Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

One Manchester Limited (202211510)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211510

One Manchester Limited

1 May 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the request for rehousing.
    3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy. The property was a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a low-rise block. The resident had concerns with his mental health, and he said he had a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.
  2. The resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that he wanted to move because he felt intimidated by his neighbours who were verbally abusing him. This Service contacted the landlord on 7 September 2022 and asked it to provide a response to the resident regarding his complaint.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022. It said it had investigated the reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) with the resident and the alleged perpetrator who disputed the ASB reports. It said it was working with the local authority’s mental health team and had agreed actions to support him at a joint visit completed on 29 September 2022. It reiterated the actions it had agreed, including monitoring the ASB and offering support with rehousing. It said it had delivered its service in line with expected standards and so it did not uphold the complaint.
  4. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 2 November 2022. He said that he did not want to apply for the rehousing register as he believed that the landlord had not addressed his ASB reports fully. He said he was upset about the lack of legal action taken against the neighbour.
  5. On 28 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had reviewed the evidence regarding its handling of the ASB reports and it had followed its processes and service requirements. It did not uphold the complaint.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. The complaint became one that this Service could investigate on 9 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB affected his mental health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about their health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman is unable to consider or assess the actions and decisions made by the local authority’s mental health teams or the social services department. This Service is also unable to consider complaints that relate to housing or rehousing applications that fall within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) are more likely to consider these complaints. Before bringing a complaint to the LGSCO, the resident will likely need to have made a complaint to the local authority first. However, this Service can look at the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing due to ongoing reports of ASB and how it communicated with him regarding his rehousing options.
  3. The resident had asked the Ombudsman to order the landlord to offer rehousing to him. He has since ended his tenancy and is no longer a tenant of the landlord. Regardless, it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to order the landlord to offer immediate rehousing to the resident, or to prioritise him over other applicants or tenants that need rehousing and who may be in a similar or greater need. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The resident first reported verbal abuse from his neighbours in August 2022 and the landlord responded by completing a risk assessment questionnaire on 23 August 2022. The landlord took appropriate steps to offer support to the resident as it referred him to its support and wellbeing team on the same day after the resident said it affected his mental health. The resident made further reports of verbal abuse on 26 August 2022. The landlord tried to contact him twice and later sent a letter to him on 30 August 2022, asking him to make contact for support with the reported ASB.
  2. Following the Ombudsman’s contact to the landlord on 7 September 2022, it opened an ASB case and contacted the resident on 13 September 2022 to discuss his concerns. The resident said that the ASB had impacted his mental health, and he was struggling with his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. He said that he was receiving support from the mental health team, but he could not remember the details of who provided the support.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by making referrals to the local authority’s mental health team to arrange a joint visit with a mental health professional. It also explained that the resident could make further ASB reports through emails, which he had requested. It also completed a risk assessment on the same day, and it created a list of agreed actions following this, which was good practice. This was in line with its antisocial behaviour and hate crime policy which stated that it will assess and reassess the reports and risk to those experiencing ASB and promptly refer cases to other agencies for support where required.
  4. The landlord responded to the reports of ASB promptly. Following two further ASB reports made by the resident, it interviewed the neighbour who allegedly caused the ASB. The neighbour denied the reports and the landlord encouraged the resident to continue making reports when they occurred, and it also engaged with the mental health team. While the resident was unhappy that the landlord did not take legal action against the neighbour, it cannot do this without evidence of the ASB. It was appropriate for the landlord to continue to support the resident in reporting further concerns to help gather evidence of the ASB.
  5. It is evident that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities regarding his mental health throughout its handling of the ASB reports. It was proactive in contacting the mental health team to try and get him further support. It regularly updated the resident with steps it was taking to arrange a joint visit to discuss his mental health and ASB concerns. It also made referrals to the local authority’s social care department regarding the risk to his mental health.
  6. A joint visit with the mental health team, the landlord and the resident was held on 29 September 2022. The landlord agreed to make another referral to its support and wellbeing team while the resident was waiting for an assessment with the local authority’s mental health team. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to offer support to the resident.
  7. The landlord continued to proactively follow-up the progress of the support offered by the mental health team which was appropriate for it to do. It also tried to contact the resident on 7 occasions through phone calls, emails and home visits between 26 October 2022 and 24 November 2022, but it was unsuccessful in its attempts. It was good practice for the landlord to try varied communication methods to try and speak with the resident.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports was in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations. It appropriately assessed the risks and needs of the resident, and it was proactive in ensuring that the resident received the support required from the local authority’s mental health team. It responded and investigated the reports of ASB promptly and its actions showed that it took his concerns seriously.

The landlord’s handling of the request for rehousing

  1. The landlord is a housing association. It advertised its stock and let properties through a local housing register for social landlords who have properties within the area. The landlord’s allocations policy states that it will manage and assess applications for the housing register for its own tenants who want rehousing.
  2. In the resident’s complaint, he asked to move to another property. The landlord arranged a joint visit to the resident with the local authority’s mental health team on 29 September 2022. The mental health team agreed to make referrals and apply for funding to secure supported accommodation for him. The landlord agreed to provide any housing assessments that could support the referrals and it said it would also ask its housing options team to contact him to make a housing application and provide bidding support. This was an appropriate response by the landlord, and it showed its intention to support the resident with his request for rehousing.
  3. It is unclear whether the landlord provided any support regarding the housing application process between the joint visit held on 29 September 2022 and 2 November 2022. It is evident that the landlord had attempted to contact the resident once during this time, but the mental health team had also said that the resident had returned to his mother’s property, and he had not yet received any mental health support. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to not follow this up due to the resident’s health needs at the time. It instead engaged appropriately with the mental health team.
  4. On 2 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that he did not want to make a rehousing application. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to not continue to make contact regarding the application.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately regarding the resident’s request for rehousing. It followed its allocations policy and offered a reasonable adjustment by offering for its housing options team to make contact to create his rehousing application.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The resident contacted this Service to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and its response to his request for rehousing. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 7 September 2022 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord recorded this as the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
  2. The resident later told the landlord that it had not provided its complaint response within the period that the Ombudsman asked it to. It is evident that after the landlord completed its ASB risk assessment on 13 September 2022, it contacted this Service for advice on 15 September 2022. It asked whether it should proceed with the complaint process, considering the resident’s mental health needs at the time. On 21 October 2022, this Service told the landlord that the resident had since confirmed to the Ombudsman that he wanted a formal complaint response to his complaint. It later provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022.
  3. While the landlord’s response was not in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, where it advises it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, the Ombudsman recognises the delay as extenuating circumstances. It delayed its response by asking the Ombudsman for support and advice given the resident’s health concerns at the time. After notification of the resident’s request for a response, it provided its complaint response promptly within 2 working days which was appropriate. The delay is therefore not considered a failing of the landlord in this case.
  4. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 2 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 November 2022, which was 18 working days after it received the escalation request. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales of 20 working days for a stage 2 complaint response, as set out in its complaints policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for rehousing.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the associated complaint handling.