NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (201811350)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201811350

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited

31 August 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

The resident’s complaint was about:
1. The landlord’s response to the handling of the resident’s reports of:
  1. Repair issues, including her TV aerial, lack of utilities and drainage.
  2. Anti-social behaviour.
  3. A pest infestation.
  4. Staff conduct including the level of support and reports to the police and interference with her benefits.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
3. The resident’s request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her home under an assured tenancy which began on 16 March 2021. The landlord had moved her from a previous property due to anti-social behaviour that the resident was experiencing in the locality of her home. She had a number of vulnerabilities.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to keep any installation for space and water heating and supply for water, gas, and electricity in repair and proper working order.

Chronology

In 2018, the resident had made a number of reports to the landlord and her local authority concerning drug dealing in her area.
In January 2019, the landlord had agreed to assist the resident to move to another property. The landlord offered her a direct let that she declined and eventually offered her another. In the meantime, it had taken legal action in relation to nearby residents and considered sheltered housing with another provider (but the resident declined such a placement) and assisted her to increase her priority on the housing list and seek support. It also reported there was a lack of properties and the resident was keen to move to a specific locality which limited her options.
On 16 March 2020, the resident moved to her current property.
The landlord has provided this service with its repairs records. The relevant records are as follows:
1. On 7 February 2020, an EICR (Electrical Installation Condition Report) was issued. Some improvements were recommended but no remedial action. The outcome was satisfactory. A EICR lasts for five years.
2. On 16 March 2020, a leaking kitchen tap was logged. The job was marked cancelled.
3. On 18 March 2020, a job to investigate the gas boiler was raised as no there was hot water and to check the taps. The gas was uncapped on 16 March 2020. The job were marked as completed with a target date of 5 days.
4. On 20 March 2020, a job was raised to repair the TV aerial. This was marked as cancelled.
5. On 2 July 2020 a job was raised to investigate a report that no water was coming from the bathroom tap, there was low boiler pressure, and the kitchen tap was dripping. The job was marked as completed with a target date of 24 hours.
6. On 20 August 2021, a plumber issued a Gas Safety Certificate. It was marked that no faults were recorded during the inspection and the checks including pressure were marked as “satisfactory”.
The landlord wrote to the resident as follows on 5 June 2020, referring to “extensive conversations” over the last couple of weeks about her wish to move from her property.
1. It acknowledged and apologised that when her tenancy began, there were no pre-paid gas and electricity cards available. An officer attended “straight away” so that she was able to use both gas and electricity within hours of her reporting this issue.
2. The landlord had identified and raised a job regarding a dripping tap in the kitchen. It was still dripping when she moved in. It had since been repaired.
3. The television aerial had been cut so that she was unable to watch television. While the landlord was not responsible for providing and maintaining aerials, a housing officer undertook a temporary repair. The aerial fell out a few days later but it was unable to re-attend due to the then government guidance in relation to the pandemic to only carry out urgent repairs. The landlord had reimbursed her £30 for the cost of the repair she had reported, as a gesture of goodwill.
4. The resident had reported seeing drug users near her property including in the communal yard. It offered to arrange an inspection in order to investigate if there were any security or repair measures it could undertake to make the gate more secure but she declined this.
5. The landlord had explained “on numerous occasions” (prior to and since her move) that the landlord was unable to provide a move within the area of her choice (the town centre area) or guarantee that she would not witness drug users in the area.
6. She had reported seeing her ex-husband staring at her, visiting a property across the road and walking his dog past her property and had seen other individuals with whom she had had past negative experiences. This would not necessitate a move to a different property. It had advised her that if she felt that she was being harassed, she must report this to the police but she had not done so. Police involvement would be necessary to evidence a move because of harassment.
7. In relation to the resident’s request she be placed on Band A of the housing register, it was unable to do so as this was for the local authority to do. All its properties were allocated through the housing register. It made a direct offer of accommodation to the current property but was unable to do this again without there being an exceptional need for this to happen which would fall outside the housing register’s remit. The resident’s reports did not meet this criterion.
8. It was concerned that the resident had given the landlord notice that she wished to vacate her property on 4 August 2020 and advised against this. The local authority would be unlikely to offer her alternative or accommodation in a homeless hostel. It explained it was because hostel and temporary accommodation was for people who have no other accommodation options open to them. She would be likely to be considered to be intentionally homeless. It signposted her for advice.
9. As the resident no longer wished to work with her Tenancy Support Worker, it encouraged her to seek support and assistance.
10. Finally, it referred to “numerous unpleasant voicemail messages” from the resident, and stated she had been verbally abusive to employees of the landlord. It warned this was a breach of her tenancy agreement.
The resident wrote an undated letter to this service that it received on 6 July 2020. The resident stated that she was ending her tenancy on 25 January 2021. She reported that she had outstanding repairs. The drain on her doorstep was blocked, there was no cold water in her bathroom, the kitchen tap dripped, it and no gas and electric connections, the aerial was cut, and the gate was broken. She arranged to have the gate bolt and aerial repaired. The housing officer had “abused her” and had used the incorrect date of birth. She suffered a snail infestation when it rained heavily. She wanted £4,000 in compensation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 August 2020 that it had been unable to speak with the resident on the telephone, and said as follows:
1. The resident had reported issues with neighbours and a desire to move from her property.
2. It explained that its properties were allocated through the housing register and she had support from a support agency that specialised in race discrimination the resident should contact.
3. She should report instances of harassment and chase up the crime reference to the police and seek advice and guidance through the support agency.
In September 2020, according to the landlord’s records and a statement it had made to the police, the landlord reported to the police that the resident had been abusive to members of its staff. It referred to the resident’s voicemails. The Ombudsman has noted a letter from the resident to the landlord, as well as a landlord letter annotated by the resident with her comments and emails from the resident to the landlord in support of the landlord’s allegations.
On 9 September 2020 and 28 September 2020, the landlord reported its safeguarding concerns about the resident to a company which discharged the local authority’s duties in relation to social care and safeguarding.
The resident reported that she was “made to” attend the police station as a result of the landlord’s allegations. The resident wrote a letter that, the Ombudsman understands, the landlord accepted as a “community resolution” to the police action. The letter stated that her messages had not caused lasting damage and the reason why she acted so was because she was trapped and had no support.
On 25 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident in response to the complaint this service had summarised on the resident’s behalf on 15 March 2020.
1. The landlord had prevented her from being able to move out of the property to a different landlord or to rent privately. It confirmed it had not taken any steps to prevent her from moving to another property or landlord. The resident had vacated her home in September 2020 for a period of time and gave notice advising she was leaving. She “sofa–surfed” for a period and had nowhere to move on to. She then returned to her property,. The landlord assisted her to ensure she had her keys and that her benefits were back in payment. The support agency was supporting her to make an application to the housing register. It offered a referral to its own housing support service.
2. Regarding antisocial behaviour and hate crime at her previous address and current address: It had worked with her between October 2017 and March 2018 around drug use and supply issues, which were impacting her quality of life. As a result of this, the landlord ended the tenancy of a perpetrator of ASB. The landlord also assisted her regarding a move and was awarded the highest priority and was offered a direct let. The resident refused the first offer but accepted the current tenancy. It was not aware of any new incidents of ASB at the current property.
3. It encouraged her to report any issues of ASB or hate crime to the landlord and any issues to the police of a criminal nature.
4. In relation to the resident’s report that the police had warned her not to contact the landlord: there had been no further incidents (involving the resident) since the police action in September 2020. She was allowed to contact it as her landlord. It apologised for the police were not clear. All that it asked was that any communications were not abusive in this nature.
5. In relation to the resident seeking compensation for the service she had received from the landlord since 2017, it was not aware of any ongoing complaints against the landlord.
The resident made a complaint which the landlord sent to this service on 21 May 2021. The letter stated that it was her third complaint since 2017. Her complaint was as follows:
1. The landlord had stopped her disability benefits
2. The property was unfit for habitation: there was no water, gas or electricity in the property and there was sewage “up to her kneecaps”.
3. The landlord had prevented various bodies including support agencies from helping her. The police attended her property at various times of the day.
4. The landlord was racist, targeted foreigners and targeted her because of her disabilities and stopped her from making friends by spreading lies.
5. It would not let her move out of her property. It was going to place her in a sheltered flat.
6. She wanted £7,000 in compensation.
On 26 May 2021, the landlord wrote again to the resident addressing her further complaints as follows:
1. In relation to the ASB reported at the previous property, it repeated its response in its letter of 25 March 2021 regarding the move and the community response.
2. It set out its repair records (as above) together with the resident’s report on 24 November 2021, about a puddle outside the property which smelt of sewage. The water company had repaired a downpipe which had fallen off. On 3 February 2021, a drain company had identified and cleared a blockage. There had been no further incidents since. It apologised for the delay in addressing the blockage which was its responsibility.
3. The other repair issues were matters that “can occur when running a home” and resolved within reasonable timeframes, in line with policies and procedures.
4. The property was inspected prior to being let in March 2020 and the sign–up checklist was referred to.
5. In relation to the resident’s report that it had stopped one of the resident’s benefits and failed to evict her when she left her home, for its own benefit, the landlord was unable to stop her benefit payments. It offered support if she was experiencing problems and suggested she could contact the local advice agency who was already supporting her. The landlord had no intention of evicting her.
6. The resident reported that the landlord had discriminated against her, on the grounds of race and called her names, namely fat, lazy, and hideous. It denied referring to her in a derogatory manner or that it had discriminated against her.
7. She reported that she had raised a complaint in 2018 and did not get a response. The landlord attached its response of November 2018.
8. In relation to the resident’s request for compensation for £7,000, the landlord considered there were no grounds for it to pay the resident compensation. It had not found any service failings and had worked within its current policies and procedures.
9. In relation to her being unhappy living in a property of the landlord, it had made a referral to its support service who would contact her to discuss how it could support and assist her to move to other accommodation.
10. It reassured the resident that the landlord was ready to work with her to ensure that she was happy in her home. The resident could request to escalate the complaint by 9 June 2021 and offered to speak to her on the telephone.
On 2 June 2021, the landlord made a referral for support for the resident.
On 16 June 2021, following an email from this service relaying the resident’s response to the landlord’s stage one letter, the landlord escalated the complaint and tried to contact the resident. The points were addressed in its response dated 5 July 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the 5 July 2021 with its final response as follows:
1. The landlord went over the events relating to the gas supply and aerial, set out the repairs and confirmed the dates that the gas and electricity safety checks were carried out.
2. It apologised it did not update the resident about the drains until 3 February 2021.
3. The landlord had not received reports any infestations at the property. Such infestations were the responsibility of the customer to resolve and was not part of its repairing obligations of the landlord. However, it offered to send a contractor to access the situation.
4. In relation to noise caused by water pipes in the property not being boxed in, it did not box in water pipes as part of its lettings standard. However, it would attend to assess whether there was an issue in the pipes.
5. It had not reported the resident to the police for growing cannabis and dealing drugs.
6. It had reported its concerns about the resident’s safety and well-being to the company which delivered adult safeguarding provision in the local authority on two occasions. It was concerned that when she left her property and was not engaging with the landlord. These concerns were passed onto her GP. The landlord had not reported her to the police as a missing person.
7. There was no evidence that people attended her property pretending to be police. The only report was that of the incident of malicious communication in September 2020. No further offences or incidents were reported.
8. It was not reported to the landlord or the police that in her previous property men knocked at the resident’s house with inappropriate requests. It expressed it was sorry if this had happened.
9. It understood that she felt unsafe in her previous home. It referred to the assistance it had provided which was set out in its previous correspondence.
10. It could assist her to help to move but the process was managed by the local authority. It had referred her to its support service who could help her access the housing register and other accommodation. The resident failed to engage. It set out the occasions since the 9 June 2021 it had tried to contact her.
11. It could not find any record of the housing officer being involved in a request for a deposit bond. It would always support and assist customers who wanted to move on to new homes by signposting them to other colleagues and services,
12. In relation to a particular housing officer whose role was tenancy compliance, which job title made her feel that she had done something wrong and felt discriminated against, the landlord stated that the housing officer had supported the resident as a victim of ASB in the previous property. It explained the role and reassured the resident it was no reflection upon customers working with that team.
13. It said that it was not the case that the landlord called the police and cancelled her housing benefit: The resident had cancelled her housing benefit claim when she informed the landlord she wished to end the tenancy and left the property. The local authority advised her to return home. The landlord arranged a lock change so that the resident could go home. The police did not force her to go home.
14. As the resident did not want to work with the landlord and wanted to move to another landlord, it suggested that she should contact the local authority directly as an alternative to its support service.
15. It had not found any evidence of racism from the landlord towards her. It worked in partnership with her and the specialist support agency to assist with the move to the current property. The agency had since terminated its support.
16. It was sorry that she felt let down. However, after a full review of the matter, it had not identified any service failure or finding of fact that would lead to compensation being paid.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the handling of the resident’s reports of:

a) Repair issues, including her TV aerial, lack of utilities and drainage.

b) Anti-social behaviour.

c) A pest infestation.

d) Staff conduct including the level of support and reports to the police and interference with her benefits.

The evidence showed that the resident experienced some issues with service utilities and plumbing, in particular at the outset of the tenancy. However, the issues, with the exception of the drains, were resolved promptly and well before the resident’s complaint. It also showed that while the aerial would not normally be the responsibility of the landlord, it sought to repair it. It also exercised its reasonable discretion and paid for the repair. There was also evidence of the statutory checks of the electric installations and gas safety. There was no evidence of further reports by the resident.
There was also no evidence of the resident reporting an infestation to the landlord prior to her later complaint except that she referred to a snail infestation in July 2020 when it rained. A landlord would not be responsible for an infestation unless it was caused by the negligence of the landlord. There was no evidence that it was the case. However, given the vulnerability of the resident, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer to inspect the property and to also check the reported noise in the water pipes.
The evidence also showed that the landlord addressed the resident’s reports regarding anti-social behaviour in the previous property. While the Ombudsman has not undertaken a detailed investigation, given the events were historical, it is noted that the landlord took action in relation to the perpetrator and offered the resident a direct let which was an appropriate and reasonable response to the resident’s concerns about ASB, given the landlord accepted that there was evidence of issues in the locality.
In relation to the resident’s initial reports of conduct of passers-by in the current property, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer security measures. It was also a reasonable explanation that the landlord was unable to control the environment, unless the alleged perpetrators were its residents. In those circumstances, the proper avenue for the resident would be to contact the police.
It was reasonable, given the resident’s communications, leaving her property, and not being contactable that the landlord would raise safeguarding concerns to the local authority and her GP. It demonstrated that it had recognised the resident’s distress. There was no evidence of the landlord making reports, malicious or otherwise, to the benefits agency, the local authority deposit bond scheme or the police, other than that which related to the resident’s voicemails and communications in September 2020. There was also no evidence that the landlord had been abusive or racist to the resident. The landlord reasonably explained that the role “tenancy compliance officer “referred to its role to protect the resident and ensure, at that time, compliance by her neighbours.
It was also reasonable that the landlord made a number of offers of referral for support. There was no evidence that it requested that the support agency should contact the resident in writing, as she had requested. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.

It was reasonable that the landlord had assisted the resident in relation to a move from her previous current property where it had evidence of anti-social behaviour that could not be addressed by removing the perpetrators. While the Ombudsman has not had sight of any policy by the landlord in relation to a management move, the landlord has explained its criteria and that it would only offer a direct let in exceptional circumstances.
The landlord’s response that a move would be for the local authority to assist with was reasonable. Depending on the allocation agreements a social landlord has with the relevant local authority, its stock would, in the main, be allocated through the local authority, in order to ensure a fair system. The evidence indicated that not all its properties were allocated through the local authority and it was able to make exceptions. The landlord’s explanation that it only offered direct lets in exceptional circumstances was reasonable. There was no evidence, in the Ombudsman’s view, that the resident’s circumstances fell into exceptional circumstances in the current property that would merit the landlord offering a further direct let. In any event, the landlord’s stock would be limited. Moreover, the resident wished to change landlord and the landlord would have no power to secure a property for the resident from another landlord. However, the landlord reasonably offered support.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that if she left her property, that under the Housing Act 1996, there would be the very high risk that the local authority would be likely to treat the resident as intentionally homeless, unless the resident could evidence that the property was unreasonable to occupy, which is a high bar to attain. It the resident were deemed to be intentionally homeless, the local authority’s duties toward the resident would be extremely limited. It was reasonable, therefore, of the landlord to work with the resident to persuade her to return to the property. In any event, the resident wished for a different landlord which the landlord could not assist with.

The resident’s request for compensation.

In the view of the Ombudsman, while the resident clearly felt distressed, there was no evidence of any service failure by the landlord. The landlord had responded to the repairs in a timely manner, with the exception of the drains, for which it had apologised, it had offered support to the resident, it was not in a position to offer what the resident wanted which was a move to another landlord. It had offered to inspect the property in relation to any infestation, any potential defects, and the security of the property. It had invited the resident to make specific reports of ASB by neighbours and referred the resident to the appropriate bodies, such as the police for any harassment by individuals which were not neighbours and to support agencies.
While the landlord acknowledged there was some delay to it addressing the drains and updating the resident, given the repairs were undertaken following the resident’s reports, the Ombudsman does not consider that there was a significant impact on the resident. Had compensation been appropriate, it would have been in the region of £50 rather than the sums requested by the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repair issues, including her TV aerial, lack of utilities and drainage.
2. Anti-social behaviour.
3. A pest infestation.
4. Staff conduct including the level of support, and reports to the police and interference with her benefits.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s request for compensation.

Reasons

The evidence showed that the landlord, in the main, responded promptly to the resident’s reports and resolved them. It offered to inspect the property in relation to the resident’s further reports, even though the issues did not necessarily fall within its repair responsibilities. It reasonably kept an open-mind.
The landlord could only assist with a direct let in exceptional circumstances and in any event would not assist with a move to another landlord. The responsibility would lie with the local authority either through its housing register or any deposit bond scheme. However, the landlord offered the resident support to assist with a move.
The landlord would only be expected to pay compensation if there was evidence of a service failure. There was no evidence of a failure by the landlord that would merit compensation.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ask the support agency it referred the resident to, to communicate with the resident in writing as she has suggested.
2. The landlord should consider adopting a management move policy in order to provide clarify to residents.