Southwark Council (202128357)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128357

Southwark Council

20 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and harassment.
2. Handling of the resident’s request to be transferred.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of staff.
4. Complaints handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The property is a ground floor, two bedroom flat within a block, located next to a public park.
The resident is disabled, has health conditions and is housebound. The landlord has this recorded on its system and notes that she is a vulnerable resident. The resident has three children.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as “acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Engaging in behaviour which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing in, visiting or otherwise engaging in lawful activity” in the area. The policy says that the landlord is committed to take effective action, a victim-centred approach and to understanding its duties to vulnerable victims. Reports of ASB will be risk assessed and categorised, and the landlord will contact the resident reporting within the timeframe stated. For category one such as hate related harassment, and threats of violence this is within one working day. For category two such as vandalism to property this is within three working days. Under the policy, where the ASB is affecting a resident’s peace and quiet in their own home the police should be informed and involved in dealing with the ASB. The policy says that the landlord, police, and its partners have a wide range of powers to deal with ASB, such as warnings, mediation, and the use of professional witnesses to gather evidence. Legal measures include fixed penalty notices, closures, injunctions, and evictions.
The landlord’s guidance and policy on applying for rehousing is available on its website. It says that a resident can register and bid for properties, but that there can be a delay of several years before being offered a suitable property, and advises residents also consider a mutual exchange or moving to the private rented sector. The guidance says residents must register online and complete an application form. The landlord advertises properties via a choice based letting scheme.
The policy says to be eligible to transfer the resident must have ‘reasonable preference’ and a priority banding from one to four. In exceptional circumstances the policy allows for a direct offer and highest priority band one, such as where there is a threat to life, or where on police advice the resident must be moved immediately, due to serious threats to one or more members of the household. The landlord assesses priority banding based on need, with the most urgent need including statutory overcrowding or under-occupation. The policy says that requests to move based on medical grounds will be considered by the landlord’s medical assessor.
The landlord’s staff code of conduct says that members of staff should comply with its duty to promote equality and diversity. Staff should answer phone calls “quickly, efficiently, helpfully and politely.” The code also says that calls may be recorded to check for compliance with the landlord’s policies and the code of conduct.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “any expression of dissatisfaction about any of our services requiring a response”. When a complaint is made, the landlord will try to resolve this as an “early resolution” within three days. If this is not possible or the resident does not agree, the landlord then operates a two stage complaints process. At stage one the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within three working days and will respond to it within 15 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied, the landlord will review the complaint; it may decide its first response was its final response and will confirm this, or it will provide a stage two response within 25 working days. The policy says the response will provide details on how to escalate the complaint including escalation to this Service. The landlord will update the resident about the progress of the complaint, advise of any delays and contact the resident to ensure any issues have been resolved.
The policy says that where service standards have not been met the landlord will:
1. Apologise for the failure in service.
2. Explain what went wrong.
3. Say what it has done to put things right.
4. Where appropriate, say how it learnt from the complaint.
5. Consider paying financial compensation.
The landlord also has a compensation policy, which sets out how it will determine the amount of compensation it will pay based on factors such as delay, distress, time and trouble and other costs to the resident. The policy contains tables with example amounts based on level of impact on the resident from low to high.

Summary of events

On 2 June 2018 the resident reported ASB to the police caused by unknown local youths. The landlord’s records show that the police assessed the risk to the resident as standard.
The landlord made an internal referral in July 2019 to assist the resident with making a rehousing application, which was completed on 17 July 2019. The landlord contacted the resident in December 2019 about her application and the resident told it that she had not received her bidding information. The landlord chased this, and again in February 2020. It is not clear from the records when the bidding details were provided to the resident.
On 27 February 2020 the resident called the police to report that a swastika and an offensive message had been spray painted on her front door. When speaking to the police she said that local youths mocked her and shouted abuse at her because of her disability and race. She also said they knocked on her doors and windows and threw stones which scared her children.
The police completed a risk assessment and sent this to the landlord by email on 31 March 2020. The police supported a move for the resident away from the area, as the perpetrators were persons unknown, it believed the situation could escalate. It noted that a firearm had been intimated during the threats and that the victim had threatened suicide. The police assessed the risk as high, although gave a number within its medium risk banding. The landlord called the resident on 1 April 2020. The telephone note indicates that the resident explained that the threats had stopped since the lockdown and she had been living peacefully in her flat.
On 9 April 2020 the resident’s advocate, who worked for a disabled person’s charity, emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf. He asked the landlord to arrange a telephone meeting to discuss the incidents of ASB. The landlord replied by email the following day to say that it was aware of the issues and had received a risk assessment from the police. It said it had spoken to the resident recently and she had said that she had “been enjoying some peace and quiet in her home because of the lockdown”. It therefore decided to take no further action.
The advocate and the police exchanged emails on 17 April 2020 to arrange a call. This Service has not been provided with information on whether this call took place or the outcome of the call.
On 29 May 2020 the police emailed the landlord to ask for any update. The police said that the resident and advocate had not heard anything further since the risk assessment was sent in; and that the resident had called the landlord’s housing department and it did not know anything about it.
The landlord replied to the police and the advocate by email on 1 June 2020. In its email it said it had responded to the resident and her advocate, and that it was in regular contact with the resident as she was vulnerable during lockdown. The landlord said that the resident had told it that she only wanted to move within the same estate, which it said was “almost impossible”, but suggested trying for a mutual exchange. It also said that it could submit the resident’s case to its panel for a higher priority banding to move, but that it would not support a move within the same area as that would defeat the objective to move away from the ASB.
On 19 June 2020 the advocate emailed the landlord and police. He said the resident had called the landlord and it did not know that she was high risk on the police risk assessment. He also said that the resident could move ten minutes away from her current property, so she could still be close to her family who support her.
The landlord replied on 22 June 2020 to say that the risk assessment was medium, not high. It also said that the resident would need to move away from the area to be able to be given priority banding for fleeing violence. It repeated that the resident should consider a mutual exchange and suggested exchanging properties with her mother.
On 2 July 2020 the police emailed the landlord and advocate to say it had marked the risk assessment as high risk. The landlord replied that the risk assessment had scored 10 and this was a risk level of medium, however agreed to consider it as high risk due to a factor previously overlooked, that a firearm had been imitated as part of the threats. The landlord also noted the risk assessment said that the resident was feeling suicidal, so it had made a referral to social services for mental health support. On 7 July 2020 the landlord emailed again to say that it had spoken to the resident for consent for the mental health referral, and the resident said that she did not and had not felt suicidal. Based on this the landlord decided that the risk assessment score should remain medium and so it would not apply for a priority band one for her to move. It confirmed that it had informed the resident that her best options were mutual exchange within the estate and Homeswap. The landlord noted that it was able to support the resident to look for potential mutual exchange partners in the estate.
On 13 July 2020, the resident’s sister emailed the MP on her behalf. In her email she said the resident had been experiencing ASB since 2017 and the police assessed her as high risk in February 2020. However, the landlord said she was only medium risk and that it would not give priority for a move. She said the landlord’s member of staff was “intimidating and harshly spoken” on the phone and that the landlord had said that she was only entitled to a two bedroom house, not a three bedroom as previously said. She also said that the landlord had said the resident would need to move away from the area if moving through the transfer system, or she could complete a mutual exchange. The resident’s sister said that the landlord had not put the resident on a mutual exchange list. She confirmed that due to the resident’s support needs she would need to stay close to family.
The MP emailed the landlord on 27 July 2020 asking for a response to the email he had received and for the landlord’s options to resolve the issues raised. The landlord discussed the response in internal emails on 10 August 2020. Within these emails, the landlord noted that it had found a potential mutual exchange property in Cherry Gardens, Bermondsey (less than a mile from the resident’s current address). The Resident Services Officer stated that they contacted the resident and family to discuss this, but received no response. The landlord responded to the MP’s enquiry the following day. In its response it said:
1. The resident reported ASB in June 2018 and the police assessed the risk as standard.
2. In July 2019 it had assisted the resident to make a rehousing application, however there was a delay in providing bidding details to the resident which it chased in December 2019 and February 2020.
3. An incident was reported to the police in February 2020 and the police risk assessment it received on 31 March 2020 was medium. However, it had upgraded this to high based on information included within the assessment, that a firearm had been imitated as part of the threats, however after speaking to the resident then downgraded it back to medium as the resident was not suicidal.
4. That it had spoken to the resident and explained that for it to support a transfer due to fleeing violence and ASB she would need to move away from the area, but that the resident did not want to do this and said she needed to be near to family for support.
5. There was no evidence the staff member acted in an intimidating or bullying way towards the resident.
6. It had tried to contact the family about a possible mutual exchange.
The MP emailed the resident on 17 August 2020 and provided a copy of the landlord’s response to his enquiry.
On 21 September 2020 the advocate emailed the landlord regarding its response. He said that the resident disagreed with the response, that her issues had not been investigated and that she did not feel listened to. He was concerned that the landlord had downgraded the risk assessment from high to medium. This Service has not been provided with the landlord’s response to the advocate’s email.
The landlord emailed the MP on 6 October 2020 to reply to a further enquiry it said it had received from him that day. This Service has not seen evidence of the enquiry. The landlord’s response referred to its initial response of 11 August 2020.
The resident sought assistance from a solicitor, and on 19 February 2021 the resident’s solicitors emailed the landlord. In its email it said that the resident had experienced ASB and hate crime and felt frightened and vulnerable. While the resident also had an advocate, who was trying to assist the resident, the landlord spent a lot of energy investigating but little in solving the resident’s problems. It asked that the landlord reassess and upgrade the resident’s priority banding for a transfer to band two and respond to the resident and her advocate directly.
The landlord discussed the solicitors’ letter in internal emails on 24 February 2021, and decided that it had provided “all reasonable support available”, especially as the resident wanted to stay within the same estate area. This Service has not seen any evidence of a response to the resident or advocate following the solicitors’ letter.
On 11 October 2021 the resident completed a housing application change form to add a new child and request a medical assessment to seek a higher priority banding. The resident’s GP provided a letter in support of a move dated 18 October 2021 based on the crime and ASB the resident had experienced.
The resident reported to the police that a swastika sticker had been put on her door on 31 October 2021. The police attended and spoke to the resident’s husband, but no further action was taken. Following this on 4 November 2021 Victim Support wrote a letter in support of a move for the resident and asked the landlord to assist with this. The police completed a risk assessment on 11 November 2021 and assessed the risk as standard. However, the police noted that it was concerned about the effect the ASB was having on the household and it fully supported the landlord in conducting a review of the resident’s current living situation. The police confirmed that it had been unable to identify those responsible for the criminal damage and ASB.
On 16 November 2021 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaints form to make a formal complaint. She said:
1. She had been suffering harassment and abuse based on her race and health conditions, including having swastikas drawn on her front door. She was extremely vulnerable and housebound, and she felt unsafe for herself and her family.
2. The police had assessed her as high risk in March 2020, but the landlord did not take any action to help her move.
3. Her solicitor had written to the landlord in February 2021, but she had not received any response following this.
4. She had been threatened by the landlord with a referral to social services regarding her mental health, and that this may have resulted in her losing her children. She felt victimised by the landlord with staff raising their voices, and she no longer wanted to be contacted by one member of the landlord’s staff.
5. She was not able to complete a mutual exchange because of her disability.
6. She believed she should have a higher priority banding for a transfer based on the harassment and not feeling safe.
The landlord discussed the complaint in internal emails on 6 December 2021 and provided its stage one response on 6 December 2021 or 7 December 2021. The response seen by this Service is undated. In its response it:
1. Said it was responding to the resident’s complaint made on 19 November 2021.
2. Defined the resident’s complaint as “harassment from local persons in your area. Racial abuse and feeling unsafe within your area”.
3. Had reviewed the police risk assessments and confirmed that the risk was medium. As a result, it was unable to support a move.
4. Said it had tried to assist with a move, but the resident had requested to stay on the same estate. It was unable to support a move as “remaining on the estate when you have expressed safety concerns would likely not resolve the issue and a move at least one mile away would be appropriate.”
5. Said it had addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint and gave details on how to escalate the complaint.
On 7 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. In an internal email requesting the escalation, the landlord noted that the resident was unhappy with the response, and that she had been contacted by named members of the landlord’s staff who she had complained about. The email said that the resident said that she was still in the same position following the complaint response and wanted a higher priority banding or a direct offer.
The resident called the landlord on 18 January 2022 to chase up her stage two complaint response.
On 4 February 2022 the landlord emailed its medical assessors, to request a medical assessment for the resident to consider her priority banding.
The resident called the landlord on 16 February 2022 to chase up her escalated complaint again. The landlord in an internal email noted the earlier escalation request, and requested the correct member of the landlord’s staff acknowledge the resident’s stage two request.
On 22 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again to chase a response. She said that she had been calling regularly and had been told to allow more time. She also said she was waiting to hear back about her change of circumstances for her housing application. She also said she received a letter on 10 March 2021 saying the result of the medical assessment for banding was that she did not have a medical priority need to move, and she did not understand this. She had remained a band three priority.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 23 March 2022 by letter. In its response it:
1. Said it received the stage two complaint on 16 February 2022.
2. Stated the complaint was about:
  1. Experiencing racist graffiti and verbal abuse.
  2. Experiencing religious and sexual slurs.
  3. The landlord’s failure to relocate her to a different property despite a recommendation from Victim Support.
3. Said that the resident believed that two named members of staff did not complete a proper investigation into her allegations. The landlord disputed this as the resident had wanted to remain on the same estate, which it declined for a move as it would have been irresponsible to move someone who was at risk to a property nearby. It urged the resident to consider a move further away and to contact it if this were something she would agree to.
4. Said it had not been able to take any enforcement action against the perpetrators of the harassment as the police had not been able to identify them.
5. Confirmed that it had awarded the resident the correct priority band three and that her application to be rehoused was up to date. It also confirmed her medical needs had been considered by its medical assessor and encouraged her to continue to bid for properties. It also told her about a new housing scheme she could apply to.
6. Partially upheld the complaint.
7. Gave details on how to contact this Service.
On 29 March 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman.
The resident has informed this Service that at the date of this report she is still experiencing harassment from unknown youths and is continuing to report this to the police. She also said that when she called the landlord to report this she is told to stop calling as it cannot help her, as she does not want to move away. The resident said that she is still fearful of being referred to social services by the landlord, and she is worried she will lose her children.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and harassment

The resident reported being the victim of hate crime, racism, ASB and harassment. She reported this to the police on multiple occasions, and the police contacted the landlord in June 2018, March 2020 and November 2021; the police made the landlord aware and provided its risk assessments. Although the landlord spoke to the resident on 1 April 2020, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident following the other reports of ASB within the timeframes set out in its policy.
It is not clear from the evidence what steps the landlord took to investigate the ASB. In its stage two response on 16 February 2022, the landlord said that it had been unable to take any enforcement action as the police had not been able to identify the perpetrators. This was not a reasonable response, as it is not clear from the evidence what, if any, steps the landlord considered taking to try to identify the perpetrators. It would have been helpful if the landlord had considered measures such as finding out if there was any CCTV present and looking through footage or considered installing CCTV or dummy cameras; the landlord could have provided or suggested to the resident installing a doorbell camera. It could have conducted more frequent estate inspections or visits to the area or requesting more police patrols of the local area or approached a tenants/residents’ group for the estate for support. The absence of any consideration of or attempt to find out how serious the ASB was, and how to resolve it or try to make the resident feel safer in her home was a failing.
The resident had suffered ASB over an extended period of years, with incidents happening frequently. This had an aggravated impact on the resident as she was disabled and housebound but was scared in her own home; the landlord failed to consider this, as it should have under its policy and the Equality Act 2010. In addition, the resident also had to go to additional time and trouble in having to involve an advocate, family members, her MP, and a solicitor to try to persuade the landlord to assist her. There was severe maladministration which caused the resident significate ongoing distress and fear for a period of over three years, and an order had been made that the landlord pay compensation of £2,700, being £75 per month, to reflect the effect this had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred

The landlord assisted the resident to apply for rehousing in July 2019, by visiting her and helping her to complete forms. This was good practice, as the landlord had considered the resident’s vulnerability and provided additional assistance. There was a delay in providing the resident with her bidding information and the landlord chased this. It is not known what caused this delay, but this was a failing. The resident was awarded a priority banding based on non-statutory overcrowding, which was appropriate.
Following an ASB hate crime incident in February 2020 the resident said she wanted to move, and the police provided a risk assessment to the landlord on 31 March 2020. The police supported a move, and assessed the risk as high, although gave a numerical risk score at the top of its medium category; this caused some confusion to the landlord. Having looked at the risk assessment it spotted an additional factor which is said made the risk high, that a firearm had been imitated as part of the threats, although downgraded it back to medium once it had spoken to the resident, which was a decision it could make. However, it would have been more helpful if the landlord had investigated the ASB further following police advice of a high risk.
From the evidence, and the landlord’s policy on applying for rehousing, it is not clear what significance the numerical risk rating had on its application of its policy. There is no reference to police risk assessments within the policy. In practice the landlord seemed to use this clarification to decide whether there was an emergency need to transfer based on police advice or not, and this was not an unreasonable approach for it to take. While the resident had been the repeated victim of hate crime, harassment, and vandalism there was no evidence that there had been any “serious threats” as required by the landlord’s policy to place her in priority band one.
The reason for a priority band one move under the landlord’s policy was to move away from serious threats. The landlord said on 1 June 2020 that the resident has said that she wanted to move but wanted to remain on the same estate. The resident’s advocate also told the landlord on 19 June 2020 that the resident had said she could move ten minutes away. The reason the resident gave was that she needed to be close to her family who lived very close to her property as they provided her with support. This is an understandable reason not to want to move too far away. However, the landlord was also reasonable in its response that it could submit her to its panel for a higher priority one banding to move, but not if she wanted to move within the same area, as that would defeat the objective to move away from the danger. The landlord repeated this in its response to the MP and its stage one response. The landlord could have considered whether a move to a property still within the area, but which was more secure or secluded, could have been offered but this would have been subject to whether the landlord had any such properties available.
The landlord and resident were at an impasse. The resident wanted to move from her current property due to the ASB she was experiencing, which was a reasonable response. The landlord, although getting sidetracked by the risk level, does seem to have been willing to assist the resident with a move however only to a property at least one mile away from her current one. The basis of this would be that she would be escaping the ASB, with the same perpetrators being unlikely to find her or continue the ASB further away from the estate. The resident for understandable reasons did not want to move that far away.
To try to resolve the resident’s situation, the landlord suggested trying to find a mutual exchange at various points, which was solution focused. This would potentially have allowed the resident to move property but also stay in the same area. However, the evidence shows that the resident did not want to do this. The landlord has suggested that it tried to offer the resident a mutual exchange, but it has provided no evidence to support this. Its suggestion that the resident consider exchanging her property, where she is the target of ASB, with her mother’s property was inappropriate.
The resident sought help from her MP, GP, Victim Support, and a solicitor, and asked to be awarded priority band two. The resident’s circumstances may have met the criteria for band two of “applicants who have priority on welfare grounds and require to move urgently because of a risk to their well-being or health” under the landlord’s policy. It would have been reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to have increased her banding but it failed to do this. It is also not clear whether the resident had been sent a banding decision setting out her right to request a review as set out in its policy.
Under paragraph 34 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will consider what is fair in all of the circumstances. While the landlord’s solution to the resident’s ASB was for her to move further away, this was not a suitable solution for the resident taking into account her vulnerability and need to be close to her support network. The landlord had failed to recognise or consider awarding her a band two as it could have under its policy and mismanaged her need to move by misunderstanding the police advice on level of risk. Overall there was maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 in compensation to reflect the distress caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of staff

The resident’s sister, on her behalf, included within her email to the MP on 13 July 2020, that the landlord’s staff had been “intimidating and harshly spoken” on the phone. In its response to the MP enquiry on 11 August 2020 the landlord said there was no evidence the staff member acted in an intimidating or bullying way; however, it did not say what steps it had taken to investigate the claims. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence of any investigation; there is no evidence to say whether the landlord interviewed the member of staff complained about, or whether it had any call recordings or listened to those if they did exist. The lack of an evidenced investigation was a failing and may also be due to poor record keeping.
In her stage one complaint on 16 November 2021, the resident said she had been threatened by the landlord with a referral to social services regarding her mental health, and that this may have resulted in her losing her children. She said she felt victimised by the landlord with staff raising their voices. The landlord did not respond to this issue within its stage one response on 6 December 2021 or 7 December 2021, which was a failure.
When the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 7 December 2021, she said that she was unhappy with the response and about having been contacted by named members of the landlord’s staff who she had complained about. In its stage two response on 23 March 2022, the landlord defined her escalated complaint as that the resident believed that two named members of staff did not complete a proper investigation into her allegations of ASB. This was not the complaint the resident had made and was a failure to properly consider the issue.
The landlord’s failure to properly identify or investigate the issue meant that it did not provide the resident with any reassurance that her concerns were being taken seriously, and the landlord failed to reassure her regarding her fears of losing her children, which she has told this Service she continues to have. This was severe maladministration and an order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £1,000 to reflect the distress this has caused the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling and record keeping

The resident made her stage one complaint on 16 November 2021 via the landlord’s online complaints form. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint within its three working days timeframe under its policy, or at all, which was a failure. It provided its stage one response on either 6 December 2021 or 7 December 2021, but was within its 15 working days timeframe. The landlord said the complaint was made on 19 November 2021, which was incorrect. It also did not address all the complaints made by the resident; it was silent on what it had done to try to investigate the ASB, why it had not replied following the solicitors’ letter, and did not respond to her complaint about members of the landlord’s staff.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 December 2021, but had to chase an acknowledgement and response on three further occasions. The landlord provided the stage two response on 23 March 2022, this was 73 working days after the resident made her stage two complaint and that was an unreasonable delay.
In its stage two response the landlord said that it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint but failed to say why or where the landlord had failed. It also incorrectly said she escalated her complaint on 16 February 2022, and so failed to acknowledge her escalation on 7 December 2021, or its unreasonable delay in providing its response. The landlord also incorrectly redefined the resident’s complaint about members of its staff and so failed to respond to this complaint.
The landlord also failed to keep, or to provide to this Service, accurate records of communications as set out within this report.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. The landlord failed to do this in relation to its complaints handling and there was maladministration, which caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble in having to pursue her complaint. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 in compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and harassment.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of staff.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling and record keeping.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB as the landlord did not respond to reports within its policy timeframes. There is also no evidence that it considered investigating the ASB, or that it considered measures it could take to try to identify the perpetrators or prevent further ASB. It did not show that it had taken into account the resident’s vulnerability and the aggravated impact the ASB was having on her.
There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of staff as the landlord did not provide any evidence that it had investigated the complaint. It failed to respond to the issue at stage one and changed the complaint definition at stage two meaning it did not respond to the complaint. The resident was left in considerable distress and her concerns were not addressed.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred. There were failings in how it handled the resident’s transfer request including delays in giving her bidding information, and failure to consider her for a band two priority banding based on the evidence of the ASB. It also confused itself and did not follow police advice regarding the level of risk.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling and record keeping as the landlord failed to respond to all the issues raised at stage one, delayed in escalating the complaint when requested and gave incorrect dates. It also failed to respond to the resident’s complaints fully at stage two. While it said the complaint was partially upheld, it did not explain where it was at fault. It did not address the delay in its response or try to put things right. It failed to keep or provide complete records of communications.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures detailed in this report. Within this letter the landlord is to explicitly state that the resident’s children will not be removed from her care because of the reports of ASB and complaints she has made. This letter it to be written by a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £5,100 made up of:
  1. £2,700 for the distress caused by the landlord’s failing in its handling of reports of ASB.
  2. £1,000 for the distress caused by the landlord’s failing of the resident’s request to be transferred.
  3. £1,000 for the distress caused by the landlord’s failings in its handling of reports about the conduct of a member of staff.
  4. £400 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaints handling failures.
3. Consider any measures it could take to try to identify perpetrators and prevent or deter any further ASB, vandalism or harassment against the resident. The landlord is to produce an action plan of steps it will take or give reasons why any measures identified cannot be taken, and to produce evidence of this to this Service.
4. Investigate the resident’s reports about the conduct of the named members of staff, including obtaining any call records if these exist or noting if they do not, and provide information of this investigation to this Service.
5. Consider reassessing the resident’s priority banding.
6. Offer to assist the resident in signing up to any appropriate mutual exchange websites or schemes she would be eligible to join.
7. Contact the resident to discuss the option of referring her to Safer London’s Pan-London Housing Reciprocal scheme.
8. Confirm compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews how it handles complaints concerning staff conduct. The review should consider how it identifies, records, and investigates those reports.