London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202212749)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212749

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

6 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti–social behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.
3. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the first floor. The resident moved into the property having been a victim of domestic abuse. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident on the landlord’s system, but records show that she suffers from sciatica, depression and anxiety.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says it will:
1. Contact residents with high priority cases within 1 working day, agree an action plan and keep the resident updated with the case
2. Consider vulnerabilities and provide advice and support. It will work with appropriate partner agencies where required and adopt a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB
3. Complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix (RAM) on relevant priority cases to measure the harm caused to victims and to guide staff on actions to take
4. Take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to prevent the problem escalating. It will use the full range of tools and legal powers available. Enforcement action will be based on the nature of the ASB and the tenancy responsibilities of the other party
5. Always contact the resident before closing an ASB case to discuss it with them.
The landlord has an allocations and lettings policy which states that:
1. It will provide practical housing options advice to residents wishing to move. It will only directly rehouse existing residents who are in high priority need for alternative accommodation.
2. To qualify for a direct offer, the landlord will take into account the extent of the risk of harm to the resident to ensure their safety.
3. Vulnerabilities, the household composition and the preferred location will be considered. A direct offer of a property will usually be the same size as the resident’s existing home, despite the need for additional bedrooms.
The landlord operates a 2 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 10 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.
3. If there is likely to be a delay, then the landlord will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. Any new deadlines will be agreed with the resident.

Summary of events

The resident first reported ASB to the landlord on 23 August 2019. She said that her neighbour had visitors who were ringing different doors, smoking and sleeping in the communal areas. The landlord said it would warn the neighbour about her behaviour. It spoke to the neighbour on 28 August 2019, and closed the case 2 months later, stating “no further incidents since [it] had spoken to the neighbour”.
On 3 December 2019 the landlord opened a new ASB case and completed a risk assessment matrix (RAM) for the resident. It noted that the resident “refused to discuss anything and arranged a visit for 6 December 2019”. The RAM noted that issues were happening “only occasionally” but the resident was “moderately affected”.
A visit took place on 6 December 2019. The landlord noted that the resident was not experiencing ASB but was concerned about leaving her car on the main road in case it was identified by her ex-partner. The landlord closed the case the same day.
Around the 21 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and said:
1. Her neighbour had multiple people staying at the property, and they were causing a disturbance, banging the doors and making noise
2. Their visitors were smoking in and around the communal areas and she was concerned about the impact on her daughter. The communal area was in poor condition. It looked like there was faeces on the exit button to the block, and people had been digging up and throwing around plants from the gardens.
On 12 February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord. She said:
1. The previous night her neighbour had over 8 people in the flat. She had heard that there was a young person running around the building with a knife, so she had decided to speak with her neighbour. Her neighbour’s brother answered the door and was “very aggressive”. Behind him was a large group of teenagers
2. As she asked the brother to “calm down”, he spat in her face, stepped towards her and “put his hands” on her. His girlfriend had to intervene and hold him back
3. She did not feel safe and nor did her children. She had suffered from domestic violence in the past and a man trying to intimidate her made her feel vulnerable. She suffered from depression and sciatica and had recently had an operation. Her daughter suffered from alopecia and the incidents had made them feel scared and unsafe
4. “Every week” something happened at the property and the landlord was not doing anything about it.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 19 February 2020 and advised it would contact the police for further information. It would also speak to her ASB caseworker.
On 22 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and said an ASB caseworker had said she would visit, but nothing had been done. She wanted to move from the property as she did not feel safe and was concerned about the impact on her children. Various visitors to her neighbour were “lurking” in the communal area and using drugs.
The landlord opened a new ASB case and completed a RAM the same day and noted that incidents were happening “most days”, the resident felt “extremely affected” and she felt “alone and isolated”.
The resident alleges that “sometime” in June 2020, she saw her ex-partner whilst out in the local area. She stated that he grabbed her and punched her in the mouth and told her “don’t be a snitch”. She had to seek medical attention for her injuries.
On 22 June 2020 the landlord noted it had completed an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) with the neighbour.
On 19 July 2020 the resident reported that:
1. Approximately 1.30am the night before she was woken up by someone shouting outside of the building. She looked outside and saw her neighbour’s partner. He was shouting racial abuse and using her full name, which she had never disclosed.
2. Later that day at around 3.50pm her neighbour’s partner approached the front door and started shouting and “coming up towards her face”. Her friend had to protect her and call the police. Another neighbour witnessed the incident.
3. The issue related to the same neighbour she had been reporting issues with but the landlord had not taken any action. She felt like she was reliving her previous domestic abuse and her depression had been triggered where she felt unsafe in her own home.
The landlord sought police disclosure about the incident on 3 August 2020. The police noted:
1. There had been 4 incidents between January and June 2020 which police attended. They noted that the issue was arguments between neighbours and they took no further action
2. The neighbour’s partner had been arrested on 18 July 2020 following a racially aggravated public order offence. The investigation was live and ongoing, with the perpetrator released on bail.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 September 2020 and informed her that it had written and spoken to her neighbour about allegations of ASB. It was awaiting the outcome of the police investigations. In the meantime, it had agreed the following action plan:
1. The resident to actively use the noise app to record incidents and keep the landlord updated via log sheets
2. The landlord will keep in regular contact. It would contact her again within 2 weeks.
The resident responded the next day and said she was unhappy with its progress and wanted to raise a complaint. The landlord responded and said that it wanted to have a discussion with her about counter allegations. The resident said she was unwilling to discuss “false accusations” and wanted to know what action it would be taking.
On 21 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with the heading “service complaint”. It said that:
1. It was sorry to hear she was unhappy with the way her ASB case had been managed. As a result of her allegations of racial abuse it had taken the following action:
  1. Provided her with move options as she had stated she felt her life was at immediate risk. It had also contacted the local authority about what assistance they could provide in terms of a transfer
  2. A statement was taken by the alleged perpetrator on 22 July 2020. It was also in contact with the police who had made an arrest and released the neighbour’s partner whilst they investigated the matter. In the meantime, her neighbour had been given a “final warning letter” to address issues such as spitting, noise and threatening behaviour.
  3. It had previously served an ABA on the neighbour following previous ASB reports. Depending on the outcome of the police investigations, it would consider taking further action against the neighbour
  4. It had provided her with details of the noise app to make recordings of noise nuisance.
2. It understood that the resident wanted to move as a result of her complaint. It would make a referral to its mobility team to look at rehousing options. If she felt at immediate risk, she could contact the local authority for temporary accommodation.
On 30 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and said she will be installing a camera at her front door due to ongoing racial threats from her neighbour, and concerns as a victim of domestic abuse.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with another correspondence titled “service complaint update”. It said that:
1. It had looked at its housing records and could see that following the resident’s allegations of ASB in February 2020, a visit was undertaken at the neighbour’s address and followed up in writing. The police had also been contacted. However, it could see that the resident had not been updated and her ASB case was closed without notifying her.
2. It had reviewed correspondence between the resident and a member of staff following the opening of the new ASB case in May 2020. It had noted that when the caseworker had tried to discuss counter allegations with her, she had refused. It acknowledged that the resident felt that its request to discuss the allegations was insensitive, given the “challenging circumstances”
3. It acknowledged its service delivery fell short of expectations and was sorry for her experience. It had failed to deliver the appropriate response in line with its ASB policy and it could have been more empathetic
4. It had taken her concerns seriously and steps had been taken to address the matter with both members of staff involved. It had also implemented a change to its case handling process to ensure the same mistakes would not be made again in the future.
5. At her request, it would reallocate her ASB case to another manager. It would prepare a written overview of all actions taken in relation to her ASB case and explain how it intended to move forward. She could expect to receive this within 10 working days.
6. As part of its commitment to resolving the ASB, it would provide monthly “check in calls” until her case was concluded. In the meantime, it would close her complaint.
The police updated the landlord on 15 November 2020 that investigations were still ongoing and a charging decision had not yet been reached.
Police records show that the resident contacted them on 6 December 2020 and said that someone had been attending her address on numerous occasions, buzzing her intercom and stating her name. She informed the police she believed that the perpetrator had links to her ex-partner. As a result, her case was referred to the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). The MARAC lead wrote to the landlord to support a move on 18 December 2020.
On 29 December 2020 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that no progress had been made with her ASB case, and she had only been told “it is being investigated”. Her door had been broken “for a long time” and this had placed her at increased risk. She wanted to move, but could not do so on a like for like basis. Her household had medical conditions and she required a third bedroom.
The landlord wrote to the resident the same day and said that the information she had provided about her household medical conditions had been sent to an independent assessor and she could expect to receive a written response by 9 March 2021. She could expect a response to her complaint within 10 working days.
The landlord sought police disclosure on the 12 January 2021 and asked if they could confirm what the risks were to the resident and her family. The same day, it issued a “complaint response letter”. It said that:
1. It was sorry that she was experiencing ASB. The caseworker needed to investigate the circumstances and complete a risk assessment. They would be in touch to arrange a convenient time to discuss her concerns.
2. Should her case be assessed as high risk, a direct let report would be created and her case would be referred to panel. If accepted it would be one offer of alternative accommodation that would move her away from the risk. Any move would be on a like for like basis unless there was a medical need for additional bedrooms.
3. She had an active transfer application and she was eligible for a 2 bedroom property, but her account had been suspended due to rent arrears. She could apply for another bedroom once her eldest daughter turned 16 years old.
4. An independent medical assessor had said that her situation did not meet the priority status for a third bedroom. If she had further evidence of her daughter’s condition, she could submit it for a further review.
On the 28 January 2021 the resident’s social worker wrote to the landlord. They said that:
1. The resident had alleged her property had been attended on 3 occasions by her ex-partner’s friends. One of the incidents was reported to the police. The police informed social services on 10 December 2020 that they were limited in what safety they could provide the resident as she was not cooperating with them.
2. The police had placed special measures on the property were she to call 999, but she was reluctant to call due to fear of reprisals. The resident had installed CCTV to her front door for fear of her safety.
3. There were concerns for how the resident was managing the safety of her family and was unwilling to move through refuge or temporary accommodation. She had informed social services that she would only consider moving if it was to a 3 bedroom property in a particular area. As a result, the family had been placed on a child protection plan.
4. The resident had said her daughter had complex needs hence the requirement of a 3 bedroom property, but this had not been supported by her GP, who reported “nil concerns” of the health needs of both the children.
On 10 February 2021 the landlord sought advice from a specialist independent medical advisor. They said it had been noted that the resident had a background of anxiety, depression, back pain and asthma. Whilst it was agreed that excessive stair climbing should be avoided, there was little to suggest that the children had to have separate bedrooms purely on physical health grounds. On balance, the threshold for medical priority had not been reached.
On 25 March 2021 the resident raised a complaint about the lack of communication she had received from her ASB caseworker.
On 15 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said:
1. It wanted to update the resident following their discussion on 7 April 2021. It was sorry that she felt the landlord had not responded to her in a timely manner and wanted to reassure her that it had taken on board learnings to improve its service. It had referred her case to its internal “complaint learning group” and where needed, staff would be provided with additional training.
2. It took reports of noise and racial harassment “extremely seriously” and had issued a warning letter to her neighbour. It was pleased to hear that there had been no further incidents since the letter was sent.
3. It recognised that the ASB caseworker had not maintained sufficient contact with the resident. It had asked them to speak with her to agree a method and frequency of contact. Management would continue to have oversight over the regularity of contact to ensure this was being maintained.
4. The police had been contacted to ascertain if any criminal damages would be brought against her neighbour’s partner. If there was evidence of criminal charges, it would seek legal advice about tenancy enforcement action.
5. In order for the resident to be considered for a move, the landlord would need to establish the level of risk posed to the resident. It had asked the caseworker to contact the police to conduct a risk assessment
6. If the resident remained dissatisfied with the response, she could escalate the matter to the next stage of the complaints process, or contact the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 June 2021 and forwarded correspondence from the police which confirmed the investigation was ongoing. She wanted to know what actions the landlord proposed to take, as she felt she it had “portrayed [her] as a liar”.
On 19 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and said that her case had been approved for a direct offer. The terms of the move were:
1. That the landlord would actively look to match her with an available property outside of her area of risk. Only one offer of suitable accommodation would be offered, on a like for like basis
2. Direct offers were on the basis of safety and needs of the household. If she refused the property and it was deemed she was being unreasonable then the direct offer would be withdrawn
3. She would retain the same tenancy type
4. There were no timescales as to when a property would be allocated, but it would be in contact as soon as one became available.
On 8 September 2021 the resident’s social worker wrote to the landlord and said that it wanted the landlord to reconsider a move to a larger property due to the health conditions of the family.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 September and 1 October 2021. She said:
1. Its communication had been poor and she continued to feel unsafe. She wanted a breakdown of her service charge and an explanation of why she was being pressured to pay her rent when the landlord had not carried out its basic housing management functions
2. No one had contacted her about her complaints and she had to email directors to get any form of response. No one had treated her allegations of racial abuse with priority or explained why the neighbour’s partner was allowed to continue to live at the address
3. The building was unsafe with numerous people taking drugs, having parties and “hanging around”. One particular resident was running a “drug house” and dealing was taking place in the car park area where children play.
On 25 October 2021 the landlord informed the resident’s local MP of the actions it had taken to investigate the ASB. It said that it had reconsidered the additional medical requirements of the family, and as a result she was being considered for a 3 bedroom property. The last contact with the resident was on 21 October 2021 and it had agreed monthly contact until a suitable offer had been made.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 November 2021 and said it had taken a year for something to be done about her situation. She said:
1. She experienced a mental breakdown which resulted in her children being placed on a child in need plan. Nobody had listened to her or safeguarded her from the neighbour’s visitors.
2. Nobody believed that she was a victim of hate crime or that she and her family had specific health conditions. She had experienced time and trouble sourcing additional evidence, including GP letters for which she had incurred a cost.
3. She had requested a breakdown of her service charge but it was not forthcoming. She did not trust the landlord as it did not communicate with her and did not disclose information when she had requested it.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 16 November 2021. It said that it was sorry for the delay in responding to her complaint, which had occurred due to technical difficulties. It said that:
1. An active ASB case was open, and the landlord had been in touch with the police with regards to a request to review its CCTV. It needed to carry out a thorough assessment as to how her case was handled. Once it had the information, it would be uploaded onto her ASB case
2. She did not pay service charges and provided a copy of her rental breakdown
3. It was sorry for its lack of communication and recognised that she should not have had to contact it as frequently as she had. The updates she had been provided with regards to ASB had fallen below acceptable standards
4. It had briefed senior managers about her case and had learnt from the complaint, and had provided staff with additional training
5. It had closed her complaint. If she was unhappy then she could escalate the matter to stage 2 of its process or contact the Ombudsman.
The same day the resident said that:
1. She wanted the matter escalating to stage 2, as she believed that there had not been enough investigation into her concerns.
2. She was seeking compensation because no one from the landlord believed she was a victim of a hate crime and did nothing to keep her family safe. The perpetrator still lived in the building.
3. She did not agree with its findings that she did not pay a service charge when she had been told she had. The landlord’s communication had been poor.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said:
1. It was sorry that the resident felt she had not been safeguarded from racial abuse. It took the allegations seriously and had issued a warning letter to her neighbour. It had also approved a management priority move to somewhere outside her area of risk
2. It was awaiting the outcome of criminal charges before seeking legal advice about tenancy enforcement. It had noted that since the neighbour’s partner had been arrested no further incidents had taken place, except that she had reported “threatening facial expressions”. It asked her to elaborate on what she had meant by this. It also asked for medical evidence from her GP as to how the presence of the perpetrator was affecting her
3. With her permission, it wanted to refer her to a local inclusion project, where there was a hate crime intervention officer who could work with her
4. It had closed her complaint but she could escalate the matter to the next stage of its process.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 January 2022. It said that her complaint was currently on the “waiting list” for a stage 2 review. Due to changes imposed by the Ombudsman, there were a high volume of cases awaiting review which impacted the timescales for a response. It apologised for this and she could expect to hear something “soon”. It updated her of the same information it had provided in its correspondence 2 days prior.
The resident chased an update to her complaint response on 28 January 2022. She said the landlord had left her to face the perpetrator of racial abuse every day, and she wanted to move.
The landlord responded on 8 February 2022 and said that its new approach to complaint handling meant that it had to undertake a “thorough investigation” and this was taking longer than expected. She could expect to hear further “soon”.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised for the lack of contact due to sickness. It said:
1. It had spoken to its legal team and it would be taking tenancy action against the neighbour for hate crime. New incidents would need to be logged as well as any further supporting evidence.
2. It understood that there was a criminal hearing taking place, and it would be requesting police disclosure as to the outcome
3. In the meantime, it would continue to try to find a suitable property for her.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 March 2022 and said that she had been receiving letters from another resident saying that they are aware she had been providing pictures and reporting drug dealing to the landlord. She provided it with a hand written note which said “I thought you had been taking pictures of me and reporting to the landlord….I will be evicted”. She was unwilling to disclose who they were from and said that the landlord was not keeping her safe by telling other residents who had been making the reports.
Around this time, the resident’s local MP contacted the landlord. The landlord responded on 9 May 2022. It said that the resident was still on the list for a priority move and it was not aware that there had been any further incidents linked to the same perpetrator since July 2020.
On 26 May 2022 the neighbour’s partner was found guilty of racially / religiously aggravated harassment. As part of the sentence, he was given a restraining order not to contact the resident or her children directly or indirectly. The order lasted until further order.
The resident chased an update to her complaint on several occasions throughout July 2022. She said that the ASB had worsened and wanted an update on her move. She reported that:
1. Her car had been targeted. Someone had scratched “X” onto it and people were leaving cigarette butts on top of it. She was having it taken away because it was continually targeted. Her daughter would have to catch taxis, and this placed her at increased risk due to her allergies.
2. Other residents in the block had been targeting her with letters, calling her a “snitch”. Her daughter’s bike had been tampered with, which she believed was linked to the hate crime she had experienced.
3. The landlord had failed to consider her vulnerabilities. She asked if it was “waiting for someone’s life to be taken”. She had fallen down the stairs and was struggling with mobility issues.
4. She was unwilling to “relive her story again and again” as it was impacting her wellbeing. She had lost trust in the landlord and felt as though she was repeating herself.
On 18 July 2022 the landlord called the resident and offered a direct offer which the resident accepted. It was explained that there might be some time before she was able to move because extensive void works were being undertaken.
On 26 July 2022 the police contacted the landlord to advise that the resident had reported her car windows had been smashed. They asked it to review any CCTV footage they had, and provide it to the police accordingly.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 28 July 2022. It said:
1. The landlord accepted that the resident’s case could have been managed more robustly and that it could have responded far more quickly to the issues she reported and taken steps to prevent them from occurring in the future.
2. The resident had been approved as a priority for re-housing and it was actively and relentlessly trying to find a suitable property, within the current locality, to offer her. The landlord offered the resident hotel accommodation for respite to allow the resident and her family to enjoy some peace. It noted that the resident had explained that due to the complex needs of her daughter, she was unable to accept hotel or temporary accommodation, as this would negatively impact her allergy sensitivity.
3. The landlord upheld the complaint and confirmed that you had accepted total compensation of £3,280. This was broken down as:

(i) Distress – calculated at £60 per month x 24 months = £1440.

(ii) Inconvenience – calculated at £60 p/month x 24 months = £1440.

(iii) Time & Effort – one off payment of £200.

(iv) Complaint handling – one off payment of £200.

While the resident did not have access to a car, the landlord confirmed that it would cover the resident’s cost of travel via mini cab and taxi, until the car is replaced. The landlord explained that this offer was made because it recognised that the resident’s daughter cannot use public transport and due to the complexities of her case and the delay the resident experienced waiting for a re-housing offer.

On 12 August 2022 the resident said she was upset there had been no progress or updates and she had been left feeling ignored. She could not sleep at night, thinking that someone was “coming to get her” or her children. She said she had been financially impacted by her situation, felt “broken” and was being shown no empathy.
On 6 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident with its ‘final response’ to the complaint. This response also noted that it was the landlord’s ‘stage two’ response, despite this previously being issued on 28 July 2022. It said that:
1. It was sorry that there had been delays in responding to the resident at the next stage of its complaint process. It was working on ways to reduce response times.
2. It wanted to apologise for the suffering caused to her by the ASB she had experienced. It was aware that her neighbour had been issued a restraining order not to have contact with her or her children. Due to data protection, it could not provide further details of what actions were being taken.
3. The rehousing process was ongoing, and “everything was being done” to get it completed as soon as possible. It was sorry that it was a lengthy process that was distressing and frustrating for her family, but it was hopeful it would be resolved soon.
4. It was unable to provide the resident with a breakdown of service charges as she did not pay any.
5. It wanted to offer a total of £725 in compensation which would be paid onto her rent account to offset her arrears. The amount awarded was broken down as:

(i) £100 for delays from when the complaint was raised through to its conclusion

(ii) £600 for distress and inconvenience

(iii) £25 for time and effort chasing it for a response

Her complaint had been concluded and would be closed. If she remained dissatisfied she could contact the Ombudsman.

Between September and October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord several times, asking for an update on her move and why it was taking so long. She felt her family were being placed at risk and the landlord was lying to her. On 25 October 2022 the landlord responded to the resident. It said that:
1. It had noted that she had contacted it several times, and had sent 4 emails in the space of 5 minutes the previous evening. It was sorry if she felt she was being lied to or being placed at risk but this was not the case. She had been updated “as much as possible” over the past few weeks by several colleagues. She had been kept regularly updated with welfare calls, despite her saying no one had contacted her.
2. She had a single point of contact responsible for her case who had agreed a move to a location agreeable with the resident. They had been out to visit the property during void works to “get it right” for her.
3. Due to an administration error, they had noticed that there was not a second downstairs toilet which they knew the resident needed. Rather than wait for another property to become available, they had worked hard to reconfigure the property to have another toilet installed to suit her needs.
4. Upon viewing the change, it noted that the resident was “understandably unhappy” because contractors had made alterations different to what had been agreed. It made arrangements to reconfigure the layout again according to the original plan. It acknowledged the delay had been avoidable had the contractors followed this from the start.
5. It wanted to demonstrate its commitment to the resident and her family and had carried out additional works to the property. These included designing internal storage space for her daughter’s medical equipment and works to the garden.
6. It was reimbursing taxi costs following the incident where her car was damaged in August, and would continue to do so until the day she moved into the new property. There was one outstanding payment, which was being followed up.
7. There was a part that required fitting to the radiator. It had asked contractors if she could move in and have the works done around her to avoid further delay, but was advised that the heating system needed to be fully tested before it was ready to let. The resident was aware of this as its maintenance team had been in regular contact.
8. It fully accepted that the delay had caused her distress and frustration. However it had never lied to her or treated her differently to anyone else. It had never deliberately wanted to add to the stressful situation her family had been living with. It would be in touch with further updates as soon as they became available.
The resident moved into the new property in November 2022. In recent contact with the Ombudsman, she said:
1. The landlord never believed that she was a victim of hate crime until her neighbour’s partner was charged with the offence. It did nothing to safeguard her or her family, and did not take any action against the neighbour other than to issue a warning letter. The landlord did not come to visit her or discuss an action plan so she was never clear on what it was doing. She believes it to have discussed her identity to the perpetrators when investigating the issue.
2. It made a number of errors handling her case. For example, the landlord disposed of the CCTV footage it was asked to provide the police in July 2022. She received a further complaint correspondence acknowledging this error in January 2023.
3. The health of her and her children have been affected. She has suffered from PTSD and has had to take cognitive behavioural therapy to overcome what has happened to her in the last few years. She has spent so much time “being her own advocate” that her mental health has declined significantly.
4. She had experienced difficulties moving. The landlord did not understand the vulnerability of the household, or look at the history of her case. Eventually, she was moved to a property 9 minutes away. There have been further issues and she has continued to be targeted from the same people linked to the hate crime. In April 2023, acid was thrown on her car and at her front door.
5. Despite this, she does not want to move as her daughter has settled there. She has an ASB case open but has struggled to get in contact with the landlord to install security measures to help them feel safe. She has experienced financial hardship as a result of all of the issues, falling into rent arrears and the landlord has not referred her to its income team.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling had been poor. She struggled to get a response and the landlord seemed to be unwilling to escalate her complaint. It would often respond to her as if she was unhappy with the ASB, when it was the handling of her ASB case that she was complaining about.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

The resident first made a report to her landlord about an increase of visitors to her neighbour’s property in August 2019. The landlord’s ASB policy says that an action plan will be created in agreement with the resident once a case has been opened. However there is no evidence that the landlord did this, which was a missed opportunity to have managed the resident’s expectations from the start of the case and to have given her confidence that it was investigating her concerns.
It was appropriate that the landlord spoke to the neighbour to discuss the allegations. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have communicated the outcome of the discussion and provided the resident with details of how she could report further incidents if necessary. However it failed to do so, and it was inappropriate that the landlord closed the ASB case without consultation with the resident.
When the resident reported an escalation of ASB relating to her neighbour’s visitors on 21 January 2020, the landlord did not respond to her concerns. The situation then escalated to a physical assault whereby the resident alleged she was spat at by her neighbour’s brother on 12 February 2020. She made it clear that the situation had made her feel vulnerable, scared and unsafe. Given the nature of the incident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have opened a high priority ASB case and make arrangements to contact her the same day, but it failed to do this.
It’s correspondence 5 working days later on 19 February 2020 was an acknowledgement of her report, and not appropriate contact from an ASB caseworker. Whilst the landlord said it would ask the police to provide it with further information, there was no evidence that it took prompt steps to do so. Furthermore it made no attempt to visit the resident to obtain a witness statement or provide her with reassurance of the next steps through use of an action plan. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have completed a timely RAM in accordance with its ASB policy.
The resident informed this Service that she does not recall the landlord completing a RAM with her at any point during its investigations. Evidence suggests that the 2 RAMs completed on 3 December 2019 and 22 May 2020 were completed on receipt of the resident’s contact, but without her input. For example, the landlord noted that the resident “refused to discuss anything” during a call on 3 December 2019 but a RAM was completed the same day. The risk of completing a RAM without the resident’s direct input is that the results could have been inaccurate and based solely on perception of how affected the resident may have been from the incident.
The landlord failed to complete a RAM following the spitting incident until 63 working days after the assault took place. The delay was inappropriate, and despite noting that the resident felt “extremely affected, alone and isolated” there is no evidence that it discussed the risks posed to her or signposted her to appropriate support. It failed to consider what steps it could take to make the resident feel safe in her home whilst it conducted further investigations, such as installing extra security measures.
It was not until June 2020, 4 months after the spitting incident, that the landlord sought to complete an ABA with her neighbour. The delay in addressing the matter with the neighbour was unreasonable. The contents of the ABA were not seen by this Service and there is no evidence that the landlord discussed the outcome of the agreement with the resident or explained what she could do if she was to experience further issues.
The resident reported a hate crime to the landlord on 19 July 2020. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, it should have contacted her within 1 working day. Given the previous incidents and that it was aware that an ABA was in place, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made arrangements to complete another RAM and obtain witness statements from all parties involved. However there is no evidence that it did so, and further delays occurred where the landlord did not seek police disclosure until 3 August 2020, 11 working days later.
The police disclosed on 25 August 2020 that the neighbour’s brother had been arrested pending further investigation for a racially aggravated public order offence. The allegations were serious and required the landlord to take appropriate action to safeguard the resident whilst the perpetrator was bailed to the neighbour’s address. The landlord’s suggestion that the resident should keep diary sheets and assurances that would be in contact again in 2 weeks’ time did not go far enough to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking the matter seriously. There is no evidence that the landlord honoured regular fortnightly contact and the resident had to chase it a number of times for an update.
It was not until 12 January 2022, almost 18 months after the incident that the landlord referred her to a specialist hate crime intervention officer. The delay was inappropriate and showed a lack of empathy and understanding of the risk posed to the resident over a prolonged period of time.
It is not disputed that in addition to the ASB the resident was experiencing from her neighbour, there were concerns about contact from her ex-partner. Key to the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is strong multi-agency partnerships. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord took the lead to coordinate a multi-agency meeting at the earliest opportunity to understand and identify all risks posed to the resident. It was the police who referred the matter to the MARAC in December 2020. The landlord asked the police to confirm the risks posed to the resident but did not complete its own RAM, in accordance with its ASB policy.
The timeline shows that there were significant gaps in the landlord’s communication with the resident, which the landlord accepted within its complaint correspondence on several occasions. Despite assurances, evidence of regular contact was not recorded on the landlord’s case management system and therefore it is reasonable to assume that much of the agreed contact did not take place. The failure to demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes left the resident feeling frustrated and impacted her trust in the landlord. She reported she was unclear on what actions it was taking, and enlisted the support of her local MP to get a response.
The landlord failed to recognise that in addition to criminal investigations being pursued by the police, there were actions it could be taking itself. There is no evidence that it consulted its legal team at an early stage or considered whether it had sufficient evidence to apply to court for an interim injunction order. Once the neighbour’s partner was found guilty in May 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord revisited what actions it would take. It remains unclear whether any further action was taken following the warning letter that was sent in September 2020.
The resident was frightened that the conviction would result in repercussions, and records show that she reported that she had experienced damage to her car in the months following. Prior to June 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to provide the resident with reassurance of what it could do to ensure her safety and the resident had to chase it on several occasions. The lack of regular contact was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s feeling that it had not taken the hate crime seriously.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to how long it took the landlord to find her alternative accommodation. Records show that the landlord discussed move options with the resident following the racially / religiously aggravated assault and summarised this in its correspondence dated 21 September 2020. The resident had the option to consider emergency temporary accommodation which was an appropriate suggestion by the landlord, given that the resident had reported she was at significant risk of harm.
In failing to appropriately assess the risk posed to the resident and engage with partner agencies at the earliest opportunity, there were delays in the landlord’s consideration as to whether the resident could be accepted onto its rehousing list. Despite being notified by the MARAC of a need to move the resident in its correspondence in December 2020, it was not until 19 August 2021 that the landlord notified the resident that her case had been approved. The delay of 8 months to provide an outcome was unreasonable and caused the resident distress.
In the absence of sufficient medical evidence at the time, it was reasonable for the landlord to propose that the resident be moved to another property on a ‘like for like’ basis in accordance with its allocations and lettings policy. When the size of the property was challenged by the resident on medical grounds, it was appropriate that the landlord sought the advice of an independent medical assessor. They noted that based on the evidence seen, the threshold for a medical priority move had not been reached. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of a medical specialist, however it was slow to communicate the outcome of the assessment and it failed to provide the resident with the outcome it had promised on 9 March 2021.
It was not until 8 September 2021 after it had confirmed that she had been accepted for the direct offer, that additional evidence came to light which supported that the resident met the threshold to be considered for a third bedroom. In considering what options were available to the resident, the landlord had to consider properties which were outside her area of risk. It is accepted that finding an available property can take some time and the resident was able to consider temporary accommodation in the meantime, which records show she refused.
On 25 October 2021, the landlord made assurances that it would contact the resident on a monthly basis until it found a suitable alternative property. The offer of regular contact was reasonable and would have demonstrated that it was committed to working with the resident to provide her with a new place of safety. However there is no evidence that it honoured this commitment and she had to chase it on several occasions for an update. By failing to maintain regular communication, it did not recognise that there had been further incidents since 2020 which placed the resident at risk when responding to the MP on 9 May 2022.
The resident was offered a new property on 14 July 2022 and viewed the property on 13 August 2022. She was informed that there were extensive void works that needed to be completed before she could move in. However there were further avoidable delays owing to administration and contractor errors which the landlord acknowledged in its correspondence dated 25 October 2022. In order to put matters right, the landlord arranged for additional works to “get [the property] right” for the resident. It also agreed to cover the cost of taxis in the interim. This was a reasonable offer from the landlord and demonstrated that it was committed to ensuring that the new property met her the needs of her family.
Overall there were serious failures in the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. It failed to respond quickly to the resident’s reports of physical assault and hate crime, and it did not engage with partner agencies at the earliest opportunity. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy and conduct a timely RAM with the resident. In doing so, it failed to have an understanding of the risk posed to the resident and this impacted how quickly it accepted the resident onto its rehousing list. Despite assurances, it failed to regularly communicate with the resident and took no steps to consider what safety measures it could put in place whilst it awaited the outcome of the criminal hearing.
In considering compensation in this case, it is important to note that the Ombudsman does not award payment for damages in the way a court might. However, it is recognised that the resident was likely to have been feeling anxious and upset during the period of time she awaited the outcome of the criminal hearing and of news of a move offer. Her concerns about her safety were valid and she suffered distress on a regular basis where she felt the landlord was not taking her reports seriously. Had the landlord been more proactive in its approach, identified the risks and engaged with appropriate agencies at an earlier date, the impact on the resident could have been reduced.
It is accepted that the landlord’s review in June 2022 and complaint response dated 28 July 2022 show that it took the complaint very seriously and it was taking steps to try to ensure the safety of the household. However, it is concerning to note that the landlord’s review of the complaint and change in stance appears to have only been triggered by external factors: the resident’s MP contacting the landlord and the conviction of the neighbour’s brother in May 2022. Prior to this, the available evidence shows that the landlord did not adopt a victim-centred approach and failed to respond promptly to serious allegations of ASB, physical assault and hate crime. The landlord also failed to regularly communicate with the resident to support her (as it had agreed to). I note that the landlord’s internal records indicate that between November 2020 and June 2022, the resident’s ASB case was reassigned to different landlord officers six times. This appears to have detrimentally impacted the continuity and quality of service provided by the landlord.
The nature of ASB is such that it may require many agencies to be involved in investigating and resolving it. It is imperative that victims have confidence in the authorities in order to be able to report ASB. There is very little evidence to show that the landlord worked collaboratively with other agencies. The landlord referred the resident to a specialist hate crime intervention officer in January 2022, 18 months after the first incident. It is accepted that the landlord’s resources are limited and responsibility for dealing with ASB is shared with the police; however, the landlord’s failure to closely liaise with partner agencies at the earliest opportunity was a significant shortfall and suggests that the landlord failed to take the resident’s concerns seriously until June 2022.

The landlord identified and acknowledged its failings in its stage two response dated 28 July 2022, it took steps to try to help the resident and made an offer of compensation to try to put things right. Prior to June 2022, the evidence shows that the landlord disregarded its own ASB policy and the matter remained unresolved for an unreasonable period, which significantly impacted the resident and the household. Overall, the landlord’s response and offer adequately addressed the detriment to the resident and it was proportionate to the failings identified by this Service’s investigation. The decision is therefore reasonable redress. This finding is made where there is evidence of maladministration but the landlord has identified and acknowledged this prior to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation and has, on its own initiative, taken steps and/or made an offer of compensation, that puts things right.

Complaint handling

There were significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is evident that the resident made several expressions of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her ASB case. When receiving a complaint about ASB, it is important that the landlord is able to distinguish whether the resident is complaining about the ASB itself, or the handling of the ASB case. The danger of not recognising the difference can lead to delays in the matter being formally investigated in line with the landlord’s complaint policy, as was seen in the handling of this case.
It is clear that there were missed opportunities for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint at an earlier opportunity. The resident’s email of 12 February 2020 was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, as she stated that she felt that the landlord “was not doing anything”. The landlord did not acknowledge her complaint and she experienced considerable difficulty in raising and escalating her concerns over a prolonged period of time.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaint procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. In this case, the landlord issued 3 informal complaint responses entitled “service complaint”, “service complaint update” and “complaint response letter”, before responding at stage 1 on 15 April 2021, 295 working days after her initial expression of dissatisfaction. The delay was unreasonable and the landlord’s actions were not compliant with the Code or its own complaint policy.
The stage 1 response was an opportunity for the landlord to identify what went wrong and put matters right. It made assurances that it was taking her case “extremely seriously”. However, it provided the resident with no indication as to when she could expect it to next be in contact, only that someone would be in contact to agree frequency. It failed to acknowledge that there were outstanding actions it needed to take, including conducting a RAM and agreeing an action plan with the resident.
The landlord’s second stage 1 response did little to investigate matters appropriately. It advised that it still needed to carry out a “thorough assessment” as to how her case was handled and repeated again that it had provided further training to its staff. Its repetitive assurances did little to build the resident’s confidence that her situation was being taken seriously, and she experienced further significant delays waiting for a stage 2 response.
The delay in concluding matters was unreasonable and caused the resident evident distress where she had to chase it on several occasions for a response. The landlord took no ownership of the repeated delays, and provided a variety of explanations including that they were as a result of changes “imposed” by the Ombudsman, which was inappropriate. It failed to recognise it had not followed its own complaint policy or reasonably followed up on promises it had made to the resident to communicate with her more regularly.
Overall, there was severe maladministration of the landlord’s complaint handling. In total, it issued 7 complaint responses for the same issue. It failed to identify that the resident was dissatisfied with the handling of her ASB case at an early opportunity and she experienced significant difficulties in progressing the complaint to conclusion. The landlord made assurances that it would be in regular contact about her ASB case, but it continually failed to do so. This impacted the tenant and landlord relationship and caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time.

Record keeping

It is of concern that the landlord failed to provide all relevant information when requested by the Ombudsman until this Service issued a determination highlighting significant failings. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. When the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is inaccurate or incomplete information provided by the landlord, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
Strong record keeping practices are core to good landlord services. The landlord should take steps to improve its future responses to information requests. It is ordered that the landlord should review potential changes to its practices and processes when responding to Ombudsman information requests to ensure all relevant information is provided in future.
The landlord’s poor record keeping has impeded the Ombudsman’s investigation and delayed the determination of the complaint. This has adversely affected the resident and caused inconvenience and frustration. An additional compensation award has been made for its failure in record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adopt a victim-centred approach and did not respond promptly to serious allegations of ASB, physical assault and hate crime. It failed to regularly communicate with the resident to support her, and there is no evidence that it liaised closely with partner agencies at the earliest opportunity. The landlord failed to support the resident and consider appropriate safety measures. It was delayed in considering whether she qualified for a direct move offer. However, the landlord’s response dated 28 July 2022 and offer adequately addressed the detriment to the resident and it was proportionate to the failings identified by this Service’s investigation.
The landlord issued numerous complaint responses for the same matter. It repeatedly made the same mistakes and failed to maintain the regular contact it had promised the resident, demonstrating that it had not learnt from outcomes. This caused her evident distress and frustration over a prolonged period of time. The landlord’s final response did not go far enough to recognise its cumulative failures and therefore it did not put matters right for the resident.
The landlord’s failure to provide a stage 2 complaint response unnecessarily delayed this Service’s investigation into this case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord’s chief executive to apologise to the resident in person for the failures noted in the handling of this case, within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay directly to the resident a total of £4,705 in compensation (this is inclusive of the £3,280 paid to the resident in July 2022 and the £725 credited to the resident’s rent account in September 2022) within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears (unless already completed). The compensation is comprised of:
1. £4,005 for the distress an inconvenience caused in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £600 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by failures found in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord to contact the resident and offer a face-to-face meeting within 4 weeks. During the meeting the landlord should seek to establish what her more recent ASB concerns are. The landlord should complete a risk assessment matrix (RAM), agree an action plan and give consideration to what safety measures it could offer. This should include discussing the option of rehousing and/or referral to Safer London’s Pan-London Housing Reciprocal. It should also take steps to update the resident’s household vulnerability records and consider offering the resident a single point of contact.
The landlord to review within 4 weeks potential changes to its practices and processes when responding to Ombudsman information requests to ensure all relevant information is provided in future.
The landlord has completed similar reviews of its ASB handling as part of the recent paragraph 49 investigation by the Ombudsman. However, it should confirm that following the failures identified in this case, that it has reviewed:
1. Training of staff on its ASB policy and procedure, with particular focus on the use of the RAM and action plans.
2. Training and information available to staff specifically around high priority ASB including hate crime, to ensure that staff are confident in dealing with reports of a similar nature in the future.
3. Management oversight on ASB cases, with particular focus on recording actions, outcomes and case closure decisions.
4. Collaboration with partner agencies when dealing with high priority cases, with particular focus on its process for referring cases to multi-agency conferences, such as multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC).
5. Its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required.
6. Training its staff on complaint handling to include the principles noted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.