London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202200141)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200141

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

26 September 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 (ASB).
2. The resident’s transfer application.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household, but records show that the resident suffers from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says it will:
1. Consider vulnerabilities and provide advice and support. It will work with appropriate partner agencies where required and adopt a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB
2. Agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated with the case
3. Complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix (RAM) on relevant priority cases to measure the harm caused to victims and to guide staff on actions to take
4. Take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to prevent the problem escalating, for example the use of warning letters and mediation.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy says that:
1. It will provide practical housing options advice to residents that wish to move, and will promote mutual exchange opportunities. It will only directly rehouse residents who are in high priority need for alternative accommodation.
2. In order to be added to the rehousing list, the case must be presented to the panel. The panel will consider the circumstances for which the resident is applying for alternative accommodation and review supporting evidence of risk.
3. If accepted for a move at panel, an offer of accommodation will be considered in line with the needs of the resident and their family. Where it is deemed there is a risk to the resident, the priority is to ensure the resident’s safety. In these circumstances, an offer may be made of a property the same size as the resident’s existing home, despite their need for additional bedrooms.
4. Should a resident refuse an offer of accommodation because they feel it is unsuitable, their rehousing case will be closed. They will be offered the opportunity to appeal the decision. If the resident does not appeal or their appeal is refused, the case will be closed and they will not be matched to further properties.
5. If there is a change of circumstances, their case can be presented back to the rehousing panel as a new referral.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint policy which states:
1. At stage one, residents will receive an acknowledgement within five working days, and a full response will follow within 10 working days
2. If the resident is unhappy with the response, they can request to escalate to the next stage. The complaint will be reviewed by another member of staff and a final written decision will be sent within 20 working days.
3. If there is likely to be a delay, then the landlord will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. Any new deadlines will be agreed with the resident.

Summary of events

In August 2018, the resident was sexually assaulted close to her home. The police were involved and supported that the resident should be rehoused away from where she lived. The landlord offered the resident a property out of area in 2019. The resident declined the offer at the time because she wanted to remain close to her support network.
There is no further record of communication about the matter until the resident made a formal complaint on 9 March 2022, with support from her mother in law. She said that:
1. She suffered from depression since the sexual assault. At the time, she declined the landlord’s offer of a move because it was away from her support network
2. Since then, her children had grown and were sharing a bedroom. She felt this was unfair as her daughter was approaching her teenage years and needed her privacy
3. She was a victim of abuse from her neighbours who were often intoxicated. She was particularly dreading the summer as “that’s when it starts”. She felt the landlord should have moved her after she was sexually assaulted to somewhere else, that was still within close distance of her family.
The landlord noted that there were no reports of ASB on the system, and tried to contact the resident to ask for further detail but was unsuccessful.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2022. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the delay in providing her with a complaint response.
2. It understood her complaint to be about her request to be rehoused. Its records had shown that she had been offered a property in 2019 following the assault, but she had declined it. The rehousing service was on a “one offer only” basis and as a result her rehousing case was closed.
3. If she believed there was still a risk if she were to remain in her home, then she would need to contact the tenancy management team to conduct a new investigation. In the meantime, the rehousing list had been temporarily paused due to the amount of existing households waiting for a property offer.
4. Her options for rehousing were limited, but she could approach the local authority for emergency accommodation or seek a mutual exchange (MEX). The rehousing service would not consider her concerns about overcrowding.
5. Her complaint had not been upheld and would be closed. If she remained dissatisfied she could escalate the matter to stage 2 of its complaint process or contact the Ombudsman.
The resident responded to the landlord on 21 April 2022. She said that:
1. She wanted her complaint escalated to the next stage. She did not feel that it was reasonable for her children to share a room, or witness “ill behaviour” from her neighbours. She had proof of ASB and had been logging everything.
2. She referred to the “one offer only” and said it was unfair. She wanted someone to reconsider her situation and make arrangements to rehouse her close to her children’s school with minimal upheaval.
3. Staying in the property was impacting her mental health. On new year’s eve, she had tried to take her own life because of her housing situation.
The resident’s social worker wrote to the landlord on 28 April 2022. They said that:
1. The children were being supported as a result of a crisis with the resident’s mental health, which resulted in her trying to take her own life and she was sectioned.
2. An assessment of the children’s needs suggested that their current environment did not meet their basic needs. They were sharing the same bedroom and it was proving to be detrimental to their privacy and independence.
3. It was worrying that some of the perpetrators of the sexual assault were regular visitors to the estate and to one of her neighbours in particular. The exact place where the assault took place was on the way to the children’s school. It was causing the resident trauma, serious anxiety, low mood and panic attacks. She was on anti-depressants and was in receipt of counselling.
4. They were concerned what the outcome would be if the housing situation did not change, and supported a move close to where she could access support from family and the school.
On 5 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that her main concern was that she wanted to move. The landlord noted that there had been historic issues with neighbours and she had recently been called a “grass”. The resident confirmed she was receiving mental health support. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response later that day. It said:
1. Further to their earlier telephone conversation, it had explained that the rehousing policy in place in 2019 said that only one direct offer would be made. The offer she was given was suitable in terms of safety and size of her family at the time.
2. She had been provided with alternative move options including MEX, and had been sent forms to submit a medical assessment. It wanted to manage her expectations that the criteria for medical moves was high and a MEX would be the best chance of obtaining a move.
3. It had opened an ASB case based on her recent allegations and a member of the tenancy management team would be in touch. Her complaint was closed but if she was dissatisfied she could contact the Ombudsman.
On 10 May 2022 the resident informed the Ombudsman that she had not had a response to her complaint.
The resident’s mother wrote to complain to the landlord on 17 May 2022. She said that she was concerned about her daughter’s mental state and urged it to urgently reconsider her case for a move.
On 25 June 2022 the resident completed a medical assessment form for the landlord. She detailed that she suffered from anxiety, depression and PTSD. She said the property held “horrific memories” and made her feel unsafe. She explained that she had tried to take her own life on new year’s eve 2021 and “did not want a repeat”.
The resident reported that an incident had taken place on 24 July 2022 where by her neighbour pointed a hose pipe into her window whilst she was out. When she returned, the neighbour shouted verbal abuse and she attached a video recording of this. The landlord called the resident the next day and agreed an action plan. Details of the plan were not seen.
Throughout July and August 2022, the resident and her mother in law chased the landlord for an update with regards to her move on at least 6 occasions. She commented that she had “been passed from pillar to post” and was “sick of going around in circles”.
On 1 September 2022 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy that she had still not heard back about her medical application. She was under the impression she would receive an answer within 4 weeks. The landlord said that the rehousing list had been temporarily suspended, and she would have to pursue a move by other means.
On 8 September 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that her children were being abused by her neighbours:
1. Her son had “possible ADHD” and had developed a tic. The neighbour’s children were calling him names and she tried to approach them about it over text message. Shortly afterwards, the police attended her property and said she was being accused of threatening behaviour, which she denied.
2. The neighbours were regularly intoxicated. In the summer, her neighbour urinated in the children’s paddling pool after falling over drunk. She wanted to be moved away from them.
The landlord noted that it had spoken to the neighbour and counter allegations were made, and related to the behaviour between the children. The neighbour said she was willing to engage to try and resolve the issues.
Later that evening, the resident said that there had been an incident where her neighbour approached her family “aggressively”, and she had to call the police. The landlord sought police disclosure on the same day.
The resident told the landlord on 28 September 2022 that she had been waiting for a response about her move options and had not received an action plan from her ASB caseworker. She said that since January 2022 she had “exhausted all avenues” for the landlord to help her move. It was having a “massive negative effect” on her mental health, and the children. The school were aware of the issues and her son was being referred to specialist support.
On 7 October 2022, the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord. They said that:
1. The resident had experienced distress, anxiety and trauma as a result of the sexual assault. This culminated in an attempt at her own life on new year’s eve of 2021. She had started medication but the persistent reminders of where she lived were continuing to affect her mental health.
2. Her neighbours were engaging in excessive drugs and alcohol misuse, and their behaviour was impacting her daily living. Her children had been threatened and reports had been made to the police. Her son had developed neurological symptoms which were linked to anxiety and stress.
3. Overall there was a severe impact on the mental health of the household. A move to an area that was still close to her support networks would be beneficial.
The landlord wrote to the whole block on 10 October 2022 about reports of ASB in the locality. It said that it wanted to remind residents of the terms of their tenancy agreements and said that if allegations were found to be true, then tenancy action would be taken.
On at least 6 occasions throughout October 2022, the resident chased the landlord for response about whether she could be moved. On 17 October 2022 the landlord said it was in receipt of her supporting medical evidence but there had been a delay in processing it due to staff shortage and absence. In the meantime, it had asked the housing team to do a “24 hour assessment” to establish if she was in immediate risk of harm.
The police provided disclosure to the landlord on 24 October 2022. They said:
1. The resident made various complaints to police about verbal assaults which made her scared to leave her home. One of the neighbours had been “giving her grief” for about a year and the police were concerned about the impact on the resident’s mental health.
2. There had been no police reports of a crime, and there were no current investigations ongoing. This was subject to change if another issue was reported which suggested harassment.
3. They supported a move, on the grounds that there were concerns about the resident’s mental health.
On 2 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the time it had taken to respond to her complaint.
2. It understood the resident was unhappy at the lack of response from the landlord about her medical application, but the information she had provided did not meet the criteria. It suggested that she looked at the option of MEX.
3. Her ASB caseworker would be in touch by 21 November 2022 to discuss an action plan.
4. It wanted to offer her £80 in compensation for failure to respond to her complaint within 10 working days.
5. It noted that during a conversation had prior to its written response, the resident had declined the offer of compensation. As she was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint, it had already referred the matter to stage 2 of its process.
The same day, landlord contacted the headmistress of the children’s school and asked for a meeting to discuss the resident’s allegations of the impact her housing situation was having on her children.
The landlord spoke to the resident at length on 4 November 2022. It noted that:
1. It had spoken to her neighbours again and they were willing to engage in mediation. The resident responded that she was still getting “odd stares and muttering” when she left her house, and her son was being bullied at school. She felt the situation was unlikely to improve with mediation.
2. Her medication had been increased and she was concerned about her own mental health. She felt her situation would only improve once she had been moved.
On 11 November 2022 the resident reported that there was a strong smell of cannabis coming from her neighbour’s property. The neighbour was seen intoxicated with her 2 children outside the block on a school day, and was shouting expletives towards her. The neighbour’s partner had given her son “dirty looks” and he was scared.
The landlord spoke to the resident about her reports on 16 November 2022. She told the landlord whilst she was working closely with her ASB caseworker, she was “desperate to move”. She felt unsafe and would stay with her mother at weekends and school holidays. She wanted to be re-housed in the area so she could remain close to her mother.
On 30 November 2022 the resident reported that the situation had worsened. Her son was being bullied at school and his tics had gotten worse. Every time she passed her neighbours they shouted “vile abuse”, and said she had reconsidered that a move out of area may be beneficial.
On 7 December 2022 the resident told the landlord her neighbour was laughing in her face and trying to intimidate her, she had taken “secret recordings” of this. She was trying not to react but felt she was being harassed when she was trying to mind her own business. The landlord spoke to the neighbour the same day and counter allegations were made.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord met with the school to discuss reports of bullying of the resident’s children. The school noted that the issues seemed to start after there had been a dispute between the 2 mothers about taking each other’s children to school. Efforts had been made to change the school routines of both sets of children to avoid unnecessary interactions. The school was willing to support a move out of area for the resident, for a “new start”.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in responding to her complaint, caused by a “backlog”. It could see she had also experienced a lack of communication about her housing situation. It was sorry that she had to chase on a number of occasions for a response.
2. When she first reported ASB, she was allocated a caseworker and they had been in regular contact. A number of actions had been taken including:
  1. Contact made with the police
  2. Meeting with the school regarding allegations of bullying
  3. Warning letters sent to the whole block about ASB. A warning letter had also been sent to the neighbours she had been complaining about
  4. Internal meetings held between its rehousing and customer relations team
  5. Information provided to the resident about her move options
3. Her rehousing case was closed on 15 July 2019 after it had made a suitable offer in accordance with its policy, which she had declined.
4. It was sorry to hear that since then, her mental health had suffered because of her housing situation. It was pleased to hear that she had been referred to appropriate mental health support. It acknowledged that she felt under considerable stress and that her and her children’s health had been negatively impacted.
5. There was a large demand for its rehousing service and as a result, the transfer list closed in May 2021. Given the recent evidence from her GP, the school and social services, it had referred her case to the high harm panel for consideration for another transfer.
6. It wanted to reiterate that it would defeat the object of moving on safety grounds if she were to remain in the same area, with her son at the same school. As a result, if she was considered for another transfer, she would have to accept that she may need to move away from the area she was living.
7. The case was scheduled to be heard on 12 January 2023. Until the hearing had taken place, no decision had been made whether a transfer would be agreed. Even then, the waiting times for a transfer were still between 18-24 months and it was important that her expectations were realistic. A move via MEX was likely to be quicker and her caseworker had been supporting her with this
8. In awarding compensation, it had taken her medical vulnerabilities into account, as well as the worry and upset in chasing responses to her queries. It wanted offer a total of £230 in compensation, broken down as:
  1. £60 for distress and inconvenience
  2. £60 for time and effort
  3. £40 for failures to respond to all queries at stage 1
  4. £20 for the delay in reaching a decision at stage 1
  5. £50 for the delay in providing her with a stage 2 response
9. If she remained dissatisfied she could contact the Ombudsman.
Records show that there were further incidents between the neighbours over December 2022, including an incident on new year’s eve where her neighbour tried to force entry to the property. The police cautioned the resident’s neighbour but made no arrests. The landlord attended the property to fit additional locks so the resident felt more secure.
A high harm panel hearing took place on 12 January 2023. The panel considered the evidence and approved a permanent move via a direct offer. The resident was updated of the decision over the phone and in writing. The landlord said it would actively look to match the resident with a property outside her area of risk. Only one offer of suitable accommodation, on a like for like basis. In the meantime:
1. If the resident felt another bedroom was required, then she would need to register for a MEX
2. The waiting list was taking an average of 2 years. It would contact her again as soon as a suitable property became available
3. The resident could approach the local authority if she required emergency accommodation.
In recent correspondence with the landlord the resident said:
1. She had not reported any issues with her neighbours to the landlord prior to 2022. She had a reasonable relationship with the until they fell out towards the end of 2021. As a result, she had a mental health breakdown which resulted in the attempt at her own life.
2. Once she had informed the landlord of the ASB she had been experiencing, she was assigned a caseworker who she was in regular contact with. She was referred to victim support and had therapy, which just recently ended.
3. Not long after her case was referred to the high harm panel, her neighbours moved via a swap with a family member. She has heard her neighbour say that she will “get her” but nothing has happened and things have improved. Her mental health is better and things have been quiet with no reason to contact the landlord in the last couple of months. Her son still suffers with the effects of the ASB and is scared before he goes to bed at night, “obsessed” with ensuring the front door is locked.
4. She has heard nothing further from her landlord about a potential move, despite request for contact. She feels that it is unfair that any offer would be out of area, and wants to remain close to her support network.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

It is acknowledged that the situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
It is not disputed that the landlord first became aware of allegations of ASB against her neighbour on 9 March 2022, when the resident made her complaint. The landlord made reasonable attempts to contact the resident to discuss her concerns on the same day, but when its efforts were unsuccessful there is no evidence that it made further contact to obtain further detail. Records show that it was not until 5 May 2022, 39 working days later that an ASB case was opened. The delay in establishing the full extent of the ASB the resident was experiencing was unreasonable and contributed to her feelings of distress.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that an action plan will be created in agreement with the resident once a case has been opened. The landlord made reference to an action plan being agreed on 24 July 2022, 55 working days later. Details of the plan were not seen, and records show the resident had to prompt the landlord on 28 September 2022 for a copy following further incidents. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed up agreed actions in writing with the resident to manage her expectations and give her confidence that it was investigating her concerns.
The resident made it clear to the landlord that she suffered with her mental health and detailed her conditions on a medical form dated 25 June 2022. However the landlord has not updated its systems to appropriately reflect her conditions, and has informed the Ombudsman there are no vulnerabilities for the resident. It is important that the landlord takes steps update this, so that it can ensure that it will respond appropriately to any support it may be able to offer the resident in the future. An order has been made in regards to this.
Given the vulnerabilities of the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed a RAM to establish the risk and guide its staff on what possible actions could be taken. There is no evidence that the landlord did this, despite being prompted on 17 October 2022 that one was required. An earlier assessment of the risk of harm to the resident may have prompted a quicker referral to the high harm panel.
The landlord’s internal records make reference to the ASB caseworker being in fortnightly contact with the resident as part of their agreed action plan. The resident has not disputed she was in regular contact with the caseworker. This being the case, the landlord’s records are not reflective of the level of interaction it had with the resident. There were gaps in the landlord’s records where no communication was recorded, particularly between July and September 2022. Landlord’s should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of contact with residents so that detail of actions taken and support offered can be recorded and monitored. An order has been made with regards to this.
Once the landlord had established regular contact with the resident, the actions it took to investigate the ASB were reasonable. Some of what the resident reported included name calling and disputes between the children, which were outside the scope of the landlord’s ASB policy. Where counter allegations are made, as seen in this case, landlord’s should provide options for maintaining good relationships and offer mediation where appropriate. Evidence shows that the landlord offered mediation to both parties which was reasonable based on what the resident had reported but it was refused by the resident. The offer to revisit mediation should remain in the future if circumstances change.
Where the situation between both parties was escalating, the landlord sought appropriate police disclosure. Whilst the police confirmed that they had attended the property on a number of occasions, they did not say that there were any open investigations or that they had taken action against the neighbour. The landlord was therefore entitled to rely on the information they had provided in deciding what further actions it could take. It spoke to the neighbour and issued a warning letter which was appropriate.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will work with partner agencies to tackle allegations of ASB. In this case, in addition to speaking to the police on several occasions, it sought to engage with the school about allegations of bullying. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had considered the effect of the allegations had on the whole family.
Whilst is it recognised that further incidents took place following the stage 2 complaint response, evidence demonstrates that landlord acted promptly to these concerns. It attended the same evening the door was damaged and added additional locks to the property. It sought police disclosure which prompted further discussions with the neighbour about their tenancy agreement, which was appropriate.
Overall, it is recognised that the actions the landlord took to tackle the ASB the resident had reported were reasonable and proportionate. However there were initial failures in the landlord’s handling of the case where it did not contact the resident to complete a RAM and it failed to update its vulnerability information. The landlord also failed to devise an action plan at the earliest opportunity. In doing so, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and this impacted her hopes for a move. On balance, although many of the landlord’s actions were appropriate, the failures noted in this investigation contribute to an overall finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer

The landlord had a transfer policy in operation between October 2018 and October 2021. During that time it operated a “direct management offer”, managed by the lettings panel. The criteria for transfers offered under the policy were the same as those seen in the landlord’s current allocations policy. The landlord’s decision to accept the resident onto their transfer in 2018 was appropriate because there was supporting evidence from the police that a serious sexual assault had taken place in the locality, and a move out of area was recommended due to the risk.
The landlord’s offer of alternative accommodation on 15 July 2019 was appropriate given the risks to the resident at the time and took into account the composition of her household. When the resident refused the property, her case was closed in accordance with policy. The resident does not dispute that she chose not to appeal the decision at the time. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the resident had decided to pursue other move options, as her desire was to remain closer to her support network.
The landlord’s response dated 4 April 2022 was reasonable in explaining why her move offer from 2019 had been concluded and what options remained available to her. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest that a new assessment of risk needed to take place, given the amount of time that had passed. The advice it gave with regards to the size of her property and her children having to share bedrooms was correct and in line with its policy. It provided the resident with appropriate advice about what other housing options were available.
The landlord’s rehousing list is at capacity and therefore the landlord can only consider residents who have a high priority need for a move, such as high risk of violence or significant medical conditions. In order for the resident to be directly rehoused, the landlord had to take into consideration whether there was a significant risk of harm to the resident by remaining at her address. It appropriately requested medical evidence from the resident so it could take into consideration all aspects of her situation.
The landlord’s communication about the criteria required for its rehousing list was consistent and clear. However, there were occasions where there were delays in responding to the resident which caused her frustration and distress. The landlord recognised that the delays in communication had caused her upset and worry, and it compensated her appropriately for this within its stage 2 response dated 13 December 2022. It made assurances that her case would be heard at the high harm panel, given the evidence it had received from partner agencies. This was a reasonable suggestion, and the outcome of the panel is likely to have been influenced further by the events that took place after the stage 2 response.
Although several agencies supported a move away from the property to benefit her mental health, each had differing views as to whether a move out of area would be beneficial. Given that the resident said living in the property had “horrific memories” and had significantly impacted her mental health it was reasonable for the landlord to have accepted the resident onto its rehousing list again. Its offer of acceptance is clear and has been considered on the basis of the resident’s safety and has been offered appropriately and in accordance with its allocations policy.
The landlord has been clear with the resident what her options for rehousing are and have managed her expectations in terms of the current waiting list times. It has explained on several occasions that should the resident wish to move from the property but remain in the same area or upsize, a move via MEX is most appropriate. This option remains open to the resident and the landlord has offered support with this.
Overall, the landlord’s has been clear about the terms of its allocations policy and has provided the resident with appropriate advice of her moving options. However, the landlord did not always proactively communicate with the resident and the resident had to chase it on several occasions, causing her upset and worry. The landlord recognised this and appropriately compensated her within its stage 2 response of 13 December 2022. It’s new referral to the high harm panel was appropriate and the Ombudsman considers it has sufficiently put matters right for the resident.

The associated complaint

When the resident first complained to the landlord on 9 March 2022 she made it clear that she was dissatisfied with the way her move had been handled in 2019 and had since experienced ASB. The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent 9 working days later than expected in accordance with its complaints policy and it made an appropriate apology for this.
Whilst the stage 1 response reasonably explained why the resident was no longer on the rehousing list, it failed to be proactive in raising an ASB case to investigate her concerns. As a result, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. The landlord responded within an appropriate timeframe on 5 May 2022 and reiterated the terms of the rehousing policy, signposting her to alternative move options which were appropriate. The landlord recognised that an ASB case needed to be opened but gave no assurances as to when a member of staff would be in touch. This was unreasonable, particularly given that the resident had disclosed that her mental health was suffering as a result of issues with her neighbours.
Between June to November 2022 there is a series of communication between the resident, her local MP, her mother and the landlord. The correspondence centres around the resident’s main concern, which was whether the landlord would move her based on her medical need. It is not known which specific correspondence prompted the landlord to respond to the complaint at stage 1 on 2 November 2022 however it is accepted that some confusion was caused where the resident informed the Ombudsman she had not received a response to her complaints around that time.
The response recognised that there had been delay in responding to the resident and that it had not provided her with a timely outcome to her medical application. It’s response explained that there were other move options available to her, and offered her £80 in compensation which was reflective of the delays she had experienced. The correspondence noted that the landlord was already aware that the resident was dissatisfied with the response and so had escalated the matter to the next stage the same day.
A stage 2 final complaint response followed on 13 December 2022, 10 working days later than expected in line with its complaint policy. The landlord apologised for this delay and its response was comprehensive. It set out all actions taken by its ASB caseworker, and explained that given the up to date evidence, it would refer the matter to its high harm panel. The landlord was empathetic to the resident’s situation and recognised that the situation had had an impact on her mental health. It was clear in managing the resident’s expectations as to what she could expect following the referral to the panel, and it provided her with appropriate alternative move options.
Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. There were delays in responding to the resident and it failed to address all that the resident was concerned about in its previous responses. However, the landlord’s final response appropriately addressed it failures. It’s level of compensation was appropriate in accordance with its policy, and was reflective of the lack of detail in previous responses and cumulative delays at both complaint stages.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s transfer prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s complaint prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord was limited as to what actions it could take against the neighbour given the nature of the reports and lack of supporting evidence. It appropriately referred both residents to mediation and issued a warning letter which was reasonable. Although its actions were proportionate to what the resident had reported, there were initial failures by the landlord in suitably assessing the risk and managing the resident’s expectations through use of a detailed action plan. Whilst both the landlord and resident make reference to regular contact, the landlord’s records are not reflective of their interactions. The landlord also failed to update its records with regards to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord has been clear in its communication with the resident the terms of its allocations policy and has provided the resident with appropriate alternative move options. There were failures to respond to the resident’s request for an update about her move, but the landlord recognised this and appropriately compensated the resident within its complaint responses. In doing so, the Ombudsman has considered it was able to sufficiently put matters right for the resident.
There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident experienced delays and the landlord did not fully address her concerns during its initial complaint responses. However the final response from the landlord was empathetic to the resident’s situation and acknowledged the failures. In doing so, it appropriately compensated the resident for the delays and distress caused. The amount of compensation it offered was appropriate and in accordance with its compensation policy.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident, within 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears.
The landlord is ordered to update its systems to reflect the vulnerabilities of the resident, within 4 weeks.
This investigation has identified service failings in relation to the handling of ASB, resident vulnerabilities and records. The Ombudsman’s special report published in July 2023 has recommended the landlord review its approach in these areas including having regard to the Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The landlord should consider this case when assessing what further action it needs to take in response to relevant recommendations.