Peabody Trust (202321300)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321300

Peabody Trust

7 March 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The landlord’s allocation of the resident’s property.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
    4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord from November 2021. The property is a two-bedroom maisonette property comprising of two floors. The resident lives with her young son. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident for her physical and mental health. The landlord is also aware of health issues for the resident’s son. When the resident moved into her property, the downstairs neighbour (who she would later complain about) was already living there.
  2. On 21 July 2022, the resident reported her downstairs neighbour had been “shouting and screaming profanities.” She said this had “begun again after he came out of hospital in May (2022)”. The resident continued to report her neighbour’s behaviour numerous times up to 11 January 2024. Through this time, she reported the neighbour would shout sexual and racist abuse at her. She also said he was “acting aggressively in his own property,” was “leaving rubbish on his doorstep, attracting mice” and “pacing the streets erratically.” She said this was causing alarm to everyone in the local area. The resident also provided the landlord with information on the impact on her and her son. She was receiving medication to help her sleep and had chosen to sleep on a mattress on the living room floor. Her son was developing behavioural issues, reacting to noises, and was not sleeping. She told the landlord she “understood her neighbour had mental health issues but something needed to be done.”
  3. The landlord was liaising with its safeguarding team, the police and a mental health team between 21 July 2022 and 11 January 2024 in relation to the reports it had received about the neighbour. The landlord was supporting the neighbour through this time and was able to arrange multi agency meetings from 1 June 2023. It was delayed in doing this due to factors out of its control.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 28 June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 July 2023. The response was provided by the staff member managing the ASB case against the resident’s neighbour. The landlord’s response stated the following:
    1. It apologised for its delayed complaint response. It stated it takes reports of ASB very seriously. It said the neighbour’s mental health had been difficult to manage. It stated it was making progress now it had all relevant agencies engaged.
    2. It receives nominations for housing from the local authority. It had no control over this when offering the property to the resident.
    3. It had referred the resident for “tenant and family support.” It was waiting for further information from the resident to refer her application to its Priority Move Panel.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 July 2023. She provided further information to support this on 24 July 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 September 2023. Its response stated the following:
    1. It said its stage 1 complaint response should not have come from the person managing the ASB case. It asked for further details from the resident to record a separate staff complaint. It told her such a complaint would be reviewed by a senior manager.
    2. It apologised for its lapse in communications about the ASB case. It reiterated from its stage 1 response it was committed to handling the case with the utmost care and concern. It said it was holding meetings with the police and mental health team and was updating its action plan. It asked her to keep reporting any incidents. It also asked her to attend any multi agency meetings. It confirmed its neighbourhood team would provide fortnightly updates about its management of ASB.
    3. It should have considered the resident’s personal circumstances at the letting stage. It stated it should have spoken with her about any issues that could arise. It apologised that it did not.
    4. It said the resident’s recent priority move application of 7 August 2023 was rejected. It said it was supporting her with a further application. She had confirmed to it she would provide further medical evidence.
    5. It said it could not award compensation for the impact on her health. It directed her on how to make a personal injury claim to its insurer. It did offer total compensation aside to this of £2395. This comprised of:
      1. £95 for the delays in its complaints process. Made up of £20 for stage 1 and £75 for stage 2.
      2. £300 for the time trouble and inconvenience suffered. Acknowledging its communication issues and its failure to record a staff complaint.
      3. £2000 for the distress caused to the resident. This was recognition for not fully considering her situation at the time it let the property. This was £1000 for each year she was in the property.
    6. It confirmed it was restructuring its customer resolution team to improve its stage 1 complaint responses. It would ensure its central complaints team responded to complaints in future. It would also improve the service it gives at the letting stage to ensure no future reoccurrence of the issues suffered by the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation from 17 October 2023. The resident stated the unresolved issues were as follows:
    1. The landlord did not consider her and her son’s circumstances when allocating the property to her.
    2. The landlord was not taking the alleged racist abuse she received from the neighbour seriously. The mental health of the resident and her son was “deeply negatively impacted” by the alleged behaviour of the neighbour.
  7. The landlord added the compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response to the resident’s rent account (at her request) on 29 September 2023. The Priority Move Panel accepted the resident’s further priority move request of 15 November 2023 on 20 November 2023. It confirmed she was entitled to a 2-bedroom home and 1 direct offer.
  8. In correspondent with this Service on 8 March 2024 the resident stated her neighbour was continuing to cause her family distress. She said she was at risk of losing her job due to taking long term sick leave. She said her neighbour continued to leave rubbish outside. She said this was causing “rodent activity” in her property, to which her and her son are allergic to. As of 20 March 2024, the resident has confirmed the property management transfer has not taken place and the she remains at the property. She stated that the landlord is not currently managing her property management transfer. She said this is due to the staff member responsible being on long term absence and there is no replacement in place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  3. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB).

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy states it takes a victim-centre and robust approach to tackling ASB. It ensures all customers are treated in a fair and equitable manner. It works in partnership with other organisations to tackle discrimination, promote equal rights and treat customers according to their needs.
  2. The ASB Policy confirms the landlord will assess anyone for their risk and vulnerability when reporting an incident of ASB. It does this to provide support, including signposting to outside agencies and identify safeguarding issues. It confirms it will respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days. It will agree an action plan with a complainant and keep them informed on any actions it takes.
  3. The landlord’s Hate Crime Policy defines it as “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or other person to be motivated by hostility.” The relevant example it provides is against a person’s race. It states it will not tolerate hate crime in any form and will take robust action against perpetrators. It says it will recognise and support the needs of the victim.
  4. The first evidence of the resident reporting alleged ASB to the landlord is 21 July 2022. However, in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it acknowledges incidents of ASB were present from the November 2021 when the resident moved in. The resident’s reports from 21 July 2022 were frequent consistent to 11 January 2024.
  5. Between 21 July 2022 and 6 September 2022, the landlord’s management of reports of ASB were appropriate and in accordance with its ASB Policy. It completed the following actions in this regard:
    1. It provided ASB diary sheets to the resident on 3 August 2022, which it reviewed. It also asked for further details to support raising an ASB case at this time. It provided reassurance to her on the same day that it was taking the issue seriously.
    2. It raised an ASB case against the neighbour on 23 August 2022 and continued to update the case with new actions or developments.
    3. It checked in with the resident on 6 September 2022. It also informed her it was setting up a multi-agency meeting to deal with the ASB case.
  6. The resident reported her neighbour had used racist abuse to her on 21 November 2022. She states he had used highly offensive wording and had a recording. She said she had had “suicidal thoughts” as a result. The landlord stated internally it would pass this onto the neighbour’s care coordinator. However, there is no evidence it responded to the resident on the matter. It failed to adhere to its Hate Crime Policy in not taking a “victim-focused approach” and there is no evidence it offered support to her on the matter at this time. This is particularly alarming given the impact the resident said this caused to her.
  7. The resident reported racist abuse from her neighbour again between 12 and 17 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged her reports on 17 May 2023. It detailed what action it was taking with the neighbour with third party support. It also confirmed it would provide her with support as she had requested. This was an appropriate response that was informative and supportive, albeit delayed given her earlier reports of a similar nature. Its response at this time was in accordance with its Hate Crime Policy.
  8. The resident began reported ASB from 16 March 2023. This Service has seen evidence the landlord was taking action with the neighbour from 16 March 2023. However, there is little evidence of it keeping the resident updated on this onwards. She contacted it on 11 May 2023 asking for any update as there was no contact from 29 March 2023. She asked for the landlord to call her back on 11 May 2023 but there is no evidence it completed this. She raised escalated reports of ASB on 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 May 2023. The landlord discussed the ASB case with her on 17 May 2023 but only during the call she made to it.
  9. In its stage 1 complaint response of 17 July 2023 the landlord said a new member of staff would manage the resident’s case. It promised it would manage her case fortnightly. There is no evidence of this taking place. It neither “managed” or contacted the resident on a fortnightly basis following its response. Its failure to do this caused uncertainty, inconvenience, and distress to the resident.
  10. There was no further contact from the landlord with updates about the case after the stage 1 complaint response. This was despite the resident requesting a face-to-face meeting on 27 July 2023. The landlord failed to respond to this point. The resident also provided details of her son’s worsening health on 1, 29 August and 6 September 2023. Evidence from healthcare professionals attributed the deterioration in his health to the alleged ASB. Although this was information relevant to the priority move panel, the landlord should have used this information to focus on more immediate support for the resident’s son. It had the opportunity to understand the detriment the issues were causing to the resident’s son to guide it.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 September 2023 apologised for its lapse in communication with the resident about the ASB case. It again promised its neighbourhood team would “update her fortnightly” about the ASB case. There is evidence it updated the resident on 2 and 26 October 2023. However, following this there were no further updates from the landlord. This was despite the resident continuing to report ASB from the neighbour through this period. The landlord not only failed to follow through on its agreement to provide regular updates but also failed to adhere to its ASB Policy.
  12. The landlord appropriately decided from 23 August 2022 it should complete multi agency meetings to manage ASB from the neighbour. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to raise multi agency meetings but was delayed in doing so.  The reason for the delay was due to obtaining attendance and commitment from other third-party organisations. The delay was therefore outside of the landlord’s control despite its best efforts. It eventually arranged these from 1 June 2023. The meetings continued on a regular basis from this point. However, the landlord stated on 14 August 2023 it had failed to attend a meeting since 14 July 2023. This raises concerns that the landlord’s overall response did not reflect the serious nature of the case. It was essential it played its part in ensuring events led to a resolution for all parties.
  13. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord invited the resident to further multi agency meetings. Although an appropriate step it is uncertain why the landlord did not consider or offer this sooner. The impact of the alleged ASB on the resident had the opportunity to impact the meetings. Its failure to include the resident caused her to feel she was not being listened to or taken seriously.
  14. On 31 May 2023, the resident reported her neighbour had been leaving rubbish on his doorstep. She told the landlord this was attracting rodents. There is no evidence the landlord ever addressed or responded to this issue. There is no evidence the issue has been resolved up to the resident’s email to this Service on 8 March 2024. She states rodents are now present in her property to which she states both her and her son are allergic to.
  15. The landlord does not have a specific policy in relation to waste management or fly tipping. However, under section 34 of the Environmental Act 1990 all household occupiers have a legal duty to ensure household waste is properly disposed of. In the circumstances the neighbour’s dumping of waste was unlawful. The landlord should have considered this as further evidence of nuisance. It should have taken affirmative action to remove any rubbish, ensure compliance with the neighbour and continue to monitor the site. It’s failure to do so caused ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  16. From 22 July 2022 the resident reported how her, and her son were progressively suffering. The landlord did raise a vulnerability case for the resident from 3 August 2022. However, there is no evidence of it completing any risk assessments for the resident each time she reported ASB or a hate crime from the neighbour. This was not in accordance with its ASB or Hate Crime Policy. Its failure to complete this denied it the opportunity consider further risk to the resident and her child. A risk assessment is crucial in informing the landlords decision making at the outset. It also enables it to monitor a case as it progresses so it can identify proportionate actions that take into account factors such as household vulnerability.
  17. The landlord signposting of support to the resident was appropriate. It initially suggested it could signpost the resident to counselling on 3 August 2022. It confirmed she had appropriate support in place on 23 March 2023. It offered further support on 31 May 2023 and in its stage 1 response of 17 July 2023 and stage 2 response of 14 September 2023.
  18. The resident had provided the landlord with continued evidence of the impact and detriment caused to her son by the alleged ABS. There is no evidence of the landlord offering or signposting the resident to support for her son. The landlord had the responsibility to do this under its Safeguarding Policy and failed to adhere to this.
  19. The resident told the landlord on 31 May 2023 that she was dyslexic and had issue with written communication. It agreed to communicate with her by phone. However, it failed to adhere to this and there is continued evidence from this point of it emailing the resident. This would be considered a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2012. It’s failure to comply with this was opposed to its Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion Policy.
  20. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered £300 compensation for its “communication issues” and failure to record a staff complaint (assessed in complaint handling). It is unclear what proportion of the compensation it awarded to which issue and to what extent its acknowledged communication failures related to its handling of the ASB case.
  21. In summary there was clear evidence the landlord was looking to resolve a notably difficult situation with the resident’s neighbour. However, in November 2022 it failed to abide by its Hate Crime Policy. From 16 March 2023 it failed to abide by its ASB Policy. It failed to keep the resident consistently informed about what action it was taking as it had agreed in its complaint responses. It also failed to acknowledge her reports about ASB or dumped rubbish. There was an overall failure in demonstrating that it responded appropriately to the various reports it received about the resident’s son and the impact on his health. The landlord failed to maintain a reasonable adjustment it put into place which was not in accordance with its equality and diversity strategy.
  22. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. A compensation award of £700 will be awarded. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure with significant impact on the resident.
  23. An order will be made to investigate further support for the resident and her son and keep her updated on the progress of the ASB case. It must also complete a risk assessment and take any appropriate action as a result. A further order will also be made for the landlord to manage the dumping of rubbish outside the resident’s property and any associated pests.

The landlord’s allocation of the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord’s Lettings Policy states it cooperates with local authorities to meet local housing needs by taking nominations for its homes. It states, “it lets its homes in a fair and transparent way” and “aims to ensure all residents are treated in a fair and equitable manner.”
  2. The Lettings Policy defines vulnerability as being “any situation which, without support or intervention, places them at risk of abuse, neglect or causes detriment to their overall wellbeing.” It confirms the landlord will consider a ‘sensitive let’ where there are restrictions on who can move into a property. It states this may be “because of ongoing ASB, the vulnerability of the potential tenant, or where the new or current resident could pose a risk to their neighbours.”
  3. The resident initially moved into the property in November 2022. This Service has seen evidence that ASB was reported about the neighbour prior to the resident moving in. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the presence of ASB from the neighbour from the start of the resident’s tenancy.
  4. The resident raised the issue in her initial complaint of 28 June 2023. She stated the landlord was aware of ASB from the neighbour before she moved in. She said it did not consider the impact the issue would have on her or her son. She also said it failed to give her an “informed choice” when offering the property. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns in its stage one complaint response. Its response in only explaining it had no control over who entered its properties, was ineffective. It also explained its lettings team “may not know the history of what had happened previously.” This was not in accordance with its Lettings Policy. Its lettings team should have been aware of “what had happened previously” to consider if it could offer a ‘sensitive let.’ Its inappropriate response caused the resident distress and inconvenience and gave her the belief that she was not being listened to.
  5. It is unclear if the resident was aware of the resident’s health issue when letting the property. It was aware however she was a single parent with a young child. This was sufficient grounds to consider her as vulnerable. As in accordance with its Lettings Policy there was the possibility of causing detriment to the overall wellbeing of the resident and her child if she was placed in the property. Significant detriment was caused to the resident and her son after moving into the property as shown previously in this report.
  6. The landlord established in its stage 2 complaint investigation its lettings team was not aware the property was a ‘sensitive let’. It found it failed to consider previous incidents involving the neighbour when letting the flat to the resident and failed to inform her of such. It failed to act in accordance with its Lettings Policy in this regard. It failed to consider the ongoing ASB from the neighbour and the vulnerability of the resident. Its actions were neither “fair nor transparent” as its policy states. The detriment caused was significant to both the resident and her child. The distress and inconvenience caused to both was significant, with each suffering serious health issues as a result.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response addressed the letting issue comprehensively. It appropriately explained the breakdown in its process which led to it not sufficiently considering the resident’s vulnerability or the ‘sensitive let.’ It broke the information it provided down to make it easily understood and apologised for the impact it caused. The landlord also showed it had learnt from the experience. It said it was considering change to a “localities model” ensuring its relevant teams worked together at the lettings stage. It said this would ensure no reoccurrence of the service issues the resident suffered. Although this would have little impact on the resident it showed the landlord was using feedback to improve the service it was providing.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 September 2023 offered compensation totalling £2000 to the resident. This was in recognition of “not fully considering the situation at the time of her let.” This was £1000 a year for each of the years she had been in the property. This was a reasonable amount and exceeded the landlord’s Compensation Policy. The policy suggests a maximum offer of £650 for extensive disruption. The level of compensation is at a level that the Ombudsman would consider reasonable for the acknowledged failures in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The failure by the landlord caused the resident and her son to be put at risk, causing serious permanent detriment to them.
  9. In summary the landlord failed to abide by its Letting Policy when letting the property to the resident. It failed to consider her vulnerability and the ‘sensitive let.’ In doing so the resident and her son were put at risk. Serious detriment was caused to each of them over a prolonged period from the continuous alleged ASB from the neighbour. The landlord failed to address this in its stage 1 complaint response. It did provide an appropriate stage 2 response. This response showed it had learnt from its failings and would change its approach in future. It apologised to the resident for detriment it caused and offered sufficient compensation to the resident. For these reasons, a finding of reasonable redress has been determined. The evidence shows the landlord paid the £2000 as part of its overall compensation of £2395 to the resident on 29 September 2023. It paid it to her rent account at her request. 

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

  1. The landlord’s Rehousing Policy and ASB Policy states it will consider management transfers for tenants who need to move due to ASB, harassment or hate crime. The policy states its Priority Move Panel considers and decides on management transfers. The landlord’s Priority Move Panel Guidance confirms its panel will carefully review applications for priority transfer. It will approve or reject an application based on the information provided. Examples of ASB, hate crime and harassment are included in its ‘A3’ priority transfers for consideration.
  2. The landlord’s internal teams, including Neighbourhood Services, Customer Experience and Tenants and Family Support refer priority move applications. The guidance states applications are only for emergency and exceptional cases, where supporting evidence exists. The objective of the panel is to remove a resident from their borough of risk.
  3. The resident reported alleged ASB from her neighbour and her concern with being in her property from 21 July 2022. The landlord was aware of the effect of the alleged ASB on the resident from this date. There is no evidence the landlord signposted the resident on how to move from this point, or that it considered it. There is no evidence it suggested the possibility of a management transfer. The resident met the Priority Move Panel guidance for consideration at this point. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord not to consider this. This resulted in the resident and her son remaining in a difficult situation causing them much distress and inconvenience.
  4. There is evidence the resident formally asked the landlord resident for support in moving out of her property on 17 May 2023. It responded the same day signposting her to websites that supported with finding affordable housing. This was an appropriate response, but the landlord should have gone further. By 17 May 2023 it was not only aware of the alleged ASB towards the resident but also alleged racist abuse. These were both separate conditions for a management transfer under the Priority Move Panel guidance. The landlord should have supported the resident with an application to the panel from this point. Its failure to do so caused further distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The first evidence of the landlord supporting the resident with a Priority Move Panel application is 31 May 2023. The landlord did support the resident in completing the application in accordance with its guidance following this and referenced this in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident told the landlord on 21 August 2023 the panel had rejected her application. She asked the landlord for a full breakdown of the reasoning. This Service has seen no evidence of the rejection of the resident’s application or that the landlord provided her with a statement of reasons as she requested.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 September 2023, it said a further application to the Priority Panel could be made. The landlord supported the resident with a further application to the Priority Move Panel on 15 November 2023. It is uncertain why there was delay between the stage 2 response and the new application. The resident told the landlord her and her son were “scared” on 25 October 2023, and she wanted to be moved. A local authority councillor chased the resident being rehoused, on her behalf on 25 October 2023. It told the councillor on 7 November 2023 it was submitting the application form the following week. This suggests the landlord was responsible for the delay between 25 October and 15 November 2023. The Priority Move Panel accepted the resident’s application on 20 November 2023.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response failed to acknowledge that it should have considered referral to the Priority Move Panel much sooner than it did. The stage 2 complaint response failed to acknowledge the resident’s request for a statement of reasons for the initial refusal of her application. Its failure to consider these points caused uncertainty and distress to the resident. The landlord did not consider compensation for these matters in its stage 1 or 2 complaint responses. This was due to it not considering the issues.
  8. In summary the landlord should have considered the Priority Move Panel for the resident much earlier than it did. Its delay in referring her caused her and her son to remain in an extremely difficult situation without any hope for her being able to move. It failed to act in accordance with its Rehousing Policy and Priority Move Panel guidance. This was due to the resident alleging ASB and a hate crime which were separate and individual reasons for consideration by the panel. However, the landlord did act in a reasonable amount of time when the resident formally requested support with rehousing.
  9. As such the Ombudsman finds there was service failure and has awarded compensation of £200. This is due to the landlord failing to acknowledge it should have considered rehousing her sooner. The failure to do this caused considerable detriment including stress, worry anxiety and inconvenience to the resident and her son.
  10. The resident confirmed on 8 March 2024 she remains at the property. This is despite the management transfer being agreed from 20 November 2023. A further order will be made for the landlord to update the resident with the current status of the management transfer.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states it aims to provide “a good reliable service to all customers and treat feedback as an opportunity to improve services.” Complaints should be submitted to the landlord within 6 months of any incident occurring. The landlord can use its discretion to consider complaints submitted outside this period.
  2. The landlord’s complaints process has two stages, as follows:
    1. It will log new complaints as stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and it will provide a response within 10 working days. It will agree any extensions to the response time with the resident. The stage 1 investigation will be “carried out by a case manager who is fully trained to handle complaints”.
    2. Any escalations should be made within 10 working days of receipt of the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. It will agree any extensions to the response time with the resident. The customer experience team will conduct the stage 2 investigation.
  3. This Service has seen evidence the resident raised her complaint by telephone to the landlord on 28 June 2023. However, in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord states the resident raised her complaint on 30 June 2023. Although the landlord took the resident’s complaint by phone there is no evidence it sent a formal acknowledgement that it had logged her complaint.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 July 2023. From 28 June 2023 this was equivalent to 13 working days. This exceeded its timescale for response of 10 working days. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to extend its response time.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did recognise the impact the alleged ASB was having on the resident. It suggested support it had offered for her. However, it did not acknowledge the impact on the resident’s son or offer any support for him. The resident had raised this in her initial complaint. In this regard the landlord failed to show the resident it was listening to her. It’s response was also not resolution focused.
  6. In her stage 1 complaint the resident raised concerns about how the landlord was managing her ASB case. She said the landlord had “failed in its duty to her and her son,” it was “failing to inform her of ongoing issues” and there was no progress. The landlord’s Housing Manager was responsible for the handling of the ASB case against the resident’s neighbour. It was therefore inappropriate for the same member of staff to provide the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. In doing so the landlord failed to treat the resident fairly or impartially investigate and respond to her concerns.
  7. In its stage two complaint response the landlord did appropriately recognise its Housing Manager should not have provided its stage 1 response. It also recognised it had not raised a staff complaint against the same individual. It gave the resident opportunity to provide further information for it to investigate. It is uncertain if the resident provided this, or if the landlord went on to complete an investigation. The landlord informed the resident it was implementing change to its complaints process in future. A centralised complaints team would respond to all complaints. This showed the landlord was actively listening. It also used feedback from the complaint to improve its service, in accordance with its policy.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint initially on 18 July 2023 stating she was “not happy with the stage 1 complaint response”. She provided further detail about her escalation on 24 July 2023. There is no evidence the landlord confirmed it had logged her complaint. It contacted her on 22 August 2023 to extend its deadline for response to 29 August 2023. The notification of the extension was appropriate by the landlord and in accordance with its Complaints Policy. However, by 22 August 2023, the equivalent of 26 working days had already passed. At this point it had already exceeded its stage 2 response time of 20 working days.
  9. The landlord failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response by 29 August 2023. On 1 September 2023 it extended its deadline for response to 6 September 2023. It thanked the resident for discussing the complaint “earlier that week.” It is uncertain the date this conversation took place. The landlord agreed a further delay with the resident on 6 September 2023 and a day later said it would reply by 14 September 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 September 2023. From 18 July 2023 this was equivalent to 43 working days.
  10. The resident’s raised her concerns about the landlord’s initial letting of the flat 6 months after the incident took place. The landlord failed to provide a substantial response to this in its stage 1 response. It also failed to advise the resident if it was able to investigate the matter. In its stage 2 response the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its policy in using its discretion to investigate this point. It also sufficiently explained this to the resident. The landlord learnt from its failings on the matter and stated it would improve its service in the future. It stated it “did not want a reoccurrence of the service issues” that affected the resident. This was in accordance with its policy and clear indication it was listening and wanted to improve its service.
  11. The landlord appropriately explained in its stage 2 complaint response it could not pay compensation for personal injury. It directed her to its insurer to make a claim if she felt this was appropriate. Its stance was in accordance with its Compensation Policy.
  12. The landlord offered compensation of £20 for its delay at stage 1 and £75 for its delay at stage 2. This was in accordance with its Compensation Policy where it suggests £1 to £250 for a minor disruption. However, this is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. This suggests awards of £100 to £600 for cases where has been service failure which has adversely affected the resident, with no permanent impact.
  13. A landlords complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage one and two complaint response time and its communication with the resident. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £250 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with some impact to the resident throughout that period. A recommendation will also be made for the landlord to conclude any staff complaint investigation it may have pending.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s allocation of the resident’s property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £1150 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient response to her reports of alleged ASB.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to her request to be rehoused.
      3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
      4. The amounts above include the £395 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaints’ procedure, for the above issues.
    2. The landlord should ensure all staff members are compliant with the requirements of its ASB Policy. It should consider any further training, as necessary.
    3. The landlord should continue to keep the resident updated with the current ASB case with the neighbour on a fortnightly basis. It must complete a risk assessment for the resident and son, taking any further action as appropriate. It must also investigate further appropriate support for the resident and her son.
    4. The landlord will arrange for any waste located outside the neighbour’s property be removed. It must take any compliance action with the neighbour, as necessary. It must arrange for pest control to attend the resident’s property to investigate any infestation. It must take any appropriate action to remedy any findings.
    5. The landlord will arrange to update the resident on the current management transfer position and continue to manage this appropriately. It should offer any support with this as appropriate or necessary.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should conclude its staff complaint investigation as stated in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.