Your Housing Limited (202122707)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122707

Your Housing Limited

31 May 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. The resident’s rehousing request.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling approaches and the level of compensation offered.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The resident has a live rehousing application with the local authority. This Service cannot make findings on external rehousing schemes which are not operated and managed by the landlord. In this regard the resident should seek advice from the local government and social care ombudsman. Additionally, this Service cannot order a member landlord to rehouse its residents.
2. The resident has stated to this Service in March 2023 that she is experiencing issues with damp and mould and insects within her property. This is not covered by this report as it has not been considered within the landlord’s complaints process in this specific case.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The resident’s property is a one-bedroom, first floor flat with in a low-rise block of flats and she has lived here since June 2019.
Information provided by the resident and the landlord states that she has obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and autism. The resident was also a previous victim of domestic abuse, and the landlord has this information recorded on its systems. The resident receives support from a local community mental health service.

Scope of investigation

The landlord’s records show that the resident has four previous anti-social behaviour (ASB) cases with the landlord. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from September 2021 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
It is also noted that the resident raised further concerns following receipt of its stage two complaint response on 27 May 2022. As these concerns were not addressed in the stage two complaint response, this Service has not considered them in this report. This Service can however confirm that the landlord is aware of these concerns and is in contact with the resident in this regard. It has also sought to address these concerns through a separate complaint.

Summary of events

On 27 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she was affected by ASB caused by other resident’s in the block. She reported:
1. Two identified neighbours had woken her during the early hours of the morning as they were arguing and fighting outside the block. She reported that she had challenged them on their behaviour.
2. The same two neighbours had been playing loud music in a communal garden area on a number of occasions.
3. The communal entry door at the rear of the block was slamming when being closed and this was disturbing her.
4. She explained that she was due to start a new job that day and outlined the impact of the ASB on her.
The resident made a further report of ASB to the landlord on 29 September 2021 in which she stated:
1. One of the neighbours outlined in the incidents above had approached her and subjected her to verbal abuse and threatening behaviour.
2. She stated that she had responded to him by swearing and telling him to leave but that she felt afraid of further incidents.
3. She had reported the incident to the police and was awaiting their response.
4. She asked the landlord to move her as soon as possible to another property.
The landlord contacted the resident the following day and took a detailed account of the incidents which the resident later confirmed in an email:
1. She outlined other recent incidents where the same neighbour had touched her and made advances towards her which she did not want.
2. She highlighted that rough sleepers were entering the block via the rear communal entrance door.
3. She confirmed her wishes for the landlord to assist her with a move to another property and that she ideally wanted to move to a house to avoid having to deal with neighbours. She also raised her concerns about her health and safety should she remain at the property.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident in which it stated:
1. Its staff would be conducting interviews with the resident’s neighbours in relation to her reports of ASB and it would update her following the interviews.
2. It asked the resident to report any further ASB.
3. It would send her a list of its available properties in her areas of choice.
On 3 October 2021, the resident asked the landlord for assistance in setting up an account on homeswapper which is a system for resident’s to register for a mutual exchange with other social landlord tenants.
In emails between the resident and the landlord on 14 October 2021, its advised that it could not see that the resident had an account with homeswapper. It asked her to send a screen shot of her account and it would check her application details. The resident replied and stated that she had not set an account up as she was waiting for it to confirm that it would cover the cost of any move to another property. The landlord provided details of a property it had mentioned previously to the resident and advised that she may wish to go and look at it. It further advised that it did not think there were any properties available at the location and the resident asked why she would go and look when it had no properties available. She asked the landlord if it had any two-bedroom houses available in her other areas of choice.
On 15 October 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord and advised that she had the impression that it was offering her a property from its own housing stock. She outlined her medical conditions and asked why it would not offer her a house. She stated that she was afraid the ASB from her neighbours could happen again at any moment and this was a risk to health and safety. She advised that she provided medical information to support her rehousing application.
Having not received a response from the landlord, the resident chased it via email on 2 November 2021. She also advised that she had added details of her recent autism diagnosis to her rehousing application on the local authority’s system and requested that the landlord gave her medical priority for a house.
On 12 November 2021, the resident completed an online webform and requested that the landlord logged a formal complaint on her behalf. On 17 November 2021 the landlord responded to the resident via email and confirmed that it had received her complaint request and would pass it to a member of its staff to investigate and respond.
The landlord sent an email update to the resident regarding her rehousing request on 17 November 2021 in which it stated:
1. It apologised for its delay in responding.
2. It stated it had already sent a task to the medical team at the local authority’s rehousing service on the resident’s behalf. It advised the local authority would contact her directly.
3. It confirmed that the resident was already in the highest priority banding on the rehousing system so her medical information would not change this.
4. It advised the resident that some of the information on her homeswapper account was incorrect and she may wish to remove it.
The resident sent an email to the landlord the following day and stated that she did not have the energy to deal with the situation at the moment. She stated that she had submitted medical evidence for the landlord to consider moving her to a house because a flat was not suitable for her. She also stated that her focussed care practitioner would be sending a supporting letter on her behalf which would also reference a non-molestation order, she had obtained against her ex-partner. She asked the landlord to provide meetings as they were displayed incorrectly on her meter and that they sent her readings every month to prevent her being billed on estimates.
On 19 November 2021, the resident’s focussed care practitioner sent a letter to the landlord in support of the resident’s rehousing request. The letter stated:
1. The resident required safe housing in a familiar location due to her mental health concerns.
2. The resident should be moved urgently as the non-molestation order against her ex-partner was due to expire shortly and he knew where she lived.
3. The resident’s autism meant that her senses of smell, taste and hearing were heightened, and she was affected by noises and smells from other residents, nearby shops, and the local church. This was causing the resident stress, anxiety, and nausea.
4. A communal garden at the block had recently been turned into an allotment and she now has no access to outside space.
5. Due to the resident’s history of being a victim of abuse, they felt it was not appropriate for her to live in a block near to males.
6. It was requested that the landlord moved the resident to a house as soon as possible.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 November 2021 and raised her concerns about its approaches to her rehousing request. She named a member of its staff with whom she was unhappy with as she felt they were causing delays to her case. She requested that her complaint was managed by a senior member of staff. On that same day, the resident’s focussed care practitioner contacted the landlord via telephone and requested that it moved the resident as soon as possible due to their concerns about previous domestic abuse and the ASB and harassment she was suffering from male residents in the block.
On 26 November 2021, the landlord completed and submitted an urgent management move application which would be reviewed, and a decision made by senior staff. The request was based on the resident being a victim of domestic abuse and her mental health needs. It confirmed the resident’s areas of choice and that she had a one-bedroom property need.
On 29 November 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident and confirmed receipt of correspondence from her regarding her rehousing application with the local authority. It also named the member of staff who would be handling her formal complaint and confirmed that she would receive a response within ten working days. The resident responded that same day and advised that she did not want this member of staff to deal with her complaint or her rehousing application, nor the member of staff it had named in its email of 17 November 2021. She stated that this was because they had ignored her emails and also spoke to her about moving to properties which were not available.
The resident contacted the landlord via email on 6 December 2021 chasing an update. She provided information relating to reasonable adjustments that housing associations can apply to management move applications and asked it to add the information to her application. The landlord confirmed it would pass the details to its staff who were managing her case.
On 12 December 2021, the resident received a letter from the local authority’s rehousing team which stated that it would not give further priority to her application on medical grounds. It confirmed that she already had high priority due to her being a victim of domestic abuse. She was advised to consider private rented housing, mutual exchange and to consider widening her areas of choice.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 15 December 2021, again chasing an update on her management move application. She felt that it was not taking her seriously as its staff had not responded to her focussed care practitioner. The landlord replied and stated that it would forward on her concerns to a named member of staff. It is noted that the named member of staff was whom the resident had complained about, and the landlord’s records show that it did forward the information to the named member of staff. The resident replied and advised the landlord of her previous request not to deal with the named member of staff and asked who was managing her complaint. Having received no response, the resident chased the landlord again on 21 December 2021. This email was then forwarded by the landlord to the named manager who the resident had requested was not involved in her case.
On 21 December 2021 the named manager responded via email to the resident and stated:
1. They apologised for the delay in responding to her.
2. They had completed and submitted a management move form to support an urgent move for her.
3. Her rehousing request should have been heard at a panel meeting the previous week, but this did not take place due to staff absence. The panel meeting would take place the following day.
4. They would update the resident via telephone.
On 6 January 2022, the resident chased the landlord again for an update. She asked again for it to confirm who was managing her complaint and was advised that a regional manager was responsible. As the resident was also in contact with this Service at that time, a letter was sent to the landlord by this Service on 13 January 2022 asking it for an update on the resident’s complaint.
On 2 February 2022, the resident received a letter from the local authority’s rehousing team which stated that she had high priority due to her being a victim of domestic abuse.
On 7 April 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident’s ASB case was assigned to an ASB legal officer, and her formal complaint was reassigned to a senior member of staff.
On 11 April 2022, the resident reported further ASB caused by her neighbours. She reported that her neighbours were arguing outside her window which disturbed her sleep. The landlord opened a new case that same day.
On 13 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her internal management move:
1. It listed the areas in which it had two-bedroom houses.
2. It advised that it has a small number of two-bedroom houses and that the turnover of those properties was low.
3. It confirmed that it would cover the cost of any move when a suitable property became available.
4. It advised that the two-bedroom properties for which she was eligible through the local authority’s rehousing system were generally flats.
The resident responded to the landlord and gave reasons why she would not consider being rehoused in all of the areas offered. She confirmed that she would not accept a move to another flat. She advised that she would lose the access to her support network if she moved to another local authority area.
Also, on 13 April 2022 the landlord provided the resident with an interim stage one complaint response and action plan. It stated:
1. It apologised for the significant delays in issuing its response.
2. It outlined that it should have contacted her following her complaint request on 12 November 2021 and understood her concerns.
3. It stated that it should have issued its stage one complaint response by 1 December 2021.
4. It admitted its delays in approving the resident’s urgent management move request and that it did not keep her updated. It confirmed that her request was approved on 18 January 2022 and was live on their systems.
5. It confirmed that it was aware the resident had contacted this Service on 13 January 2022, and it should have provided its stage one response by 26 January 2022.
6. It confirmed that it was aware the resident had contacted this Service on 1 March 2022, and it should have provided its stage one response by 16 March 2022.
7. It confirmed that it was aware that the resident had contacted this Service on 17 March 2022 having not received its stage one complaint response.
8. It outlined the following actions it had taken since 8 April 2022 to resolve the situation:
  1. It had apologised for the significant delays in dealing with her ASB case, her, request for an urgent management move and responding to her complaint.
  2. It had opened a new ASB case on 11 April 2022 and assigned to an ASB legal officer and it had completed an ASB risk assessment with the resident.
  3. A senior member of staff had discussed with the resident the areas in which it has housing stock on 12th April 2022.
9. It confirmed the following actions it would take to resolve the situation:
  1. It would carry out interviews with the resident’s neighbours regarding the ASB.
  2. Its money advice team would complete an affordability assessment with her.
  3. A senior member of staff would continue to work with her and identify properties that meet her specific needs in the areas where it had housing stock to support a management move.
  4. It would investigate why she was not provided with meter readings when she asked for them.
10. It would meet with her at her property on 25 April 2022 to discuss the agreed actions.
11. It would provide her with its stage one complaint response by 29 April 2022.
12. It had identified areas of learning which it listed as:
  1. Improved visibility and supervision of customer complaints at its local housing office and sharing of lessons learnt with its staff.
  2. Increase staff awareness of urgent management move criteria and approval process.
  3. Increase staff awareness of ASB case management practices and record keeping.
A senior member of the landlord’s staff contacted the resident on 14 April 2022 regarding her rehousing application. The resident was advised that she may wish to consider private rented housing which it had access to, but it was not in her areas of choice. The resident was also advised that its money advisor would contact her once a suitable two-bedroom property became available.
A visit to the resident at her property was completed as arranged on 25 April 2022. The landlord’s notes state:
1. It would be discussing actions with its ASB officer and that it would update the action plan.
2. It identified service failings in its response to her complaint and that it had not followed its own ASB and hate crime policy.
3. It’s admitted its delays in not assessing the risks posed to the resident.
4. It offered £200 in compensation.
5. It confirmed its agreement to cover the resident’s removal costs oncer a suitable property became available as a gesture of goodwill.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 April 2022 in which it stated:
1. It had interviewed her neighbour’s and identified a tenancy breach by one neighbour.
2. It confirmed that the resident had completed an affordability check with its money advisor, and it would make an immediate offer to her once a suitable two-bedroom property became available.
3. It had provided her with details of areas in which it had housing stock.
4. It confirmed that it had no suitable properties in her areas of choice, but it would make an offer once one became available.
5. It offered its sincere apologies for the inconvenience she had experienced.
6. It confirmed its goodwill gesture of covering the full removal costs.
7. It aimed to complete its identified recommendations by 31 May 2022 which were:
  1. Improved visibility and supervision of customer complaints at its local housing office and sharing of lessons learnt with its staff.
  2. Increase staff awareness of urgent management move criteria and approval process.
  3. Increase staff awareness of ASB case management practices and record keeping.
8. It offered the resident £200 in compensation comprised of.
  1. £100 for its delay in resolving her ASB case.
  2. £100 for its delay in resolving her complaint.
On 29 April 2022, the resident’s focussed care practitioner sent a letter to the landlord in support of her urgent rehousing application which stated:
1. It summarised the resident’s health concerns and vulnerabilities.
2. It advised that the resident was a victim of domestic abuse.
3. It highlighted the resident’s concerns around ASB caused by the resident’s neighbours and the impact on her health.
4. It outlined concerns that the resident was receiving unwanted advances from her neighbours and stated that it was unsafe for her to live in a block where she could be easily targeted and taken advantage of.
5. It stated that it would be best if the resident could be offered a property with its own entrance and outside space with as few neighbours as possible. Also, that having neighbours above, underneath and/or to either side would not be suitable.
6. It requested the resident be offered a two-bedroom house (either an end terrace or semi-detached property) so that the resident would not have to deal with noise, smells, unwanted attention, and this would minimise the risk of her being abused or targeted.
7. It stated that the resident works and contributes positively to her community, she tries hard to improve her issues and having somewhere that is stable, secure and in line with her needs would have an extremely positive impact on her life.
On 4 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested that it escalated her complaint to stage two of its complaints process as she was unhappy with its stage one response. The landlord acknowledged her request the following day and advised that it would issue its stage two response by 26 May 2022.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on her ASB case on 10 May 2022:
1. It confirmed that it had completed interviews with her two neighbours and issued warnings to them.
2. It advised the resident to report to the police allegation that one of her neighbours had touched her in a local shop.
3. It also advised that it had passed the letter from her focussed care practitioner to the local authority’s rehousing team.
4. It also advised the resident to contact the local authority’s environmental health team to report ongoing noise nuisance from a nearby church.
5. It requested that the resident continued to log and report any further incidents of ASB.
The landlord’s records show that on 13 May 2022 it received an update from local authority’s rehousing team who advised that they had assessed the information provided by the resident’s focussed care practitioner. They had determined that they would not be allocating further points or priority to the resident’s rehousing application based on the information provided. They suggested that the landlord considered offering the resident another property through its management move process.
The landlord contacted the resident via telephone on 16 May 2022 in relation to the resident’s stage two complaint request. It confirmed the following with her.
1. She was seeking an update on her rehousing application; management move and banding priority with the local authority’s rehousing service.
2. She wanted clarity on a mutual exchange scenario that she would like the landlord to consider.
3. For the landlord to provide its assurances that the ASB she had reported would be managed effectively.
4. Details of the use of the communal garden/allotment area.
On 18 May 2022, the resident reported being disturbed by a dog barking in a neighbouring flat. On 20 May 2022, the contacted the resident and requested further information to assist its investigations.
On 23 May 2022, the resident provided the landlord with a recording of noise nuisance which had disturbed her. It responded to her and advised that a manager would be dealing with her ASB case going forwards following a handover meeting with its ASB officer on 24 May 2022.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed that a handover of her ASB case had been completed. It confirmed it had received recent noise recordings she had made and that it would be interviewing the neighbour about this on 26 May 2022. It listed the following further actions it would take:
1. It would continue to monitor her ASB case following the written warnings it had issued to her neighbours.
2. It asked the resident to continue to log further ASB incidents.
3. It asked the resident to confirm if she had contacted the local authority’s environmental health team to report noise nuisance from a local church and issues with a local shop.
4. It confirmed that it was issuing a newsletter to residents regarding the use of the community allotment space outside the block.
5. It asked the resident if she needed any further support.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day and advised that she had not made any reports to the local authority’s environmental health team as she did not have the energy to do so. She stated that she had asked the ASB officer to do this on her behalf but had been informed that the landlord could not do anything as the church was not its responsibility. She confirmed that she had not experienced further issues with a local shop. She requested the following from the landlord:
1. For it to contact the environmental health team on her behalf.
2. For a named member of staff to not contact her unless it was an emergency.
3. For it to provide her with a copy of it’s complaints procedure.
4. To consider installing CCTV cameras in the car park as she was concerned that her car may be damaged.
5. For the landlord to assist her in installing netting on her windows to prevent wasps getting into her property.
The landlord replied to the following day and advised that it would make enquiries with the environmental health team and take steps to ensure that a named member of staff would not make further contact with her. It confirmed that it had no plans to install CCTV cameras in the car park as it had reviewed the number of ASB cases logged in the area and it felt that there was not a need for CCTV. It asked for further information regarding wasps entering the property and stated that it may be able to assist with netting on the windows. It provided the resident with the details of its customer feedback policy.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord provided the resident with its detailed stage two complaint response in which it stated:
1. It apologised for its identified numerous failings and delays in the handling of her stage one complaint. It admitted that it had not followed its own processes in handling her complaint.
2. It had identified and made changes to its complaint handling approaches in that its central complaints team would handle complaints, rather than its local office staff.
3. It admitted that there had been confusion with its local office staff around who was responsible for handling her management move. It confirmed that she remained on its management move list however, it did not have any available properties at that time which were suitable for her needs and in her areas of choice. It confirmed that as soon as a property was available it would contact her to arrange a viewing.
4. It confirmed that the resident had band 1 priority on the local authority’s rehousing system and that she was eligible to bid on one- and two-bedroom properties. It stated that it was extremely unlikely that she would be offered a house via this process as families would have a higher priority for houses.
5. It asked the resident to provide details via email of the mutual exchange she would like it to consider, and it would review it as per her request.
6. It apologised for the resident not receiving regular utility meter readings and understood that this had been resolved in January 2022.
7. It confirmed that it had allocated her ASB case to its manager who was the lead officer for ASB across the organisation and they would be in regular contact with her.
8. It confirmed that it would assist her in accessing the communal allotment space outside the block.
9. It stated it had increased staff awareness of its management move processes, ASB case management practices and record keeping.
10. It increased its offer of compensation to a total of £500 which was comprised of.
  1. £100 for its delay in resolving her ASB case as offered in its stage one complaint response.
  2. £100 for its delay in resolving her complaint as offered in its stage one complaint response.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.
  4. £100 for its failures in communication she had experienced.

Post complaints process

On 10 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it had contacted the local authority’s environmental health team on her behalf. The environmental health team had requested that the resident contacted them herself and the landlord provided details on how to do so. It also confirmed that it had contacted the local church in respect of the resident’s concerns of noise nuisance. It listed actions on its ongoing ASB action plan which were for it to monitor her ASB case and for the resident to continue to report incidents.
Evidence reviewed by this Service shows that in September 2022 the resident experienced a deterioration in her mental health due to concerns at the property which are outside the scope of this report. The landlord made an urgent referral to the relevant services on her behalf.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure. identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy outlines how it will investigate and tackle ASB in its communities. It outlines its approaches to all types of ASB and that it will assess all reports using a red, amber, and green system to categorise the severity of the reported behaviour. It also outlines that it will contact the victim or witness within two working days of a report of ASB and agree an action plan. It will also assess their risk and vulnerability to allow it to offer the appropriate support.
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlies that when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour, agencies must consider the effect that such behaviour has on victims and witnesses. It also states that agencies should recognise and consider the debilitating impact on that persistent or repeated anti-social behaviour can have on victims, more so over a period of time.
The landlord’s access to housing policy details that it is subject to the policies and procedures of individual choice-based lettings schemes and local lettings agreements in the areas where it has housing stock. It also outlines its provision for urgent management moves within its own available housing stock in the following circumstances and confirms that any such move would be approved by a senior manager following an assessment of supporting evidence from external agencies.
1. There is an immediate threat of harm/threats to life.
2. There are serious safeguarding concerns.
3. There is serious domestic abuse.
4. Emergency medical need where a tenant cannot live in their current home as it is unsuitable.
5. They must be rehoused to allow major repairs to be carried out or because the property needs to be refurbished or redeveloped.
6. There may be other exceptional circumstances which means that remaining in the property would have a seriously detrimental impact on the occupant’s health and wellbeing.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy lists a two stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage one complaints with five working days and issue its response within 10 working days. its customers can request an escalation to stage two of its process within a maximum of eight weeks and it will issue its stage two response within 20 working days of receipt.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that it will make statutory and discretionary payments to its residents. It confirms that discretionary payments will be made to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by residents due to its actions or inaction. It will also apologise and seek to rectify its mistakes where necessary. A matrix within its compensation document outlines the range of discretionary payments it will make.
1. Up to £100 for time and trouble experienced by residents.
2. Goodwill gestures of up to £100 for distress and inconvenience.
3. Goodwill gestures of up to £100 for communication/delay in resolving complaints.
4. It also outlines that managers may use their discretion in making higher payments however amounts over £500 would need to be approved by a head of service or director.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

The resident reported to the landlord on 29 Sept 2021 that she had received verbal abuse and threats from a neighbour. It is noted that the landlord responded quickly to the resident as per its obligations in its ASB policy. There is no evidence however that it assessed the risks to her and her vulnerability at this stage, nor in the period before this incident. This Service finds that this is a significant failing by the landlord as it was already well aware of her health needs and vulnerabilities, especially as she was a victim of previous domestic abuse. The landlord failed to adhere to its own ASB policy and its obligations under the ASB, crime and policing act 2014 in this regard.
There is also no evidence that the landlord agreed an action plan with the resident from the opening of her ASB case in September 2021. As it did not do this it did not manage the resident’s expectations by giving any indication of what it would do to resolve the ASB. It missed the opportunity to interview the resident’s neighbours at the earliest opportunity which may have gone some way to preventing the further ASB she experienced. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to issue warnings to the neighbours at that time and any further ASB may have resulted in it seeking legal action. This Service finds that the landlord’s inaction in this regard caused her significant distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s approaches to the ASB did however improve in April 2022 once an ASB officer was assigned to the resident’s case. It acted appropriately by agreeing proportionate actions with the resident and giving clear timescales, therefore effectively managing her expectations.
It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to the local authority’s environmental health team regarding noise from properties it did not own or manage.It did eventually contact the environmental health team on the residents on her behalf but only after the resident requested it do so. It was clear from the resident’s correspondence with the landlord that she was impacted by the noise and with it being aware of her vulnerabilities it could have acted sooner in this regard.

The resident’s rehousing request.

The landlord acted appropriately by listening to the resident’s concerns around her current housing situation and it’s considered the advice and recommendations of her support workers by completing an urgent management move request on 26 Nov 2021. It is clear that the resident is frustrated that a move has not been possible up to this point, however it is noted that landlords will not always available housing stock in resident’s areas of choice, specific to their needs. This Service finds that the landlord acted reasonably by adding the resident to its management move list whilst considering her needs and wishes.
The landlord submitted an urgent management move request on 26 November 2021. It is noted from the landlord’s records that it advised the resident over one month later that her application should have been heard at a panel hearing, but it did not take place due to staff absence. This information provided to the resident was incorrect as the landlord’s policy and procedure around management moves does not reference any such hearing being required. Its policy states that such applications will be approved by a senior member of staff. Whilst the landlord did confirm it had accepted the management move on 18 January 2022, this Service therefore finds that the landlord failed to correctly follow its own policy and procedures. This caused further delay and inconvenience to the resident with regards to her management move request.
The landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations by advising her that it did not have available the type of property she wanted in her areas of choice. It also acted reasonably by assisting the resident around other rehousing options such asregistering on the mutual exchange system. It was also reasonable for it to offer to review a mutual exchange scenarioas it confirmed its stage two complaint response. It was also appropriate for it to suggest that accessing potentially suitable privately rented properties in her areas of choice may have been an option for her.
The landlord was in frequent contact with the local authority’s rehousing service regarding the resident’s application and its records show that it shared information and gave updates to the resident. This was good practice.
Whilst the landlord did offer appropriate advice to the resident around her rehousing request, its communications with her did not give specific timescales. This left her in an unclear position as to what she may reasonably expect from it. Its communication failings with the resident caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Complaint handling

The identified in its complaint responses that it had causedsignificantdelays responding to the resident at stage one of its complaints process. It took 114 working days to issue its stage one complaint response to the resident. This is far beyond the 10-working day timescale listed in its policy. It is positive that the landlord identified this failing itself and has listed areas of learning in this regard.However, this Service finds that this is a significant failing and caused severe detriment to the resident. Landlords should use their complaints processes to seek resolution to complaints at the earliest possible opportunity. As the landlord did not do this, it left the resident without a resolution and with no ability to escalate her concerns. This was unreasonable, particularly as it was aware of her vulnerabilities and this Service finds that the landlord’s actions in this regard caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It is noted from the evidence reviewed that the landlord’s staff who the resident had clearly asked not to deal with her case were then assigned to managing her complaint and rehousing request. This was an unacceptable situation as part of the resident’s original complaint directly referenced those staff members. The landlord did not listen to the resident’s concerns around named staff members which suggests that it was not taking her complaint seriously. It missed the opportunity to communicate with the resident around her concerns about named staff members and did not try to understand what her concerns were, nor did it try to repair those relationships. This Service finds that these were significant failings and as it did not effectively manage her expectations, which caused further distress to the resident.
The landlord took a positive step by providing the resident with an interim complaint response on 13 April 2022. It listed relevant and proportionate actions and identified areas of learning. This approach shows that it sought to repair its relationship with the resident. It was also positive that it called the resident to discuss her concerns between the stage one and two complaints as it sought to fully understand her complaint.
Whilst the landlord did offer several apologies for the lengthy delays in issuing its stage one response, it did not offer any compensation to her until 25 Apr 2022. Whilst within the range of its discretionary payments outlined in its compensation policy, the amount offered does not accurately reflect the serious detriment experienced by the resident in the handling of her complaint. The landlord should have applied further discretion as per its policy and offered the resident a higher amount of compensation to reflect its serious complaint handling failings.
The landlord identified and acknowledged its significant failings in its handling the resident’s complaint, and it also gave a detailed outline on how it would learn from its failings.This Service therefore finds this action went someway to try and repair its relationship with the resident. Had the landlord not taken these steps, this Service would have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling approaches.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow its own prescribed policy and procedure in relation to the resident’s ASB case. It did not agree actions with her or assess risk and vulnerability at the earliest possible opportunity. This meant that the resident’s case went unresolved for longer than necessary and this caused a negative impact on her.
Whilst the landlord did on the whole act reasonably with regards to the resident’s urgent management move request and assisted her with other options, it caused unnecessary delays to the process which caused distress and inconvenience to her.
The landlord’s complaint handling approaches at stage one of its process were significantly delayed and the resident had to chase it for its response numerous times. The landlord did not operate in line with its policy and procedure and failed to offer the resident an appropriate level of redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case.
2. Pay the resident £1000 compensation which is comprised of:
  1. £500 as offered in its stage two complaint response.
  2. An additional £200 in recognition of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour case and to reflect the distress and inconvenience she experienced.
  3. An additional £50 in recognition of the delays caused by the landlord in relation to the resident’s rehousing request.
  4. An additional £250 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling and the associated time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its complaint handling approaches and to consider the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) – The landlord to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of complaints in future.
The landlord to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight on knowledge and information management (KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) – The landlord to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.