London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202206262)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206262

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

26 April 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. The handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord which began on 28 July 2014. The property is a second floor two bedroom flat.
The resident is recorded as having mental health issues. She is noted as requiring language support (help with reading and writing).
The tenancy agreement states that the agreement can only be changed if:
1. both parties have agreed in writing to make the change, and/or
2. the law has changed and it allows the landlord to change the agreement.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy explains that should a resident contact it for advice on moving, it will assess their circumstances and present them with a range of options appropriate to their needs. It explains that these options may include:
1. mutual exchange
2. application to the local authority’s housing register
3. direct offer (via the rehousing list).
In situations where the landlord needs to directly rehouse its existing residents, its allocations policy says the landlord will match a resident through its rehousing list. The criteria the resident must meet includes:
1. the resident is at risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang-related violence, or any other type of ASB
2. either the resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home
3. exceptional circumstances, approved by senior management.
The policy confirms that to be added to the rehousing list a resident’s case will be presented to a rehousing panel consisting of senior managers and will require independently verifiable information before reaching a decision. It further adds that it will consider vulnerabilities such as known disabilities or medical conditions when making an offer of accommodation.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as:
1. noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted
2. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to a specific resident or property of the landlord
3. conduct that has a damaging impact on landlord properties or communal areas
4. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to the local community.
In addition, it says:
1. when considering whether a case is ASB, it will take into account vulnerabilities or any other issues facing a resident, and how that may impact its ability to resolve issues without support. Where issues are not ASB or are housing management related, it may refer residents to other agencies who could offer them support where required
2. it will keep under review the information about cases, including vulnerabilities and circumstances relating to all parties, and adjust its approach to managing the case as necessary
3. it will take a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour, working with any agency that could contribute to the prevention or resolution of ASB.
The landlord has a vulnerable residents policy, which urges staff to consider whether a resident has a condition that may place them at greater risk in their home. It encourages staff to consider that they “think, respond and record” how they feel that the residents condition may affect them, how they should respond and how they should record this information so that all colleagues are aware.
The landlord operates a two stage complaint policy which states:
1. at stage one, residents will receive an acknowledgement within five working days, and a full response will follow within ten working days
2. if the resident is unhappy with the response, they can request to escalate to the next stage. The complaint will be reviewed by another member of staff and a final written decision will be sent within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, then the landlord will explain why and write again within a further ten working days. Any delays will be agreed with the resident
3. after confirming its decision in writing, it will monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete.

Summary of events

On 2 March 2021 the resident contacted her landlord to complain. She said that:
1. her tenancy had been changed from assured shorthold to assured
2. she was under the impression that her accommodation was temporary, and now her only option for a move was via a mutual exchange.
On 5 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it had received her complaint and it wanted to discuss it in more detail. It asked for the resident to make contact.
On 10 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that as she had made a separate subject access request it would be closing her complaint, but would open a new one when it heard further from the resident.
On 25 July 2021 an advocate from the resident’s local advice centre wrote to the landlord and advised that:
1. the resident had severe health issues and mental health problems
2. she was given an assured shorthold tenancy in 2014 and understood the property was classed as “semi-independent supported living”
3. she had received assistance through a support worker who helped her to fill out “various forms” with the assurance that she would be moved to more permanent accommodation
4. the resident registered with the local authority and approached them for help to move, but was refused this on two occasions as they deemed her to be adequately housed
5. on 16 February 2021 a member of the landlord’s staff told the resident that “she would be moving soon” and provided his contact details but it had been difficult to communicate with him. He would rarely answer the phone and if he did, he would say he would call back but the resident would hear nothing further
6. the accommodation she was living in was unsuitable. She had been harassed by her neighbours and in 2015 she was threatened with a gun. This left her “frightened for her life”. The harassment had continued and the resident had suffered racial abuse from her neighbour
7. the property had inadequate sound-proofing, to the extent her neighbour had complained that they could hear her having sex, and this had affected the resident’s relationships
8. the relationship with the resident and her son had been affected, where she has had to tell him to be quiet walking around the property
9. her assured shorthold tenancy was “forcefully changed” to an assured tenancy. When this was questioned by the resident’s mother, she was “dismissed”
10. the resident’s support stopped when the landlord took over management of the property, and this was never explained. The landlord had failed in its duty to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or give adequate reasons for its decisions
11. it found the decision of the landlord to keep the resident in the property was “harsh, ignorant, dangerous, unacceptable and negligent without merit”. A move needed to be considered for the resident, or it would apply to the courts and make a claim for damages.
On 23 September 2021 the resident contacted her landlord. She advised that:
1. she had been given an assured shorthold tenancy in 2014 which was changed to an assured tenancy in February 2021, without her agreement
2. the property was for people with support needs. When her support ended, she had not been given any “follow up”, and was told to register with the council for a move. The council told her she was adequately housed
3. her initial complaint had been responded to by the person who had changed the tenancy, and whom she wanted to complain about
4. she wanted the matter dealt with “formally” and asked to be rehoused.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint.
On 13 October 2021, the resident’s mother asked the landlord what the timescale was for a response. She emailed the landlord again two days later asking for contact.
On 22 October 2021 the resident’s mother emailed the landlord and said that her daughter had mental health issues and had not been supported since the landlord had taken over management of the property. The landlord responded the same day asking when she would be free to discuss further. No record was seen of this conversation.
On 27 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to provide a “progress update” with regards to her complaint. It advised that:
1. it had spoken to the previous support worker, who worked with the resident when she was living in a women’s foyer, immediately prior to moving into the property. He confirmed that the move to her current property was deemed temporary and the council were responsible for future moves. However the agreements at the time were verbal and there was nothing in writing about this
2. the support worker confirmed that he recalled the incident involving a gun. He had advised it was reported to the police at the time, however the other party denied that any gun was involved and no further action was taken
3. the resident should contact the police if she felt threatened by her neighbours
4. a request had been made to review a phone call the resident had made on 16 February 2021
5. it was including a medical assessment form for the resident to complete and return so that a possible move could be discussed with the lettings team
6. it would update her again the following week, after a period of annual leave.
On 21 November 2021 the resident’s occupational therapist wrote a letter to support her application for a move. It said that:
1. the resident had expressed that her housing was having a “highly negative impact” on her mental health
2. her neighbour who lived below had made a series of noise complaints about the resident which had left her unable to live comfortably in her home. It was having an impact on her son, and she was unable to sleep for fear of making too much noise
3. her neighbour had made comment on her actions, which the resident had found intrusive and as a result she feel unsafe being out in the community
4. continuing to live in suitable housing was likely to perpetuate her current difficulties.
On 30 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. She advised that:
1. she was sorry for a “melt down” she had when she last spoke to the landlord on the phone. She was finding the situation overwhelming and needed help
2. she thought her support worker had been helping her with registering for the council bidding system, but later found out it had not been done
3. she thought that she was living in “independent living” accommodation. She was never updated that there was no longer any support, and had only received a letter that the landlord had taken over management of the property
4. a member of the landlord’s staff had been in contact with her regularly in the past, and had always said that her property was temporary accommodation. On 16 February 2021 he told her it was no longer temporary, and she didn’t hear from him again
5. any issues she had with her neighbour, she had reported to the same member of staff, so she could not understand why there were no records of the ASB she experienced. The historic incident involving a gun was serious and therefore she could not understand why the landlord was not aware of it
6. she couldn’t understand why the landlord had no record that her property was supported housing. She felt she had been “forced to live in the property forever”, which she had never agreed to
7. the property she was in was not suitable for two bedroom flats and the lack of sound proofing had led to several arguments with her neighbour over the years. Her neighbour had complained about her phone vibrating, her son running in the property and had told her she could hear her having sex. As a result she felt like she was “living on eggshells”, embarrassed and unable to sleep in her own room
8. her neighbour’s boyfriend had been racially abusive towards her, calling her a racial slur when he thought that she had locked him out
9. she needed to be moved immediately. She had requested an occupational therapist’s supporting letter and 14 years of medical history from her doctor to support a move.
On 15 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. She said she had tried to contact members of staff and their managers, but was not getting a response from anyone. She reiterated that if the landlord could listen to its call of 16 February 2021 then it would demonstrate that the landlord had admitted her current housing was temporary.
On 2 February 2022 the resident’s mother emailed the landlord. She said that:
1. she had stayed in the property herself whilst the resident was away and believed an inspection needed to take place. The property was not sound proof and there were no floor coverings. In the kitchen you could see through to the flat below
2. her grandson had been walking around the property and the neighbours downstairs were banging on the ceiling
3. she wanted an explanation of why the resident was still paying a support charge within her rent, and asked what had happened to the agreement that it was temporary accommodation
4. she wanted the complaint escalating as she felt it was not being investigated “properly”.
On 2 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaint process. It said:
1. it was unable to review the telephone recording the resident had referred to, as the request was submitted out of time. Recorded calls were only kept for a period of three months
2. the resident’s medical information had been passed to the lettings team
3. it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and not found evidence that would further support an application to be moved. However as she had an assured tenancy, she could apply for a mutual exchange
4. if the resident wanted ASB investigated, she would have to provide details and supporting evidence of the relevant incidents
5. if the resident did not agree with the decision, then her complaint could be escalated to the next stage of its process.
On 8 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that:
1. it acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with its stage one complaint response and would escalate it to the next stage of its process. A member of staff would be in touch about the “next steps”
2. it had forwarded her concerns about being able to see the property below through the kitchen floor to the maintenance team, and they would be in touch to schedule an inspection
3. it had raised a query to the service charge team about the support element, and they would be in touch directly about this.
On 16 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said she had not heard anything further with regards to escalating her complaint to stage two. She said that:
1. many of her questions remained unanswered. Specifically she wanted to know:
  1. how long the medical process for a move would take
  2. whether an ASB case was opened on her behalf
  3. where historic notes about her housing situation had gone
  4. when she would be contacted at stage two of the complaint process
  5. how long the complaint process takes
  6. when would a surveyor be inspecting her property
2. she wanted a copy of her housing file as soon as possible
3. she felt her mental health was not being taken seriously, she was “more than depressed” and she couldn’t “keep living like this”. She had spoken to the doctor about the impact her housing situation was having, and they had re-sent the landlord a letter about this.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident. It advised her that:
1. a request had been put to the lettings team to make contact with her
2. an ASB case had not been opened. It would require details of the incident the resident would want investigating in order to be able to do this
3. it was sorry it could not locate historic notes about the resident’s tenancy on the system
4. it had asked that the customer relations team make contact with the resident about her complaint. It advised there was a delay in responding to residents at stage two of its complaint process
5. a request had been sent to the surveyor to inspect the property
6. a request had been made to retrieve a copy of the resident’s housing file
7. it was sorry she felt that her mental health was not being taken seriously. It wanted the resident to be “happy” in her home, and so wanted her permission to contact the local authority to make a referral for further support
8. there was a free and confidential online mental health support community that the resident could access and provided her details
9. it had forwarded a copy of her doctors letter to the lettings team.
The landlord also made enquiries with its own tenancy sustainment team as to whether they thought that the resident would benefit from their services, in order to provide her further support.
On 22 February 2022 the resident replied to the landlord. She advised that:
1. she felt overwhelmed and was finding everything difficult to process
2. she couldn’t take on any more stress and so wanted her reports of ASB noted on her file, but did not want to be involved in any investigations as she felt she had already provided evidence, including a “screen shot” of a conversation with her neighbour
3. her main issue was she had no privacy in the property and this was affecting her mental health, she was unable to sleep or live “freely”, and was constantly telling her son off for how he walks in the house
4. everything over the years had built up and she felt drained. She had reviewed the online mental health forum the landlord had recommended, but felt this was not of benefit to her
5. she had birds and squirrels living in her loft, which had not been resolved despite three visits by the pest control team. She asked that the landlord attend to fix a hole in the roof where they were getting in as soon as possible.
On 24 February 2022 the resident’s doctor made a referral to a psychiatrist for a formal psychiatric diagnosis. Within the letter it said:
1. the resident had been experiencing mental health issues since childhood and her symptoms relate to the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder
2. her basic needs for a sense of safety could not be met whilst she lived in her current accommodation.
On 3 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that:
1. it was acknowledging her request for an escalation of her complaint
2. it had a new approach to complaints handling which meant it needed to carry out a thorough investigation in order to meet the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code
3. the new approach was taking longer than it expected, but it was learning from this
4. an officer would be in touch “as soon as the complaint was allocated” and it was sorry for the delay.
On 17 March 2022, the landlord responded to the resident and advised that:
1. a repair had been booked for the roof
2. the ASB complaint could not be progressed as the incidents the resident was reporting were historic and there was no supporting evidence
3. stage two of her complaint had been assigned to a colleague and they would be in contact to discuss the matter further.
On 4 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident at stage two of its complaint process. It said that:
1. it was sorry that the resident was not satisfied with the response at stage one
2. it had discussed the resident’s case in depth with members of staff who were in post when the resident moved into the property. They confirmed the properties on the road the resident lived were classed as “move on accommodation” for a mother and baby unit which was closing at the time
3. the women who moved into the properties were given assured shorthold tenancies and were then “meant to” apply for permanent housing. The properties were classed as supported accommodation at the time, but transferred to general needs in 2019
4. the property meets the resident’s current need and therefore it will not be re-housing her as she was not deemed as being overcrowded or at risk. Further, it had closed its housing list and was not accepting any requests for a direct let
5. medical moves were “on hold” but as the resident sent in her request for a move prior to closing the rehousing list, it would still consider a move on medical grounds. It would review this and contact the resident further with an outcome
6. the resident’s service charge did not include a payment for support
7. if the resident considered that the property was unsuitable, she could approach the local authority or register for a mutual exchange
8. it would offer the resident £150 in compensation to reflect £25 for each of the six months the resident had been waiting for a response to her stage two complaint.
On 11 April 2022 following a call from the resident, the landlord made a safeguarding adult referral. It advised that:
1. the resident had returned home from a party at 5am with a friend on 9 April 2022
2. someone knocked at her door, but no one was there so the resident knocked on a neighbouring property to ask “what is the problem?”
3. the resident admits that she was drunk and angry, but she and her friend were trying to find out what the problem was
4. the neighbour’s boyfriend appeared and things “got out of control, and hands were thrown”. The police were called and they had to break everyone up, and they all returned to their respective properties
5. the resident felt suicidal as a result of the altercation, and was living in the property in fear with her son.
Records demonstrate that a manager conducted a review of the case the same day and advised the landlord’s officer to contact the resident to complete a risk assessment and agree frequency of contact with an action plan. The officer tried to contact the resident without success, but a risk assessment was completed. A request for police disclosure on the incident was sent.
On 20 April 2022, the police provided the landlord with response about the incident that took place on 9 April 2022. It advised:
1. the resident came home drunk with friends, and the call made to police was by a neighbour to complain about the noise
2. the resident and her friend were banging on the door of the neighbour, and when the neighbour answered, one of them pulled her hair and threatened to get a knife from upstairs. The neighbour said it was the resident’s friend who attacked her
3. the police officers who attended felt their presence was escalating the situation, so they left the resident with her friends to calm her down
4. it was not clear who started the incident and no further action was taken.
On 28 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident again, stating its response was at stage two of its complaint process. The response provided the same verbatim information it had given on 4 April 2022, except its offer of compensation was £175 as seven months had passed since her request for an escalation.
On 5 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord for an update with regards to her ASB case and asked about possible sound proofing in her property. The landlord called back the same day and noted that the resident was angry and called her neighbour a “fucking bitch”. The resident admitted she was drunk during the incident she had reported in April, but her neighbour’s boyfriend had tried to attack her friend that night. She said that no further incidents had taken place.
On 10 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said that her son’s bike tyres were flat and she believed that her neighbour had done it. The landlord noted that the bike had been left in a communal area and there was no evidence of vandalism.
The same day, the landlord wrote to the resident with an action plan. It said that:
1. it would make contact with her neighbour once two weeks of noise had been recorded. The resident could keep a record via diary sheets or the noise recording app
2. if she felt threatened, she should contact the police on 999
3. her neighbourhood policing team could provide her with further support if she contacted 101
4. noise incidents could also be reported to the local council. They could carry out visits and “take necessary enforcement action”
5. it was including details of housing options for the resident to explore within its response.
The resident called the landlord again later that afternoon to advise that the police had said her that they would not be taking any further action against her neighbour as there was no supporting evidence. They had informed the resident that her dispute with her neighbour was for the landlord to “sort out”.
The landlord contacted the resident and said all harassment claims should go to the police. It told the resident that her son’s bike should be moved indoors.
On 13 May 2022, the officer dealing with the case asked if it could be closed. A manager agreed that the case could be closed with a letter.
On 19 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said that she did not want the ASB case closed. She advised that:
1. she had been called a racial slur by her neighbour’s partner and she felt unable to stay in her bedroom due to the ongoing harassment, where her neighbours were banging on her ceilings
2. most weekends she was staying away from the home to get some “respite”
3. the situation was affecting her mental health, and her home situation was making her feel suicidal.
The same day, the landlord noted that it would reclassify the residents case as a hate crime due to the word her neighbour used. It marked that “safeguarding is considered completed” and attached a copy of the email it sent to the resident on 21 February 2022 to the case.
On 26 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She advised that:
1. she was still waiting on an update with regards to her application for a move on medical grounds. It had been a week since the last contact
2. she wanted to make an “official complaint” with regards to a member of staff. She said that she had “reported her to safeguarding as a threat” because it had been two weeks and no one had contacted her
3. she remained scared of her neighbour, who she felt was trying to be antagonistic towards her
4. she felt as if no one was taking her mental health seriously. She had a diagnosis of a personality disorder and one of the symptoms was self-harm and thoughts of suicide. She said she was “screaming for help at this point”
5. she felt distraught and upset, unable to sleep or eat in the previous two weeks.
On 30 May 2022 the landlord’s neighbourhood housing manager contacted the resident after she had reported there had been another ASB incident. He noted that he had tried to call her but the line was engaged. He asked the resident make contact when she was next available. An in person appointment was arranged for 6 June 2022. There was no record of the visit.
On 31 May 2022 the landlord’s building surveyor emailed the resident and advised that the “best person” to resolve her noise complaint was the property services manager.
On 15 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she had still not received the cheque for compensation it had offered her at stage two. The landlord responded and advised it would be sent to her “as a matter of urgency”.
On 19 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said she had “various issues” but nothing was being done about them. She mentioned that her neighbourhood housing manager came to visit her, but she had heard nothing since. The call handler noted that the resident “burst out crying” whilst on the phone.
On 5 September 2022, the resident was moved to a decant property as part of some disrepair works that required completing.
On 6 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and said that as the resident was not currently living at the property, it had closed her ASB case as she no longer had direct contact with her neighbour.
On 27 September 2022, the resident’s doctor wrote a letter to advise that the temporary decant she had been placed in had contributed to some improvement in her mental health. They advised that should the resident be re-housed in her previous flat, it will contribute towards more distress and ongoing deterioration of her mental health.
On 28 November 2022 a report was completed by an independent specialist medical advisor. It stated that:
1. it had noted the request for a review of the resident’s request for a move, together with a commissioned psychiatric report dated 27 September 2022
2. the report confirmed “severe and enduring” mental illness, but a recent temporary decant had contributed towards her improved mental health
3. it was agreed that the resident should not return to her previous property and a “direct let” to another property was recommended.
On 31 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that:
1. it had closed its internal transfer list
2. her case had been assessed in line with their new criteria for rehousing and as a result she had not been approved for a direct offer
3. it recognised that she had a medical need, but it did not meet the threshold for a move. Those who were unable to access their homes safely were being prioritised.
4. if she wished to appeal the decision she would need to provide further supporting evidence.
The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the resident remains temporarily decanted to another property whilst works to the roof and windows take place. It advised the intention is that the resident moves back once the works have been completed and an environmental clean has taken place.

Assessment and findings

The handling of a request to be rehoused

The landlord’s tenancy agreement does not have a variation clause that allows the landlord to change it without giving the resident any notice. The tenancy agreement says that any changes to the tenancy must be made in writing, and acknowledged by both the resident and the landlord. No evidence was seen of any correspondence which gave the resident notice that her tenancy would be changed to an assured tenancy, therefore the status of the tenancy is unclear. In any event, the resident is not considered disadvantaged by having an assured tenancy.
Evidence points towards failures in the landlord’s record keeping and this impacted its communication with the resident. The resident had been under the impression her accommodation was in some way “semi-independent” supported housing and temporary. The landlord acknowledged that this was the case prior to it taking over the management of the property, and confirmed this through conversations it had with long-standing members of staff. No evidence was seen of how it had communicated that it had converted it to general needs accommodation in 2019.
The landlord’s decision to change the purpose of the property was fundamental to its effective housing management, and by not communicating clearly with the resident it caused her significant distress and confusion as to what the status was of her support and her tenancy. It is of concern that the landlord had to rely on conversations with long-standing members of staff to confirm this, and was unable to refer to any of its own documentation.
The resident was described by healthcare professionals as having complex mental health needs that are “severe and enduring”. Her medical notes say that she had attempted suicide on several occasions in the past. She had also expressed suicidal thoughts to the landlord. In her request to be rehoused, she submitted compounding evidence from her occupational therapist, doctor and psychiatrist who supported a move on the grounds that her mental health had been adversely affected by where she was living. On this basis, the landlord was obliged to consider her request for rehousing, in accordance with its allocations policy.
Records show that the landlord informed the resident on several occasions that it deemed her to be “adequately housed”, and advised her to pursue a mutual exchange. No evidence was seen of a response to the letters dated 21 November 2021, 24 February 2022 and 27 September 2022 from medical professionals on the matter. Further, the landlord did not follow up on the assurances it made in its stage two response dated 4 April 2022 that it would review her medical situation and provide her with an outcome on its decision for a move, until 31 March 2023. The delay and lack of a formal decision on the matter was unreasonable and contributed to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
An independent medical advisor from the landlord made it clear that a “direct let” was recommended in the report dated 20 November 2022. The landlord advised this Service that a panel hearing took place in early 2023 to discuss her eligibility for a move, and declined the request on the basis that the repair works she is currently decanted for would improve the property for the resident. The landlord was unable to provide minutes of the hearing, and without these, it has been unable to demonstrate what medical evidence it reviewed when reaching its decision.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused. It’s historic lack of contemporaneous notes hindered its ability to clarify its position as to what type of accommodation she was living in and what move options were available to her. It advised her that her tenancy had changed to assured, without following the process stipulated within its tenancy agreement. Further it is not clear that the landlord appropriately considered the medical evidence it was presented with when considering whether it could rehouse her. The Ombudsman has made orders in relation to the landlord’s stance on whether the resident should be considered for a direct let as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports

The landlord was fair in its response that it could not investigate historic incidents that had happened some years in the past. However it is of serious concern that the landlord has no written records of an incident involving a gun in 2015, and had to rely on the verbal accounts of staff who worked with the landlord at the time. It is important that when dealing with complaints of ASB, that landlords keep contemporaneous notes of what was reported, what advice was given, what support was offered and what actions were taken.
The resident said her neighbour had complained about the noises she had made moving around the house, and what could be considered general living noise. The landlord was not obliged to investigate the noise as ASB as its policy states it does not consider “noise caused by people going about their daily lives”. Nevertheless, it could have explored alternative approaches to tackling the issue, including mediation and appropriately sound-proofing the property by considering appropriate flooring. These options were not offered and therefore the relationship between the residents remained fraught.
The landlord’s policy on ASB says that it will take into consideration vulnerabilities, and how they may impact a resident’s ability to resolve issues without support. The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy also adopts a “think, respond, record” approach which is crucial in managing the resident’s experience of the ASB. A risk assessment matrix (RAM) can be completed with a resident to measure the harm caused and can assist in guiding staff on the actions it can take to support residents and protect them from further harm.
The landlord’s records show that it completed a RAM and scored the resident following an incident on 9 April 2022, however it did so without speaking to her, as its records show it was unable to contact her the same day by telephone. This is concerning as without speaking to the resident, the landlord will have presumed the answers to the matrix and judged the risk level based solely on call notes from the contact centre. This was not appropriate, and should have been revisited at the earliest opportunity when it next spoke to the resident.
Nevertheless, it is recognised that despite not being able to speak to the resident the same day, it appropriately made a safeguarding referral, as she had said she was “suicidal and living in fear”. It also referred to the police for disclosure on the incident, so that it could review the evidence. This demonstrated proactive multi-agency working as is the expectation within its ASB policy.
There were failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident. Its ASB policy states it will keep in regular contact with the complainant and agree an action plan that will show “decisive actions and a prompt timeline for delivery”. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it made one attempt to call the resident back about her ASB case, and this was unsuccessful. It was unreasonable that the landlord made no other attempts to contact with the resident by phone, letter or in person. The landlord knew the resident was vulnerable as it had completed a safeguarding referral, but its lack of direct contact with her was insufficient and she had to chase it for a response.
Landlords are actively encouraged to review the support it offers throughout its investigations into ASB, and this ethos is supported by the landlord’s vulnerable residents policy. However when the resident advised that there was a further incident she wished to report, the landlord made no contact by phone to obtain further detail and did not consider revisiting the RAM to ensure the resident was adequately supported.
Whilst the action plan it sent the resident contained appropriate information about when to contact the police, it did not manage the expectations of the resident by suggesting that she could contact the local authority to “take enforcement action” for noise. The resident had not made an allegation of noise nuisance against her neighbour, and by advising this, the landlord demonstrated that it had not understood her complaint fully. Where the landlord wrote to the resident without discussing the matter further with her, it missed an opportunity to obtain necessary detail and better understand her concerns.
The landlord closed the ASB case without discussing it with the resident, and before clarifying if the situation had improved or had escalated. After the landlord sent the case closure letter, the resident said she had experienced racial abuse from her neighbour. The landlord appropriately logged the case as “high priority” but noted that “safeguarding is considered completed” and attached a copy of the email it sent to the resident on 21 February 2022 to the case. This was not appropriate.
The alleged incident had taken place a month after the landlord’s last safeguarding referral and RAM had been completed. It did not revisit these or demonstrate whether it had considered if there had been an escalation in risk. The landlord’s decision to attach a historic email in which it referred to support offered three months prior lacked empathy and did not demonstrate it understood whether the support it could offer her was different.
Records demonstrate that the landlord did not contact the resident to discuss her concerns further until 30 May 2022, a week later than could have been expected with a high priority case in accordance with its ASB policy. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it arranged to visit the resident a week later, but no record of this visit was seen. The delay in keeping the resident informed and the lack of contemporaneous notes was not appropriate and did not demonstrate that the landlord was taking her ASB concerns seriously. Further, no evidence was seen that the landlord made contact with the resident’s neighbour to discuss the allegation or warn her that the alleged behaviour of her partner could affect her tenancy. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its ASB policy.
The resident had to chase the landlord again for an update to her ASB case and the call handler noted that she “burst out crying” whilst on the phone. No record was seen that the landlord responded to the resident’s distress and its letter dated 6 September 2022 closing her case lacked empathy and recognition for its failures in communicating effectively with the resident.
Overall there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident and fell short of the expectations within its ASB policy where it did not keep its RAM up to date or agree and regularly review its action plan with the resident. It failed to respond appropriately to reports of a hate crime in accordance with its policy for high priority incidents.

Complaint handling

The resident initially made a complaint on 2 March 2021. Although the landlord acknowledged the complaint, it closed it a week later because the resident had made a subject access request. This was unreasonable, as there are no stipulations within the landlord’s complaint policy which state that it cannot investigate complaints where a subject access request has been made.
It was clear from the letter sent by an advocate at the resident’s local advice centre in July 2021 that concerns had been raised about her housing situation, and that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions. No response or acknowledgement to this correspondence was seen. It was not until the resident expressly said that she wanted to raise the matter “formally” three months later, did the landlord treat her concerns as a complaint.
This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint is an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made about the standards of service, actions or lack of action” by the landlord. The allegations the advocate had made that the landlord was “harsh, ignorant, dangerous, unacceptable and negligent without merit” was an obvious expression of dissatisfaction. However no evidence was seen that demonstrated that the landlord acknowledged these concerns.
Despite acknowledging the resident’s complaint “formally” on 30 September 2021, the landlord did not respond at stage one of its process until 2 February 2022. This was a considerable delay of 87 working days, which demonstrated no accountability for resolving the resident’s concerns in a timely manner in accordance with its complaint policy. Further, the resident had to chase the landlord for a response on approximately seven occasions, causing her inconvenience, time and trouble.
The landlord’s response at stage one was 92 working days after the resident had made her complaint and fell significantly short of the timescales set out within the landlord’s complaint policy. The delay was unreasonable yet the landlord made no apology for this, demonstrating a failure to acknowledge its own shortcomings in addressing the matter promptly.
The resident experienced further delays when she tried to escalate her complaint to stage two of its process. The landlord acknowledged the request for an escalation on 8 February 2022, but offered no reassurance as to when the resident could receive a response. It did say that it had passed some of her concerns to the maintenance and service charge team, but in doing so it took no ownership of the outstanding elements of the resident’s complaint. She had to chase the landlord further for a response.
It is concerning that the landlord advised the resident on 3 March 2022 that the delays she was experiencing in relation to her complaint was as a result of “its new approach to complaints handling”, which required it to carry out a “thorough investigation” as a result of guidance from this Service. Conducting thorough investigations should already have been considered part of the landlord’s standard complaint process. This response was inappropriate, showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s concerns and did not set out to address when she could receive a final response.
A stage two response followed 40 working days after the resident’s request for an escalation. The landlord acknowledged its failure in addressing her complaint in accordance with its policy, and offered compensation for this. However this Service saw two copies of the landlord’s response at stage two, dated 4 and 28 April 2022. Both responses were worded verbatim, however the latter response offered a further £25 in compensation in acknowledgement of the delays the resident had experienced. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping where it had not recognised that it had already provided a response three weeks earlier. The compensation did not go far enough in recognising that it had taken over a year for the resident to exhaust the landlord’s complaint process, which was significantly outside of the timescales set out within its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Overall there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord acknowledged failures in its response at stage two and offered compensation for this, it did not address all aspects of her complaint and did not go far enough to put matters right. It made no reference to the resident’s concerns about how her ASB case had been handled and it did not conclude whether the resident was able to move on medical grounds, despite having the medical evidence it required at the time. It took no accountability for what would happen by when and did not follow through to completion the resident’s concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow the terms of the tenancy agreement and make agreed changes to the resident’s tenancy in writing. When the resident expressed that she wanted to move, the landlord said it would consider this. However despite compounding evidence that the resident’s mental health was significantly impacted by her living situation, there were significant delays in it concluding that she did not meet the criteria for a move. It remained of the opinion that she was adequately housed and did not provide rationale as to why it felt this was the case, or explain what further support could be offered to her to stay in her home. Its record keeping was poor and the landlord was reliant on long-standing staff to explain the history of the resident’s tenancy which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s communication in the handling of the residents ASB was inadequate. Its response was slow and it failed to agree an action plan in partnership with the resident, or make any assurances for regular contact. Its assessing of the risk to the resident was inappropriate. It did not complete or review a RAM with the resident following further incidents. The landlord failed to explore mediation as an early opportunity to restore the relationship between the two residents, who had to live in close proximity in a property with inadequate sound proofing. Its record keeping was poor, with no records of visits kept on the system. Further, there is no evidence that it prioritised the resident’s allegation of hate crime in accordance with its policy.
There were significant delays throughout the landlord’s handling of her complaint, and the resident had to chase it on several occasions. Although the landlord offered compensation for the delays in its stage two response, it did not go far enough in learning from outcomes where it had not addressed all the matters relating to the resident’s complaint. Further the landlord issued two identical stage two responses, three weeks apart offering two different amounts of compensation. This demonstrates that the landlord was disorganised its approached and did not keep appropriate record of the resident’s complaints journey.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures noted in this investigation.
2. pay the resident a total of £1025 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation compromises:
  1. £175 it offered as part of its stage two response, if it has not already been paid to the resident
  2. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of a request to be rehoused
  3. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB
  4. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. provide a full explanation to the Ombudsman and the resident of its decision to reject a request for a move via direct let. The response should reference what evidence it has considered at panel and what further support it intends to provide the resident, if its view remains that she is adequately housed.
4. conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve its learning practices. The review must include:
  1. a review of its process for converting assured shorthold tenancies which do not have a variation clause
  2. a review of its training to staff on its ASB policy and procedure, with particular focus on the use of the RAM and action plan
  3. a review of its management oversight on ASB cases, with particular focus on case closure decisions
  4. a review of its complaint policy and any associated staff guidance, with particular focus on ensuring all elements of a complaint are fully investigated in a timely manner.