Vivid Housing Limited (202012617)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012617

Vivid Housing Limited

29 September 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 about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports about anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) and dog urine.
2. request for a move.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which has noted that the resident had vulnerabilities. The resident shared the property, a flat in a block, with his partner and children.
The landlord’s housing management policy advises that tenants in general needs accommodation do not need its permission to have pets, regardless of the property type, but it will revoke permission for a pet if it is causing a nuisance to neighbours.
The resident’s tenancy agreement advises that tenants are expected to ensure that pets do not cause a nuisance or foul the property or shared areas. The tenancy agreement advises a tenant has responsibilities in respect to the cleanliness and maintenance of their property, and advises that a tenant is responsible for any damage to a property and shared areas caused by them or pets.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains its approach to ASB and that it aims to stop the behaviour causing issues and prevent it starting again. It aims to work with alleged perpetrators to help them recognise the impact of their behaviour; to take appropriate and proportionate action; and to work with partner agencies. Its definition of ASB includes shouting and nuisance from pets.
The landlord’s management move process confirms it has a process to urgently move residents where there is an evidenced medical need; fear of life; or ASB for which a move to alternative accommodation is believed to be the only solution. The process advises that for some local authorities it is able to directly nominate to its own properties, but tenants should approach and register with local authorities, and also explore other options such as mutual exchange. The process confirms that tenants are responsible for providing supporting evidence that evidences their need for a move, rather than simply their desire for a move.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, aiming to respond at stage one within 10 working days, and at stage two within 20 working days. It initially considers complaints about neighbours under its separate antisocial behaviour procedure, and does not normally consider complaints about matters that happened more than six months prior. The landlord’s compensation policy advises that it does not consider claims for damage to personal belongings or which relate to the fault of a third party.

Summary of events

On 11 January 2021, the resident raised concerns about neighbours above him who owned two dogs, which he said were banned breeds. He reported issues that included that they shouted at their child and that the dogs barked all day; had attacked another resident; and defecated on paths. He raised concern about issues in the area and the noise and behaviour from the neighbours above him, and asked the landlord to move him and his family out of danger.
On 19 January 2021, the landlord noted that it had confirmed to the resident that an ASB report had been logged. It noted the resident was advised by staff to report noise to the local authority, and dangerous dogs to the police. It noted the resident reported that the dogs had urinated over the balcony onto his balcony and washing, and he was informed that staff would contact the neighbours about this and reports of noise. It noted he reported urine had destroyed children’s clothes, and notes he was advised to claim on home insurance for damaged items. It noted that staff had been asked to establish the breed of the dogs and report these if necessary.
On 20 January 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour. They advised the dogs were not dangerous types and that they had been visited by the RSPCA. They denied their dog had attacked someone in the communal area. The landlord asked the neighbour to ensure dogs did not urinate on the balcony, and warned them it could ask people to remove their dogs.
The same day, the resident reported he had spoken to the local authority about removal of dog urine, as advised by the landlord, and been informed this should be done by the landlord. The landlord internally clarified that the resident had been referred to the local authority about the noise and informed him that it would not remove the urine. The landlord noted that the resident asked to be moved and said it would not be moving him, as events he referred to in respect to this had occurred a year earlier.
On 22 January 2021, the resident’s partner noted that the resident had been informed he should clean the urine from the balcony. They attached photos of drip marks down the balcony walls and raised concern that they should not be having to clean this themselves. They noted that the landlord had asked the neighbours to wash the balcony down, and raised concern this would pour down to their balcony. The same day, the landlord responded that after internally checking, it would be down to the resident to clean up the dog urine. It confirmed the neighbours had been asked to remove and clean underneath the astroturf, and to no longer allow their dogs to go to the toilet on the balcony.
On 25 January 2021, the landlord received a further complaint from the resident. He was unhappy the landlord allowed dogs in properties with balconies. He felt the landlord should tile the floor of the balcony above him to prevent future issues. He was unhappy a request to have his balcony sterilised had been refused and that he had been told to clean urine off rendering, when he was disabled. He was unhappy the landlord had told him to request specialist cleaning from the local authority, which had referred him back to the landlord. He was unhappy the landlord had dealt with the issue as ASB which could cause issues with neighbours. He noted that staff had said this was because of the reports of dog barking, and said he did not care about this, he only wanted the urine smell that affected his balcony, living room and bedroom fixed. He was unhappy with information he had been provided in respect to historic and current options for a move. He detailed costs to sterilise the balcony and costs of damaged items, which totalled £3,740, and he said he also intended to pursue damages for the impact on his health.
On 26 January 2021, the landlord issued a complaint response to the resident’s correspondence on 11 January 2021.
1. It acknowledged the issues he raised, and confirmed this was raised as an ASB report that was being investigated by staff.
2. It confirmed it had spoken to his neighbour, told them dogs were not allowed to urinate on the balcony, and that it was aware the dogs were not a banned breed. It noted the neighbours had denied their dogs had injured anyone and it had not received any other reports about this. It him to report the incident to the police if he had any further details. It said it hoped its interventions would resolve the issues and said it would monitor this situation and take appropriate action if necessary. It asked him to report further incidents, and for any further noise reports to also be reported to the local authority. It noted it had written to the block about communal dog fouling, and said that residents were advised to let it know who is responsible so this could be addressed with them.
3. It asked the resident to let it know within 15 working days if he did not feel the complaint had been answered, otherwise it would be assumed to be resolved and closed. It acknowledged receipt of a further complaint on 25 January 2021 and said this would be addressed separately.
On 1 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It noted it had tried to call him and it queried if the dogs urinating on the balcony had stopped.
On 8 February 2021, the landlord issued a complaint response to the resident’s correspondence on 25 January 2021.
1. It noted it had tried to contact him about the complaint and for updates on the issue. It restated that the issues were raised as an ASB report, it had spoken to his neighbours, and its interventions should stop incidents of the same nature happening again.
2. It advised it had raised an order for someone to inspect the rendering.
3. It acknowledged he reported items had been damaged on his balcony, but advised it would not be able to send someone to clean his personal possessions. It acknowledged he listed charges in relation to damaged items, and said it could not accept responsibility for damage by a third party. It said any damage to personal items would be for him to take up with his insurance. It noted he had said he had wood stored on his balcony and requested for any combustible items such as wood to be removed.
4. It advised that, as it had informed him previously, it would need supporting information from agencies such as the police or his GP to consider a management move. It advised that if he was unsure about the type of information that would be required, he could contact staff to discuss this. It noted he mentioned health issues and also asked him to contact staff to discuss whether there was any other support it could offer.
5. It asked the resident to let it know within 15 working days if he did not feel the complaint had been answered, otherwise it would be assumed to be resolved and closed.
The same day, the landlord emailed the resident. It noted it had tried to contact him but had received no reply or nuisance reports for some time. It advised that this hopefully indicated that its action had had a positive impact on his neighbours’ behaviour. It said it would shortly close the case since there was no ongoing ASB, but if it received reports the nuisance had restarted, it could easily reopen the case. The same day, the landlord noted it spoke to his neighbour who confirmed the dogs did not use the balcony as a toilet anymore.
On 9 February 2021, the landlord noted that the resident contacted about a management move, giving reasons that included racism; the urination issue; mental health; and concern about impact of issues on his children.
On 11 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and noted it had tried to call him. It queried which flats related to the racism and if this had been reported to the police, for the landlord to discuss this with them. It explained that for a management move, it needed supporting information from agencies such as his GP, victim support or the police which supported a move and explained why. It explained that on receipt of such information, management move requests were then processed and referred to managers to check and approve. It noted his neighbour advised they did not allow the dogs to urinate on the balcony anymore, and asked him to confirm this so it could close the ASB case. The landlord re-sent the email to the resident’s partner on 15 February 2021, after being informed the resident had blocked its email address.
On 15 February 2021, the landlord noted it spoke to the resident. It noted the urine issue was causing him great anxiety, and he felt vulnerable and unsafe. It noted he also felt he needed to move because of having another child, and enquired about both a management move and mutual exchange.
On 17 February 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. It noted he reported his balcony stank, but was unable to confirm that dogs still urinated on the balcony above. He suggested that remaining urine was being pushed down when it rained. He reported his neighbour said they would give their balcony another clean, and that he had arranged for his own balcony to be professionally cleaned. He reported that urine was now running down brick sealant and the issue was affecting his health.
The same day, the landlord discussed the issue internally. It raised a job for an inspection of the brickwork and rendering. It noted there was limited action that could be taken to immediately resolve the issue apart from the neighbour ripping up the balcony decking, sanding and re-treating it, which would be a huge job to do on a balcony. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and asked them to clean their balcony since the issue was still affecting the resident.
On 18 February 2021, the landlord updated the resident that the job had been raised for an inspection of the brickwork and rendering. It noted a cleaning manager had advised nothing could be put on the board to stop the residual urine coming down, so the neighbours were going to wash their balcony a few more times to hopefully push the last of the urine through.
On 1 March 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. It noted he reported that urine still came down when it rained but did not think the dogs urinated on the balcony. It noted it informed him that his neighbours had said they would be cleaning the balcony again, and a surveyor would inspecting the rendering on 15 March 2021. It noted that it explained it would close the case, as it had been a few weeks without further incidents, but would reopen the case if the resident let it know if anything happened again.
On 10 and 11 March 2021, the landlord received emails from the resident including a further complaint. He enclosed a cleaning invoice from February 2021 for £85. He advised that the balcony above had not been cleaned, and urine ran down more places than before. He reported that urine had splashed onto his face and he had to throw away a phone case. He advised a GP had sent a letter about his move. He raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of historic ASB issues and the urine issue.
On 15 March 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. It confirmed an operative had attend and noted it would speak to them. It noted it explained the process for a management move and that staff would contact him the following day to discuss this. It noted he reported he had been threatened, but was unwilling to say by who or to report this to the police. It noted his complaint was acknowledged. The same day, the resident emailed a copy of a GP letter to the landlord, which asked for a move to be arranged as an additional room was needed for his medical needs.
On 16 March 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. It noted he was unable to confirm that dogs still urinated on the balcony above, but urine still came through the balcony when it rained. It noted he said he had supplied a GP letter and would go over the management move application. It noted he did not want to say anything to the landlord or the police about abuse he had been receiving. The landlord subsequently completed a management move application form over the phone with the resident on 18 March 2021.
On 21 March 2021, the landlord received a further complaint from the resident. He raised dissatisfaction about why the operative had attended and taken photos of the rendering, when he had sent in photos. He also raised dissatisfaction with the call with staff to complete his application for his management move. He was unhappy about being asked why he wanted to move, having to repeat information he felt he had provided already, and not being able to detail all his reasons.
On 23 March 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident and informed him that he had been approved for a management move on medical grounds. It noted it said he needed to inform the local authority of this for assistance. It noted it explained it could not give a timeframe for a move, as it only had 25% nomination rights for housing in the area and the property type he needed was limited. It explained this meant he had to wait until he came to the top of the housing list and a suitable property became available.
On 24 March 2021, the landlord issued a complaint response to the resident’s correspondence on 11 March 2021 and noted it had tried to contact him about the complaint.
1. It noted reports about neighbours which it said it believed related to an historic ASB case in 2019. It noted he had been asked if there were further reports about neighbours and he had been unwilling to provide any details to it or the police. It noted that without any details about complaints that involved neighbours it was unable to investigate.
2. It acknowledged he supplied an invoice from a cleaning specialist, and said it needed to discuss this with him before it could consider reimbursement. It queried if the invoice had been paid and if the problem had now been resolved.
3. It noted his neighbours had been spoken to and they had cleaned up, and asked him to contact staff if there were further problems.
4. It acknowledged that it was in receipt of his management move application and supporting information from his GP. It advised that his move had been approved based on a medical need for an additional room. It noted he said he did not want to move to any properties it managed, and explained it could only nominate him to properties it managed. It noted it had limited nomination rights within the area, and advised him to also contact the local authority in respect to his current housing needs and to assist with a move.
5. It asked the resident to let it know within 15 working days if he did not feel the complaint had been answered, otherwise it would be assumed to be resolved and closed.
In April 2021, the resident called and reported that urine was still coming down and staining the walls, and on 28 April 2021, the landlord received a further complaint from him. He reported that his balcony still stank of urine and he had nowhere to dry clothes. He raised dissatisfaction with the progress of his move.
The same month, the landlord responded to a MP enquiry on the resident’s behalf. It noted ASB issues he had reported were believed to historic ones from 2019. It noted he had been approved for a management move. It noted it had tried to contact him about the issues and the cleaning invoice and asked him to contact it or advise when it would be convenient to contact him.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. It noted he queried if another clean of the balcony above could take place and it said it would ask the neighbours to complete this. It noted the resident reported the neighbours had moved out, and noted it said staff would look into the issue further. It noted it said it would contact him as soon as a property became available, and that he was provided advice about his housing options.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord issued a complaint response to the resident’s correspondence on 28 April 2021.
1. It restated that he would be contacted when a suitable property became available and information he had been provided about his housing options.
2. It noted he had asked for a metal plate to be cleaned, as he now believed this was the source of the problem with the urine. It noted staff had visited on 6 May 2021 to look at the balcony and would be contacting the above occupants to clean that area of the balcony.
3. It noted he raised issues with being contacted by the landlord, and provided explanation about this and detail on how to contact it.
4. It asked the resident to let it know within 15 working days if he did not feel the complaint had been answered, otherwise it would be assumed to be resolved and closed.
On 7 June 2021, the landlord received a further complaint from the resident, in which he complained about being ignored about the urine, and suggested he should have been offered a management move earlier.
The same month, the landlord responded to a further MP enquiry on the resident’s behalf. In regards to the balcony still smelling and affecting his health, it confirmed staff would visit on 14 June 2021 to look at this issue. The landlord noted two staff inspected the balcony. It noted that the resident commented that there was still dog urine and a smell, and it agreed to raise an order for the balcony to be cleaned and deodorised.
On 21 June 2021, the landlord issued a complaint response to the resident’s correspondence on 7 June 2021.
1. It confirmed an order had been raised to clean and deodorise the balcony.
2. It noted he would have been previously advised that supporting information was required to begin a management move application. It noted that once this was provided, the application was processed and approved.
3. It asked the resident to let it know within 15 working days if he did not feel the complaint had been answered, otherwise it would be assumed to be resolved and closed.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord noted it spoke to the resident and confirmed cleaners had been, although they had not removed a plastic membrane he had installed below the balcony above. It noted it would ask cleaners to return but suggested he removed and cleaned under it in the meantime.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord notes it spoke to the resident. It noted he said he had only received its May 2021 complaint response, and may not have received its June 2021 response as he had placed a block on its emails which he had now removed. It noted it would re-send its June 2021 response. It noted his stated outcomes were the above balcony to be professionally cleaned; new rendering on his property; and a management move. The landlord subsequently arranged to visit again.
On 8 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It noted it had visited the previous week and discussed removing a section of the above balcony flooring and disinfecting the area below the above balcony door. It noted that a repairs supervisor who had visited that day agreed with these proposals, and it confirmed it would raise a repair to carry these works out. It advised that if the resident was still unhappy with its response, he had the option to escalate his complaint. The following day, the resident requested for his complaint to be escalated. He said the balcony was completely unsuitable, felt he had been refused a management move for over a year, and said he had been informed a management move did not exist at one point. Further correspondence from him added that urine needed to be cleaned; rendering needed to be replaced; the balcony design was unfit for purpose; and he had lost mutual exchanges due to people seeing the urine. The landlord confirmed the complaint would be reviewed by senior managers who would attempt to contact him on 29 July 2021 at a specified time.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint and noted it had tried to contact him when it had specified, as well that day.
1. It acknowledged he had felt the issue was still unresolved and the balcony still smelled of urine. It noted that at the previous stage of the process, it had been arranged for the above balcony flooring to be removed and an area adjacent to the door to be disinfected on 20 July 2021. It advised its records indicated the works were completed on that date, and it had tried to get confirmation whether the urine smell had gone away when it had called on 29 July 2021 and that day.
2. It noted that its previous response had confirmed he had been approved for a management move.
3. It provided this Service’s details if he remained unhappy with the complaint.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord noted the resident advised he wanted to expand his search for a new property to a wider area. It detailed areas where it had nomination rights, and said if he advised which areas he wanted to be added to it would inform its lettings team.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that he had been responded to at the final stage of its complaint procedure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s complaint to this Service raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of historic reports in 2019. He has also raised dissatisfaction that the landlord did not consider him for a management move historically.
The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, 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.” The landlord’s own complaints policy advises similar. This reflects that the longer the time goes on, the more the landlord and the Ombudsman’s ability to conduct an effective investigation is impacted.
This investigation therefore focuses on more recent events and the recent complaint from around January 2021 onwards, when the resident reported issues related to the dog urine, and the landlord’s consideration of matters from this point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour and dog urine

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns he reported affected and caused distress to him. This Service recognises how unpleasant the impact of the urine issue must have been on the resident and his family and for them to live with. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred, or to determine liability or negligence for damage to possessions which is a matter for an insurance procedure or the courts. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether a landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, taking account all the circumstances.
Following the resident’s reports, it was necessary for the landlord to respond to his concerns and to take action in accordance with its ASB policies, such as assess the issues; contact the resident; discuss the case with the alleged perpetrator; monitor the situation; and to deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner, considering its obligation as landlord to treat allegations from all of its customers in a consistent and evidence-led way.
In this case, before and after the formal complaint, the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports, as the evidence shows it fulfilled obligations to consider and respond to his reports in a relatively timely and reasonable manner. It discussed the issues with the resident and his neighbours; it took reasonable action where appropriate; and it reviewed and confirmed a position on matters at appropriate times and in a generally timely way, with accompanying explanation.
The landlord was reasonable to refer the resident to his insurance for possessions damage, as it was not directly responsible for the damage. As noted earlier, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability or negligence for damage to possessions which is a matter for an insurance procedure or the courts.
The landlord provided appropriate support to the resident, by liaising with his neighbour to make them aware of the urine issue; by ensuring they took steps to stop what led to it; and by liaising with them to carry out cleans to their balcony to try to reduce the impact on the resident. The landlord was reasonable to ask the residents and his neighbours to clean their balconies, as it was not directly responsible for the issue. This was also in line with the tenancy agreement that tenants are responsible to keep their properties clean and to make good damage caused by them or pets. The landlord did not seem to provide a final position on the cleaning invoice the resident presented, however there is no evidence it was obligated to reimburse the resident for this, and therefore this is not considered to constitute a failing.
The landlord carried out multiple visits to assess the issue, and it is not disputed that it subsequently arranged for its own cleaning and maintenance of the balcony to try and assist with the issue. This shows that the landlord reviewed its position as time went on, and it took further action based on first hand inspection and the professional opinion of staff, showing there was further consideration of the issue in an appropriate way.
The landlord was reasonable to explain that its ability was limited to resolve current ASB the resident suggested was taking place, if he did not provide further detail about this or report this to the police. In order for a landlord to take any action for acts of ASB, it is reasonable for the landlord to require further information and evidence for it to be sure that actions (be they actions against alleged perpetrators or actions to move tenants) would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. This Service has seen no evidence that the information available warranted further action than was taken.
Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB and dog urine in the timeframe of the complaint was appropriate, considering all the circumstances of the case. This is because it investigated and responded to the issues reasonably in accordance with its policies, took reasonable action in regard to issues raised, and provided reasonable support, positions and explanation on matters.
This decision does not seek to undermine how distressing the issues were for the resident, but reflects that the landlord acted reasonably in accordance with its obligations in respect to the ASB reports, and with the stated obligations in respect to damage caused by tenants’ pets.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move

This Service understands the resident felt that the landlord failed to provide him with a property that met his needs and that its handling of matters impacted his health. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns he reports have affected and caused distress to him.
In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a tenant should be rehoused. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health, as this is not in our expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions.
This Service understands that the resident felt that the landlord should have considered him for a move in respect to historic events. The scope of the investigation set out earlier means this investigation considers recent, rather than historic, events (in respect to the formal complaint made from January 2021).
Under the landlord’s management move process, it may urgently rehouse a tenant outside its normal allocations criteria where there is a medical need, a threat to safety, or if a move is the only resolution for ASB.
Following the resident’s request for a move in January 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it would not move him, as he referred to historic events in relation to ASB, from 2019. This seemed reasonable, as the management move process aims to facilitate urgent moves for more immediate events. The historic events in 2019 would not provide a basis for the landlord to move the resident in 2021. By February 2021, the landlord clearly set out the supporting information it required to evidence a move; in mid-March 2021 it received the resident’s supporting information and worked with him to complete a management move application; and by the end of March 2021, it confirmed a management move on medical grounds had been approved.
This shows that, in the timeframe of the complaint, the landlord provided timely information and worked with the resident to progress, assess and approve his application for management move in a speedy fashion (and within three months).
This investigation understands that although a management move was approved, the resident may have been frustrated at not being moved immediately. While the resident’s desire to move as soon as possible was understandable, a management move generally means that a tenant needs to wait for a property which meets bed and area requirements to become vacant, unless a suitable property is already available. The landlord provided reasonable assurances that it would contact him as soon as a suitable property became available. Given this, it was reasonable, and in line with the management move policy, that the resident was encouraged to contact other local authorities and explore mutual exchanges, to increase his chances of a move.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move was reasonable.
This decision does not seek to undermine any frustration the resident experienced in respect to waiting for a move, but reflects that the landlord acted reasonably in accordance with its policy, and that the landlord was reliant on suitable property availability in order to achieve the resident’s desired outcome.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour and dog urine.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move.

Reasons

The landlord investigated and responded to the issues reasonably in accordance with its policies, took reasonable action in regard to issues raised, and provided reasonable support, positions and explanation on matters.
The landlord’s handling of the request to be moved seems to have met the requirements of its policy and seems to have been reasonable and customer focused.