Optivo (202101144)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101144

Optivo

27 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns:
1. regarding the registration of the building as a safe house
2. regarding her reports of anti-social behaviour
3. regarding her request for a property transfer
4. the related complaint

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced on 22 September 2008. The property is managed by a housing association
The property is described as a ground floor one bedroom flat with a rear garden.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord not to interrupt or interfere with the resident’s enjoyment of the premises. The tenancy agreement gives the resident the right to live in the premises and provides security of tenure under the provisions of the Housing Act 1996.
The tenancy agreement records that the resident obtained a management transfer to the current address.
The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policies defines ASB AS “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises”.
It stated that on a receipt of a report of ASB, it will
1. consider the needs of the resident and the harm that the ASB caused
2. record anonymous reports and take action where it finds evidence of ASB
3. consider the risks to the resident and work with other agencies to protect your immediate safety
4. provide support, investigate the ASB and take action to stop further incidents
5. keep the resident updated regarding the actions it takes.

It clarifies that the actions it takes will be proportionate to the seriousness of the report taking into account the frequency of the behaviour. It will not take action when there is insufficient evidence, and it will support other agencies to take action.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its repairs categories. These are: emergency repairs carried out within six hours and for responsive repairs, it will confirm a convenient appointment with the resident.
The landlord’s housing options and lettings policy states that properties are allocated through the Choice Based Lettings scheme and in line with agreements it has with the local authority.
The housing options and letting policy advises residents that to obtain alternative accommodation, residents can apply for a mutual exchange, apply to the local authority for a transfer or consider a shared ownership or other affordable ownership product. In addition, it sets out the circumstances in which it will consider a management move such as “domestic violence, witness protection scheme, severe harassment, severe property damage and significant personal tragedy”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure. The landlord will respond within 10 working days at the first stage. The second stage consists of a review panel whose meetings are held monthly, and it will inform the resident of the panel’s decision within five working days of the panel meeting.
The landlord’s compensation policy recognises that it may not meet it service standards and gives guidance on the amounts payable in those circumstances.

Summary of events

The resident states that when she moved into the building it was designated as a “safe house” and only provided accommodation for females.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 July 2020 setting out that she had undertaken a managed move to the property. The occupant of Flat 1 made her feel uncomfortable and the occupants of Flat 4 had constant visitors who rang the buzzer at 2am to gain access to the building. She advised that she wanted the landlord to take action to ensure it knew who was occupying the building and to provide confirmation that the building was designated for people like her, who were vulnerable.
In response on the same day, the landlord advised that the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulations limited the information it could share with the resident, however it would investigate the concerns that it had received.
The landlord’s records note that it called the resident on 8 July 2020 and that it left a message requesting that she make contact regarding her report about her neighbours.
The resident rang the landlord on 13 August 2020 regarding the building being a safe house which should be occupied only by females. She was concerned about the number of visitors to Flat 1 and Flat 4 and that a glass jar thrown from the flat above had nearly hit her.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 21 August 2020 and 26 August 2020 regarding the status of the building and was unable to speak with the Neighbourhood Manager as they were not available.
The resident submitted a complaint using the landlord’s complaint form on 28 August 2020. She complained that:
1. She had experienced ASB from the people living in the building – examples given were rubbish thrown into the garden and a glass jar thrown from a window that had nearly hit her.
2. She suffered with her mental health and that the situations had increased her anxiety.
3. The landlord had been contacting her to ascertain who was living at the property
4. The building was meant to be a safe house
5. Each time she contacts the landlord by phone she had spoken to a different member of staff.
She expressed that as an outcome to her complaint she wanted to move to a safe house or a building where she had her own front door.
The resident submitted another complaint form on 7 September 2020. She complained that the landlord had not responded to her concerns regarding the building in which she was living, that she could not view her complaint on its portal and that since April 2020 she had not received a response to the concern she had raised. Therefore, she felt unsupported by the landlord.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 September 2020 to acknowledge the complaint made on 7 September 2020 and to request further clarification of the issues that the resident had raised regarding the occupancy of the building.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 15 September 2020 regarding her complaint. The resident advised that:
1. She moved into the property when she was a care leaver, and she was informed at the time that the building was a safe house
2. She was still affected by her experiences at her previous tenancy
3. She has been contacting the landlord since April 2020 and each time she makes contact, she has had to repeat the reason for her call.
4. She felt unsafe in the building as there were lots of people arriving and leaving at different times of the day,
5. When she first moved into the building it, was only occupied by women
6. A glass jar was smashed in front of her by a neighbour which had frightened her.

Her preferred outcome was to move to a property where she had her own front door, for the landlord to explain why the building was no longer considered a safe house and that she had police reports that she could supply to the landlord if required related to her move to the property.

In response, the landlord explained that it did not operate its own transfer list. However, it would send the resident its housing options booklet explaining how she could find alternative accommodation.
The landlord’s internal records show that it held a case conference on 16 September 2020 where it agreed to provide the resident with her housing options.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 24 September 2020. Its main findings were:
1. The funding for support had been removed by the local authority some time ago, this could have influenced the decision to move general needs residents into the building.
2. It had been unable to discover who or when the decision had been made to declassify the property from being a safe house.
3. It apologised that the resident had not been informed.
4. It had stopped operating its transfer list since August 2017.
5. It signposted the resident to its housing options booklet available on its website or it could send her a copy in the post.
6. It explained the rehousing options available – register with the local authority to obtain rehousing, apply for a mutual exchange or for housing moves.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 October 2020 to advise she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the complaint. She advised that she could not find her complaint on the portal. She said the issues that she had raised had not been addressed and that she disagreed with its decision that she needed to apply for a transfer with the local authority to move to alternative accommodation. She expressed that as a former care leaver, the landlord had a duty of care towards her, therefore she should qualify for a management transfer. The resident also requested that the landlord explain how the rules regarding the change of status of the building occurred without her receiving prior notification.
The landlord responded on 8 October 2020 that she could request for a review of the complaint decision by 22 October 2020, and it would inform her within 10 days if the complaint was to be escalated to the review stage.
The resident requested a review of the complaint decision on 22 October 2020. She advised that:
1. She wanted to know when the status of the building changed
2. She had been contacted on several occasions by the landlord to find out who was living in the building
3. Why the landlord did not have a record of her original complaint
4. She was originally a care leaver and had been a social housing tenant for over 20 years,
5. She believed that she had been treated unfairly and the landlord should find another way to assist her regarding her request to be rehoused.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 October 2020 to confirm that it would review her concerns and respond to her complaint by 6 November 2020.
The landlord’s records show that it tried to contact the resident on 4 November 2020 and 5 November 2020 to discuss the complaint and to understand how it could help.
The resident called the landlord on 6 November 2020 but was unable to speak with the member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day advising it needed to speak with her otherwise it would close the complaint.
There were further attempts for contact on 11 November 2020, 20 November 2020, 26 November 2020 and on 27 November 2020. The landlord spoke with the resident on 4 December 2020 regarding the escalated complaint. The resident confirmed the outstanding issues were:
1. The landlord to explain why the property was no longer considered a safe house as she was informed that it was to provide accommodation for females.
2. The landlord had not provided the requested information regarding the occupants of the building.
3. As a former care leaver, she should be given priority for rehousing and should not have to pursue a mutual exchange to access alternative accommodation.
4. The landlord to agree to rehouse her as she does not feel safe in the property.
5. The landlord to respond to her complaint in its entirety.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 December 2020 to inform her that it would respond by 18 December 2020 and thanked her for speaking with them.
The landlord responded to the escalated complaint on 18 December 2020. The main findings were:
1. It confirmed that the building was not considered a safe house or to provide accommodation solely for females.
2. It confirmed that the building provides general needs permanent housing for its residents.
3. It recognised that when she moved into the building the reason for the allocation was to move her away from the immediate risk to her.
4. It confirmed that men lived in the building.
5. It had investigated the allegation of ASB that the resident had reported and concluded that it had been an accident.
6. It suggested that its tenancy sustainment team could offer support to the resident
7. It stated that the resident did not meet the criteria for a direct move, however, if she provided further evidence, it would review the situation
8. It confirmed that it did not have an internal transfer list, therefore, it had signposted her to the housing options available
9. It apologised for its failure to respond to the complaint made on 28 August 2020 and recognised that it had failed to contact her

It offered a good will gesture of £50 for its failure to communicate with her and offered for the resident to speak to a female member of staff in person or virtually.

After the complaint process was exhausted the following events occurred:
1. The landlord was contacted on 30 March 2021 by a neighbour to advise that the resident’s property appeared empty. The landlord carried out appropriate checks to ascertain the welfare of the resident and that the property was not abandoned.
2. The resident complained about a phone call she had with a member of the landlord’s staff where the officer made inappropriate comments about her when she made contact following its welfare check.
3. Following this Service contact with the landlord, it contacted the resident on 25 May 2021 to ascertain her outstanding concerns which the resident advised were the actions of a member of the landlord’s staff, the status of the building and rehousing.
4. The landlord’s legal team advised on 16 June 2021 that the title of the property did not restrict the type of resident that can live in the property – only restriction is that the building had to be used for residential purposes.
5. The landlord’s records noted on 6 July 2021 that Flat 1 and Flat 4 used to be designated for care leavers, there were no restrictions that it had to provide accommodation for females. It noted that it was unlikely that the property would be a safe house when it contained mixed tenure – supported housing and general needs housing.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 July 2021 providing a follow-on final complaint response. Its main findings were:
1. It apologised for the poor customer service she had experienced, and that the member of staff had been spoken to regarding the inappropriate comment that had been made.
2. It advised that its further review had found that two of the properties in the building had been used to accommodate for care leavers. It confirmed that the building was not designated as a safe house and that allocations to the building did not have to meet a specific client group.
3. It could not help with a transfer to a local authority property. However, it would explore the possibility of a reciprocal arrangement to her preferred local authority once it received evidence from the resident to support the request. The resident could undertake a mutual exchange or register on the local authorities housing list or for housing moves. It offered for an officer to contact the resident to go through the available options.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service on 25 August 2020. She explained that she felt that the landlord had not accepted responsibility for her rehousing as it had signposted her to the local authority to register for a transfer, that it had not provided a satisfactory answer to the concerns regarding the building being considered a safe house that was to provide housing for females only.

Assessment

It is clear from the submissions that the resident has been distressed and frustrated by the landlord’s handling of her concerns regarding the building being occupied by non-females and her request to move to alternative accommodation. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged. It is the purpose of this report is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports received, and to the formal complaint. In addition, it will consider whether the responses from the landlord were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its polices and its obligations under the tenancy agreement.

regarding the registration of the building as a safe house

The resident has complained about the gender of the people occupying the building. She has maintained that she was told that the building was a safe house, to be occupied by females.
The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord in accordance with the Housing Act 1996. The tenancy agreement provides the resident with security of tenure and does not provide any restrictions on the type of person that can occupy the property other than that provided under the Housing Act 1996.
Whilst the resident has maintained that the building was originally designated a safe house when she moved in, this Service has not seen any evidence to corroborate that. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s assertion that it was a safe house and in its complaint responses in September 2020 and December 2020 it confirmed that the property was not considered to be a safe house, neither was there a restriction imposed that it should be occupied by females. As the property was occupied by mixed genders this will affect future allocations to the property.
The landlord took further enquiries with the land registry and ascertained that two of the properties within the building had been designated for the use of care leavers. However, it could find no evidence that the building ever held the designation of a safe house as it did not meet the requirements such as having a PO box number, therefore this was a reasonable decision for the landlord to make.

regarding her reports of anti-social behaviour

Looking at the available information, the resident had raised concerns regarding the conduct of the occupants of Flat 1 and Flat 2. She advised that the occupant of Flat 1 made her feel uncomfortable and that the occupants of Flat 2 were ringing the buzzer at 2am in the morning. The evidence shows that the landlord made one phone call to the resident to discuss her concerns and it was unable to speak with her. There is no evidence that it took any further action.
The resident also raised that she was nearly hit by a glass bottle being thrown from the window. The landlord advised in its final complaint response that it had investigated the incident and concluded that this was an accident. however, there is no evidence that it had informed the resident of its findings. This is not in accordance with its ASB policy which says that it will inform the resident of the action it proposed to take, the purpose of which is to given the resident a clear idea of the action the landlord proposed to take.
The landlord has informed this Service that it does not have any records regarding the resident’s reports of ASB. This is not appropriate and not in accordance with its ASB policy that says that it will record the reports that it receives. This indicates poor recording keeping by the landlord as it has not kept records of the resident’s reports of ASB that was made to the landlord.

regarding her request for a property transfer

The landlord’s housing option and lettings policy advises of the ways available for residents to obtain a transfer either by registering with the Local Authority for a transfer via the Choice Based Lettings Scheme or by obtaining a mutual exchange or by Housing Moves. The landlord does not operate its own transfer list.
The resident expressed that her preferred outcome to the complaint was for a move to local authority accommodation. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation to the resident when it spoke to her on 15 September 2020 advising that it did not operate its own transfer list, which meant that she would have to apply to the local authority transfer list. The landlord reaffirmed its position in its complaint responses. It also agreed to explore the possibility with the local authority for a reciprocal arrangement once it received further information from the resident regarding her need to move to that borough.
The landlord’s housing option and lettings policy explains the circumstances in which it would consider a management transfer. The landlord informed the resident that her present circumstances meant that she did not qualify for a management transfer. Given that the resident’s circumstances did not meet those outlined in its policy to quality for a management transfer, the landlord’s decision was reasonable. The landlord offered to review the circumstances if the resident provided further information which was a reasonable position to take.
The landlord demonstrated its willingness to work with the resident regarding her request to move to alternative accommodation. When speaking with her and in its complaint response, it signposted the resident to the information on its website regarding how she could obtain alternative accommodation. It offered to post the information available on its website regarding finding alternative accommodation to her if that would be helpful and in its final complaint response offered for a member of its staff to meet in person or virtually to discuss the rehousing process. The advice was reasonable as either registering with the local authority for a transfer or applying for a mutual exchange was the only means for the resident to transfer to another property.

the related complaint

The resident complained on 28 August 2020 about ASB from the occupants of the building and that the building was meant to be designated as a safe house. The landlord did not register and respond to the complaint which was not in accordance with its complaint procedure. The resident submitted a further complaint on 7 September 2020 when she did not receive a response to her original complaint. The landlord spoke to the resident on 15 September 2020 and responded to the complaint on 24 September 2020. This was just outside its published timescale of answering complaints within ten working days. The landlord in its complaint response offered an award of £50 for this. This was reasonable as it recognised that the landlord had missed an opportunity to answer the resident’s concerns, that while this had impacted the resident, it had been of a short duration.
The resident complained that she when accessing its portal, she could not see the complaint she had made. The landlord complaint responses did not address this matter. This was not appropriate as the resident had bought this matter to the landlord’s concern on two separate occasions and there was no evidence that it had investigated the reasons why the complaint made by the resident was not showing online.
The resident escalated the complaint on 22 October 2020 and the landlord confirmed on 23 October 2020, that it would respond by 6 November 2020. The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 December 2020 and provided the complaint response on 18 December 2020. This response failed to provide the resident with information on how she could escalate her complaint to this Service if she was unhappy with its response and did not confirm that it was the landlord’s final position on the complaint and that she had completed the landlord’s complaint process.
Following contact with this Service on 25 May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to obtain clarity on outstanding issues of concern and undertook a review of the complaint. In its response to the resident on 9 July 2021, it addressed other housing management issues raised by the resident regarding fencing to the property, made additional enquiries regarding the registration of the property. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the property was not considered a safe house and gave advice regarding the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the registration of the building as a safe house.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the regarding her reports of anti-social behaviour
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a property transfer
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The resident has an assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1996. The landlord has carried out appropriate checks to confirm that the property is not registered as a safe house or to provide accommodation solely for females.
Whilst the landlord has investigated the resident’s reports of ASB, it did not provide her with the outcome of its findings in accordance with its ASB policy.
The landlord has signposted the resident to the local authority to register for a transfer or advised her to apply for a mutual exchange. It has offered to consider a reciprocal arrangement with the local authority and for a female member of staff to discuss her rehousing options.
The landlord did not register the resident’s initial complaint, did not provide the resident with her escalation rights to this Service and did not consider whether an award of compensation was appropriate for this.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident and to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay compensation of £150 for its service failures, broken down as:
1. £50 for its failure to inform the resident of the outcome of the investigation into the ASB that she reported
2. £100 for its complaint handling service failures.
The landlord to review its complaint handling procedure
1. to ensure its complaint response time scales are in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling scheme.
2. Ensure that its final complaint responses provide information to its residents on how to escalate their complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord to investigate the reason why the complaint made by the resident in August 2020 is not showing on its portal and share its findings with the resident.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.