London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202338938)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338938

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

16 April 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for a transfer.
2. The resident’s reports about their neighbour’s conduct.
3. The resident’s reports of other local anti-social behaviour (ASB) and harassment.
4. Safety concerns raised by the resident.
5. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a background as a tenant of the landlord starting in 2015. He currently lives in a 2 bed property under the terms of a tenancy that began March 2022. This complaint concerns issues occurring at his prior accommodation.
The resident’s liaison with the landlord took and continues to take place largely via his mother acting as his advocate. References to ‘the resident’ include the contact she raised on his behalf.
The landlord agreed to transfer the resident to an alternative suitable property in 2016 following his suffering a violent assault in his flat. The resident spent a subsequent period of almost 3 years homeless, some of which living on the streets, from July 2017 following repossession by the landlord on rent arrears grounds. During the course of this period, the resident provided medical evidence of his ‘severe depression’ and anxiety. The resident told the landlord of his need to be rehoused close to his support network to manage risks presenting to his rehabilitation, safety and health.
The resident raised a previous complaint to the landlord in February 2019 that it failed to make an offer of accommodation as promised. The landlord responded in September 2019 following multiple interventions by this Service. It acknowledged unacceptable delay in actioning his complaint and failure to make an offer of accommodation in line with its prior promise.
On 11 February 2020 the resident supplied to the landlord a letter from his GP. It explained the resident’s history of significant depression and anxiety relating to his assault. The GP said that he ‘would benefit from being placed in accommodation close to his family in view of his fragile mental health’. The resident continued to raise concerns about the suitability of a placement that could lead to isolation from his support network.
On 11 March 2020 the resident entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord for the property subject of this complaint. This was a 1 bed, first floor flat let to him on a sole, assured tenancy. The tenancy began on 16 March 2020. The property was located in an area some distance from his family.
In August 2020 the resident raised concerns to the landlord about his neighbour’s conduct and safety. He also advised that his mental health was at risk by his isolation from his support network. He requested an urgent move. The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets and sought consent to contact his neighbour. The resident refused, expressing concern of being a ‘grass’ and of the impact to his mental health. The landlord advised it could take no further action in response without his co-operation.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord, to which it provided a final response on 11 October 2020. This Service investigated this complaint in case reference 202005149 and found the landlord responsible for maladministration. A significant number of failings were identified, including that the landlord:
1. Did not have regard to the resident’s needs and associated risks when placing the resident at the flat.
2. Lacked reasonable sensitivity and care in its handling of the resident’s apprehension when reporting his neighbour’s conduct or engaging with his needs or potential risks in line with its policy and duties.
3. Failed to have regard to the resident’s safety concerns or assess risk.
4. Provided a delayed complaint reply only after intervention by this Service.
5. Failed to complete a reasonable complaint investigation.

Scope of investigation

The first stage complaint subject of this investigation was logged by the landlord as made to it on 11 August 2021. Under the rules of the Scheme, this Service may not investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of a landlord within a reasonable period, usually considered as within 6 months of the matter(s) occurring.
This Service has considered actions and contact between the landlord and resident dating back to October 2020. This is when the resident’s previous complaint, subject of prior complaint investigation case 202005149 was closed. This Service noted repeat expressions of dissatisfaction raised to the landlord from January 2021 onwards. While the landlord failed to treat the expressed concerns in line with its complaint process, it was not a failure of the resident to bring these matters to its attention. His earlier efforts to raise complaint are relevant to consideration of the landlord’s handling of his complaint and the substantive issues.
This Service also considers the following matters relevant information to inform its assessment of the resident’s complaint:
1. The landlord’s prior awareness of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is important factual background to assess the events in scope of investigation eg when assessing the landlord’s regard to its equality duties.
2. The previous history of mishandling by the landlord. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, an identified history of failings impacting the resident is a potential aggravating factor when considering any detriment experienced by such further pattern.
The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Summary of events

On 23 October 2020 the resident reported that the door to his mail box was missing after being ripped off by his neighbour.
On 4 and 29 January 2021 the landlord logged reports from the resident of the communal entrance door being broken following what was described as ‘tampering’ by his neighbour. Later on 29 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord in an email titled ‘stage 3 complaint’. He outlined concerns about the unsuitability of his accommodation and requested a property transfer due to his updated household needs, risks to his safety and mental health and concerns about the security of the building
On 15 February 2021 the landlord and resident exchanged emails. The landlord confirmed updating his household details. It referred the resident to the local authority for further advice on rehousing and gave basic housing options advice. It stated the resident did not meet the criteria for a priority move.
In response, the resident repeated a request for a property transfer and:
1. Described the circumstances of overcrowding at the flat impacting the household and an adverse impact to his health.
2. Raised issue with the landlord’s failure to consider his complaint.
3. Reported daily noise nuisance from his neighbour and concerns about their conduct and risk at which it placed his family.
4. Submitted a complaint using the landlord’s online system that:
  1. The landlord had placed him in accommodation unsuitable for his prior and now updated needs.
  2. The household was at risk due to the neighbour’s conduct and the landlord had ignored his concerns about his safety and wellbeing.
The landlord’s system logged the online complaint submission. Process notes prompted an action ‘send first response’, against which the landlord noted sending the complaint to officers in direct contact with the resident.
The resident requested an update on the complaint on 5 March 2021. The landlord replied on 8 March 2021 to acknowledge the complaint.
On 13 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to advise his request for a priority transfer would be presented to its management panel on 18 March 2021. He was advised that he needed to co-operate if he experienced ongoing issues with the neighbour in order for it to address these.
The resident replied by email of 16 March 2021 and repeated his concerns for the family’s safety and wellbeing due to the neighbour’s activities.
On 19 March 2021 the resident chased the landlord concerning the outcome of the panel. The landlord advised it was due the following week. On 24 March 2021 the resident again chased the landlord which sent him an email that date advising the following:
1. The panel refused a priority transfer as the circumstances did not meet its criteria for imminent risk of harm or medical needs.
2. It had considered his safety concerns about the door, mailbox and security; there was no evidence to prove damage was aimed at the resident.
3. It noted his expressed mental health issues and proposed he provide a medical form and evidence for a fast track assessment of medical priority.
4. Regarding concerns about his neighbour’s conduct, the resident was previously unwilling to co-operate having expressed reluctance to report for fear of being ‘a grass’. It was aware of issues with his neighbour and working with agencies.
The resident replied the same date. He referred the landlord to evidence previously supplied about his mental health. He repeated concerns about his accommodation, risks from the neighbour and adverse impact to his mental health. He raised lack of CCTV and adequate monitoring of the block for safety.
The landlord replied by email on 25 March 2021, restating the panel decision and repeating its request for up to date medical information. It sought details of any ongoing support received by the resident. It also outlined other rehousing options and offered a call to discuss.
On 10 and 18 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord by email and expressed a complaint about its handling of his transfer request. The resident highlighted risks presented by the neighbour’s conduct, referring to a recent arson attack and threat to ‘blow up’ the building. A later email reported harassment by other local residents damaging his car. He identified an alleged perpetrator and expressed concern of racially motivated victimisation.
The landlord replied on 18 May 2021. It repeated its prior refusal of transfer and acknowledged receipt of a medical form and noted it was awaiting evidence.
The resident chased a response from the landlord to his complaint by email of 25 May 2021. The landlord replied the next date. It apologised for the lack of an earlier reply and chased medical evidence. It responded to the resident’s concerns as follows:
1. The resident was previously asked to complete sheets logging the nuisance from his neighbour but refused to do so or for the landlord to speak with the neighbour. It could take no further action without his co-operation. It referred to its previous correspondence and encouraged reporting of further incidents.
2. It repeated the outcome of the panel decision.
3. It would complete a medical transfer assessment once it had evidence.
On 26 May 2021 the resident forwarded to the landlord a copy of a letter from his GP. The GP gave medical opinion as follows:
1. The resident’s mental health had worsened ‘significantly’ owing to his ongoing anxiety linked to the previous attack and his living at distance isolated from his support network.
2. The resident’s metal health would be improved ‘greatly’ from moving to a 2 bed house closer to his support network.
3. Accommodation in a house was ‘more suitable’ for his needs due to his anxiety relating to his experience as a victim of assault in a flat.
4. Recommendation of an immediate transfer closer to his support network.
The landlord’s contracted medical advisor completed a property transfer recommendation form on 28 May 2021. The advisor recommended transfer on medical need grounds, noting the resident’s mental health as ‘severe’ and likely deterioration without relocation closer to family support. It selected no particular housing requirements.
The resident chased progress of a medical transfer by emails of 1, 11 and 17 June 2021.
On 14 June 2021 the landlord completed a direct let request form. It noted a medical assessment recommendation.
On 18 June 2021 the landlord’s allocations and lettings panel approved a transfer on medical grounds for the resident to moved closer to family support.
On 29 June 2021 the resident by email sought update from the landlord about his transfer request and raised dissatisfaction about the lack of update. The landlord replied the same date, acknowledging he should have received confirmation of the panel outcome and would chase this internally. It confirmed the resident had been awarded a medical priority transfer. The resident raised concern about the suitability of transfer to another flat or estate.
On 30 June 2021 the landlord advised the resident by email that the medical recommendation gave no specifics of property type except it should not be above the fourth floor.
On 1, 7 and 12 July 2021 the resident asked the landlord that his GP’s property type recommendations be followed and chased the decision letter.
The landlord sent the panel outcome confirmation to the resident on 13 July 2021, in a letter dated the day prior. It apologised for its delay and confirmed it would make a transfer offer in line with its advisor’s recommendations. The property type was specified as 2 bedroom, fourth floor maximum. It promised to contact the resident within 7 days to discuss his requirements including to take into account his vulnerabilities and support needs.
On 22 and 28 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord chasing an update.. The resident stressed the urgency of his circumstances and requested review of the GP’s property type recommendations. The resident expressed concern that the landlord ignored his supplied medical advice.
On 11 August 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord titled ‘formal complaint’. The resident raised the following concerns:
1. The landlord had failed to make contact as promised to discuss the priority transfer or reply to his chasers for an update.
2. There had been a lack of progress actioning a transfer taking account of serious and ongoing risks.
3. The landlord had failed to have regard to his medical needs and the GP recommendations about property type.
4. The landlord had failed to appropriately manage risks presenting from his neighbour’s conduct.
5. Dissatisfaction over the landlord’s handling of ongoing risks from local anti-social behaviour and harassment.
6. Safety management of the block; the resident cited lack of cctv given awareness of local issues and risks within the block.
The landlord logged receipt of the resident’s complaint the same date and assigned it to the manager that responded to his prior concerns. Two days later, on 13 August 2021, its system process prompted acknowledgement of the complaint. Its records showed no action recorded.
On 20 August 2021 and 12 to 13 September 2021 the resident chased contact from the landlord by email. The resident’s emails described the resident suffering local harassment, disturbances and concern about racially motivated victimisation. The resident reported ongoing issues with his neighbour and concern for the landlord’s lack of response or urgent transfer.
On 14 September 2021 the landlord provided a formal reply to the resident’s complaint from the manager who had handled his prior concerns. It did not uphold the complaint and stated:
1. It was sorry for the delay replying to his complaint.
2. Confirmation of the priority transfer outlined previously.
3. The medical evidence supplied by the resident was referred to its lettings service, ‘who would have liaised with the medical advisor’.
4. It would inspect the block and complete repairs. His reports of vandalism and issues in the immediate area needed to be reported to police.
5. The resident had previously refused to engage regarding complaints about the neighbour and it could not progress action without his support. It would open a case if the resident had evidence of the neighbour stealing post and wanted the landlord to address this or any other issue.
On 19 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and requested escalation of the complaint. His request:
1. Provided updated evidence of what he described as racist provocation and details of neighbours’ actions with concerns of harassment.
2. Gave details of a report made to police as advised.
3. Raised concern for the impact to the wellbeing of his household including his children continuing to live in unsuitable conditions.
The resident sent to the landlord footage of a local incident the next day.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord asked for clarification of the resident’s dissatisfaction with its complaint response. It reminded the resident to report matters to police and that in order for it to address issues with his neighbours, he must provide details and engage. Regarding a transfer, he would be contacted once a suitable property became available.
The next day, the resident replied and said that:
1. The landlord had failed to act quickly enough to move the household. The resident described ongoing adverse impact to him and his children.
2. The family continued to suffer noise nuisance and he was at risk in the immediate area.
On 29 September 2021 the landlord replied to the resident and stated all of the points of concern had been addressed in its previous response. It advised unless the resident had evidence of alleged vandalism, it would take no further action. It advised that if the resident wanted his reports of ASB to be addressed, he was to report dates and times and engage.
A series of further emails were exchanged between the resident and landlord the same day:
1. The resident repeated concern for the ongoing risks to his family.
2. The resident expressed fear that opening an ASB case would cause conflict with neighbours for whom he was already a target.
3. The landlord advised its property size allocation was based on a 2 bed need. It was unable to provide a timescale for an offer.
4. The landlord said it could open an ASB case but if the resident did not want the neighbour to be contacted, ‘…then there is no action (the landlord) can take’.
On 11 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and raised concern as to its failure to progress his complaint and lack of progress against the issues it raised. He highlighted the ongoing risk to the family and his mental health.
The landlord’s rehousing service contacted the resident the same date. It left a message and sent an email apologising for its lack of recent contact. It said it was still looking for a suitable matched property. The resident returned the landlord’s call and followed up by email detailing risks presenting at his home.
On 15 October 2021 the resident chased an update concerning his rehousing.
On 19 October 2021 the landlord’s records refer to a potential property match.
On 30 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and provided evidence of reported harassment, vandalism of his car and verbal abuse by neighbours. The resident reported adverse impact to his mental health.
On 26 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord raising concern about progression of the priority transfer and seeking an update of timescale. The landlord replied on 30 November 2021 stating it was unable to guarantee an offer and that the resident would be contacted once it found a suitable property.
The resident repeated his concerns and request for prioritisation of a move by email of 7 December 2021 and the landlord repeated the same position.
On 13 December 2021 the landlord exchanged internal correspondence discussing the resident being ‘matched to (property) for some time now’ that was being prepared for letting. It also noted a call the same date from the resident raising ‘quite worrying concerns about ASB’ and overcrowding’. Two days later, it raised a request for works to the property to be prioritised.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident promising contact.
On 11 and 12 January 2022 the landlord’s internal records refer to an offer being made to the resident of hotel accommodation that he declined. The landlord noted works to the matched property had not yet begun. The resident sought further details of the property and later resent the landlord his GP recommendations. He raised concerns about the matched property being a flat.
On 17 January 2022 the resident spoke to the landlord and raised representations about the suitability of a flat in view of his GP recommendations. The landlord agreed to liaise internally.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord exchanged internal correspondence discussing a potential alternative property; a 2 bedroom house already subject to works in a suitable area. The landlord requested prioritisation of the works.
Between 20 and 21 January 2022 the landlord outlined an offer of a newly matched property to the resident by phone. It explained that the house was undergoing works and it would be in contact once it was ready to view. It confirmed the offer by follow up email of 25 January 2022.
On 7 February 2022 the resident requested an update from the landlord.
On 17 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord referring to a missed call and sought a call back. The following day, the landlord called and provided a point of contact. It gave assurance of contact once the property was ready.
On 7 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord raising concern about when the matched property would be ready and requested updated contact.
On 14 March 2022 it was reported to the landlord that the resident had been the victim of vandalism and a physical assault in the area immediate to their block. The perpetrators were said to be a neighbour and their associates. The landlord logged crime reference numbers and recorded the incident as ‘hate related’. It called the resident the following day and noted his account. He described racist abuse and offered to provide video evidence. The resident asked the landlord to liaise with the police to support appropriate action.
The landlord took the following actions between 16 and 17 March 2022:
1. Its rehousing service discussed temporary accommodation and noted the resident did not want to consider this.
2. Noted that works to the property were still ongoing.
3. Sought information from the Police.
On 21 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord seeking an update about the matched property. The landlord left a voice message the next day.
On 24 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord seeking update about the property and explained the urgency of his circumstances. The next day, the landlord arranged sign up of the new tenancy on 29 March 2022. The resident confirmed his willingness to stay in a hotel for the weekend pending the move.
The landlord booked a hotel for the resident from 26 March 2022. This followed a report to the landlord of a further incident of racial harassment on 25 March 2022. The landlord logged the crime reference number and recorded the matter as a hate crime. The hotel booking was subsequently extended in line with the expected readiness of the offered house.
The landlord subsequently liaised with the police who reported on 31 March 2022 it had no record of an incident the past weekend.
The landlord’s records refer to sign up of a new tenancy at the matched 2 bed house taking place on 4 April 2022. On the same date the landlord noted closing the resident’s ASB case.
On 12 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord about its lack of further complaint response. The resident referred the matter to this Service.
On 10 May 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord relaying its understanding of the resident’s request for escalation of his complaint following its response of 14 September 2021. The landlord was requested to provide a stage 2 response and make contact with the resident to discuss details of their complaint.
The landlord considered this Service’s request internally and noted it had failed to provide a final response and that escalation had been requested on several occasions. It noted having failed to follow its complaint process including by not acknowledging the request/s or referring to its customer relations team. It allocated a stage 2 investigation to the stage 1 complaint handler.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised his request for a stage 2 review of his complaint was under review, with a response due by 30 May 2022.
On 31 May 2022 the resident chased the complaint response.
On 1 June 2022 the landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It stated:
1. An apology for failing to escalate the stage 2 request previously.
2. It had maintained regular contact with the resident in response to queries.
3. Concerning local issues, it had referred the resident to the Police.
4. The resident had not engaged regarding complaints against his neighbours, making it difficult for it to progress action.
5. It had awarded medical priority for a transfer and considered medical evidence. It had provided advice about the process to the resident. The allocations system meant it had been unable to provide timescales.
The response also considered matters not raised or reviewed at stage 1 but brought to its attention subsequently as service requests. These matters are out of the scope of this complaint investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s then allocations and lettings policy detailed steps it would take when handling the rehousing of its tenants including taking additional measures to support applicants with vulnerabilities. The policy set out criteria it would apply when assessing applications to rehouse an existing tenant. This included a significant medical need or disability meaning they were unable to remain, risks from ASB and other ‘exceptional circumstances’. An addition to the list was to be approved by its weekly rehousing panel. Where a case was declined, residents were entitled to appeal
The landlord’s customer promise said it would:
1. Always be friendly and helpful.
2. Help resolve issues causing concern to its customer and their community.
The landlord had an ASB policy updated during the course of the period under investigation. Both versions of the policy required the landlord to respond to reports of anti-social conduct in the following ways:
1. It would consider the risk in each case and assign a priority based on the type of conduct reported, available evidence and risk of harm. It would log and assess the initial report of ‘high priority’ cases and any other subsequent incidents in the same case within 1 working day.
2. If the reporting party did not provide supporting evidence, this was a factor in its assessment. It would continue to log the report. It accepted anonymous reports and assessed all available evidence.
3. It would take steps to investigate reports, including staying in touch and arranging an interview. It would agree an action plan with the reported victim.
4. It would treat those affected by ASB sympathetically and sensitively.
5. It would consider and respond to the individual needs of the reporting customer:
  1. It would seek to identify potential vulnerabilities or support needs and would adjust its approach as necessary.
  2. It would provide support, including by referral to external agencies that could, for example, empower the reporting party to take positive action.
  3. On high priority cases or where relevant it would complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix to measure the harm to the victim and guide actions to protect against further harm.
6. It would manage its communal areas in a way so as to minimise ASB.
The statutory guidance accompanying the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 required the landlord to have a clear focus on the impact of reported behaviour and expected good practice of risk of harm assessments to include regard to potential vulnerabilities.
The landlord was required to have regard to a complainant’s disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making/ actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord was also required to make appropriate reasonable adjustments.
The landlord had a vulnerable residents policy that at the relevant time guided its required approach to potentially vulnerable customers. The policy said its customer facing staff must consider the potential vulnerability of any customer when interacting and if it identified potential indicators, enquire further to support its understanding of their needs to enable an appropriate response.
The landlord introduced an updated vulnerable residents policy in February 2022. This mirrored the above prior policy provisions and emphasised its commitment to ensuring it supported the needs of its vulnerable residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy required that the landlord did the following:
1. Apply a broad definition of a complaint; it would treat something as a complaint when a customer said it had ‘done something wrong’.
2. Identify customers who were vulnerable and account for their specific needs when handling their complaint.
3. Investigate a complaint thoroughly.
4. Provide its written response at the first stage of its process within 10 working days. If it was unable to meet this timescale, it would write to explain why and would respond within a further 10 working days.
5. Set out provision for review of its stage 1 decision. Where a customer requested further review, it would escalate to stage 2 of its process. The stage 2 review would be carried out by a member of its customer relations team or someone not involved at stage 1. Its stage 2 decision would ordinarily be provided within 20 working days.
The policy also set out cases that were excluded from consideration by the policy, including legal claims and issues over 6 months old except in exceptional circumstances.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) within the versions in force during the relevant period set out the importance of a fair complaint handling process by the landlord from:
1. Conducting its investigation in an impartial manner, seeking and considering sufficient reliable information carefully from both parties to inform its findings.
2. The complaint handler acting independently and having an open mind.

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

The resident renewed his request for a housing transfer to the landlord on 29 January 2021, setting out updated household details and concerns over the suitability of his home including risk to his mental health and isolation from his support network. While the landlord appropriately made the resident aware by response of 15 February 2021 of other housing options, it stated the resident would not meet the criteria for a ‘priority move’. This was a pre-determination of the merits of a prospective transfer application. It placed unfair barriers to the resident’s understanding of and access to the application process provided for by its allocations and lettings procedures. It failed to provide any proactive information about its transfer scheme or application process.
This early response failed to follow process and model its own customer promise. It showed a lack of regard to its transfer criteria that included medical grounds. Further, it failed to demonstrate engagement with its requirements in the Equality Act 2010 and its vulnerable residents policy given its pre-existing awareness of the resident’s mental health and the representations of ongoing adverse impact. There is no evidence that the resident’s cited vulnerabilities were given appropriate regard at this time.
The landlord’s further engaged with the resident’s request after he raised a complaint and outlined serious concerns of suitability and his welfare on 15 February 2021 and chased a response on 5 March 2021. It is evident contact took place with the resident on 8 March 2021 outside of the email provided to this Service, however no record was produced of the discussion(s). This represents a failure by the landlord to maintain appropriate records.
The landlord’s records in March 2021 show it referring the resident’s request to a panel determination. The landlord records showed it maintained contact with the resident in this limited period to provide progress update(s) and understand his transfer requirements. However, there is no evidence the resident was informed of the relevant criteria against which the panel would assess his request or given a reasonable an opportunity to gather and submit supporting evidence.
The panel met on 18 March 2021. The landlord maintained no record of its consideration of the resident’s circumstances or its decision with reasons. This is a substantial record keeping failure considering the significance of the decision and nature of the suitability issues asserted by the resident. The lack of record prevents the ability of this Service to consider fully the reasonableness of its decision.
The landlord relayed to the resident the panel decision that it did not approve transfer by email of 24 March 2021 with reference to its criteria. This is the first record of clear advice being provided of the criteria to be met to take account of his mental health and the supporting evidence required. This should reasonably have been provided earlier, having regard to the resident’s representations of exacerbated health. Nonetheless, it is noted the landlord offered a ‘fast track’ further panel review, suggesting some effort at rectification of its prior process.
The resident raised issue with the landlord’s request for updated medical evidence. This Service considers this was a reasonable request by the landlord. Although the landlord was evidently in receipt of medical documents outlining the resident’s mental health and factors relevant to his accommodation needs, the evidence on file did not fully reflect issues being reported at his current home or his then state of health. It was reasonable for the landlord to identify that assessment of his then needs in line with its policy required up to date medical evidence.
The landlord processed the medical form and evidence received from the resident in May 2021 within a timely period, arranging for review by its medical advisor on 28 May 2021. The notes of the medical advisor’s review show it considered the medical evidence supplied by the resident’s GP. While the medical advisor made clear reference to exacerbation of his mental health linked to his accommodation, there is no specific reflection on or reference to the property type recommended by the GP (house) and the potential anxiety trigger he flagged being associated with flats. The advisor simply recorded no special requirements. Notes of the landlord’s subsequent panel review on 18 June 2021 also show no particular regard to the property type recommendation detailed by the resident’s GP.
While it is reasonable the landlord would give considerable weight to the recommendation of its medical advisor, it was required to have regard to all relevant evidence, give appropriate weight to professional opinion and interrogate evidence where there may be any gaps/ queries arising. Without any apparent justification, the landlord simply adopted the property type recommendation of the medical advisor whose report was contrary to and showed no reflection upon the GP’s advice that certain property features could trigger his mental health. The landlord failed to demonstrate reasonable regard to the medical evidence supplied about property type requirements.
Although the panel met on 18 June 2021, the landlord failed to update the resident of its decision to award transfer priority until after his chaser on 29 June 2021. This was an unreasonable delay in the circumstances of its promise to action the application in a timely manner. The landlord acknowledged that an earlier update should have been provided. While it then outlined a summary of the decision, it did not take the opportunity to apologise for the accepted delay. The formal confirmation in line with policy was then further delayed; it was not sent until 12 July 2021. An apology was provided at this stage, however the resident had been put to further time and trouble repeatedly chasing receipt.
The resident’s contact across June and July 2021 highlighted to the landlord his concern about the consideration given to the property type recommendation made by his GP. The landlord’s responses showed a lack of willingness to consider whether the representation was with merit. This is of particular concern in the context of its knowledge of the resident’s mental health needs and background. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to give particular care and attention to ensuring any further housing transfer gave suitable regard to his vulnerabilities and needs.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings procedures allowed for an internal appeal where a resident was unhappy with a panel decision. The landlord’s records show no evidence that it provided any guidance to the resident about his entitlement to appeal. Even when the resident by email of 22 July 2021 requested a ‘review’ with reasons, the landlord failed to process his request as an appeal or direct him to its process. The landlord failed to fairly follow its appeal process.
The resident was subject to multiple delays in timely contact and responses from the landlord to his correspondence in July and August 2021. Its failure to make proactive contact was contrary to precise promises it made on occasions with timescales. Its failures placed the resident at repeat inconvenience, time and trouble chasing contact.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation and response showed a lack of regard to a matter raised by the resident; the consideration it gave to the GP recommendation of property type. It simply recited its prior decision. There is no evidence it reviewed the GP recommendation or the regard given to this by its medical advisor. Further, while the course of its handling of the transfer request was subject to acknowledged delays, its complaint response found no failing in service and offered no form of redress.
Contact promised by the landlord’s rehousing service in July 2021 to take place with the resident remained outstanding until 11 October 2021. This was an unreasonable delay and placed the resident at further detriment chasing update. The failure by the lettings service to engage with the resident appropriately is of particular concern in view of its awareness of the resident’s exacerbated vulnerabilities. The landlord’s explanation for its lengthy delay demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to the resident’s lived experience. The resident had repeatedly described their circumstances as urgent and supplied medical evidence recommending an ‘immediate’ transfer due to the level of impact to his health. The landlord’s explanation that it was delayed by several months due to dealing with ‘emergency’ cases displayed a lack of regard to the particular facts of the resident’s case and day to day distress being experienced.
The landlord provided an apology for the delay within its correspondence of 11 October 2021 and it was appropriate that it did so. However, given the length of delay on a matter of such personal importance and noting the vulnerability of the resident, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider offering any additional form of redress.
While the landlord may not have been able to identify a suitable transfer property for a length of time, it was not prevented from maintaining reasonable and proactive contact to assure the resident of its continued consideration of his case. The records reviewed across the rest of 2021 show a lack of proactive assurances or updates to the resident. Any progress updates were driven by the resident’s chasers, causing additional pressure and time and trouble.
The resident was in the latter part of 2021, ‘matched’ to a property undergoing works in readiness for letting. The landlord’s internal emails of 13 December 2021 suggest the match had been ongoing at that stage for ‘some time’. However, it was not until 15 December 2021 that the landlord sought internal prioritisation of the works. It is unclear why there is no earlier regard to the possibility of this mechanism considering the medical recommendation and the potential harm flagged from ongoing reported incidents. It is suggestive of a failure by the landlord to adopt sufficient prioritisation of his transfer or regard to the potential risk to harm raised by his ongoing contact.
The landlord showed reflection upon the resident’s circumstances in January 2022 when it reviewed the matched property and identified a medical need for a house and not a flat. There is also brief reference to an offer of temporary accommodation. While the landlord’s records are inappropriately limited, this demonstrated listening to the resident’s concerns including about property type that he had repeatedly raised. It actioned within a timely manner an internal request for prioritisation of works to the newly matched property.
Although the landlord’s initial contact with the resident in January 2022 about the newly matched property was timely, responsive and proactive, it failed to maintain this approach across February and early March 2022. This lead to the resident being placed at further detriment seeking update by 7 March 2022.
A shift in the urgency and prioritisation of the transfer arrangements is noted from review of the landlord’s records mid-March 2022 onwards following the resident’s report of being assaulted. It arranged interim accommodation pending transfer and chased update of the works. It is unclear why the same level of prioritisation was not given to the case previously in view of the content of medical evidence and presenting risks of harm.
The landlord final complaint response of 1 June 2022 found no failing in its handling of the resident’s transfer application. The investigation and response showed no appropriate level of reflection or engagement with the concerns raised by the resident eg lack of review of medical property type recommendation. Although review of its records by this Service showed multiple delays that it had on occasion acknowledged, it failed to reflect these fallings or offer appropriate form of redress.
The series of failings identified above in respect of the landlord’s handling of resident’s requests for a housing transfer amount to maladministration. The failings in the round were serious and it is of particular concern that the landlord prevented earlier fair access to its transfer scheme, failed to maintain consistent reasonable contact or demonstrate sufficient prioritisation despite awareness of his vulnerability and escalating circumstances. Although the landlord’s eventual prioritisation, adherence with medical recommendation and realisation of a transfer occurred largely in response to the enduring efforts of the resident, these actions lessened the most serious ongoing impacts of its failures in service.
The records demonstrate the resident was put to significant time and trouble chasing the landlord’s contact and frequently acting as a driver to the landlord’s progress. The landlord’s failings undoubtedly prolonged the period during which he did not have access to its transfer scheme or could be matched with available suitable properties. This represented significant detriment of undue distress to a vulnerable person. Medical evidence confirmed the harmful impact of any continued period spent living in situ. For this reason, the financial remedy appropriate for the detriment caused by the landlord’s failings is at the higher end of this Service’s guideline banding for a maladministration finding.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about their neighbour’s conduct

The resident repeatedly brought to the landlord’s attention conduct by their neighbour that met the statutory and its policy definition of ASB. The landlord’s principal response to reports, when provided, was to remind him of the reluctance he previously expressed around reporting (August 2020). When the landlord advised him of the need to ‘co-operate’ and ‘engage’, the resident continued to send it emails describing ongoing ASB, for example on 16 March 2021. The resident displayed engagement with the landlord to seek to tackle the issue with the support of his advocate. Despite this, the landlord continued to suggest his lack of appropriate engagement.
This characterisation was inconsistent with his repeat correspondence. The landlord unreasonably relied and placed unreasonable weight on his former expressed fears. Not only did adoption of this position impact compliance with policy and legal guidance as reviewed below, but it displayed a defensiveness contrary to supportive and sensitive victim-handling. It gave an impression of placing responsibility on the resident for its lack of action despite his ongoing engagement. This was wholly unreasonable.
Although the landlord cited the resident’s former concerns as a barrier, it demonstrated little effort to seek and support an updated position. After 6 months of being referred back to his previous concerns, the resident did again express to the landlord on 29 September 2021 anxiety about repercussions. The landlord’s response failed to adopt a sensitive approach to his expressed fears. It stated being ‘unable’ to take action if the resident did not want it to contact the neighbour.
The expressed fear of repercussions did not prevent the landlord exploring alternatives means of using the resident’s intelligence to support its understanding of the local picture or take effective action. Indeed, the landlord’s policy stated evidence from a reporting victim was only one factor for assessing reports and that it would accept anonymous reports. There is no evidence it explored alternatives with a view to engaging collaboratively with him to agree an action plan in line with its policy.
The landlord was aware the resident lived with ill mental health and had fled his previous home after falling victim to a serious attack. The landlord failed to display the required sensitive, sympathetic and encouraging handling to support a relationship of trust for progressing his new reports. For a vulnerable individual in particular, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have identified he might require support to help him to consider a reporting process.
There was a failure by the landlord during the period of investigation to follow its ASB policy and procedures in response to the resident’s reports about the neighbour or to adhere to best practice statutory guidance. There is no record of it logging his reports as an ASB case. This Service has seen no evidence of proactive investigation into his reports making use of all reasonable forms.
After some months of submitting reports, the landlord did provide the resident with a minimal update that it was working with agencies concerning the neighbour. This acknowledgement of an issue, or at least some risk presenting to the resident is at odds with its failure to appropriately assess the resident’s reports.
The timeliness and engagement offered by the landlord’s contact in response to the resident was inconsistent. Some of the resident’s reports received no response or acknowledgement, for example in October 2010. Other responses were subject to delay and provided only after the resident chased response or escalated concerns, eg the complaint of 11 August 2021. The landlord did not adhere to its policy timescales for response.
The statutory guidance and the landlord’s ASB policy emphasised the importance of assessing risk, including that of harm to the reporting party to inform its handling of a report, for example appropriate prioritisation and available support. The landlord’s records show no evidence of an assessment of risk at any stage. This is a serious failing in view of the multiple indicators of potential significant harm raised by his correspondence and its pre-existing knowledge i.e. the resident’s adverse mental health, impact to children and the nature of reports.
The landlord’s policy provided for the completion of a vulnerability risk assessment matrix to assess harm and guide protective actions. There is no evidence the landlord identified the relevance of taking this step in line with its policy or the support this could offer to its case and victim handling. The absence of any effort at risk of harm based assessment by the landlord was contrary to the requirements of its policy and statutory guidance.
While the resident repeatedly brought to the landlord’s attention the ongoing adverse impact of the reported ASB on his mental health, the landlord’s records do not demonstrate it had any regard as required by its policy, the statutory guidance and its duties in the Equality Act 2010. In addition to his representations, during the period under review, the resident supplied the landlord with medical evidence confirming negative impact to his mental health from the alleged disturbances. The landlord’s response to his reports about the neighbour displayed a disregard to his vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of his reports repeated the same position adopted across the period under review. The landlord failed to identify any failings in its handling of the ASB reports. While it appropriately identified the role of the police dealing with criminal offences, it failed to have regard to the steps it could reasonably have taken or take moving forward in line with its policy and legal requirements.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about his neighbour’s conduct was subject to the above identified failings that were, in their totality, significant. Its failure to engage with the resident’s reports over a long period, failure to complete any form of risk assessment despite presenting harm factors and lack of regard for the resident’s cited vulnerabilities are considered representative of serious failings.
The resident’s correspondence speaks to the level of distress and anguish experienced in the face of a lack of progression of his reports. The resident repeatedly cited the reported behaviour causing him serious fear for his personal safety, that of his children and adverse impact to his wellbeing. The landlord’s lack of proactive and sensitive engagement with these reports aggravated the detriment suffered by a known vulnerable resident. This detriment is further exacerbated considering this was an ongoing pattern of failing, repeating the detriment to which he was placed as found by complaint investigation 202005149. This added to the distress experienced and caused additional damage to the relationship of trust between landlord and resident.
This Service finds the landlord responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports about his neighbour’s conduct.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of other local ASB and harassment

Prior to the resident’s complaint being considered by his correspondence in August 2021, the resident raised by email of 18 May 2021 reports of harassment by local residents and concern this was racially motivated. The landlord replied in a timely manner to acknowledge the report. However, it advised ‘appropriate action’ in response was dependent on the resident naming who was responsible and providing evidence.
This response and the landlord’s associated records show a lack of regard by the landlord to a reasonable range of investigatory measures eg local enquiries, cctv, community statements. While it undoubtedly would be of assistance for an alleged victim to provide evidence and further details to support a report, the landlord remained responsible to consider action in line with its duties and relevant guidance. The landlord placed sole reliance on the resident as an informant and gatherer of evidence to prove his reports. It failed to adhere to the proactive investigatory practice required in line with statutory guidance.
The landlord’s placement of responsibility on the resident as its driver to action is of concern and unreasonable considering the nature of the report, its awareness of the resident’s vulnerabilities and his prior expressed fears of reporting. It failed to show the victim centred approach as per statutory guidance. For example, there was no evidence the landlord identified the additional care and sensitivity required handling allegations of hate related incidents, the resident’s particular needs or whether any reasonable adjustments were necessary.
Although the resident’s reports fell within the landlord’s policy definition of ASB, there is no evidence it recorded an ASB case or progressed the report in line with its procedures across 2021 and early 2022. There is no record it completed a risk assessment despite several indicators of potential increased harm eg race-hate, vulnerable victim. The landlord’s lack of appropriate risk assessment(s) in this case was likely to have contributed to its failures of sensitive handling.
The resident’s complaint of 11 August 2021 raised issue with the landlord’s handling of his reports and updated details of ASB and harassment. The resident described the reported conduct in severe terms and described risk to his life, adding further updated concerns of racially motivated victimisation by further email of 13 September 2021. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response mirrored the exact same failings identified above in its prior handling. The repeat failing further compounded the detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s final complaint response was significantly delayed. In the interim period, the landlord received multiple further reports of racial harassment and ASB. Its responses to the resident were consistent with its prior adopted position, placing heavy emphasis on his responsibility to take certain steps. It failed to display a sensitive approach to supporting a victim who had expressed prior fears about reporting. There is no record the landlord logged the further reports in line with its ASB procedures. This was regardless of the nature of the resident’s reports that escalated in severity and its own internal concern as expressed in December 2021 that the reports were ‘quite worrying’ and the need for action.
During the course of the further reports, on 29 September 2021 the resident raised fear of potential repercussions and targeting from the neighbours. The landlord failed to engage with this concern with the requisite sensitivity and victim-centred handling required by its ASB policy and good practice.
A shift in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about local harassment was noted following the resident’s reports of 14 and 25 March 2022 of an assault and further racial harassment. The reports were logged appropriately by the landlord and it took steps to investigate the incident by obtaining an account from the resident and liaising with the relevant internal and external services to gather information.
However, while the landlord took swift steps to seek relevant information, there was still scant record of any risk or needs assessment. This may have assisted the landlord to identify the resident’s vulnerabilities and the relevance of his personal and health circumstances to his ongoing needs and risks to harm. The sole apparent reflection by the landlord of potential ongoing risk of harm to the family was noted when an out of hours handler received the latest report. It assessed promptly a risk to safeguarding and harm, leading to its identification of temporary accommodation as an interim measure. The urgent steps taken to reflect upon the potential risk to the resident demonstrated a victim-centred approach and handling in line with the statutory guidance.
These steps taken in the immediate days leading up to the resident’s housing transfer in early April 2022 showed efforts by the landlord to engage with its responsibilities and take some steps in accordance with statutory guidance and its policy. The landlord appropriately responded to the escalated serious incidents reported March 2022. However, the steps taken in this limited period were insufficient to put right the detriment caused by the landlord’s failings over a prolonged period when the resident had repeatedly reported lower level and escalating behaviour. Further, the landlord’s approach consistently failed to have regard to the resident’s expressed vulnerabilities and consider his needs to inform its approach.
The landlord’s final complaint response of 1 June 2022 did not depart from its previous adopted position. It failed to identify any prior failing. It did not put right its failings or make any effort at redressing the detriment experienced.
The landlord is responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of other local ASB and harassment. The failings identified above took place over a prolonged period and were repeated. The vulnerability of the resident and the disregard evidenced to reports of a serious nature are aggravating features.

The landlord’s handling of safety concerns raised by the resident

The resident raised safety concerns regarding the building by email of 24 March 2021, citing poor lighting in the alleyway access, lack of cctv and monitoring of the block. This was in the context of reports of issues with neighbouring properties. The resident raised feeling unsafe in his home and requested security measures. The landlord replied in a timely manner but failed to constructively engage with his expressed concerns. It stated there was ‘no evidence’ proving the damage was aimed at him. It did not explore his concerns about safety and risk management measures in any substance.
There are no associated records demonstrating any review or investigation into the resident’s concerns about safety risks at the block to support the landlord’s conclusion. In any event, regardless of whether or not matters were found targeted at the resident, he had highlighted risks felt to be presenting from lighting, security and monitoring. There is no evidence that the landlord gave these matters regard and the potential risks were not directly addressed.
The landlord’s failure to engage with an issue of importance to the resident showed a lack of listening, sensitivity and regard to his expressed anxieties. It demonstrated a failure to meet its customer promise that said it would help resolve issues causing concern to its customer.
The landlord’s records show its awareness of issues presenting with a neighbour’s conduct within the block and issues with the security of access to the block. The landlord was required so far as possible to ensure a safe and secure environment for the resident. Its ASB policy required that it managed communal areas in a way so as to minimise ASB. While any security measures were at the discretion of the landlord, there is no evidence it gave appropriate regard to whether risk management arrangements were appropriate either at the time raised by the resident or in response to further reports suggestive of local risks.
The resident raised the same safety concerns by his complaint of 11 August 2021. The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to engage in substance with his concerns. While the landlord provided correct advice to signpost the resident to report criminal behaviour to the police and noted repairs necessary, it failed to have regard to and respond on its wider safety management handling. The final complaint response followed a similar position, despite the resident having reported a number of serious immediate local harassment including race hate incidents.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of safety further displayed a failure to consider the potential relevance of his vulnerability and whether any measures or support were reasonable as an adjustment to meet his needs in line with its equality duties.
The landlord’s failure to show listening, understanding or substantive review of the concerns raised by a vulnerable person about safety control measures in his living environment was unreasonable and insensitive, particularly in the context of escalating reported issues. The landlord is responsible for maladministration in is handling of safety concerns raised by the resident.
The resident reported the concerns exacerbating the distress and fear he experienced during this time and the disappointment he felt at his representations being left unanswered. This detriment is considered aggravated by the landlord’s previous mishandling of the same issue in the preceding period as found by complaint investigation 202005149. The resident faced continued disregard for his safety concerns and failure to respond. The remedy ordered by this determination has taken these aggravating factors into account.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident raised multiple expressions of dissatisfaction direct to the landlord that it failed to treat as complaints in line with its complaint policy and procedures or the Code. For example, the resident’s email of 29 January 2021 labelled ‘complaint’. The resident’s concerns were treated as ongoing service requests. Even when the resident submitted an online complaint form on 15 February 2021, his concerns were referred back to the complained of service. The landlord’s lack of compliance with its policy or procedures failed to produce a complaint response to the resident’s concerns that met the requirements of its policy, the Code or at all.
Although the landlord assured the resident it would follow up the lack of complaint response with its customer relations service, there is no evidence of internal escalation until May 2021 following intervention by this Service. The landlord’s records do not disclose why a complaint response then remained outstanding in continued breach of policy and the Code. In the subsequent few months, the resident continued to submit expressions of dissatisfaction and chased formal response to his prior expressed complaint, eg his emails of 25 May 2021, 29 June 2021 and across July 2021. The considerable efforts undertaken by the resident to chase a formal response to his complaint aggravated the detriment experienced.
Although the landlord was in contact with the resident at points during this time and provided partial response to his concerns, these were subject to the issues noted above, not formal complaint replies and were handled by the complained of service. This correspondence did not accordingly mitigate the impact to the resident from the lack of independent review or appropriate formal response.
The resident’s further expression of dissatisfaction by email of 11 August 2021, was appropriately logged as a complaint by the landlord. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint to the resident in line with its policy or requirements of the Code. Its response was delayed, 14 days after the standard timescale provided for by its policy. The landlord apologised for this delay within its response. However, it failed to recognise or provide any form or redress for its prior prolonged failure to register his former complaints and apply its complaint policy.
A further failing arose from the landlord’s handling of the investigation and response at stage 1. The landlord’s records show scant evidence of reasonable and relevant enquiries to inform its findings. For example, the resident raised concern about the landlord’s interrogation of supplied medical evidence. There is no evidence the complaint handler reviewed the evidence or the relevant service’s regard to the document concerned. However, the landlord set out the conclusion that it ‘would have liaised with the medical advisor’. The finding suggests a supposition on the part of the complaint handler and a lack of review of relevant facts. The Code required the handler to conduct an impartial investigation, seeking and reviewing relevant information from both parties. The absence of an appropriate range of enquiries demonstrated a failure by the landlord to conduct a reasonable investigation.
The landlord assigned its stage 1 investigation and response to the officer responsible for handling operational overview of the complained of matters and detailed prior correspondence with the resident. The handler had significant substantive involvement in the matters under review by the complaint. This allocation failed to show adherence to the fair process and independent review anticipated by the requirements of the Code.
The resident’s request of 19 September 2021 to escalate his complaint to stage 2 was acknowledged by the landlord and it sought clarification from the resident. However, once the resident replied by email on 23 September 2021 the landlord refused to action his request in line with its complaints policy or the Code. By email of 29 September 2021, the landlord determined it would not escalate the resident’s complaint, stating it had already addressed the matters raised. This was not in line with its policy and the provisions of the Code. Moreover, the decision to exclude on the basis of the fullness and competence of its stage 1 response was made by the stage 1 handler. This represented a further failure in the fairness of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
This unfair exclusion of the resident’s review request added to the time and trouble encountered by the resident. The resident chased processing of his request on 11 October 2021 and on 12 April 2022, before referring to this Service. This Service’s intervention to the landlord of 10 May 2022 lead to the landlord’s reflection, evidenced by its internal notes that it had failed to handle the residents’ review request in line with its policy. A subsequent final response of 1 June 2022 was issued only as a result of the resident’s repeat perseverance.
The final response was received by the resident some 178 working days after the landlord’s receipt of his request, against its policy timescale of 20 working days.
The landlord’s response acknowledged to the resident that it had failed to follow its complaint process by its lack of acknowledgement, handling by its customer relations team or actioning his request. It offered an apology. This form of redress and acknowledgement was insufficient to put right the series of failings in its complaint handling to date. It paid no regard to the earlier efforts by the resident to raise complaint. While it was appropriate the landlord offered an apology, such words alone did not offer a proportionate and reasonable remedy for the level of detriment experienced, in particular the significant delay to response, equivalent to 35 weeks. There was no apparent regard to the landlord’s compensation policy that allowed for financial remedy in case where service failing had been identified. The landlord’s failure to identify any form of additional remedy was unreasonable.
The stage 2 investigation and the final response was handled by the same case handler who determined the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and who had prior substantive involvement in the operational handling of matters subject of his complaint. This was inappropriate to ensuring both the appearance and application of fairness to the investigation. It was contrary to the landlord’s own complaint policy that required the conduct of stage 2 reviews by either its customer relations team or an officer not involvement at stage 1. It was also at odds with the fair process guided by the Code to protect the independence of the review. The lack of regard to the resident’s needs and vulnerabilities evident within the substantive matters of the complaint, was consistent across the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s review of the resident’s complaint and contact with him demonstrated a lack of consideration to his needs and accordingly its duties in the Equality Act 2010. It failed to demonstrate compliance with its own vulnerable residents policy by this lack of regard or even recording of his needs. The landlord’s complaint policy itself required its complaint handlers to identify customer vulnerabilities and account for their specific needs within their handling. There is no evidence of this provision being followed in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The above failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint are, in their totality, significant. The landlord’s response failed to offer recognition or appropriate redress for these failings that undoubtedly caused further breakdown of the landlord and tenant relationship and undue distress over a prolonged period. The landlord is found responsible for severe maladministration in its complaint handling.
When assessing appropriate remedy to account for the impact of the landlord’s failings, this Service has considered it found a similar pattern of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s previously investigated complaint (case 202005149). That the landlord exposed a vulnerable resident repeatedly to further mishandling of the same nature aggravates the detriment he suffered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about their neighbour’s conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of other local ASB and harassment
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of safety concerns raised by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord unfairly pre-determined the resident’s transfer request outside of its procedures. Once his request was reviewed by its panel, it failed to demonstrate reasonable regard to supplied medical evidence. When the resident raised concerns on this matter, the landlord failed to direct him to its appeal process or reconsider its regard. Its communications were inconsistent and largely driven by the resident’s contact. The resident was subject to periods of unreasonably delayed contact including on important developments. The landlord failed to show reasonable engagement with its equality duties and vulnerable residents policy. The failings placed the resident at significant time and trouble and caused periods of time during which he was left without appropriate access to its transfer scheme or suitable properties.
When the resident brought to the landlord’s attention reports about their neighbour’s conduct, it repeatedly and unreasonably referred him back to his fear of reporting and mischaracterised his engagement. Contrary to its own policy and legal guidance, it failed to explore all reasonable forms of investigation, assess risks or seek to agree an action plan. Its contact was at times subject to unreasonable delay. Its handling of the resident’s reports demonstrated a consistent lack of sensitive victim-handling or regard for the resident’s cited vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of other local ASB and harassment placed unreasonable reliance on the resident to inform its investigation. It failed to adhere to the proactive investigation required in line with statutory guidance or model a victim-centred approach. It failed to follow the steps required by its ASB policy including assessment of presenting risks.
The landlord failed to engage appropriately with the resident’s safety concerns. It failed to demonstrate investigation or review of the risks raised contrary to its own policy requirement concerning communal areas. It displayed a lack sensitivity to the resident’s anxieties or regard for his vulnerabilities.
The landlord unreasonably failed to action repeat expressions of dissatisfaction causing the resident undue time, trouble and leading to recourse to this Service. Once it provided a response at stage 1, the landlord then unreasonably refused to escalate his complaint, leading to further intervention by this Service. This caused substantial delay to its final response, The investigations into the complaint were subject to failings of fair process.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation in July 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. This included a finding that the landlord was not following its ASB policy, leaving vulnerable residents exposed and it had failed to assess harm. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its handling of complaints and ASB reports and its approach to residents with vulnerabilities. Many of the failings identified by this complaint mirror the issues noted by this investigation. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, this Service does not make any wider order.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for its chief executive to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £3,500 compensation comprised of:
  1. £700 to address the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling of his request for a housing transfer.
  2. £850 to address the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling of his reports about the neighbour’s conduct.
  3. £850 to address the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling of his reports of other local ASB and harassment.
  4. £500 to address the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling of safety concerns raised.
  5. £600 to address the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to him by its handling of his complaint.