Ocean Housing Limited (202112011)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112011

Ocean Housing Limited

17 October 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. Response to the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour, harassment, and threatening behaviour.
2. Handling of a request for a management move.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy started on 15 January 2018.
The resident lives in a 3 bedroom property with her partner and children.
Prior to the complaint, the landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but during the course of the complaint, the landlord has become aware of the resident’s emotional and mental health issues.
Ms A is a tenant of the landlord and is a neighbour of the resident. The resident has made anti-social behaviour (ASB) complaints about Ms A and her partner (Mr A).
The tenancy agreement states tenants, and anyone who lives with them, must not cause nuisance to anyone in the locality of their property.
The landlord operates an ASB policy stating it adopts a ‘person centred approach’. The policy notes ASB means actions causing alarm, harassment, or distress to another person. It will respond to high risk ASB reports by the next working day and low risk within 10 working days. It may use evidence such as diary sheets and gather evidence from other agencies when investigating ASB. While it may develop an action plan to address ongoing ASB, other tools include written warnings, mediation, acceptable behaviour agreements, referral to support agencies, or legal action such as eviction or injunction. When carrying out investigations, it will consider the risks to a resident, and whether a resident requires specific support.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 4 stage complaints policy. Its complaints policy stated it will try to resolve complaints at “the first point of contact” but, if it cannot, a 3 stage complaints process will be followed. If the complaint cannot be resolved at the informal stage, it will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working day. Stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days by a case manager, stage 2 complaints within 10 working days by a managing director and stage 3 within 10 working days by the chief executive.
In July 2020, the Ombudsman published its Complaint Handling Code (the Code) setting out good practice on how a landlord should respond to a complaint effectively and fairly. The Code confirms that an effective complaint handling procedure is accessible, timely, responsive, fair and should seek early resolution and deliver improvement to the services a landlord provides.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when it will pay compensation to a resident. Payments can be made for inconvenience, loss, dissatisfaction, and following service failures. The policy includes guidance with banded values for identifying a level of compensation based on impact on the resident.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy deals with management transfers. Tenants, or a member of their household, will be granted a transfer if they are subject to violence or threats of violence; the police support a move; and, permission is given by an authorised officer with the landlord. “Management transfers are granted on the basis of one reasonable offer only and like for like in terms of bedroom size.”

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.”
This investigation focuses on events from 21 January 2021 as a reasonable period to evaluate the landlord’s management of reported ASB before the resident’s formal complaint in July 2021. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure (which concluded on 1 October 2021), have not been investigated here and are referenced for contextual purposes only.
It is recognised that the resident has continued to report ASB following the landlord’s final response to her complaint. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the ASB issues reported prior to the landlord’s final complaint response.
In addition, paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “concern policies which have been properly decided by the member in accordance with relevant and appropriate best practice, unless the policy may give rise or contribute to a systemic service failure.”
The resident has asked this Service to consider the inclusion of moving costs in the landlord’s compensation policy or a change to its upper compensation limit. This Service has seen no evidence of a systemic service failure. This Service can only investigate complaints about specific housing issues and does not investigate complaints about landlord’s policies. The complaint is one the Ombudsman cannot consider further.

Summary of events

Events prior to jurisdiction scope

From 2018 to 11 July 2021, the resident, and her husband (Mr R) reported ASB issues about the following:
1. Noise nuisance from shouting, swearing, crying, banging and motorbike revving.
2. Verbal abuse, threats, and intimidation.
3. Rubbish and poor state of garden, attracting rats.
4. Cannabis smoking.
5. Young children of Mr and Ms A playing unattended in the car park.
The resident’s ASB complaints were made to the landlord. She reported the ASB by email, phone, noise application recordings, photos, video evidence, diary entries, and chronologies. The resident also complained to the police, environmental health, and social services. The complaints included ASB impacting on the resident’s visitors.
This Service has seen evidence of complaints to the landlord about the behaviour of Ms A and Mr A by other neighbours from April 2019. They reported the ASB by email, phone, noise application recordings, and diary entries. The complaints mainly concern noise, rubbish attracting rats, and intimidation. This Service has also seen evidence of complaints to environmental health made by other neighbours. One neighbour said the ASB was having an impact on their health. Another neighbour told the landlord the police were “on the street regarding issues 2-3 times a week”.
On 15 July 2019, the resident made a formal ASB complaint. Following visits to both Ms A and the resident, a mediation agreement was put in place on 3 January 2020 between Ms A, another neighbour, and the resident. Ms A and the resident agreed to have no contact with each other.
On 9 and 17 January 2020, the landlord sent 2 warning letters to Ms A reminding her of her tenancy obligations after ASB reports of Mr A “shouting very loudly and using extremely foul language”. It stated “neighbours” had contacted the police.
Following neighbour complaints, the landlord wrote to Ms A on 2 April 2020 about a rat infestation and bonfire, which led to the police and fire brigade attending her property on 1 April 2020. On 3 April 2020, the resident reported to it and the police that Mr A harassed her by attending her property about a video taken of the bonfire. On 6 April 2020, it rang Mr A about the issues and told him not to ‘engage’ with any of his neighbours. It wrote to the resident about the discussion and confirming it had spoken to the police, who would contact her.

Events in jurisdiction scope

From 31 May 2021, the resident reported noise nuisance and a timeline of cannabis smells from the property of Ms A and Mr A. She also reported to the police a road traffic incident on 26 June 2021 when she stated Mr A deliberately tried to pull out his van into her car nearly hitting it. The landlord visited Ms A and Mr A on 8 July 2021. Mr A said he had not smoked cannabis for a long time. The landlord noted no odours in the property. It emailed the resident on 9 July 2021 with details of its visit and confirmed Ms A and Mr A had been reminded of their tenancy obligations. It said there was no proof that the cannabis odours were from the property of Ms A and Mr A and invited her to provide further evidence. Following its visit, the resident reported to the landlord that Mr A “was loitering around” the front of her property, played loud music, and revved his motorbike outside her property on 10 and 11 July 2021.
On 12 July 2021, the resident reported an alleged ASB incident summarised as follows:
1. Mr A was “verbally abusive” to the resident at her daughter’s school, and “threatened” her and her husband.
2. He attended the resident’s property and was “banging and kicking the doors and windows”.
3. He attempted to “tailgate” the resident’s 13 year old son into their property.
4. He ran up to the resident’s car while she was in it with her daughter. She was ringing the police at the time. As she attempted to drive away, he “blocked my exit and this is where he made the threat to kill motioning slitting my throat”. The resident’s daughter “was sick in the car Park due to the distress”.
Following the alleged ASB, Mr A was arrested and released subject to bail conditions not to contact the resident.
The resident rang the landlord on 12 July 2021 and left a message about the ASB and asked to be housed that night in a “safe place”. When the landlord returned her call, she was informed Mr A would be unlikely to be released until the morning and it would ring her back in the morning after speaking to the police. When Mr A was released on bail on the same evening, she sent 2 emails and made at least 3 calls to the landlord on 13 July 2021 requesting an urgent callback. In her first email, sent in the early hours, she requested a call stating she was feeling “terrified”, and requested “urgent intervention to safeguard our family” and an emergency injunction to prevent Mr A occupying his property. She stated she had taped up her letterbox because she was “scared” Mr A would try to “hurt our family”. It responded stating following enquiries and consideration of tenancy enforcement options, it would ring her. In the second email, sent in the afternoon, she stated the following:
1. It had not rung, and the family were “feeling very frightened within our own home”.
2. Mr A’s ASB continued by driving outside her property and sounding his car horn “continuously”.
3. Her daughter had been sent home from school as she had been sick. The resident stated the reason was “stress”.
4. She had rung the local council as she felt “unsafe”, and the council advised her to discuss a managed move with the landlord.
5. She asked for a referral for a fireproof letterbox or an external letterbox. She asked if she fell under the ‘sanctuary referral’ process, which is a partnership scheme between the local council, police, and social landlords. It is aimed at keeping people safe in their homes with security measures (eg stronger doors with extra locks, spy holes, and chains).
The landlord took the following action after the reported ASB on 12 July 2021:
1. It called the resident on 13 July 2021 and made an appointment to visit her on 21 July 2021 to view dashcam footage of the ASB. It said as it had “no signs” Mr A would set fire to her house and a fireproof letterbox would therefore not be provided, but it would speak to the police about this. It said it would also speak to Mr A about the ASB on 12 July 2021
2. On 13 July 2021, it rang Mr A and discussed his version of events. He confirmed he had made the threatening hand gesture and expressed regret.
3. On 14 July 2021, it emailed diary sheets to the resident.
4. After leaving messages, it spoke to the police on 16 July 2021. The police stated the resident was not in immediate danger, but things could escalate as they lived close by.
5. It emailed the resident on 16 July 2021 to update her on matters. It confirmed it had spoken to Mr A and told him to keep his ‘distance’ from her family. It stated it had spoken to the police and asked the police to attend on 21 July 2021. It confirmed it would open an ASB case about the 12 July incident, but not other reports of ASB by her (cannabis smoking, a road traffic incident on 26 June 2021 and loitering at the front of her property). It did not respond to the resident’s request for a manager to also attend the home visit.
6. At a home visit to the resident and her husband on 21 July 2021. It confirmed it would serve an agreed behaviour contract (ABC) on Ms A and Mr A for 6 months. The resident states the landlord refused her request for ‘door knock’ or an estate ‘have your say’ survey. It confirmed there was ‘little chance’ of a managed move as there was little evidence of persistent ASB over the last few months. The resident states the landlord agreed to arrange a call by the landlord’s tenancy sustainment coordinator (coordinator) to provide support.
7. It updated the police during a call on 22 July of the proposed ABC. An email from the police, on 23 July 2021, confirmed:
  1. There was a potential for things to turn violent in the future depending on the situation.
  2. As Mr A had been charged, the risk had ‘heightened’ for the resident and repercussions from Mr A needed to be planned for.
  3. As the resident may be at risk of harm ‘a move away would eliminate any further issues and offences’ and ‘unless one of them moves away’ it would not resolve itself.
8. It sent a letter to Ms A on 23 July 2021 to arrange a home visit and to discuss tenancy actions due to the ASB.
9. At a home visit on 28 July 2021 to Ms A and Mr A, an ABC was made between the landlord, the council’s ASB team, the police, and Ms A for 6 months. Ms A agreed breaches of the ABC could result in an extension of the ABC, a ASB order or tenancy action. Ms A agreed her household would not use threat of violence towards visitors and neighbours; behave in an offensive or irritating manner; or make noise, audible outside the property (eg arguing, door slamming and loud music).
10. It completed a risk assessment with a point score of 12 out of 26.
The Ombudsman notes the risk assessment answered ‘no’ to the question “is the behaviour directed to you or your household?” and ‘occasional’ to the question “how often do the problems exist?”
Following a homeless application to the council on 13 July 2021, the resident and her family were accepted as eligible on 22 July 2021. The resident stated that following the reported ASB on 12 July 2021 she felt “very unsafe living” in her home.
After the incident on 12 July 2021 and the ABC, the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord about Ms A and Mr A. This Service has also seen evidence of complaints by other neighbours about Ms A and Mr A. The complaints include issues about a rat infestation and noise nuisance.
In a call on 21 July 2021, the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB on 12 July 2021 and her request for a managed move. She asked for its ASB and managed move policies. She said she felt unsafe at home due to the threat of violence. The complaint was logged as a ‘stage 0’ complaint.
In an email to the landlord on 21 July 2021 (with a copy sent to the police and her MP) she responded to a letter received from the police. She was informed Ms A had reported her for making ‘unfounded reports’ to the police, the landlord and social services about her household and it had been recorded as harassment of Ms A’s household. The resident attached a chronology of ASB stating Ms A’s report was an attempt to harass her. She asked for a community trigger (trigger) to be activated following ASB reports made by her and a written response to her request for a move as she said the verbal answer had not been explained fully.
On 30 July 2021, Mr A was convicted of a public order offence and subject to a restraining order, which the resident states was made due to the continuing risk to her and her family. Mr A was ordered to undertake a 12 day rehabilitation activity requirement, which the resident states was to reduce the risk of re-offending. This Service has not seen evidence of the criminal sentence, order, or activity requirement.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s stage 0 complaint and responded as follows:
1. It was the role of the police to activate the trigger.
2. It did not have a policy for management transfers, but such transfers were referenced in its allocations policy. It confirmed its view that a transfer was not appropriate and as the council had accepted a duty to help prevent homelessness and the police supported a move, it confirmed its view it would not agree a transfer.
3. It stated the reasons a transfer was not appropriate included the following:
  1. There was no pattern of violent behaviour or threats of violence and Mr A had no history of such violent or threatening behaviour.
  2. The court would decide the appropriate sanction for Mr A.
  3. The police were seeking an injunction.
  4. Ms A had signed the ABC and it would respond to any breaches.
  5. It could not prioritise her over others who also had good reason to move.
4. It offered to provide advice on the HomeChoice scheme (the local authority housing allocation portal where tenants can apply for homes owned and managed by the landlord and other partners including the council) and mutual exchange.
The resident requested a review of the stage 0 response on 2 August 2021 on the basis that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s responses (eg managed move, community trigger activation, policy requests) and its handling of the impact on her and her family’s health and wellbeing. She also asked for a response to her request for a fire resistant letter box, any risk matrix assessment (risk matrix) completed, and requested a new housing officer.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response as follows:
1. It partially upheld and apologised for not communicating it would not respond separately to the stage 0 complaint and the email sent on 21 July 2021.
2. The council’s ASB team had confirmed a trigger should be activated by calling the police.
3. It partially upheld and apologised for the missing policies on its website, which were not available when the resident had searched for them, and explained the website was being updated. It attached the copy policies, but confirmed they would normally be unavailable on request by post or email.
4. It apologised if its previous response had come across as demeaning or minimising the impact on the resident and her family. It suggested a move through the HomeChoice scheme would be more appropriate due to the violence or fear of violence.
5. It provided a copy of the risk assessment confirming it would be refreshed with any new evidence received.
6. It commented on the examples of Mr A’s violent or threating behaviour along with the chronology provided by the resident and would ask for disclosure from the police and the ASB team. It said it was unaware of a number of the events in the chronology. It said it had asked the council for information about the likelihood of further incidents involving the resident and her family and would then review its position. It stated the ABC had not previously been served as it was not considered the correct step on the evidence available.
7. It did not agree to a new housing officer as it considered he had not done anything wrong.
8. It did not agree to a fire resistant letterbox in the absence of evidence of a risk of arson.
In correspondence with the council on 13 August 2021, the landlord was informed the police had stated violence was likely should all parties remain in their properties. The council provided it with the housing plan setting out the main step as a managed move by the landlord as the council considered this as the most appropriate option at the time for the family. The council said its emergency accommodation should always be used as an absolute last resort. The council stated it expected the landlord to work with the family to resolve the situation by way of a managed move before temporary accommodation was considered.
The resident requested a review of the landlord’s stage one response on 20 August 2021 due to the following reasons:
1. She disagreed with the stage one findings.
2. She questioned the appropriateness of the same person responding at stage 0 and stage 1.
3. She said the risk matrix had been incorrectly completed by the housing officer who told them they were vulnerable and had agreed to arrange a call by the landlord’s coordinator to support them. She also questioned whether the housing officer had done a ‘door knock.’
4. She gave details of when she had made the landlord aware of events set out in her chronology.
5. She flagged ongoing issues noise in the form of noise (shouting, screaming and dog barking) and a garden structure built by Mr A.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued as follows:
1. It set out the reasons why the resident’s complaints had been dealt with as stage 0 and not formally, which was that it believed she was not expressing dissatisfaction but reporting issues. It apologised again for not clarifying it would email her and not ring her after her 21 July 2021 call to it.
2. It said it could have a 3 stage process which its stage 0 fell outside of. Its stage 0 was an internal mechanism intended to monitor dissatisfaction for appropriate manager to respond to.
3. The stage 0 officer was able to respond objectively to the stage one response.
4. It would send hard copy policies if requested by tenants within 10 working days as a reasonable adjustment. It upheld and apologised for this aspect of her complaint.
5. It could not initiate the trigger process and would share her concerns with the council’s ASB team.
6. It acknowledged the health and wellbeing impact on her and her family. It clarified its obligation around management transfers in such situations and it did not have a statutory duty to provide emergency housing. It noted there was access to a welfare assessment through the HomeChoice scheme and the council was able to provide rehousing in an emergency situation.
7. It stated the risk matrix had been correctly completed as the housing officer recalled the incidents as occasional and her chronology did not show weekly incidents. The housing officer did not recall saying the family were vulnerable or agree to arrange a call with its coordinator for support.
8. It clarified 2 incidents which had been reported by the resident and which should have been identified as reported when the stage one response was sent. It upheld and apologised for this aspect of her complaint.
9. Although full disclosure from the police was still awaited, it said it had done a ‘door knock’ of neighbours and there were no reports of ASB concerns or threats from Mr A.
10. The housing officer would not change, but her feedback had been given to him to take on board.
11. A fireproof letterbox would not be provided as the police had not assessed a specific risk of arson by Mr A. The resident was informed she was permitted to install a letter box herself.
12. The stage one officer had spoken to police who confirmed the issues would be long running. It agreed to a management transfer as police disclosure had still not been received and also relying on grounds made out for the making of the restraining order. The transfer would involve one offer, which will be a 3 bedroom home and away from her current home.
13. It confirmed it would separately look into, and respond about the noise, and garden structure, which were not part of her original complaint.
Following the stage 2 decision, the landlord contacted the resident to clarify areas to avoid and household details. In an email dated 9 September 2021, it stated it had no 3 bedroom homes available to allocate and a move might take some time. It also clarified the resident would be responsible for any costs of moving.
The resident requested a review of the landlord’s stage 2 response due to reasons, which included:
1. The lack of referral by her housing officer or the landlord to its coordinator for support. She also stated she had self-referred.
2. The resident and 2 other neighbours, who she said had experienced ASB, had not had a ‘door knock’.
3. The delay in agreeing to move her and her family had been stressful and the response to the request had been dismissive and upsetting. She also stated that she did not agree the move should be at her cost.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage 3 response as follows:
1. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint that her managed move request was not listened to, and it could have communicated better so she felt supported. It said it had considered her concerns and now supported a management move.
2. It did not uphold her request for a change of housing officer as it could not prove or disprove what was said by whom and when. However, it found he had taken positive action with the ABC in July 2021. While the landlord confirmed the officer was leaving in October 2021, it nominated a new point of contact for the resident for issues relating to ASB and the managed move in order to rebuild a positive relationship with it.
3. Having reviewed the file, it did not uphold the complaint around the stage 0 officer dealing with the stage one response. It said he was a senior manager and the most appropriate person to review the actions taken by his team to deal with ASB. This was based on his knowledge and experience.
4. Due to the continuing reports of ASB by Mr A, it expressed concerns for the ABC in place along with the restraining order. It said if the restraining order was enforced due to proven breaches of it, this could be used by the landlord as evidence to enforce the ABC and to take tenancy enforcement action. It stated it would take ASB reports seriously and a complainant centred approach to any subsequent investigation, but it could “neither uphold, nor not uphold this element of your complaint at this moment in time.”
5. It did not uphold the complaint about a fireproof letterbox as there was no basis for one and also due to the restraining order and ABC being in place.
6. It did not uphold her request for it to pay the costs of the move when the time came as it did not have a policy to pay for removal or associated costs. As a gesture of goodwill and to rebuild the relationship, it agreed to pay £250.
7. It acknowledged her frustrations with the trigger process and had shared her concerns with those operating the process. As it did not determine the process, it did not uphold this element of the complaint.
The landlord arranged to pay the resident £250 in October 2021. This was the landlord’s final response.
The resident has described the impact of the ASB on her and her family to this Service. She has described how her mental health has been eroded and at times she has felt suicidal. It impacted her work as she had period of sickness absence and afterwards gave up her job. She states the landlord’s response made her feel very alone and let down. In the evidence seen by this Service, she describes times when she has spent time away from her property as she did not feel safe there. Her children have been impacted. She has said her daughter was physically sick on 12 July 2021 and had time off school due to stress. Her daughter has been anxious, scared, and unable to sleep. Their doctor has recommended counselling in the future for her daughter. She has described how one of her son’s prefers to play indoors whilst her other son’s anxiety meant his father had on occasion walked ahead of him at school return time.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 3 December 2021 she is seeking:
1. Compensation.
2. A managed move.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour, harassment, and threatening behaviour

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident, who remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, including noise nuisance. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. It must also be recognised that responsibility for any ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord. The Ombudsman can consider how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received, and its handling of the subsequent formal complaint. This involves assessing if the landlord has followed its procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states its approach to complainants is to ensure they feel listened to and the complaint “treated genuinely and seriously unless investigation prove otherwise.”
In the first half of 2021, the resident reported noise, cannabis smells, a road incident with Mr A, and Mr A loitering outside her property. The landlord visited the Ms A and Mr A on 8 July 2021 about cannabis use. The resident was told on 16 July 2021 it would not be progressing her reports as they were not evidenced, and the road incident was a police matter. While the visit was in line with its ASB policy, there is no evidence it took other steps recommended by its policy to investigate the ASB including:
1. Regular contact with the resident.
2. Warning letters to Ms A and Mr A.
3. Completion of risk assessments.
4. An estate walkabout.
5. Contact with neighbours, environmental health (to consider installing noise recording equipment), or the police.
In the Ombudsman’s assessment, the landlord failed to investigate the reported ASB fully because it did not do the additional steps set out in its policy. It was therefore unreasonable for it not to progress the resident’s ASB complaints.
Following the incident on 12 July 2021, the landlord called the resident within 24 hours of the incident in line with its procedure at a time when Mr A was in custody, and this was reasonable. On the same evening, Mr A was released home on bail conditions. The resident only received a call on the following day after sending 2 emails and making 3 calls to it. It was a stressful time for the resident and her family, and it was unreasonable for it not to have taken a ‘person centred approach’ in line with its policy. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with the value statements of its policy.
The resident asked for an injunction order on 13 July 2021 to exclude Mr A from Ms A’s property as she felt unsafe. The landlord knew:
1. Mr A had been arrested for a serious offence.
2. Mr A was bailed to stay away from her.
3. Mr A had stated to it on 13 July 2021 he had threatened the resident.
4. The police said things could escalate as they lived close by.
5. The resident made further reports of ASB by Mr A on 14 to 16 July 2021.
An email sent to Ms A on 23 July 2021,11 days after the incident, reminded her of the nuisance clause in her tenancy agreement, and set out the landlord’s intention to visit to discuss the allegations and actions it would be taking. The delay in contacting her was unreasonable given the serious incident on 12 July 2021. This was a missed opportunity to proactively warn her of the consequences of ASB as she was responsible for the actions of her household, Mr A was subject to bail conditions and had admitted the threatening behaviour.
After the call with Mr A, the landlord took 3 days to update the resident by email that Mr A was told to keep away from her. This was unacceptable as the resident had made clear both her and her family felt distressed and unsafe, and were experiencing further ASB by Mr A. By failing to call her immediately to update her, it failed to comply with its policy to take a ‘person centred approach’ and this was unreasonable.
An injunction was a formal intervention available to the landlord. This Service has not seen evidence that it considered this option after the resident’s initial request or after the police said on 22 July 2021 that the risk to the resident was ‘heightened’. Mr A had admitted the threat made and the resident continued to report ASB by Mr A. Its policy required it to treat these complaints ‘genuinely and seriously.’ On 21 July 2021, the landlord informed her the police would progress matters relating to the incident on 12 July 2021. Landlords have access to legal routes that can be used alongside a police investigation. Therefore, the landlord was unreasonable and failed to comply with its policy by not considering and keeping under review the option of an injunction.
At the home visit, it said it intended to serve an ABC for 6 months on Ms A. Its policy states an ABC is an ‘early intervention’ and where the incident is serious the case may be escalated to formal actions (eg civil injunctions, community protection notices, and possession proceedings). Its policy also states as many interventions as appropriate can be used. The evidence shows the 12 July 2021 incident was serious and does not set out the landlord’s reasons for opting for an ‘early intervention’ rather than a formal action. The decision appears to have been made without a discussion with the resident of the most effective interventions given her safety concerns and her reports of bail condition breaches by Mr A. As Mr A had admitted his actions, which led to his conviction, the evidence shows it was too late for an ‘early intervention’. While it may have been appropriate to serve an ABC on Ms A, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to consider other interventions, including formal, in line with its own policy and the resident’s concerns.
A completed risk matrix sets out the level of risk. It answered ‘no’ to the question of whether Mr A’s behaviour was directed at the resident and her household, which it clearly had been on 12 July 2021. It also answered ‘occasional’ to the question “how often do the problems exist?” when the evidence shows the reports ranged from ‘most weeks’ to ‘most days’. Its policy stated a ‘person centred approach’ would ensure the complainant is listened to and offered appropriate support. By not taking care with the risk matrix completion, it breached its own policy as it could not assess the level of risk accurately and provide the appropriate support. This was unsatisfactory.
At stage 2, the landlord relied on the housing officer’s statement that he had not offered to make a referral to its coordinator for vulnerable tenants. In her stage 2 review, the resident said she had self-referred. Its ASB policy stated its ‘person centred approach’ means complainants are offered support by way of signposting to agencies. It also stated it would consider vulnerabilities and assign an action for the coordinator. The resident had informed it of the distress to her and her family including her daughter being sick and not being able to attend school due to stress. The evidence does not show the landlord considered vulnerabilities or the referral to its coordinator or other support agencies in line with its policy. The resident’s complaint about this should have prompted it to make a referral at stage 2 and it was a missed opportunity it did not. Therefore, its failure to consider vulnerabilities and made appropriate referrals, including to the coordinator, was a breach of its policy and unreasonable.
The resident has described the impact of the ASB on her and her family in terms of feeling emotionally and physically at risk. She has said she lives in fear and has felt suicidal at times. Her children have experienced anxiety and her doctor recommended counselling for her daughter. She says the noise nuisance causes her “distress as it triggers me to the time he threatened me”. She describes not reporting every incident of ASB as it was often daily and has expressed her frustration at the landlord’s not following up her reports of ASB proactively and keeping her updated.
The landlord contacted Mr A, the police, and the resident after the incident on 12 July 2021; served an ABC on Ms A; and acknowledged the impact on the resident and her family. However, there were delays in responding to the resident and updating her of a discussion with Mr A at a stressful time for her. It should have considered more immediate and robust action with Ms A, including tenancy enforcement and warnings. It failed to seriously explore all interventions, including injunctions. It also failed to take a ‘person centred approach’ when it did not accurately assess her level of risk or consider appropriate referrals. It has not acknowledged or apologised for its failings or the detriment to the resident. This Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports.

Handling of a request for a management move

The landlord is a partner to the council’s HomeChoice scheme. It lets its vacancies through HomeChoice but manages management transfers separately. The landlord‘s allocations policy says the 2 conditions for a management transfer are a tenant, or their household, have been subject to violence or threats of violence, and the police support a move.
The resident requested an urgent move on 12 July 2021 and in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord did not give this request the proactive and urgent consideration it required. Mr A admitted in a call with the landlord on 13 July 2021 he had made a threatening gesture across his throat on 12 July 2021, and this satisfied the first condition for a move.
After the landlord’s discussion with the police on 16 July 2021, there was an indication that while the resident was not in immediate danger, things could escalate. This was a missed opportunity for it to explore with the police whether it supported a move. Without fully exploring this, it was unreasonable for it to inform the resident on 21 July 2021 there was “little chance” of a move as there was little evidence of persistent ASB over the months. Firstly, this was not its policy conditions for a management transfer, and it acted incompetently in making this statement. Secondly, it was a failure on its part as had it made the necessary enquiry, the police would have confirmed, as it did in an email on 22 July 2021, the risk to the resident had ‘heightened’, repercussions had to be planned for and a move could eliminate further offences and issues. Both conditions for a move were met and no competent authority could have reached a conclusion otherwise.
The landlord did not write to the resident with reasons for not agreeing the move after the home visit. This was unsatisfactory given the serious incident on 12 July 2021; the resident’s concerns; and, Mr A, who admitted the ASB, continuing to live close by. The landlord could have repaired the failure by emailing the reasons for its decision and setting out alternative housing options. Refusing the move verbally with limited explanation was inappropriate and showed poor record keeping in a key decision.
At stage 0, while the landlord recognised the police supported a move, it set out the reasons a transfer was inappropriate. At this stage, Mr A had admitted to it that he had subjected the resident to threats of violence. This was another missed opportunity to repair its failure to comply with its own allocations policy. In its stage one response, it said it was for each landlord to decide on policy matters. This was a further chance for it to consider the request and comply with its own policy, the conditions of which had been met for a transfer, and its failure to do so was unreasonable and had a significant negative impact on the resident. Although acceptance of a transfer may not have resulted in a move more quickly, it would have recognised the seriousness of the situation for the resident and supported her request for support through the local authority, which said it would only offer emergency accommodation as a last resort.
In its stage 2 response on 6 September 2021, the landlord agreed the management transfer. This was 8 weeks after the resident’s request for a move and Mr A’s admitting his threatening behaviour to it, and 6 weeks after the police confirmed they supported a move. This delay was unreasonable and also a failure to comply with its own policy. It was also unfair to the resident who expressed her fears for the safety of herself and her family. She has said she has spent time away from her property for this reason.
It is noted the resident continues to live in the same property and continues to report ASB. The landlord said in an email on 9 September 2021, it had no 3 bedroom homes available to allocate and a move might take some time. Its allocation policy states management transfers will be granted on the basis of one reasonable offer only and like for like in terms of bedroom size. An offer of a property was made in August 2022, but it withdrew the offer due to “neighbour issues” saying it wanted any offer to her to be free of any issues.
This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move. There were missed opportunities and delays by the landlord to comply with its allocations policy despite the conditions of a management transfer being met. While the landlord did put things right with the decision at stage 2 to agree a transfer, it has not acknowledged or apologised for its failings. She has said her, and her family felt under constant threat at the property and the landlord’s failings would have caused an elevated degree of distress. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it also accepts the landlord has limited stock and therefore any transfer should in accordance with its published policy.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 4 stage complaints policy. The Code states a 2 stage complaints procedure is ideal, but a process with more than 3 stages is unacceptable. This overlong complaints process was unreasonable as it prolonged the process, prevented a swift outcome, and delayed her ability to ask this Service to investigate.
When the resident called the landlord on 21 July 2021, she said she wanted to complain about its handling of the incident on 12 July 2021. It was logged as a stage 0 complaint. Its complaints policy stated complaints dealt with at stage 0 are resolved informally at the ‘first point of contact’ but did not set out the process or timeframe for resolution. The resident received a written response 9 days later on 30 July 2021. At stages 1 and 2, the landlord apologised for not communicating it would not call her but would instead email her to respond to the stage 0 complaint. When it did not contact the resident to resolve her complaint immediately, it unreasonably delayed the matter without an explanation for its actions. This would have caused inconvenience to her. It was also in breach of its policy and a complaints management failure.
The resident states her initial complaint on 21 July 2021 should have been dealt with as a formal complaint. Had the landlord contacted her at the ‘first point of contact’, it is reasonable to conclude a discussion could have resolved this issue with the complaint continuing at stage 0 or formally, at stage 1. This was a failure in its complaints handling and a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider with the resident the possibility of formalising her complaint.
The stage 1 officer dealt with the complaint at stage 0. The landlord’s complaints policy stated customers can expect a ‘full and impartial review’. The Code states the person considering the complaint at the later stage, must not be the same person that considered it at the earlier stage. The landlord said the officer was able to deal with the complaint objectively and was the most appropriate person based on his knowledge and experience. A reviewing officer should have no prior involvement in a complaints process to reinforce the impartiality of the process. As the same officer dealt with 2 stages of the complaints process, this was inappropriate, and a breach of its policy and the Code.
The resident requested the landlord’s managed move and ASB policies when her stage 0 was logged. At stage one and two, it explained when she had searched its website, the website was being updated and apologised for the missing policies. While at stage 1, it said the policies would normally be unavailable on request by post or email, at stage 2, it said they would be available in this way as a reasonable adjustment. The evidence shows the landlord considered her request and its explanation was reasonable. It attempted to put things right by apologising, sending the policies to the resident and confirming policies would be made available by post and email.
The resident’s reports of continuing ASB by Mr A were “neither upheld, nor not uphold”. The complaints policy which was replaced in September 2021 stated the landlord would ‘take their complaint seriously, look at all the points raised and provide an appropriate response’. The new complaints policy stated the landlord would assess each complaint on an individual basis identifying the following:
1. What the complaint is about.
2. What evidence it needed to fully consider the issues.
3. What risks the complaint raises.
4. What outcome would resolve the matter for the tenant or resident.
5. Any urgent action that it may need to take.
The Service has seen evidence of ASB by Ms A and Mr A being reported to the landlord up until the stage 3 response on 1 October 2021. This was reported by the resident by email, telephone and by providing noise recordings. It had been informed she reported the ASB to the police in September 2021. A neighbour of Ms A rang the landlord on 28 September 2021 reporting ASB and said, “the police are on the street regarding issues 2-3 times a week”. The landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint was unreasonable. Had it made enquiries about recent reports of ASB, it would have known the resident was not the only complainant and there had been recent police reports of ASB. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to proactively put things right with a plan to deal with the ASB and meaningfully engage with the complaint.
The resident requested a new housing officer, and this was refused on the basis he had not done anything wrong, it was unjustified, and he had taken positive action to address the ASB. This Service does not consider personnel issues but can comment on the effectiveness of the investigation. The resident gave specific examples for her reasons for a new officer. For example, she questioned if he had done a ‘door knock’ which he said he had, as she said she and other neighbours had not been visited. At stage 3, it failed to respond to this issue as it should have had contemporaneous evidence it did the ‘door knock’. Alternatively, it could have considered the issue by contacting the neighbours. The evidence does not show that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about her housing officer’s handling of the ASB and this was a failure.
The landlord refused the resident’s request for a fireproof letterbox. It said there was no evidence of the risk of arson by Mr A or a police assessment of such a risk. The evidence does show Mr A had a bonfire in his garden in April 2020 which the fire brigade was called to. There is no other evidence that Mr A set fires or had done so away from his property. The landlord’s did consider the resident’s request and permitted her to install her own letterbox. While its response was reasonable in the circumstances, providing this to her would have given the resident reassurance about her safety and shown goodwill on the part of the landlord, even if it considered that the specific risk was low.
The resident asked the landlord to pay her costs when she moves. It stated it did not have a policy that allowed for such a payment. The allocation policy and the compensation policy do not allow for such payments. The landlord did consider this matter fully when it did not uphold the complaint. While its policies did not allow for such a payment, the stage 3 response included a payment of £250 as a gesture of goodwill. The payment was fair in the circumstances. It is a matter for the landlord to decide if it will exercise its discretion to pay any costs of her move at the point of the resident’s managed move.
The resident asked why she had not been referred to the landlord’s coordinator for support. The stage 2 officer said the housing officer did not recall saying he would arrange a call with the coordinator. The evidence does not show that the landlord meaningfully considered the resident’s concerns about not being referred for support and therefore, this was a complaint handling failure. The stage 3 response did not address this issue. This was a failure as the Code states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
The resident asked for a trigger to be activated on 21 July 2021. At each stage of its complaints responses, the resident was told a call to the police would activate the trigger. The policy at the time of the resident’s complaint does not specifically mention triggers, but it states partners (eg police, council ASB teams) can discuss ASB at multi-agency forums to take a coordinated response. The policy approved in August 2021 states customers are entitled to activate an independent ASB case review, by way of the trigger. Neither policy set out the process for activating the trigger. Prior to its stage one response, this Service has seen evidence the council’s ASB team confirmed with it the trigger was activated by calling the police. Prior to its stage 2 response, the landlord also asked the council if her email of 21 July 2021 was being treated as having activated the trigger. This Service has seen evidence the council’s ASB team responded.
The resident’s email of 21 July 2021 was sent to the police and her landlord requesting the trigger be activated. The stage 2 and 3 responses acknowledge her frustration at being unable to activate the trigger and confirmed it had shared her concerns with the council’s ASB team and “those that operate” the trigger process. The evidence shows the landlord did consider the resident’s concerns about activating the trigger and made appropriate enquiries with the council. It signposted her appropriately and confirmed it had shared her feedback. The information it had from the council stated the police could activate the trigger at that time and therefore it acted reasonably in the circumstances.
This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling for the following reasons:
1. Its failure to call the resident after her stage 0 complaint was logged and to inform her that it would email the stage 0 response to her.
2. The same officer dealing with 2 stages of the complaints process.
3. Its failure to deal substantively with reports of continuing ASB.
4. Its failure to investigate the resident’s concerns about its handling of the ASB.
5. Its failure to respond to all points raised in the resident’s complaint.
The cumulative failures in its investigation and complaint handling prevented a swift resolution as well as a missed opportunity to rebuild a positive relationship between the landlord and resident. A thorough investigation and complaints response in line with its policy and the Code would have meant the landlord could explore learning opportunities and improve its service.
The resident has told this Service the landlord’s complaints procedure discourages tenants from making complaints and creates barriers. She has said that she has “spent days on the complaints process” and this has been stressful.
It is acknowledged the landlord accepted and apologised for some failings and it has made a goodwill gesture of £250. This was not sufficient to reflect the detriment to the resident of its complaint handling failures. The landlord failed to reasonably consider aspects of her complaint and its complaints process was flawed by the same officer dealing with 2 stages of the complaints process. The 4 stage procedure also prolonged the complaints process.

Reasons

This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning ASB. While it took some steps after the incident on 12 July 2021, it failed to explore all interventions or take a ‘person centred approach’ in line with its ASB policy. It has not acknowledged or apologised for its failings or the detriment to the resident.
This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’ request for a management move due to delays with its compliance with its allocations policy. It has not apologised for its failings or the detriment to the resident.
This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling due to the same officer dealing with 2 stages of the complaints process, and its failure to respond to all points raised in the resident’s complaint. While it has apologised for some failings and made a goodwill gesture, it is not sufficient to reflect the detriment to the resident. This Service has seen no evidence the landlord adequately considered providing a remedy, by compensating the resident, proportionate to the distress caused to her due to its complaint management failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour, harassment, and threatening behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for a management move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders.
1. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1000 within 4 weeks. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any debts owed to the landlord. This is broken down into:
  1. £500 for its response to the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour, harassment, and threatening behaviour. This reflects the detriment to the resident caused by distress, and time and trouble.
  2. £250 for its landlord’s handling of a request for a management move. This reflects the detriment to the resident caused by distress.
  3. £250 for its complaints handling. This reflects the detriment to the resident caused by time and trouble, and inconvenience.
2. Write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service.
Review the learning from this case and write to this Service within 6 weeks setting out how it will:
1. Arrange and deliver training around its allocations policy concerning management transfer needs in cases of elevated risk.
2. Review its complaints procedures so the same officer does not deal with different stages of the same complaints process and clarify the procedure and timeframe around the informal complaints process.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review the community trigger process in its ASB policy to include the application process for a case review and the relevant website link.
2. Consider training around its ASB policy concerning safeguarding its vulnerable tenants to comply with it.
The landlord should update this Service within 6 weeks setting out how it will carry out paragraphs 93.a and 93.b.