Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202002070)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002070

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

25 November 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports concerning a neighbour.
2. handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
3. handling of repairs and maintenance issues.
4. response to her complaint about staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a Housing Association (the landlord). The tenancy started on 2 May 2011. The property is a ground floor maisonette. The Council is the freeholder of the building and the flat above the property is occupied by a Council tenant.
The resident is noted to have a vulnerability, and this is recorded on the landlord’s systems.
In her initial communication to the Ombudsman on 18 June 2020, the resident said when the landlord moved her into the property in 2011, it was uninhabitable and needed structural repairs. She said that she paid for plastering and lost possessions through damp however the landlord replaced the kitchen in 2013 after it found the source of the damp once her MP got involved.
The resident also said her biggest problem after moving to the property in 2011 was her new neighbour in the flat above her who made her life a “living hell from day one” by bullying and terrorising her daily. She said she reported this issue to the landlord and was told he was a Council tenant and that she should complain to them. She told the Ombudsman she was unhappy about the way the Council handled this issue.
The Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of the matter arising. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate historical matters. Therefore, this report will only consider events from March 2019; this was when the resident contacted the landlord regarding issues with her neighbour and water leaking from the upstairs property and is approximately 15 months prior to her formal complaint with the landlord.
Additionally, the Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will only investigate complaints from people who are in a tenant/landlord relationship with the member. As the resident is not in a tenant/landlord relation with the Council, this report will not consider the actions of, or any complaints about the Council. Any reference in the report to the Council is for background and context to the complaint.

Summary of events

The landlord’s contact log and email communications with the resident show that she contacted the landlord in late March 2019 to report a leak from her upstairs neighbour’s flat who was a Council tenant. After the Council had attended to fix the leak on 26 March 2019, the resident said her neighbour intentionally poured water through the holes in the ceiling and had been abusive towards her. The landlord called the resident on 29 March 2019 to discuss her report. The landlord’s internal records show that on 3 April 2019, it opened an ASB case, carried out a risk assessment (medium risk) and advised the resident it would investigate her reports with the Council and other agencies.
On 8 April 2019, the landlord’s Housing Officer (HO) emailed the behaviour team at the Council regarding the resident’s ASB reports against their tenant. The landlord asked if it was aware of any of the allegations and if they had received any reports from the resident.
The landlord contacted the police on 12 April 2019 requesting disclosure regarding any reports of ASB from the resident regarding her neighbour. On 17 April 2019, the police advised it had received one report of noise nuisance from the resident on 14 April 2019 and that it told her to report the issue to the local authority who would visit and take action if necessary.
On 15 April 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report a further incident of ASB from her neighbour involving him throwing things around his flat, slamming doors, hammering on floorboards and throwing water down onto her bathroom floor. The landlord advised that whilst it had opened an ASB case for her, as the perpetrator was a Council tenant, it was their duty to act upon the report. It agreed to follow up on its previous contact with the Council which it did.
The landlord attended a safeguarding meeting on 8 May 2020 regarding the resident arranged by her care team as she had reported suicidal thoughts due to stress caused by her housing problems. This was also attended by the neighbour’s HO and other representatives from the Council and social services (SS). The Council’s HO advised they would visit the neighbour the next day to discuss the ASB reports. The landlord advised that it could not offer a management move to the resident as it needed proof of what had been ongoing over the years and also that her life “was being threatened”.
The landlord’s internal emails show that on 9 May 2019, the landlord contacted the Council asking them to look into the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord continued to liaise with the Council who advised it needed evidence from the resident for example, logs of disturbances, before they could take any action. The landlord emailed the resident the contact details for the officer dealing with her case at the Council.
The landlord’s HO met with the resident, her friend and her support worker on 16 May 2019 to discuss her ASB reports. The HO advised the resident that her manager had declined a management move however she said that once she had provided further evidence, including medical evidence of her health conditions, her manager may be able to reconsider her request for a management move.
The support worker sent the minutes of the meeting to the landlord on the same day. The action points from this meeting were for the landlord to arrange a joint visit to her and her neighbours’ properties with the Council to review the noise transference issue and ask the Council to arrange an appointment with the resident.
The landlord contacted the Council again on 23 May 2019 asking if they were going to contact the resident.
On 23 and 28 May 2019, the landlord emailed the resident and her support worker advising it was awaiting evidence from her of ASB including reports, photographs and videos as well as medical evidence.
During June 2019, the resident provided the landlord with evidence of ASB reports made to the Council in 2014, 2017 and on 10 June 2019 with photos. The resident also copied the landlord in on an ASB report made to the Council on 10 June 2019 when her neighbour intentionally “poured water down” the floorboards of his bathroom floor on four occasions. The resident also supplied information regarding her history of mental health and medical conditions and a letter dated 14 May 2019 from her NHS support worker (support worker) confirming a safety concern had been opened due to her disclosing suicidal ideation in the context of the stress caused by her housing problems.
On 11 June 2019, the landlord scheduled a joint visit for 3 July 2019 with the Council to visit the property to assess the noise transference issue. However, this visit did not go ahead at this time as neither the resident nor the Council’s HO were able to attend this date.
The landlord’s repair logs show it raised a job order on 14 Jun 2019 to carry out repairs to the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
On 24 June 2019, the resident reported to the landlord further ASB from her neighbour involving him throwing an extension lead down from his kitchen window to her garden and climbing over to her garden to collect it. She said she had reported her diary entries for this to the Council.
On 2 July 2019, landlord rescheduled the home visit to 17 July 2019 requesting the Council to attend on this date to assist with carrying out noise tests. Only the landlord’s HO and surveyors attended the resident’s property on 17 July 2019 despite the landlord having chased the Council about this on 12 July 2019.
The resident’s support worker contacted the landlord on 31 July 2019 reiterating that living at the property was impacting on the resident’s mental health.
On 7 August 2019, the joint visit went ahead and was attended by the landlord’s HO and surveyor and the Council’s HO and their surveyor. The landlord’s notes said whilst in the resident’s flat they heard the neighbour above walking around in the hallway as the floorboards creaked, they could not hear the conversation he was having. The resident said her neighbour was “being good” because they were here.
On 8 August 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her ASB reports and her request for a management move. Within its response it set out her reports of ASB and steps it had taken in response, including its contact with the police and requests to the Council to follow up on her allegations about their tenant’s behaviour. The landlord also referred to the joint visit it had arranged with the Council whereby surveyors inspected her and her neighbours’ properties on 7 August 2019 when it said no issues with the foundation were identified. It said there was only one layer of insulation between the properties which was why noise transfer was at a higher rate. It said whilst in her flat it heard the neighbour above walking around in the hallway as the floorboards creaked, it could not hear the conversations he was having. It said the resident had been adamant that her neighbour had no carpet or lino however both the surveyor and the Council advised during the visit that its tenant did have carpet in his property.
Within this response, it advised that the Council did not consider their tenant’s behaviour amount to ASB but said that there were some areas of concern for example him throwing electrical cable into her garden. The landlord said it had asked Council to talk to their tenant about the minor issues to which they agreed. The landlord said after considering all of the information, her request did not meet its criteria for a management move. It said it had discussed with her other options for a move and suggested that her support worker worked with her to approach the local authority who would be able to consider the medical elements of her case.
The landlord advised the resident’s medical team on 8 August 2019 that it would not allocate her to its management move process as there was no threat to her life, therefore, she did not meet the criteria for a management move.
The landlord’s internal communications show that a staff member commented in an email dated 13 August 2020 that the resident “had issues”.
It sent a further letter to the resident dated 23 August 2019 reiterating its position in relation to her request for a management move previously explained in its 8 August 2019 response and advised it was closing her the ASB case.
The landlord completed repairs to the resident’s bathroom ceiling in August 2019 following an asbestos survey carried out on 4 July 2019.
In September 2019 the resident was in contact with the landlord’s surveyor when she asked for a report of their visits on 17 July 2019 and 7 August 2019. She mentioned external cracks and the neighbouring trees and asked who was responsible for addressing these issues.
The resident sent an email to both the Council and the landlord on 22 January 2020 in which she advised there had been seven further leaks through her bathroom and kitchen ceiling which she believed was due to her neighbour allowing water to overflow through the floorboards when he had been at home. The landlord replied on 23 January 2020 advising it had passed her email to its repairs team who would get in contact with her directly.
In her 18 June 2020 communication with the Ombudsman, as well giving details of the condition of the property at start of the tenancy, the resident also referred to “20 occasions” when water had overflown from her neighbour’s kitchen and bathroom into her property since March 2019. Furthermore, she had chronic physical and mental health conditions and was unable to gain employment. She advised: “Two suicide attempts later in 2019” the landlord told her if she did not like it, she should rent privately. The resident said she wanted the landlord to honour its agreement on a management move as discussed at her safeguarding meeting on 8 May 2019 when SS got involved. The landlord had treated her with “contempt” and “hostility” and humiliated her by asking for her medical records and then told her it would not move her on medical grounds. The resident requested compensation for what she has been subjected to “over the years” and for the lack of support offered despite being aware of her vulnerabilities.
The landlord explained its criteria for a management move to the resident’s social worker on 17 July 2020. The landlord said if residing at the premises was having a detrimental impact on the resident’s health, she should explore approaching the Council as this may be a more efficient way for her to source alternative accommodation as they had access to a greater number of properties than it did.
On 28 July 2020, the landlord attended a further safeguarding meeting with SS and the Council to discuss the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour. The landlord’s notes of the call indicate that the Council reiterated it did not accept its tenant was doing the things being alleged by the resident but acknowledged that the reports were difficult to prove. The landlord advised it would not provide a management move unless there was supporting evidence from police or medical evidence. It said it would help support the resident with a move through home swapper.
On 31 July 2020, the landlord’s HO called the resident to advise it was unable to offer a management move due to insufficient supportive evidence from agencies such as SS and the police. The landlord’s notes of the call indicate the resident said she had a medical condition and that she was dying and that it should warrant a management move. The notes show the landlord advised again of her other options – home swapper to which the resident advised she had been on home swapper “for ages” as people were put off by the area and images of the property. The resident also raised the issue of cracks in her property.
On 29 Jul 2020, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord providing it with the details of the resident’s complaint. On 31 July 2020, the landlord advised it would log a stage one complaint and contact the resident which it did. It advised the resident that its Senior Housing Officer (SHO) would carry out an investigation and contact her directly to discuss her complaint and aim to provide a response within 15 working days.
On 5 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord thanking it for its phone call but said she would prefer for all co management move unications to be via email going forward as previous phone calls with it had caused her distress. She advised of her concerns which included:
1. The landlord’s phone call to her during the Covid-19 lockdown.
2. The landlord’s phone call on 31 July 2020 from her HO whom advised that she did not qualify for a management move. When she asked if they had called due to contact from the Ombudsman, they denied this and said it was because it took complaints very seriously. The resident said this was deceitful.
3. There was an issue with her boiler whereby she had hot water even when the boiler was switched off. She asked for the Gas safety of the boiler to be checked.
4. There were cracks in the walls internally and externally. She had previously reported these to the landlord in 2019 to no avail.
5. She had reported to the landlord neighbouring Ash trees on at least three occasions however nothing had been done about this.
6. Its records of asbestos checks for the property were incorrect and did not relate to her property. Works were carried out last year to her bathroom with incorrect information.
7. The damp course at the property was virtually non-existent. All her furniture was six inches away from the walls and she opened her windows every day yet there was mould on her living room wall and on the legs of her antique chair. Also her wellies by her back door were covered in mould.
8. She felt like the landlord treated her as a nuisance tenant; the first thing it did after hearing from her was to check if she was in rent arrears and how it could get rid of her.
On 21 August 2020 the landlord’s SHO provided a stage one response, acknowledging the resident’s concerns raised. It said regarding maintenance issues:
1. The boiler – her current boiler had been installed in 2015. It had reviewed the Gas safety certificates and could find no records of her reporting any issue about the temperature of the boiler. It had arranged to have the boiler checked on 18 August 2020 but she had cancelled this appointment, so this had been re-arranged for 28 August 2020.
2. Damp and mould -It could not find any records of damp and mould being reported to it since 2012 where there had been an issue behind her kitchen sink. It had arranged for her property and the damp proof course to be inspected by a surveyor on 18 August 2020 however as she had cancelled this appointment it had re-arranged this for 28 August 2020.
3. Cracks in the property and windows and doors sticking-it could not find any records of these issues being reported on the repairs system. The windows and doors would be reviewed by its surveyor when they attended on 28 August 2020.
4. Asbestos – It had reviewed the asbestos report that it had on file which she stated related to another property. This appeared to be in order and correlated to the asbestos survey carried out at her property. It had no evidence that the works carried out to her bathroom were contrary to any health and safety regulation.
5. Trees causing issues – these trees did not sit on its land and fell within the responsibility of the Council. Her concerns about the size of the trees had previously been passed to the Council to review and take any appropriate action. The gutters which she had reported had become blocked by debris falling from the trees were also the responsibility of the Council to maintain. It had asked that the surveyor check the trees and look for any signs of a gutter blockage and the structural integrity of the building. If any structural issues were being caused by the trees, this would be reported to the freeholder; the Council. Regarding saplings in her garden, under the tenancy agreement, she was responsible for ensuring the garden was maintained.
Regarding her other concerns raised it said:
1. During the Covid-19 lockdown it recognised it had a duty of care to its tenants and wanted to ensure, particularly to those who it acknowledged were vulnerable, had access to food and medicine and financial advice where relevant. The resident’s advocate contacted it on 1 April 2020 to understand the steps it was taking to meet her needs from a safeguarding perspective. Its HO replied to her advocate on 7 April 2020 explaining the steps it was taking. In the interim she had been contacted as part of the vulnerable person project. Whilst it acknowledged why the resident felt she was called as a result of contact from her advocate, she would have been contacted regardless of her advocate’s intervention.
2. The call she received from her (new) HO on 31 July 2020 was prompted by the matters discussed at the safeguarding meeting on 28 July 2020 which her HO had attended. He had contacted her to discuss her housing situation. In regards to her request for the minutes of this meeting, the Council had not provided these however it had contacted her social worker and requested that she was sent the minutes.
3. She was unhappy that it had not honoured its agreement to a management move to a bungalow – It had had a number of conversations with her and agencies supporting her about her housing options but it had not agreed to move her to a bungalow via the management move process. It explained it only offered management move in exceptional circumstances and that to date, it had not received the evidence showing she met the criteria. It advised it would review management move requests if it received new or additional evidence and advised the resident to send any new evidence to her HO and her eligibility would be assessed. It explained that the Council held the nomination rights to 75% of its vacant properties and it had a very limited number of bungalows in its stock. Therefore, if she was approved for a management move, she could still wait for suitable alternative accommodation for a significant period. It recommended that she persevere with other options to be relocated, such as contacting the Council.
4. Regarding the lack of support and hostility she felt it had shown her -it had asked her to provide further details. As she had not provided any information, it had reviewed the data that it held on file to try to establish what may have caused this feeling. The landlord acknowledged the incidents she had reported about her neighbour however said as their flat was owned and rented out by the Council, it did not have jurisdiction over his behaviour. However, it had investigated her reports of ASB with the Council but found insufficient evidence to establish ASB.
On 29 September 2020, the resident confirmed possible dates for its surveyor to inspect her property including 16 October 2020. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 16 October 2020 to inspect the defects raised in the resident’s complaint. They made the below recommendations:
1. To address “horizontal cracks in the premises and a crack in the frame of the bedroom window”. This included carrying out “localised” repairs to various cracks located throughout the property involving removing plaster and render and installing “expanded metal lath over crack” and reinstating render and plaster to match existing. It referred to installing “crack repair system to external step fractures seen in brickwork below kitchen and bathroom windows”. Further the report recommended repointing “disturbed joints once Helibar system has been installed” and the repairing of the crack in UPVC window frame in lounge. It stated if repair not possible renewal to be considered.
2. The rear door and several windows sticking – ease and adjust all windows as required to ensure operational.
3. Trees / tree roots causing damage; branches touching the property and knocking off the roof tiles – tree to front elevation, outside the bedroom window, ideally needed removal. Required inspection from qualified tree surgeon to advise on removal to ensure that no associated issues arise (e.g. ground heave).
4. Damp and mould issues throughout the property –areas of mould in large bedroom to be mould washed and stain blocked.
5. Damp proof course (DPC) injection works had been carried out to the kitchen external walls however due to the painted walls it was not obvious where the original DPC was located. It was assumed there was one present due to the age of the property. No damp was recorded during the inspection.
6. Guttering continuously blocked – once tree maintenance had been carried out hip end roof elevation to be inspected to ensure no damage caused by tree, gutters to be fully cleared and water tested.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2020 chasing for information she said she had previously requested from its HO following her safeguarding meeting in July 2020 including the minutes of the meeting. The landlord responded to her queries on 30 October 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 October 2020 and amongst other things, disputed comments it had made in the stage one response about repairs not having been previously reported.
On 3 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord raising further questions regarding its stage one response including who it considered was a “vulnerable person” and how it concluded she was a vulnerable person and about any duty of care owed to residents. The resident also asked what type of evidence was required to support a management move. She confirmed the boiler had been inspected and that this concern had been resolved.
The landlord sent replies to the resident on 5 and 6 November 2020 answering the questions raised. It said the evidence required to support a management move would depend on the reasons however if this was due to ASB, it would require evidence that the ASB was taking place such as police reports, reports from the Council, noise recordings, crime reports, diary logs, photographic or video evidence. It said if this was on medical grounds it would need medical evidence from a GP or other medical professionals explaining: how residing at the property was affecting her health; why a move was required and what type of accommodation would benefit any health conditions. The landlord provided the resident with details of the Council’s allocation policy, information on a noise app and a leaflet about housing options for residents.
On 6 November 2020 the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage two of its complaint process. On 9 November 2020, the landlord confirmed it had done so and advised it usually aimed to provide a response within 15 working days.
On 27 November 2020, the landlord provided a stage two response. It said it had reviewed the investigation completed at stage one and could see that a thorough investigation was completed. It was satisfied that the following points within her complaint were resolved, or referred when appropriate, by its SHO:
1. The vulnerable persons phone call she received – was designed to offer safeguarding support.
2. Her request for the safeguarding meeting minutes – these could be obtained from her social worker.
3. management move – it required evidence to support a management move, and she had also been referred to the Council as they nominate 75% of its vacancies.
4. Lack of support and hostility towards her – there was a lack of information to support this allegation and issues with her neighbour had been addressed in conjunction with the Council.
5. The boiler giving hot water when turned off was scheduled for inspection in August and no further reports have been received.
6. The asbestos report was incorrect – this has been confirmed to be in order.
It acknowledged repairs were still outstanding following the surveyor’s inspection of 16 October. It said it had sent her the full report complete with recommendations on 24 November 2020. It apologised for the delay in getting this to her. The landlord summarised the action/repairs identified by its surveyor. It said its repairs team would do all they could to complete the works before Christmas however this was not guaranteed. Its repair team had also agreed to emulsion the walls in a neutral colour to give a better finish. It advised the resident’s HO would be monitoring the progress of the repair works but said she should contact him if she had any further queries.
Regarding the trees in the neighbour’s garden it reiterated that the Council owned the trees she was concerned about and that it had reported this to them in January 2020 and again on 23 November 2020. It provided the email address of the contact at the Council if the resident wanted to follow up on this.
It said in conclusion, its stage one response covered all of the issues raised in her complaint whilst acknowledging that repairs were still outstanding. It said having considered the history of this complaint it was mindful that it had taken time to confirm the repairs that she had identified and arrange for the works to be carried out. In recognition of the inconvenience cased, it offered the resident £50 in compensation.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident re a transfer agreement with another housing provider; it advised this transfer would take place in March 2021
The resident and landlord remained in communication throughout December 2020 and January and February 2021 in regards to the repairs and also in respect to further incidents of water coming down into her property from upstairs.
The ownership of the property transferred to a different housing provider on 8 March 2021 as the landlord completed a stock swap with them.
On 4 November 2021 the landlord provided a job sheet for the repairs at the property and a copy of the invoice from its repair contractor which indicated the works were completed at the end of February 2021/early March 2021. It said the delay was due to its repair team experiencing issues with accessing the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports concerning a neighbour.

The landlord’s ASB policy states it will investigate all reports of ASB however it will make clear to complainants and victims of ASB about the circumstances in which it can intervene and the sanctions available to it. It states it will be open and honest about what it can and cannot do, and where primary responsibility and powers lie with other agencies including the police or local authority. It will not raise expectations that it can take action where it cannot do so or where primary responsibility and powers lie with other agencies including the police or local authority.
The landlord made it clear to the resident from the outset that as the neighbour’s housing provider was the Council, it was its responsibility to follow up on her reports of ASB about its tenant. Nonetheless it agreed to investigate her reports in conjunction with the Council and other agencies. This approach was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy. Following her initial report in March 2019 the landlord opened an ASB case and promptly contacted the Council to advise them of the issue and to ask if they had received any reports from the resident. It also contacted the police requesting disclosure as to whether it had received any reports of ASB from the resident regarding her neighbour to which it confirmed one report of noise nuisance had been from the resident on 14 April 2019 however confirmed it was not a police matter.
Over the next four months the landlord continued to liaise with the Council urging it on several occasions to contact the resident regarding her reports about its tenant whilst providing the resident with the relevant contact details at the Council to report any further ASB. It also attended safeguarding meetings arranged by the resident’s medical team and met with the resident and her support worker on at least two occasions to discuss her reports. Further, it arranged a joint visit with the Council and surveyors to assess if there were any issues with the foundation of the building that may be causing a higher level of noise transference as the resident had reported that she and her neighbour could hear everything that goes on in each other’s flats.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with any reports from the landlord’s surveyor who attended to investigate possible noise transference however the landlord’s notes of visit on 7 August 2019 made at the time indicate that no issue with the structure or foundation of the building was identified. Surveyors did identify that there was only a single layer of insulation between floors which may be a contributory factor however the resident was assured during this visit that her neighbour had carpet on the floor which would have helped reduce noise transference.
In its letter to the resident of 8 August 2019 it explained there was insufficient proof to demonstrate ASB from her neighbour and that this was the same conclusion reached by the Council. It said however that the Council had agreed to its request to talk to her neighbour in respect to some minor issues for example him throwing electrical cable down from his window into the resident’s garden and leaving it there. On 23 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining it was closing her ASB case. In its complaints responses the landlord referred to its investigation and reiterated that the Council did not have the required proof to pursue any further action against their tenant.
Therefore, as the resident’s neighbour was a Council tenant, the landlord had limited ability to address the resident’s concerns raised about ASB. It was clear about this to the resident at the outset and reiterated this to the resident through its complaints responses. However, it agreed to work with the Council and other agencies to investigate her concerns which it did. Whilst the resident remains unhappy that the problem was not resolved, the steps taken by the landlord to investigate and address her reports, were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.

The landlord’s guidance on management transfers applicable at the time of the complaint sets out that it may consider a management transfer in order it to “deal with a serious or protracted tenancy management matter”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this would reasonably include a move required in order to manage or resolve ASB. Guidance on the landlord’s website states it considers management moves in circumstances including where residents have: “a significant medical need or disability” which means they were unable to remain in their current home -any application will need to be supported by medical evidence.
There is no evidence of the landlord agreeing to the resident’s request for a management move on either ASB or medical grounds. The request for a management move was initially raised during a safeguarding meeting on 8 May 2019 that was attended by landlord’s HO. Whilst the resident has said the landlord agreed to a management move during this meeting, the landlord’s notes of the meeting do not reflect this as they state it advised it “needed proof and evidence of what had been ongoing over the years” or proof that “her life was being threatened etc”.
Over the next two months, the landlord reiterated this position on several occasions to both the resident and others supporting her. After the resident provided details of ASB incidents and medical evidence, the landlord advised her that it could not offer her a management move as she did not meet the criteria for this. It said this was because it did not feel there was a case of ASB from her neighbour. In its stage one response, the landlord explained that whilst it offered management move s “in exceptional circumstances”, it said it had not agreed to a management move in her case as it did not have evidence to show the resident met its criteria. The landlord reiterated this position in its final response.
Given that both the landlord and the Council had reached the same conclusion that there was lack of evidence to establish ASB by her neighbour, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to offer the resident alternative accommodation via a management move on the grounds of ASB.
However, the landlord’s guidance on management transfers says it also considers management moves on medical grounds. This is something the landlord told the resident following her initial request for a management move in May 2019. This prompted the resident in June 2019 to provide the landlord with medical evidence which showed she suffered from a chronic lung condition and certain mental health issues. This also included two letters from her support worker dated 14 May 2019 and 31 July 2019 confirming a safety concern had been opened due to the resident having disclosed that she suicidal ideation in the context of the stress caused by her housing problems.
In its response of 8 August 2019, the landlord acknowledged there were medical elements to her case but suggested she and her support worker approach her local authority to put forward her case on medical grounds. The landlord repeated this option during the complaints process. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to have highlighted to the resident alternative options which may have led to a property transfer, given that the resident had provided supporting medical evidence as per its request, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have explained why her situation did not meet its criteria for a management move on medical grounds, referencing the medical evidence she provided.
The landlord provided further details of this particular criteria when requested by the resident during the ICP and also reiterated that it did not have required evidence to support a management move however again it was not sufficiently clear about why the medical evidence provided by the resident did not meet the ‘significant medical need’ criteria. Therefore, the landlord did not give sufficiently clear or detailed reasoning surrounding its rejection of her request for a management move on medical grounds which was a failing in the service it provided.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance issues.

Following her email to the landlord of 5 August 2020 in which she listed aspects of the property in need of repair, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. It confirmed the surveyor would examine any damp and mould at the property, cracks in the property, trees causing issues and the windows and doors. It confirmed the details of the inspection to the resident in its stage one response. It also advised that it had arranged for the boiler to be checked on the 28 August 2020.This demonstrates that the landlord took steps to identify any repairs needed related to the issues raised. This was appropriate.
The landlord has evidenced that the boiler was checked on 28 August 2020 as agreed and the repair records show that no issues were found. In its final response, the landlord noted this matter had been resolved.
Regarding asbestos, in her email to the landlord of 5 August 2020, the resident complained that it held an incorrect asbestos report dated 4 July 2019 on file relating to her bathroom. In its stage one and two complaint responses the landlord said it had reviewed the (2019) asbestos report it had on file and it appeared to be in order and related to the property. The landlord has provided to the Ombudsman the asbestos report dated 4 July 2019 as well as a previous report dated July 2017 which both appear to relate to the property. Both reports indicate that no asbestos was detected at the property.
The resident told the Ombudsman in June 2021 that the landlord refused her request for a final asbestos survey. It is unclear from the evidence if the resident requested a further survey following the one on 4 July 2019 however in light of the previous two surveys indicating asbestos was not present, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline any request made for a further survey.
The surveyor inspection was carried out on 16 October 2019 and the report showed that significant repairs were required, in particular to address significant cracks found in the internal walls and ceilings. It also identified some external structural repairs were needed to address step fractures seen in brickwork below kitchen and bathroom windows. The report also referred to repairs needed to the kitchen ceiling and highlighted that trees nearby had the potential to cause structural damage to the property and also cause blockages to the guttering. The report said no damp was recorded but mould due to condensation was present in the bedroom for which it recommended a mould wash. In its final response of 27 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged it had delayed with providing the resident with the inspection report however said its contractors would do all they could to complete the necessary works before Christmas, but this was not guaranteed.
There was a slight delay in the agreed works being carried out. According to the landlord the delays were because its contractors experienced difficulties accessing the property however the resident had disputed this. The Ombudsman cannot be certain from the available evidence if the works were delayed for this reason. On 4 November 2021, the landlord provided evidence to the Ombudsman showing that these works were carried out by the end of February /early March 2021. It is noted that this included external structural repairs which, as free holder, the Council would usually be responsible for. As the landlord completed the repairs that had been identified in response to the resident’s complaint including structural repairs, albeit with a minor delay, this shows it followed through on what it said it would do to address the repair and maintenance issues raised, which was reasonable.
Regarding trees affecting the property, the landlord explained in its stage one response that the trees sat on the Council’s land and so they were responsible for trimming/removing these. It is clear that both the resident and the landlord had raised this matter with the Council in the past. In its final response, the landlord provided an update saying it had made a further report to the Council on 24 November 2020 regarding the need for them to address trees on its land but also said it was appropriate for the resident to pursue this directly with the Council. It provided the relevant contact details for the Council. Bearing in mind the landlord did not own the land, on balance the steps taken to address this issue during the complaints process, were reasonable.
The resident during the complaints process disputed the landlord’s comments in the stage one response about her not previously reporting repairs. It is clear from the evidence that the resident had raised the issues of cracks at the property with the landlord’s surveyor in September 2019. Therefore, it was inaccurate for the landlord to suggest otherwise in its stage one response. Moreover, as there is a lack of evidence to show the landlord acted upon the resident’s report at the time, this is evidence of the landlord missing an opportunity to identify and address the cracks in the property at an earlier stage.
The resident also reported leaks from the upstairs property. The first occasion was in March 2019 when she said there was leaking through her bathroom ceiling. This was from her neighbour’s radiator which the Council fixed on 26 March 2019. The landlord’s repair logs show it subsequently attended the property and raised a job order on 14 June 2019 to carry out repairs to the bathroom ceiling. This work was completed in August 2019. The landlord is responsible for internal repairs to the property including plastering and therefore it acted appropriately in this regard. Its repair policy gives a timescale of 60 days for this type of repair and so the repair completed in August 2019 was outside this timescale. However, it also had to carry out an asbestos survey on 4 July 2019 to assess if asbestos as present therefore, it was reasonable for the repair to have taken longer in this circumstance.
However, the resident subsequently reported to the landlord on 22 January 2020 that there had been seven further leaks from the ceilings in the bathroom and kitchen from her upstairs neighbours’ flat which she believed was due to her neighbour allowing water to overflow when he had been at home. Whilst the landlord replied on 23 January 2020 advising it had passed her email to its repairs team who it said would get in contact with her directly, there is no evidence of it doing so. It is noted that during the subsequent inspection in October 2020, the surveyor referred to damage to the bathroom ceiling caused by a historic leak. Whilst the report said this had been repaired, it noted the presence of minor cracking that needed to be filled.
It is unclear if the minor cracking to bathroom ceiling referred to was as a result of further instances of leaks/water coming down from the neighbour’s property as reported by the resident. However, it was reasonable to expect the landlord’s repair team to have inspected the bathroom and kitchen ceilings for any damage at the time it was reported in January 2020 and its failure to do so was a failure in the service it provided.
It is noted that the landlord did not mention the issue of the leaks in its complaint responses. This is likely because in her email of 5 August 2020, the resident had set out the different elements of her complaint and did not mention leaks. However, given that the landlord would have been aware of the leaks and that they were referred to in the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman which was passed onto the landlord, it was reasonable to expect it to have addressed this matter in its complaint responses.
In its final response the landlord offered £50 in compensation for the inconvenience due to the “history of this complaint” and the time taken to confirm the repairs needed and to arrange for the works to be carried out. However, this amount was insufficient and did not reflect the extent of its failures in service when handling repairs. Furthermore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for failing to address the cracks at the property earlier.

Staff conduct

The resident told the Ombudsman in June 2020 that the landlord had not offered her any kind of support despite it being fully aware of her vulnerabilities. Further, she said that after receiving her SARs she was “disgusted” with remarks and the landlord’s own entries proved hostility and contempt towards her and that on her last contact with her HO, she was victimised for complaining.
The landlord had a duty of care as the resident’s landlord. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities due to her physical and mental health conditions and therefore the landlord would be expected to take these into account both when providing its service in its capacity as her housing provider and when dealing with any concerns she raised. In regards to safeguarding, generally, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to refer a tenant to appropriate agencies, for example the local authority safeguarding team or the police where it believed they were at significant risk of harm.
In the resident’s case, as previously mentioned there were service failures on the part of the landlord when dealing with some of the issues raised by the resident in relation to her request for a management move and repairs. This would have caused the resident distress. However, this alone does not constitute evidence of inappropriate or poor staff conduct from the landlord. The evidence demonstrates that on the vast majority of occasions, the landlord reasonably engaged with the resident and those acting on her behalf, including support and health workers, by prompt and regular communications in order to resolve the issues raised. It also attended safeguarding meetings in 2019 and 2020. This was appropriate in order to ensure it understood the resident’s needs and vulnerabilities at that time particularly as concerns about her housing had been raised.
The resident told the landlord during the complaints process that she was unhappy with the landlord’s ‘vulnerable persons’ phone call during the first COVID-19 lockdown in particular that she only received a call from the landlord once her advocate had contacted it. In its stage one complaint response the landlord explained the intention and purpose of this call which was to ensure vulnerable tenants had sufficient access to food and medicine and financial advice where appropriate. It also said it would have contacted her regardless of her advocate contacting it. This explanation was reasonable and sufficiently addressed this concern raised.
The landlord asked the resident for clarification during its complaints process regarding her complaint that it had shown hostility towards her. Whilst I cannot see any evidence of the resident responding to the landlord’s enquiry, having reviewed the landlord’s internal records and communications, it is acknowledged that an inappropriate comment was made by a member of staff about the resident having “issues” in September 2019. This shows that the landlord failed to take into account her vulnerabilities on this occasion. This was a shortcoming by the landlord. However, in the main part the landlord’s staff acted sensitively and appropriately when dealing with resident and the issues she raised. As such there is insufficient evidence to establish any service failure by the landlord’s staff in the way it treated the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s ASB reports concerning a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s request for a management move.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling repairs and maintenance issues.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord was limited in its ability to address ASB reports about her neighbour because he was a Council tenant, it was also the freeholder of the property. It was clear to the resident about the responsibility to take action primarily lying with the Council. However, it opened an ASB case and worked to get the Council to investigate and address her reports about its tenant. It responded appropriately and proportionately to the resident’s ASB reports.
The landlord explained to the resident following its investigation into ASB from her neighbour why her request for a management move did not meet its criteria on ASB grounds. Its guidance on management move also allowed for housing transfers on medical grounds and it asked the resident to provide evidence of her medical conditions in support of management move request, which she did. However, the landlord failed to sufficiently explain why the resident did not meet its medical need criteria with reference to her medical conditions evidenced.
The landlord responded appropriately during the complaint process by arranging for experts to inspect the property to assess the repairs and maintenance issues raised by the resident in her formal complaint. It also showed that it followed through on what it said it would do in its final response to address the repairs and maintenance issues raised, which was reasonable. However, the resident had previously reported to the landlord issues with the property including cracks in the walls which were not sufficiently investigated at the time. It therefore missed an opportunity to resolve these repairs earlier and as such this issue and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge and apologise for this in its complaint responses was unreasonable.
There is no evidence to substantiate the resident’s comments that the landlord’s staff showed hostility towards her or victimised her. The evidence demonstrates that on the majority of occasions the landlord’s staff behaved sensitively and appropriately when responding to the resident and the concerns she raised. There was one instance of a staff member making an unsuitable comment showing it failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities on this occasion. This was a shortcoming by the landlord. However, this was not sufficiently serious to establish service failure by the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident £450 in total compensation; £200 for its failure to provide sufficient explanation as it why the resident’s medical conditions did not meet its management move medical need criteria and; £250 for its failure to acknowledge and address the resident’s reports of cracks in the property earlier as well as response to her reports of damage caused by leaks at the time.