One Manchester Limited (202208031)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208031

One Manchester Limited

25 July 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment;
2. Rehousing application;
3. Request for its officers to resign.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident has asked for a number of the landlord’s employees to resign. Paragraph 42(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we will not deal with complaints relating to employment issues. Therefore, this part of the resident’s complaint has not been considered within this report.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time that the resident made her complaint she held a secure tenancy with the landlord. Her tenancy started in 2005 and the landlord is a housing association. The resident has informed this Service that she has now moved to another property.
The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy says that ASB is “any conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person where it directly or indirectly relates to or affects our housing management function”. It will:
1. Make it easy to report incidents and respond to each reported incident.
2. Fully investigate all reports of ASB. It will share information with other organisations that can help with the problem whilst observing data protection laws and information sharing principles.
3. Review ASB cases and discuss the outcome of the case with the resident prior to them being closed.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that residents:
1. Are responsible for the behaviour of every person (including children) living in or visiting their home.
2. Or anyone living with them, or visiting their home must not cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to any other persons.
3. Or anyone living with them, or visiting their home must not harass any other person.
The landlord’s allocations policy states that a band one priority award is valid for a period of six months. It will be reviewed every six months. Band one priority awards can be given to residents who are suffering extreme violence or harassment where there is strong police evidence that an urgent move is required to protect them. The band one priority will be given as part of an overall plan to protect and safeguard the resident. Due to the nature of the need to move, any offer will be in a suitable and safe location, considering support networks and safeguarding factors.
The landlord’s has a two stage complaints policy. It will respond to a stage one complaints within ten working days. It aims to respond to stage two complaints within twenty working days.
The landlord has a compensation policy. It says that it will consider offering resident’s financial compensation when its services fall below its published standards.

Summary of events

The landlord shared ASB case notes with this Service that show incidents reported to it by the resident dating back to 2006. Multiple incidents were reported by the resident to the landlord in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. The police were involved in a number of the reports.
On 15 March 2017, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that it was not able to take any enforcement action against her neighbour following a recent incident. It advised the resident to stop communicating with her neighbour.
The landlord completed a vulnerability risk assessment with the resident on 20 March 2017. The resident had reported that she felt intimidated by her neighbour.
On 23 March 2017 the resident’s housing priority was increased to band three due to overcrowding. It was increased to band two on 1 March 2019 as the resident or a member of her household was in employment.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 May 2021 to confirm that her housing application was live and a priority band one had been applied. This had been applied for fear of violence or harassment. This appeared to have been awarded due to ongoing issues reported by the resident.
On 10 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that she was experiencing noise nuisance from her neighbour. It had disturbed her and her family between 8am and 2am. She had heard people stamping up and down their stairs and slamming doors. The landlord arranged to visit her with the police on 16 March 2022.
The landlord emailed the local authority noise team on 10 March 2022. It said that it had re-opened the ASB case and would consider installing noise equipment when it had received the completed diary sheets from the resident.
The landlord met with the resident and the police on 16 March 2022. The resident said that she had experienced ongoing noise nuisance for over 16 years. She had a band one priority and would like to move to a new area. She was also on the mutual exchange website. The landlord asked the resident to record any further noise issues on diary sheets for two weeks. It asked the resident to email the completed diary sheets to it. It also said that she should expect to hear a level of everyday living noise from her neighbour. It explained what it would and would not investigate as ASB. It also advised the resident to make sure that she placed bids on properties regularly as her priority could be removed if she did not.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that she had band one priority. It said that she had not placed a bid since she had been awarded the band one priority. Her priority would be reviewed on 22 April 2022. It may be removed if she did not start to bid for properties.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 April 2022 and 12 April 2022 to ask her to complete the diary sheets and return them to it. When it received the completed diary sheets, it would review the evidence and take any action where required.
On 13 April 2022, the local authority’s noise team told the landlord that it had opened a noise case on 25 January 2022 following reports of noise nuisance from the resident. It had written to the resident on 4 April 2022 to state that it would close the case if she did not contact it within ten days. The resident then contacted it on 7 April 2022 and on 12 April 2022 to report further issues. The noise team said it had not been able to witness the noise that she reported.
The landlord told the resident’s MP on 17 May 2022 that it had closed her ASB complaint as she had not responded to it. The landlord did not provide any evidence that the resident was informed about the closure of the case.
On 29 May 2022, a police officer told the landlord that the resident had reported that she had been racially abused by her neighbour. The landlord emailed the police officer on 30 May 2022. It said that it had tried to contact the resident on a number of occasions but had not been successful.
The resident returned a completed ASB diary sheet to the landlord on 21 June 2022. It noted banging noises on stairs in January, March, April and June 2022. This occurred between 11pm and 2am. She also said that a neighbour had made a racist comment towards her .
On 21 June 2022 the landlord discussed the case with the local authority’s noise team. The noise team said that it was going to close the case as it had not been able to gather any evidence to support the resident’s reports about noise nuisance.
On 29 June 2022, the local authority noise team sent the landlord a log of noise reports from the resident. The landlord said it would contact the noise team to discuss the logs. The landlord did not provide any evidence that it contacted the team following this email.
On 5 July 2022, the local authority noise team visited the resident on a proactive visit. It did not witness any issues with noise during the visit. It forwarded the landlord diary sheets made by the resident that said she had experienced slamming doors and banging on the stairs on 1 July 2022, 2 July 2022 and 3 July 2022. The landlord said that it had offered the resident noise equipment again but had not heard back from her.
The resident contacted her MP on 2 September 2022 to state that she was unhappy that her ASB case had been closed by the landlord. She felt that it had not been investigated thoroughly.
On 2 September 2022, the landlord told the resident’s MP that it had not received any further reports about ASB from the resident. The case had therefore been closed. It had advised her how to report incidents and explained what constitutes ASB and noise nuisance. The resident would need to wait for a suitable property and this could take some time.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 September 2022 (ref 16328). She was unhappy with the way that it had handled her ASB and noise nuisance reports. On 22 September 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident. It hoped to send a complaint response by 3 October 2022.
On 29 September 2022, the local authority shared an ASB case review with the resident and the landlord. It said that:
1. It had considered information from the resident, the landlord and the police.
2. The case review had been carried out as the resident was unhappy with the way that the landlord and the police had handled her reports about noise nuisance. The resident felt she had been treated unfairly by the landlord.
3. The resident had reported ASB and noise nuisance for a number of years dating back to 2016. She wanted to move to another property.
4. The police and the landlord had advised that there was not sufficient evidence to take any enforcement action against her neighbour.
5. The landlord had offered to install noise equipment. It would offer this to the resident again.
6. The resident should continue to report issues with ASB and noise nuisance to the landlord and complete diary sheets. The landlord would monitor for any further reports from the resident and carry out any necessary action.
The landlord issued the resident a stage one complaint response on 14 October 2022 (ref 16328). It said that:
1. The ASB service that she had received was in line with what it expected.
2. There was currently a high demand for four bedroom properties and it encouraged the resident to keep bidding.
The landlord met with the resident on 7 November 2022 to discuss her complaint and clarify why she remained unhappy with its response. It said that it aimed to reply to her stage two complaint by 5 December 2022.
On 28 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that her neighbour had been slamming her door for three days. They had also blocked her driveway. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident following this report.
The resident told the landlord that she had experienced further issues with noise nuisance due to banging doors on 4 December 2022. She asked the landlord what action it had taken following her previous emails.
On 5 December 2022, the landlord issued a stage two complaint response to the resident (ref 16328). It said that:
1. The resident had reported that her neighbour’s garden was untidy on 7 November 2022. The landlord had removed some bulky items from her neighbour’s garden in November. No mice or rats had been identified. It was not able to tell her neighbour where to keep her bins.
2. It would contact the resident in the next two weeks to discuss the ASB and noise nuisance case.
3. It would install noise equipment in her property.
4. It had investigated the resident’s report that its staff had acted inappropriately. There was no evidence to support this.
5. There was insufficient evidence to support the landlord taking any tenancy enforcement action against her neighbour at this time.
6. The resident should continue to bid for properties every week. She had a band one priority.
On 6 December 2022, the resident complained to the landlord (ref 16974). She said that it had not handled her ASB case properly and asked for a number of its officers to resign.
On 12 December 2022, 13 December 2022, 15 December 2022, and 16 December 2022, the resident reported further issues with noise nuisance to her landlord. She asked the landlord why her tenancy account had a visit in pairs flag on it.
The landlord responded to the resident on 17 December 2022 to tell her that the visit in pairs flag could be there as she was vulnerable. It would find out and let her know.
The resident reported further issues with noise to the landlord on 18 December 2022, 19 December 2022, 20 December 2022 and 21 December 2022.
On 22 December 2022, the landlord told the resident that her neighbour had agreed to double carpet her stairs. It would also would fit slow door closures in their property to try to prevent them from slamming. This would hopefully reduce the noise issues.
The resident asked the landlord for further information about the visit in pairs flag on her tenancy account on 23 December 2022 and 28 December 2022. She was worried that it might affect her chances of being rehoused. On 30 December 2022, the landlord said that it would respond to her in writing about the visit in pairs flag as soon as possible.
The resident reported further issues with loud banding to the landlord by email on 5 January 2023, 9 January 2023 and 15 January 2023.
The landlord visited the resident on 12 January 2023. During the visit it discussed how ASB and noise nuisance cases are managed and what evidence is required to take enforcement action. The resident said she did not want to install the noise equipment. The landlord gave the resident information about reporting ASB in future.
The landlord issued the resident with a stage one complaint response on 24 January 2023 (ref 16974). It said that it:
1. It had carried out a reasonable and proportionate investigation into her request for its employees to resign and the landlord to be closed. It did not uphold this part of her complaint.
2. The visit in pairs flag on her tenancy account was originally added in 2012. This had been transferred from an old system without any details. It would now be removed. Details about the flag had not been shared with any other agencies.
3. The note on her account due to rent arrears from July 2022 to September 2022 may have been shared with partner housing organisations. As the rent arrears had been cleared, this flag had been removed. It had not been shared with any other agencies.
4. As its response to the issue with the visit in pairs flag had fallen below its level of expected standards, it offered the resident £50 compensation for its service failure. It would also carry out an organisation wide review of tenancy warning flags as a result.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2023 as she was unhappy with its stage one complaint response (ref 16974). She said that she felt that the warning flag had affected her chances of moving to another property. She also said that the landlord’s poor handling of her reports about ASB and noise nuisance had affected her health and wellbeing.
The landlord issued the resident with a stage two complaint response on 31 March 2023 (ref 16974). It said that:
1. It had met with the resident on 20 February 2023 and 1 March 2023.
2. It had offered the resident £50 compensation for its poor response to her report about the warning on her tenancy account.
3. The resident’s housing application had a band one priority. This was the highest level of priority band available. It had been applied due to a “fear of violence”. It had been added to her application in May 2021. The date had been added incorrectly as March 2017 on her housing application. It apologised for the mix up and confusion caused. The error had not disadvantaged the resident.
4. The landlord would consider moving the resident via a direct let but she wanted to move to a different landlord.
5. It offered the resident an additional £50 compensation for its handling of the tenancy warning flag on her account.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 April 2023 as she was frustrated with the amount of time that it was taking for her to move to a new property. A senior member of the landlord responded to her on 28 April 2023 to say that it was doing everything that it could to help her move to another property. It had offered her a direct let but understood that she would prefer to move to another landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her complaint to this Service, the resident has referenced historical reports of ASB and noise nuisance. She said that she has reported incidents to the landlord for over 16 years. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the resident’s current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from March 2022 onwards, which is six months prior to the formal complaint being made to the landlord.
The resident has raised concerns to this Service about the impact of the ASB and noise nuisance that she has reported on her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s claims, however it is not within its role to establish a link between health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as it may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of her complaint. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.
It is evident that the issues that the resident has reported to the landlord have been distressing for her and her family. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not, but to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of ASB and harassment

After the resident reported noise nuisance to the landlord on 10 March 2022, the landlord visited her to discuss the report on 16 March 2022. The landlord’s file note from the time showed that it discussed with the resident the difference between everyday living noise and noise nuisance. It also advised her to complete diary sheets for two weeks so that the landlord could review it the evidence. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord arranged the visit to the resident within a reasonable period of time. During the visit it provided the resident with a clear and positive initial response to the resident at this time. It established a clear plan to try to resolve the issue and explained what action it may or may not be able to take. The landlord also noted that an officer who attended had had no involvement in any previous reports made by the resident. This was positive as it demonstrated that the landlord was committed to try to resolve the resident’s reports from a new perspective.
The landlord’s records show that it wrote to the resident’s neighbour following her report to it in March 2022. This Service was not provided with a copy of this letter. However, the landlord’s records show that it also discussed the report about noise with the resident’s neighbour in March 2022. From the evidence provided by the landlord following this conversation, it could have done more to explain to the resident what its expectations were in regards to noise. This would have helped to provide them with a better understanding of what is and is not acceptable in regards to household noise. It would also have helped them to understand at what times different types of noise would be considered to be unacceptable. The landlord did not provide any evidence that it contacted the resident’s neighbour to discuss the noise report again until December 2022. The resident reported further issues with noise to the landlord and the local authority noise team on a number of occasions after March 2022. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have maintained more regular contact with the resident’s neighbour following the reports about noise. If it had done so, it might have helped it to resolve the issue more quickly and effectively.
The resident reported issues with noise to the landlord on a number of occasions from March 2022 until January 2023. The contact always by email as the resident had stated that this was her preferred method of contact. From the evidence that the landlord has provided, it appears that it was generally responsive to the resident’s reports and emailed her back within a reasonable amount of time. However, this investigation has identified times in November 2022 and December 2022 when the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s further reports about noise issues in the property. As a result, the resident said that she felt increasingly frustrated by the landlord’s poor communication with her during this time. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have agreed a communication plan with the resident at this time to ensure that she knew how quickly it would respond to her reports. As it failed to do so, the resident was left feeling frustrated and letdown when she did not receive a response from the landlord.
Following the resident’s report about noise, the landlord was in regular contact with the local authority’s noise team. In the Ombudsman’s view, this demonstrated a positive joined-up approach to dealing with the case and demonstrated that the landlord was actively trying to obtain evidence to support the resident’s reports about noise nuisance.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the resident’s completed diary sheets from 21 June 2022. It is not clear when the landlord received the completed diary sheets. It shows that the resident recorded issues with noise in January 2022, March 2022, April 2022 and June 2022. She also said that she had experienced racial abuse from her neighbour in 2021. The landlord did not provide any evidence to this Service that it contacted the resident to discuss the evidence recorded in the diary sheets or how it would proceed with the case after it received them. This would have been frustrating for the resident. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have reviewed the evidence that she provided to it and respond to her to advise her how it then proceed with the case. As it did not contact the resident to review the completed ASB diary sheets, the landlord also failed to respond to her report about racial abuse. This represents a significant failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB and will have caused the resident additional significant distress.
The landlord provided a copy of a risk assessment that it had completed with the resident on 20 March 2017. The resident had told the landlord that she felt harassed and intimidated by her neighbour at the time. She was awarded a priority band one from 7 May 2021 as the landlord had assessed that the resident was threatened with violence and harassment. The landlord did not complete another risk assessment with the resident after 2017 or update the existing risk assessment. In the Ombudsman’s view, as the resident’s rehousing application had been awarded with a band one priority, it would have been reasonable to expect that the landlord would have reassessed her risk assessment after it reopened the ASB case in March 2022. As it failed to reassess her risk assessment, the landlord missed an opportunity to identify support needs or vulnerabilities in the household, assess how it should approach the case and ensure all safeguarding was in place.
After the resident was awarded a band one rehousing priority there is no evidence that the landlord considered offering her any additional support or help. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will consider referring resident’s for support when they have reported ASB or noise nuisance. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, as the landlord had identified that the resident was at risk of violence, and as she had held a rehousing priority band one for a significant period of time, it would have been reasonable to expect that the landlord would have considered offering the her some additional support. This would have helped her to manage the ongoing issues that she continued to report to the landlord. It would also have provided the landlord with an opportunity to identify any areas of risk posed to the resident and how it could reduce them.
In December 2022, the landlord told the resident that it would fit slow closures to her neighbour’s internal doors and that her neighbour would be “double carpeting her stairs”. It hoped that this would help to reduce the noise coming from her neighbour’s property. In the Ombudsman’s view, this showed that the landlord was making positive efforts to help resolve the noise issues for the resident. However, as the same issues had been reported by the resident for a significant period of time, it would have been reasonable to expect that the landlord could have made these suggestions sooner. The resident had repeatedly reported issues with slamming doors and banging noises on her neighbour’s stairs for a significant period of time.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that when it plans to close an active ASB case, it will review the case and discuss with the resident the outcome of the case prior to it being closed. Although the landlord had made efforts to contact the resident, it did not provide this Service with any evidence that it contacted her to advise her that it planned to close her case. As it failed to advise the resident that it planned to close the case, or that it had closed it, the resident felt increasingly frustrated with the landlord’s handling of her reports. In the Ombudsman’s view therefore, the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident when it closed her ASB case. As a result, the resident said that she felt like the landlord was not taking her reports about ASB and noise nuisance seriously.
In May 2022,a police officer told the landlord that the resident had reported that she had been racially abused by her neighbour. The landlord informed the police officer that it had not been able to contact the resident to discuss the report. It had made efforts to contact her by email. It is not clear why the landlord did not make efforts to contact the resident by other means after it had been informed about her report of racist abuse. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to make reasonable efforts to respond to the resident’s report about suffering racial abuse at this time. Although the landlord’s ASB policy does not state that it will contact residents within a specific period of time following a report about a hate crime, this Service would have expected it to have tried to contact her in person, over the phone and in writing to discuss the issue. As it did not contact the resident again until September 2022, the landlord also failed to offer the resident any additional support following her report. The landlord’s poor communication during this time led to the resident feeling increasingly frustrated and letdown by it.
The resident informed this Service and the landlord that she felt some of its officers had treated her and her family unfairly. She said that it had failed to take enforcement action against her neighbours as a result of their close relationship. The landlord responded to this in its stage one complaint response to her in January 2023. It appeared to have carried out a thorough investigation into her reports and encouraged the resident to provide further information from her legal representative on the matter. In the Ombudsman’s view, the information that has been reviewed as part of the resident’s complaint does not show any evidence of unfair or unprofessional conduct towards the resident or her family. There also was no evidence that the landlord acted in an inappropriate way towards the resident or her family.
Overall, this investigation has found that the landlord was generally responsive to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. As it was unable to substantiate the claims as ASB, it was limited in the action it could take, but ultimately, it took reasonable steps to investigate the reports and took proportionate actions.
However, the landlord did fail to carry out an additional vulnerability assessment with the resident or update the one that it completed in 2017. This was despite the fact that it had awarded the resident a priority band one for the threat of violence or harassment that she faced. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord therefore did not accurately understand or record the level of risk posed to the resident. This investigation has also identified times when the landlord communicated poorly with the resident. As a result, she said that she felt frustrated and told this Service that she did not feel like the landlord was actively trying to resolve her reports about ASB and noise nuisance.
Therefore, this investigation has made a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. An order for the landlord to pay the resident £450 has been made to recognise the additional distress and inconvenience that these failures had on the resident.

Handling of the resident’s rehousing application

The resident complained to the landlord that the incorrect date of her priority one band award had been applied to her rehousing application. She was worried that this might have affected her chances of being offered a property sooner. The landlord apologised to the resident and informed her that the mistake had not affected her chances of being rehoused in its complaint response in March 2023. The application was amended to reflect the correct date that her priority band one had been awarded. In The Ombudsman’s view, the landlord responded to the resident’s report about the incorrect date on her rehousing band within a reasonable amount of time. It reassured her that the mistake would not have affected her chances of being offered another property and apologised for the inconvenience. This was a reasonable response.
As already mentioned in this report, the landlord said that the resident had been awarded a band one rehousing priority property on 7 May 2021. This was due to her needing to move because of a serious threat of violence or harassment posed towards her. The landlord offered the resident the opportunity to move to another one of its properties in March 2023. Its allocations policy says that a senior member of the landlord can consider offering a resident a management move in some circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have considered offering the resident a management move sooner. It awarded the resident a band one priority in May 2021 and she was not successful in looking for an alternative property for a significant period of time. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider offering the resident a management transfer sooner, particularly as she continued to report the same issues to the landlord. If it had offered her a management transfer sooner, it would have given the landlord an opportunity to resolve the threat that it had identified that was posed to the resident.
The landlord’s allocations policy says that it will award a band one priority to residents “as part of an overall plan to protect and safeguard victims”. There is no evidence that the landlord considered agreeing a plan with the resident or considered any other ways that it might need to protect or safeguard her in the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered other ways that it could help to protect the whilst she remained in the property.
The landlord’s allocations policy also states that it will undertake a review of a band one priorities every six months. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service that it carried out a review of the resident’s band one priority award. If it had reviewed the her priority band award it would have provided her with an opportunity to talk about the difficulties that she was having in moving to another property. It would also have provided the landlord with an opportunity to better explain how long it might take her to find an alternative property. As a result, the resident was frustrated that it was taking her so long to move.
The resident asked the landlord about a warning flag that had been added to her account on 12 December 2022. The resident said she was worried that the warning flag could affect her chances of being rehoused. Although the landlord did contact the resident about the warning flag on 17 December 2022, it did not confirm that it had been removed until 23 January 2023. The delay in responding to the resident caused her additional distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have told the resident what the warning flag related to sooner and also confirmed earlier that it had not affected her chances of being rehoused. However, the landlord did recognise this failing, apologised to the resident and offered her £50 compensation for its service failure. It also said that it would conduct an organisation wide review of tenancy warning flags as a result. This represented reasonable redress.
This investigation has found that the landlord responded to the resident’s report about the incorrect date on her rehousing application within a reasonable amount of time. It apologised for the mistake and reassured the resident that it had not affected her chances of moving to another property. However, the landlord failed to undertake regular reviews of the resident’s housing priority band and did not provide any evidence that it considered agreeing a plan with her to ensure that she was safe after it awarded her application a band one priority. As it had taken the resident a significant period of time to find an alternative property, the landlord could also have considered offering her a direct let sooner. It did not provide any evidence that it considered this.
Therefore, a finding of maladministration has been made in recognition of the landlord’s failures to correctly follow its allocations policies and procedures. A compensation order of £400 has been made to reflect the additional distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of handling of the resident’s concerns about her rehousing priority band.
As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the resident’s request for its officers to resign is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord did commit significant resources to try to resolve the resident’s ASB and noise nuisance complaint. It carried out a number of visits to her property and was generally responsive to her reports by email. However, it failed to carry out a vulnerability assessment with the resident or update the one that it completed in 2017. It missed opportunities to offer her support and it failed to respond to her report about hate crime. It also did not tell her that it had closed her ASB case and this caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
The landlord apologised for the error on the resident’s housing application and reassured her that it had not affected her chances of moving to another property. However, this investigation has identified that the failed to follow its allocations policy correctly. If it had, it would have provided the resident with more opportunities to discuss her chances of moving with the landlord. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had considered a plan to ensure the resident’s safety in the property after it awarded her the band one priority.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £900, comprising:
1. The £50 it previously offered her for its service failure in responding to her question about the visit in pairs warning flag on her tenancy account;
2. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures identified within this report relating to its handling of her reports about noise nuisance and ASB;
3. £400 for the landlord’s failure to follow its allocations policy.
If the landlord has already made a payment of £50 to the resident as it indicated, this may be deducted from the amount above, meaning that £850 should now be paid.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord should also apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified within this report. This should be sent to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider adopting a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate. These options should include mediation, information sharing and community building events and, where appropriate, dedicated staffing. This will ensure that low level issues of neighbour friction are dealt with at the appropriate levels and not inappropriately handled as potential ASB.
The landlord should review and consider the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on noise complaints. This was published on 24 October 2022.
The landlord should consider arranging training for its relevant officers on:
1. Its allocations policy;
2. How to complete risk assessments, responding to hate crime reports and the closure of ASB cases.