Woking Borough Council (202347827)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with his partner. He has a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which the landlord is aware of. He complained about the landlord’s handling of several issues linked to his neighbour and the wider management of his tenancy, including permission for a cattery, alleged cannabis use, concerns about window locks, and delays in progressing a fire safety check. He also said the landlord failed to consider reasonable adjustments and treated him unfairly due to his disabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. A request for a fire safety check.
   3. Concerns about window locks and keys.
   4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the handling of ASB reports.
   2. Maladministration in the handling of a request for a fire safety check.
   3. Service failure in the handling of concerns about window locks and keys.
   4. Reasonable redress in the handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of ASB reports

4. The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence that it properly followed through on the actions identified in response to the residents ASB reports. Although it carried out a case review and created an action plan, there were no clear records of visits, impact assessments, or the outcomes of those steps. This lack of follow through and documented communication left the resident without clarity about what had been done and undermined confidence in how the reports were managed.

The handling of a fire safety check request

5. The landlord failed to progress a safety related action within the timescale set out in its own action plan and delayed the matter unreasonably. It did not provide clear updates, gave inconsistent information about next steps and fell to evidence completion of agreed measures. This amounted to poor oversight of a safety concern and caused prolonged uncertainty.

The handling of concerns about window locks and keys

6. The landlord did not clearly set out how it would progress the resident’s safety concern once access issues arose or explain why the matter was redirected to occupational therapy. While it was entitled to consider operational constraints and alternative routes, it did not provide timely clarity on how the issue would be resolved. This lack of structured communication amounted to service failure.

The handling of the complaint

7. The landlord delayed its stage two response by almost a year. However, it acknowledged the delay, apologised and offered compensation in line with expectations set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. We consider this to be proportionate redress for the inconvenience caused.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

8. The resident has raised other complaints about the landlord’s handling of ASB. We have investigated some of these and others are awaiting investigation. This investigation focuses on the complaint that completed the landlord’s complaints process on 17 September 2024. We will not reinvestigate or duplicate matters considered under separate investigations.
9. In his escalation to us, the resident said he has evidence that Officer A is friends with the neighbour subject to his complaint and that this explains why the landlord failed to act on his ASB reports. As this information was not included in the complaint we are looking at, we have not considered the landlord’s response to this allegation.

What we did consider

Cattery

10. The resident said he first raised concerns about permission for the cattery in March 2023 and did not receive a response until September 2023. The landlord did not dispute this and apologised at stage 1 for Officer A failing to respond. There was therefore a delay of approximately 6 months in responding to the resident’s concerns. The delay was unreasonable and left the resident feeling as though his concerns were not taken seriously.
11. The landlord said the tenancy conditions did not limit the number of pets allowed in a property. We have reviewed the tenancy conditions, and it does not restrict pet ownership or limit the number of pets permitted. However, the term ‘cattery’ can refer either to keeping multiple domestic cats or to operating a breeding or boarding business.
12. Even where pets are permitted, the landlord should have clarified what it understood the request to involve and confirmed that the property would continue to be used solely as a private dwelling rather than for commercial purposes. We have seen no evidence that the landlord set out the scope of the permission it granted or recorded how it satisfied itself on this point.
13. Clear and transparent explanations are especially important where a resident raises concerns about unequal treatment. In this case, greater transparency would have helped demonstrate how the decision was reached, without disclosing confidential information.
14. The landlord later said it was reviewing and introducing a pet policy. This was a positive step. By formalising its approach, the landlord showed it had reflected on the issues raised and sought to strengthen its framework for managing pet permissions.
15. In May 2023, the resident completed an impact statement reporting that the neighbour’s cats were making ‘a lot of noise’. This was a report of alleged nuisance and was distinct from the question of whether permission for the cattery had been granted. The landlord’s ASB policy states that reports will be assessed and handled in a fair, accountable and proportionate way.
16. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it assessed this report, decided whether the noise amounted to nuisance, or took any investigative steps at the time. Without this evidence, we cannot be satisfied that it responded in line with its ASB policy commitment. This left the resident without clear reassurance that the landlord had properly considered his concerns.
17. The resident also said the landlord failed to consider reasonable adjustments when granting permission and believed this amounted to disability discrimination. The courts are better suited to determine whether discrimination has occurred. However, we can assess whether the landlord responded reasonably when disability-related concerns were raised.
18. The resident reported that the cats were affecting his sleep. While this indicates impact, we have not seen evidence that he made a specific request for an adjustment or provided information to enable the landlord to consider what adjustment was needed. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated it required further information. We have not seen evidence that this was provided. On the evidence available, we cannot conclude that the landlord failed to consider a defined request for reasonable adjustment.
19. The landlord’s compensation policy states that financial redress will generally be considered where service failures have caused distress and inconvenience, or where a resident has spent an unreasonable amount of time pursuing a matter. We have identified failings in this section of the report, which left the resident without reassurance that his concerns had been properly assessed and required him to continue pursuing responses.
20. Despite this, the landlord did not offer any compensation for this matter during the handling of the complaint. This was a missed opportunity to acknowledge the impact of its failings and to put matters right.
21. We therefore have included an order above for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this section. This aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which suggests awards between £100 to £600 where a landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident.

Cannabis

22. Between March and May 2023, the resident made several reports of a strong smell of cannabis coming from a neighbouring property. The resident said the landlord issued a block letter in March 2023 about the issue, but the smell continued and the landlord took no further action.
23. A general letter may represent an appropriate early step. However, we have not seen evidence showing how the landlord assessed the resident’s reports before deciding to issue the letter, or that it explained to him why this was considered an appropriate response. Without evidence of assessment or reasoning, the landlord has not demonstrated that it properly considered the reports before determining its course of action.
24. In May 2023, the landlord completed a risk assessment to consider the impact the alleged cannabis use was having on the resident. Based on the information provided, it assessed the case as presenting a medium level of risk and confirmed that this would be considered as part of the ASB case review it was undertaking at the same time. This was a positive and structured step. The associated action plan included seeking advice from adult social care, which was an appropriate step given the residents identified disabilities. This demonstrated that the landlord recognised potential one mobility and sought to factor this into its case management.
25. The action plan from the case review also included a task for the landlord to gather impact assessment statements from other neighbours about the smell of cannabis. The actions were due to be completed by the end of June 2023. The landlord has stated that visits took place in May 2023 and again in September 2023. However, it has provided no real-time records confirming which properties were visited and when, what information was obtained, or what conclusions were drawn.
26. Without this evidence, we cannot reasonably conclude the action plan was completed as intended or within the stated timescale. This is an example of poor recordkeeping and weak oversight of an agreed action plan.
27. In addition, the landlord only communicated details of the outcome of those visits to the resident in the stage 2 complaint response, over a year later. This delayed update meant the resident did not know at the time what steps had been taken or why no further action followed. Even after the matter was escalated to a formal case review – a higher level of scrutiny – the landlord failed to provide timely and transparent updates. This undermined the resident’s confidence in the process and contributed to a loss of trust.
28. Although the alleged perpetrator has since moved, the resident reports that they now live a few doors away and that he continues to experience the smell of cannabis. We have therefore ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss these ongoing concerns and to consider them in line with its ASB policy. Given the record keeping failures identified, the landlord is also required to demonstrate how it manages ASB cases in practice and to carry out a lessons learned review.
29. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the failings identified.

30. The resident reported that rubbish from the neighbouring property was leaning against his fence and said that, although the landlord had asked the neighbour to remove it, this had not been done. This was a specific and practical concern which required a clear response.
31. The landlord did not address this issue directly in its stage 1 complaint response. Instead, it referred to an outstanding fire safety check arising from the ASB case review.
32. While concerns about excess rubbish may link to potential fire risk, this did not remove the need to respond to the resident’s report about the physical presence of rubbish and whether any action would be taken.
33. We have not been provided with records showing how the landlord assessed the report, what follow-up action it took after asking the neighbour to remove the rubbish, or how it communicated its position to the resident. In the absence of this evidence, we cannot be satisfied that the landlord properly addressed the concern or managed the resident’s expectations.
34. The fire safety check was set to be completed by the end of May 2023. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that it had only contacted the fire service to begin the process in September 2024, around 16 months after the agreed deadline. It explained that the delay was due to difficulties sourcing contact details. This explanation does not justify a delay of that length. Where an action plan sets clear timescales, the resident would reasonably expect the landlord to monitor progress, provide updates and take steps to ensure completion. There is no evidence to show this occurred.
35. The landlord has told us it did not have a fire safety policy in place at the time. This limits our ability to assess any specific internal commitments. However, the fire safety check arose form concerns that excess rubbish may present a fire hazard. By agreeing to organise the check, the landlord accepted that concern warranted assessment. Having made that commitment, the delay in progressing it was unreasonable.
36. In addition, the landlord gave inconsistent information about how the check would be completed. In 2023 it indicated that it needed to complete a questionnaire to return to the fire service. It later suggested that the resident could complete this himself online. It then said it would attend the resident’s home to complete it. This shifting position created confusion about responsibility and next steps.
37. The fire safety check was also required for the neighbouring property. We have seen no evidence that this was completed. The resident has told us the neighbour moved out before the check took place, which meant the agreed safety measure was not delivered. This was a service failing and demonstrated poor oversight of a safety-related action. As a result, the resident was left for a prolonged period uncertain about whether any fire risk had been properly assessed and reduced his confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage potential safety concerns.
38. We have therefore ordered the landlord to clarify the status of the fire safety check relating to the residents property.
39. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in the handling of the fire safety concerns.

40. In November 2023, the resident reported that the windows had multiple replacement locks, resulting in over 21 locks operated by several different keys. He said this made locking and unlocking windows time-consuming and that adult social care had advised it posed a serious health and safety risk. This raised a concern about the ability to secure or exit the property quickly in an emergency.
41. The landlord responded at the time to say that having the same key for all windows would present a security risk, which was a relevant consideration. The landlord also attempted to visit and inspect the windows, but said the resident refused access because he did not want a particular staff member to attend.
42. Where access is refused because of a preference about which staff member attends, the landlord should clearly explain whether it can accommodate the request, the reasons for its decision, and the practical implications for progressing the inspection. If it had a limited team and could not reasonably reallocate staff, it should have said so and confirmed what would happen if access continued to be declined.
43. We have not seen evidence that it provided this clarity at the time or set out defined next steps. The position was only clarified in the stage 2 complaint response over a year later. This was unreasonable and left the resident without a clear understanding of how his concern would be addressed.
44. In addition, the landlord’s stage 2 response said the matter would be left for an OT assessment to address. It may have been appropriate to involve OT if the issue required adaption rather than repair. However, prior to this, the landlord had attempted to arrange an inspection under its repairs function, which suggests it was initially treating the concern as a responsive repair. In those circumstances, the resident could reasonably expect a clear explanation of why the matter was no longer being progressed through the repairs service and how his safety concerns would be addressed in the interim. We have seen no evidence that this was provided at the time.
45. As a result, the issue appeared to be deferred rather than actively resolved, which was likely to reinforce the resident’s perception that his concerns were being passed elsewhere rather than properly considered.
46. We have therefore included an order for the landlord to apologise for the failings identified above and to inspect the resident’s windows to assess the concerns raised about multiple locks and key access.
47. The resident has requested that he be allocated new housing staff to deal with his concerns. While we recognise that there has been a breakdown in the working relationship, decisions about staffing and allocation of officers sit within the landlord’s operational discretion. It is for the landlord to organise its services in a way that balances the needs of all residents and the resources available. We do not consider it proportionate or appropriate for our Service to direct the landlord to reassign a specific member of staff.
48. We note the landlord has indicated a willingness to engage in mediation to address the working relationship. The resident has explained that certain forms of communication, including telephone or face-to-face discussions, may not be suitable for him due to his disabilities. The landlord should take this into account when considering how to rebuild communication to ensure that any engagement is adapted appropriately.
49. We therefore make no further order in relation to staffing arrangements. However, we have recommended that the landlord to considers the resident’s communication needs when progressing this matter.

50. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The statutory requirement to comply with the Code came into force in April 2024. The complaint in this case was made in 2023, before compliance became mandatory. Our findings are:
    1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated under its previous complaints policy. It responded to the stage 1 complaint slightly outside the 20-day timescale set out in that policy. However, the delay was minimal and we have seen no evidence that the 2-day delay caused any detriment to the resident.
    2. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy, and it now complies with the Code’s timescales.
    3. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued almost a year after the resident escalated his complaint. The explanation that it had believed the matters had been addressed elsewhere does not justify the absence of a formal response. This was a service failure.
    4. However, it apologised for the delay and offered proportionate compensation. This approach aligned with the Code, which says landlords should take responsibility for service failures, explain what went wrong, and put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) / Communication

51. The landlord should maintain clear records of reports received, enquiries made, assessments undertaken, and outcomes reached. In this case, the absence of real-time records made it harder for the landlord to evidence the actions it took at important stages of the case. This also meant it could not show regular and unprompted communication with the resident. Improved, accurate record-keeping would support better decision-making and stronger accountability if concerns escalate.