Platform Housing Group Limited (202204569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204569

Platform Housing Group Limited

07 June 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 antisocial behaviour and the offer of a property advertised in error.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 27 November 2018. The property is a four bedroom house.
The resident lives with her six children. Two of the resident’s children have additional needs.
The resident moved to a new address within the landlord’s stock on 21 December 2022.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

The Social Housing Regulator’s Neighbourhood and Community Standard requires registered providers to work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour in the neighbourhoods where they own homes.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy says that it will take swift action, and it will use the full range of legal remedies available to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement. This includes the use of the absolute power of possession made available under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The landlord’s compensation policy gives examples of when compensation will be paid in relation to service failure:
1. Loss of some facilities in home after specified timescale for repair has elapsed, e.g., central heating not working.
2. Failure to provide services that are subject to a service charge, e.g., lack of caretaking services.
3. Failure of staff to take reasonable care, e.g., failing to update housing application following a notified change in circumstances.
4. Actual loss resulting from a service failure, e.g., damage caused to carpet by a negligent operative.
The landlord’s compensation guidance procedure states:
1. Failure of staff to take reasonable care – failures in this category are likely to be diverse in nature and seriousness. It is therefore inappropriate to have specific guidelines on the amount of compensation payable. The relevant manager should consider each case individually and make a judgement on compensation. A maximum of £250 compensation will be payable in this category.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage one complaints will be responded to within ten working days and stage two (final review stage) complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

The resident first reported incidents of antisocial behaviour to the landlord in February 2020. The resident made occasional reports to the landlord until October 2021, when the behaviour escalated. The concerns brought to this Service by the resident, and considered through the landlord’s complaints process, relate to incidents of antisocial behaviour from October 2021. This investigation will therefore only examine events in relation to antisocial behaviour from this date onwards. This timeframe aligns with the landlord’s complaint responses.

Summary of events

On 6 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that a neighbour had assaulted her. The neighbour was arrested by police, but later released. The resident told the landlord that the neighbour was abusive towards her and her family and that she was having constant issues.
The landlord logged a tenancy enforcement case following further reports of antisocial behaviour from the resident. The resident reported that on 19 October 2021, the same neighbour shouted abuse at her from an upstairs window whilst she was walking down her garden path. The resident told the landlord that she felt intimidated, “brow beaten” and frightened, and that she wanted a management move, which was supported by the police.
On 22 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again to report further incidents of antisocial behaviour. She told the landlord that the neighbours were throwing things at her windows trying to break them, and that she did not feel safe. The landlord sent letters on 29 October 2021 arranging to visit both the resident and the alleged perpetrator on 5 November 2021.
The resident continued to report incidents of antisocial behaviour to the landlord. She told the landlord that the alleged perpetrator’s children had tried to break into her garage on 2 November 2021 and they had kicked her bins over. On 3 November 2021, the resident said that her son was in the back garden when the alleged perpetrator opened the window and shouted abuse at him. The resident said that she had made repeated complaints to the landlord, but nothing had been done. She said that the behaviour was having an impact on her sons’ emotional and mental state, and the persistent intimidation was making the family ill as they were living in fear.
During the visit on 5 November 2021, the resident told the landlord that she was desperate for a move. The landlord informed her that she did not meet the criteria for a managed move as all incidents reported to the police had been closed with no further action taken. The landlord offered mediation between both parties at the police station as a possible resolution. The landlord also suggested that the resident look at private lets if she wanted to move. The resident declined both options.
The landlord attempted to visit the alleged perpetrator on the same day, however she was unavailable due to illness.
The resident’s local MP contacted the landlord on 11 November 2021. The resident told her MP that she had been subjected to ridicule, abuse, intimidation and harassment by people on the estate for nearly two years. She said that she had contacted the police and the landlord, and she had requested a managed move, which had been refused. She said that she had been assaulted by a neighbour in front of her young children and two of her sons and her daughter had been spat at and threatened.
The resident reported further incidents to the landlord. She reported that on 12 November 2021 youths had thrown stones at her window and banged on her property. They had also knocked on the door and ran away when she answered. On 15 November 2021, the resident had a pizza delivery sent to her home that she had not ordered. The resident told the landlord that she felt harassed, intimidated, and victimised.
The landlord sent a response to the resident’s MP on 2 December 2021. The landlord said:
1. Following receipt of the complaints it had visited the resident on 5 November 2021 to discuss the incidents in more detail. In addition, it had liaised with the local police who confirmed that no further action would be taken, however, they had offered support to the landlord if required.
2. The incidents reported were mostly between the resident’s children and other children on the estate. The resident thought that a specific individual was organising the incidents, however there was no evidence to support her claims. The landlord had planned to meet with the alleged perpetrator to discuss the allegations, although she had not yet engaged. It would continue to schedule visits and escalate appropriately if she continued to fail to engage.
3. In relation to the request for a managed move, its lettings policy outlined how existing customers could move outside of the usual channels and an example of this was reasons of ill health or disability. The policy stated that there could be other occasions where exceptional circumstances would create the need to urgently rehouse an existing customer, i.e., domestic abuse, racial abuse, threat to life or serious risk of harm. The request for a move in those situations would be considered on a case by case basis and would require supporting evidence from the police. However, the resident’s circumstances did not meet the threshold for a managed move.
4. The resident had been provided with alternative options for moving, such as mutual exchange.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord attempted to visit the alleged perpetrator again. She did not provide access. The landlord eventually spoke to the alleged perpetrator on 7 January 2022 and she told the landlord that she was actively looking to move. The landlord concluded that the resident and the alleged perpetrator “did not get on”, and as the police were not concerned, there was not enough evidence to progress the matter any further.
The resident reported a further incident to the landlord. She told the landlord that on 23 January 2022 the neighbour’s son had banged on his bedroom window and exposed himself to her young children. The resident was very upset and told the landlord that her children could not play in the garden. The landlord responded and told the resident that the housing officer would be in touch and told the resident to report the incident to the police.
The incidents of antisocial behaviour continued and on 4 March 2022 the resident reported that her son was assaulted on his way home from school.
The resident contacted her MP again on 7 March 2022. The MP passed the correspondence to the landlord. The resident said:
1. She resented the fact that the landlord had said that the situation was conflict between children. She said that she had been repeatedly verbally abused.
2. The neighbour’s son had exposed himself from his window to her younger children whilst they were playing in their own garden.
3. Her son had been assaulted and she was sick of her family being targeted.
4. She had been assessed as a priority for re-housing and there had been at least six or seven opportunities for her to be re-housed but the landlord had dismissed the issues as trivial.
5. She noted the comments that unless there was a medical need it would be difficult to be re-housed. She said that she also had a medical need as her eldest son had mental health issues and was epileptic with autism and ADHD. Her younger child was on the autism umbrella spectrum and was non-verbal. The lay out of her current property, which was over three floors, meant that she could not supervise her children adequately. She said that she was anxious, stressed and a victim of domestic abuse. Both of her younger children were too frightened to sleep in their own room and her eldest son could not manage the stairs. The resident said that there was a genuine urgent need for the family to move for medical and victimisation reasons.
On 15 March 2022, the landlord contacted the resident. The resident told the landlord that she had reported incidents of antisocial behaviour but nothing had been done. The landlord said that complaints of assault and criminal damage to her property were police matters and that she should contact them for an update.
The landlord responded to the MP on 21 March 2022. It said:
1. It confirmed that since the initial MP enquiry in December 2021, it had received additional complaints of antisocial behaviour from the resident. The complaints were similar in nature to those outlined within the previous response.
2. It had discussed the cases directly with the resident and provided an explanation of the action that should be undertaken. It had outlined that due to the nature of the complaints, specifically those in relation to the child exposing themselves, they should be reported directly to the police and social services. It had since liaised with the police who had confirmed that they had not received any reports regarding the incident and would not investigate without a report being logged.
3. Its policy for considering managed moves was outlined within the previous response. Based on the information provided by the resident, it had concluded that she did not meet the threshold for a managed move. The most appropriate method for obtaining a move away from her current property would be continuing to bid via the local authority or to consider a mutual exchange.
The resident reported a further incident to the landlord. She said that on 29 March 2022 she returned home to find three or four women, children and several teenage youths waiting for her at the rear of her garage shouting abuse. They threatened to punch her and the youths said that they were waiting to beat her son up again. When she got inside, they continued to hang around outside kicking balls at the garage and throwing stones. The resident said that she felt terrified and anxious. She said that she felt distressed that neither the landlord or the police had addressed the abuse or anti-social behaviour. She said that her children were unable to play out or use communal areas. She could not use the local shop without being subject to verbal abuse.
The resident reported several further incidents to the landlord throughout May 2022. The incidents were of verbal abuse, threats of violence, obscene graffiti, damage to property, trespass, intimidation and assault. The resident told the landlord that she felt threatened, unsafe and insecure.
On 9 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident. It urged the resident to report incidents to the police as the police needed to investigate the incidents. It said that if the residents did not report the incidents to the police, they would think the behaviour had stopped. The resident told the landlord that she dreaded coming home. She said that she did not know what she had done to provoke such a response from the neighbours. The landlord said that it would contact the alleged perpetrator, however the resident said that she was worried about retaliation.
The local authority accepted the resident as homeless on 17 May 2022, following an assessment. It was deemed to be unsafe for the resident and her children to remain at the property long term due to the ongoing incidents of antisocial behaviour.
The resident reported further incidents of anti-social behaviour throughout June 2022. On 13 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and asked if she had reported any of the incidents of assault to the police. The resident said that she had not. The landlord asked her to report the incidents as the police had legal powers to deal with assault. The landlord said that they had an information sharing protocol with the police and they worked closely with them and could carry out joint visits if needed.
On 15 June 2022, the resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord. She said that she had made several reports of antisocial behaviour to the landlord which it had not dealt with. She said that the antisocial behaviour had affected her son’s mental health, and despite police intervention, the landlord had brushed the behaviour aside and left her to deal with the trauma.
On 27 June 2022, the resident came top of the list for two properties on the council bidding shortlist. Both were the landlord’s properties. On 29 June 2022, the resident was informed by the landlord that she could not be allocated the property she had chosen. The landlord apologised and explained to the resident that the property should not have been advertised, as it was not available to let. It offered to add the resident to the managed move register to compensate for the error.
The incidents of antisocial behaviour continued throughout July 2022. The resident reported incidents of noise nuisance, harassment, property damage, verbal abuse and attempted assault.
On 4 July 2022, the landlord sent the resident an email in relation to the property that she had been told was not available to let. The landlord re-offered the property to the resident and recommended that she terminate her tenancy as soon as possible to avoid any delays.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s case on 4 July 2022. It acknowledged in an internal email that it was a complex case and it said that it had looked at the case from a fresh perspective after launching its new antisocial behaviour procedure. It said that following the changes:
1. It believed it was highly likely that the case would be classed as high risk.
2. It would expect to see more attempts to contact the neighbour and it noted that the information on the case was incomplete.
3. It had considered additional relevant actions it could take, such as:
  1. Arrange a multi-agency meeting with school, police and children’s services.
  2. Consider mediation.
  3. Consider good neighbour agreements or acceptable behaviour contracts.
  4. Speak to other residents or witnesses.
On 5 July 2022, the resident raised a further complaint. The resident said that she had bid on a property as a high priority urgent need tenant and she had come in first position. The landlord had retracted the offer and said that she did not meet the criteria. The landlord then changed its response and said that the property should not have been put on the bidding system. The landlord had made misleading and contradictory excuses which caused the resident emotional and mental trauma. She was unable to sleep, she felt sick and worried, stressed, anxious and confused.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 6 July 2022 and informed her again that the property she had bid on was unavailable.
A multi-agency meeting took place on 6 July 2022 with the landlord, the local authority, police, schools, and the resident’s support worker. Concerns were raised in relation to the impact of the antisocial behaviour on the resident’s children as over 50 incidents had been reported over the last year. The group agreed that this was a high priority case and all agencies were doing what they could to move the case forward. The landlord agreed to look at where the resident would like to live.
The landlord contacted the resident by email on 7 July 2022 and apologised for the further errors, explaining that there had been a clear lack of communication within the lettings team and it was looking at what further support could be offered with moving.
On 7 July 2022, the resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage two, although the landlord had not yet responded to the complaint at stage one. The resident said:
1. She came first place on a property at the end of the bidding process. The landlord had made her terminate her tenancy and complete an application form, it then said she did not meet the criteria for the property. The landlord then changed its response and said that the property had been advertised by mistake. This had caused her mental and emotional trauma.
2. She received an email on 4 July 2022 to say she was being considered for the property again and she was asked to terminate her tenancy. Two days later, the landlord told her it was a mistake again. The landlord’s behaviour had caused the resident to spiral into a deep depression.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 July 2022. She reiterated that she was unhappy with the errors made by the landlord with regards to the offer of the property. She also informed the landlord that she did want it to engage with the alleged perpetrators of the antisocial behaviour. She said that she had reported over 50 incidents and she made the landlord aware of another attempted assault that took place on Thursday 7 July 2022.
On 14 July 2022, the police provided the landlord with an update following an incident that had occurred the previous evening. The police said that they had received a call from the alleged perpetrator reporting that one of the resident’s children was in the upstairs bedroom window making obscene gestures and using foul language. The resident had contacted the police that morning and reported that the alleged perpetrator had threatened to burn her house down whilst sparking a lighter and calling her children derogatory names the previous evening.
The police said that, after lengthy discussions, it was agreed that face to face mediation would take place. This had been done and appeared to have been successful. Both parties agreed to a fresh start and ground rules were agreed.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 July 2022. The landlord said:
1. It apologised for the failures the resident had experienced and upheld her complaint.
2. It had agreed that in the earlier stages of her reports, more efforts should have been made to contact the neighbour regarding the issues she was reporting.
3. It understood that the resident had said that she was unsure if she wanted the neighbour to be contacted, and it thanked her for confirming that she was now happy for the landlord to contact the neighbour regarding the complaints. A neighbourhood officer would continue to address the anti-social behaviour, should any further incidents occur.
4. It confirmed that the property in question should have been withdrawn prior to the bidding process, however this was missed. Then, due to a further lack of communication, the lettings team were not aware that the property had been withdrawn and contacted the resident again to progress her application. It was unable to offer the resident the property, however it had been agreed that, in light of the issues she had experienced, she would be considered for any four bedroom properties that became available within the agreed area before they were advertised.
5. Due to the number of service failures the resident had experienced, in line with its compensation policy, it offered her £400 under the category of failure of staff to take reasonable care. This was in recognition of the distress that had been caused by the lettings mistake and due to the issues identified with the handling of anti-social behaviour complaints.
On 8 July 2022, the landlord received an enquiry from the resident’s MP, requesting an update on her rehousing situation as the resident had identified a property, however the landlord had refused to allocate it to her.
The landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 27 July 2022. It said:
1. It confirmed that it was looking for a four bedroom property to offer the resident due to the service failure following the advertisement of an unavailable property.
2. The resident had not been accepted for a management move.
3. The property the resident had identified as a possible alternative was adapted with hoist tracking, a wet room and ramp. That type of property was rare and it was imperative that the landlord made the best use of its stock.
4. The landlord had contacted the resident and explained that preference needed to be given to a family that needed an adapted property.
On 3 August 2022, the resident confirmed to the landlord that she was not happy with the stage one complaint response and she requested an escalation to stage two. She said:
1. She had been told that she was not on the managed move list by her MP.
2. She had received four phone calls from the landlord on 1 July 2022 who had asked her where she wanted to move to, as the landlord had agreed to move her following the service failures. The information she had received was contradictory and confusing.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 August 2022 to inform it that she was not accepting the financial compensation. She said that the money was no good for her, and that she needed a house.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 September 2022 to extend the response time for the stage two response to 4 October 2022. This was because the police had requested permission in writing, signed by the resident, to release information in relation to the antisocial behaviour.
On 4 October 2022, the landlord issued its final review response to the resident. It said:
1. It acknowledged that sufficient efforts were not made to contact the neighbour following reports of antisocial behaviour when the resident agreed that it could make contact.
2. The last incident of antisocial behaviour was reported by the resident on the 14 July 2022. On 15 July 2022, mediation took place between the resident and the neighbour facilitated by the police. One of the reasons for the escalation of the complaint was because the resident wanted the landlord to contact the perpetrator following any further incidents, however, as there had been no incidents, this had not been required. Should there be any further incidents, the landlord would take the appropriate action.
3. It was not made aware until 12 August 2022 that the council had decided that it was not reasonable for the resident to continue to occupy the property long term and that they had accepted a homelessness duty on 17 May 2022. The council had confirmed that they needed to implement a procedure to inform the landlord when a duty was accepted to one of its customers.
4. The police had not confirmed that either the resident or her family were at significant risk of harm and it had been advised that there was no longer a risk management plan in place for the resident’s address.
5. Following the identification of the service failure surrounding the offer of a property in error, the resident was immediately given the same priority as someone accepted for a management move. It apologised for the failure and the impact it had on the resident and family. It said that as soon as an alternative house was available, she would be contacted.
6. The resident would need to seek independent legal advice in relation to a personal injury claim as personal injury could not be considered through the complaints process.
7. It re-offered the £400 compensation previously offered.
The landlord identified a suitable property on 19 October 2022 and the resident moved into her new property on 21 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and the offer of a property advertised in error.

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour has occurred. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of antisocial behaviour, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy says that it will take swift action and will use the full range of legal remedies available to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement.
Following the resident’s report of an assault by her neighbour on 6 October 2021, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not take any action other than noting the incident. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident, carried out an investigation or considered appropriate actions it could take, which was unreasonable and not in line with its policy. The landlord failed to recognise the seriousness of the incident and the likely effect on the resident.
It was not until the resident made further reports of antisocial behaviour on 19 October 2021 that the landlord logged a case and made arrangements to visit both parties. During the visit, the resident told the landlord that her family were living in fear and that the antisocial behaviour was having a detrimental impact on the emotional wellbeing of her children. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord failed to acknowledge the impact of the reported behaviour or make any attempt to address the resident’s concerns. There is no record of the landlord offering the resident support, arranging extra security to her home or agreeing an action plan to address the behaviour. From the information provided, the landlord’s overall approach and response to the resident was unsympathetic.
This is further highlighted in the landlord’s response to the resident’s MP on 2 December 2021 when the landlord said that the incidents were “mostly between the resident’s children and other children on the estate”, suggesting that it considered this to be a low level issue.
Best practice would indicate that the landlord should have taken a harm centred approach and considered the risk factors and vulnerabilities associated with the resident and her family when categorising the severity of the case. The landlord should have considered both the behaviour type, and the impact of the behaviour on the resident and her family, to understand the actions that were required to provide appropriate support and lower the risk of harm where possible.
After speaking to the alleged perpetrator in January 2022, the landlord concluded that the resident and alleged perpetrator “did not get on”. The landlord has not provided this Service with copies of case notes, interview notes, witness statements, assessments, or case reviews, to show how it came to this conclusion. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out a full investigation into the allegations and came to a reasoned conclusion based on its findings. This is a significant failure by the landlord.
It is unclear from the information provided why the local authority concluded in May 2022 that it was unsafe for the resident and her children to remain at the property long term due to the ongoing incidents of antisocial behaviour, when the landlord did not appear to be treating the antisocial behaviour as serious. Both agencies had liaised with the police. It was only in July 2022, after the resident’s stage one complaint, and the implementation of a new antisocial behaviour procedure, that the landlord undertook a case review and confirmed that the case was likely to be considered high risk and that it could, and should have, taken additional actions earlier in the case.
The landlord has relied heavily on the actions taken by the police throughout this case, and although it is reasonable to expect the resident to report incidents of criminal behaviour to the police, the landlord failed to fully consider the use of the tools and powers available, both legal and non-legal, to tackle the antisocial behaviour itself. It is not a requirement of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 that criminal action must be ongoing before a landlord can act. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take a multi-agency approach, in line with the Social Housing Regulator’s Neighbourhood and Community Standard, and work alongside the police and other agencies to take relevant action to ensure the best outcome for the resident and her family.
The landlord’s unfortunate error of advertising a property on the council’s rehousing list, that was not available to let, only added to the resident’s distress. This was particularly the case given it reoffered the property on a second occasion, due to internal communication failures, after realising its initial mistake.
The landlord did, however, acknowledge and admit to its failings through the complaints process. Where a landlord admits to failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
In this case, the landlord apologised for the failures, offered £400 compensation, and accepted that there was more that it should have done in the earlier stages of the antisocial behaviour case. The landlord also agreed that, because of the failures relating to the offer of the unavailable property, the resident would be considered for any four bedroom properties that became available in her agreed area before they were advertised. This is fair in the circumstances and is in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principle to try to ‘put things right’. The resident was suitably rehoused shortly after the stage two response.
The compensation award of £400 for the identified service failures is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which suggests an award of between £100 to £600 where there has been maladministration which has adversely affected the resident, although caused no permanent impact. Although the failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience, she was suitably rehoused away from the alleged perpetrator within a relatively short period of time following the stage two outcome. Considering the failings and the overall remedy provided by the landlord, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amount is reasonable.
In summary, the landlord offered an appropriate response with suitable remedies, including an apology and a proportionate compensation award, for the failings identified.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The resident made a stage one complaint on 15 June 2022 in relation to the antisocial behaviour case. She raised a further complaint on 5 July 2022 in relation to the property advertised in error. From the information provided, it appears that the landlord, rather than logging two separate complaints, decided to respond to both complaints within its stage one response. Given that the stage one response for the first complaint was already overdue prior to the resident making the second complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to log two separate complaints and not prolong the first complaint response whilst investigating the second complaint.
The landlord did not provide its stage one response to the resident until 15 July 2022, which was 23 working days from the submission of the first complaint. This was outside of the landlord’s timescale of ten working days, set out in its complaints policy. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident to agree an extension, to enable it to deal with both issues within one complaint, which was unreasonable.
Following the landlord’s stage one response, the resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 3 August 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 September 2022 to extend its response time until 4 October 2022, which was a further 20 working days. The reason for the delay was because the landlord was waiting for information from the police which could not be obtained without the resident’s permission.
It is unclear as to why the landlord needed information from the police to be able to provide the resident with a full response. The landlord should have been able to provide an adequate response using its own records. The request for information caused unnecessary delays and did not appear to add any benefit to the final response. Consequently, the landlord’s final review response, issued to the resident on 4 October 2022, was unreasonably issued 42 days from the date of escalation. The landlord also failed to address its complaint handing failures at stage one within its stage two response.
In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, which resulted in unnecessary delays and the landlord failed to recognise its complaint handling failures and provide reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and the offer of a property advertised in error satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s complaint responses recognised its failings and apologised to the resident for its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and the offer of a property advertised in error. The overall award of £400 compensation and the offer of a suitable property, within the resident’s area of choice, outside of the usual lettings process was fair, reasonable and in line with Housing Ombudsman guidance.
There were unreasonable and unnecessary delays in responding to the resident at both stage one and stage two of the complaints process, and the landlord failed to recognise its failings and provide reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £150, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the associated complaint.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failures in its complaint handling highlighted in this report.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation of £400 awarded through the complaints process.
The landlord should review its antisocial behaviour policy and procedures to ensure that it is following best practice, by taking a harm centred approach, when assessing the severity of cases and considering appropriate action.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.