Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202107086)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107086

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

15 September 2022

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 report of an incident that included threats made to her household;
2. the resident’s request to be moved;
3. repairs to a communal front door.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy agreement describes the property as a two-bedroom flat. The property is on the first floor of a low-rise block that has a communal front entrance door.
The landlord has been provided with medical evidence that the resident is vulnerable due to stress-related problems.
The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to maintain the structure and outside of the property, including outside doors.
The landlord has an anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy that shows that:
1. a threat of violence meets its threshold for what would be treated as ASB;
2. an initial assessment will determine the ASB case priority and, according to its website, it will respond to complainants within two working days;
3. it commits to “liaise with partner organisations and work together to find solutions”;
4. it will use its judgement as to whether reports of ASB can be realistically investigated and resolved.
The landlord had a management transfer policy that allowed for a discretionary single direct offer of accommodation to be made to a resident because of serious ASB, or domestic abuse, with Band ‘A’ applicants being given top priority. It set out that the offer would be suitable for the size of the family but that the management transfer status would be withdrawn for six months were the resident to refuse a reasonable offer.
The landlord now has a housing transfer process where it will make “vacancies available to transferring tenants subject to local authority nominations restrictions and local lettings criteria”. It has associated criteria for transfer bidding with priorities based on the urgency of a move as follows:
1. Band A1 – ‘emergency’ due to safeguarding need such as a need to avoid an imminent threat to life;
2. Band A2 – ‘high priority’ due to safeguarding need such as a need to avoid a potential threat to life (supported by third party evidence) or a medical or welfare need such as the resident being unable to return to, or live in, the property;
3. Band B1 – ‘medium priority’ due to serious safeguarding need (that is not life threatening) or a medical or welfare need such as the resident only being able to occupy the property in the short-term;
4. Band C1 – ‘low priority’ due to a safeguarding need or a medical or welfare need such as the property being unsuitable;
5. Band D – ‘no priority’ but the resident has requested a move to another area.
The landlord’s repairs guide shows that it is responsible for communal door entry systems and locks. It sets out that emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 calendar days and replacement of major items (such as door replacements) are “carried out under a separate programme as annual planned works or major repairs”.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a formal two-stage complaints process with responses required within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively.
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for discretionary payments to be made to residents, including for repairs delays.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that the resident made ASB reports during 2018-19 relating to noise nuisance and a hate crime allegation against her neighbour. The landlord closed the relevant ASB case file in October 2019, following the issuing of warning letters.
The resident’s son’s school (safeguarding lead) wrote to the landlord in December 2019, describing the impact of past domestic violence on him and how he was affected by arguments that had recently occurred between the resident and neighbours; the school concluded that staying in the property was making him unstable.
The landlord completed a management supported transfer request form on 20 December 2019 that recommended a move due to the health impact of domestic violence on the resident and her son.
The landlord’s records show that the resident made three nuisance reports about her neighbour between mid-April and late May 2020 related to banging noise and an alleged filming incident. The landlord noted that it interviewed the neighbour but the allegations were denied and it asked for evidence of noise nuisance to be submitted.
The landlord and the school safeguarding lead exchanged emails during May 2020, showing that the resident was sixth on the landlord’s management transfer list and it advised that it would be beneficial for the resident to widen her preferred geographical area to maximise her chances of a direct offer. The landlord also signposted to the ‘homeswapper’ scheme.
The landlord made a referral to the local authority in late May 2020 to enquire about support that social services could offer the resident and her son. It received a reply from the local authority on 2 June 2020 that noted they had spoken to the resident and she “explained that she is due a management transfer from her current property which she believes will help” but it concluded that adult social services involvement was not currently necessary.
The school safeguarding lead forwarded medical correspondence to the landlord on 5 June 2020 which she said was in support of the emergency transfer application. The correspondence was a letter from a GP dated December 2018, showing that the resident was vulnerable to stress. The landlord was also notified on 12 June 2020 that the resident was in receipt of counselling and her son had been provided with an ‘early help mentor’; it had already noted that the resident had been given ‘Band A’ priority so the medical information would be retained but would not impact the transfer banding.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 July 2020, advising that, due to her ‘Band A’ priority for re-housing, it would make a single direct offer of a two-bedroom flat and that her priority banding would be reduced if she rejected the offer without valid reason.
The landlord’s records from mid-July 2020 show that a direct offer had been made to the resident but the related lettings company had established that the prospective tenancy was not in line with her existing terms so the offer had been withdrawn and a new one would be made.
The resident made a report via the school safeguarding lead of an incident on 15 August 2020 where a neighbour had rudely complained to her about noise. The landlord replied to the school on 20 August 2020, advising it had received no complaint from the neighbour and it would not get involved in each interaction between the two parties.
The lettings company advised the safeguarding lead on 27-28 August 2020 that the resident had been made a direct offer for a two-bedroom ground floor flat but the resident had refused to view it in person because of its size. It advised that if the offer were refused without adequate reason then the resident would be placed in a ‘transfer no need’ band so said it would hold the viewing open if the safeguarding lead could assist.
The resident and the safeguarding lead exchanged emails on 28 August 2020, confirming that the resident had rejected the direct offer of a new flat due to the amount of furniture she would need to get rid of. She made a separate comment to the landlord’s lettings team about a bedroom window facing a garage.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 September 2020, advising that it had introduced a new online portal which residents could use to apply for a property transfer and through which they could bid on properties. It asked her to re-apply for a transfer using this new system. It said it would notify her of her banding priority, explained how bidding would work and signposted her to the mutual exchange process.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 October 2020, again inviting her to re-apply for a housing transfer through its new portal.
The landlord’s internal emails from November 2020 show that it understood the resident was seeking to move due to her history of domestic violence in the property and ASB from a neighbour but she had rejected a move on the grounds that her furniture would not fit into the prospective accommodation. It noted that it had identification documents on file as well as the below evidence of the need for a move:
1. the letter dated December 2018 from the resident’s GP;
2. the letter dated December 2019 from the resident’s son’s school.
The landlord noted that it reviewed the housing transfer file during November 2020 but that it was insufficient for the panel on welfare grounds; it decided to register the transfer request with a ‘D’ priority banding and ask that the resident provide evidence to allow it to consider passing the case for panel review.
The landlord’s lettings team wrote to the resident on 7 December 2020, advising that:
1. it had awarded her a ‘D’ priority banding based on an interim assessment of her housing need;
2. it awaited further information about her son’s wellbeing after which it could carry out a review in accordance with its new transfer policy;
3. it offered advice about regular bidding and said that it would apply the criteria within the transfer policy when determining positioning on its shortlist for advertised properties.
The landlord’s records show that the resident made a report on 4 March 2021 that three teenagers came to her front door, while two others waited by the block entrance, and that they made threats to stab her son with two of the teenagers being neighbours from the estate.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the Police who confirmed that they had attended but found no knife and that one of the boys had been trying to prevent a confrontation; it added that the Police had said no individuals had been identified. The landlord recorded that it had spoken to a neighbour at a nearby street who said her child had been at home isolating at the time. The landlord later noted that it had decided not to open an ASB case due to the alleged perpetrators being non-residents.
The landlord’s records show that it visited the block on 9 March 2021 due to a reported fault with the communal door. It noted that the block was accessible by pushing the door so a repair order had been raised.
The landlord’s internal emails show that its operatives attended to a communal door repair job on 1 April 2021 but the resident was out so they could not gain access.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 9 April 2021 on the grounds that:
1. she had been complaining for years about damage being caused to the communal front door, including by a neighbour’s son kicking it;
2. two named teenagers had shown another three teenagers where she lived on 3 March 2021 and they were able to get to her front door and bang and shout for her to open it;
3. she suspected they were carrying a weapon and had threatened to stab her son so she had called the Police;
4. when she reported this to the landlord, staff members had not been empathetic;
5. she believed that the housing officer hated her and was therefore ignoring her requests to be kept safe.
The landlord logged the complaint from the resident on 12 April 2021, noting that it spoke to her the following day and she reported that “kids who live nearby” had threatened to stab her son and the communal front door needed to be made secure. She added that she had been offered a new property to move to but it was too small and she mentioned three members of staff who did not like her so she would not want them to deal with the complaint.
The landlord’s complaints team liaised with its ‘customer risk triage manager’ on 14 April 2021 and it was noted that no safeguarding concern had been logged for the resident’s address since March 2020.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it noted on 15 April 2021 that the resident’s son (and another party that the Police interviewed in March 2021) had identified that one of the teenagers from a named local address had been attempting to stop a fight. It reiterated that it had interviewed another party at a local address itself but they had denied their child was involved as they had been isolating at home.
The landlord’s internal emails from mid-April 2021 show that it had not established at this point what the correct trade would be for the communal door job and what works were required. It noted that a repairs officer attended on 19 April 2021 and decided the “keep section needed reinforcing to prevent it from being forced open”.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 19 April 2021. It concluded that:
1. it was difficult to accommodate the resident’s request for different staff members to be involved as “the majority of the housing team had been taken out of the equation”;
2. the housing team had been told to review her management transfer request and would let her know the outcome;
3. an inspection of the communal door would be undertaken that day so a decision could be made on whether to repair or replace it;
4. it understood the Police would be dealing with the threats made towards her son;
5. it had spoken to a member of staff about their communication skills given the concerns raised by the resident about empathy during email exchanges;
6. it partly upheld the complaint on the grounds that repairs to the communal front door had not made it secure.
The landlord also wrote to the resident on 21 April 2021, advising that:
1. it had visited the communal front door on 9 March 2021, raised a repair order and informed the resident accordingly;
2. operatives had since attended and made recommendations;
3. it had tried to speak to the resident on 5 March 2021 to advise of the actions it had taken about the alleged threats made against her son but there was no answer or voicemail facility;
4. the management transfer application was being considered by the appropriate team.
The landlord noted on 17 May 2021 that the resident wished to escalate her complaint. It recorded on the complaints file the following day that an engineer had attended to the door on 30 April 2021 but advised that an appointment with the resident was needed albeit they would attempt to resolve the problem communally that day.
The landlord’s internal emails from mid-May 2021 show that its repairs team reviewed the communal door entry works history and noted that there had been a repair order in December 2020 and another in March 2021 but there was a complication as the door was timber (not metal). It recorded that it was aware that the door did lock and engage but could also be forced open. Its contractor reiterated that they had attended on 30 April 2021 and that an appointment was needed with the resident to progress the current repair order.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 May 2021, advising she had provided a photograph of the communal door and indicating that the landlord was failing in its duty of care to her.
The landlord’s contractor advised it on 19 May 2021 that they had attended the day before and established that the door closer was slow and the door was in a very poor condition. They noted that the door had been left secure but asked the landlord if they wished for a replacement quote.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 May 2021, advising she had notified it of the incident in March 2021 but the communal door was still not fixed and she alleged that three members of staff were biased against her. She provided a copy of a letter that the Police sent to her on 6 March 2021, setting out what it would do to investigate the crime.
The landlord received a quote for the communal door renewal from its contractor on 28 May 2021.
The landlord’s internal emails from late May 2021 show that it checked the resident’s housing priority banding and noted that its lettings team had already asked her for more evidence about the welfare of her son and would do so again. It subsequently noted on 7 June 2021 that it had written to the resident on 26 May 2021, reiterating that additional information was needed to allow it to re-present the case to its panel (the resident viewed this on her housing application account on 7 June 2021).
The landlord informed the resident’s MP on 4 June 2021 that it had received a quote for the communal door entry works and this had been passed to its commercial team for approval.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 8 June 2021, concluding that:
1. an incident was reported to the Police on 3 March 2021 and the landlord had liaised with them as there were allegations that boys who lived on the estate were involved but there was no evidence of this and so an ASB case had not been opened;
2. it was satisfied with how the ASB report had been investigated and the housing officer had attempted to speak to the resident on 5 March 2021 to confirm the outcome but was unable to do so;
3. it had looked to open a safeguarding case for the resident’s son but the resident had not wished to engage at the time;
4. it was investigating whether the door was to be replaced and a quote was to be submitted for a new secure door but it upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint;
5. the housing application had been awarded ‘Band D’ priority following a panel hearing and more evidence, in regard to the welfare of the resident’s son, would be needed for additional priority to be agreed.
The resident expressed continued dissatisfaction on 21 June 2021 on the grounds that the communal door damage had been reported prior to March 2021, the landlord should have made a new safeguarding offer for her son and the complaint response contained inaccurate information.
The landlord reiterated to the resident on 21 June 2021 that she would need to approach the Ombudsman if she were still dissatisfied.

Summary of Events after landlord complaint process

The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 June 2021, requesting permission for it to approach social services on her behalf to see what support could be offered to her and her son. It also signposted her to various organisations who could assist with mental health support.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2021, drawing its attention to a stabbing elsewhere in the city and requesting that it take measures to improve her household’s safety.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 July 2021, regarding her behaviour towards staff and contractors. This included a reference to her not having made any bids through the internal housing transfer system.
The resident approached this Service in August 2021, advising that she had evidence that she complained about the communal door issue in January 2021 and had been placed on a management transfer list but only been offered a one-bedroom flat.
The landlord’s internal emails from early August 2021 show that its planned investment team advised that they would not be carrying out the door replacement as part of the cyclical works that year and there were delays in the works being raised.
The resident advised the landlord in October 2021 of a further confrontation with a nearby neighbour and raised concern about the continued lack of safeguarding measures in place.
The landlord’s internal emails from early November 2021 show that it had received one quote (for a completely new door entrance system) but was awaiting another for ‘due diligence’ and would then seek to obtain an installation date.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails during November-December 2021 and April 2022, regarding faults to the communal door.
The resident advised this Service in July 2022 that the communal door was still damaged and her son had been approached by one of the perpetrators of previous violent threats. She confirmed as recently as August 2022 that the door had still not been fixed and anybody could access the block.

Assessment and findings

Threatening incident

The landlord was made aware in early March 2021 of an incident where a number of individuals came to the resident’s block and allegedly made threats against her son. The resident notified the landlord of this incident and it noted that it liaised with the Police and attempted to make follow up contact with her within two working days. This was in accordance with the obligations set out in its ASB policy to respond to reports within two working days and liaise with partner organisations and was therefore an appropriate initial response.
Through its interactions with the resident and the Police, the landlord did not obtain evidence that demonstrated that the alleged perpetrators were its tenants. Nevertheless, it interviewed one household who lived nearby, albeit it did not establish any involvement on their part, and it obtained information that another identified party had been attempting to prevent the incident escalating. Given the matter was a criminal issue (which the Police confirmed they were investigating) and there was no potential tenancy enforcement action that it could take, it was reasonable that the landlord did not open an ASB case file.
Although it did not open an ASB investigation, the landlord did take steps over the subsequent months to offer safeguarding support. It checked its own safeguarding records in April 2021 (which noted no concerns since March 2020) and by the end of June 2021, it had made at least two offers to the resident to either open a safeguarding case or make a referral to the local authority. The resident has since confirmed that she felt she had to refuse the initial offer due to other ongoing matters and it is unclear if there was any answer to the second offer (made by the landlord on 29 June 2021). Given it was aware of the potential vulnerabilities of the resident’s household and its records confirmed the resident and her son had been in receipt of support (via a counsellor and the son’s school) during 2020, it was reasonable that the landlord made at least two attempts to offer safeguarding assistance after the March 2021 incident.
In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to the March 2021 incident of threats made to the resident by liaising with the Police, investigating as far as it could, attempting to update her and subsequently offering safeguarding support. Its decision not to open an ASB case was reasonably based on the lack of evidence that any of its tenants were responsible for the incident.

Housing Transfer Request

The resident expressed an interest in being transferred from her property at least as early as December 2019. This was due to past domestic violence and a dispute between the resident and her neighbour that involved allegations of hateful language. It is unclear exactly when the landlord agreed the management transfer status. However, although there was limited evidence of ongoing ASB at the time, the resident was sixth on the landlord’s management transfer list by May 2020 which indicates that it had appropriately used its discretion to award management transfer status in line with its policy given the medical evidence it had received. It also provided signposting information about the ‘homeswapper’ scheme which was reasonable advice to give while the resident was awaiting an offer through the transfer process.
The landlord made an initial direct offer to the resident by mid-July 2020. However, it became apparent that, although the potential property was an appropriate size, the tenancy conditions would not match the resident’s pre-existing ones. The landlord therefore took reasonable steps to withdraw that offer and ensure that this did not affect the resident’s management transfer status.
The landlord made a further direct offer in August 2020 for a two-bedroom ground floor flat. This was a reasonable offer in accordance with the landlord’s management transfer policy at the time as the flat was classed as a two-bedroom, four-person property so was appropriate for the resident and her son. According to the resident’s interactions with the landlord and her son’s school, the offer was refused on the grounds that accepting it would mean getting rid of furniture and a comment was also made about a nearby garage.
It is not clear that either of these reasons would have been acceptable for refusing the direct offer and the landlord attempted to warn the school safeguarding lead that such a refusal would lead to the resident’s priority banding being dropped. There was therefore no service failure on the part of the landlord in regard to the direct offer it made to the resident or in the handling of her management transfer application.
Although the landlord’s management transfer policy showed that residents would not be permitted to re-apply for a transfer for at least six months after a direct offer refusal, the landlord nevertheless offered to consider a further application from the resident in September 2020 when it advised her that a new policy had been introduced. It also reminded her of this opportunity in October 2020 and assessed the evidence it held on file in November 2020. Given the introduction of a new property transfer process, it was reasonable for the landlord to use its discretion to encourage and assess another application by the resident despite her previous direct offer refusal.
The landlord wrote to the resident in December 2020, explaining that the evidence it held had not allowed for it to award a priority banding above ‘Band D’ but it invited her to provide new information from her son’s advocate or social worker in order for it to pass the case for further review. It re-considered the transfer application in May 2021 as a result of the resident’s complaint and reiterated to her that it needed further information about the welfare of her son. Given the only information the landlord held was around 18 months old at this point, it was reasonable for it to seek additional evidence from the resident so it could assess what priority it should give her application.
The resident has indicated that a property transfer was required following the March 2021 incident when her son was threatened. However, there was no evidence offered by the Police that showed that the property was unsafe for the resident to return to, or that there was an ongoing threat, so there was no service failure on the landlord’s part in regard to the priority banding assessment.
In summary, the landlord handled the resident’s initial management transfer application appropriately up to August 2020 when it made a single direct offer in accordance with its policy. Although the resident refused that offer, the landlord has since taken reasonable steps to obtain further evidence from her to enable it to assess her priority under its new policy.

Front door repair

The resident began to consistently raise concerns about the communal front door to her block from March 2021, after the incident where she alleged her son had been threatened. However, she has since advised that similar reports had already been made in the past and the landlord acknowledged in May 2021 that it had previously raised a repair order related to the door in December 2020. This indicates that there had already been an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s handling of door repairs up to March 2021.
Between March 2021 and June 2021 (when the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process), the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns by arranging for its housing officer and repair contractor to consider the condition of the door. During this period, it noted that it was possible to push the door open and that it was in very poor condition. Although the landlord noted that it had been unable to gain access on one occasion (because the resident was out), it was inappropriate that it was unable to advise her by the final complaint response how it intended to fix the door and a likely timescale for this. This will have been particularly distressing for the resident given the threatening incident in March 2021 and it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to prioritise its handling of the door repair in light of the household vulnerabilities.
Since the end of the complaints process, there appear to have been further unreasonable delays as the resident has advised that the communal door remained in disrepair as recently as August 2022, more than 12 months after the final complaint response. This will have caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident as she has chased the landlord for progress in the meantime and there is no evidence that it has considered alternative measures to make her feel safe. If the landlord intends to replace the communal door, its repair policy shows that it is obliged to do so as ‘annual planned works’ or ‘major repairs’ but it is unreasonable that it has still not advised the resident of the likely timescale for renewal so long after her complaint exhausted its complaints process.
In summary, there was unreasonable delay by the landlord in its handling of the communal door repair at the resident’s block both before and after the threatening incident she reported in March 2021. It has also failed to provide updates to the resident as to when it intends to complete works that it identified as necessary at least as early as May 2021, despite being aware of her safety concerns.

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 report of an incident that included threats made to her household;
2. the resident’s request to be moved.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the communal front door.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and offer support following an incident where the resident and her son were threatened in March 2021.
The landlord made an appropriate direct offer to the resident in August 2020 and, despite this being refused, has since handled the resident’s new property transfer request reasonably.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in progressing repairs to the resident’s communal front door and has failed to communicate regularly with her during this period of delay.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. provide her with a specification of works it intends to complete to the communal front door and the likely timescale for these.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £350 in recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to her by the service failure in its handling of repairs to the communal front door.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to:
1. check if the resident and her son are experiencing any ongoing ASB and, if so, send her an action plan as to how it will respond;
2. consider whether it is able to introduce any interim security measures pending the completion of the communal front door works and let the resident know the outcome;
3. update the resident on her current priority banding and if it is awaiting any further medical or welfare evidence from her to allow a further assessment.

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