Peabody Trust (202208114)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208114

Peabody Trust

25 May 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns for her family’s safety in the property;
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused;
3. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding her children’s health as a result of living in the property;
4. the landlord’s request for a rent increase and deductions from the resident’s Universal Credit payment.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42(a) and (e) of the Scheme, the landlord’s request for a rent increase and deductions from the resident’s Universal Credit payment is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman is only able to investigate matters that have been considered within the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. In addition, the Ombudsman has limited jurisdiction regarding the increase, amount or reasonableness of rent charges, and cannot make a binding decision on such matters. This Service has signposted the resident to other relevant bodies, including the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber, regarding this issue.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in 2019. She was allocated the property by the local authority after fleeing domestic abuse. The property is a two-bedroom first-floor flat, and the resident lives there with her two young children.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has informed the landlord that she suffered a hand injury in 2021, which has had lasting effects, and that she experiences mental ill health as a result of previous trauma. She has also informed it that her children have developed asthma and eczema since moving to the property.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states that it takes a victim-centred and robust approach to tackling ASB, including prevention and intervention. It will refer all reports of crime to the police. Residents who report ASB are assessed for risk and vulnerability to ensure that the appropriate level of support is provided and any safeguarding issues identified. The landlord may consider a management transfer through its priority move panel (PMP) for residents assessed as being at risk due to ASB. This is in line with its transfer policy, which states that the PMP will consider management transfers for tenants who need to move due to violence, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, harassment, hate crime, or other exceptional needs such as social, educational or economic circumstances.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. At stage one it will acknowledge complaints within three working days, and a case manager from the relevant service area will carry out an investigation and respond within ten working days. At stage two it will acknowledge an escalation request within three working days, and its customer experience team will carry out an independent review and respond within 15 working days.

Summary of events

On 3 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say that she did not feel safe in the area in which her property was located. She said there had been a burglary on the estate, and that an unknown couple kept coming to the block and causing issues by pressing the buzzer, arguing, swearing and fighting in the communal area. She also said that people had been stealing things from bins. She referred to an incident that took place in July 2021 when a child ran through the block while carrying something sharp and inadvertently injured the resident’s finger, leaving a scar. The landlord asked the resident if she had reported any incidents to the police and she said she had not. The landlord gave the resident details of a website she could use to look for a suitable property to move to, and advised that if she did not report ASB to the police there was not much that it could do to help.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 and 8 February 2022 to express her concerns about her safety in the area and in her property. The landlord sent her a leaflet about rehousing options on 10 February 2022 and reiterated its previous advice to report any incidents to the police. It recommended that the resident informed the police of her concerns about safety and asked them to complete a risk assessment, which could be shared with the landlord. The resident said she would consider this.
On 21 March 2022 the resident reported an issue with her plughole to the landlord and told it that she needed assistance as her children had skin conditions.
On 8 May 2022 the resident sent an email to her local police force. She said she was concerned about the area not being safe enough for her and her children as strangers walked in and out of the road as they pleased. She was unhappy that the area was not gated off and said that she had “witnessed a horrible incident between a man and woman with a child watching”. She then referred to an incident when a woman asked if she had any change, and then spoke to one of her neighbours through a window. She felt that high levels of arrests were made in the locality. She told the police she felt “stuck” as she had not felt it was her place to report incidents she had witnessed, but they made her feel anxious.
The police contacted the landlord the same day and forwarded a copy of the resident’s email. They said the resident had raised issues in relation to the area she had been moved to and requested that the relevant housing officer contacted her about her concerns. The landlord explained that it had recently advised the resident regarding her options for rehousing and that it had advised her to contact the police about any risk she may be exposed to. It requested a risk assessment from the police, and also disclosure regarding reports made by the resident. The police told the landlord that the resident had reported “a general feel for crime in the area” in February 2022 and concerns about the area being unsafe for her and her children in May 2022. There had also been an incident between the resident and a supermarket delivery driver in February 2021. They said the resident had not reported any specific incidents in the past six months, but she felt that “crime was happening all around” and she wanted to move.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 May 2022 and repeated its advice about reporting ASB and rehousing. The resident said she did not feel safe as she was “stabbed by a child who does not live in the area” in July 2021. She said she had not reported the incident to the police yet but would do so when she was ready; she had told her doctor that she caused the injury herself by accident. She also referred to “several incidents” that took place outside the property and contributed to her feeling of not being safe. The landlord advised that it could take her case to its priority move panel (PMP) if sufficient evidence, such as police reports, could be provided. It told the resident it would make appropriate referrals in addition to requesting a police disclosure.
The resident took issue with the conduct of the member of staff who had contacted her and reported having had “a very disturbing phone call”. She told the landlord she did not want this member of staff to deal with her case going to the PMP and requested contact details for a different member of staff.
On 11 May 2022 the landlord made a safeguarding referral for the resident. The referral noted that the resident was “eager to move as she does not feel safe in the area due to levels of crime, but there is no evidence to confirm any direct involvement” other than the incident in July 2021. The same day, the resident contacted a domestic abuse charity. She said she had previously fled domestic abuse, and that there had been several incidents at her current property. She said she should not have been offered the property as it was not safe, and referred to the incident when “someone ran into me outside my door with a sharp object and wounded me”. She also referred to a nearby burglary in December 2021 or January 2022. She described experiencing continued pain from her injury as well as “flashbacks and nightmares”. The resident’s correspondence with the charity made reference to changes introduced under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which included an exemption from local connection rules for victims of domestic abuse during rehousing.
The same day, 11 May 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. This stated that:
1. She wanted to complain about the landlord putting the property forward for her to live in and letting the local authority make her a permanent offer of accommodation in respect of the property.
2. She had a history of depression, anxiety, panic attacks and domestic abuse from ex-partners, and she needed to live somewhere safe. She did not believe that the property was safe.
3. She had previously had to flee from places that were supposed to be safe, such as a hostel where a member of staff behaved inappropriately towards her. She therefore did not trust others’ assessments of her safety.
4. The property was near to where another child of her ex-partner lived, and he was “in this area randomly”. She did not want anything to do with him but he would approach her. She felt she needed to leave the area before taking out a restraining order. She was not prepared to call the police every time an incident involving this person occurred.
5. The resident had received an injury from a knife attack where she lived. This had caused her “unbelievable pain, flashbacks and nightmares”.
6. She felt the landlord was “not good at being supportive of victims of abuse, violence and assault”. She believed it lacked compassion and empathy, was money oriented, and gave false information. She did not expect it to understand what she had been through, but she felt that it was wrong to allocate the property to her and that it did not fully consider her circumstances when it did so. She also felt it had not supported her adequately.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 May 2022 and said she was waiting for a reference number for her complaint. She also forwarded the emails between herself and the domestic abuse charity to the landlord on this date. The landlord’s records indicate that it did not receive the resident’s complaint until 20 May 2022, with no explanation given for the delay.
Internal correspondence by the landlord on 17 May 2022 noted that a vulnerability case had been raised for the resident. The landlord asked its Tenant and Family Services Team (TFST) to contact the resident, complete an assessment and identify any actions that it could assist with. The TFST wrote to the resident the same day, explaining that its service was “here to help” and offered “practical support and advice to overcome difficulties you may be facing”. A telephone appointment was made for 20 May 2022 to complete an assessment with the resident. However, the landlord was unable to contact the resident by phone on this day, and sent a text message asking her to get in touch.
On 23 May 2022 the landlord replied to the resident’s emails from 12 May 2022. It said it was sorry to hear of her concerns and could see she had spoken to its neighbourhoods team. In response to a point raised by the resident, it explained that it received housing referrals from the local authority, and that the resident was able to approach the local authority to discuss joining its transfer list.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord called the resident and asked if she had reported the incidents mentioned in her complaint to the police. She said she had not as she did not see the point. The landlord advised the resident to report any incidents of crime to the police in the future, both for her safety and because it worked closely with the police. It said that it could not rehouse her at that time based on crime in the area, and told her it would email her a list of housing options. Following this call, the resident submitted a webform to the landlord and said she had “just had a call from the neighbourhood team letting me know I am not priority”. She repeated her circumstances and added that she had been given a property with no CCTV, despite there being a sign saying that CCTV was in operation. She said she needed to know why the landlord allowed the local authority to offer her the property “when I can be followed to my door”. She also said that the block of flats was built in the 1990s and the intercom and doors had not been changed since then. With regard to the incident in July 2021, she felt the landlord had allowed her to be assaulted and was making her family continue to live where the assault took place.
The resident then submitted a second webform on 25 May 2022, providing more information about the CCTV sign and other matters. She said she felt the area was “too open to not have CCTV because of violence, criminal activity and strange behaviours” and that the communal doors could be prised open if forced. She described herself as a “terminally ill person” and said her health and daily activities had been impacted since she moved to the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 June 2022. It said it had raised her complaint at stage one of its complaints process and that the allocated officer would provide a response within ten working days. It then responded on 14 June 2022, stating that:
1. It was sorry the resident was dissatisfied with how it had managed her case and her reports of feeling unsafe in her home. It took reports of domestic abuse and ASB very seriously, and worked with survivors to ensure it safeguarded them from harm.
2. Priority move status was reserved for cases with exceptional circumstances where all other remedies had been explored and failed, and where tenants would be at high risk if they remained in their home.
3. Its priority move panel reviewed requests on a case-by-case basis, looking at all supporting evidence to make an informed and proportionate decision.
4. It could see from its system that the resident logged a new case on 10 May 2022. It contacted her the same day to discuss the case and agree a way forward. As part of the action plan it asked for a police risk assessment or other supporting documentation to strengthen the resident’s case for priority move status.
5. The police had made a disclosure which did not document any recent incidents of violence against the resident or any risk to her at her current address.
6. It had advised the resident that, due to the lack of evidence, she did not meet its criteria for a priority move. Instead, she could explore alternative housing options with its rehousing team.
7. It confirmed that dummy CCTV cameras had been installed at the resident’s block to deter those who may cause ASB on the estate. It had not received any reports of high risk or ongoing ASB at the location.
8. It advised the resident to report criminal activity directly to the police, who were best placed to respond “in real time” and could also patrol the area.
9. If the resident wished to report a new repair or update/escalate an existing repair in relation to the communal entrance door and intercom, she should log this with its customer hub.
10. If the resident was dissatisfied with its response, she could discuss the reasons for this with its stage one responder. If an agreement could not be reached, she could request that her complaint be escalated to stage two of its complaints process for an independent review.
Information provided by the resident and landlord indicates that the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on or around 16 June 2022, and that the landlord acknowledged this request. This Service has not seen a copy of the escalation request, but an email sent by the resident to the local authority on 16 June 2022 – which the landlord was copied into – said that the resident had been “injured at this property and it is disturbing my recovery”. She referred to having a live housing application in band four, which was unlikely to result in an offer of alternative accommodation being made. She said she felt the landlord did not support survivors of domestic abuse and expected her to call the police each time an incident occurred. She said she was not prepared to call the police because “the police scare me as they abuse people too” and “police do not make me feel safe”.
On 20 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again and referred to its “system where calling the police is mandatory” and where “risk assessment must be high according to the police, not the individual themselves”. She said she had no confidence in the police due to reports of incidents where male police officers had attacked and killed women. She also referred to an incident when she was verbally abused by a supermarket delivery driver at her property. She said she had told the landlord she did not feel safe and subsequently was “attacked by a male, again”; she felt the dummy cameras installed by the landlord were not deterring anybody from coming into the area and there were no signs saying the block was private property. She said she had long term damage to her arm and two children to keep safe. The landlord replied the same day and said it had passed the information to its stage two responder.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord called the resident and completed a TFST assessment with her over the phone. An internal email by the landlord following the assessment said that the resident had been receiving support from the hospital with her mental and physical health on a regular basis. The email said the landlord had offered her additional support with her mental health but she declined this. It said it had given her a website she could use to search for suitable properties to move to, but she said she had “passed all of these steps” and wanted to know why she had not been moved yet. It noted that the resident was not eligible for its PMP and queried whether she might be able to go down the route of a medical move.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 8 July 2022, stating that:
1. It was sorry the resident’s concerns were not resolved at stage one, and thanked her for her patience.
2. During its review it had looked at the resident’s complaint in its entirety and considered both how the landlord responded under its complaints policy, and whether the outcome was fair and reasonable.
3. It understood the resident’s reason for escalating her complaint was that she remained dissatisfied with how it was managing her rehousing request.
4. It had looked at its system notes and could see the resident had communicated with it on several occasions, stating that she did not feel safe in her home due to ASB in her area and that she was a victim of domestic abuse. She had told it she would like to be moved from the property she was currently living in.
5. Its records showed that when it received details of the resident’s concerns, it had investigated the matter in line with its ASB policy.
6. It had looked at the resident’s rehousing status to see if it could put her forward for priority banding. This could apply where residents were in exceptional circumstances and were deemed to be at high or imminent risk by remaining in their home. Such moves would be considered by its PMP along with supporting evidence.
7. The resident reported her circumstances to it on 10 May 2022. Its records showed that after it communicated with the resident, a request was made to the police for a risk assessment as this could reinforce the resident’s case to be presented to its PMP. The police disclosure did not confirm any incidents of violence or that the resident was at high risk at that time.
8. Having considered the police information, it decided the resident did not meet the criteria for having her application reviewed by its PMP. The resident’s rehousing banding therefore did not change.
9. If the resident had alternative evidence to support her circumstances, such as documentation from social services, it asked her to forward this for review.
10. The demand for housing in the area had increased substantially in recent years and it had a shortage of available homes.
11. With regard to the resident’s feeling of being unsafe in the area, it had installed dummy CCTV cameras which acted as a deterrent to those residents and visitors who may be motivated to cause ASB. It had checked with its relevant team, who had not received any recent reports.
12. It could only progress enforcement action for ASB where a breach of tenancy had taken place. It was responsible for ensuring that any enforcement action was led by substantial and effective evidence, such as diary sheets. It was challenging for the landlord to manage reports of ASB without evidence like this.
13. Where there was evidence of a criminal act, this should first be reported to the police. It was unable to investigate criminal acts, but the police’s action would help to strengthen its case when taking enforcement action against a tenant.
14. It acknowledged that there may have been recent ASB by others around the resident’s home, but there was no evidence that this was aimed specifically at the resident.
15. If the resident was experiencing ASB, it asked her to report this to its neighbourhoods team.
16. It understood the resident was recently contacted by its TFST and disclosed an incident that took place in July 2021. The resident told its officer that she did not report the incident to the police but told her GP. It was mindful of her concerns arising from this incident, but asked that any criminal acts were reported directly to the police. The police’s involvement and records would support any future cases with regard to a priority move application.
17. It noted the resident’s comments about her child’s wellbeing. It suggested that she may wish to discuss this matter with its TFST. It could see the TFST offered the resident additional support services which she declined.
18. Its rehousing team would be able to advise the resident regarding its medical management transfer programme, which may help her find a suitable property. It provided details of other rehousing options, including a mutual exchange, which may be quicker.
19. Regarding the resident’s comments about the communal door intercom not working, it had reviewed the repairs history and could see that the repairs were completed in June 2022.
20. It found that it had followed the correct procedures and guidance in managing the circumstances the resident had reported, and therefore could not uphold her complaint.

Post complaint

On 18 July 2022, after attempting to call the resident, the landlord sent her a letter regarding its TFST service. It said its worker had experienced difficulties in contacting the resident which had prevented progress being made with her case. It said it was aware there could be “any number of reasons” why the resident had been unable to make contact, and asked for her to contact it using details provided. The resident replied to the landlord the same day, saying that the landlord had not arranged a meeting or called her back as it said it would. She also disputed that the landlord had tried to call her. The landlord responded with an explanation of its actions and attached some information about rehousing and bidding for properties. The resident reiterated her request to have no contact with a particular officer and said she was being sent the same leaflet over and over. She told the landlord it was “making her more unwell”, and subsequently referred her complaint to this Service.
On 2 August 2022 the resident informed this Service that the landlord had incorrectly applied a rent increase to her account, which resulted in it taking more money from her Universal Credit payment than it was supposed to.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman understands that the resident had contacted the landlord about a house move prior to the events of this investigation, with an enquiry about a move on medical grounds having been made in February 2021 and reference made to earlier enquiries. While the Ombudsman’s investigation focuses on reports the resident has made since February 2022, this background has been taken into account.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns for her family’s safety in the property

When the resident first told the landlord that she felt unsafe in her property and in the area in February 2022, it said there was “not much it could do to help” if the resident did not report incidents to the police. While this was in line with the landlord’s policy of referring all criminal matters to the police, it could have been more sensitive in its approach and explored the reasons for the resident’s reluctance to contact the police. It could also have considered other ways that the resident could produce evidence of the issues she was concerned about, such as completing diary sheets. The landlord only referred to diary sheets once, in its stage two complaint response, and there is no evidence that it gave the resident printed or electronic diary sheets to complete at any point. Although the resident could have produced her own handwritten or electronic notes, providing template sheets or booklets could have increased the resident’s feeling of being listened to and supported. Templates could have also given useful prompts about the type of information required, such as descriptions of individuals, start and finish times, details of words and actions, how the resident was affected, and so on.
The resident later explained that she did not want to contact the police as she was concerned about news stories involving abuse by male police officers. The landlord could have reassured the resident on this point, drawing on its relationship with the local police force and perhaps offering to arrange a meeting between the resident and a female police officer. Instead, it maintained a fixed stance and repeated its advice for the resident to report matters to the police. It did not acknowledge or respond to her concerns, which were understandable in light of recent news stories, and so missed an opportunity to demonstrate understanding of her situation and experiences.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord was limited in the actions it could take to address reports of suspicious or criminal behaviour by unknown individuals, or in relation to an injury the resident received seven months before she reported it. Some of the behaviour described by the resident, such as non-residents entering the vicinity of the block, did not meet the landlord’s criteria for ASB set out in its policy. Criminal incidents like theft and burglary, while obviously worrying for the resident, were best suited for police investigation. While it was reasonable for the landlord not to take action in relation to such incidents, it could have clarified what types of behaviour it did and did not consider to be antisocial, in order to set expectations with the resident. The landlord’s complaint responses focused on why it could not take enforcement action in relation to the reported behaviour, but there is no suggestion that the resident expected the landlord to take such action; she simply wanted to feel that her property was safe, or to move to a property that was safe (discussed below).
It is not clear whether the landlord installed dummy CCTV cameras in response to the resident’s concerns and/or during the timeframe of this investigation, or whether the resident had recently discovered that the cameras were not real ones. In either case, installing dummy cameras and signage was a reasonable preventative measure by the landlord, which appeared to have been effective as it had not received any reports of serious or ongoing ASB issues. It may have been helpful for the landlord to advise the resident of the level of evidence it would need in order to consider installing functional cameras, and of the potential risks associated with these (for example, giving residents a false sense of security; cost and maintenance issues; restrictions on monitoring of cameras and storage of footage; and the risk of inadvertently increasing antisocial activity).
The resident informed the landlord of her concerns about the communal door intercom on 25 May 2022. In its subsequent stage one response on 14 June 2022, the landlord advised the resident to contact its customer hub regarding any new or outstanding repairs to the intercom. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate this issue as part of its stage one response, rather than simply signposting the resident. In fact, it appeared there were repairs that required completion, as these were carried out the same month. The resident was informed that the repairs had been completed in the landlord’s stage two response, but if she had not escalated her complaint she may not have received this update.
It would have been apparent to the landlord from the resident’s emails that she was concerned about the presence of unknown individuals near to her property and the risk they may pose to her and her children. It is positive that the landlord identified the resident’s vulnerability and followed its process by making a safeguarding referral, although it would have been good practice for it to discuss the referral with the resident, or at least to inform her at the time that it had done so. This resulted in a referral to the landlord’s TFST which offered practical and relevant support. However, in addition to this – and particularly when the resident did not immediately engage with the TFST – it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider additional security measures in relation to the resident’s property, and/or to liaise with partner agencies about other security options such as panic alarms and the sanctuary scheme.
The resident had also expressed concerns about the occasional presence of known individuals, namely her ex-partner and/or his child, in the area. The landlord could not be expected to assess the risk these individual(s) may pose to the resident, but it would have been good practice for it to speak to her about her perception of the risk. If appropriate, it could have completed a Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) risk checklist or sought the support of partner agencies. It could also have confirmed with the police whether their risk assessment took account of these individuals being in close proximity to the resident, and requested an updated risk assessment if it did not.
In summary, although the landlord acted in accordance with its policies in terms of its assessment of evidence and decisions about action, there are various ways in which it could have been more sensitive to the resident’s needs as a survivor of domestic abuse. Demonstrating an understanding of her experiences and the impact of incidents on her would have enabled the landlord to build a more trusting relationship with the resident, within which she may have felt more able to accept support and advice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

The landlord correctly identified that the resident did not meet its criteria for a priority move or ‘management transfer’, as there was no evidence that she had been targeted by those behaving antisocially in the area or that there was any risk associated with her living in the property. While she was a survivor of domestic abuse, the abuse had not taken place at the property or since she moved in. It was appropriate for the landlord to consult with the police in making its assessment. It was also appropriate for it to give the resident information about her rehousing options, although the Ombudsman appreciates that receiving a large amount of such information from different sources could have been confusing and overwhelming for the resident. A more joined-up response between different teams could have ensured that information was not duplicated.
It is evident that the resident was deeply affected by the injury she received in July 2021, and that this has had far-reaching implications for her physical and mental wellbeing. Based on the available information, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was right to conclude that this was an isolated incident that was not related to the resident’s occupation of her property and was unlikely to recur. Since the resident referred to the possibility of surgery, having “long term damage to her arm” and being “terminally ill”, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explore whether she had any new care needs linked to her injury or required any adjustments or adaptations that may have had a bearing on her housing application. An internal email sent by the landlord on 28 June 2022 queried whether the resident may be eligible for a medical move, but it appears that this was not followed up or discussed with the resident.
The landlord should also have taken account of the information about the resident’s ex-partner and/or his child being nearby, and ensured this was factored into any risk assessment on whose basis decisions were made. If it did so, it should have confirmed this to the resident in order to demonstrate openness and transparency in its decision making. This is of particular importance as the resident informed the landlord of her ex-partner/child’s presence on 11 May 2022, whereas the police’s original risk assessment was completed the day before, and so could not be presumed to include the information.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding her children’s health as a result of living in the property

Other than general concerns about her family’s safety, which are discussed above, the resident raised two specific concerns regarding her children’s health during the timeframe of this investigation. One of these related to a wash hand basin repair that the resident reported on 21 March 2022. It appeared that the resident had attempted to request a repair using the landlord’s usual process, and that after feeling her concerns had been dismissed, she sent an email. This stated that “I have two children with skin conditions and this is causing problems.” Although the landlord’s ‘repair responsibilities’ document states that replacing plugs is the tenant’s responsibility, its records show that the necessary works were completed and the issue resolved on 31 March 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to reattend and carry out the repair in view of the resident’s obvious distress and concern about her children.
The resident’s other concern about her children’s health related to the fact that they had developed asthma and eczema since moving to the property. The resident told the landlord on 18 July 2022 that these conditions “get worse just by stepping outside”. This Service is not qualified to comment on whether the property or the area in which it is located has caused a health condition to develop or worsen; such matters may be dealt with by way of a personal injury insurance claim. Instead, the Ombudsman can examine whether the landlord responded appropriately to the concerns expressed. In relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s stage two responder referred to support that was available through its TFST service, which had been offered but declined by the resident. The attempts made by the landlord to engage the resident with TFST support were meaningful and, unlike other communications, demonstrated understanding by noting that there may be many reasons why the resident felt unable to make contact. The letter sent on 18 July 2022 and subsequent email comprised an excellent example of sensitive and insightful casework, although any positive impact of the letter’s contents may have been impeded by its less tactful title, “Non-Engagement Letter 1”.
Had it had the opportunity to work with the resident and her family, it would have been appropriate for the landlord’s TFST service to explore the reasons for the resident’s belief that the property was causing her family to be unwell, and to advise her how she could seek evidence to support or refute the belief – for example, by providing a letter from her GP. Unfortunately it was unable to do this during the timeframe of the current investigation. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman is satisfied with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her children’s health.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns for her family’s safety in the property;
2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused;
3. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding her children’s health as a result of living in the property.

Reasons

The landlord acted in accordance with its policies when responding to the resident’s reports of antisocial and criminal behaviour. However, its response was generic and not tailored to the individual circumstances of a survivor of domestic abuse. It missed several opportunities to listen to the resident’s concerns about her family’s safety in the property, to be flexible and sensitive in its approach, and to offer relevant support.
The landlord correctly identified that the resident did not qualify for a priority move, based on the information available to it at the time. However, it did not fully explore the possibility of a medical move, and it did not confirm that information about the proximity of risky individuals to the property had formed part of a risk assessment upon which it based its decision.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns regarding her children’s health, firstly by carrying out a repair that would normally be (partly) the tenant’s responsibility, and secondly by offering relevant support through its TFST service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £200, comprising:
  1. £100 for its service failure in responding to her concerns for her family’s safety in the property;
  2. £100 for its service failure in handling the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. Update its records to reflect the disclosed vulnerabilities and health conditions of the resident and her children.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord assesses the resident’s suitability for a medical move, if it has not already done so, and informs the resident of the outcome of its assessment. If appropriate, it should advise the resident of any evidence she may be able to provide in support of a medical move, such as a doctor’s letter.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s housing application in conjunction with an updated risk assessment, which takes account of the presence of the resident’s ex-partner and/or his child in the local area (if this is still the case). The landlord should consult with the police and/or specialist domestic abuse services regarding the risk assessment if necessary.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its response to domestic abuse, including training of frontline housing management staff, to ensure it delivers a trauma-informed and victim-focused service. Any training arranged should cover housing-related changes introduced under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.