Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202017135)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017135

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

20 May 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports:
1. of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour and their visitors;
2. of a leak in her ceiling;
3. that the communal washing facilities were in a state of disrepair;
4. that the communal bin had not been collected.
The complaint also relates to the resident’s request to be relocated.
Additionally, the landlord’s complaints handling has also been considered.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 4 March 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that a stage one response should be provided within 10 working days.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof. The policy also notes that emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours, and routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days.
The landlord operates a management transfer policy. The policy notes that transfers are discretionary and will be considered in certain circumstances. Such circumstances include where there is “serious” ASB (where there is a “threat to life and limb,” with corroborating evidence), or a “critical medical need” (where there is evidence to support that a “mental health need can only be met through the provision of alternative accommodation.”)
The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes tenants should report crimes to the police. The policy also notes that the landlord will take action that is reasonable and proportionate.

Summary of events

It is evident that in or before June 2020, the resident reported ASB concerns against her neighbour. On 22 June 2020, the landlord advised it had investigated her reports and reviewed CCTV of the incident she had described. It advised that on the basis of its investigation, the ASB case had been closed. It advised it was “not able to discuss the reasons for this at this time but I can assure you the plans in place are beneficial for both you and the other customer.”
The landlord also noted that the resident had expressed her desire to be relocated to another property. It requested the resident advise what area she wished to relocate to, and also advised that a ‘management move’ on medical grounds may be appropriate, and that if she wished to pursue this, to discuss it with her housing officer.
On 4 December 2020, the resident’s family member made a complaint on behalf of the resident. They reported that a neighbour in the building was allowing multiple visitors to enter the building, sometimes late at night, despite COVID-19 restrictions, and that these visitors used the other residents’ parking spaces when visiting. They also reported that illicit drugs had been found in communal areas of the building. The family member concluded that the ASB concerns were affecting the resident’s mental health. The family member also reported that the communal washing facilities at the building were also in a state of disrepair.
The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications during the period of the complaint. An internal communication dated 4 December 2020 noted that the landlord’s housing officer had discussed this complaint with the resident and advised her to contact the police regarding any suspected breaches of COVID-19 restrictions.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 December 2020 and advised that its complaints team would investigate. On the same date, the resident noted that it was her understanding that the landlord had previously promised her alternative accommodation, but had not yet made an offer, which she wanted addressed in the landlord’s response.
On 12 January 2021, the resident requested an update. She reported that the multiple visitors to her neighbour were still entering the building and that one of the bins had not been collected.
On 20 January 2021, the landlord arranged for a washing machine in its communal washing facility to be replaced and for other repair works to be completed. It is not evident that it advised this to the resident at this time. It is also evident that the landlord liaised with the police regarding the ASB reports, and that the police subsequently carried out an investigation at the neighbour’s property but chose not to take any further action.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 1 February 2021. It apologised for the delay to its response and offered £30 compensation to reflect the resident’s time and trouble in chasing it up. Regarding the communal washing facilities, it confirmed it had carried out repairs and installed a new washing machine. Regarding the reports of ASB, the landlord advised it had spoken with the neighbour regarding visitors parking in residents’ parking spots, and that since this, there had been no further reports. It also noted that it had already requested the resident provide incident diary sheets of any other instances of ASB, and without this evidence, it would be unable to take any further action. It further advised that any instances of drug use should be reported to the police.
Regarding the resident’s desire to be relocated, the landlord advised that based on her desire for a single bed bungalow in certain locations, this was likely to take some time. It advised that due to lockdown, the turnover of properties had reduced and as such there were less available. It noted it had previously advised her to also register with the ‘Homelink’ property bidding service and also consider private rented accommodation.
It is evident that in or around February 2021, the landlord arranged for a medical assessment for the resident to determine if a medical priority could increase her banding for housing applications. On 3 February 2021, the medical assessor advised the landlord that the resident’s medical needs did not satisfy a medical priority. It is not evident that the landlord discussed the outcome of this assessment with the resident at this time.
On or around 4 February 2021, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. She also reported that there was a leak coming through her ceiling and that there were now rats in the bin area of the building due to the bin not being collected. She additionally reported an ongoing smell of drugs from her neighbour’s property.
Based on the landlord’s internal communications, it is evident that it investigated the resident’s reports of drug use but could not detect the smell of drugs. The neighbour advised the landlord it may have been the smell of incense sticks. The landlord subsequently reported this to the resident and advised a warning had been given to the neighbour about this and also visitors coming to the property in the early hours of the morning. The landlord also noted that it had reiterated its request that the resident provide incident diary sheets relating to ASB, but that she had declined.
The landlord’s internal communications also noted that following the resident’s report of a leak, its electrician had attended the same day to make safe her light fittings. It had subsequently arranged for repair works on 19 February 2021. Regarding the bin, the landlord noted this issue affected only a single bin but acknowledged this was an ongoing problem with its refuse collection contractor. It noted that it was seeking to arrange a new contractor.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 4 March 2021. Regarding the roof leak, it confirmed that the repairs had been completed on 19 February 2021 and apologised for the delays to this repair. Regarding the ASB, it reiterated that it had given the neighbour a warning about the buzzer being used by visitors late at night and also reiterated its request for the resident to provide incident diary sheets to enable it to investigate any other concerns. It also reiterated any criminal activity should be reported to the police. Regarding the bin, it advised that it had now placed a warning notice on the bin in question advising it shouldn’t be used, and that it was seeking a new contractor to collect this bin. Regarding the resident’s request to be rehoused, the landlord noted that she was in ongoing communication with its housing allocations team who were providing her with assistance. It noted that she was willing to accept a two-bedroom bungalow and pay the extra bedroom tax and advised its team would discuss this with her further.
Following the landlord’s stage two response, the resident reported that she had a confrontation with her neighbour on or around 14 March 2021. The landlord subsequently discussed the report with the neighbour who disputed the resident’s version of events. The landlord requested that the resident put her concerns in writing, but the resident declined and advised she would report the incident to this service instead.
Based on the landlord’s internal communications, it is also evident that it continued to attempt to arrange for a suitable property within its own allocations team but was unsuccessful. It also attempted to arrange to discuss the resident’s mental health concerns with her GP in order to reassess her medical priority, but the resident did not consent to this. It nevertheless remained in contact with the resident and in June 2021 provided further advice about bidding on suitable properties.

Assessment and findings

ASB

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
It is evident that the resident has made reports of ASB prior to the report that is the subject of the landlord’s complaint response. The Ombudsman notes that in its correspondence to the resident in June 2020, it informed the resident that it was unable to discuss the reasons why it closed its ASB case. The Ombudsman notes that landlords have data protection responsibilities and cannot always disclose conversations had with other tenants. It would have been helpful for the resident, however, if it could have explained in more detail what measures it had put in place, which could have been stated in general terms, as opposed to simply no information at all. Given, however, that it also explained it had closed her ASB case on the basis of its investigation into the complaint, which included reviewing the CCTV, this omission to provide details of the further preventative steps it had taken did not constitute service failure in this instance.
The landlord’s ASB policy notes that criminal behaviour should be reported to the police. The Ombudsman notes that the police are the correct body to investigate criminal behaviour, and it is best practice for landlords to work with the police when they receive reports of criminal behaviour.
Following the resident’s reports of breach of COVID-19 restrictions and use of drugs in her complaint on 4 December 2020, it is evident that the landlord liaised with the police. The landlord also appropriately advised the resident to contact the police to report any further criminal activity and provided her with incident diary sheets to assist with its own investigation.
In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately set out the steps it had taken to investigate the complaints of ASB, which included speaking with the neighbour about the behaviour and parking habits of their visitors. As noted in its ASB policy, this step was proportional to the complaint and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect. Given that the police investigation did not lead to any action being taken, it was also reasonable that the landlord did not take any further action regarding the complaints of drug use and COVID-19 breaches, but it was appropriate that it advised the resident to report any further incidences to the police. It was also reasonable that it reiterated the importance of providing incident diary sheets as evidence to support any further action it could take.
Similarly, following the resident’s reports of the smell of drugs coming from her neighbour’s property in February 2021, the landlord appropriately investigated the report by attending the property and speaking with the neighbour. It then appropriately reported its findings to the resident (i.e. that the smell was incense sticks). While the resident disputes this to be the case, the landlord does not have the capability to forensically investigate smells, and its investigation and subsequent warning to the neighbour was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
In its stage two response, the landlord also appropriately advised it had given a further warning to the neighbour about the frequent use of the buzzer late at night, which again was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It also appropriately reiterated both its request for incident diary sheets and for criminal activity to be reported to the police.
In summary, on each occasion the resident reported ASB, the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation, and took appropriate steps such as involving the police and issuing warnings to the neighbour. While it may have been the case that criminal behaviour did occur in the building, the Ombudsman notes that the threshold of evidence for a court to order an eviction is a high one, and in the absence of strong evidence, such as the police taking action, the steps the landlord was able to take were limited.
It is also evident that the landlord has continued to carry out reasonable investigations into the reports of ASB that occurred after the period of the complaint.

Leak

It is evident from the communications between the parties that there had been ongoing works to the resident’s roof requiring scaffolding which had been delayed. These works are not the subject of this complaint, however.
The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will attend to emergency reports within 24 hours. Following the resident’s reports on 4 February 2021 of a leak from her ceiling, it is evident that the landlord arranged for its electrician to inspect the light fitting and ensure it was safe on the same date as the report. The landlord subsequently carried out repairs to address the leak on 19 February 2021. Given that it is not evident that the leak was severe, this repair was completed within the timeframe for routine repairs, as set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
While not part of the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord appropriately used its discretion to address this concern in its stage two response. The landlord appropriately set out the steps it had taken to address the leak, and although not part of the complaint, it also used the opportunity to apologise for the ongoing delays to the other roof works.

Washing facilities

While not specifically referred to in the landlord’s repairs policy, it is not disputed that the landlord provides a communal washing facility to residents for which it is responsible. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out repairs to this facility within a reasonable timeframe.
Following the resident’s reports that there were disrepair issues with the washing facilities in December 2020, it is evident that the landlord arranged for an inspection of the facilities, and subsequently obtained a quote for repairs and a replacement communal washing machine on 21 January 2021.
While the works to the washing facilities were not completed until 20 January 2021, which was over a calendar month after the resident’s initial report, given that specialist operatives were required for the installation of the washing machine, and that the landlord did not delay in arranging for the initial investigation and quote, this time frame was reasonable.
The landlord could, however, have been more proactive in keeping the resident updated. Its failure to do so led to her having to chase an update on 12 January 2021. The landlord’s delayed response and subsequent offer of compensation is considered further below.

Bins

It is evident that the landlord was aware one of its bins was not being collected by its contractor. Based on its internal communication, this is due to this bin being in a locked area which the contractor was unable to access. Throughout the period of the complaint, it is evident that the landlord sought to arrange for a new contractor, and also arranged for the local authority to carry out a collection.
Following the resident’s reports, the landlord did not address this concern in its stage one response. Given that this report had been made in a communication separate from the resident’s formal complaint, it was reasonable for it to have considered this to have been a report rather than a formal complaint.
Following the resident’s further reports that there were now rodents being attracted to the bin, the landlord appropriately used its discretion to add the complaint to its stage two response. Given that it was still in the process of arranging for a new contractor, and that there were other bins available for the resident to use, it was reasonable that it advised it had placed a notice on the bin that it was not to be used. While it appropriately explained it was seeking a new contractor, it did not set out an indicative timeframe of when this would be completed, which would have been helpful. This alone, however, would not constitute service failure.

Relocation

The landlord’s management move policy notes it has the discretion to offer a management move in certain circumstances. These include instances of serious ASB or where there is a critical medical need. For either to apply, the landlord must have corroborating evidence. It is also evident that the landlord operates a bidding system for new properties, known as ‘Homelink’.
It is evident that in or prior to June 2020, the resident expressed her desire to be relocated and that she had informed the landlord that she had mental health needs. The landlord subsequently advised that it would consider a management move on mental health grounds, but that further discussions were required. This was not a promise of a management move. Throughout the course of the complaint, the resident has referred to the landlord promising to relocate her, but this service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest such assurances were given.
In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations that a property of the type and in the location she wished was likely to take some time based on the current turnover of properties. The landlord’s internal communications show that it repeatedly made enquiries with its allocations team regarding a suitable property, who advised it didn’t have any available. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord provided further options for the resident, such as bidding on its Homelink system and also considering private accommodation. This service has also seen correspondence demonstrating that the landlord provided the resident with assistance in registering for other service’s bidding systems.
While this service has not been provided with every instance of correspondence between the allocations team and the resident, it is evident that the parties were in continuous contact throughout the period of the complaint and that the allocations team provided continued updates and assistance.
As noted above, for a management move to be granted, evidence relating to the requirements was required. It is not evident that the ASB experienced by the resident amounted to a “threat to life and limb,” and so it was reasonable that the landlord did not offer a move on this ground. While it has been noted that the resident has a mental health need, it is not evident that the landlord has been provided with evidence to suggest this need could only be “met through the provision of alternative accommodation.” It is evident, however, that the landlord took reasonable steps to try and establish the nature of her need, by both arranging for an assessment (which concluded there was no need), and also seeking to speak with her GP. Given, however, that no such need was established, it was also reasonable that the landlord did not offer a management move on medical grounds or increase her banding on its bidding system for a medical priority.
In summary, it is not evident that the landlord promised to relocate the resident without further consideration of her circumstances, and the steps it has taken to obtain evidence to support a management move were reasonable. It also took reasonable steps to provide additional advice and assistance for other avenues to be relocated.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will endeavour to provide a stage one response within 10 working days. Where additional time is required for a response, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide an updated timeframe.
The resident made their initial complaint on 4 December 2020, which the landlord acknowledged on 7 December 2020. Despite the resident requesting an update on 12 January 2021, the landlord did not reply or provide its stage one response until 1 February 2021.
This delay would have caused frustration for the resident and led her to expend time and trouble in chasing updates. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord recognised this in its formal response and apologised. It also appropriately offered £30 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reflective to the inconvenience caused and amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the resident’s reports:
1. of ASB from her neighbour and their visitors;
2. of a leak in her ceiling;
3. that the communal washing facilities were in a state of disrepair;
4. that the communal bin had not been collected;

or in relation to her request to be relocated.

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

ASB

On each occasion the resident reported ASB, the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation, and took appropriate steps such as involving the police and issuing warnings to the neighbour. It also appropriately requested that resident provide incident diary sheets to assist with its investigation.

Leak

The landlord attended the resident’s property to make safe the electrical light fitting and also carried out the repairs both within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy.

Washing facilities

The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and arranged for repairs within a reasonable timeframe.

Bins

The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns by placing a notification on the bin for it not to be used, and it is evident it was being proactive to arrange a new contractor to regularly empty the bin.

Relocation

It is not evident that the landlord promised to relocate the resident without further consideration of her circumstances, and the steps it has taken to obtain evidence to support a management move were reasonable. It also took reasonable steps to provide additional advice and assistance for other avenues to be relocated.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s offer of compensation provided reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delayed stage one response.