Derwent Housing Association Limited (202015548)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015548

Derwent Housing Association Limited

26 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of mould in the property;
2. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
3. the resident’s request for a property transfer;
4. a notice to quit it issued to the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the property from 4 September 2020. The tenancy agreement is described as a ‘starter tenancy’ and shows the property as a two-bedroom house.
The landlord has confirmed that it has recorded that the resident has a medical condition that can cause stress or fatigue and that the resident’s wife has an anxiety disorder.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the resident is obliged:
1. not to ‘cause, commit or allow… harassment, …abusive or insulting words or behaviour’ and that the landlord will ‘take firm action’ to deal with people carrying out unacceptable behaviour
2. to live in the property as their ‘only or main home’
3. to give four weeks’ notice in writing should they wish to end the tenancy and remove all their possessions from the property before handing in the keys.
The landlord has ASB policies and procedures that require it to:
1. acknowledge reports within 1 working day and offer to meet with complainants within 10 working days with subsequent fortnightly contact
2. complete a risk assessment if the complainant is vulnerable and the ASB is having an impact on their quality of life or is targeted at them
3. support complainants to provide evidence and signpost appropriate support
4. work closely with partner agencies such as the Police
5. contact the alleged perpetrator, as agreed with the complainant, to put the allegations to them and ensure that they understand what is expected of them
6. close the case if there are no further complaints
7. take ‘fair and proportionate’ action in response to ASB complaints and that ‘all avenues are explored prior to enforcement action’.
The landlord has a management transfer procedure that says it:
1. will consider management transfers for ‘protection of witnesses who agree to attend court’ and ‘victims of serious harassment’
2. may not consider a property transfer if a resident is in breach of their tenancy
3. will make only one offer to applicants and treat the application like a normal transfer application if this offer is rejected
4. matches the size of a property it offers to the size of the household.
The landlord’s website shows that it will ‘arrange an appointment for us to inspect your property and complete any work’ when a resident reports a repair and that it will ‘set targets for completing repairs depending on the type of repair and will advise you of this and schedule an appointment when you get in touch’. It adds that residents should clean mould growth from affected areas but that they can report mould to it if they are concerned about the cause and that it is helpful for photographs to be provided when doing so.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two-stage process where it is required to respond within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two).
The landlord has a compensation procedure for circumstances where customer service has been delivered below its policy standards. The procedure allows for payments of up to £250 for distress or inconvenience caused to a resident and a maximum compensation payment of £500.
The resident’s complaint partially concerns neighbours (living nextdoor) who were also tenants of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with copies of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that a variety of checks of the property were completed in June 2020, including air permeability, mechanical ventilation flow rate and electrical testing and that the gas was commissioned in August 2020. A snagging list was also drawn up on 28 July 2020 to address various repairs, including marked wall decorations – the report and related photographs did not record any mould growth.
The landlord’s records show that the property was handed over to it from the developer on 20 August 2020.
According to the landlord’s internal emails, a repair was logged on 4 September 2020 because an external air vent cover was found to be damaged. This was the same date that the resident’s tenancy began.
The landlord raised further repairs orders on 7 September 2020, 17 September 2020 and 18 September 2020 to address defects such as scratched and cracked glazing, chipped kitchen units, a toilet constantly filling, an area of missed paintwork and a misaligned boiler flue pipe.
The landlord raised repairs orders on 9 October 2020, 13 October 2020 and 19 October 2020 that mentioned a faulty airing cupboard radiator, protruding nails, missing grout, difficulty opening a living room window and back surging pipework in the bathroom.
The landlord’s ASB records show an initial log was made on 20 October 2020 when it was noted that the resident had refused assistance through mediation and said that he intended to hand in notice to leave the property.
The resident submitted an email on 27 October 2020 that his neighbour had been verbally abusive by swearing at him and his family, had knocked on his door several times in recent weeks and had been smoking cannabis in the garden. He added further general concerns about safety in the area and said his wife was depressed as a result.
The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident about his ASB report on 30 October 2020 but that he asked for it to be logged and not investigated. It noted that it made further attempts to speak to the resident about ASB on 5 November 2020.
The landlord recorded a conversation with the resident’s wife on 9 November 2020 who advised that they had a social worker to assist and did not want the landlord to speak to the neighbours. The resident’s wife added that they had made a mistake in moving to the area and were bidding to move through the local authority housing system. The landlord noted that it asked the resident’s wife to let it know if they wished to pursue the ASB issues in future.
The landlord logged a report on 25 November 2020 of mould to the kitchen cupboard which the resident said he had cleared but it had returned and there was no sign of a leak. It wrote to the resident on 26 November 2020 – it said it would raise the issue of mould in the kitchen with the developer but was waiting on photographs from the resident and needed confirmation that access would be given.
The landlord noted a conversation with the resident on 11 December 2020 about mould in the property. It recorded that it advised him to ensure the property was well ventilated, that it could send contractors with PPE (in relation to Covid-19 concerns) and asked again that he forward the photographs he had mentioned.
The resident made a report on 11 December 2020 of an incident where the neighbour had met him in the street and made a threat to kill. He added that the Police had been informed and the neighbour had been arrested and drew the landlord’s attention to a previous incident the week before where the neighbour had abused a non-resident member of his family. The landlord noted receipt the same day of video evidence regarding the previous incident (the video showed a 40 second interaction with one party swearing at a second party about drug use).
The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident on 17 December 2020 (after an unsuccessful attempt on 14 December 2020) and he said he was still fearful following the threat by the neighbour.
The landlord spoke to the alleged perpetrator on 17 December 2020 who made counter allegations, refused mediation and said she had not been charged by the Police (the landlord subsequently corroborated this with the Police).
The resident made a report on 22 December 2020 that the neighbours had their front door broken down the previous evening and Police had attended. He raised concern that this was more than a burglary and that he needed to get out of the property for safety reasons. The landlord noted the same day that the resident was seeking a management move.
The landlord recorded a telephone call on 23 December 2020 when the resident advised they had left the property due to ASB and would not return. The landlord noted that it told the resident it could not make him homeless without seeking possession through court and suggested he approach the local authority.
The landlord noted that it attempted contact with the Police on 4 January 2021 and obtained information from them on 5 January 2021 about the attack on the neighbour’s home the previous month. The Police advised on 7 January 2021 that they could not offer support for the resident to be moved on safety grounds and there were no criminal charges.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident’s wife on 11 January 2021 but she had again refused mediation.
The landlord noted on 14 January 2021 that the neighbour was unlikely to return following the incident in late December 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 January 2021. It noted the resident had advised it he had left the property and that it had told the resident he could present to the local authority as homeless and, if accepted, then hand in his notice. It added that the resident was in breach of his tenancy by not living at the property so it asked the resident to either return to the property or give four weeks’ notice. It advised that it would issue a notice to quit if no confirmation was received by 22 January 2021.
The landlord noted a conversation with the resident’s wife on 21 January 2021 when she confirmed they had left the property and would not return there except to move out their possessions.
The landlord recorded a conversation with the resident’s wife on 25 January 2021 when it reiterated that she should either return to the property or end their tenancy otherwise it would need to take enforcement action due to abandonment of the property. The landlord noted that it told her that the Police had not supported a move and that any medical letter would be considered if it showed why the property was no longer suitable on medical grounds.
The landlord recorded receipt of a medical letter regarding the resident on 26 January 2021 but that it replied and requested an up-to-date copy. The letter was dated 21 July 2020 and did not refer to the resident’s current housing situation; the same letter – but dated 27 January 2021 – was subsequently submitted but it again did not describe how the property had impacted the resident’s medical condition.
The resident wrote to this Service during January 2021. He advised that the landlord had asked him and his family to leave his mother-in-law’s home because it was overcrowded which meant that they would need to return to their property or become homeless. He added that the Police had told him they do not write letters to support that a property is not safe to live in and gave examples that he said showed the landlord allowed criminals to reside in their properties.
The landlord recorded another conversation with the Police on 12 February 2021 when they advised that there was still no reason that the resident could not return to the property.
The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident on 12 February 2021 and advised that none of the information supplied to date supported a management move. It added that the Police had not supported a move and that the letter issued on 19 January 2021 was valid because the resident was in breach of the tenancy by not living at the property. It followed this up in writing the same day.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2021, asking it to contact the resident about a complaint regarding mould and the need for appropriate accommodation. The landlord recorded that it attempted to speak to the resident on 17 February 2021 to get details of the complaint but was only able to leave a message (it also sent an email the same day).
The landlord recorded that it closed the ASB case file on 19 February 2021, following a discussion with the resident where it was noted that he was not returning to the property so ASB was not ongoing.
The landlord issued a notice on 19 February 2021 to take possession of the resident’s property on 21 March 2021. A covering letter confirmed that this was due to the resident having abandoned the property and advised that it would seek to take possession if the resident failed to give four weeks’ notice before 21 March 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 February 2021. He asked if the repossession action could include reference to mould in the property which he previously had been told needed operatives with PPE to resolve – he said that this was needed so he could still bid on local authority housing otherwise he would be classed as making himself intentionally homeless and that the landlord should have inspected the property before allowing him to sign up to the tenancy. The landlord recorded a conversation with the resident that day where it advised he would need to allow access for it to address the mould problem.
The landlord replied to the resident on 23 February 2021. The member of staff denied that she had discussed any need for operatives with PPE equipment with the resident’s wife.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 24 February 2021 to request that it consider a complaint from the resident about:
1. its decision to issue a notice that it intended to seek possession of the property
2. its handling of the resident’s ASB reports
3. its handling of the resident’s request for a management move
4. its handling of the resident’s mould reports.
The landlord’s complaint file shows that it asked questions and obtained answers from the resident on 28 February 2021 about his complaint and the outcome(s) he was seeking.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 March 2021. He provided it with details of an alleged incident the day before when he and a friend had been verbally abused by the neighbour through the neighbour’s security camera intercom. He said that this happened while they were visiting their property and they had been left feeling unsafe and felt they could not get their possessions from the property. He provided a crime reference number for the incident and raised concern about the presence of the security camera device (which he said he would raise with the Information Commissioner).
The landlord noted that it liaised with the Police on 8 March 2021 regarding the alleged incident of 6 March 2021. The Police advised that it had no record of threats made or reported.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 8 March 2021. It concluded that:
1. its housing officer did not see mould during the property sign up on 4 September 2020 and it was not reported by the resident until 25 November 2020
2. it had offered to view photographs of the mould in November and December 2020 and given assurance on PPE its contractors would wear but no photographs had been received at the time
3. it was unable to determine the cause of mould growth but indicated this may have partly been caused by the property being empty for several weeks after sign up (it said the resident had told it on 20 October 2020 that he had only been in the property for two weeks at this point) and it offered to conduct an inspection if the resident returned to the property and allowed access
4. ASB reports (cannabis use and verbal abuse) were received on 27 October 2020 but the resident advised on 30 October 2020 that he did not want the matter to be investigated and confirmed this on 9 November 2020
5. an ASB case was opened on 14 December 2020 due to an allegation from the resident of a death threat by his neighbour which led to it liaising with the neighbour, the Police and support services (for which it could not offer details)
6. there was no continuous evidence of verbal abuse and the neighbour was warned about cannabis use so the ASB case was closed on 19 February 2021
7. it would investigate new allegations of 4 March 2021 that the neighbour was not using their property as their main home and an incident on 6 March 2021 of a threat being made
8. it had asked the resident to provide a photograph in response to his recent report about the neighbour’s CCTV which it determined to be reasonable given it was unclear when the housing officer would next visit the site
9. the resident initially advised it in October 2020 that he wished to leave the property and he confirmed he had left the property on 22 December 2020
10. there was no evidence that the resident was at high risk due to ASB so a management transfer was not appropriate and a medical letter about the living conditions was dated July 2020 (prior to the tenancy start date) so was not relevant
11. the decision to send a notice to quit or offer the resident to give up the tenancy was reasonable and based on the resident no longer living at the property which was a breach of the tenancy agreement
12. it awarded £110 compensation for delays in its handling of repairs to a loose kitchen tap, patio door glass, a toilet filling up and a drain
13. it awarded £40 compensation for minor customer service faults and a delay in reviewing video footage regarding the ASB report in December 2020 (the landlord since advised this Service that the total £150 compensation was paid into the resident’s rent account on 10 March 2021).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 March 2021. He rejected the £150 compensation payment and disputed the landlord’s comments about the quality of ASB video evidence, details of the medical letter and involvement of social services. He also attached:
1. an email from social services from November 2020 that showed the resident’s daughter had a social worker
2. advice from the local authority dated 22 January 2021 that it had checked correspondence he had received from the landlord and determined that it was not a legal notice and the landlord needed to send a section 21 notice (the email chain indicates this was forwarded to a member of the landlord’s staff on 4 February 2021)
3. a letter from victim support to the local authority dated 26 January 2021 that was in support of a property move due to ongoing ASB.
The landlord replied to the resident the same day. It clarified why it was of the view that the medical letter was out of date and signposted the resident to complain to the Police if he believed the neighbour was responsible for the social services referral.
The resident wrote to the local authority and this Service on 11 March 2021. He explained that he had abandoned the property due to distress caused by the neighbours and referred to the alleged incident that occurred on 6 March 2021 while he was back at the property. He expressed concern about the impact of potential homelessness on him and his family.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 March 2021 to express continued concerns that:
1. his wife had unsuccessfully attempted to speak to a member of staff
2. excess funds in the rent account should be used for the rent up to 4 April 2021 and he asked if the notice to quit could be extended
3. the incident on 6 March 2021 included aggression and filming by a neighbour
4. he had nowhere else to live and time was running out.

The resident confirmed to the landlord the same day that his complaint should be escalated.

The resident sent another email to the landlord on 12 March 2021 that asked it to re-word the notice to quit and requested additional time to retrieve items from the property. He drew their attention to the victim support letter again.
A community mobile officer of the landlord’s wrote to the resident on 15 March 2021. He said he had unsuccessfully attempted contact with the resident on four occasions and wished to speak to him to see what support could be offered or signposted to help sustain the resident’s tenancy.
The landlord noted that on 16 March 2021 it spoke to the potential witness of the 6 March 2021 incident but that they were unable to provide any supporting information.
The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident about the complaint escalation and wrote to him on 19 March 2021 to confirm that the stage two investigation would review:
1. the handling of the resident’s ASB reports
2. the resident’s concerns about returning to the property
3. lack of support from the Police to support a move and the refusal to consider a management move
4. mould that had been present in the property since sign up.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2021. He complained that:
1. he had been filmed by his neighbour when he was at the property to collect items
2. his neighbours appeared to have been allowed to move given he had noticed some of their possessions were gone and suggested that, if so, new tenants should be warned of potential criminal activity
3. the landlord should offer an alternative property for him and his family
4. he had been forced to sell items worth £10,900 to cover moving costs
5. the property had mould in the kitchen and on living room skirting boards from the date he moved in.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2021. He advised it had told him to keep hold of the keys for the property. He queried if this meant he should continue to pay rent and expressed concern at having to do so while also paying for storage costs he had incurred due to the notice to quit.
The landlord and resident exchanged further emails on 30 March 2021 about a potential property move – the resident asked if there was another option as the property suggested had a front door very close to the neighbouring address.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 March 2021. It advised that his management transfer application had been processed and he had been awarded ‘Band A’. It advised that it would make a single suitable offer of accommodation.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 1 April 2021 (it was subsequently forwarded to the resident by email on 15 April 2021). It concluded that:
1. the stage one complaint response was thorough and it would not uphold the complaint further
2. it had applied discretion given the circumstances of the case so had recommended a management move from the property (and the resident had already been contacted about this)
3. it would not compensate the resident for his decision to sell items and vacate the property so signposted him to take legal advice on this.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2021 to report that items had been removed from his garden, including slabs, a tree stump and a dustbin (he provided a crime reference number the following day but noted that the Police had already closed the case). He reported that his neighbours appeared not to be living at their property but he had been watched by a neighbour that day and they were still illegally filming.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 April 2021. He raised concern about a two-bedroom property they had been offered on the grounds of the condition of the outside of the property, lack of a toilet window and high crime in the area. He also questioned whether the property was available given it was open for bidding through the local authority.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 April 2021 – he repeated his concerns at having to pay rent on his empty property as well as storage costs and advised that his mother-in-law had asked that they leave her property.
The resident advised this Service on 20 April 2021 that their neighbour’s property had now been advertised for letting. He wrote further to this Service on 28 April 2021 and added that he had rejected the landlord’s proposal for them to return to the property on the basis the neighbours had moved out as they would still be returning to the area.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 April 2021 with a property offer for a two-bedroom house. The resident rejected the offer on 30 April 2021 on the ground that its front door was too near the neighbouring front door.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 May 2021. He queried how he could have left his possessions in the property after the notice to quit had been issued and repeated his view that they could not return to the property given his former neighbours were only 10 minutes away and would return to the location.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 May 2021. He said he had a new address and had returned the keys for the property. He added that he had paid that week’s rent and asked for a refund of credit on the account.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2021. It advised that his tenancy would be terminated as of 13 June 2021 – it said that this was four weeks’ notice as per the tenancy agreement and it included a guide to vacating the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 May 2021. He confirmed he had returned the property keys to the landlord’s office on 11 May 2021. He also contested the landlord’s approach to require a four-week notice period when the notice to quit period had already covered four weeks, the notice to quit had not been revoked so he was not required to give four weeks’ notice and it was unclear what had been expected of him once the management move failed.
The landlord completed a void property report on 19 May 2021 that showed the property had been cleared and decorations throughout the property met its void standard. The related voids work schedule did not show that the landlord raised any mould or damp related repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 May 2021. He contested an amount of £200 outstanding rent that he had been told was owed on his former property.
The landlord responded to the resident on 26 May 2021. It explained that the resident had been required to remain as a tenant in order to be offered a management move but that the resident found the properties proposed were unsuitable. It confirmed that the resident had found alternative accommodation so it issued a termination notice to the resident with four weeks’ notice. It added though that it was able to re-let the property quickly because the resident had returned his keys so the notice period could be reduced to 24 May 2021.
The resident replied to the landlord on 26 May 2021. He contested that:
1. it had not been his choice where they could move to and he had rejected some offers due to the presence of high voltage lines and front doors being close to neighbours’ front doors
2. he had been told to hand his keys in and remove his possessions to avoid court action (in line with the notice to quit)
3. the property had not been fit to move into due to the presence of mould and a crack in patio door glass
4. in these circumstances, he should not be asked to pay any further rent.
Following the commencement of this Service’s mediation process, the landlord agreed on 21 June 2021 to increase its compensation payment to £350 from the £150 it had credited to his rent account through its complaints process – it wrote to the resident accordingly. It also advised on 28 June 2021 that it would write off the £98.02 rent account balance as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident advised this Service in November 2021 that the circumstances at his new address had been impacted as most of his belongings remained in storage and he could not afford to move them out.

Assessment and findings

Mould

The landlord’s records of void property inspections before and after the resident’s tenancy do not demonstrate that any mould growth was identified nor that any damp-related repairs were raised. Given the lack of evidence of a mould problem in the property when the landlord undertook checks prior to the resident moving in and that mould was not mentioned as a snagging issue when works were raised in September 2020, there was no service failure by the landlord at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy period.
The resident made an initial report that there was mould growth at the property on 25 November 2020. The resident advised that he had previously cleaned it away but that it had returned. The landlord wrote to the resident within one day of the report, advising it would pass the issue to the developer and asking for photographs to be provided. This was in accordance with the information on the landlord’s website about mould growth and, given this report was made during the second national pandemic lockdown, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask that the resident provided photographs to assist with diagnosing the problem.
The resident and landlord discussed the mould issue again on 11 December 2020. The landlord offered advice about ventilating the property, reiterated that the resident should provide photographs of the problem and assured the resident that operatives would wear PPE. It was again reasonable for the landlord to attempt to assess the extent of the mould growth by obtaining photographs from the resident and to provide guidance on reducing the likelihood of the problem returning. The information about PPE seems to have been offered to assure the resident that the landlord’s contractors would take steps to work safely in light of the pandemic – this demonstrated that the landlord was willing to send operatives to the property to address the mould problem albeit its approach was to await photographs before taking further action.
It is relevant to the landlord’s handling of the mould report that the resident advised it on 23 December 2020 that he had vacated the property. The landlord previously told the resident that it needed confirmation that access would be offered for it to resolve the mould problem. Given the resident advised he had departed the property, the lack of action by the landlord to progress any repair over the subsequent weeks was not service failure as it was unlikely that the resident would be willing to allow access.
When the landlord logged the resident’s complaint in February 2021, it reiterated to him that he needed to provide access for the mould problem to be addressed. Its complaint response in March 2021 speculated that mould growth may have been caused by the property being empty for several weeks between the tenancy start and the resident moving in but also offered to visit the property. Although there was no firm evidence on which the landlord based its diagnosis that the mould could be due to the property being unoccupied for a short period, it was reasonable for it to offer to inspect the property to assess the actual cause of mould growth (it confirmed it had received photographs from the resident by this point). Given the resident did not subsequently move back to the property and give access for an inspection, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord in it not progressing repairs beyond this point.
In summary, the landlord undertook appropriate checks of the property prior to the resident moving in and responded reasonably to the resident’s mould reports from November 2020 by offering to review photographs of the issue when lockdown restrictions were in place. The resident vacated the property within four weeks of the initial mould report which restricted the landlord’s ability to address repairs but it did make reasonable offers for the resident to return to the property and allow access for it to inspect and diagnose the cause of mould.

ASB Reports

The type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for him and his family and there have been genuine concerns about visitors to the neighbouring property. Nevertheless, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The resident made an initial ASB report in late October 2020. These allegations were of the neighbour being verbally abusive and smoking drugs. The landlord spoke to the resident twice over the subsequent three weeks but he advised that he did not wish the landlord to take further action and the landlord was told that the resident’s family was receiving social services support. The landlord’s decision not to investigate further or signpost other support options was therefore appropriate.
The resident made a further ASB report in early December 2020. This allegation related to a threat made by the neighbour. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss the allegation, spoke to the alleged perpetrator, offered mediation to both parties and liaised with the Police. These actions were in line with the landlord’s obligations to work closely with partner agencies and meet with alleged perpetrators so were appropriate. Given the Police advised that the matter was not being pursued by them and the neighbour denied the allegations, it was also appropriate that the landlord took no further action at this point.
The resident reported another ASB event in late December 2020. This related to the neighbour being a victim of a ‘break in’ but the resident advised his household felt unsafe. Although there is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment due to the December 2020 incidents, it liaised again with the Police in January 2021 who advised that they did not find the resident to be at high risk.
The landlord decided to close the ASB case file on 18 February 2021. It did so after discussion with the household as its ASB procedures required. The case was closed on the basis that the resident was no longer living at the property which had been confirmed as early as December 2020. The landlord’s decision to close the ASB case file was therefore reasonable given it was aware that the resident and neighbour were unlikely to interact.
The resident sent the landlord video evidence in late December 2020. It is unclear from evidence seen by this Service when the landlord considered this footage but it subsequently apologised for a delay in doing so and said that a compensation award of £40 was in partial recognition of this delay. Given the ASB case was closed shortly after because the resident had moved out and that it is unlikely that the footage will have led to enforcement proceedings against the neighbour, this apology and compensation was reasonable and resolution-focused.
The resident made another ASB report in the second week of March 2021. This allegation related to comments made by the neighbour through a security camera device on an occasion when the resident, his family and a friend had visited the property. The landlord responded by liaising with the Police who advised that there was no record or evidence of threats being made. It also attempted to speak to a potential witness and offered support to the resident through its community mobile office. These actions were in line with its obligations to investigate and offer support in response to ASB reports – this was therefore appropriate.
In summary, the landlord responded in accordance with its procedures to the ASB reports made by the resident in October 2020, December 2020 and March 2021. It offered support to the resident, proposed mediation between the parties, put allegations to the alleged perpetrator and obtained information from the Police – these actions were proportionate given the limited evidence available to it and the low number of reported incidents.

Management transfer request

The resident initially mentioned an intention to vacate the property in October 2020, the month after his tenancy began. He linked this to ASB but also to concerns about the area and council tax costs. The landlord offered to address the ASB report and was not obliged to take any further action at this point.
The resident made the landlord aware that he intended to pursue a management move on 22 December 2020 and linked this to the ‘break in’ at his neighbour’s property. Over the following month, the landlord gave the resident advice about presenting to the local authority, attempted to obtain the Police’s view on the need for the resident to move and advised the resident it would consider any evidence he provided. These actions were reasonable as the landlord did not have evidence at this point to support a management move.
The resident submitted evidence in late January 2021 in the form of a medical letter and victim support correspondence dated from this time was also subsequently offered. However, the medical letter did not set out how the resident’s occupation of the property had worsened his health condition and neither demonstrated that the resident was a ‘victim of serious harassment’ as the management transfer procedure required for a move to be agreed. The landlord refused the management move request on 12 February 2021 – its decision not to offer a management move was in accordance with its procedure and therefore appropriate.
The landlord decided to review its management move decision in March 2021 while it considered the resident’s escalated complaint. Although it still did not establish that the resident met the criteria for a management transfer and there was no new evidence to show that the resident was at high risk due to ASB or a victim of ‘serious harassment’ as its policy required, it nevertheless decided on 31 March 2021 to offer the resident alternative accommodation. The landlord’s decision to apply discretion and agree a management move even though its criteria had not been met demonstrated that it was resolution-focused.
The landlord’s management transfer policy shows that the landlord was only obliged to offer a single alternative property to the resident. However, correspondence between the resident and landlord indicates that multiple offers were made over the following two months. Further, the policy sets out that transfers may not be offered where a resident is in breach of their tenancy. The landlord was of the view by this point that the resident’s abandonment of the property was a breach of tenancy but nevertheless agreed to make property offers to him – this again demonstrated that it was willing to use its discretion in an attempt to provide a resolution for the resident.
The resident has since suggested that the landlord’s property offers were invalid because some of them were also available for bidding through the local authority. However, this Service has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord offered properties that were unavailable and the resident refused these offers in any case on the grounds that he did not view them as suitable for various reasons.
In summary, the landlord’s approach to base its management transfer decision on advice from the Police was reasonable and it was appropriate that the application was initially refused given the resident did not meet the management transfer policy criteria. Its subsequent decision to approve the application and make multiple property offers to the resident demonstrated that it considered the circumstances of the case and applied reasonable discretion.

Notice to quit

The resident advised the landlord on 23 December 2020 that he had vacated the property and would not return. The tenancy agreement required the resident to live in the property as his only or main home and it is therefore clear that he was in breach of the terms of his tenancy at this point.
The landlord liaised with the Police over the following week and took reasonable steps to investigate the ASB issues that the resident said had prompted him to leave the property. It also signposted the resident to re-housing assistance through the local authority. The landlord’s approach to check the circumstances behind the resident’s departure from the property and offer housing advice was reasonable.
The landlord issued a letter to the resident on 19 January 2021 that gave him formal warning that he was in breach of his tenancy and offered options of him returning to the property or giving notice if he wished to end the tenancy. Although the resident was in breach of the tenancy agreement and the landlord could therefore have commenced proceedings to end the tenancy, it was reasonable for it to give the resident an opportunity to consider his options again before progressing to a notice to quit.
The landlord set a deadline of 22 January 2021 for the resident to confirm his position and issued the notice to quit on 19 February 2021. The notice gave the resident until 21 March 2021 to give up the property (otherwise it would seek possession through the court) and offered the resident advice on seeking legal assistance. The four-week period contained in the notice and the legal signposting were appropriate and it was reasonable that the landlord took a month to progress from the warning in January 2021 to the notice to quit in February 2021.
There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on the notice to quit deadline of 21 March 2021 and it then decided to approve a management transfer at the end of March 2021, shortly after the notice to quit period ended. The resident queried this approach on 30 March 2021 when he raised concerns about making rent payments while incurring storage costs. The landlord advised on 26 May 2021 that the tenancy had needed to be maintained to allow it to continue to make management transfer offers – this was reasonable as the management transfer policy related only to current tenants. However, there was a lack of clarity between late March and May 2021 as to whether the notice to quit still stood. Although this will inevitably have caused some uncertainty to the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord not to follow through on the notice to quit while it explored the property transfer option.
The lack of clarity over the status of the notice to quit likely meant that when the resident advised the landlord on 12 May 2021 that he had returned the keys to the property, he thought that he did not need to give four weeks’ notice. Although the tenancy agreement showed that the resident was obliged to give four weeks’ notice in writing, it was unclear what impact the earlier notice to quit had given it had already allowed the resident four weeks to leave and empty the property. The landlord addressed this by shortening the notice period when it adjusted the tenancy end date to 24 May 2021 and by waiving an outstanding £98.02 rent balance – this was a reasonable attempt on the part of the landlord to rectify the uncertainty over the notice period requirement and represented appropriate redress, particularly given that it was the resident’s choice to return the keys in May 2021.
The resident has claimed that the landlord should reimburse him for the costs of moving his possessions and storing them. Although the landlord’s failure to offer clarity on the notice to quit after the notice period ended was a fault, the resident had already advised several months earlier that he did not intend to return to the property and said that he had been moving items out in early March 2021. Given the resident had not lived at the property since December 2020, had confirmed he would not live at the property in future and had decided to place items into storage before the lack of clarity about the notice to quit during late March to early May 2021, the landlord’s decision not to contribute to the resident’s moving and storage costs was reasonable.
In summary, the landlord’s decision that the resident was in breach of his tenancy was in line with the tenancy agreement. It offered the opportunity for the resident to return to the property, provided re-housing advice and warned that a notice to quit was likely before it moved to issuing the notice. The notice to quit contained appropriate information about the notice period and potential legal assistance. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident as to whether the notice to quit was withdrawn as a result of its decision to approve a property transfer but its rent liability adjustments and multiple property offers represented reasonable redress for this service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of mould in the property;
2. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
3. the resident’s request for a property transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the failure identified in its handling of a notice to quit it issued to the resident.

Reasons

The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s mould growth reports by offering to review photographs and to inspect the property but the resident moved out of the property within a month of the initial report so the landlord was unable to address the potential repair.
The landlord investigated, shared information with other agencies and offered support to the resident in response to his ASB reports in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord’s initial refusal to approve the resident’s property transfer request was in accordance with its management transfer policy and based on the lack of evidence that the resident was at high risk due to ASB. Its subsequent decision to approve the request and make multiple re-housing offers demonstrated that it was resolution-focused.
The landlord’s decision to issue a notice to quit to the resident was in accordance with the tenancy agreement as the resident did not dispute that he had vacated the property and did not plan to return. It failed to offer clarity on the impact of the property transfer approval on the notice to quit but its subsequent rent account adjustments and property offers were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its procedures to ensure that it can offer clear communication when it agrees a management move for a resident who has already been issued with a notice to quit.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.