Croydon Council (202005370)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005370

Croydon Council

14 October 2021

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); and
2. the resident’s housing arrangements.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident agreed a temporary tenancy with the landlord in May 2020. It is unclear why this was agreed on a temporary basis, but does not appear to be as a result of previous homelessness.
The property was a three-bedroom detached house, occupied by the resident and her three children.
The landlord has advised this service that there were no known vulnerabilities on the resident’s record, however it has highlighted that the resident has since advised that she suffers from bipolar disorder and that her son may be autistic.
While it appears that there was an ongoing family court case regarding the custody of the resident’s children, the landlord has confirmed that at the time of the resident’s emergency decant, two of her children were residing with their father and not the resident.

Scope

While it was not raised within the resident’s initial complaint, the Ombudsman notes that the resident did later (in 2021) make mention to the state of her previous property, alleging that the landlord had left her and her family to deal with a flood for over seven months. Although this would have contributed to the resident’s overall experience under the landlord, the Ombudsman has not taken this matter into consideration in investigating the resident’s complaint and will not be commenting on this further. This is because this relates to a historic event and tenancy under a different property. While resident’s are entitled to make complaints about previous landlord/tenant relationships, this service would expect a resident to do so within a reasonable time of the event occurring. As per paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

Summary of events

On 19 June 2020 the resident wrote to her Tenancy Officer (TO). She stated she had experienced several issues with her neighbour and subsequently had to call the police. Her neighbour had broken into her car and moved the car into the middle of the road, nearly causing two collisions. She stated that as she waited for the police to arrive, her neighbour had also been shouting abuse at her.
The resident advised the TO that she would not be interacting with the neighbour. She stated that despite writing to the neighbour to apologise for any potential offence caused, and any previous arrangement regarding the driveway that she was unaware of, the neighbour had continued with the verbal abuse. She reminded the TO that she suffered with bipolar disorder and that this was causing her considerable stress.
On 26 August 2020 the resident wrote to several members of staff including the Head of Tenancy and Caretaking Services (HTCS), the Operations Manager (OM) and the Complaints team expressing that despite making multiple reports to the TO (which the Ombudsman has not seen) she was being ignored. The resident noted that on 17 June 2020, her neighbour had called her and her children several names and had since broken into her car twice and moved it into the middle of the road. The neighbour had also kicked her door, breaking the lock.
The resident stated that she had reported these incidents to the TO but had heard nothing back and despite agreeing to mediation, nothing had taken place for well over six or seven weeks. She believed that she was being neglected by the landlord and advised that she would be withholding her rent until such time that this matter was addressed.
The resident wrote further to the landlord on the same day questioning why the landlord had not spoken to the neighbour to explain that more than one car could fit on the drive. She stated that she had to listen to her neighbour tell her every day that she was not entitled to live in the property. She asked the landlord when this behaviour would stop.
On 7 September 2020 the resident wrote further to the landlord expressing that the issue with her neighbour had gotten worse. She asserted that she had sent the landlord multiple emails but still received no response. She requested that the landlord give her a call.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails that it had spoken to the resident that morning. It noted that the resident had been accused of threatening her neighbour with a knife however the police had found no evidence of this. The resident’s neighbour, however, had been seen trying to goad the resident’s children into saying racist remarks (from video footage). The resident’s neighbour had also thrown rubbish over the driveway to prevent the resident from using it. The landlord noted that it had arranged for a member of staff to subsequently visit the properties. It advised (internally) that a move may be required for either the resident or her neighbour.
Following contact from the resident, this Service also contacted the landlord on 7 September 2020 requesting that it respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the handling of the ASB. The landlord was encouraged to respond within 10 working days.
On 13 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She explained that since June 2020, her family had been victimised by her neighbour and there had been no response from the landlord. She asserted that her neighbour was ruining her families lives as a result of the colour of their skin. The resident understood that her local MP and her mental health clinician had now written to the landlord to establish what was being done to support her. With her daughter’s school also planning to make contact, she questioned how many other professionals needed to make contact before something was done.
The resident further explained that while she had accepted meditation on 7 July 2020, and again in the previous week, she had been advised that her neighbour was still contemplating this. She explained she was no longer willing to wait on this and expected the landlord to take action immediately.
On the following day, the neighbour’s Housing Officer (HO) wrote to the resident. He explained that he and the resident’s TO had been in continuous contact since the issue had been raised and were trying to find an amicable conclusion for both parties. The HO assured the resident that every attempt was being made to address the matter. While he could not provide details of the steps that had been taken, due to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), he wished to advise the resident that there had been some action. The resident was advised to continue to liaise with her TO.
On 16 September 2020 the resident responded expressing further disappointment. She advised that she had received a letter from the TO in which the neighbour had told several lies and still, her neighbour had been allowed to continue with her behaviour. The resident stated that she would be withholding rent until the landlord took action.
The OM wrote to the resident on the same day. She noted that the resident had clearly not been ignored as she had been in frequent contact with both the TO and HO. The resident was strongly advised not to withhold rent and it was explained that no correspondence had been received from the resident’s MP.
Records show that on 17 September 2020 the landlord issued both the resident’s neighbour and the resident with Community Protection Notice Warning (CPNW) letters.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with this on 18 September 2020. She asserted that she was being punished for the actions of her neighbour and requested that the landlord escalate her complaint.
While the landlord has suggested to this Service that the OM was in regular contact with the resident at this time, no evidence of this has been provided. The landlord advised this Service on 11 January 2021, in response to the request made on 7 September 2020, that work was still being done to resolve the resident’s complaint and the OM would be speaking with the resident on 12 January 2021.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 29 January 2021 advising that the resident had expressed further dissatisfaction. It was again encouraged to respond to the complaint within five working days.
On 4 February 2021 the OM provided the resident with a stage one response. She stated:
1. The resident had brought the dispute regarding her shared drive to the landlord’s attention in June 2020. Both the resident and her neighbour were offered mediation in resolution of this however although the resident agreed to this, the neighbour had declined. The organisation was therefore unable to move forward.
2. As things escalated, a CPNW was issued to both parties with the exact same conditions. This was served to protect both parties and to establish the main perpetrator. It became clear that while the resident adhered to the conditions of the CPNW, the neighbour did not.
3. A lot of work was subsequently being done to address this behaviour with the neighbour. She stated that due to data protection, she was unable to disclose the exact action that was being taken. She advised that the resident’s case was now with the ASB team.
The landlord’s notes show that on 7 February 2021 the resident’s neighbour reported that the resident’s associates had caused criminal damage to her front door.
On 27 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She reported that she had to call the police as her neighbour had used their car to move hers off the driveway. This had resulted in damage to her new car. The resident shared photographic and video footage with the landlord and advised that there had also been a witness to this event.
It appears that on the following day, the resident reported that her neighbour’s brother (who did not reside at the neighbour’s property) had broken into her property and held her at gunpoint. This was reported to the police although the firearm was not initially disclosed.
A multi-agency case conference subsequently took place on 1 March 2021 including several members of the Tenancy, Safeguarding, and ASB Teams, as well as the police, to discuss the ongoing matter.
On 4 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She again expressed that she was being ignored and that she had been asking for months for her case to be escalated. She requested that the landlord do this as soon as possible.
The landlord confirmed for the resident later that day that her complaint would be considered at stage two of its complaints process. It advised that a response would be provided by 31 March 2021.
Also on 4 March 2021 the landlord undertook a carding exercise in which it made contact with several other residents to obtain their accounts. The Ombudsman can see that the participants reported that both parties antagonised each other and that there had been racist remarks / inappropriate behaviour from both.
On 8 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She stated the landlord had allowed the harassment to continue for 10 months and she was still suffering because her neighbour did not like her being white. She expected the landlord to take this seriously and to offer appropriate safeguarding. She would not be made homeless because the landlord had not taken any steps to protect her. She would also be seeking compensation for as long as this matter continued and expected to be appropriately housed. The resident stated that the landlord’s failure to act had put her whole family in danger.
It appears that the landlord called the resident soon after receiving her email. As the phone was cut off shortly into the call however, it wrote to the resident to summarise its points. The landlord noted it had advised:
1. The residents case had been referred to the ASB Team who would work alongside the police. It had initially had conflicting reports as the resident had not disclosed the firearm to the police.
2. As the resident had said she was unable to return home due to fearing her safety, however needed to collect school uniforms, it confirmed it would escort the resident if this was helpful.
3. An offer of emergency accommodation had also been made – however the resident had declined this.

The resident was advised that her ASB officer would make contact to discuss the next steps. The resident’s frustration with the time taken to investigate the matter was acknowledged, and she was assured by the landlord that its focus was on her safety and working hard to find resolution.

It appears that a member of the ASB Team accompanied the resident on 12 March 2021 back to her property to collect some belongings. In the presence of the ASB officer, another neighbour explained that her CCTV had caught a hooded individual and then a loud bang on the resident’s door. She confirmed that someone had been in the resident’s property.
On 15 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She questioned what was happening with her accommodation and stated that it was costing her half a tank of petrol to drop her daughter to school due to her current distance. She added that it was unfair that she was unable to have all of her children visit due to the lack of space. She asserted that the landlord had failed to resolve the matter and had ignored her for 10 months as she begged for her life. She had now been forced into a hostel by her neighbour.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It advised that the OM had been off on long term sick leave and explained that this was the reason for any delays in coming back to her. It noted that the resident’s points would be included in its stage two response, however and that the residents’ concerns were being looked in to as a matter of urgency by both the ASB Team and the Tenancy Team.
A further multiagency case conference was held on 18 March 2021. Within this, it was agreed that the resident needed an urgent change of accommodation. An immediate move was also supported by the police in writing on 22 March 2021.
On the same day (22 March 2021) the resident expressed dissatisfaction that she was still unaware of what was happening with her housing situation. She reiterated that her children could not be within her care, due to the lack of space. She added that she was unable to afford the commute to her daughter’s school from her current location, and had faced other financial struggles. She could not continue to live in the room she had been placed in or to continue to buy replacement clothing while she was unable to access her belongings at her property. She asserted little had also been done to recognise her mental health needs. The resident therefore requested an update on what the landlord was doing.
In the landlord’s response, still on the same day, it assured the resident that it was doing everything that it could to source alternative accommodation for her and her children. It acknowledged that the resident was going through a difficult time and that she had been separated from her family. and advised that several teams were involved in trying to find a solution. The ASB team were undertaking an investigation, the police were undertaking a criminal investigation, the allocations team were trying to locate alternative accommodation, and the tenancy team were trying to support with the full picture. The resident was advised that she would be contacted by the tenancy manager on the following day.
Notes suggest that the TO met with the resident on this day (22 May 2021) and provided the resident with £40 of her own money to support the resident in purchasing food.
On 29 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing that she had been ignored for the past five weeks. She highlighted that she had been offered another hotel room in the previous week, however, did not consider this to be suitable. She was unable to cook and/or store food in this room and could not put the responsibility on to her mother to supply her with 3 meals a day for her and her children.
The resident reiterated that the landlord’s handling of matters was affecting her mental health. She stated it had been five weeks since the landlord allowed its tenant to threaten her with a firearm, removing her from her home, separating her from her family, and causing her to incur several costs. She suggested that the landlord had ignored a court order to bring her family together.
The landlord responded on the same day. It noted that the resident had spoken to the OM earlier in the day and that it had been agreed that further contact would be made following an update from another team. The landlord explained that it appreciated that a prolonged stay at a hotel was not desirable but explained that it was trying to keep the resident safe advising that she was at the top of the landlord’s priority list. The resident was advised that her case would be discussed in a meeting on the following day.
The resident was also advised by the landlord on the following day that it had taken note of her emails and her comments regarding the lack of cooking facilities and was in constant communication with the Housing Services to source alternative accommodation. It advised that it continue to work with them to establish what could be done in the interim.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord provided its final response. It apologised that the resident felt let down by its service and stated:
1. Following the resident’s reports that her car had been broken into, her door “kicked down”, and being verbally abused, she was advised to contact the police as these were criminal offences. Her TO did also, however, reach out to the neighbour’s HO to resolve the issue. Both the resident and the resident’s neighbour were encouraged to engage in mediation but while the resident had accepted, the neighbour declined this. Attempts were made in both June and September 2020.
2. Following continued allegations received from both parties, the decision was taken to serve written warnings to advise that if the ASB persisted, a CPN would be issued. It noted that the resident did not feel that she was being supported at this time but explained that it needed to be fair to both parties.
3. The resident was in daily contact with several members of staff. There was no evidence that the resident was not being supported. A lot of work had been carried out to establish who the main aggressor was and to reconcile matters.
4. While the resident had complied with the written warning, her neighbour had not. The case was subsequently moved to the ASB team for enforcement action to be considered. Due to COVID-19 laws concerning eviction, this proved to be a lengthy process, however.
5. On 29 January 2021 the OM took the decision to move the resident into emergency accommodation as she was concerned with the affects that matters were having on the resident’s mental health. The possibility of being rehoused was also being explored however as more formal action was being taken against the neighbour, it was hoped that the behaviour would subside.
6. As the neighbour had not been evicted upon the resident’s return to the property on 21 February 2021, it noted that the resident had thought that no action had been taken. It stated that it was unable to disclose the action it had taken at this point due to data protection, and also that serious allegations had been made against the resident at this time too. The landlord apologised that the matter escalated on 28 February 2021 and involved a firearm. It noted that it could not have predicted this and the issue had now exceeded local authority powers.
7. The landlord noted that the resident had been residing in emergency accommodation due to the volatile situation and that this was causing her a considerable amount of disruption due to the distance and size of the accommodation. It stated that it was working hard to identify and offer a permanent housing solution.
8. It explained that given the circumstance, the resident had been given priority banding and rather than moving her to another temporary place, would be approved for a permanent move in order to offer her family the security needed. It highlighted however that there had been a drastic reduction in the availability of social housing in the borough. It therefore encouraged the resident to work alongside it to secure a rehousing solution by considering properties within the private sector or households in other parts of the UK under a nationwide scheme.
9. The resident had provisionally been offered (on 23 March 2021) alternative emergency accommodation located in the borough to bring her closer to her network of support and children’s school. Due to the requirement for a parking permit and the condition of the bathroom and kitchen, this was not accepted, however. The resident was instead booked into a Premier Inn which had been secured for two weeks. It advised that if it was unable to secure permanent accommodation at the end of this period, it would place the resident and her family in longer term emergency accommodation in the interim.

The landlord noted that its staff had followed the correct process with regards to the ASB. It therefore would not uphold the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless, it considered the resident’s housing situation to be a priority. While she was previously in band 3, in position 281 out of 471 applicants in line for a 3-bedroom property, she had now been placed in band 1A which only had 12 applicants. With this said, it was unable to advise on the timescale for availability.

The landlord’s notes suggest that on 12 April 2021 and 4 May 2021 the resident was given £90 in food vouchers (totalling £180).
On 11 May 2021 the landlord wrote further to the resident. It stated:
1. Following its final response, it would like to offer £100 compensation for the delay, time and trouble she experienced during the period she was forced to vacate her home (28 February 2021) until she was offered a more long-term solution on 26 April 2021.
2. It noted that the emergency accommodation provided for the resident and her family during this time was unsuitable and caused the resident to feel unsettled and dispersed.
3. The complaint regarding the management of the ASB had not been upheld. It explained that while it was deeply saddened by how serious the situation had gotten, it could not have anticipated the involvement of a firearm, and was not a reflection of its handling of the matter.
4. The landlord noted that the resident had since been offered a three-bedroom property, allowing her to slowly return to normality.
On the same day the resident responded to the landlord expressing that £100 was not sufficient. She asserted:
1. It did not cover the takeaway meals she was forced to buy over the previous two months.
2. The property had not been decorated and so thousands had been spent, not to mention several hours of her time, to bring the property to standard. The amount offered also did not cover the cost of her carpet, which she now had to throw away. She was unable to use this at her new address.
3. It did not account for all of the trauma she had been through, nor the impact that all of the takeaway meals had on her mental and physical health.

She requested that the landlord reconsider its offer.

On 1 June 2021 the resident chased the landlord to establish whether the compensation offer had been revisited.
On 8 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained:
1. The £100 was still available for her to accept.
2. While it acknowledged that the resident had spent money on renovations and a new carpet, her tenancy at the previous property was not permanent and so careful consideration should have been given to renovations.
3. Due to the situation and the notice, it had sought to move the resident immediately. This resulted in emergency accommodation which was not suitable for her needs. It noted, however, that several attempts were made to source a suitable intermediary measure, including paying for the resident to stay in a hotel. The compensation payment was in recognition of this.
4. The resident was advised to contact HOS if she remained unhappy.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

Due to gaps in the records provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine when the landlord first responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and the action it took at this time. Although it is clear that there was some engagement – as the Ombudsman notes that an offer of mediation was made in June 2020 – the landlord has shared no record of the service it provided at this time.
It therefore appears that the landlord did little to investigate the resident’s concerns or to support her, following her initial reports. Given the nature of her allegations (particularly in respect of her neighbour breaking into her car), it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident to raise her issues with the police, as well as itself, being of a criminal nature. This would have enabled the landlord to use the findings from any police investigation to consider its next steps / whether any tenancy action was required.
While the landlord provided no proof that it did this, the Ombudsman can see that the resident did make reports to the police and that the landlord suggested in its final response that it had given this advice.
Still, although the police would be responsible for pursuing criminal matters, the landlord also had a responsibility to take action where the behaviour of one resident (or both) was impacting another, and particularly where allegations of racism, harassment, and bullying were being made.
Between 19 June 2020 and 17 September 2020, however, the Ombudsman has been unable to evidence that the landlord took proactive steps to investigate the issues reported. Despite the landlord’s suggestion on 13 September 2020 that it had taken steps to address the resident’s neighbour (but was unable to disclose this to the resident due to GDPR restrictions), the Ombudsman has seen no details of the action it took.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord had also arranged to visit the resident / the resident’s neighbour’s property on 7 November 2020 but is unable to confirm whether this took place. The Ombudsman has therefore questioned whether the landlord did enough to demonstrate to the resident that her reports were being taken seriously. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, had the landlord undertaken the carding exercise at this time (rather than in March 2021), it may have supported the landlord’s understanding of how it could have gone about resolving the matter and demonstrated its desire to investigate the issues reported.
In the landlord’s comments to this Service, it suggested that much of the communication and work completed on this case had been done so over the phone. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made, and shared, contemporaneous notes with this Service in order to evidence the service that it had provided and also so that it had accurate records of the management of this case, in line with the Complaint Handling Code. Its failure to do so has meant that it has not been able to fully evidence the level of engagement and to fill the gaps which exist.
It was reasonable, nonetheless, that the landlord proposed mediation as a potential remedy in both June and September 2020. As there were allegations of abuse and criminal offences from both parties, and it was initially unclear to the landlord who the instigator was, it was reasonable for the landlord to take steps to attempt to repair the relationship, in order that both parties could continue to live side by side. The Ombudsman notes that this was welcomed by the resident but not by her neighbour.
It was also reasonable that where this was refused and following further reports (allegedly from both parties), the landlord issued a CPNW to both parties. The Ombudsman can verify that the landlord did take further, proportionate, action where the resident’s neighbour failed to act in accordance with the warning issued. The Ombudsman is also unable to share this information due to data protection.
Due to the action it had taken here, it was fair that the landlord took the decision to observe whether the resident’s neighbour’s behaviour would subside, before enforcing anything further. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was advised of this and that the case had been referred to the landlord’s ASB team.
While the landlord had discussed the potential for a permanent move for either the resident or her neighbour at this time, due to steps that it had already taken, it was not unreasonable that this was not done immediately. In any case, the Ombudsman can see that the resident was placed into temporary accommodation on 29 January 2021 following concerns for her mental health. This was fair. As the landlord was unable to predict that the resident might have an intruder enter her home (on 28 February 2021) upon returning to her property on 21 February 2021, the Ombudsman cannot see that it could have done anything to manage this event.
Moreover, it was reasonable that as the matter had severely escalated, the landlord arranged for the resident to be moved to temporary accommodation and for a multi-agency meeting to take place in order to engage the appropriate agencies to support the resident. However, the Ombudsman considers that had more proactive action been taken sooner, this escalation may not have occurred.
Due to the incidents that occurred on both 27 and 28 February 2021, it was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident that the police would be undertaking an investigation alongside its ASB team. Following further dissatisfaction from the resident on 8 March 2021, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord assured the resident that its teams would continue to work to resolve this matter and to take proportionate action. While it was not shared with the resident, and it is unclear how the matter progressed after this time, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord did take steps to address the resident’s neighbour in May and June 2021.
Looking at the landlord’s management of the ASB as a whole, the gaps in evidence and the landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it took any action when matters were first reported, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was service failure by the landlord. While reports had been made from both parties, mediation was a suitable remedy to recommend in response to the resident’s early reports and the neighbour’s counter allegations and the Ombudsman can see that where this was declined, but the issues continued, further, more intensive action was not taken soon enough by the landlord. While this Service acknowledges and is unable to disclose the further steps that the landlord took, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that enough was done by the landlord to prevent the matter escalating the way it did.
The Ombudsman has identified a clear issue with the landlord’s record keeping and has therefore made a recommendation below to improve its service. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of its interventions, so that it can satisfy itself, the resident (and the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing arrangements.

While it was reasonable that the landlord placed the resident into emergency accommodation on 28 February 2021, promptly after she had reported an incident involving a firearm, it had not arranged accommodation suitable to accommodate two out of three of the resident’s children. This meant that the resident’s children were unable to stay with her during this period which, the Ombudsman appreciates, would have caused her some distress.
The Ombudsman has not considered this to be a failure, however, as the landlord has informed this Service that at this time, the resident had only had custody of one child, which it had accommodated. The Ombudsman has also considered that there was only one child in the care of the resident at the time of the emergency decant.
It is unclear when the resident was granted custody of her two other children, but the Ombudsman can see that this was raised within the multi-agency meeting on 18 March 2021, and it was highlighted that the family needed to be brought together. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord took steps to source alternative accommodation which was suitable for the size of the resident’s family and assured the resident of its intention to do so (on 22 March 2021, although in response to further upset).
As a tenant of a three-bedroom property, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange accommodation which was suitable for a similar number of occupants and the Ombudsman can see that this was done on or around 23 March 2021.
It was not unreasonable that in seeking to accommodate the resident with an urgent move with sufficient space, the landlord resorted to placing the resident and her family at a hotel. The Ombudsman recognises that this would not have provided the resident with the facilities she desired (such as a kitchen to cook), however notes that this was a temporary measure made to keep the resident safe and also that the landlord may not have had a vacant and suitable property.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident was assured on several occasions that the landlord was doing everything that it could to source suitable accommodation, that it was in frequent communication with Housing Services, and that her allegations were being investigated by both the police and its ASB Team. While the resident had previously been in temporary accommodation, the landlord explained within its final response that it was seeking a permanent housing solution for the resident, in recognition of her experience and to provide her and her family with security. This was reasonable.
It was also reasonable that the landlord explained to the resident that it had significantly improved her banding, to assure the resident that her housing matter was being treated as a priority. By also highlighting the shortage of housing in the area and the number of applicants in line for a similar property, the landlord was also able to better manage the resident’s expectations.
The Ombudsman recognises that as a result of the distance of the resident’s initial emergency accommodation, and the lack of facilities such as a kitchen, the resident would have incurred higher costs in having to buy meals as opposed to preparing them, as she explained. The Ombudsman has taken into account, however, that the resident was given £40 by the TO on 22 March 2021, and £180 in food vouchers in April and May 2021. Coupled with this, on 11 May 2021, the landlord offered the resident an award of compensation (£100) to recognise the delay, time, and trouble she experienced during the period she was forced to vacate her home. Looking at this cumulatively, this was satisfactory in putting things right.
While the resident raised that she had also incurred unreasonable travel costs due to the distance between her emergency accommodation and her child’s school, the Ombudsman notes that on or around 8 March 2021 the resident was offered emergency accommodation which was close to her support network and the school, however she declined this. The Ombudsman therefore cannot see that the landlord was liable for the subsequent cost.
The Ombudsman additionally cannot see that the landlord would have been liable to reimburse the resident for her renovation works or her carpet as her occupancy was on a temporary basis and therefore, her decision to undertake this work / buy this carpet was subject to the risk that she would be moved at some point in the future.
Finally, for completeness, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord provided the resident with sufficient support during this time. While the Ombudsman can see that the landlord offered financial support, did engage several of its internal teams, did share information with multiple agencies to seek resolution, and allegedly maintained communication, it is unclear whether any support services were signposted.
The landlord was made aware on several occasions that the situation had been impacting the resident’s bipolar condition, and the Ombudsman can see that the landlord did engage the local authorities Safeguarding Team within its multi-agency meetings. It would have been reasonable, nonetheless, for the landlord to have made arrangements / a referral / or a recommendation to the available support services to help manage the resident’s condition. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident was directed to any services however, or vice versa. As the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s overall effort to support the resident, the Ombudsman has not considered this to be a service failure. A recommendation has been made below, however.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, a complaint is identified as “an expression of dissatisfaction with the Council, however expressed, whether justified or not”. It is therefore unclear why the landlord had not treated the resident’s correspondence on 26 August 2020 as a complaint despite her clear dissatisfaction with the service she had received.
Although the resident complained that she had made multiple reports which she believed were being ignored, and expressed that she felt neglected, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord sought to consider this expression as a complaint. This was inappropriate. The landlord’s complaints process suggests that where a complaint is made, the landlord will acknowledge and offer a complaint response within 20 working days, however this was not done.
This was more so unreasonable as on 7 September 2020, this Service prompted the landlord to offer the resident a complaint response within 10 working days however still, the landlord failed to do so. While the landlord suggested to this Service three months later on 11 January 2021, that it had been in continuous contact with the resident about her complaint, it provided no evidence of this, and the Ombudsman cannot see that any complaint correspondence was shared.
It was not until this Service prompted the landlord again on 29 January 2021, giving it five working days to offer its response, that the landlord provided its stage one complaint letter on 4 February 2021. This was far in excess of the timescales set out under its process. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s complaint within 20 working days subsequently resulted in a delay of almost five months.
While the landlord, at stage two of its complaints process, acted in accordance with its policy and offered a complaint response within the suggested timeframe, it failed to take the opportunity to recognise its oversight at stage one. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was therefore a service failure in respect of its handling of the overall complaint. The landlord’s failure to respond promptly at stage one was a missed opportunity to review its handling of the ASB and to see whether further intervention was needed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration (service failure) in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing arrangements, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. The landlord could have done more to demonstrate to the resident that her reports of ASB were being taken seriously, and whilst it was appropriate that the landlord attempted to remedy the dispute by offering both parties the option of mediation, it did not adequately respond to the resident’s further concerns between June and September 2020. The landlord only sought to employ other enforcement tools such as warning letters and more serious action when the situation had drastically worsened. This was inappropriate.
2. Although the landlord was delayed in finding the resident suitable accommodation to house her whole family, it recognised this within its communication with the resident and also made an offer of compensation in acknowledgement of the trouble this would have caused. This was fair. It was not unreasonable that the resident also highlighted the costs that she had incurred as a result of a lack of cooking facilities, however in the Ombudsman’s view, the financial support she had already been given was sufficient in accounting for this. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was required to reimburse the resident for her travel costs or that it was liable to cover the cost of the resident’s carpet / renovations upon moving her into permanent accommodation.

What’s more, it was reasonable that the landlord upgraded the resident’s housing priority to reflect the circumstance and ensured that she was aware of the active effort it was making to place her in permanent accommodation. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident’s expectations were managed by advising her on her position with respect of other housing applicants and the availability of properties.

Contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord failed to recognise and respond to the residents in accordance with its complaints process. This subsequently resulted in a delay in the resident’s concerns being heard, in the landlord clarifying its position in relation to her dissatisfaction, and in the resident being able to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman Service. This was inappropriate. The landlord also missed the opportunity to consider its handling of the resident’s complaint, at stage two of its process despite its review of matters.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

£150 in recognition of maladministration (service failure) in responding to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
£150 in recognition of the delay in responding to the resident’s initial complaint.
£100 previously offered in recognition of the delays, time and trouble in arranging suitable accommodation for the resident and her family
The landlord should ensure that the above payments are made within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

Under the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords are advised that “a full record [should] be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage. This should include the original complaint and the date received; all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared”. Following the findings of this case, the landlord should therefore ensure that moving forward, it puts a system in place which enables it to record and maintain any and all action undertaken not just in relation to complaints, but in delivering its overall service. The landlord should ensure that it is able to evidence for itself, and for the Housing Ombudsman Service should it be necessary, the level of service it has provided – whether by telephone or via another method. This will also enable it to reflect on its performance and to learn from outcomes, in line with the dispute resolution principles.
It is important that where resident’s display difficulties with their mental health, the landlord refers and signposts the available support services to assist them. The landlord should ensure that this is not overlooked in future cases, and that where this is done, a record of the advice given is made – particularly for the reason set out above.
The landlord should ensure that the resident’s records are properly updated to show both her son’s and her vulnerability. If the landlord has any doubts about these conditions, it should seek confirmation by requesting proof from the resident’s GP or medical professional.