London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202114384)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114384

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 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 response to the resident’s request for:
1. A window to be installed in her property.
2. A fence to be installed outside her property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since October 2016. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property has a communal area at the rear. The resident resides at the property with her son and daughter. There are no reported vulnerabilities for the resident although she informed the landlord that her son has health issues and anxiety which she considered was exacerbated by their living situation.
When the resident moved into the property, the rear bedroom did not have a window but instead had double doors that opened onto a communal area outside the property. The resident’s son uses this bedroom.
This service has twice asked to see a copy of the full tenancy agreement and head lease for the development that the property is situated in. The landlord has not provided these documents.

Scope of investigation

The resident’s complaint about her application to the landlord for a window and fence was driven by a concern for her son’s security following an incident of antisocial behaviour in or around June 2020. However, she has not made a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to antisocial behaviour in the area. The records show that her main complaint was not about the resident’s response to antisocial behaviour but its response to her application to increase her security in the light of historical antisocial issues in the area and her anxiety about how these might impact on her family. For that reason, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the installation of a window and fence, due to concerns of previous incidents of ASB.

Relevant Legal and policy framework

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord has an antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. Among other things, it says it will take account of vulnerabilities and carry out risk assessments. This service asked the landlord if it completed a risk assessment. The landlord did not respond to that enquiry.
Under the Housing Act 2004 (the Act), a ‘hazard’ is any risk of harm to the health or safety or an occupier in a dwelling which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling. A category 1 hazard is the most serious and local authorities must act if they are identified. The next most serious are category 2 hazards. Local authorities are under no obligation to act but have the statutory power to do so. However, once the notice is served, the landlord upon whom the notice is served commits an offence under the Act if it fails to comply with it without reasonable excuse.
The landlord’s home improvement policy says that if a resident wants to make an improvement to their home they will need to apply for permission. It says it will consider all applications for improvements or alterations affecting the building the resident lives in and the surrounding areas. It says this includes communal areas. However, it adds that it must guarantee that the structure of the building remains safe for all occupants and that any changes made do not adversely affect the rights of other individuals who live in the building or on the estate. It also explains that some improvements may be subject to certain conditions, planning permission or other regulations.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It says it will take 10 working days to respond to complaint at stage one. It says it will take 20 working days to respond at stage two of its process. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
Its repairs policy sets out that it accepts its responsibility to maintain, among other things, a property’s windows and doors.

Summary of events

Window installation

On 17 June 2020, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord. He informed the landlord that the resident had been in contact to say her son had been threatened with a machete outside his bedroom window doors. He asked if these double doors could be converted to a window to provide the resident’s son with extra security.
In its response, the landlord suggested that the resident should complete diary sheets to record her concerns about ASB. It also advised the resident to contact the police about any criminal activity. It informed her MP that there was CCTV across the estate to help with security and said it regularly liaised with the Safer Neighbourhood Team about antisocial behaviour.
The landlord has advised that as of October 2021, the resident had not returned any diary sheets. It said it also informed the resident’s MP that the window door acted as a fire exit for the ground floor of the property and that the courtyard it opened onto was communal and, as set out in the head lease, could not be split into individual properties.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident made further enquiries about installing a window, including involving her local Council, but these were not successful. The records show that around August 2020 internal discussions between directors from the landlord set out that it did not consider it could carry out any works from the repair budget because “nothing was actually broken”. They said it would consider whether anything could be done within another department.
However, it appears this query was not progressed because on 8 January 2021, a Council environmental protection officer emailed the landlord saying “I thank you for all you have tried to do with this case but you continue to be blocked by your directors….This has now become unacceptable and the Council is taking formal action.” They served an Improvement Notice (“the notice”) on the landlord, which said there was a Category 2 hazard at the property. The Ombudsman notes that throughout the notice, dates are referred to as occurring in 2020; however, given the dates of the email sending the notice, it is likely this is an error and the Ombudsman has taken all dates noted within to refer to 2021.
The notice described the hazard in these terms: “the door must be left open due to no window or natural light in the rear bedroom. This is to allow ventilation of the room. The area is affected by a high crime rate and leaving this door open is a danger to the occupier as the door opens onto the path that the estate uses to access the main road.” The Council said there had been an agreement about placing a fence at the back of the property. However, it also said the landlord had not agreed to this. The officer considered that the best course of action would be if the landlord replaced or repaired the rear entrance door to allow for the installation of a window within the rear door. It said these works should be completed within 28 days of 14 February 2021. This meant the work should have been completed by 14 March 2021.
The notice also set out that the landlord had the opportunity to appeal, but it did not.
On 23 January 2021, the resident reported further ASB near her son’s bedroom doors.
The records indicate that the landlord ordered a window on 25 February 2021. It is not clear if this was for a new window or replacing the doors with a frame that included a window. However, when the contractors contacted the resident to install the window, the resident said they told her the plan was to install a 900mm by 300mm window. She said she wanted a double window. She said she was not asking for anything different to other identical properties. The records indicate however, that the landlord considered a double window could present an issue for security. It is not clear if this reasoning was communicated to the resident although it was explained to the Council. In the landlord’s stage one response, it apologised for failing to formally respond to the resident about the delay in reaching the decision regarding the window installation, although it said it had corresponded with the Council.
The records show that the landlord asked its contractors to follow up on 19 April 2021. In May 2021, the landlord’s contractors contacted the resident again. She said that this time they said they planned to install a 1200mm by 300mm window. However, the resident was not content with that specification either as she felt it would still be too small. Her preference was for a window measuring 900mm by 900mm. The landlord considered that as the window was purely for ventilation, this was not necessary. The records show the Council supported this view.
However, on 12 May 2021, the landlord spoke again to the resident and agreed to a 1200mm by 400mm window. It told the Council that the resident was happy with that decision and that it would instruct its contractors to go ahead. An inspection was booked.
On 28 May 2021, the resident asked the landlord for an update about the window installation and also requested a fence. The landlord has since apologised to the resident for failing to respond to this request.
On 15 June 2021, the resident’s local Councillor asked for an update about the resident’s request for a window installation and fence. He stressed that the resident wanted the fence to strengthen her sense of security.
On or around 23 June 2021, the Council environmental officer who issued the notice asked the landlord why the window had still not been fitted. They had contacted the contractors who informed them that the window had still not been “signed off” by the landlord. The officer expressed concern about the delay, even though they noted there had previously been issues over the size of the window. They asked that the works be signed off by the next day at the latest.
The works order was sent to the contractors on 30 June 2021. However, the works did not go ahead as planned on 5 July 2021, as the resident and contractors had a disagreement. The contractors said they were unwilling to attend the resident’s property as they considered the resident had been rude on the phone. The resident, however, considered it was the contractors who had been rude to her.
The landlord instructed new contractors on 19 August 2021, this time for a window measuring 900mm by 400mm height. The resident was then contacted by the new contractors who were working to the changed specification. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 September 2021 to say that she understood it had been agreed that the window would be 1200mm by 600mm high, (200mm more height than agreed in May 2021). She asked for clarification. From the available evidence, it does not seem that this query was addressed until October 2021, when the landlord said the size of the window was not open to further review or changes in specification.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord emailed the new contractors and said the measurements of the window should be 1200mm wide and 400mm high, which was in line with what was agreed in May 2021. In November 2021, the landlord was informed that the window had been ordered. It is unclear if the resident was informed of this at the same time but she said she spoke with the new contractors herself, who told her a better size would be 1200mm by 600mm. In her reply to the landlord’s stage one response, she said it was wrong of the landlord to say that the size of the window was not up for further debate.
In February 2022, the resident told this service that the landlord had now agreed to the dimensions she wanted: 1200mm by 600mm.
The window was installed in March 2022.

Request for a fence.

In relation to the resident’s request for a fence, the landlord’s surveyors contacted the resident on 28 April 2021. They said that, while they sympathised with the resident’s wish for privacy, as the land the resident wished to put a fence on is communal, the landlord could not erect a fence. They said that the landlord’s decision was consistent with other similar properties on the development which also did not have fences. In response to the resident’s complaint that another property nearby did have a fence, the surveyor said those properties which had fences were designed that way.
The next day, the Council’s environmental officer emailed both the resident and the landlord. In relation to the issue about the fence, they supported the resident’s claim that she had experienced “several ASB issues” and that she lived in a high crime area. They also said that while they could not insist the landlord erected a fence, because of the high pattern of crime in the area, they hoped the parties could come to a sensible arrangement. They were concerned about the resident’s son’s window door opening onto what they described as an area where crimes were being committed. They were also dismissive of the landlord’s argument that the original design of the property prevented sensible steps being taken to address the situation.
On 5 May 2021, the resident told the landlord she did not consider its argument that a fenced off area was not part of the original design was a valid argument “when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of myself and my family.” She said that, originally, the car port at her property was poorly designed, allowing someone to enter her car port. She also said that the landlord had authorised changes to the carport. She therefore asked why it would not, in the same way, authorise the building of a fence in response to the information that her son had been threatened. She asked the landlord to consider that, “…sometimes things are simply not black and white and I do not feel that [the landlord has] really looked at the bigger picture here.”
On 21 June 2021, a surveyor visited the property. They too noted that the area that the resident wanted fenced was a communal area. They said that, as it did not form part of the curtilage of the resident’s property, they thought “permission would be denied.” It is not clear if they meant permission from the landlord or planning permission from the Council.
On 9 August 2021, the resident asked the landlord if it could enquire about getting planning permission to erect the fence. In the email thread that followed, on 18 August 2021, a surveyor again confirmed to the resident that as the land at the rear of her property is not part of the confines of the boundary of her property, permission “cannot be provided.” They concluded that they would not enter into any more correspondence about the issue.

Stage one complaint

On 28 September 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. It was acknowledged the same day. This service has not been given a copy of the stage one complaint.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord provided its stage one response, which included the following:
1. Once a decision was reached to complete the window installation, the Council was satisfied with the landlord’s actions. It accepted the decision to go ahead “took some time to be agreed” and apologised for delay. However, it said that the request was outside of its usual repair and maintenance remit and it had not been obliged to make any changes to the original building design. It said the size of the window was not open to further review.
2. It said it was sorry to hear about the incident with her son and that, if the resident considered the landlord could provide any supporting safeguarding action, she should let it know. It said it would refer the matter to the relevant support team. This service has not seen any evidence of a referral.
3. The landlord considered it had no obligation to put up a fence or grant the resident permission to erect a fence in a communal area. It said that decision was not open to appeal or further review.
4. It apologised for its failure to respond to 2 of her complaints. (These were in relation to the window and the fence). It said that a failure to communicate within its service standard window would normally result in compensation of £20 per failure. However, as the resident had made formal complaints, it offered a ‘good will’ payment of £100. In recognition of the delays involved in communicating with her after the “request from the Council” to install a window, it offered the resident a further £100.
On 4 November 2021, the resident responded. She was unhappy that the window had still not been installed. She said, among other things, that she wanted the landlord to seek planning permission for the fence to be erected. She said another neighbour had a fence of the sort she wanted and therefore felt the same rules should apply to her situation.
The resident also asked who she should contact about safeguarding and said she wanted a written apology from the members of the landlord’s staff who had been dealing with the window issue. She felt that the advice that had been to given to her had been inappropriate. She further asked for an apology from the contractors who had said they would not attend her address again. She provided screenshots of the conversations she had had with them and said she felt it was their behaviour rather than hers that had been inappropriate.

Stage two complaint

On 1 February 2022, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two. She thanked the landlord for this but noted it had only done so after she contacted this service to say the landlord had been late with its response. (She had sought escalation on 4 November 2021.)
She said the issue with the window had been “…eventually resolved” although the window had still not been installed.
With regards to the issue of the fence, the resident said that just because something had not been part of the original design or plans for the building, this did not stop the landlord granting permission.
With regards to ASB, the resident said she had provided the landlord with “plenty of crime reference numbers over the years regarding incidents that have made my family and I feel very unsafe in our own home.” She also said there had been regular issues with children knocking on her son’s bedroom double doors and then running away. She said he found this very stressful. She added that her son had long term health issues which made the situation particularly alarming.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord asked for an extension to respond to the resident until 8 March 2022. The resident agreed and the landlord made some internal enquiries.
In seeking to understand the decision to refuse the resident’s request for a fence, the landlord’s complaints team spoke with the building surveyor who had refused the request and other staff. Staff members considered that a fence could not be erected in a communal area “for any reason.” Further, internal records show that it was also considered that “the more important thing here is we are a repair service, this is in no way a repair.” There were also concerns that allowing this fence could “open up a trend for which [the landlord] will eventually pick up the maintenance cost.”
It was further noted that the landlord had discussed the case with the Council who, it said, did not support the resident’s case. It said this was because there were “no grounds to support a liable claim.” During this service’s enquiries, this service twice asked the landlord to provide correspondence or evidence that showed the Council supported the landlord’s approach to the fence. It did not provide that evidence; although it did provide evidence the Council was generally supportive of the approach the landlord took with the window installation. This service also asked what was meant by the above statement that there were no grounds to support a liable claim. The landlord did not respond to that enquiry.
Internal records show the landlord’s complaints team asked whether the decision to refuse the fence was backed up by a policy. They also queried where the resident could appeal that decision and was told that if the resident wanted to appeal the landlord would “assume it would be through housing management.” It is not clear what was meant by that response. During this service’s enquiries, this service asked the landlord twice whether this message was conveyed to the resident. Given that the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that this message was conveyed to the resident, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it was. The Ombudsman can only not confirm whether there is a process for appealing this type of decision.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 4 March 2022, which included the following:
1. The landlord had discussed the decision not to grant permission for a fence with the relevant staff and, as the land is communal, it would not be fenced off for private use.
2. It said it appreciated that there was a “nuisance aspect” to the resident’s request and that it was “in no doubt that this has been discussed and considered as part of the responses.”
3. It said that the head lease set out that the communal courtyard could not be demised to individual properties.
4. It reiterated the response it had provided to the resident’s MP, which was that, if she was concerned about ASB, she should report any incidents online and to the police. It attached diary sheets for her to complete.
5. It reiterated its previous offer of £200 compensation and offered a further £100 for the late stage two response.
During this service’s enquiries, this service asked the landlord what was meant by the statement that the nuisance aspect of the resident’s complaint had “no doubt” been discussed. The stage one complaint handler for the landlord said that the resident had not raised issues surrounding ASB at stage one of her complaint. However, the stage two reviewer said they had received assurances that discussions around the “nuisance aspect” had happened before their involvement at stage two. The landlord did not provide any records of any discussions or consideration given to the nuisance aspect of the resident’s complaint.
The records show the resident made some complaints about ASB issues after receipt of the landlord’s stage two response but this service is not investigating those as the landlord has not had an opportunity to respond to any issues regarding them. This service has only looked at those reports of ASB that were made in connection with the residents request for a window and fence prior to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s approach in relation to the above three complaint headings. As part of that consideration, the Ombudsman has also assessed how the landlord approached the resident’s reports of ASB, which drove her applications for both window installation and a fence erection.

On the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a window installation

Landlords are required to keep their properties in good repair. However, they are not obliged to make improvements that go beyond necessary repair and maintenance. They are not compelled to remedy design defects.
However, in this case, once the landlord was issued with an improvement notice, setting out that the resident’s Council considered there was a category 2 hazard at the resident’s property; it was obliged to act. The Council considered the resident’s son could not ventilate his bedroom without opening his double doors and those double doors opened onto an area that Officer P considered to have a high crime rate. This service makes no comment on the accuracy of the Council’s officer’s understanding of the level of ASB in the area or how the resident was directly impacted by it. It does not need to. After the notice was served, the Act is clear that the landlord had to comply by 14 March 2021. It is an offence for the landlord to fail to comply with an improvement notice without reasonable excuse.
In this case, the landlord made initial efforts to comply with the notice. It appears that for that reason, the Council was content to wait longer than usual for the order to be complied with. The landlord was under no obligation to install a window that was suited to the resident’s preferences. It only had to deal with the category 2 hazard. Until 12 May 2021, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord.
However, once an agreement had been reached on 12 May 2021 about the size of the window, it should have been installed as quickly as possible. The Council became concerned when over a month later, it learnt that the window had still not been signed off. It appears there was some communication problem with the landlord’s contractors because the records show the landlord agreed with its contractor to have an inspection on 24 May 2021. However, while it is not clear exactly what happened, it was not signed off until 30 June 2021, a week later than the Council’s extended deadline and six weeks after the measurements had been agreed with the resident. This is a service failure.
Other problems followed. The relationship between the resident and the landlord’s contractors deteriorated. This service makes no finding on what happened. (Although the Ombudsman considers the resident’s complaint about the contractors should have been addressed in the landlord’s complaint response). Or, otherwise, if the landlord considered the complaint about contractors to be a separate issue, it should have advised the resident to raise a separate complaint. To not address it at all would have added to her frustration.
It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure communications between the resident and its contractors runs smoothly. However, sometimes relationships break down. But this service finds that, once this relationship broke down, it took the landlord too long to find another contractor and order a window again. It took from 5 July 2021 to 19 August 2021. Given this was a period during the summer months and the window was needed to provide adequate ventilation, it should have acted quicker. When it did order the window, the records show it initially ordered a window which was not in line with the agreement it had made with the resident in May 2021. This must have been frustrating for the resident, leading to further distress and inconvenience. It is reasonable to conclude this was an accidental error on the landlord’s part as it was corrected on 23 September 2021. But this error delayed things again, by a further month, again during the summer period, when ventilation would have been important.
The records and the complaint response to the resident show that the landlord did not consider this work to fall within its usual repairs remit. Perhaps because of this view, it failed to take control of the situation.
Instead, the landlord’s approach appeared to be fixed to the fact that the resident’s request did not fall into its repair remit. It should have dealt with the request as a request for a home improvement. Its policy says it can look at requests for improvements to communal areas. It may have been that the outcome would have been the same because as that policy sets out, there are sometimes, and in this case there were planning considerations to take into account. But, if her request had been considered in line with the correct policy; the landlords response to her request might not have seemed so dismissive.
As it had been issued with an improvement notice, whether it considered the window installation was a repair or not, it was compelled to perform the installation. And in those circumstances, it should have been absolutely clear with the resident from the outset about how it intended to comply. It should have recognised that the background to the resident’s request was connected to her fears about perceived high crime rates in the areas and her family’s direct experience of a frightening incident. It was in that context that the Council had issued the notice and the landlord should have also taken account of that context. The resident did not just want the window for ventilation. As such, her request required a more communicative, empathetic and holistic approach, involving different departments working together to resolve the core issues of complaint. This might have helped avoid the frustration experienced by the resident and the repeated involvement by the landlord.
Further delays were caused by the resident asking the landlord to reconsider the agreed size of the window in November 2021. The resident, she says on the advice of the landlord’s new contractors, sought a larger window. This service accepts that the landlord did not have to agree to install a larger window. However, as the resident said she sought the increase in size on the recommendation of the landlord’s contractors, it would have been helpful to have provided a considered opinion as to why it would not follow this recommendation. This alone, however, does not amount to service failure. The landlord had already reached an agreement with the resident which would have satisfied the requirements of the notice. The resident then sought to alter that agreement. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s’ opinion, the delay from the point when the resident sought to change the size of the window again to the point when the landlord agreed to her request, was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident says that the issue was resolved because, in the end, she got the window size she (and she says the new contractors) deemed appropriate. But the relationship between the landlord and its tenant was damaged by an uncoordinated approach to the issue. The landlord offered the resident £100 to acknowledge the delays in complying with the Council’s “request” to install a window. But the Council did not request that the landlord install a window. The Council identified a category 2 hazard and issued a notice requiring it to address it. The records show the Council considered the landlord’s response to that information was unhelpful to the point where it was necessary to serve that notice. Even after formal action was taken, the landlord failed to manage its response appropriately to the extent that the resident and her family continued to live in a property with a category 2 hazard for longer than they should have done. The window was necessary for ventilation, particularly during the summer months.
Based on the above, there was maladministration by the landlord. Its failure to take a holistic approach to the resident’s request meant that communications between the resident and landlord were difficult and resulted in a delayed resolution to the issue. An amount of £250 compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This order replaces the landlord’s offer of £100.

On the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to erect a fence.

The landlord is correct that it has no obligation to erect a fence at the resident’s property. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. As mentioned above, landlords are not compelled to carry out works of improvement going beyond such repair and maintenance as might be necessary to maintain a house in the condition in which it was first let. (Apart from when, as above, an Improvement Notice is served and the notice issued in this case did not require the landlord to erect a fence to address the identified hazard).
Further, while the landlord has not provided this service with the head lease, it is not disputed that the land the resident wants to erect a fence on is a communal space of land. Therefore, when the development was originally designed, it was considered that there should be spaces set aside for everyone’s use; not to be divided up between individual residents.
The resident makes the point that, even though it is communal land, the area she wants fenced off is not used in that way and there is no reason for it to be. There is, she argues, no reason for anyone to stand outside her son’s bedroom doors – or window.
The resident, her local MP, and Officer P all recommended the landlord to erect a fence at her property because of the issue with ASB.
The resident says she has provided the landlord with numerous crime reference numbers presumably illustrating the high levels of crime in the area. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it properly considered the reason the resident said she was making an application for a fence; that she believed it would provide protection from ASB in the area. Its ASB policy states that it will work to prevent ASB by a range of means, including “carrying out estate inspections to identify and respond to environmental issues on estates and maintaining and managing communal areas to minimise crime and ASB.” It also says that, when it redevelops estates or builds new estates, it will seek do so in such a way that has the effect of “designing out crime.”
In this case, the opinion of not just the resident but another professional, a Council environmental health inspector, was that there was a design fault with the type of property the resident was living in; namely that her son’s double doors opened directly into an area with high crime. Landlords are not compelled to remedy design faults. But there is no evidence that the landlord properly considered why the resident wanted a fence erected. If it was certain that it could not erect a fence on communal land, that did not prevent it taking other steps to explore what the resident said about ASB outside her property. It said that the resident did not provide any diary sheets for it to examine but there was other persuasive evidence to consider. For example, the Council had considered the crime in the area to be of such a significant level that it had ordered the landlord to install a window in the property rather than expect her son to open his double doors. In accordance with its policy, the landlord could have considered if there was anything else it could have done to maintain and manage the communal area outside the resident’s son’s window in response to her reported anxiety.
On the available evidence, the landlord assessed the resident’s application purely with the overriding view that there could be “no reason” for any fence on the land as it was originally designed to be a communal space. When the Ombudsman asked for evidence that her concerns about ASB were considered, its response was confusing. It provided assurances the nuisance aspect of her application was taken into account without providing evidence this happened. It said those concerns did not form part of her initial complaint at stage one and yet also said it had “no doubt” considered her concerns before stage two.
However, this service has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord did consider her request for a fence in the light of her concerns about antisocial behaviour. The landlord’s complaint response that this consideration ‘no doubt’ happened is not conclusive evidence that it did.
This service also notes that the landlord told the resident at stage one of its complaint response that if she wanted to report a safeguarding concern it would refer her to the correct department. She then asked who she could speak to about her concerns, and the landlord did not respond. It should have. This was a service failure on the part of the landlord.
The landlord was wrong to shut down the resident’s request without giving due consideration to her concerns about ASB. Internally, when the landlord’s complaints team made enquiries about the decision to refuse to erect a fence, they were told that the Council supported the landlord’s position. This service asked for evidence to show that this was the case but it was not provided.
This is not to say that the landlord had to erect a fence. As the Council officer explained, they did not have the authority to insist the landlord take that approach. Neither does this service. However, when it decided that it would not under any circumstances seek planning permission for a fence, the landlord should have taken into account all the circumstances the resident asked it to consider. Internal records show that part of the reasoning for not allowing the resident’s request for a fence was that to do so could “open up a trend” with the “important thing” being that it did not consider the fence to be a repair. The fact that the erection of a fence was not a repair should not have precluded consideration of erecting the fence for other reasons. As the resident said, this was a failure to look at the “bigger picture.” Further, it failed to inform the resident that there might have been an opportunity for her to appeal its decision through housing management, which is a process this service is unclear about in any event. It told her instead that there was no route to appeal. From the internal records this service has seen, the accuracy of that statement appears to be doubtful.
This service has therefore made an order that it should respond to the resident’s application for a fence again; this time fully articulating its reasoning. It might consider it would be appropriate for it to consider her request under its home improvement policy. If it is unable to consider raising her request with the Council to consider planning permission, it should set out why this is. If it considers the head lease cannot be amended, it should say why. It should address what she says about her concerns in relation to ASB and if a fence remains an impossibility, it should liaise with her to see, in line with its ASB policy, if there is anything more it may be able to do to help manage her environment to enhance her sense of security. It should provide the Ombudsman and the resident with an account of its rationale for any decision which demonstrates it considered her application fully. This service finds the Landlords failure to take a more holistic approach to the resident’s request and to provide a more sympathetic and considered response to the residents application is a service failure.

Complaints handling

Its stage one response was in time. It stage 2 response was late. It took 80 working days to respond. However, the Ombudsman considers the £100 offered for that delay amounted to reasonable redress, taking into account that the landlord asked the resident for extra time during that period.
However, the Ombudsman also considers that the landlord’s complaint responses did not demonstrate that the landlord had sympathy for the concerns the resident raised. In summary, this is for the following reasons:
1. The landlord repeatedly stressed to the resident that her request for a window was “outside the repair responsibility and remit of the maintenance services” it was obliged to provide. Strictly speaking, this is correct. But in this case the landlord had been served with a notice to install a window to alleviate a category 2 hazard. It was therefore obliged to complete the work.
2. The landlord refused to consider changing the size of the window but failed to explain its reasoning. It simply said it was “not open to further review.” This abrupt rejection did not provide an adequate response to her concerns and did not help foster a good working relationship between the resident and the landlord.
3. The landlord insisted that it was not obliged to make any changes to the building design “as this would have been subject to planning and design regulation when constructed.” However, the improvement notice served by the Council illustrated that, whatever the original design, it was possible to make changes if necessary. Further, the resident had also mentioned that the landlord had been able to take steps to alter the car port. The landlord failed to address this point.
Based on this service’s assessment, a finding of service failure is appropriate in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determinations (decisions)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request for a window to be installed in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints request for a fence to be erected at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to comply with an improvement notice to alleviate a category 2 hazard at the resident’s property within a satisfactory timeframe. The initial problems with the installation were due to issues with the size of the window but once these were resolved, in May 2021, it still took over five months to rearrange installation of the window. This was during the summer months when ventilation would have been necessary.
The landlord failed to consider or to demonstrate that it had fully considered the resident’s request for a fence to be erected at her property in the context of her concerns about ASB in her area and outside her property. She was not alone in considering that antisocial activity is an issue in her area and the landlord should have taken this into account in its decision making, exploring in greater depth the reports from the resident and the Council’s environmental health officer about the alleged high crime in the area, rather than simply considering that there could be ‘no reason’ why a fence could be erected.
The landlord’s complaint responses failed to engage meaningfully with the resident’s concerns about ASB, informing her bluntly that it had made its decision and that there was no opportunity to appeal its decisions. This was not correct and it caused frustration and was unsympathetic in tone.

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified in this determination. The apology should acknowledge the maladministration; accept responsibility for it; explain why it happened; and express sincere regret.
2. pay the resident £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays to the installation of the window. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100.
3. pay £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to respond to her application for a fence to be erected at her property with a full and considered response that sufficiently acknowledges or responds to her concerns about ASB in the area.
The landlord is to contact the resident, ask her to provide all the information she would like to be considered in relation to her concerns about ASB at or around her property and following a risk assessment by its antisocial team, which is informed by liaison with the police about ASB reports in her area, provide a full response to her request for a fence, taking into account what she has said about ASB in her area. It should provide a copy of its reasoned response to her application and a copy of the risk assessment to both the Ombudsman and the resident.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should consider what steps it can take to improve its systems to encourage working across services when issues for improvements associated with ASB arise.
Provide this service evidence of compliance with the above orders.