Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202108884)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108884

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

12 July 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is regarding the resident’s:
1. Request to be rehoused.
2. Reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB).
This investigation has also considered:
1. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an Assured Tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. He has resided at his current address (“the property”) since 2015.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will ensure ASB cases “are investigated in a timely manner, that appropriate actions are recorded and that cases are reviewed and monitored regularly, particularly in relation to risk and harm.”
The Local Authority in the resident’s area has partnered with a number of Housing Associations, not-for-profits, and private landlords to create a choice-based lettings scheme to advertise properties for letting. Therefore, some of the resident’s correspondence regarding his rehousing application has been with the landlord directly, and some has been with staff at the scheme itself. For the purposes of clarity, when referring to the scheme, this investigation will refer to the “Housing Register Scheme.”
The Allocations Policy (which is the Local Authority’s but adopted by all partners within the Housing Register Scheme) states that “an applicant with two or more needs all of which would be awarded Band 2 will be awarded Band 2”.

Scope of Investigation

Within the resident’s complaint, he referred to a meeting that took place with the landlord at the end of 2019, during which he discussed an assault he suffered at the hands of his neighbour in or around October 2019 and reported that the same neighbour had threatened to stab him. He advised that the landlord had failed to respond to his reports.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that this Service will not investigate issues which were “not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. From the complaint itself, it is noted that the alleged assault, and the undated threats, took place over 12 months prior to him submitting his complaint regarding the landlord’s response. While the events may be referred to during this investigation for context, particularly when considering the substantive complaints about the resident’s rehousing request and the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports, this investigation will focus on events which took place since February 2020, 12 months prior to the complaint being made in February 2021.

Summary of Events

In September 2017, landlord records show contact from the resident regarding noise nuisance from his neighbour. The resident advised that he had spoken to the neighbour about “excessive noise” but, after discussion with the landlord, stated that he did not want the landlord to send them a warning letter. Records show the landlord stated it would provide incident diaries to record future instances and clarified that the resident had access to a Noise App for his mobile phone. The case was closed, with the resident’s agreement.
Landlord records show further noise nuisance reports from the resident, regarding the same neighbour, were made in July and November 2018, and April 2020. In September 2020, the resident sent the landlord further ASB reports, stating he was at “breaking point” as the neighbour had “people constantly in his flat, taking and selling drugs and causing noise nuisance all night, every night”.
Landlord records indicate it sent the resident an email in November 2019 “to see how things are with (his) neighbour” as it had not received a response to a previous email, which this Service has not seen a record of. On 7 November 2019, the then invited the resident to attend a meeting at its offices, which records show he did on 19 November 2019. The landlord’s records of the meeting indicate it discussed the reported noise nuisance with the resident and ways in which he could potentially record it, but also that he advised he had not had any issues with his neighbour for “the last 3 weeks”. However, the resident was also noted to feel that the ASB case was “going round in circles.”
Landlord records show that, on 9 December 2019, its Rehousing Enquiries service emailed the resident in response to an application for rehousing. It advised him to “check the online information pack” and submit the required documents. The resident responded on 12 December 2019 and advised he had attached the needed documents. The landlord followed-up the following day to inform him that his application had been made live. It also advised him that “if you are suffering from fear of violence or harassment, please contact your neighbourhood officer as soon as possible to discuss your concerns further.”
On 22 May 2020, records show Rehousing Enquiries emailed the resident and requested he complete a section regarding local connection “so we can award Band 2”, although notes did not clarify why the Band 2 status was awarded or when it was applied for. However, the landlord emailed the resident again on 16 October 2020 to advise him that the Housing Register’s “rehousing rules” would be changing from 3 November 2020 and that, based on the information he had provided, his application was now in “new Band 4”.
On 26 October 2020, the resident received an email from the Housing Register Scheme advising, apparently in reply to an enquiry regarding a medical assessment. It advised him how to generate a medical assessment via his online application and that he should speak to his landlord if he needed any further help, or if he had any further changes in circumstance, as “they are responsible for providing you with re-housing advice and the prioritisation and maintenance of your re-housing application”.
Landlord records show that on 20 November 2020, the resident advised the Rehousing Enquiries team that he had been “knocked off the FOV” when submitting a change of circumstances. “The FOV” is assumed to refer to a “Fear of Violence” category. Records noted the “FOV award need(ed) to be backdated to original date” and that the resident needed to provide further medical information regarding his application. The Housing Register Scheme then wrote to the resident on 26 November 2020 to advise he had not “supplied enough information for us to make a decision on your request for medical re-housing priority” and asked him to provide further documentation.
On 22 January 2021, the Housing Register Scheme’s medical team wrote to the resident to confirm he had been awarded Band 2 status on the grounds of medical priority. It advised he was able to bid for ground floor properties, or properties that were on one level and benefitted from lift access
On 12 February 2021, the resident lodged a complaint with the landlord via its website, although landlord records indicate that, in error, it was not logged until 2 March 2021. In his complaint, the resident advised he had been registered for rehousing since November 2017 and had been moved from Band 5 on the allocations scheme to Band 2 in May 2020. The resident raised the following issues:
1. He had “only just learned” he was moved into Band 2 for “serious violence or harassment” but stated that, in around April 2020, he had been advised that his case would “go before a panel…(and) they would decide if I would be given a higher priority”.
2. “Five months or so” previously, at the end of 2019, he went to the landlord’s offices to “discuss the complaint” with staff. It is not clear whether the resident referred to a previous formal complaint or a report of ASB. He advised that, during this meeting, he discussed an assault by his neighbour, in or around October 2019, which the neighbour had reportedly admitted to the landlord.
3. He advised the landlord during this meeting that the neighbour had also threatened to stab him, but the landlord did not respond to this report or ask for any further information.
4. Other residents in his building had managed to move to new properties “within months of registering” for a transfer and he believed they had been awarded Medical Priority by the landlord despite giving “frivolous” reasons for moving. However, the resident stated had been registered for three and a half years without being able to move and he asked to know why it had taken so long to increase his banding, despite having advised the landlord in late 2019 of the seriousness of the threat he faced.
5. He requested that his application be backdated, although he did not specify when to, so that he could move to a new property as quickly as possible.
The landlord provided a Stage One complaint response on 9 March 2021. It apologised for the delay in replying, advising that it was due to relevant staff being on leave. Noting that the resident had requested the landlord to “backdate (his) housing priority Band 2”, the landlord made the following findings:
1. In May 2020, the landlord “recommended that (the resident) should have a medical assessment” after he requested “a higher rehousing priority”.
2. The resident was awarded Band 2 status on medical grounds on 22 May 2020 “due to your disability and you needing a ground floor flat or flat with a communal lift”. However, it advised that the medical priority could not be backdated.
3. It noted the resident had recently advised that he felt “socially isolated as you have no support network” and that, “given the circumstances, we can re-submit a manager’s discretion Band 1 request”. The landlord advised the panel was due to meet the following week, with decisions made by 19 March 2021. It advised it would update the resident once it had a decision.
4. Regarding reported ASB issues, the landlord advised it “took formal court proceedings on the other party (the neighbour)” in December 2020, in partnership with another housing provider. It stated it was “looking at the viable options given the restrictions at Court”, noting that the Government had, at the time, suspended evictions due to the Coronavirus pandemic. It advised the resident to make further reports to the Police, or itself, if he observed “anything suspicious”.
Landlord records show on 22 March 2021, it spoke to the resident and “explained that 2 band (2) reasons don’t make a higher priority banding for band 1”.
Landlord records indicate the resident requested his complaint be escalated on 30 March 2021, although this Service has not seen the escalation request or details of why the resident was dissatisfied with its Stage One response.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord provided its Stage Two complaint response. It apologised for the delay in sending the response, which it advised was due to unexpected staff absence. It noted it had sent an apology and vouchers to the resident to address this. In its response, the landlord noted the following findings:
1. Having reviewed “the timeline of your rehousing request”, it acknowledged the resident’s “frustration and distress having to live with ASB” but it had not found any evidence of service failure.
2. It clarified that the resident had had his banding changed because he had “lived…consistently with significant ASB for three years” and the landlord recognised “the distress this is causing you”. It further advised that all applications for banding changes were considered on their own merits and noted that its decisions to change banding were subject to scrutiny.
3. While it accepted the resident had had a “distressing and unpleasant time”, the landlord noted it had “a lot of tenants” who wanted to be rehoused for similar reasons. It also noted that, had the application been considered 18-months earlier, it may not have been accepted.
4. It had decided to increase the resident’s banding only because of an accumulation of “three years of case notes and ongoing issues” and could not otherwise offer “all tenants that experience ASB” a priority banding.
5. It recognised the resident’s frustration over the time taken for his Neighbourhood Officer to escalate the case to an Action Officer but advised that the Action Officer role only came into existence in 2019, and the post filled later that year, so it was not an option before then. It apologised for not being “better positioned to provide better support (to the resident) earlier on in the sequence of events”
On 14 May 2021, records show the resident emailed the landlord to landlord to request that it “remove some of the restrictions that are limited (sic) me from bidding on certain…properties”. He advised that he had been unable to bid on flats in multi-storey blocks, even if they had lift access, due to his assessed need to reside on the ground floor, or in a level access property benefitting from a lift.
The Housing Register Scheme replied on 19 May 2021 and confirmed that the restriction had been removed but that, consequently, it had decided to remove his medical priority status. It clarified that this had “not changed the priority on your rehousing application” and that “Fear of Violence priority is already applied” and he remained in Band 2.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request to be rehoused

It is not disputed the resident has been registered for rehousing since 2017 and was granted a low banding (Band 5). Records show, and the landlord has clarified to this Service, he was then granted a priority Band 2 status (“Suffering Violence/Harassment”) on 22 May 2020. The landlord has advised this Service award was made because the resident had made noise nuisance reports against his neighbour, the neighbour has ignored warnings from the landlord, and the resident had “put himself at risk” by providing evidence to Police regarding the neighbour’s alleged criminal activity. It noted that the resident was vulnerable due to disability and being isolated and confirmed the award was made by a Panel made up of internal managers.
It was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident in December 2019 to contact his Neighbourhood Officer if he was experiencing “fear of violence or harassment”, it is not clear when the resident submitted a request for his application to be prioritised on this basis. While the landlord increased the resident’s banding in May 2021, its records do not make clear when the application and supporting information were submitted, or when the assessment was carried out. While records show five months between its contact with the resident in December 2019 and the award of Band 2 status in May 2020, due to the lack of further information, it is not possible to determine if the landlord acted reasonably or whether there was any delay in its handling of the application.
The resident’s complaint notes his belief that the priority should have been awarded much earlier, given the ASB he had reported, particularly regarding an alleged assault and threats made against him by the neighbour. However, there is no evidence that any application for priority status was made prior to December 2019 and there is no evidence within the landlord’s records of those incidents having been reported. There is therefore no evidence of service failure by the landlord in this regard, that it should have awarded any priority sooner, or that it should have backdated the Band 2 award it ultimately made in May 2020.
Records show the resident also applied for Medical Priority status and appears to have done so directly to the Housing Register Scheme. Having received an application from the resident in or around October 2020, they advised him the following month to provide more information before confirming that he had been granted Band 2 status on medical ground in January 2021.
While the landlord’s records regarding the medical priority application are again minimal, and this Service has not seen the original application the resident submitted, it is noted that this may be because the application was submitted directly to the Housing Register Scheme. There is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in this regard as the process seems to have been handled mainly by the Housing Register Scheme. Further records show that, following an enquiry by the resident, the landlord appropriately provided advice regarding the fact that two separate awards of Band 2 priority would not automatically increase an applicant’s band to Band 1. The advice given by the landlord was reasonable and in line with the Housing Register Scheme’s Allocations Policy.
It is noted the landlord does not manage the housing register itself, but it retains responsibility for managing the resident’s application. However, its records regarding this are scant and lacking the kind of detail the Ombudsman would expect to see in a comprehensive set of records. Aside from providing a separate log of ASB incidents reported by the resident, there is minimal information regarding any specific reasons the resident was deemed to be at such a significant risk he was granted priority status for moving to a new property and, within the landlord’s housing records, the original case note confirming that Band 2 status had been awarded does not even refer to why this was done.
In fact, after the landlord gave advice standard advice to the resident in December 2019 regarding reporting any fear of violence or harassment to his Neighbourhood Officer, any risk or fear of violence priority is not referred to again in the landlord’s records until the resident contacted it in November 2020 to advise his “FOV” priority had been removed. The lack of clarity within the landlord’s record keeping is not appropriate and is of concern, as it means the landlord is not able to fully evidence the steps it took regarding the resident’s request, or how it reached the decisions it did regarding what appears to be an assessment that the resident justifiably in fear of violence at his property.
This lack of clarity also applied to the information provided to the resident by the landlord in its complaint responses and general correspondence, as there appears to be confusion regarding whether he was granted Band 2 status in May 2020 on medical grounds or because he was at risk of violence. While the landlord’s Stage One response refers to an award of medical priority in May 2020, its records appear to show this was not applied for until later.
This has caused the resident understandable confusion, and within his complaint it is noted that some of the concerns he raised were over the lack of clarity regarding when his priority status was awarded and on what the Bad 2 status was originally awarded for. This Service acknowledges the resident’s frustration at what he sees as a lack of clarity. By providing him with clearer and more detailed information, the landlord may have avoided the resident feeling the need to raise a complaint and prevented him from losing confidence in how his rehousing application had been handled.
However, as above, while the information provided by the landlord is not comprehensive, this Service has not seen evidence of service failure by the landlord in terms of how the rehousing application was handled. From the evidence available, the landlord awarded the resident with Band 2 priority due to an assessed risk of violence and this allowed him to bid for properties accordingly. While it is acknowledged the resident believes the priority award should be backdated or have been awarded sooner, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there is no clear evidence to indicate the landlord should have do so. Additionally, as the landlord’s ultimate decision was to award the resident priority status, while its reasons for doing so could have been better evidenced, there is no obvious detriment to the resident following its decision.
Similarly, while the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the housing application, with regard to his application for additional medical priority, from the evidence available the resident seems to have largely corresponded directly with the Housing Register Scheme. Accordingly, this Service has not seen evidence of any landlord failings regarding how this was processed and the advice it gave the resident regarding his banding not being changed by the award of two separate priorities was appropriate.

The resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB

Landlord records show the resident first raised noise nuisance concerns against the neighbour in September 2017. While, as noted above, this falls outside the scope of this investigation, it is noted for context as the resident’s complaint refers to the length of time he had reported ASB issues to the landlord. Records show the case was closed shortly afterwards with the resident’s agreement as he did not want the landlord to write to the neighbour.
Within his complaint, the resident cites a meeting he attended with the landlord in November 2019 in which he stated he discussed an incident where he was assaulted by the neighbour. In correspondence with the landlord and this Service, he has stated the landlord did not take any action following this, or when he also reported during the meeting that the neighbour had threatened to stab him. However, while the landlord’s ASB records contain a summary of the meeting and note the resident was frustrated at the case “going round in circles,” there is no reference to a report of an assault, or any threats made by the neighbour.
As the resident has referred to making the reports verbally during the meeting in November 2019, and this Service was of course not present during said meeting, it is not possible to determine what was said by either party. As such, there is no evidence that the assault and/or threat was reported to the landlord or that, if reports were made, the landlord failed to act on them.
However, there are again concerns regarding the detail contained within the landlord’s records. The resident made a further report on 20 February 2020 regarding noise nuisance and other ASB allegedly carried out by the neighbour. Following this the landlord sent a “generic noise letter” to all residents in the block. However, it is not mentioned whether this letter was specifically asking for feedback regarding alleged ASB carried out by the neighbour or was a reminder to all residents to be mindful of making noise.
The landlord also noted it would continue to liaise with the resident regarding the issues but there are no further entries indicating how or when it did so until an entry made in April 2020 stating the case was now closed as the resident had “failed to respond to any correspondence”. This Service has not seen evidence of the correspondence the landlord’s records refer to, or whether it conveyed its decision to close to the case to the resident. This is not appropriate, and the landlord has not been able to evidence the actions it took following the resident’s report or whether it was reasonable to close the case. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amounted to service failure by the landlord.
Following a further report from the resident in April 2020, when he provided the landlord with a crime reference number after “drug fuelled” noise nuisance going on in the early hours. Landlord records do not refer to any investigations it carried out following this, such as liaising with the Police to gather further information. The only entry made in the landlord’s ASB logs refers to an internal conversation regarding the “history” of the case and “the number of times (the) case has been raised and closed with little engagement”. Landlord records indicate it advised the resident the case would be “monitored”, and the resident would contact it if there were “further problems”.
Following the report made in April 2020, there are no further entries in the landlord’s ASB logs until February 2021, when the resident contacted regarding further noise nuisance from the neighbour. In his report, the resident advised that “the noise had never gone away, he just lives with it”. In the absence of further reports from the resident, there does not appear to have been any failure to address any issues during this period. While it is unclear what investigations it carried out while “monitoring” the case from April 2020, or whether it subsequently closed that case and when, from the information available to this investigation, the resident’s reports appear to have been sporadic and the landlord would have been limited in the action it could take without being informed up further issues or provided with further evidence.
That being the case, the landlord’s records again appear to be lacking in detail as, within its complaint responses, and its decision to award a rehousing priority based on the risk of violence, it indicated it believed the resident had experienced “consistently significant ASB for three years” and advised this Service in correspondence that the resident had “put himself at risk by providing evidence to the Police”. However, while the landlord’s ASB records refer at one point to a crime reference number provided to them by the resident, there is no further clear mention of Police involvement or that the resident had “put himself at risk.”
However, its ASB records do not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, paint a picture of consistent, and significant ASB, or include details of any actions taken by the landlord to investigate the case, or how it came to make such an assessment of the resident’s situation. While records refer to ASB cases being opened and closed a number of times, apart from one reference to the original case being closed in 2017 there are few details of when cases were closed, why, or whether the resident was appropriately advised. Based on the information available, there is a concerning discrepancy between the circumstances referred to in the landlord’s complaint responses and correspondence, and its ASB records. This, and the lack of evidence regarding the actions it carried out in its handling of the resident’s reports, amounts to service failure.

The landlord’s record keeping

As set out above in paragraphs 24, 26-31, 37-38 and 41, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there were a number of weaknesses in the landlord’s record keeping regarding the rehousing process and its handling of the ASB reports. There was a lack of clarity over the award of a priority banding to the resident and a lack of information regarding how this was assessed. There was also a lack of detail regarding the actions and investigations carried out by the landlord in relation to the resident’s ASB reports, and there appears to be a discrepancy between the information contained within its ASB logs and the seriousness of the situation described by the landlord in its complaint responses and correspondence with this Service, as well as within its decision to award a priority banding on the grounds of risk to the resident. Due to the extent of the issues identified with the landlord’s record keeping in this case, the Ombudsman has made separate finding of service failure regarding this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
3. Service failure regarding the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

While there are concerns over the landlord’s record keeping relating to the rehousing application, there is no evidence that the landlord delayed in processing his application or made any errors when assessing his application. There is no evidence that it treated the resident unfairly or that there was any detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the application. The advice it gave regarding his application for additional medical priority was in line with the Housing Register Scheme’s Allocations Policy.
The landlord’s records regarding its investigation of the resident’s ASB reports do not appear to reflect the seriousness of the situation it has described elsewhere and there is minimal evidence of the actions it took to investigate or assess the matter raised by the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £200, consisting of:
1. £100 for its poor handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
2. £100 for its poor record keeping.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence it has complied with the above Orders within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

The landlord should carry out a review of how it records information relating to its processing of resident’s rehousing applications. It should also review how it records actions it carries out as part of its ASB investigations, to ensure transparency and so it can evidence actions taken. It should also ensure that its records are accessible enough to provide residents, and other agencies such as this Service, with an easily identifiable sequence of events for audit purposes.