Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202005862)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005862

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

12 July 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. reports about repair works required at her property;
   2. reports about the landlord’s employee’s behaviour;
   3. reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour;
   4. request to be transferred to an alternative property.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

4. It is evident that on or around 30 June 2020, the resident reported a number of repair issues including cracks in her walls and an issue with her boiler pressure. Following this report, the landlord identified that an asbestos survey was necessary for the bathroom ceiling in order to proceed with any repair works. It is also evident that around this time, the resident reported that her front door required replacing and she also made a request for privacy panels to be installed on her fence, to which the landlord agreed. Additionally, it is evident that on or around 25 August 2020, the resident reported that an employee of the landlord visited her property without wearing a face mask.
5. On 11 September 2020, and again in its stage two response dated 22 September 2020, the landlord advised it would consider the above–mentioned issues as a separate complaint, for which it would subsequently provide a stage one response. It is not evident that the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
6. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaints about repair works required at her property and about the landlord’s employee’s behaviour are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Should the resident progress this complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she will then be able to refer the complaint to this service.

Background and summary of events

Background

7. The resident has been an assured shorthold tenant at the property of the landlord since 19 February 2014. The landlord is a registered proprietor of social housing.
8. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
9. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that the landlord encourages residents to report incidents to the police and that it should be clear about what action it can take.
10. The landlord operates a transfer policy. The policy notes the landlord will encourage a resident seeking to transfer to also make an application through the local authority and to register with its mutual exchange system called ‘Homeswapper’. The policy notes the landlord will complete a banding assessment for applicants and assign a priority banding, with priority one being the highest. Priority will be awarded where a resident has been “the victim of targeted abuse and are still experiencing the impact of these behaviours.”

Summary of events

11. It is not disputed that in or around August 2019, the resident’s property was burgled. The incident was reported to the police who identified a fingerprint belonging to the resident’s neighbour on one of the stolen items. On 20 January 2020, the landlord noted the resident had advised it she did not want to raise an ASB case as she was “scared.” It also noted the resident wished to transfer to an alternative property.
12. The resident made a formal complaint on 4 June 2020 by telephone. The landlord has provided this service with its telephone notes, which note the resident advised that following the burglary, she felt that the landlord had not supported her. She noted that the landlord had advised it would put additional security measures into place, but this had not occurred. She also noted that the landlord had advised her it could not evict her neighbour but would put the resident on its moving list for a property in the resident’s preferred location. She advised it was never confirmed with her whether this had been done. She also noted that another member of the landlord’s staff advised her that it would not be able to offer her a move, but that it would instead pursue enforcement action against her neighbour. She also advised she had been promised a call back on a number of occasions which did not occur. The resident advised that the ongoing issues were affecting her health and that she still wished to be transferred to an alternative property in her preferred location.
13. It is evident that on 12 June 2020, the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint further, following which it emailed her links to its ‘Homehunt’ transfer application system. On 18 June 2020, the landlord called the resident to query what resolution she wanted from the complaint and she had responded that she was “unsure.” On 22 June 2020, the resident advised she had completed that application on Homehunt and requested the landlord “let me know if there is anything more I need to add.” The landlord acknowledged this on 23 June 2020.
14. On 26 June 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response (dated 23 June 2020). It advised it would install a security light at the front of the resident’s property which would be “connected to your own electric supply and therefore any costs incurred for running it will be your responsibility.” It noted that the staff member who had initially looked into additional security measures had moved to another area of the business, and it subsequently apologised for this oversight. It noted that it had also discussed with the resident her options to transfer to an alternative property, including through Homehunt, Homeswapper, and by making an application to the local authority in her desired area. It also confirmed it would arrange for a banding assessment for the resident to assign her a priority status. It concluded by acknowledging the resident’s concerns regarding its communication for which it subsequently apologised.
15. On 30 June 2020, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two. On 1 July 2020, the resident advised she did not want the security light to be installed as it would be connected to her electricity supply, which she did not consider to be fair. On 6 July 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident and advised it would explore installing a solar powered security light. It also confirmed it would complete the banding assessment for her transfer application that week. On 8 July 2020, the resident confirmed her complaint was regarding the landlord’s poor support following the burglary. She also queried what action could be taken against her neighbour. She further requested that the landlord provide her with a letter of support for her transfer application with the local authority. The landlord subsequently provided the local authority with a letter of support on 15 July 2020.
16. On 16 July 2020, the landlord provided an update to the resident. It noted it had discussed the possibility of the resident moving to an area other than her preferred location which may be available sooner, but that the resident had declined this option as she did not wish to move twice. It noted that following the resident’s request that it provide a letter of support to the local authority it had advised her that such a letter “doesn’t hold a lot of additional weight in the eyes of the local authority.” It confirmed it had nevertheless provided the letter. It noted that the resident had raised her concerns that her neighbour was also dealing drugs at the property and confirmed it had arranged for its ASB officer to contact the resident. The landlord confirmed that following this discussion, it was liaising with the police about the possibility of a ‘community letter’ and that it had success with this approach in the past. It advised that such a letter may result in other residents providing further evidence that could assist with any enforcement action. It also noted that a second neighbour had CCTV installed and that it would attempt to look at the footage.
17. On 21 July 2020, the resident confirmed she did not wish for her complaint to be closed. On 22 July 2020, the landlord advised it had raised an order for the solar powered security light to be fitted and that it would be sending out a community letter the following week. It advised the resident to report any suspicious behaviour from her neighbour to the police. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of the community letter dated 28 July 2020 sent to all residents. The letter noted drug issues in the area and appealed for information. On 7 August 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that she had been awarded priority one banding for her transfer application.
18. On 10 August 2020, the resident reported that her application for a transfer on the Homeswapper system was showing as “still pending.” She also expressed her concerns about the landlord’s contact with her, noting that certain staff said they would call, but that different staff would subsequently call. She noted she considered there to be a lack of communication which was “unprofessional.”
19. On 24 August 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a chronology of its communication with her. It noted there was a high volume of calls to a number of its staff and that the resident’s “perceived miscommunication” could be down to there being “too many people involved.” It noted it had previously suggested a single point of contact. It noted, however, that it was “not clear to me that there is any miscommunication as it appears that there has been regular contact with you, and we have acted on the actions that we’ve agreed with you.” Regarding her Homeswapper application, it advised the resident she had noted the incorrect landlord on her application resulting in the ‘still pending’ notification. It advised it had subsequently fixed this issue for her. It reiterated she was also registered on Homehunt with priority one banding and with the local authority.
20. On 11 September 2020, the landlord advised that following its community letter, it had not obtained any further evidence with regards to her neighbour, meaning it was unable to pursue any form of enforcement action pending the outcome of the upcoming criminal court case regarding the burglary. It also noted the resident had not answered the mandatory questions as part of her Homehunt application, but it had now rectified this for her. It acknowledged the resident’s ongoing concerns that it had not supported her following the burglary but advised that following her initial reports it had promptly visited the resident, carried out a visit to the neighbour and liaised with the police in the weeks following the burglary. It also noted that there were a number of ongoing repair issues that had been discussed throughout the course of her complaint, and that it would register these as a separate complaint in order to thoroughly investigate them.
21. On 22 September 2020, the landlord provided its stage two response. Regarding the ASB, the landlord advised it considered the burglary to be a criminal matter and noted it was being investigated by the police, with a criminal court case pending. It further advised in the absence of any other evidence, it could not exercise any enforcement powers and so hoped a criminal conviction would provide such evidence, in which case it would look into enforcement action. It also noted the resident had reported possible drug activity by her neighbour and that it had subsequently liaised with police and carried out a letter drop seeking further evidence, which unfortunately did not uncover any. It also advised it had carried out inspections of the neighbour’s property which did not identify any evidence of drug use or dealing. It noted that the resident had been liaising with its ASB office throughout this process and it further advised it had reviewed its correspondence records and interviewed staff and determined that it “can’t identify any failing in terms of the responsiveness, level of contact and the appropriateness of the advice that has been offered to you.” It noted there had been a delay to the solar powered light installation but explained this had been due to the confusion over the initial plan to install on the resident’s electrical supply, and then a difficulty in sourcing a solar powered light during the COVID-19 restrictions.
22. Regarding the resident’s request for a transfer, the landlord noted it had given the resident the relevant information following her initial enquiry, that it had provided a letter of support to the local authority following the resident’s request, and that it had assisted with the resident’s Homeswapper and Homehunt applications by rectifying any errors in the forms. It had also been open with the resident throughout about the delays she may experience due to limiting her preferred location to one area. It concluded it was unable to identify any service failure and advised that the issues she had experienced regarding repairs would be dealt with as a separate complaint.
23. On 27 October 2020, the landlord offered the resident a property which was not in her preferred area, just in case she wished to move sooner ,but has advised this service the resident did not wish to pursue this property.

Assessment and findings

ASB

24. It is not disputed that the resident was burgled, and the Ombudsman understands that this would have been very distressing and upsetting for her. The role of the Ombudsman in such instances is to consider the landlord’s actions in response to her reports and to determine if they were reasonable in the circumstances and inline with its policies and procedures.
25. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that it will work with third parties where appropriate, such as the police in instances of criminal issues. The Ombudsman would also expect a landlord to be directed by a resident’s wishes in circumstances of ASB. It is evident that when the resident reported the issue to the landlord, it was noted that the police were already investigating the issue, and that the resident had expressed to the landlord that she did not wish for an ASB case to be opened.
26. While the resident’s complaint made in June 2020 related to the landlord’s communication following the burglary, the Ombudsman notes that the communication between the parties was mostly by telephone. Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any telephone notes so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps when deciding to close its complaint. The landlord has provided this service with its telephone records from this period, which note that 10 phone calls were had with the resident following her initial reports and prior to her formal complaint. Detailed records of the contents of these telephone calls have not been provided to this service, however. A detailed assessment of the conversations between the parties therefore cannot be made.
27. It is not disputed, however, that the landlord discussed with the resident that it would consider additional security installations, as referred to in her initial complaint. As noted above and based on the evidence available, it cannot be known what security measures were discussed, or the timeframe in which they would be installed. It is not evident that there is a requirement for the landlord to install security measures in this instance and so the installations would be considered improvements. While there is no specific timeframe noted in the landlord’s policies for installation of improvements, the Ombudsman would expect that following such a commitment by the landlord, it would install them within a reasonable timeframe and communicate the timeframe to the resident.
28. It is not evident that the landlord followed up any discussion with the resident regarding additional security installations with any written confirmation, or confirmations of any timeframes for installation, which would have been helpful for the resident. It was appropriate therefore, that it called the resident to discuss the issues following her formal complaint, and that in its stage one response, it explained its lack of communication and apologised for the oversight. It also appropriately set out the details of the security light it had subsequently agreed to install. While the delay to its communication on this issue would have caused concern for the resident, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, given this was an improvement and not a repair responsibility, this falls short of constituting service failure, and the landlord’s apology was proportionate.
29. Following its stage one response, it is evident that the landlord was proactive in arranging for the security light to be installed. It is also evident that it had made clear the security light would be connected to the resident’s electricity supply and so the subsequent delay to the installation on the basis that the resident did not want this was beyond the landlord’s control. Given that the resident had concerns about bearing the cost of the power to the light, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to an alternative solution i.e. installing a solar powered light at its own expense. Given that it had not initially prepared for this option, it was understandable that there was a further delay to the installation of the light and its further explanation that there were delays caused by the COVID-19 restrictions was reasonable.
30. The resident also expressed concern in her initial complaint that the landlord’s staff had given her conflicting information about the enforcement action it could take against the resident. As noted above, based on the evidence available it cannot be known what the content of the parties’ discussions were regarding possible enforcement action. In its stage one response, it is evident that the landlord provided further information about the resident’s options to transfer properties, however, it did not expressly give its position on enforcement action, which would have been helpful for the resident. Following her further query in July 2020, however, it is evident the parties had an ongoing discussion about the issue, during which the landlord appropriately acknowledged her ongoing concerns and advised the action it would take, including continuing to work with the police, and that it would seek further evidence by carrying out a community letter drop and seeking CCTV footage from her other neighbour.
31. It is evident that the landlord carried out its community letter drop, following which, it kept the resident appropriately updated with the results, which unfortunately were that no further evidence came to light. It appropriately set out its position that it would be unable to pursue any enforcement action without further evidence and that it was awaiting the outcome of the criminal trial at which point it could reconsider enforcement action. It appropriately reiterated this advice in its stage two response, and additionally advised it had inspected her neighbour’s property which had not uncovered any further evidence.
32. In summary, while it is not clear what discussions were had following the resident’s initial reports of the burglary, it is evident that the landlord was in continual contact with the resident throughout this period. The landlord appropriately clarified the improvements it would offer to improve security at the property and took reasonable steps to install them and to adapt to the resident’s further requests. While it missed the opportunity to clarify its position on enforcement action in its stage one response, it appropriately clarified this during further communications with the resident and set out what steps it would take, as well as informing her of the outcomes of those steps. Its conclusion in its stage two response that it had appropriately communicated with the resident following her reports was therefore reasonable.

Transfer

33. As with above, it cannot be known what was initially discussed following the resident’s initial reports, however, it is not disputed that the landlord provided information to the resident about her transfer options during this period. Following the resident’s complaint in which she expressed there had been confusion regarding whether she could transfer, the landlord appropriately clarified her options in its discussion following her complaint and in its stage one response. Given the ASB issues the resident had experienced, it was also appropriate that the landlord provided her with the necessary links for the applications discussed and arranged for a banding assessment to award her priority, in line with its transfer policy, following which it awarded her the highest priority.
34. Given the ASB issues experienced by the resident, it was also appropriate that the landlord advised her that in order to be transferred as soon as possible, she should consider areas other than her preferred location. Additionally, it was appropriate that the landlord wrote a letter of support to the local authority at the request of the resident, and that it measured her expectation about the efficacy of such a letter.
35. It is evident that on 10 August 2020, the resident advised the landlord that she was experiencing difficulties with her Homeswapper application. While it is not evident that the landlord had a responsibility to complete the application on the resident’s behalf, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide reasonable assistance where difficulties were experienced. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord investigated this issue, advised her of the cause of the issue, and corrected it on her behalf within a reasonable timeframe.
36. Similarly, it is evident that the resident completed the Homehunt application on or around 22 June 2020 and that she subsequently queried if her application was completed correctly. The landlord acknowledged this request on 23 June 2020, however, it is not evident that it provided her with any confirmation regarding the application. It is evident, however, that the application form was not correctly completed, which was only identified by the landlord on or around 11 September 2020. While it was appropriate that the landlord subsequently corrected the application on the resident’s behalf, the landlord’s delay in providing the requested confirmation to the resident was unreasonable. This delay to the completion of the application would have caused distress to the resident and concern about when she would be able to transfer to an alternative property. This constituted service failure, and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an amount of £50 is reasonable in the circumstances.
37. The Ombudsman notes that throughout the course of the complaint correspondence, the resident raised a number of repair issues such as repairs to her door which was damaged during the burglary, and repairs to her ceiling, which required an asbestos survey prior to completion. These issues were not raised as part of her initial complaint, nor were they raised as a formal complaint at any point, however, due to the delays experienced to the repairs, it was reasonable that the landlord sought to address them as a separate complaint, for which it advised it would provide a separate stage one response.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s request to be transferred to an alternative property.

Reasons

ASB

40. While the landlord did not keep accurate telephone records of conversations had with the resident following her initial reports, based on its telephone logs it is evident that the landlord corresponded with the resident a reasonable number of times over this period. It is also evident that it agreed to install improvements to the resident’s property which it was not required to do, and that although it initially delayed in its advice to the resident regarding the timeframe for installation, it subsequently was proactive in arranging for the installation, and adapting the installations to suit the resident’s requirements.
41. Additionally, while the landlord did not initially provide clarification about the enforcement action it could take in its stage one response, it subsequently clarified the actions it would take and kept the resident reasonably updated with the outcomes of its investigations, which were in line with its ASB policy, and that it would consider further action following the outcome of the criminal court case.

Transfer

42. Following the resident’s initial reports and request to be transferred to an alternative property, it is evident that landlord appropriately set out her options for a transfer and provided her with the necessary links to make applications. It also appropriately advised the resident that there may be a delay to a transfer if she only wished to move to her preferred location, and also provided a letter in support of her application to the local authority.
43. While it appropriately responded to and assisted the resident with the issues she was experiencing with her Homeswapper application, it is evident she had requested confirmation that her Homehunt application was completed successfully in June 2020, however, it is not evident that the landlord provided any update prior to September 2020, at which point it noted there had been errors in the application. While it was appropriate that it rectified these errors, its delay in providing this update to the resident would have caused her distress and concern about whether she was able to transfer and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered to reflect this.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

44. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its delay in confirming whether her transfer application was complete.
45. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

46. The landlord to consider implementing a system to keep detailed records of its telephone conversations with residents.