Islington Council (202005765)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005765

Islington Council

18 October 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise disturbance.
   2. The priority awarded to the resident’s housing register application.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred.

Background

2. The resident occupies a first-floor studio flat under a secure tenancy with the landlord (a Local Authority), and has no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord. The resident reported that she had learning difficulties and felt threatened by someone who doesn’t live with her when she submitted her Housing Registration Form in May 2020. She also cited noise from other properties and the street as her reasons for requesting a move.
3. The resident chased her rehousing application on 30 July 2020 due to ongoing noise disturbance, including her view that the property walls were too thin. Correspondence continued around the allocation of points awarded for her rehousing application. This resulted in a formal complaint from the resident (12 September 2020) relating to both the rehousing issues and noise disturbance. The rehousing application points issues was responded to by the landlord on 28 October 2020. On 26 November 2020 the resident said she was scared to stay at her property after a break in at a neighbouring flat. 
4. A stage one complaint response was issued on 15 December 2020 which explained the resident did not have adequate points to bid, and there had been no reports of ASB since the last reported issue was closed in January 2019. The landlord said it understood that the insulation at the property was up to standard at the time of construction. The resident requested escalation of her complaint; she said that the landlord had not responded about a break in to the property and that the home-swapper facility was not a viable option. She also said that she did not feel safe but had not contacted the relevant team due to pressure of work and feeling ‘fobbed off’. She also said that she had made recordings that were now inadmissible. She requested evidence that the insulation was satisfactory at the property. A stage one review was issued to her by the landlord on 23 February 2021 apologising for the delay but restating the previous findings.
5. The landlord’s final response letter of 15 June 2021 offered £50 for the further delay in responding and advised again that there was a separate appeal process for housing application decisions. It said the break in was not part of the stage 1 complaint and would be a police matter. It also said that the insulation at the property had not been inspected but that it would have passed building regulations, and that someone would contact the resident to download a noise recording ‘app’. The landlord went on to say that there was a current ASB investigation in the block, but it was unclear if this was the same property as previously. The resident must report all incidents and call police if required but previous evidence of noise and diary sheets could not be found.  The complaint was not upheld.
6. Since the final response letter there have been multiple reports by the resident to the landlord, including photographs of syringes on the communal stairs and issues with the gate being jammed open compromising security. The resident now has two ASB reference numbers. The resident states that she is disturbed every day by screaming, has contacted the police but the issues continue, she has concerns about the sound proofing, has raised further issues about her priority for housing and believes the landlord should transfer her as she is unable to swap her property through mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. As the resident was advised by this Service on 1 April 2022, This Service does not consider complaints about Local Authority’s statutory decisions on housing allocations or homelessness applications, as these decisions are not taken as part of a councils’ role as a landlord, but rather as part of its wider obligations. 
8. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42 (k), which confirms that such issues ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’. Unresolved complaints relating to these issues are dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
9. This is distinct from a member landlord’s ability to make a direct offer of a new tenancy to existing tenants from its housing stock. The landlord’s housing allocations policy refers to such a possibility in certain situations, such as under-occupation or due to urgent repair works. Complaints relating to a landlord’s response to a request for a direct offer are within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as this is not covered by the landlord’s homelessness or re-housing statutory responsibilities and instead comes within their discretionary powers.
10. The Ombudsman will usually only consider issues up to the final complaint response letter, as the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate these through its complaint process. The issue of the gate for example, was raised after the final response, but can be raised as a separate formal complaint by the resident if desired.

The reports of antisocial behaviour and noise disturbance

11. The landlord’s ASB policy, published online, makes various service promises and confirms that the landlord will take all reports of ASB and harassment seriously however they are made. The landlord will make an appointment to carry out an interview within 5 working days and take appropriate action against those responsible. The landlord will then review cases once a month and provide ongoing support for victims. The policy lists a wide range of available actions, including acceptable behaviour contracts and noise monitoring machines to initiating formal possession action. The policy also states that the landlord will investigate complaints of rowdy or inconsiderate behaviour or drug use from properties.
12. In this instance, the landlord stated that it had received no reports of ASB since a previous ASB cases was closed in 2019, but the evidence suggests that was not the case. The resident said she was vulnerable and felt threatened in May 2020. The resident reported noise and ASB concerns to the landlord, who did not act to support her, despite being informed of her vulnerability.
13. It is noted that the landlord signposted to a range of departments but there is no evidence that the landlord raised an ASB case at the time, nor of it visiting the property to discuss her concerns or otherwise following its ASB procedure. This was despite a number of emails from the resident who said she was stressed and anxious and unable to work at home due to the issues she was experiencing. Although it seems there are now ASB investigations in progress, this could have been logged by the landlord on the resident’s behalf upon receipt of her initial reports, more than two years ago. The landlord’s final response letter also said that there was a current ASB investigation in the block, but it was unclear if this was the same property as previously. This is unsatisfactory, as the landlord should be in a position to check the records and reassure the resident if her concerns were included in the ongoing investigation. Providing vague information about a possible ASB case at the end of the complaints process will only have added to the resident’s sense that the landlord has not taken her reports seriously.
14. In respect of the noise disturbance issue, the resident asked several times about the insulation at the property. The landlord did not visit the resident but stated that it would have met insulation standards at the time of construction, so no further action was required. There appear to have been no other options investigated. The landlord could have mediated, met with the neighbour and asked them to moderate their behaviour, explored whether floor coverings of neighbouring properties were impacting upon noise transference etc. Had the landlord followed its procedures it may have identified a full resolution to the issue, or else at least helped improve the situation. Instead, the landlord failed to identify that the resident’s reports warranted progression through its ASB/noise disturbance procedures.
15. The complaint procedure accepted no responsibility for the resident’s ongoing concerns, despite her stating how distressed she was, having to take time off work as she was unable to sleep and her feeling unsafe at her property. By insisting that the resident contact specific numbers and email addresses across various departments, when it was aware of the ASB/noise reports, the landlord has failed to take account of her particular circumstances and failed to follow through on its procedural responsibility to her. The Ombudsman would look to see vulnerable residents supported through an appropriate ASB/noise disturbance process in such cases, and at the very least for someone to attend the address and show the resident that her concerns were taken seriously, and that she had been heard.
16. It is fair in all the circumstances that compensation be paid by the landlord to reflect the service failures of failing to proceed down its ASB policy and failing to provide a customer focussed service to a vulnerable resident. Section 10 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy allows for sums of between £100 – £300 where the landlord has not taken reasonable steps to address issues, or offer appropriate remedies at earlier stages, to compensate the complainant for their time and trouble. In this case, the sum of £200 would reflect the time and trouble that the resident was put to in pursuing this matter.
17. In addition, the landlord is also ordered to update the resident on any ongoing ASB cases and to discuss with her any ongoing concerns regarding noise disturbance and any other potential ASB. It is also recommended that the landlord proactively monitor the block within which the property is situated for an extended period, with regular contact with the resident and any other tenants potentially affected so that it can identify any issues as they occur.

Request to be transferred

18. As clarified above, the main focus of the resident’s concerns about re-housing are outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider as her concerns relate to the landlord’s responsibilities under homelessness provisions. That said, the landlord’s housing allocations policy does provide for a ‘direct offer’ – outside its choice based lettings system and the housing register. This is distinct from the reference to ‘management transfers’, which are also referred to in the same policy. It is clear from the reading of the policy that the term ‘management transfer’ here relates to the housing register as it details points allocations for existing applicants and how additional points may enable such a move to materialise.
19. As such, a ‘management transfer’, at least in the sense that it is referred to by the landlord’s allocations policy, is not something that this Service has jurisdiction over. It is noted however that the landlord does have the discretion to make a ‘direct offer’ to an existing tenant, though it is not clear whether these discretionary powers have been considered here. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to at least have clarified whether this was a possibility as, had a suitable property been available, it would have been able to make an offer and achieve a resolution.
20. In practice however, it is uncommon for a landlord to be in a position to make a direct offer to an existing tenant. A significant proportion of available properties will always be assigned through the housing register and any remaining properties will need to meet the individual needs of any person requesting such a move. That said, It would have provided clarity to the resident had the landlord explicitly stated that a direct transfer was not possible, explaining the reasons why.
21. In this case, it is clear that the resident was provided with information about a possible mutual exchange, she was also invited to make further contact with the relevant team to discuss further her re-housing options. The resident was of the view that her property would not be one that would attract applicants for a house swap and the landlord encouraged her to persevere with her attempts. In the circumstances, this was reasonable as the resident’s concerns would not prevent an exchange taking place.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration  in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration  in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be transferred.
24. In accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the priority awarded to the resident’s housing register application is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

25. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has:
    1. Contacted the resident and discussed any ongoing ASB/noise disturbance concerns that she has. This discussion to update the resident on any ongoing ASB cases related to the block.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation in respect of the service failures identified in relation to its response to her reports of ASB/noise disturbance.

Recommendations

26. The landlord to pay the resident the compensation previously offered during the complaints process.
27. The landlord to confirm to the resident whether she qualifies for a direct offer of new housing; if not, the landlord to offer once more a discussion about her re-housing options.