discuss the options available and confirmed this conversation via email on the same day.
2. A report would be taken to the review panel for a decision to be made on a direct offer for the resident. The resident would be updated on the outcome once the review panel had met.
3. There had been no failings in its handling of the transfer request. It noted that it had made clear the options available to the resident in its initial complaint response.

The resident was advised that his complaint would subsequently be closed.

On 9 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to establish when the panel review meeting would take place.
On 11 February 2021 the ADL wrote to the resident. It noted that it had advised previously that evidence was being sought via its ASB investigation which it could use to present a case to its panel. Upon discussing this with the CM, however, there was not enough evidence found to support a move. The ADL explained that the CM would continue to investigate the resident’s reports, nonetheless, and if anything changed, the case would be presented to its panel.
It appears that the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour with a warning letter on 12 February 2021.
The landlord advised the resident that it was making enquiries with the Lettings Team Director on 17 February 2021 and would provide an update.
On 21 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord explaining that he wished to clarify that his complaint was based on three separate points:
1. That his property was overcrowded, being that he had a family of four, and it did not meet their basic needs;
2. That there were health and safety issues, as the only bedroom in the property was filled with mould and damp on the walls; and
3. That the ASB was ongoing.

The resident requested that all three points be taken into consideration when the Lettings Panel met.

The Ombudsman can also see that the landlord took steps to arrange a multi-agency meeting in late February 2021 following the resident’s concern that ASB remained ongoing.
On 23 March 2021 the resident’s MP shared further correspondence with the landlord. The Ombudsman can see that the same issues were raised by the resident, now including the outstanding matter with damp and mould.
The landlord responded to this on 1 April 2021. It stated:
1. Concerns around damp and mould had previously been reported in 2019 and investigated at the time. Its maintenance team would be asked to arrange a further inspection, so that appropriate action could be taken.
2. While the resident had been bidding, and had not yet been offered a property, he needed to continue to do so.
3. The resident had been adequately housed when he took up the tenancy for his property but acknowledged that he now required a move as his family had grown. It explained, however, that internal transfers via a direct offer was only offered to those in the most urgent need. If there was a medical condition in the household, the resident could complete a medical application which would be taken into consideration, nonetheless.
The CM arranged to visit the estate on 16 April 2021. No evidence of ASB was discovered at this time. A further unannounced visit was undertaken on 22 April 2021 however still nothing was identified.
On 27 May 2021 the landlord provided the resident with an outcome letter following the resident’s request for consideration of a priority move by its panel. It explained that unfortunately, the resident did not meet the criteria as the police report obtained indicated no immediate risks and overcrowding was not a requirement criterion. His case was subsequently not presented to the panel for rehousing priority, and he was advised that the ASB investigation would be finalised, as there was no evidence to support the allegations made.
On 1 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord dissatisfied that while it had advised that his case would be reviewed by the Lettings Panel, it did not do this. He requested that the landlord do so while also escalating his complaint to the next stage of its complaints procedure.
The landlord advised on the same day that it would review the resident’s complaint and would provide an update in due course.
On 8 June 2021 the ADL wrote to the resident. It explained that consideration for prioritised transfer would have been based on the findings of the ASB investigations, however after looking into this, the team felt that there was insufficient evidence to award priority for a move. It was again questioned whether there were any medical requirements or conditions which could assist in having this decision reviewed.
On 23 June 2021 upon receiving contact from this Service, the landlord noted the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and confirmed that it would provide a final stage two response within 10 working days.
The landlord’s internal emails suggests that the damp and mould at the resident’s property was completed on 13 July 2021.
Following a telephone call with the resident on 5 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident on 6 August 2021. It sought to establish whether the resident had signed up for mutual exchange or to the Mayor of London’s moving initiative. The landlord reiterated that if a member of the resident’s family had a condition, he could also complete its form.
The resident chased a complaint response from the landlord on 9 August 2021, highlighting that 33 days had passed and no response had been received.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its final response. It stated:
1. The resident had originally complained on 10 December 2020 as he was unhappy with the advice, he had received around his housing options. It was explained that there were limited properties available to offer directly, and that the vast majority of resident’s moved through Mutual Exchange or by nomination from the local authority.
2. As ASB was being reported, the Tenancy Management Team spoke with the resident to establish whether his safety was being compromised. No evidence was found to support the urgent request to be rehoused.
3. As had been discussed, although the resident was overcrowded in the property, as there was no serious ASB and no associated medical concerns, it could not consider him for a direct offer of accommodation.
The landlord therefore encouraged the resident to continue to seek a mutual exchange. It noted that the resident was frequently bidding on properties and was often placed in the top ten applicants. It encouraged him to continue pursuing this option.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

On reviewing the landlord’s approach to the resident’s reports of ASB, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it acted appropriately and in accordance with its ASB policy.
It was reasonable that upon receiving the resident’s initial reports of ASB, the landlord advised the resident to share his reports with the police for the matter to be investigated. This was appropriate given that the use of drugs is a criminal offence and therefore ultimately required the intervention of the police. This was also in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which indicates that in cases of serious crimes, it will require the reporting party to report incidents to the police before further action is taken.
While the Ombudsman has been unable to establish when contact was made, it was also reasonable that at this time, the landlord arranged for its ASB Case Management Team to pick this up with the resident. The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails that in July 2020, it made contact with the police to follow up on any reports made. This was appropriate.
The Ombudsman appreciates that without proper evidence, the landlord would have been restricted in the steps that it could take to resolve the matter. It was therefore reasonable, as per the landlord’s ASB policy, that it provided the resident with diary sheets to complete and with the noise recording app to enable him to evidence the activity. It was appropriate that within the landlord’s response to the resident’s MP, it strongly advised that evidence was necessary to strengthen his case and to support any tenancy action that it might need to take. The landlord explained that it would be requesting disclosure information from the police to aid its own investigation.
Despite this, however, the Ombudsman notes that no diary sheets or noise recordings were made and returned to the landlord at this time. Furthermore, upon receiving disclosure information from the police, it was noted that very few reports had been made, with little evidence to corroborate the resident’s allegations. The Ombudsman has seen the information returned from the police and can confirm this.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains that it will also carry out estate inspections to identify, manage and respond to reported ASB. It was therefore reasonable that upon receiving the resident’s correspondence in December 2020, and following discussions with him, it undertook both announced and unannounced visits to the estate. The Ombudsman notes that little evidence was found of threatening behaviour and/or drug use. The landlord was therefore unable to take any further action at this time.
It was reasonable, nonetheless, that the landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a warning letter and explored whether further action could be taken. This was a proportionate intervention, particularly as the resident had shared pictures of drug paraphernalia which he suspected came from his neighbour’s property.
It was reasonable that in February 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it would continue to investigate any reports of ASB and that later, the landlord took steps to arrange a multi-agency meeting to consider an appropriate approach to the ongoing concerns. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord should have put together an action plan and discussed this with the resident, as its policy suggests it will do. This may have been useful in managing the resident’s expectations and in demonstrating to the resident that his reports were being taken seriously. As the landlord’s ASB policy highlights, by introducing an action plan, all new information and incidents can be reflected on to the case, as well as clarifying decisive actions and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery. This was not done, however.
The Ombudsman has not determined that this resulted in any significant detriment to the resident but has made a recommendation below to improve the landlord’s future service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

It was not disputed that the resident’s property was overcrowded. While the landlord noted that the resident’s property was suitable for his needs at the start of his tenancy, it also accepted that the resident’s family had since grown and that he now required a second bedroom. The Ombudsman can see that it acknowledged this upon receiving the resident’s dissatisfaction via his local MP. It is unclear whether the matter had been brought to the landlord at an earlier time.
Upon receiving the correspondence on 24 August 2020, nonetheless, the landlord arranged for its Lettings Team to make contact with the resident to discuss his housing options. This was reasonable. Under the landlord’s Allocations and Lettings policy, it explains that should a resident make contact to explore a move, the landlord will consider their circumstances and present them with a range of options appropriate to their needs and situation.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did this after receiving further contact from the resident. While confirming for the resident that his priority had been reviewed and updated to demonstrate that his housing situation was deficient by one bedroom, the landlord also arranged for its MO to make contact with the resident. At this time, the MO was able to share several options which the resident could consider for rehousing.
It was appropriate that the landlord explained its allocations process and the rights that the local authority had with regards to its properties. This enabled it to manage the resident’s expectation and to highlight that if the resident wished to stay within the borough, he would need to continue to bid via the local authority’s CBL scheme. This also enabled the landlord to make clear that where these properties were concerned, it was only able to assist the resident in making applications and in evidencing his priority.
As the landlord’s own CBL scheme had been suspended, it was appropriate that it explained this to the resident. It was also reasonable that upon learning that the resident was willing to move outside of the borough, the landlord shared details of other housing options that the resident could explore.
This Service notes the resident’s disappointment that he had not been considered for a direct offer of housing via the landlord’s internal rehousing service. Given the resident’s circumstance, and as the landlord had advised that this could be an option, the Ombudsman appreciates that this would have been disappointing. Upon review of the circumstances, however, the landlord’s approach was not unreasonable.
As the landlord’s Transfer Policy explains, its direct management offers were dealt with by its Lettings Panel. Through this, cases would be considered and where an immediate rehousing need was identified, based on independently verifiable information, a decision would be made.
The landlord’s policy explains that this was reserved for cases where any undue delay to rehousing was untenable. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord proposed (on 23 December 2020) to present the resident’s case to its Lettings panel, if sufficient evidence of ASB was found. The landlord’s Transfers Policy sets out that residents will be considered for a direct offer where:
1. There is a life and limb emergency – as verified by a qualified professional (e.g. police, Social Services); and/or
2. Any other management reason, for example high vulnerability, domestic abuse, gang-related violence and welfare reform – downsizing to prevent immediate risk of homelessness.
It was therefore reasonable that the landlord agreed to raise the resident’s case with its panel if, through its ASB investigation, it was able to demonstrate a risk to the resident’s safety.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that as the landlord was unable to accrue sufficient evidence, and little proof was provided by the police to suggest a significant risk by remaining in the property, the resident’s case was not presented to its panel. This was not unfair. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord explained this to the resident on 11 February 2021 and assured him that as the ASB was still being investigated, if the situation changed, his case would be brought to the panel at a later time. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident that if there was a medical condition in the household, this could also be taken into consideration.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it might have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out the criteria that the resident needed to meet, in order for his case to be considered by its panel. This would have clarified why the landlord’s decision to present his case to the panel rested on the ASB investigation and why, despite him being overcrowded and experiencing damp and mould, he had not qualified for rehousing. This was unclear for the resident and resulted in further communication from him on 21 February 2021 in which he re-emphasized his living situation.
The Ombudsman appreciates that in the landlord’s response on 1 April 2021 it did reiterate that direct offers were only made to those in the most urgent need. The landlord also explained, both here and in later correspondence, that overcrowding was not a matter which it usually considered for direct offers. Still, however, this provided no clarity on what an urgent circumstance might look like. The resident subsequently remained disappointed and unclear on the landlord’s approach, following its outcome letter in May 2021.
In requesting to escalate his complaint, the resident expressed that contrary to the landlord’s suggestion, it had not presented his case to its panel. The Ombudsman is satisfied, however, that the landlord did clearly explain that its proposal to do so was based on the condition that enough evidence was accrued to put together a case (via a report), but this was not found. The landlord’s decision not to do so was therefore reasonable.
While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, it is accepted that in order to ensure that the landlord allocates its stock fairly, its process needs to be followed and it appears that the landlord did this. The Ombudsman has therefore found no service failure in respect of its handling of this matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at his property.

Within the resident’s correspondence to the landlord on 19 November 2020, the Ombudsman can see that he reported that his property was damp, causing his baby of three months to experience health issues. While this Service is unable to confirm whether this was or was not the case, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have noted this, and to have raised the matter for inspection (and subsequent repair where appropriate) within a reasonable period of time.
The Ombudsman can see that although delayed, on 23 December 2020 the landlord noted that it had discussed the damp and mould with the resident and that it had been reported to its repair team. It explained that this would be addressed when its normal repairs were resumed.
It is unclear when the landlord resumed its business-as-usual repairs. It is recognised, nonetheless, that despite the country’s second lockdown which ended on 2 December 2020, government guidance advised that landlords could continue with general repairs in line with public health guidance. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged this inspection / works soon after the new year.
On review of the evidence, however, it is clear that this was not done. Despite the resident’s reminder on 21 February 2021, and the landlord’s acknowledgement in April 2021, it does not appear that the works were completed until July 2021. This was inappropriate. While the resident had highlighted the impact that he believed this was having on his family and living situation, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord recognised this or that it noted its failure to act in accordance with its policy. This was inappropriate. Moreover, the Ombudsman cannot see that during the time that the works were outstanding, that the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectation. The Ombudsman has subsequently concluded that there was maladministration here.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action” by the landlord or those acting on behalf of its service. It explains that it will accept complaints from others acting on behalf of its residents and will respond to a resident’s initial complaint within 10 working days.
In light of this, it is unclear why the landlord had not treated the resident’s correspondence (via his MP) on 2 August 2020 and again later (via the local mayor) on 7 September 2020 as complaints.
Despite the resident’s clear expressions of dissatisfaction that the landlord had done little to support his request to be rehoused, the Ombudsman cannot see that these complaints were considered under stage one of the landlord’s process. This was contrary to its policy.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did offer a response on both occasions, and that these were acceptable. Still, however, these were not formal complaint responses. The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it was dealing with the resident’s complaint under his process resulted in a further complaint being made on 27 October 2020 (which it responded to informally on 17 November 2020), and in the resident seeking the support of this Service in order to have his complaint properly addressed.
While this Service advised the landlord on 18 November 2020 to offer a formal response by 2 December 2020, the landlord still failed to do so and was subsequently prompted again on 10 December 2020 to offer a response. This was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord made contact with the resident on 23 December 2020 via telephone, and confirmed its response in writing. Contrary to good complaint handling practice, however, it provided no indication that this was a formal stage one response, and no details on the steps the resident could take if he remained dissatisfied. The Ombudsman can see that this was not advised until the landlord’s correspondence on 8 January 2021.
Moreover, it was reasonable that despite several months passing, the landlord agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its process. Upon confirming this on 1 June 2021, however, a response should have been provided within 20 working days, yet the landlord again failed to uphold this timescale.
Although this Service prompted the landlord, and the resident further chased a response on 9 August 2021, the landlord failed to provide its final response until 11 August 2021, more than two months after confirming the resident’s escalation request. This was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Through its failure to properly employ its complaints policy, the resident was delayed in establishing the landlord’s final position, and in being able to escalate his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at his property.
4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB were appropriate. In line with its policy, the landlord encouraged the resident to report criminal behaviour to the police and the Ombudsman can see that it liaised with the police to inform its response. It was reasonable that the landlord sought to accrue evidence by encouraging the resident to complete diary sheets and via the noise recording app, and that it explained the importance of providing evidence. It was also appropriate that the landlord took it upon itself to undertake visits to the resident’s estate, to witness the ASB. As there was limited proof, and with the exception of its oversight in putting together an action plan, the Ombudsman cannot see that there was more that the landlord should have done.
2. Although the resident would have benefitted from a move, the landlord’s response was not unfair. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident’s request for a direct offer would not have been accepted as the resident did not fulfil the landlord’s criteria and limited evidence was found to suggest that his living situation was extremely unsafe. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this was explained to the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with the housing options available to him, nonetheless.
3. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord unreasonably delayed in taking steps to address the damp and mould at the resident’s property. It was inappropriate that over seven months had passed, before this was completed. Given the resident’s living conditions, and his assertion that this was impacting his young child, the landlord should have acted sooner. It is unclear why it did not.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unacceptable. As well as failing to acknowledge the resident’s complaint under its process at the earliest opportunity, the landlord also failed to provide its complaint responses in good time, despite the involvement of this Service. This was poor and the Ombudsman cannot see that there was any acknowledgement of the landlord’s omissions within its final response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s delay in addressing the damp and mould at the resident’s property, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £150.
In recognition of the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £200.
The above amounts should be paid to the resident within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

Where sufficient evidence is found to suggest that the resident’s living situation is unsafe, the landlord should, as it said it would, present this to its Lettings Panel so that it can consider the resident for rehousing.
Where a repair request is made, the landlord should take proactive action to assess the situation and to establish whether repair is required. This should be done within a reasonable time. The Ombudsman appreciates that what is reasonable will depend on the type of repair required and the circumstances of the case.
The landlord should ensure that complaints are managed in line with its complaints policy and that the timeframes set out within its policy are adhered to. The landlord may want to revisit the Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code, to remind itself of what this Service expects.