Notting Hill Genesis (202100770)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100770

Notting Hill Genesis

30 September 2021

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 report of ASB in February 2021;
2. the resident’s request for a management transfer to another property.

Background and summary of events

The resident’s tenancy agreement is in her sole name for a one-bedroom property. The property was originally solely occupied by the resident, however it is presently occupied by the resident along with her son, his wife and their two children.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

ASB Policy:

This sets out the landlord’s general approach to dealing with ASB. It states that on receiving a report of ASB, it will contact the complainant within 1 working day and offer to visit them within 5 working days. Its initial response is to investigate and monitor any risk. If a crime has been committed, it will advise the complainant to contact the Police.
The policy states that where the alleged perpetrator is vulnerable, and this vulnerability is related to reported incidents, it will offer them support with sustaining their tenancy where it is possible to refer them to external agencies who can support them.

ASB Procedure:

This sets out the more detailed process the landlord follows when handling an ASB case. It states that when an ASB report is made, if it reasonably believes that there is an immediate and serious risk of harm to people and/or property, then it will advise the complainant to make a direct report to the Police if they feel they are in danger in any way.
The procedure requires that the investigating office must consider the impact of any vulnerability, disability or capacity issues of the complainant(s) and perpetrator(s).

Transfer Procedure:

This states that, in exceptional cases where the safety and wellbeing of a resident and/or a member of their household is at risk, the landlord can consider them for a management transfer. The management transfer gives the resident priority over other residents on the transfer list and facilitates an urgent move. Management transfers will be given an A or B banding, depending on how urgently they need to move.
The policy sets out that only ‘eligible household members’ can be included in the transfer application. It goes on to list who is an eligible household member e.g. someone who was part of the original household, or a dependant under 18. It also states that ‘Any household members who do not fall into this criterion should not be included as part of the transfer application’.

Allocations and Lettings Policy:

This states that, in cases where a tenant is awarded band A because they have been approved for a management transfer, we make one reasonable direct offer. A direct offer is a single offer of an available property made directly to the tenant, not through CBL. A reasonable offer is one that alleviates the imminent risk to the household by moving them to a different location. The direct offer and the property the tenant moves from will be like-for-like, with the same number of bedrooms.

Summary of events

On 21 December 2020 the resident’s new neighbour moved into the flat below her.
On 15 February 2021 the resident reported that the neighbour was threatening her and her family. The resident explained that she was out shopping and her son was at work and her daughter-in-law and the children were leaving the flat when the neighbour chased her and the children and threatened them. Her daughter in law managed to get into her car with the children and drove off.
The resident said that she called the landlord several times during the afternoon and she was advised to call the Police for assistance. The resident notified the Police and the family did not return to the flat and went to a friend’s house. At around 11pm the Police attended and took a statement from the resident. The Police knocked on the neighbour’s door but he did not answer. The Police advised the resident that it was safe for her to return to her flat.
The resident noticed that there were marks on her front door and she thought that this had been caused by the neighbour trying to break down the door. The Police reassured her that it was safe to return to the flat.
The resident said that at around 2am in the morning, the neighbour started hammering and pounding on the ceiling all through the night. The resident called the Police at around 3:30am who attended but they did not take any action as the neighbour was in his own flat and was not being violent and the resident was not in any danger.
On the morning of 16 February 2021, at around 5am the neighbour began pounding and kicking the resident’s front door. The resident said that her family had to barricade the door and call the Police. They were not able to leave the flat and waited for the Police to attend. The resident has said that she notified the landlord of the situation. The Police attended and spent several hours tackling the neighbour and calming him down. The resident understands that the neighbour was taken away by the Police and detained due to his mental health.
The correspondence on 16 February 2021 between the landlord and the community mental health team showed that it was liaising with the neighbour’s Care Coordinator about his breakdown and it was confirmed that the neighbour had been detailed in a care facility and he would not be returning to the flat for the foreseeable future.
On 19 February 2021 the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord.
21 February 2021 the Police emailed the landlord to ask if it could consider moving the neighbour to avoid escalation of the problem. The landlord responded on 22 February 2021 and confirmed that it was actively working with the support services and agencies involved in dealing with the neighbour’s care and it will keep the resident updated on any developments.
On 22 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that the neighbour had been removed from the flat by the Police and there were no immediate plans for his return whilst the landlord continues to work with the appropriate support services.
On 26 February 2021 the landlord agreed to increase the resident’s priority banding to Band A and offer her a management transfer to another one-bedroom flat.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2021:
1. It said that it dealt with the ASB report on 15 February 2021 in a swift manner by liaising with the neighbour’s care worker and the Police, which resulted in the neighbour being removed from the flat the next day. As far as the landlord was aware there was no immediate plans for him to return to the flat.
2. It said that it could not fully disclose all the information about the neighbour’s health and/or his care arrangements as this was confidential medical information and was subject to data protection.
3. It had accepted the resident’s request for a transfer to another property and it had her priority banding due to the impact the ASB incident has had on her.
4. It concluded that it had taken appropriate action to minimise and remove the threat to the resident; and it had agreed her transfer application and awarded her priority band A.
On 9 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to notify her that he was due to return to the flat on 12 April 2021. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about his return and assured her that it would be supporting her through the process. It said that whilst it could not disclose all the details, it would keep her informed of general developments and it will keep her regularly updated.
Around this time the resident was offered a move to another 1-bedroom flat. The resident refused this offer on 16 March 2021 and told the landlord that she wanted a move to a bigger property to accommodate not only her, but also her son and his family.
The landlord responded and explained that was only obligated to rehouse her as the sole tenant and it was not able to include her son and his family as they were not on the tenancy and were not dependants.
On 18 March 2021 the resident escalated her complaint.
On 6 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord as she had seen the neighbour at his flat and she was unhappy that she had not been informed of this and she had understood that he was being moved elsewhere.
The landlord has said that after the neighbour had been discharged from the care facility he went to stay with his family in another borough and his intention was to move to that borough.
On 10 April 2021 the resident contacted this Service and was advised to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process.
On 22 April 2021 the landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response:
1. It explained that it had correctly advised the resident to contact the Police when she reported the incident on 15 February. Given the nature of the emergency situation the Police was better suited to deal with this immediate threat.
2. It maintained that it promptly acted on the report of the incident and treated the matter as urgent. It was in contact with the Police as well as the health and care professionals involved with the neighbour in order to follow up on any developments and to obtain relevant information on the circumstances. It remained in contact with the resident throughout and updated her on the actions that were being taken.
3. The landlord acknowledged that the incident would have had a significant impact on the resident and her family. However, it maintained that it acted appropriately and promptly following the report. As such, it did not uphold this part of the complaint.
4. It reiterated that it was not able to fully disclose everything about the neighbour due to privacy and confidentiality. It had liaised with the support services involved with the neighbour and it had kept the resident informed on a general basis. As such it said that it had acted in line with its policies and as a result it did not uphold this part of the complaint.
5. The letter also mentioned an issue from 2018 about a missing application form (which is separate to this present complaint). It apologised for not saving a copy of the form to its records and this had now been logged as a data breach with its Data Compliance team. In recognition of this, it offered her £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
6. With regards to the present transfer request, it explained its decision not to offer a bigger property on the grounds that the resident’s son (and his family) were not part of the household when the resident signed for her tenancy for the current flat, and so they could not be included in her transfer application.
7. Following the recent incident with the neighbour, it had accepted the resident’s transfer request and had increased her banding and made a direct offer to her for a 1-bedroom flat.
8. It reiterated that it could not include the resident’s son and his family in the transfer application. It acknowledged the resident’s wish to include her son in the transfer but it maintained that as he was not part of the household for the current tenancy he was neither a tenant nor a household member, and therefore it was not obliged to offer him accommodation together.
9. As the current property is a 1-bedroom flat, it will continue to look for an alternative 1-bedroom flat for the resident. It also asked the resident to look for alternative options herself as she was now on the top banding priority.
10. In conclusion, it partially upheld the complaint. In recognition of the lost application form it offered £50 compensation and on top of this it also offered a further £30 compensation in acknowledgement of the slight delay in completing the Stage 2 response.
On 26 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP and explained what it had done in response to the resident’s complaint. It maintained that it was working with the resident and the neighbour to manage the situation.
Following the offer of mediation from this Service, the landlord confirmed on 8 June 2021 that it was looking at transferring the neighbour to another property. It explained that the neighbour was deemed to be vulnerable and was presently receiving a lot of mental health support.
On 27 June 2021 the resident responded to this Service’s mediation process and said that the landlord’s offer to move the neighbour did not resolve her complaint. Therefore, the case was then referred to a full investigation by this Service.
At the time of writing this report, the Ombudsman understands that the landlord has been trying to find suitable alternative accommodation for the neighbour but it has not been able to complete the transfer yet. As such, the neighbour is still residing in his flat.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the ASB incident

It is clear from her contact with this Service that the resident has been very distressed by the events on 15 and 16 February 2021. She says that this has been exacerbated by what she feels is the lack of action on the part of the landlord which has meant that she is still living in fear of another similar incident occurring.
The incidents noted above would have been traumatic for the resident and her family to witness. The Ombudsman’s role in such situations is not to investigate the actual ASB incidents themselves, but to look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and her concerns and whether or not it acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies.
It is recognised that this has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage due to the vulnerability and support needs of the neighbour. The landlord has been required to balance its obligations towards the resident, under her tenancy agreement and its ASB policy, with its obligations to support the neighbour (the alleged perpetrator) under his tenancy, its ASB policy and other relevant legislation. The landlord is also obliged to respect the confidentiality of the alleged perpetrator’s personal data and information.
Looking at the facts of the case and the available evidence, the landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident to contact the Police regarding the immediate threat of violence. Whilst the landlord has a responsibility to deal with reported ASB, its policy states that where there is a threat of imminent danger to the resident or the family, the assistance of the Police should be sought in the first instance.
It is noted that the resident sought help from the landlord but given the nature of the threat and the circumstances of the incident, it was reasonable for the Police to be involved from the outset. There is no evidence to show that the landlord either dismissed the resident’s report or did not offer suitable support and advice. It can be seen that the landlord was aware of the seriousness of the incident and it was in contact with the Police about it.
The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to take into account not only the impact on the resident, but also any factors that may affect the neighbour in terms of his vulnerability, any disability and/or mental health issues. The landlord quickly established that the neighbour had suffered a breakdown and it was in contact with his support provider. Once the neighbour’s condition had been established the landlord acted appropriately by continuing to liaise with the support agencies involved in his detention and care.
The resident was clearly fearful of the incident repeating itself, and the landlord rightly acknowledged this and reassured her that the neighbour was not due to return to the flat for the foreseeable future. This greatly reduced the risk and allowed the landlord to plan for how to resolve the issue for both the resident and the neighbour.
The available evidence shows that the landlord acted swiftly to address the problem by agreeing to the resident’s request for a move. The request was reviewed and confirmed within 10 days of the incident, which was reasonable.
Furthermore, the landlord offered the resident a move to an alternative property within one month of the incident, which shows that it took on board the resident’s concerns about what would happen if and when the neighbour returned to his flat.
The landlord has shown that it maintained regular contact with the resident. It is noted that the resident is unhappy that she was not given full details of what was happening. The landlord’s explanation for this was that it could not fully disclose the neighbour’s medical treatment or other such similar confidential information. As such, it could only provide a general overview of the situation. This was appropriate in the circumstances as the landlord needs to bear in mind its obligations to safeguard the neighbour’s privacy and confidentiality.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord is working towards a pragmatic resolution whereby it has agreed to transfer requests from both the neighbour and the resident. This will allow it to look at various possible resolutions and it is a sensible and proactive approach.

Landlord’s handling of the transfer request

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the neighbour and it took into account how the incidents on 15 and 16 February 2021 had adversely impacted the resident. This was appropriate and the landlord has shown that it took a customer-focussed approach and actively worked with the resident to find potential resolutions.
The evidence shows that the landlord acted quickly to agree a transfer request and this was confirmed within 10 days of the reported incidents. The resident is unhappy that her transfer request is only in her name and it is only for a move to a similar-sized property. She has asked that the landlord include her son and his family in her transfer request and that the landlord offer her a bigger property to accommodate the entire family.
The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s request to move her entire family unit. However, the landlord’s decision to reject her request to include her son’s family in the transfer is reasonable and in accordance with its allocations policy. The policy clearly sets out where a management transfer has been agreed, the landlord will make a reasonable offer of an alternative property which would alleviate the imminent risk to the household by moving them to a different location. The proposed property will be like-for-like with the same number of bedrooms.
The evidence shows that the landlord discharged its responsibility by offering the resident a move to a like-for-like 1-bedroom property in a different location. Had the move been agreed by the resident, it would have resolved her concerns about living in fear of her neighbour. The landlord has shown that it has acted appropriately by ensuring that on offer of a move was made very quickly.
With regards to the resident’s wish for her son’s family to be included in her move, the landlord has maintained a consistent approach to this and has explained to the resident on several occasions why it cannot agree to this. The key point being that the resident’s son and his family are not included in the resident’s tenancy agreement and are therefore not deemed to be tenants of the landlord. Nor are they deemed to be dependants of the resident, and the landlord therefore has no obligation to rehouse the son’s family.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of ASB in February 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a priority management transfer to another property.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the ASB report. It liaised promptly with the relevant parties and it quickly agreed to move the resident and the neighbour to alternative properties to try and resolve the issue. It regularly updated the resident of developments and it not only reassured and supported the resident, but it also took into account the needs of the neighbour too.
The landlord’s handling of the transfer request was appropriate and in accordance with its allocations policy.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

If it has not already recently done so, the landlord to provide the resident with a further update on the present position with regards to the proposed transfer of the neighbour to a new property.