West Kent Housing Association (202232049)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232049

West Kent Housing Association

27 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move due to anti social behaviour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a four bedroom house. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and the tenancy began on 7 March 2022.
Part five of the tenancy agreement states a tenant must not do anything:
1. Which causes alarm, harm or which could cause a danger, nuisance annoyance or distress to anyone in the property, the local area or near other properties owned by the landlord.
2. Harass, abuse, threaten or use violence towards anyone in the local area, or near other properties owned by the landlord.
3. Use the property, shared areas of the building or any estate land owned by the landlord for any criminal, immoral antisocial or illegal purpose.
4. Cause noise that is a nuisance or annoyance to anyone in the local area or near other properties owned by the landlord. Sound can include music, computer games, television, door slamming, shouting, DIY, parties and social activities.
The landlord has stated to this Service it is not aware of the resident having any vulnerabilities but there are vulnerabilities reported regarding the resident’s children.
In the evidence provided to this Service the landlord was aware the resident had been diagnosed with complex mental health disabilities which include mixed personality disorder and depression. The resident’s son has complex physical and mental health disabilities including cerebral palsy and autism. Autism is defined as a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The landlord’s complaints policy states the landlord would not accept a complaint if it was about an issue that had already been considered through its complaints process.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage one the landlord will provide its response to the resident within ten working days. Each complaint will be allocated to a dedicated Customer Resolution Officer, and they will make contact within two working days. The Customer Resolution Officer will contact the customer before starting their investigation, to discuss the complaint in more detail, understand the issues and the expectations of the customer for an outcome. This will be summarised in the complaint acknowledgment which will be sent to the customer within five working days.
At stage two the landlord will provide its response within 20 working days. At both stages if the landlord requires more time to complete its investigation it will inform the resident and may extend its response by a further ten working days.
The landlord does not have a specific management transfer policy but a management transfer is referred to in its community safety procedure.
Section 5.5 of the landlord’s community safety procedure states a management transfer is a longer-term process to secure alternative permanent accommodation. The landlord’s aim is to always change behaviour to enable its residents to remain in their homes. However, if required the case lead will complete a report to be authorised by the Head of Housing and Director of Housing with written supporting evidence where possible, which may be from agencies including domestic abuse specialist services, social services, police, education and support services.
It also states the landlord does not hold an internal transfer register so it would liaise with the local authority when the source is safe to move and obtain permission to offer a direct let as per its nomination agreements.
The policy does not specify what the criteria is for a management move to be agreed but it does refer to Section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 which states that it is not reasonable for a person to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic abuse or other violence against.
1. The applicant.
2. A person who normally resides with the applicant as a family member.
3. Any other person who might be reasonably expected to reside with the applicant.
Section 3.6 of the landlord’s housing options policy states. If the landlord agreed to award management transfer status, which meant it had assessed a resident as having an urgent need to move, the resident would need to complete a housing application to join their Local Authority’s housing register. It would then liaise with the Local Authority and confirm that it had approved the management transfer status which may enable the Local Authority to change their banding.
The landlords Equality Diversity and Inclusion policy acknowledges its requirements under the Equality Act 2010.
The policy also states it
1. Will work with staff, customers and partners to prevent and tackle harassment, discrimination, hate crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour in the community.
2. Expand its services to support those residents who need help to prevent crisis or as life needs change.

Summary of events

On 12 September 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident following her reports of antisocial behaviour from her neighbour. The landlord noted the resident was teary and emotional and the landlord’s records state the resident said she wished to remain anonymous as she did not want the landlord speaking with the neighbour. The resident reported that the neighbour:
1. Was banging on the walls and jumping on the stairs and this could go on until midnight. It will be all day, everyday and it was unknown if they were doing it intentionally or not.
2. Had three dogs who were constantly barking and any slight noise would set them off which included when children were on trampolines.
3. Was always shouting and screaming and had a lazy spa which they could be in until 1am being loud.
4. Smoked cannabis all day out of their bedroom and kitchen windows and this drifted into the resident’s property resulting in them having to close their windows.
During the conversation the resident informed the landlord she had to move properties as her son was severely disabled including autism and cerebral palsy and he needed to be in a calm environment. However, he was unable to do this and had said he wanted to move back to his previous property.
The landlord noted that the resident:
1. Had vulnerabilities – bi-polar and borderline personality disorder (dual diagnoses) and the on-going issues was affecting her “massively” as she was severely depressed, and socially distancing herself from everyone which was making her more upset.
2. Was staying away from the property to get away from it all.
3. Had contacted the mental health team and her dad was contacting them as her mental health was deteriorating.
4. Told the landlord her children were all sleeping in her bedroom because their sleep was being affected.
5. She had liaised with the allocations team, she thought she would give it the benefit of the doubt however stated she felt deceived into taking the property.
6. Was very scared of the neighbour and told the landlord the neighbour was violent, and her family had witnessed shouting and swearing out the front.
7. Confirmed to the landlord at the end of the conversation that she did not want it to contact the neighbour, but she wanted assistance in moving properties as she did not feel safe or happy anymore.
The landlord said it would reassign the case to a tenancy sustainment officer, an anti social behaviour risk assessment was completed and assessed as medium risk. The assessment commented that the resident had bi-polar and her mental health was deteriorating significantly. The resident’s son was disabled who needed to be in a calm environment and the noise issues were also effecting him.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident who advised the issues with the neighbour were horrendous. This was because of constant noise coming from the neighbour including shouting, swearing, and dogs barking. The landlord’s records noted that the police attended about 3 weeks prior and arrested the neighbour and due to her being aggressive to officers needed to put her in handcuffs. The officers knocked on her door to ask to use the toilet and bought the neighbour into her house. One of her children had autism and struggled with his mobility and that had made him extremely anxious.
The resident stated they could not have the windows open or use the garden due to smoking and noise. The landlord stated the resident advised she did not want it to contact the neighbour as she felt there would be repercussions for her and her family. The resident told the landlord she would be getting another assessment of her son done for his mental health and autism in order to be moved. The resident advised she often stayed with her mum as she struggled to be in the property and was not sleeping well due to all her children being in her bed.
The landlord advised the resident to contact the Council regarding rehousing and it would also discuss her reports internally and informed the resident it would contact her with an update.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 September 2022 to enquire how things were going with the neighbour. The resident told the landlord the noise, door slamming was continuing, and the neighbour’s children were playing outside the property until 10:30pm in the evening. The landlord asked the resident if she was happy to use a noise app and if she had changed her mind about it contacting the neighbour. The resident confirmed to the landlord she was happy to use a noise app but wanted to ensure the neighbour would not know she had spoken to the landlord. The landlord agreed to contact the resident again on 10 October 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 October 2022 and its records show the resident said she was in her back garden and the neighbour’s dogs were barking, the neighbour told the resident she had got rid of one of the dogs and the resident advised this wasn’t the only issue and there were issues with banging, shouting and arguing. The resident advised the landlord she had tried to resolve this, and it had not worked so would continue to do recordings and said another neighbour was also doing them. The landlord told the resident if anything escalated and it needed to take action against the neighbour or contact her it would let her know first but to get as much evidence as possible and what she felt comfortable with recording.
On 21 October 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident and informed her that it had reviewed the recent evidence she uploaded onto the app and due to other issues that had come to light it was looking like it would need to make contact with the neighbour. The resident reiterated that she was extremely concerned about that and the effects on her children and her mental health. The resident was concerned her neighbour would assume it was her that had complained as she had already tried to speak with her neighbour about it.
The landlord told the resident that without speaking with the neighbour it could not take the case further. It advised the resident it had other reports from other people who had not raised the same concerns about the neighbour being contacted. It reassured the resident it had not made contact with the neighbour and it would speak with managers first to discuss her concerns. The landlord said it would contact the resident before it made contact with the neighbour.
The landlord’s records show that on 4 November 2022 the landlord enquired with the police to establish if it was aware of the neighbour.
On the same day the resident stated to the landlord:
1. There was banging throughout the nights and the noise app did not pick that up but it was affecting her and her family.
2. The neighbour was no longer friendly, so it was not somewhere she felt was nice to live, or her child wanted to live.
3. She could not go on home swapper as that would affect her child if they had to move immediately, and that had to be done gradually, like it was for the current property due to her child’s disability and autism.
4. She hoped that information could be shared with the Council and get her back on an immediate transfer, even though the current home met her child’s needs physically but did not mentally.
5. The drug smells made her son be unable to have his or any windows open, he was sensory.
The following day the resident emailed the landlord and stated she did not feel safe recording and she felt there was enough evidence. She was thinking of her family’s safety and felt as the neighbour was aware it was her, her life would be made a misery. She thought it would be better if it all went to the Council so she could get rehoused, as with all the police visits in her first year and reports from neighbours no one had done anything. The resident said it was not just her complaining. The resident said all the neighbours had been complaining, and the landlord had let her neighbour get away with it.
On 10 November 2022 the landlord informed the resident it was going to send a letter to all residents on the street about anti social behaviour and then would contact her neighbour. The landlord asked the resident if she had made contact with the Council about a move or assessment and the resident said she had tried but had no response. The landlord said it would not be able to move her as a management move was only when there was a risk to life and also had to be approved by the Council which had stringent criteria on it. The landlord told the resident if she no longer wanted to do the recordings it was ok as she had already sent a lot in.
On 13 November 2022 the resident reported further incidents of banging, shouting and dogs barking. The resident said she had spoken to the neighbour as requested by the landlord and knew the neighbour would take no notice of the anti social behaviour letter. The resident asked that to get a management move, did it have to be the neighbour threatening her, and having police involved just to get a move, or the neighbour to physically hurt her.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident. The resident informed the landlord she was worried about what would happen when it spoke to the neighbour. The resident advised the landlord she had an appointment with her mental health team the next day. The resident told the landlord she did not feel it was being fair as she had sent evidence of recordings and it had not contacted the neighbour. The landlord stated that was because when it said it needed to, the resident had asked it not to, but it had tried to do as much as it could to support her by keeping in touch. The resident said it would be ok for the landlord to ring the neighbour. The resident asked about the landlord moving her and it advised that as previously discussed a management move wouldn’t be authorised based on that situation.
On 1 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report the noise had previously died down but had increased again. The resident told the landlord she had been seen by the mental health team and had an increase in medication for her mental health. She was also attending weekly sessions with them but was told by the mental health team those actions would not resolve the issue as her neighbour was the trigger. The resident asked again for a management move and did not agree the fact her life had to be in danger for a move to be agreed. The resident said she would send a letter from her mental health team and her child’s health assessment to show his needs were not being met in the property.
On 5 December 2022 the resident’s sister wrote to the landlord and stated:
1. The neighbour had a reputation in and around the area and had caused their previous neighbour the same issues the resident was having at her property.
2. The resident’s son had cerebral palsy and autism and hearing the constant violence next door was having a detrimental effect on his health.
3. Her sister had a long history of mental health issues, her health had deteriorated and was at breaking point due to the neighbour.
4. A management move was requested due to mental health risk factors.
On 5 December 2022, the landlord acknowledged it had received an email from the resident’s sister regarding the effects the situation was having on the resident and although it had informed the resident that management moves were only used where there was a risk to life it would gain further advice on the situation.
On 11 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and informed it she was setting up a complaint and stated this was based on the “discrimination act and equality act of mental health and disabilities discrimination”. The resident said the landlord would hear from this Service regarding:
1. The landlord had failed two clauses in not moving someone where there were environmental factors relating to mental health deterioration – an anti social neighbour with previous police records and complaints.
2. On the grounds of discrimination stating that her life had to be put at risk, saying that to someone with bipolar and BPD was pathetic.
The landlord responded on 12 December 2022 and informed the resident that for this Service to be involved she would first need to log a complaint with it and provided an email address for the resident to log a complaint. The landlord provided an update to the resident and said it had visited the neighbour and could see there was a differing of lifestyles.
It offered mediation to the resident. The landlord said it did deflect the resident as being the source of the complaints and that others had raised concerns as well. The landlord said it was aware the resident wished to move but her request did not meet the remit of a management transfer as it was working to resolve the issues. It encouraged the resident to make an application to the Council to see if the Council would allow her back onto the housing register.
The next day, the landlord issued an anti social behaviour warning letter to the neighbour regarding excessive noise including dog barking and cannabis smoking in the property following its visit to the property.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord’s records note it received a complaint from the resident regarding safeguarding vulnerable tenants who’s mental health had deteriorated and complaints about the handling of her case.
In an email to the resident on 16 December 2022 the landlord discussed the ongoing reports of anti social behaviour and informed the resident if she was unhappy with the management of the anti social behaviour case then it invited her to explore its complaints procedure and to make contact with the Council to ask for a community trigger to review its actions.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord’s records state it called the resident and advised it had spoken on 1 December 2022 and confirmed the resident would send her child’s health reports and her mental health reports for it to review regarding a management move. The records state the resident said she had not had the time to get them as she needed to go through various agencies. The resident agreed to get the requested reports and send them to the landlord.
A letter was issued to the resident the same day summarising what had been discussed and agreed. The letter stated that a management transfer must be agreed by the landlord and with the Council.
The resident sent an email containing her mental health report to the landlord on 20 December 2022.
The landlord’s records show it received reports from the resident regarding her child’s needs on 4 January 2023.
On the same day a management transfer application was completed by the landlord and sent to a manager for review. The report noted the request was for a move to alternative accommodation to support the resident’s son who had complex needs and was being adversely affected by noise disturbance from the neighbouring property and alleged cannabis smoking. It noted the resident was also being affected with her mental health and this was being impacted by the disturbance and subsequent impact it was having on her son. The report contained the vulnerabilities of the resident and how the affects of the reported anti social behaviour was affecting the resident and her son. These included:
1. Not being able to use the back garden and it had been stated by a consultant that use of a back garden was required for the resident’s son.
2. A letter from a consultant had stated that any issues that caused disruption to the resident’s son’s sleep impacted his behaviour.
3. A consultant had advised that the resident’s son had been placed on medication because of noise from the neighbour. He needed to wear ear defenders when the noise was too loud and used those indoors when the noise from the neighbour was impacting him.
4. The consultant confirmed that the resident’s son had been reduced to a part time school timetable as a result of disruptions in his sleep due to the noise from the neighbour and since moving to the property his behaviour and sleep had deteriorated.
On 9 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and informed it she had registered on the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme.
On 14 January 2023 the resident reported more anti social behaviour consisting of shouting, dog barking and could hear through the walls. The resident said her son asked “why are they like this”. The resident told the landlord she needed to get out of there and asked the landlord how she should be expected to live like that.
The resident also informed the landlord her son was tired out of school as he could not sleep and this had affected his medication due to sensory needs and noise and banging.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 January 2023 and informed her it had completed the request for a management move and it was with a manager for approval. The landlord reiterated that even if approved by it, the Council would still need to also approve the request.
On 23 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said there had been another full blown row at 5:45 am which went on for an hour. This woke up her son. Her son was scared as it seemed like a scuffle and banging with swearing and screaming through the walls. The resident told the landlord her son was getting traumatised.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord in internal correspondence stated it would not be authorising the request for a management move as it expected to see more carried out to resolve the problem with the neighbour. This included:
1. The Council to be advised so it could provide noise monitoring equipment.
2. Mediation.
3. An acceptable behaviour agreement with the neighbour and consider if it needed to do more to stop the cannabis smoking.
The landlord noted it could see the resident had applied for the Council’s housing register but if the council did accept her, she would be in a low banding. The landlord’s manager making the decision to refuse the management move also stated they had made the decision having read the report but not the supporting documentation as it could not access them.
On the same day the resident emailed the landlord and told it:
1. Her and her son’s health had deteriorated and her son needed medication as he could not settle due to the banging and sensory affects he was dealing with.
2. She had sent many emails but could not always take notes, record or film incidents as she had children to take care of on her own and her son’s needs were very high.
3. Her son hated living in the property and it was taking a toll on his behaviour as he could not go into the garden due to the cannabis use, the shouting, the verbal language, and just constant noise. The garden at their previous address was his sanctuary, where he would let out all his stimulation. He needed a calm environment but an anti social neighbour with previous complaints moved next door
The landlord spoke to the resident on 30 January 2023 as there was a change of the officer dealing with the resident’s case and sent an email summarising what was discussed. This included:
1. The resident confirmed she had registered on the Councils choice based letting scheme.
2. The landlord advised that it had listened to the noise recordings provided by the resident but acknowledged that there was insufficient information to take forward a noise case on that alone. The resident advised she had not contacted environmental health as it was difficult to record when dealing with her son and his complex issues. She would however look into it.
3. The landlord asked if the resident had reported any of the issues to the police and the resident advised that she did not want to do that as she was not confident with their approach following a recent incident which left her child traumatised.
4. The neighbour was still smoking cannabis on a regular basis.
5. The resident confirmed other neighbours had complained about the noise and cannabis and the landlord advised it would speak to them as it needed to build up a full picture with as much evidence as possible.
6. The landlord confirmed that even if a managed move was agreed at any point, finding a four bedroom property in the area the resident required would not be easy as there were not many in the landlord’s stock and asked if the resident considered a three bedroom property that had potential to change use of one of the lounge rooms. The resident confirmed she had considered this and had registered on Home Swapper but so far had not found anything that was suitable for her child’s needs.
On 10 February 2023 the landlord called the resident and informed her the request for a management move had been refused as it felt more needed to be done first. The resident told the landlord she had contacted the Council for the housing register but there was an eleven week backlog. The resident agreed for the landlord to contact environmental health on her behalf.
On the same day the resident emailed the landlord and asked for a letter outlining why she had been declined for a management move. The resident stated the landlord was refusing to safeguard a vulnerable child being affected and her mental health which had deteriorated.
The landlord responded to the resident on 14 February 2023 and said the outcome of the managed move was not final and that more work was needed to be done before a final decision could be made. The landlord reiterated the points made about:
1. A managed move would usually only be considered when a person needed to be moved for their urgent safety or where there was a severe medical condition which meant a property was no longer suitable for the occupiers needs and substantial evidence from medical professionals and the police would need to be provided.
2. It would also need to see that the person requesting the move had also considered all other options available to them.
3. It explained that all aspects of the anti social behaviour complaint needed to be actioned to try and resolve the issue before it could consider any other outcomes.
4. It needed to be able to evidence the anti social behaviour to take any action required to deal with any breaches of tenancy that may have occurred. It was a timely matter as it also needed evidence from witnesses to build up a case and the resident’s case was ongoing.
5. It discussed the noise recordings with the resident but acknowledged that there was insufficient information to take forward a noise case on that alone. It confirmed that it had emailed environmental health after gaining permission from the resident and it was awaiting their response.
6. It had spoken to other neighbour’s but at that time no evidence had been provided that would be sufficient to be used in a case to support the allegations.
7. The resident was informed that it was taking action relevant to what information it had verified but it was unable to discuss this with the resident due to data protection.
8. The resident confirmed she was not comfortable with mediation with her neighbour to try and resolve the issues.
9. The resident confirmed she had re-registered with the Council’s choice-based lettings and that the Council informed her they had a backlog of up to 11 weeks to process applications.
10. It had discussed the lack of 4 bedroom properties and the need to look at three bedroom properties that could change the use of one of the lounge rooms and that the resident had registered on home swapper but was not able to find anything for her child’s needs.
11. After speaking with the resident’s mother who advised the resident’s son had had recent falls and would benefit from a bungalow. The resident would need to provide substantial information from a medical professional for evidence and it should be shared with the Council so it could review the residents banding.
12. It was sorry that she had not received the outcome she wanted, however to continue to follow up on her searches via other routes rather than being reliant on a managed move.
13. As previously advised, if she wished for her reports of its handling of anti social behaviour to be reviewed, then to refer to the community trigger which was managed by the Council.
The resident responded to the landlord on 17 February 2023. The resident stated:
1. She had provided evidence of anti social behaviour, screenshots of messages with abuse and foul language, recordings, diary recordings, and door cam evidence.
2. She had the police three times outside her house where they intervened with the neighbour, and her partner on another occasion , and there was the time they brought the neighbour into her house and frightened her kids.
3. She and another neighbour had reported the cannabis use.
The resident asked the landlord what more evidence could she give. She had given her medical evidence and the effects it had on her, her son and family. The resident stated she was making a complaint.
On 19 February 2023 the resident reported more anti social behaviour to the landlord. The resident said the ongoing issues had not been dealt with by the landlord and it had affected her mental health and her son’s conditions but it kept asking for more evidence. The resident told the landlord it would be responsible for failing to rehouse someone who had complained numerous times, had their medication doubled and had sent letters from medical professionals about how the environment had impacted her health. The resident stated the landlord did not care about her disabled child who had been affected and was on sleep medication but still unable to sleep.
On the same day the resident told the landlord she had reported the issues to this Service
On 22 February 2023 the landlord issued an acknowledgment of the resident’s complaint about the declined management move. It stated a response would be issued by 8 March 2023.
On 1 March 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour was shouting and trying to climb a fence at the property. The resident said she felt scared and worried and gave permission for the landlord to speak with her sister.
On the same day the residents sister emailed the landlord and stated:
1. The resident had highlighted her concerns about her neighbour to the landlord.
2. The neighbour was well known in the area and had been involved in previous anti social behaviour including police involvement.
3. The resident had informed the landlord of the affect of the antisocial behaviour by the neighbour on the resident and her vulnerable son.
4. The resident had provided recent hospital and mental health letters to the landlord and it had not responded to the evidence provided.
5. The resident had since had a relapse in her mental health due to the landlord’s lack of understanding and compassion. Her concerns were not taken seriously due to her mental health and the landlord had discriminated against her disability.
6. After the police knocked on her door regarding the neighbour the resident informed the police of what she was witnessing and reporting. The police would contact the landlord.
7. There was a clear need for further training in regards to discrimination against disability from the landlord.
A senior officer of the landlord responded the same day and informed the resident the anti social behaviour case was still open. It would review the decision to refuse the management move and ensure it had followed its correct procedure and policies. Its officer dealing with the case would be speaking with the police and if the police agreed a management move was necessary it would be taken into account.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord attempted to arrange a meeting with the resident but received a reply from the resident’s sister stating the resident was emotionally withdrawn due to the situation and could only meet with a family member present. The landlord was informed the same day that the resident was too frightened to stay at the home and was staying with her parents and sister.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord emailed the police. The landlord stated the resident requested a priority move but it was struggling to get the evidence to support it and asked if the police were supporting a move for the resident. The police responded the same day and said it had very little information and history related to the resident, and it did not at that time support a priority move as it did not have the required risk, threat or harm.
On the same day the landlord in internal correspondence summarised that:
1. The resident had stated she could not use the anti social behaviour noise app as it was difficult to when her son was there. The resident had sent door cam footage but none of the footage showed anything that could be classed as evidence.
2. It had spoken to another neighbour who had confirmed the neighbour was a nuisance and loud but they had also not been able to supply evidence.
3. It had offered mediation which the neighbour accepted but the resident declined.
4. There had been no police involvement. It had emailed the police who confirmed to it that they did not support a management move.
5. After speaking with the community safety team there was not enough evidence to take forward the anti social behaviour case. It did not feel the residents life was at risk however the resident’s sons medical condition seemed to be that he was struggling with the stairs in the property and the impact of the issues with the neighbour.
6. It should get an occupational health assessment for the household’s health needs to establish if the property was suitable for their needs or if adaptations were required.
7. The resident should be taking more steps to find an alternative property that the resident felt should be more suitable to her needs.
8. A final decision should be made on if a managed move could be considered.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 March 2023 and informed her that it was reviewing the resident’s case on 6 March 2023, it would review the management move and would provide the stage one complaint response by 8 March 2023.
On 4 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord regarding a visit it had completed and stated the landlord’s officer had spent five minutes talking with her and over an hour speaking with the neighbour. The resident said the landlord’s officer was discriminating against her. The resident said she was now living with her parents due to the emotional position the landlord had put her in. The resident said she did not understand why the landlord had taken the side of the neighbour despite her sending multiple evidence and medical letters stating the impact on her and her son’s health. The resident requested that the landlord’s officer was no longer involved in her case.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 8 March 2023. The landlord stated:
1. On 26 January 2023 it advised that it was unable to agree on the move as it felt that more needed to be done before a move was considered.
2. It detailed the steps taken to contact environmental health regarding the noise reported.
3. It had requested new evidence to support a move as the evidence submitted was not new evidence. It had reviewed the medical information sent in and advised it was dated 2021 and it was unable to accept the evidence as verification.
4. It was providing a copy of the letter from 24 February 2023 it sent summarising what needed to be done before a move was considered.
5. It was unable to find evidence the landlord’s officer had sided with the neighbour.
6. It had not had information from the police supporting a management move. If the resident felt this was incorrect to contact the police and ask them to confirm with the landlord what the police had advised her.
7. A meeting had taken place on 6 March 2023 and a new management move request had been submitted. Once the result had been reviewed it would let the resident know of the outcome.
8. It was unable to agree it had not acted correctly in the decision of the management move and it required more evidence to support a move and other steps to be taken before a move was considered.
9. It could see that a complaint had been raised in October 2022 regarding the landlord’s handling of the anti social behaviour and a response was issued on 1 November 2022. It would not accept a complaint about an issue that had already gone through its complaint process and as that issue had already been through its complaint process it was not able to accept that element of her complaint.
On 8 March 2023 the resident’s sister wrote to the landlord and said the resident had provided the medical information to the landlord three times, the letters were dated 2022 and not 2021 as stated by the landlord and that a vulnerable adult intervention officer was now involved in the case.
The resident’s sister wrote to the landlord to escalate the complaint. For context in this report the landlord has not made it clear from the evidence it provided the exact date the escalation request was made. The escalation request included:
1. The resident supplied recent hospital letters and mental health letters dated November 2022 and December 2022 twice. All the correspondence provided medical and mental implications of the welfare of the resident and her son. The landlord’s officer responded that “there is no new medical evidence”. It was resent and another officer confirmed it was new evidence.
2. The resident’s concerns had not been taken seriously and an officer of the landlord had discriminated against the resident’s disability under the equality act.
3. The landlords officer had blocked the resident’s updated medical evidence from reaching the correct department for the management move and had also blocked the anti social behaviour evidence. This prevented the landlord at stage one from responding with the correct information.
4. The police were heavily involved with the neighbour and she was causing problems in the community.
5. The resident had advised the landlords officer she had moved to her parents property as she was at risk due to her mental health and the neighbour was abusive, people entering the neighbour’s house were calling the resident a grass and trying to climb her fence.
6. The landlord’s officer defended the actions of the neighbour.
On 9 March 2023 the police’s vulnerable adult intervention officer emailed the landlord and asked the landlord what the current situation was regarding the resident, had a management move been agreed and had any anti social behaviour surveys been conducted with other residents.
The landlord records state it spoke to the police and explained the current position. The landlord’s records state the police told it:
1. Based on what it told the police, it had done everything it could and the police had no additional evidence to support a managed move.
2. The officer had spoken to the PC who originally stated they would not support a managed move and he had confirmed that to her.
3. The officer had also spoken to the PC who attended the property the previous week who confirmed it was not supporting the resident.
4. It confirmed there was no evidence of any issues reported to them with the resident and the neighbour until 2nd March 2023 when the resident called to make the first complaint following the PC visit.
On 13 March 2023 the resident’s sister wrote to the landlord and told the landlord the resident was still not living at the property so could not record internal noise.
On 14 March 2023 the landlord responded to an enquiry from the Council. The Council had stated the resident contacted it requesting rehousing due to antisocial behaviour. The landlord informed the Council:
1. The resident felt that she could not live in the property due to issues with her neighbour which she felt it had not managed and wanted to be moved via a managed move.
2. A request had been sent to management to review the request however it did not feel there was sufficient evidence to support the move based on her reasons for moving.
3. The resident had not been able to provide any evidence which would support that she was fearful for her household’s life living in the property.
4. It had spoken to the police and they were not supporting a priority move and the resident had not reported anything to the police until the previous week.
5. The resident felt her and her sons mental well being were at risk from living in the property. It had medical evidence which stated their condition had become worse recently but no evidence to support that it related to the neighbours behaviour.
6. A warning letter had been issued to the neighbour for loud noise and smoking cannabis.
On 14 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and stated her reasons for requesting an escalation to stage two. The resident stated the stage one response had not been correctly resolved, vital evidence lost, mental health discrimination, stress caused by the housing officer and no apology. The resident stated the police had been called out again the previous Sunday due to a bust up which was caught on her door cam.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the complaint to stage two on 17 March 2023 and informed the resident a response would be issued by 18 April 2023.
On 27 March 2023 the Council informed the resident she would not be eligible to join the housing register stating that having received communication from the landlord and the police, there was no support from either that the resident had a need to move. As neither were supporting a move she did not have a housing need and therefore was not eligible to be added to the housing register.
On the same day the landlord stated in internal correspondence that after reviewing the medical letters from the resident the resident’s medical letter had stated just the impact of living next door to a disruptive neighbour. Her son’s letter related to lack of sleep due to disruptive neighbours and due to his medical condition needed undisturbed sleep. The landlord confirmed the letters were dated November 2022 and December 2022.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord issued a letter to the resident stating it had reviewed the residents case in light of her request to be considered for a management move. The landlord said:
1. It was concerned that the medical reports she had submitted were dated December 2022, and recent communications with it highlighted that she and her family’s health may have deteriorated further. This would not be accurately reflected in these supporting letters.
2. If she felt her health had deteriorated since providing the evidence and the risk to her and her families health had heightened, she would need to supply an up-to-date medical report from her GP, or medical professional who was supporting her. It asked her to let it know if she intended on supplying that so it could take it into account as part of the management move request.
3. In the meantime, it was referring her to its enablement team as it felt that an assessment of property suitability was required, in relation to her family’s physical needs. It would also help it determine the type of property she would need should a managed moved be approved.
On 3 April 2023 the landlord asked its enablement team to arrange to visit the resident’s property. The landlord stated the resident had said there had been a number of issues with her neighbour, but it was concerned that their medical needs could mean a different property would be more suitable.
The enablement team responded the same day to advise that it was involved with the resident when she first moved in and that it was a very involved case for the resident’s child but if more was now needed it would only refer onto occupational therapy. It asked the landlord to ask the resident to call occupational therapy and request a further assessment.
The landlords records state that it spoke to the resident on 4 April 2023 and established that the resident had moved back to her property and her partner had moved in. The resident told the landlord she felt there had been an impact on her mental health and felt the property was not suitable due to her son’s needs.
On 19 April 2023 the landlord’s records state that it had spoken to the resident and advised it would not be agreeing to her complaint. The landlord asked how things had ben since the resident returned to the property and the resident advised not great. The landlord asked if incidents had been reported and the resident said she had given up and nothing she had reported had been taken notice of. The landlord stated it informed the resident it did want to support her and needed evidence to build a picture of anti social behaviour. The resident said it was too stressful for her mental health. The landlord asked if the resident had the occupational therapist assessment and the resident advised she had but had not yet sent it as she did not see the point. The landlord advised the resident to send it and it may be beneficial to support her request for a move. The resident informed the landlord the occupational therapist was dealing with it.
On 19 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord stated:
1. Having reviewed the complaint it was not able to agree that it had managed the request for a management move incorrectly, based on the evidence available at the time it made the right decision to explore other avenues and it was not able to agree that aspect of the complaint.
2. The resident believed that there was some evidence lost while it was managing her case. It had reviewed her files and could see that it advised that some of the evidence that had been submitted was not up to date however it was not able to see that it had lost any of the information that was sent to it.
3. In the resident’s letter of the 15 March 2023 in which she requested the escalation of her complaint, several issues were raised that had not been part of her initial complaint including:
  1. Whether it had taken her disability into account when reaching its decision.
  2. Whether it had adapted its service to meet her needs.
  3. Reports of its officer’s unreasonable behaviour.
4. As those issues had not been investigated at stage one it raised a further complaint case for investigation. This was raised on 17 March 2023 and was being investigated, and it would write separately regarding the outcome.
5. It was sorry that the resident felt that it had not managed her request for a move appropriately, it had reviewed the case and at the time the decision was made she did not meet the criteria for a managed move as there were other avenues that it could pursue to resolve the issues. It was aware that a further request had been made and that it had requested further supporting evidence be submitted. The outcome of that application would be advised to her once it was available.

Post Complaint

On 1 June 2023 the landlord concluded that the resident had not supplied any further medical support, and it was not aware there had been any further incidents between the resident and the neighbour. It would no longer be considering the resident for a management move. A letter was sent to the resident on 5 June 2023 confirming the request for a management move had been closed.
On 12 June 2023 the resident sent more evidence to the landlord to support a management move. The resident stated the evidence had been sent by post and email.
On 16 July 2023 the resident informed this Service that she received another letter from the landlord declining a management move. The resident said this was after her GP advised it of the levels of stress the anti social behaviour was causing her, which she sent to the landlord but received a response that her mental health was being managed. She went to a GP, and it was not. The resident stated that on that day there was more anti social behaviour from the neighbour, causing significant stress.
On 31 August 2023 the landlord was contacted by the Council who had been asked to review the resident’s application for the housing register. The Council said the resident was still reporting anti social behaviour to it, the police seemed to have indicated that there was a risk to the resident as she looked like she had been reporting the activity due to the police visiting her property and also that the anti social behaviour was being directed at her.
The landlord responded the same day and informed the council that:
1. In June 2023 it did not have enough evidence to support a management move and it had had no further anti social behaviour complaints or direct threats, or harassment issues reported to it since the resident returned to the property in April 2023. It had also not received any evidence from the police.
2. Medical reports advised that the resident was managing her mental health including support from her doctor, medication, family support and support services.
3. Its enablement team confirmed that the property was suitable as it could be adapted to be made suitable for her son and Occupational Therapy were fully involved when the resident first moved in to ensure any equipment required at that time was provided. It was not aware if the resident had contacted them further with any new medical needs or any changes to the existing needs.
4. Based on that information the decision had not changed.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued an anti social behaviour letter to the neighbour due to reports including abusive behaviour, excessive noise and keeping pets without permission which the landlord wanted to discuss with the neighbour.
On 14 November 2033 the resident informed the landlord that based on findings by the Council she had been given a priority band for a move on the housing register.
The resident continued to make reports to the landlord that the anti social behaviour was still continuing and on 20 January 2024 stated the neighbour was being investigated for hate crimes and attempted bodily harm at her property. The resident said she was now at full risk and the police were involved. The resident said it should not have reached that stage and she should have been helped to move.
On 23 January 2024 the resident informed the landlord she had to leave the property due to the violence and aggressive behaviour. The resident said this was after the landlord was aware for 18 months what the neighbour was like and knew her vulnerabilities. She was suffering and dealing with the trauma and was scared for her life.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The evidence provided shows the landlord considered a further management transfer request in June 2023. This was beyond the landlord issuing its stage two response to the resident’s complaint about her previous request for a management move. As this request has not been considered or responded to by the landlord as part of its formal complaints procedure; it falls outside of the scope of this investigation. This investigation can only investigate events that occurred until the landlord issued its final response to her complaint about the management transfer in April 2023.
The Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s reports after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint in April 2023. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to her management transfer request made in June 2023, she can raise this as a new complaint to the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to their new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman to investigate separately at that stage.
It is noted that the resident made a separate complaint to the landlord about the anti social behaviour in October 2022. The landlord issued a stage one response in November 2022. The landlord addressed this in its stage one complaint response regarding the management transfer stating that the complaint regarding its handling of the anti social behaviour had not been escalated to stage two and therefore did not complete its internal complaints process.
Paragraph 42(a) of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme provides that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints “that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.” This Service has not been provided with evidence that the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour completed the landlord’s complaints procedure.
As the complaint did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the reported anti social behaviour would not form part of this investigation. However, the landlord’s response to the resident will be considered as part of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident has reported that the matters raised in her complaint have had a negative effect on her mental health and her son’s health. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s or their household’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While this Service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
While the serious nature of this matter is acknowledged. This Service can also not determine whether the landlord has breached its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 or the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. While this Service has not investigated the resident’s concerns that she had been discriminated against, the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s management transfer request; and whether it gave due regard to her vulnerabilities has been assessed. The resident may wish to seek independent advice with regard to any legal recourse she may have with regards to these matters.
The resident has provided evidence that she applied to join the Council’s housing register choice based lettings scheme and had notified the Council that the Ombudsman would be in contact about her request for acceptance on to the housing register and banding. There is however no evidence of a formal complaint being made to the Council by the resident about its handling of her housing register application.
If the resident has submitted a formal complaint to the Council that has completed the Council’s internal complaints process. In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is likely to fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident’s request to join the Council’s housing register would fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
This is because the LGSCO considers complaints about local authorities handling of decisions and complaints regarding a choice-based lettings scheme. The complaints considered by the LGSCO include complaints about local authorities handling of housing allocations, under the Housing Act 1996 Part VI. They consider a Council’s handling of applications for re-housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, considering complaints about the assessment of such applications, how priority is awarded under the scheme, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
It is open to the resident to submit any complaint to the LGSCO along with this report in support of the finding that that complaint would be within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction to investigate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move due to anti social behaviour.

The landlord does not have a specific management move policy and instead refers to its community safety procedure which contains a section about management transfers. This section does not state a management transfer will only be granted if there is a threat to life. In fact, the section does not specifically state what would or would not be considered as grounds for a management transfer but instead refers to Section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 regarding it not being reasonable for a person to occupy accommodation if it is probable this will lead to domestic abuse or violence.
From the evidence provided the resident first informed the landlord she wanted to be moved from the property on 12 September 2022. The landlord agreed it would discuss her reports internally on 15 September 2022. It is not evidenced by the landlord if this took place.
The landlord told the resident on 10 November 2022 she would not be able to have a management move as there was no risk to life. It also told the resident on 17 November 2022, 5 December 2022 and 12 December 2022 that she would not be eligible for a management move. This was told to the resident without either having received a formal application from the resident, asking her to submit a formal application or that it had taken a formal decision based on any evidence supplied.
The management transfer section of the landlord’s community safety procedure does not specifically state there had to be risk to life for a move to be considered. It is therefore not clear why the landlord would inform the resident she was not eligible based on that criterion.
The landlord did request supporting letters from the resident on 1 December 2022, which she supplied on 20 December 2022 and 4 January 2023. The letter from the resident’s GP dated 12 December 2022 stated the resident discussed the ongoing issues with her neighbour and that it was having a significant effect on her mental health and her son’s wellbeing. The letter described the issues the resident was having with the neighbour since moving into the property and how the noise from the neighbour was affecting her son.
The resident’s son’s medical team letter to the landlord listed the conditions he had and how his health had been reported to be deteriorating by the resident. The letter stated it was important he received a calm and peaceful environment to facilitate sleep as this could positively affect his daytime behaviour. The letter also noted the resident had reported anti social behaviour and it stated the importance of the resident’s son needing a calm and peaceful environment around him.
The landlord then submitted a management move report to a manager on 4 January 2023. It therefore took four months for a report to be sent for consideration of a management move.
It is acknowledged that there was a delay while the resident sent in all her supporting letters which was approximately one month after it was requested by the landlord however, it still took the landlord three months to request this information.
The decision on 26 January 2023 was to refuse the management transfer. It was concerning the manager making the decision stated they had made the decision after reading the management transfer report but had not read the supporting documents as they could not access them. The landlord should have ensured all correspondence had been reviewed and considered and that nothing had been missed, misinterpreted in the report or needed further evidence or clarification.
It is difficult to understand therefore how the landlord could make the decision reading the report alone if it is not corroborated by the supporting evidence. By only reading the report the landlord could not be satisfied it had fully investigated the request as it has not shown it corroborated the findings in the report with the supporting documentation.
The landlord was not clear with the resident about the status of her management transfer request. It is evident the landlord made a decision on 26 January 2023, this does not appear to have been communicated to the resident until 10 February 2023, 12 working days later. It was communicated verbally to the resident rather than in writing which would have provided the resident confirmation of the decision made and reasoning for that decision. The landlord’s case notes clearly show that the move had been refused as it felt more needed to be done to address the anti social behaviour first. However, there was no evidence that the landlord gave any consideration to the resident’s or her son’s vulnerabilities despite them being stated in the submitted management move report.
Once the resident asked for this in writing, the landlord on 14 February 2023 stated the decision was not final. It is not clear why the landlord told the resident this as its notes from 10 February 2023 stated the move had been refused and did not state a future review would be planned. Given the resident had already told the landlord the effects the issues were having on her mental health it was not appropriate for the landlord to provide mixed responses to the resident.
The landlord therefore did not write to the resident with reasons for not agreeing the move when the initial decision was made and instead informed the resident by telephone. The landlord could have followed this up with the resident by emailing the reasons for its decision or providing a formal letter and setting out a plan or alternative housing options. Refusing the move verbally with limited explanation was inappropriate and showed poor record keeping in a key decision.
The response issued by the landlord by email on 14 February 2023 did provide some summary of the landlord’s actions, but it could not be considered a formal response to the resident’s management transfer request. It reiterated that a management transfer would usually only be considered when a person needed to be moved for their urgent safety or where there were severe medical conditions which meant a property was no longer suitable for the occupiers needs but made no reference to how the resident’s medical evidence had been considered.
After the landlord stated it was considering a second management transfer request, in the letter issued on 30 March 2023 the landlord stated the medical letters supplied to it in support of the management transfer were dated December 2022 and it was concerned that recent correspondence about the resident’s health deteriorating meant the letters may not accurately reflect the resident’s health.
There is no evidence that before issuing the letter on 30 March 2023 that the landlord internally evidenced its concerns about the medical letters supplied. There is also no evidence that it attempted to contact the resident to ask her to confirm if the information was accurate or if further medical evidence was needed. This delayed the process further for the resident for her to obtain a final decision. At the time the stage two response was issued the landlord was considering the resident’s management transfer request made on 3 March 2023.
It is understandable that if the landlord had been informed by the resident that her and her son’s health had deteriorated since she last submitted evidence, it would be expected to ask the resident to supply updated evidence.
However, there is no evidence provided that the letters supplied by the resident between 20 December 2022 and 4 January 2023 were considered and they were not referred to in the landlord’s decision made on 26 January 2023. The landlord did not make it clear if it had made any determination of the letters already supplied, their suitability and what further evidence may be required from the resident. There was very little support offered by the landlord to assist her in providing what the landlord would require for it to proceed to make a decision.
From the evidence provided the resident first informed the landlord she wanted to be moved from the property on 12 September 2022. In her correspondence to the landlord the resident made it aware of her mental health needs and her son’s health needs. The resident had also clearly explained what her vulnerabilities were and the detrimental impact the anti social behaviour she was reporting was having on her and her son.
The resident continued to signpost the landlord to her vulnerabilities and the detrimental impact the anti social behaviour was having on her and her household and to request a management transfer on multiple occasions throughout the period covered by this investigation. These included, but were not limited to 12 September 2022, 15 September 2022, 21 October 2022, 7 November 2022, 1 December 2022 and 5 December 2022, 11 December 2022, 14 January 2023, 26 January 2023 10 February 2023 and 19 February 2023.
The landlord treated the reports of anti social behaviour and subsequent management transfer request from the resident as it would do for any other household. However, the landlord was made aware at an early stage in the initial reports from the resident that she was stating the anti social behaviour was having a more significant impact on her and her son due to the disabilities in the household.
The landlord has not evidenced it considered these vulnerabilities under its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 or that it gave them appropriate consideration in determining if a management transfer should be granted.
It is appropriate to conclude the landlord was aware of the household’s vulnerabilities. In its submission of evidence to this Service the landlord stated it did not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident, but it did for her son. The landlord has not evidenced therefore that it kept appropriate records for the resident. This is a failing by the landlord and a recommendation is made for the landlord to review its processes to ensure a resident’s vulnerabilities are recorded when the landlord is notified by a resident.
Having considered the evidence it is also clear that the landlord could have offered the resident additional support or referred her to any relevant services earlier than it did and that it missed multiple opportunities to do so. This represents a failure by the landlord which resulted in unnecessary upset to the resident and an understandable feeling that the landlord was not taking her concerns about her mental health and her son’s wellbeing seriously.
The landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities under its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, its failure to record the resident’s vulnerabilities, its failure to read supporting documents when considering the management transfer request in January 2023 and its failure to evidence that it appropriately considered the resident’s medical evidence and communicate its requirements to the resident is maladministration and it should pay the resident £800.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

In the stage one response the landlord referred to the resident complaining about the refusal of the management move and the ongoing anti social behaviour.
The landlord informed the resident a complaint about the handling of the anti social behaviour had been raised on 18 October 2022 and responded on 1 November 2022. The landlord informed the resident its complaints policy stated it may not accept a complaint about an issue that had already been through its complaints process and as that issue had already been considered under its complaints policy, it was not able to accept that aspect of her complaint.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it issued a stage one response to the resident which was not escalated to stage two and the resident therefore did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints process about the anti social behaviour.
The landlord’s records show it noted the resident made a complaint on 13 December 2022 about safeguarding vulnerable adults whose mental health had deteriorated and complaining about the handling of her case. The landlord should have considered if this was an escalation request to the stage one response issued the previous month but instead on 16 December 2022 the landlord discussed the anti social behaviour with the resident and informed her if she was unhappy with the management of the anti social behaviour case to raise a new complaint or raise a community trigger.
The landlord therefore should not have informed the resident the issue had already been through its complaint process. It should have considered if the complaint made on 13 December 2022 was an escalation request, if the complaint it was currently responding to should have meant it considered the anti social behaviour complaint at stage two or if it should open a new complaint based on the resident’s current dissatisfaction of the landlord’s handling of her latest anti social behaviour reports. The landlord did not do any of these options.
The landlord in its stage two response stated that issues raised in the escalation request of whether it had taken her disability into account when reaching its decision and whether it had adapted its service to meet her needs had not been investigated at stage one so it would raise a further complaint for investigation regarding those issues. This was not appropriate.
The resident made it clear in her correspondence regarding the management transfer that the landlord was not considering her vulnerabilities or the vulnerabilities of her son and made it clear she felt the landlord had not considered those issues in its decision making of the management transfer request which led to the complaint being originally made.The landlord therefore should have considered that in the stage one response and throughout its investigation.
Its failure to do so should not have meant it opened a separate complaint for those points raised and instead should have considered them as part of its investigation at stage two into the overall decision it had made regarding the issues raised by the resident.
The landlord’s failure to consider if the resident’s complaint of its handling of the anti social behaviour should have been raised as a stage two complaint, or a new complaint to be opened and its decision to open a new complaint regarding its consideration of the residents vulnerabilities were not appropriate and is maladministration by the landlord for which it should pay the resident £250.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer due to anti social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it recognised its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It has not evidenced that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident or that it had appropriately responded to those needs when considering her request for a management transfer. It failed to provide adequate communication and explanations of its decision to the resident for the outcome of her application.
The landlord failed to consider the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of anti social behaviour and whether an escalation of the previous complaint or creation of a new complaint was appropriate. It should not have created a new complaint for the resident vulnerabilities at stage two as these were a key reason for her original complaint being made and should have been considered at stage one.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise to her for its handling of her request for a management transfer.
2. Pay the resident £800 for its failure to evidence that it took reasonable and appropriate steps with regards to the resident and her household’s vulnerabilities when dealing with her request for a management transfer.
3. Pay the resident £250 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. Contact the resident to confirm if she wanted to make a new management transfer request, if she does, then consider her request for a management transfer including all available information including impact on her and her household’s vulnerabilities.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review its equality and diversity policy and procedures to ensure that staff understand the landlord’s legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

Recommendations

Given the known vulnerabilities of the resident and her son, the landlord would be expected under the Equality Act 2010 to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had considered those needs in its decisions. The landlord should consider staff training around its handling of management transfers concerning safeguarding its vulnerable residents.
The landlord should review its requirements for management transfer applications and ensure these are clearly communicated to residents either through updating its community safety procedure or publishing a separate management transfer policy.