Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202205013)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205013

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

28 February 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

a.     Rehousing request.

b.     Reports about an ongoing mouse infestation.

c.      Repair requests.

d.     Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

e.     Complaints.

f.        Compensation request.

Scope of investigation

  1. The evidence we have seen shows that the resident had applied to move and reported mouse infestations from 2016. She made a formal complaint in 2017 and raised concerns about ASB. In 2019 the landlord’s rehousing panel declined the resident’s request for a management move.
  2. Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme gives the Ombudsman discretion to not consider complaints which are brought to us after 12 months of the end of the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. We have decided not to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application, reports of infestations and ASB, and complaint before 2021. This is because the complaint was not brought to us within 12 months of completing the end of the landlord’s process. We have only referred to historical events if necessary to give context.
  4. The scope of this investigation is the matters raised by the resident from June 2021 which the landlord has had the opportunity to consider through its complaint process.
  5. The resident’s complaint was duly made to us on 22 July 2022. After this, the resident made 2 complaints about the landlord’s handling of her further reports of ASB. Those complaints had not completed the landlord’s process and we have not assessed its handling of them in this report.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a 3 bedroom house, from 2001. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the property. The resident lives in the property with her 3 adult children.
  2. The landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. We have seen evidence that the resident has told the landlord that her adult son has autism, learning difficulties and claustrophobia.
  3. The Regulator of Social Housing’s tenancy standard requires the landlord to let its homes in a fair, transparent and efficient way. The standard sets out specific expectations that the landlord should meet including:

a.     Assisting local authorities’ with their homelessness duties and meeting obligations in nominations agreements.

b.     Delivering services to address overcrowding in their homes.

  1. The landlord’s allocations procedure at the time said that it let most of its homes to people nominated by councils and did not keep its own waiting list. It said:

a.     Existing tenants wishing to move should apply to their council’s housing register and consider a mutual exchange of tenancies.

b.     If a tenant needed to move urgently, it would assess their circumstances and may consider offering a property or asking another social landlord to help.

c.      Decisions on urgent moves would be made by its rehousing panel which would consider the supporting information provided. It would let residents know the outcome of their rehousing request.

d.     Residents could ask for a review of the panel’s decision if they were not satisfied with it.

  1. The landlord’s overcrowding guidance at the time aimed to help overcrowded residents move to larger homes. It said that:

a.     It would apply the “bedroom standard” to decide whether a home was overcrowded. This meant each adult should have their own bedroom unless they were living as a couple.

b.     When a home was overcrowded, it would give residents information about their housing options including applying to the council’s housing register and considering a mutual exchange of tenancies. It would also visit each year to check the situation.

c.      It would inform the relevant council where a home was “statutorily” overcrowded as defined by the Housing Act 1985.

d.     In “some” circumstances it may offer alternative accommodation which might not meet the household’s full need but was bigger than their current home.

  1. The landlord’s guidance on dealing with pests stated that residents must take reasonable steps to deal with mice.It explained this meant keeping their homes clean, disposing of rubbish properly and keeping gardens tidy. The guidance said the landlord would block holes and repair any damage when the property had been pest free for 2 weeks.
  2. The landlord has repairing obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property and for keeping the installations it provides in good repair and working order.
  3. Its repairs policy at the time set out how the landlord will prioritise different types of repairs. It said it would respond to non emergency repairs by arranging appointments as soon as possible and that it aimed to complete repairs in 1 visit.
  4. The Regulator of Social Housing’s neighbourhood and community standard requires landlords to work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and respond to ASB. Landlords are specifically expected to take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy at the time defined ASB as conduct that causes, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It also considered that conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to their occupation of their home could be ASB. Its policy gave examples of behaviour the landlord might consider to be ASB including harassment and threats of physical violence.
  6. The policy said the landlord would:

a.     Consider the risks involved and work with other agencies to provide safety and support.

b.     Investigate reports of ASB and agree an action plan with reporters. It would work with other agencies where appropriate.

c.      Keep residents informed of progress and explain when it decided to close an ASB case.

  1. Its ASB procedure said that the landlord would:

a.     Give a grading to different types of ASB when it received reports. The grading would determine which team would deal with the report.

b.     Triage ASB reports to assess risks and consider whether it needed to take any immediate action. For example, hate crimes were considered high risk reports.

c.      It would score the risks to decide the speed of its response. It would respond to high risk reports within 1 working day and low risk reports within 2 working days.

d.     Contact residents to gather more information and agree an action plan with them.

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time said that residents must make a claim for compensation within 3 months of the failure, fault or event. It required residents to complete the landlord’s claim form in order for it consider their request.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said:

a.     It would try to resolve dissatisfaction outside of its complaints process where possible.

b.     Residents could make a formal complaint if they remained dissatisfied and it would reply to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1.

c.      Residents had to complete the landlord’s review panel request form to escalate their complaint if they remained dissatisfied.

d.     It would decide whether to accept the review request and let the resident know its decision within 10 working days.

e.     If it accepted the review request, it would give residents the option for their escalated complaint to be reviewed by a senior manager or a panel that included an involved resident.

f.        Residents could attend the review meeting if they wanted to.

Summary of events

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord around the start of June 2021. We have not seen a copy of the letter but understand it was about her wish to move and concerns about ASB in her neighbourhood. The landlord acknowledged her contact and said its relevant teams would contact her. It later sent diary sheets to the resident so that she could record the ASB.
  2. On 4 July 2021 the resident reported creaking and uneven floorboards and the landlord raised an order for them to be repaired. The resident later cancelled the appointment as she had been unable to remove the carpet to give access to the floorboards.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord’s chief executive on 18 August 2021 saying:

a.     She had written to the landlord in June 2021 but had not received a response.

b.     She had been wanting to move for a long time but the landlord had said it could not help. She wanted the landlord to send her application to the council if the landlord could not rehouse her.

c.      She had reported ASB and sent diary sheets but the landlord had not resolved the issues. Her neighbour had threatened her and she did not feel safe in her home.

d.     There were multiple repairs needed at her home including creaking floors, rumbling pipes, cracks in a ceiling and repairs to the kitchen units and bathroom tiles.

e.     There had been issues with mouse and rat infestations over many years. Droppings in her loft had leaked through the bathroom ceiling causing staining which she had been unable to remove or cover up. She acknowledged that preventing infestations was difficult as her home was close to woodland and a train line.

f.        She had been without heating and hot water for a period over the last winter. It had since been repaired but now she could not have hot water without the heating being on. This meant her energy bills had increased.

g.     Her home was not “safe” and she wanted to move as soon as possible.

  1. The landlord replied on 3 September 2021. It told the resident that it could not rehouse her unless she was “at risk” and she should contact the council for rehousing. It would deal with her reports about ASB separately. It also arranged for a repair inspection to take place on 9 September 2021. The resident later cancelled the appointment because she was ill.
  2. The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 14 September 2021 about the repairs, ASB and her wish to move. The landlord replied to the MP on 12 October 2021 saying:

a.     It had not been able to repair the floorboards reported by the resident because she had not been able to remove the floor covering.

b.     The resident had cancelled an appointment for it to inspect the repairs needed. It had arranged another appointment for 29 October 2021.

c.      It was sorry the resident had witnessed gangs outside her home. She should contact the police if she felt at risk. It wanted her to feel safe but needed evidence to take action. It had sent her diary sheets to fill in and needed her to return them.

d.     It no longer had a waiting list for residents wanting to move. It gave a link to its advice leaflet about moving and said the resident should make an application with the council.

  1. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the repairs on 26 November 2021. He noted the following repairs were needed:

a.     The loft to be checked for signs of mice and any droppings removed.

b.     A leak from the toilet to be repaired and bath panel removed to check for other leaks.

c.      Loose bathroom tiles to be refixed and grouted, and the extractor fan replaced.

d.     A loose handrail on the stairs to be refixed and some floorboards to be replaced.

e.     Repairing and redecorating the living room ceiling. Also repairing the hall and bathroom ceilings, treating the stains and redecorating.

  1. The surveyor’s report also noted that the:

a.     Kitchen worktop had signs of water damage but the units were “fine” and the doors had recently been replaced.

b.     Resident would lift her laminate flooring to enable the floorboards to be repaired.

c.      Resident had wanted the bathroom and hall ceilings to be replaced but that was not necessary.

  1. On 6 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord saying that her neighbour’s bin had fallen on to her car and there was dog poo all over her front garden.
  2. Also on 6 December 2021, the resident sent a letter of complaint to the landlord. The letter said:

a.     She “strongly disagreed” with its decision of 25 October 2021 that she did not qualify for a “high risk management move”. She had sent documents to support her request to move. She had been trying to move for 20 years and the landlord had not helped her.

b.     She had been reluctant to accept the tenancy of her current home as the property had never been suitable for her son’s needs. She had only done so because she had been told that it was temporary accommodation.

c.      Her home was overcrowded and too small for 4 adults. It was affecting her son’s situation and “inhibiting his progress”. He was struggling to cope in such a small property.

d.     It had inspected her home for repairs but not ordered all the work needed. Operatives had come to fix an issue in the bathroom but did not know about the other work needed. A pest control contractor had called her but did not seem to know what the issue was.

e.     The landlord had sealed holes to stop mice getting into her home but mice were still getting in from the neighbouring properties. There were droppings in her loft and some cupboards which meant she could not use them for storage.

f.        She had reported ASB to the landlord and completed diary sheets. Despite her requests for help, it had ignored her reports. This had affected her “greatly”.

g.     She wanted the landlord to rehouse her.

  1. On 8 December 2021, the landlord’s pest control contractor visited the property. Its report said that there was no evidence of mice in the loft but it had found a lot of condensation. It also noted mould patches on the ceiling of the bathroom. It sent photographs to the landlord and suggested it investigate the matters further.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 16 December 2021 and said it would reply by 4 January 2022. On 22 December 2021, it emailed her to extend the response timescale to 11 January 2022.
  3. On 7 January 2022, the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. She said that the mouse problem had got better but she could still hear them in the loft.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 10 January 2022. It said that:

a.     It was sorry to hear about the issues that she had experienced. It understood they have been going on for a long time and had been upsetting for her.

b.     It had sealed holes in the kitchen and left bait for mice in the loft. It would arrange for its pest control contractor to visit her neighbours. Doing so should eradicate any mice.

c.      It had found no evidence that her current home was intended to be temporary accommodation. She had signed an assured tenancy agreement which meant it was a “lifetime home”. It was sorry if she had been misinformed at the start of her tenancy.

d.     It acknowledged that her home was overcrowded and that she needed a 4 bedroom property. It did not have a waiting list for residents wanting to move and had given her advice to apply to the council and to consider a mutual exchange of tenancies.

e.     It could not take action on her reports of the neighbour’s bin falling on her car as there was no evidence it had been done deliberately. It offered mediation and sent further diary sheets which it asked the resident to complete and return. It would then consider whether to open an ASB case.

f.        It understood her frustration about dogs fouling her front garden. However, there was no evidence to show who was responsible. It would write to all residents in the area to remind them to clear up after their dogs.

  1. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the condensation in the loft on 12 January 2022. He raised an order for a damp specialist to do a further inspection.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 January 2022 saying she was dissatisfied with its complaint response. She said the response had not properly address her concerns about overcrowding, ASB and harassment, or her need for rehousing. The landlord did not understand her situation or what the family was going through.
  3. The landlord’s repair records show it replaced the bathroom extractor fan on 10 February 2022.
  4. On 13 February 2022, the resident sent a review panel request form for her complaint to be escalated. She said that:

a.     She was strongly dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. Its investigation was inaccurate and inconsistent.

b.     There were 4 adults, including 1 with special needs, living in her home which only had 3 bedrooms. One bedroom was too small to fit a double bed in. Her home was overcrowded and she was having to share a bedroom with her adult son.

c.      The landlord had ignored the situation for 15 years. It had ignored letters of support from her GP about how the overcrowding was affecting her son’s wellbeing. It had ignored her MP’s request for it to rehouse her.

d.     She disagreed that her current tenancy was a “lifetime home”. She would not have signed up for a property that was full of mice and not suitable for her family’s needs.

e.     The mice had damaged her kettle, washing machine and sofa. The noise they made during the night affected the family’s ability to sleep.

f.        There had been serious ASB in 2016 and 2017. Other neighbours had been moved but she had not. She was still experiencing ASB, harassment, humiliation and racism and wanted to move away.

g.     Her balcony was dangerous and had not been properly repaired.

h.     She had previously had a problem with her boiler that caused her energy bills to increase. She had asked for compensation but it had not been paid.

i.        The landlord had not resolved the issues she had reported and had ignored her complaint.

  1. On 28 February 2022, the resident cancelled an appointment to repair the lounge and bathroom ceilings. The landlord said she should call it to arrange another appointment.
  2. On 2 March 2022 the landlord told the resident its complaint panel would meet to consider her complaint on 12 April 2022. It invited her to supply any further supporting evidence and offered to visit her to discuss her housing options. The resident declined the offer to visit.
  3. The resident sent the landlord photographs of her neighbour’s bins on 15 March 2022. She said the wind had blown them onto her car. She was frustrated that it had not responded to her reports about ASB.
  4. The landlord’s repair records show it attended to repair the living room ceiling on 16 March 2022. It also removed mould from the bathroom ceiling and painted the ceilings.
  5. On 1 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident after she had made reports of noise from her neighbour. The landlord asked her to download the noise app or use diary sheets to gather evidence for 2 weeks. She needed to return the completed diary sheets by 18 April 2022 and it would review them.
  6. The landlord’s complaint panel met to review the resident’s complaint on 12 April 2022.
  7. On 19 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord as she had received notice of a repair inspection appointment. She wanted to cancel the appointment because it was too short notice. The landlord replied the next day asking for alternative appointment dates. It also said it wanted to discuss the resident’s housing situation with her and get details about her son.
  8. On 22 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to ask her to arrange an appointment to discuss her housing situation and ensure that all the repairs in the property had been done.
  9. On 25 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking it to respond to her stage 2 complaint within 5 working days.
  10. On 26 April 2022, the landlord asked the resident if it could extend the response date until it after it had visited her. The resident replied on 27 April 2022 and said that she wanted it to issue its response. She was not comfortable with it visiting her as she was “emotionally drained”.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 April 2022 which said:

a.     It was sorry it had not been able to resolve her complaint at stage 1. It summarised its understanding of her complaint and the resolutions she wanted.

b.     It had hoped to visit her to get a better understanding of her housing needs and discuss her options but she had declined the visit.

c.      It had considered the supporting information that she had sent and had contacted the council to try to progress her rehousing. It may be able to give further help if she would be willing for it to visit her to discuss her options.

d.     It suggested she consider a mutual exchange of tenancies which was often a faster way of moving home.

e.     It had wanted to inspect the work done to resolve the mouse infestation but she had cancelled the appointment. It was important that she allowed access to help resolve the pest problem.

f.        It had offered compensation for her increased energy costs and sent her a form to arrange payment. It should have followed up when she had not returned the form. It attached another form and said it would pay the compensation when she returned it.

g.     It was sorry she had experienced ASB. She should report any racism directly to the police. It attached diary sheets and asked her to complete and return them. It would then decide if it would open an ASB case. It also suggested she consider mediation to resolve the conflict with her neighbour.

h.     It asked her to arrange an appointment for it to check the repairs it had done and to discuss her housing needs.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 May 2022 asking if she could appeal against the complaint panel’s decision. She said that the panel had not prioritised the overcrowding issue or properly addressed the issues she had raised in her complaint. She asked the panel to reconsider its decision about her rehousing request.
  2. The resident made further reports about her neighbour and sent the landlord diary sheets and noise recordings. The landlord opened a new ASB case on 6 June 2022 but later concluded there was no ASB that it could act upon.
  3. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 13 June 2022 saying she was not happy with the landlord’s response to her complaint.
  4. On 29 August 2023 the landlord told the resident that its rehousing panel had approved her request for priority rehousing.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
  2. We identified a common theme of inadequate record keeping in all parts of this complaint and have given examples in the relevant sections below. Collectively they suggest there may have been a systemic issue with the landlord’s knowledge and information management at the time of the events in this case.
  3. We note that since the time of this complaint, the landlord has merged with another resulting in changes to its approaches and policies. As such, we have made no orders for the landlord to do case or policy reviews.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request

  1. The landlord is obliged to let its homes in a fair, transparent and efficient way. This does not mean that the landlord must have a waiting list of applicants to be rehoused. It is common practice for landlords to let homes through their councils’ choice based lettings scheme or by nominations from councils. As such the landlord was entitled to decide not to have a waiting list of residents wishing to move.
  2. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident to apply to her council’s housing register and consider a mutual exchange of tenancies. This was in line with its allocations procedure.
  3. However, the allocations procedure also said that the landlord would assess cases if a resident needed to move urgently. The procedure at the time did not clearly set out the circumstances under which the landlord would consider a need to move to be urgent. We note that the landlord’s published allocations policy from December 2022 does specify the circumstances under which the landlord would consider giving an urgent “management” move. As such we have made no orders in respect of the landlord’s allocations policy.
  4. We understand that, before June 2021, the resident’s wish to move had been due to her son’s medical needs, and her concerns about ASB and repairs. However, the lack of transparency in its procedure at the time of this case may have meant that the resident was unclear whether her circumstances should qualify her for an urgent move.
  5. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether the resident had an urgent need to move when she wrote to it in early June 2021. We have seen no evidence that it did so or that it responded specifically to her request to move. This was a service failure which may have delayed the landlord’s consideration of her circumstances.
  6. Similarly, we have seen no evidence that the landlord assessed whether the resident qualified for an urgent move after her letter to its chief executive on 18 August 2021. The landlord’s response of 3 September 2021 said it could not rehouse her unless she was “at risk”. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained its approach to urgent moves and why it felt the resident did not qualify. This would have shown that the landlord had properly considered her circumstances.
  7. Further, the landlord’s response did not address her request that it refer her application to the council for rehousing. Although it said that she should contact the council, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained why it was not referring her as she had asked it to.
  8. From her complaint of 6 December 2021, the resident said her need to move was due to her home being overcrowded as well as her son’s medical needs, and her concerns about ASB and repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have gained a full understanding of her circumstances and consider the help it could give. Although the landlord spoke to the resident on 7 January 2022 before giving its complaint response, its record of the conversation was inadequate. As such it is unclear how much understanding the landlord had gained.
  9. The landlord is required to deliver services to address overcrowding in its homes and its overcrowding guidance set out how it would do this. The guidance defined “statutory” overcrowding and when the landlord would consider a home to be overcrowded under the bedroom standard. It meant that the landlord may consider a home to be overcrowded when adults did not have their own bedrooms although this would not necessarily meet the definition of statutory overcrowding. This was a reasonable approach which enabled the landlord to give advice to prevent statutory overcrowding occurring.
  10. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s home was overcrowded from its complaint response on 10 January 2022. However, it did not clarify which overcrowding definition it had applied. This is an important omission as the level of overcrowding would determine how the landlord should have responded according to its guidance. For example, if it had decided the resident’s home was statutorily overcrowded, it should have told the relevant council about the overcrowding.
  11. The landlord’s response advised the resident to apply to the council and consider a mutual exchange of tenancies. This was reasonable and in line with its overcrowding guidance. However, the absence of any explanation of why the resident did not qualify for an urgent move suggests that the landlord had not considered the other aspects of her request to move.
  12. The evidence shows that the landlord did try to visit the resident to understand her situation and discuss her housing options from 19 April 2022. However, this was only after the landlord’s complaint panel had asked for further information to be gathered. The landlord should have fully considered the resident’s situation sooner.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 28 April 2022 said that it had contacted the council to ask it to rehouse the resident. We have seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident the outcome of this contact. This was a further failing.
  14. The landlord’s overcrowding guidance said it would carry out annual visits to check on the situation. This meant the landlord should have tried to visit the resident from April 2023 and we have seen no evidence that it did so.
  15. The landlord has not demonstrated that it adequately considered the resident’s circumstances when responding to her requests to move. Its responses were inadequate in explaining why it did not consider her circumstances qualified her for an urgent move. Also, it did not follow up on its contact with the council or reassess the resident’s overcrowding in line with its procedure.
  16. The failings amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to move. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £500 compensation. We have not made an order for the landlord to reconsider the resident’s rehousing request because it has since accepted her for a management move.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an ongoing mouse infestation

  1. We acknowledge that the resident had made multiple reports of mouse infestations from 2016 and that the landlord had attended several times to bait, block holes and repair damage. We understand that the recurring infestations will have been distressing for the resident but this investigation is about the reports she made from August 2021.
  2. The evidence suggests that the landlord had previously sealed holes to stop mice getting into the resident’s home. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s pest control procedure at the time.
  3. When the resident wrote to the chief executive on 18 August 2021, she was concerned with stains on her bathroom ceiling which she felt had been caused by previous infestations in her loft.
  4. It was reasonable that the landlord decided to arrange for a pest control contractor to attend as the contractor could check for signs of a current infestation. However, the landlord did not arrange this until after the surveyor’s inspection on 26 November 2021. The landlord could have arranged a pest control visit sooner. Not doing so caused an avoidable delay in the landlord assuring itself that there was no current infestation.
  5. The resident told the landlord on 6 December 2021 that mice were still getting in from neighbouring properties. The landlord’s pest control contractor did not find signs of mouse activity when it inspected the loft on 8 December 2021. It was reasonable that the contractor left bait in the loft anyway and suggests a thorough approach by the contractor.
  6. When the landlord spoke to the resident about her complaint on 7 January 2022, she had said that she could still hear mice in the loft. It was reasonable that the landlord said it would arrange for its pest control contractor to visit the neighbours. The landlord did not own the neighbouring properties and had no obligation to do any pest control work in them. Its decision to send its contractor suggest that it wanted to resolve the issue for the resident. However, we have seen no evidence that the pest control contractor attended the neighbouring properties.
  7. When the resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2022, she said that the noise made by mice during the night was affecting the family’s ability to sleep. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether there was a new infestation. We have seen no evidence that the landlord raised another order for its pest control contractor to visit.
  8. Its complaint response of 28 April 2022 said that the landlord had wanted to check the work it had done to resolve the mouse infestation but the resident had cancelled the appointment. The evidence shows that the landlord was trying to visit from 19 April 2022 but had not referred specifically to checking the work done for the mouse infestation in its contacts. Given the landlord’s previous approach in getting its specialist to attend, the landlord’s approach of checking work previously done was inadequate on this occasion.
  9. There was no further mention of mouse infestations in the resident’s correspondence from May 2022. This could suggest that there was no recurring infestation from then.
  10. The evidence we have seen suggests some elements of good practice by the landlord and that the mouse infestation was ultimately resolved. However, there were some delays in the landlord arranging for its pest contractor to visit. Further, it has not evidenced that it followed through with its commitment to visit neighbouring properties. And it did not respond adequately to the resident’s concerns of an ongoing infestation from February 2022.
  11. These failings amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing mouse infestation. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation of £400.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests

  1. The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on repairs in March 2019. Our report highlighted that poor record keeping was often a contributory factor in our maladministration findings on repairs. We recommended that landlords should keep accurate records of repairs reported, and inspections and orders raised. We also recommended that landlords should provide sufficient notice of appointments and communicate effectively with residents.
  2. In this case the repair records that the landlord gave us for this investigation were not complete. For example, the landlord sent us some records of specific jobs but it did not give us its complete repair records for the period before January 2022.
  3. The resident reported creaking and uneven floorboards on 4 July 2021. The landlord raised an order for them to be repaired which was in line with its policy.
  4. However, the repair was not done because the resident was not able to lift her floor coverings. The landlord’s repair policy said that it would consider requests to move items to carry out a repair. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen whether it had considered lifting the resident’s floor coverings in this case or whether it discussed options with her to enable it to repair the floor.
  5. The resident raised the issue with the floorboards again in her letter to the chief executive on 18 August 2021. She also reported cracks in a ceiling and problems with her kitchen units and bathroom tiles. It was reasonable that the landlord decided to inspect and unfortunate that the resident cancelled the inspection because she was ill.
  6. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen why the further inspection planned for 29 October 2021 did not take place. This is an example of inadequate record keeping by the landlord.
  7. The landlord’s record of the surveyor’s visit on 26 November 2021 gave a comprehensive record of the repairs needed and the advice given by the surveyor. However, we have not seen evidence that all the work noted on the report was ordered. For example, we have seen no evidence that the landlord raised orders to grout the bathroom tiles, fix the loose handrail or replace floorboards. Nor have we seen evidence that those repairs were done.
  8. The surveyor had also said a leak from the toilet needed repairing and that the bath panel should be removed to check for leaks under the bath. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen whether orders were raised at the time. However, we have seen evidence that an order was raised on 24 October 2022 which was later cancelled because the resident was not available. Another appointment was made and the landlord attended in December 2022.
  9. We have seen evidence that orders were raised to repair and redecorate the living room, bathroom and hall ceilings after the surveyor’s visit. The evidence shows that the work was planned for 28 February 2022 but did not take place because the resident said she had not been told of the appointment. The work was done on 16 March 2022 almost 4 months after the surveyors visit.
  10. We have also seen evidence that shows the bathroom extractor fan was replaced in February 2022. It is not clear why it had taken the landlord almost 11 weeks to do the work.
  11. The landlord’s pest control contractor had reported condensation in the loft after its visit on 8 December 2021. It was reasonable that the landlord’s surveyor inspected on 12 January 2022 and arranged for a damp specialist to do a further inspection.
  12. The evidence we have seen suggests that the damp contractor removed mould and fitted a heater and extractor fan before 1 April 2022. However, it is not clear exactly when the work was done.
  13. The resident reported that her balcony was dangerous in her complaint escalation on 13 February 2022. We have seen no evidence that the landlord arranged either an inspection or repairs. This is concerning given the landlord’s responsibilities for the safety of its residents.
  14. The evidence we have seen shows that the landlord had arranged an inspection for 20 April 2022 and suggests this was to check the repairs that had been done. The inspection was cancelled by the resident because she had only been notified of the appointment the day before. Although the landlord tried to arrange another appointment, we have seen no evidence that the inspection was ever done.
  15. Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that it fulfilled its repairing obligations and the evidence suggests its communication with the resident was inadequate. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration. Orders have been made below for the landlord to inspect the resident’s home, apologise and pay £500 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. We acknowledge that the resident had been reporting various ASB incidents from 2017. This case is about the landlord’s handling of the reports she made between June 2021 and April 2022.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy and its procedure at the time said that it would assess the risks of ASB reports when it received them. We have seen no evidence that the landlord assessed the risks for any of the resident’s ASB reports between June 2021 and April 2022. This is a significant failing as it means the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the risks when deciding what action it should take.
  3. The evidence suggests that most of the resident’s reports were about a neighbour who was not the landlord’s tenant. We acknowledge that this would have limited the action that the landlord could take. For example, it could not take any direct action against the neighbour for breaching her tenancy agreement. However, the landlord should have worked with other agencies, including the neighbour’s landlord which was also a social housing provider. We have seen no evidence that it worked with any other agencies between June 2021 and April 2022 in response to the resident’s ASB reports.
  4. As with other aspects of this case, the landlord’s records of its handling of the resident’s ASB reports were inadequate. For example, the resident contacted the landlord about ASB around June 2021 but the landlord’s records contain no details of what her reports were about. We have seen evidence that the landlord sent her diary sheets to record the ASB in response to her report.
  5. Similarly, the resident told the landlord several times, including in her letter to the chief executive of 18 August 2021, that she had returned diary sheets but no action had been taken. The landlord’s records do not contain any references to it receiving diary sheets. Nor do they contain any references to the landlord having followed up with the resident when she said she had returned diaries but nothing had been done.
  6. When the landlord emailed the resident on 3 September 2021 it said it would deal with her ASB reports. However, we have seen no evidence that it followed up on this or that it took any action at the time.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord to report the neighbour’s bins falling on her car and dog poo in her garden on 6 December 2021. Under its ASB procedure the landlord should have contacted her to gather more information and agree an action plan with her. Although the landlord replied to both issues in its stage 2 complaint response on 24 April 2022, we have seen no evidence that it had contacted the resident before then in response to her report.
  8. The resident said she had been “enduring” ASB, harassment and racism for over 10 years in her complaint escalation on 13 February 2022. These are serious allegations and the landlord should have investigated. Under its ASB policy, it should have graded the allegations of harassment and racism as high risk reports and contacted the resident within 1 working day. We have seen no evidence that it did so. It was not until its complaint response of 28 April 2022 that it told her to report any racism to the police. This was not an adequate or timely response given the serious nature of the allegations.
  9. The resident reported the neighbour’s bins again on 15 March 2022. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded at the time.
  10. She reported noise from the same neighbour on 1 April 2022. This time, the landlord did respond and asked her to gather sound recordings or complete diary sheets. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure. However, should have graded the report and assessed the risks and we have seen no evidence that it did so. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the neighbour’s landlord to let it know about the potential tenancy breach. We have seen no evidence of any further action after the landlord had sent the diary sheets.
  11. Mediation can be a useful tool in resolving neighbour disputes and the landlord’s procedure said it would consider mediation as an option for early intervention. We have seen no evidence that the landlord had considered or offered mediation in response to the resident’s early reports about her neighbour. By the time the landlord suggested mediation in its complaint responses of 10 January 2022 and 28 April 2022, the dispute had been ongoing for at least 3 years. As such, mediation was no longer an early intervention option. Further, mediation would not have been appropriate if the resident was reporting harassment and racist behaviour by her neighbour.
  12. Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that it followed its ASB policy and procedure in responding to the resident’s reports between June 2021 and April 2022. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration and orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation of £500.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was published in July 2020 in respect of the landlord’s complaint stages and response timescales. We note that the landlord has since changed its policy and now has a 2 stage complaint process with appropriate timescales. As such we have made no orders in respect of the landlord’s complaint policy.
  2. We have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling in this case against the Code published in July 2020 and the landlord’s policy at the time.
  3. The resident’s letter to the chief executive on 18 August 2021 was a clear expression of dissatisfaction. Under the Code, the landlord should have recognised it as a formal complaint and dealt with it through its complaint process.
  4. The evidence we have seen shows that the resident’s letter was passed to the complaints team. The landlord decided it was not necessary to open a complaint case because the issues had already been dealt with. The landlord did reply to the letter on 3 September 2021 but did not address all the issues the resident had raised or ask if she wished to escalate her previous complaint. As such, the landlord’s response was inadequate and contrary to the requirements of the Code.
  5. The resident complained again on 6 December 2021. This time the landlord did acknowledge the complaint and said it would respond by 4 January 2022. It later extended the response timescale to 11 January 2022.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent within the extended timescale on 10 January 2022. However, the response did not address the resident’s complaint that some of the required repairs had not been ordered and that the contractors appeared not to know what work they should be doing. This was contrary to the requirements of the Code which said that all parts of a complaint should be addressed.
  7. The resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its response on 23 January 2022. Under the Code, the landlord should have accepted this as the date of the resident’s escalation. However, the landlord’s requirement for residents to fill in a review request form caused delay in the landlord progressing her escalation.
  8. Under the landlord’s policy, it should have given the resident the option of having her complaint reviewed by a senior manager or panel including an involved resident. We have seen no evidence that the landlord asked the resident to choose which she wanted.
  9. The review panel met on 12 April 2022 and the landlord gave its stage 2 response on 28 April 2022. This meant it took the landlord over 3 months to respond at stage 2. This was contrary to the timescales within the Code which said a response should be given within 20 working days at stage 2.
  10. Further the landlord’s stage 2 response did not address all the points the resident had raised in her escalation. For example, the landlord did not address her report that her balcony was dangerous or her point about the mice damaging her belongings. The landlord’s response to her allegations of harassment and racism was inadequate and its offer of mediation was inappropriate.
  11. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaints. Orders have been made for the landlord to apologise and pay £350 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation request

  1. We understand that the resident had asked for compensation after a problem with her heating had resulted in increased energy bills. We have seen evidence that the landlord had sent the resident a claim form in January 2021. The landlord told us that the resident had not returned the form.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time said that resident’s must complete the landlord’s claim form to receive compensation. The Ombudsman’s opinion is that this was overly restrictive and was a potential barrier to residents receiving compensation. We note that the landlord has since changed its policy and will now consider compensation requests made in a variety of ways including by telephone, email and through its website.
  3. The resident raised the issue of her increased heating costs in her letter to the chief executive of 18 August 2021. The landlord did not address this point in its response and we have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident separately at the time. This was a failing and resulted in further delay in the resident being able to claim the compensation she wanted.
  4. The resident raised the issue again in her complaint escalation of 13 February 2022. In its stage 2 response of 28 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged that it should have followed up when the resident had not returned the claim form it had sent previously. It sent her another form and said it would pay the compensation when she returned it.
  5. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen whether the resident returned the second claim form or whether the landlord paid the compensation.
  6. The landlord’s delay in paying compensation amounts to service failure in its handling of her request. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the compensation it had offered if it has not already done so.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:

a.     Handling of the resident’s rehousing request.

b.     Handling of the resident’s reports about an ongoing mouse infestation.

c.      Handling of the resident’s repair requests.

d.     Response to the resident’s report of ASB.

e.     Complaint handling.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s compensation request.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not adequately consider the resident’s circumstances when considering her requests to move. Its responses did not adequately explain why she did not qualify for a management move. It did not follow up on its contact with the council or reassess the resident’s overcrowding in line with its procedure.
  2. There were some delays in the landlord arranging for its pest contractor to visit and it did not follow through with its commitment to visit neighbouring properties. It did not respond adequately to the resident’s concerns of an ongoing infestation from February 2022.
  3. The landlord has not demonstrated that it fulfilled its repairing obligations and the evidence suggests its communications with the resident were inadequate.
  4. The landlord has not demonstrated that it followed its ASB policy and procedure in responding to the resident’s reports between June 2021 and April 2022.
  5. The landlord did not follow the requirements of the Code. It’s stage 2 response was late and neither of its responses fully addressed the issues the resident had complained about.
  6. The landlord’s policy at the time caused delays in it paying compensation to the resident

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:

a.     A senior manager must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its letter.

b.     Pay the resident total compensation of £2,250. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:

  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her rehousing request.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports about an ongoing mouse infestation
  3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her repair requests.
  4. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her ASB reports.
  5. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

c.      Inspect the resident’s home to establish if there is any remaining disrepair. The landlord must do any repairs that are needed and provide us with evidence of the outcome of the survey and details of any repairs it intends to do including timescales.

d.     Pay the compensation it offered for the resident’s increased energy costs if has not already done so.