East Devon District Council (202205647)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205647

East Devon District Council

22 May 2023

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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s requests to be rehoused.
3. Handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the regulator, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is likely to fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The following aspect of the complaint is likely to fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO):
1. The way the landlord responded to requests to be rehoused.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and the LGSCO sets out the complaints that each Ombudsman is responsible for considering. This states that the LGSCO is responsible for complaints about:
1. Housing allocations under Housing Act 1996 Part VI.
2. The assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding, or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
As the request to increase the band and the allocation of a property was considered by the landlord, in this case the local authority, such matters fall under the LGSCO jurisdiction and not the Housing Ombudsman.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a first floor flat. The flat is accessed via a communal stairway, which is shared with her neighbour. The resident was living at the property with her young child until 21 August 2022.
The resident suffers from depression, anxiety, and panic attacks.
The neighbour is a tenant of the landlord.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says that the landlord has a duty, under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to:
1. Respond to ASB affecting the properties it manages.
2. Treat any behaviour or activity which causes fear, alarm, or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as ASB.
3. Keep records complaints and actions taken.
4. Speak to all parties to agree an action plan.
5. Work with partner agencies.
6. Gather evidence to establish what happened.
7. Remain in regular contacts with the resident making a complaint.
8. Offer support to the resident making a complaint.
The landlord operates within a choice based letting scheme that covers the whole of the authority. The policy explains that in exceptional circumstances the landlord may need to make an urgent management move and allocate a home outside of the choice based letting scheme, referred to as a ‘direct let’. Situations when a landlord might need to make an urgent direct let include when a resident need to escape serious harassment.
The landlord’s housing allocation policy says that in certain circumstances, the landlord may allocate properties directly to applicants without them being advertised. A direct let will be agreed by a senior officer when for example a property is needed urgently to deal with an emergency or where an allocation is required to ensure protection of the public. In their records, the landlord has referred to ‘direct let’ as a management move.
The landlord’s complaint policy says:
1. That a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction with its service which requires a response.
2. That it will try to find a resolution to any expressions of dissatisfaction without the need to use the formal complaint process. It also says that if a resident is unhappy about the way that a service issue or request was handled, this should be dealt with under the complaint’s procedure.
3. That there are two stages. At both stages, the landlord will respond to the complaint within 20 working days. If it cannot meet the time scale, the landlord will tell the resident and provide an indicative timescale when it will respond. The policy also says that the landlord’s response will address all the elements of the complaint.
The complaint handling code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The code is mandatory and has two stages:
1. At stage one, the landlord must respond within 10 working days. If needed It can agree with the resident, and only for a good reason, to extend the time frame to respond beyond 20 working days.
2. At stage two, the landlord must respond within 20 working days. If needed It can agree with the resident, and only for a good reason, to extend the time frame to respond.

Summary of events

Since May 2018, the resident has made several reports to her landlord of her neighbour harassing her and her child. The resident said that the ASB started prior to that date, she said that it went on for seven years in total.
In December 2019, the resident complained to the landlord that her neighbour had harassed her and her child 15 times since 2018. She reported all incidents to the landlord and said that nothing had been done. The resident also said that her child witnessed the incidents and that they are worried about leaving and coming home.
On 23 March 2019, her neighbour was served Notice of Seeking Possession due to his conduct and breaches of his tenancy. The notice expired in April 2020. The landlord wrote to the neighbour in July 2019 and explained that despite the breaches of tenancy and his recent criminal conviction, the landlord decided not to pursue legal actions. In February 2022, in an internal email to the investigator at the stage one of the complaint, the housing officer acknowledged that during the same period, the resident reported 11 incidents of harassment by her neighbour to the landlord. The housing officer explained that due to poor record keeping, the reports were not recorded correctly. The reports had not been considered in relation to the Notice of Seeking Possession served to the neighbour.
In a letter sent to the neighbour in July 2019, the landlord said that it was aware of the neighbour’s criminal convictions. In January 2019, the neighbour pleaded guilty at the Magistrates Court to two charges of using threatening, or abusive words, or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress. The offence was racially aggravated within the terms of the section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It is unclear from the documents provided who the crime was against and whether it was committed within the local community.
The landlord said that a new housing officer was allocated in August 2021. The housing officer recorded the ASB as a hate related case.
The new housing officer agreed to call the resident weekly. He acknowledged in February 2022, that due to other demands, he had not been consistent with the weekly calls.
The resident provided a detailed witness statement to the landlord in August 2021. She detailed the incidents which took place between May 2018 and August 2021, and reported 32 incidents of harassment.
The resident described to the landlord how the neighbour’s behaviour impacted on her and her child. She said that it had affected her health and that her child was in fear for her safety. She said they felt intimidated and frightened by her neighbour’s behaviour and lived in ‘constant fear’. Below are some examples of how the resident described her experience in her own words:
1. ‘I had been suffering with depression and anxiety. His behaviour had made this worse and the Doctor felt it necessary to prescribe me additional medication.’
2. ‘My Child was now also in fear for her own safety when she left the flat’.
3. ‘My Child informed me that she had also noticed that whenever she entered the communal door of the building, she would hear him unlock his door’.
4. ‘He called me a “stupid bitch” and a “cunt”. This incident left me very upset and frightened and caused me to have a panic attack’.
5. ‘He said “I hope your child gets sick and dies”’.
6. ‘My Child also told me that she had seen him using a hammer to hit a lamppost in the road outside. This worried me as he is unpredictable and his behaviour was erratic’.
7. ‘In addition to the incidents I have recorded in this statement there are numerous other encounters I have had with my neighbour which have harassed, distressed, and upset me. He has used abusive and offensive language and has called me things like “big mamma dog” and “foreigner”’.
8. ‘The situation at my home address is causing me to be in constant fear and I feel like a prisoner, unable to leave in case of confrontation from my neighbour’.
9. ‘My physical and mental health has been severely affected by my neighbour and his actions and I cannot recall the last time I had a good night’s sleep’.
The landlord informed her neighbour that it was seeking possession on 14 September 2021. It said that it was satisfied that the neighbour’s behaviour was a breach of his tenancy agreement by causing harassment, alarm, and distress to his neighbours and to the resident.
The resident initiated a community trigger in September 2021, and on 8 October 2021 the community trigger panel assessed the resident as ‘high risk’ from her neighbour. To mitigate the risks the panel recommended the following actions:
1. To prepare the case for legal by November 2021, with the view of initiating possession proceedings in relation to the neighbour’s property.
2. To serve a community protection warning on her neighbour.
3. To consider a restraining order against the neighbour and submit the initial file by 8 October 2021.
4. To review the resident’s band under the Devon home choice policy to possibly move the resident.
The resident provided an impact statement to the community trigger panel in September 2021. She said:
1. ‘I first contacted the council back in 2018 and told them several times I can’t take much more of my neighbour’s verbal abuse, belittling, snide comments, tormenting and all the other stuff he has put me through since he moved in next door to me’.
2. ‘I have done everything the council has asked yet nothing appears to have been done and he is still tormenting me. With 4 years, worth of emails, videos, and visits to the town hall…. I have made statements sent doctor letters filled in health forms.’
3. ‘I have lost all my self-confidence he has turned me into a coward who jumps at the slightest noise. My anxiety depression and panic attacks are worse than they have ever been’
4. ‘My child’s father stopped coming to see her also my adoptive father won’t visit me due to past verbal abuse.’
5. ‘My neighbour continuously complains to the heads of Amazon, Co-op and the post staff about delivery of shopping and post.’
6. ‘I am not motivated to decorate my abode which so desperately needs doing as it no longer feels like home to me, and I don’t want to be here’.
7. ‘He said: “well, hope your child catches covid and dies”. I was shocked, very angry and reported this to EDDC and the police yet again left deflated after nothing was done’.
8. ‘I would like now to be considered and supported for a move away from my neighbour. Previously I didn’t mind who moved but if the council move just him, he will know where I live and I fear continue to harass, abuse or torment me’.
On 29 November 2021, the landlord told the resident that it and its partner agencies had not fully exhausted the ASB procedures and as such the resident’s band could not be increased. Therefore, and in line with the local authority home choice policy, it could not consider the resident for a managed move. The landlord acknowledged in February 2022 that the ASB procedures had not be exhausted due to failures in the handling of the case.
In December 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it could not take legal actions against her neighbour. This is because it had identified failures in the handling of the ASB reports, poor recordings, not following the ASB policy and the overall management of the case. The landlord apologised to the resident.
The landlord restarted the ASB investigation and implementation of the ASB procedures against the neighbour in January 2022, when it issued the first breach of tenancy letter. The landlord said that it is the first stage regarding action against the neighbour.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 4 January 2022. The complaint was about:
1. The way the landlord dealt with the harassment from her neighbour.
2. Declining to upgrade her banding to enable her to move.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on the same day and responded on 22 February 2022. Its response was as followed:
1. It acknowledged its failures in the handling of the ASB. It identified multiple failures: poor recording, delays in dealing with the matter, not responding to the resident’s complaint appropriately, not working effectively with partner agencies, not providing the resident with sufficient support, not gathering sufficient evidence, and not progressing the matter to the legal team within time scales.
2. It recognised that it did not maintain weekly contacts as agreed.
3. It said that due to those failings the landlord couldn’t evidence that all actions had been taken to resolve the ASB to justify a management move under its home choice policy.
4. However, due to its failure in managing the case, it agreed to treat her case as an exceptional case and agreed to move her to a band B, to enable the resident to bid for suitable properties. It also said that if any suitable property was identified, it would inform her and directly allocate that property to her.
5. It provided the resident with a point of contact to discuss any issues and provided the contact details.
6. It apologised for its failing.
The landlord also provided evidence to the Ombudsman that in February 2022 that it started disciplinary proceedings actions against staff and organised targeted staff training because of the failings in the case.
Between February 2022 and July 2022, the resident bid on six properties. The landlord said that those properties were not suitable as those were not ready to let and one was a supported accommodation.
The resident asked for her complaint to escalate to stage two, it is unclear when the resident made the request. The complaint was about:
1. The length of time to facilitate her move.
2. Poor communication.
The resident also said that she was waiting to go to court as a victim of assault and harassment from her neighbour, the charges related to the time since her neighbour moved next door to her. She also said that the harassment was ongoing and that her neighbour was finding ways around his bail conditions to provoke her.
The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 8 June 2022 and it said that:
1. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration and assured her that that the team was doing all it could to move the resident as soon as possible.
2. It apologised for the failing in dealing with the ASB case.
3. It offered £250 compensation to reflect the time and trouble the resident had to go to in pursuing the matter with the landlord and the distress caused.
The resident said that ‘there were times when the neighbour’s harassment would settle for three to six months’. She said this was due to the landlord issuing warnings letters to the neighbour about his behaviour. The resident said that even during those periods she still felt unsafe as she knew the harassment would restart. The resident said that every time the warning period expired, the neighbour would resume the harassment.

Post final response

The landlord offered a direct let property to the resident, which was accepted and the resident moved into her new home on 22 August 2022. The resident said that she would not have moved if she hadn’t been the victim of ASB. She said that she had been happy living at the property for six years prior the issues starting.
The resident confirmed in September 2022 that her neighbour had been found guilty of harassment toward her by the courts. She also said that there was a restraining order, which was due to expire in September 2023. She said that she was worried that once the restraining order expired, the harassment would restart and she still felt unsafe even after moving.
The landlord emailed the Ombudsman on 2 October 2022 and said that the resident had not accepted the offer of compensation. It was unaware of the resident’s request for higher compensation. It also said that as a direct result of the complaint investigation, it took disciplinary actions and several learning points were identified which have since been translated into an action plan. This included specific case management training for all officers handling ASB cases.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has caused to her and her child’s health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her child.

The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour

The landlord has acknowledged its failures in its handling of the ASB case between 2018 and August 2021 and recognised that during that period it failed to work in accordance with its ASB policy. It identified multiple failures:
1. Poor recording.
2. Delays in dealing with the matter.
3. Not responding to the resident’s complaint appropriately.
4. Not maintaining agreed levels of contacts with the resident.
5. Not working effectively with partner agencies.
6. Not providing the resident with sufficient support.
7. Not gathering sufficient evidence.
8. Not progressing the matter to the legal team within time scales.
Some of the failings identified by the Ombudsman:
1. In December 2019, the resident complained to the landlord that her neighbour had harassed her and her child 15 times since 2018. The landlord provided no evidence this was acted on and did not take the actions set out in its ASB policy to investigate her complaint. This was not reasonable and because of those failures, the resident continued to be the victim of harassment from her neighbour until she moved in August 2022.
2. The resident’s neighbour was served Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) due to his conduct and breaches of his tenancy in March 2019. The landlord failed to act in response to reports of ASB and revoked the NOSP, and it said to the neighbour that it would not pursue legal actions. During the same period, the resident reported 11 incidents of harassment by the neighbour, which the landlord admitted it failed to act on or consider in relation to the NOSP.
3. The landlord also acknowledged that the neighbour was convicted of using threatening behaviour likely to cause harassment or distress, and that the offence was racially aggravated. As the landlord had failed to properly record the residents reports of harassment, it did not consider the neighbour’s criminal convictions. If it had done this, it might have considered different legal actions against the neighbour. Those were missed opportunities by the landlord to resolve the case.
4. The landlord recognised that prior to August 2021, it failed to provide support to the resident and her child.
In August 2021 the landlord agreed to call the resident weekly, but due to other demands, it had not been consistent with the weekly calls. It provided no evidence that it discussed this with the resident and agreed a more manageable time frame for contacts. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to do this. This was frustrating for the resident and impacted on the resident/landlord relationship.
The resident provided two detailed accounts of her experience which included statements on how the ASB impacted her and her child. Those statements clearly show the severity and the impact the ASB had over a significant period. The landlord’s failings in the management of the case contributed to extending the period of harassment and the severity of the impact to the resident and her child.
The resident told the landlord in August 2021, that her child, who was under 16 years old, was in fear for her safety. The landlord provided no evidence that it considered whether this was a safeguarding issue and discussed this with the resident, the police, or social services. It would have been reasonable to Investigate this further to understand the impact the neighbour’s behaviour was having and to ensure that no harm was caused to the child.
The landlord said that in September 2021 it informed her neighbour that it was seeking possession of his property and was satisfied that the neighbour was causing harassment to the resident. However, it also said that the first stage regarding action against the neighbour started in January 2022, in the form of a breach of tenancy letter to the neighbour. It offered no explanation for the delay in taking actions.
Following the community trigger meeting in October 2021, the community trigger panel assessed the resident as ‘high risk’ from her neighbour. The landlord did consider increasing the resident’s band to enable her to move. After consideration, the request to amend the banding was declined. The landlord said that it could not evidence that all possible actions had been taken to resolve the ASB. It said that because of this, it could not justify increasing the resident’s banding to enable her to bid on properties and move. There is no evidence the landlord considered a direct let/management move at the time, which would have been an appropriate action for the landlord to take and in line with its housing allocation policy and the authority home choice policy.
Four months later and in response to the stage one complaint, the landlord said that it would facilitate a direct let for the resident as soon as a suitable property was available. It also agreed to increase the resident’s banding to enable her to bid on properties. It offered no explanation for the delay or change in approach to the situation. It offered a direct let to the resident in August 2022 when she moved. Those were appropriate actions for the landlord to take. Because of its earlier failure in applying its housing allocation policy, the landlord may have delayed the resident’s move and prolonged her exposure to the ASB.
In February 2022, it agreed to increase the resident’s banding to enable her to bid on suitable property. It also agreed to consider a managed moved and found a suitable property in August 2022. The landlord offered no evidence that it contacted other housing providers to secure a suitable property or a temporary alternative. The landlord failed to consider the ‘high risk’ element of the community trigger. It did not consider the two statements provided by the resident, which described their experiences and the impact the ASB was having. The landlord lacked the urgency to secure a move and because of this, it failed to mitigate the risks presented to the resident and her child.
The landlord’s housing allocation policy says that in certain circumstances, the landlord may allocate properties directly to applicants without them being advertised. The direct let process is incorporated into the landlord allocation policy. The policy provides some examples of circumstances when it would offer a direct let to a resident. The policy does not clearly say what direct lets are or define the trigger and process for a direct let to be offered. The policy refers to ‘direct let’, however, in its records and communications, the landlord refers to such moves as ‘management moves’. The different terminology is confusing. It would be beneficial for the policy to say what type of moves are considered as direct lets, what are the triggers for a direct let/ management move to be offered. It would also be helpful for the policy to elaborate on the process to facilitate such move and for all staffs to be aware of the correct terminology to use.
In December 2021, the landlord acknowledged that, due to poor record keeping and not responding to the resident complaint appropriately, it didn’t have sufficient evidence to take legal actions against her neighbour. It failed to gather evidence and agree an action plan to deal with the issues. The landlord did not work with its partners to explore all solutions. It did not support the resident and her child, it failed to consider safeguarding and did not take appropriate actions to mitigate risks. Those failures delayed the resolution of the case and exposed the resident to further ASB, causing distress and frustrations which was unfair and unreasonable.
When requesting to escalate her complaint, the resident said that she was waiting to go to court as a victim of assault and harassment from her neighbour. She also said that the harassment was ongoing and that her neighbour was finding ways around his bail conditions to provoke her. The landlord provided no evidence that it responded to the resident at the time. It failed to explore this with her or the police. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident on actions available. It would also have been appropriate to explore whether this ASB would have met the threshold for a breach of tenancy and possibly warrant legal actions against her neighbour’s tenancy.
The resident and her child were victim of harassment from their neighbour between May 2018 and August 2022, a total of 51 months. The Ombudsman recognises that ASB cases can take time to investigate and resolve. It also recognises that the landlord is not directly responsible for the ASB. However, the landlord ASB’s policy says that the landlord has a duty, under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to respond to ASB affecting the properties it manages. In this case, there were clear missed opportunities to resolve the case in 2019 and 2020, when the neighbour was convicted of a criminal offence and when he was issued a NOSP. By failing to act at the time, the landlord prolonged the resident’s exposure to the ASB for approximately, and up to, 41 months.
The multiples failures and missed opportunities contributed to considerably extend the period the resident was exposed to ASB from her neighbour. The landlord also failed to handle the case in line with its own policies. The resident did not feel listened to, she felt isolated and in fear for her safety. This was avoidable, unreasonable, and unfair to the resident and therefore constitute a severe maladministration of the case by the landlord.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has provided evidence that it took actions following the complaint. It said that it took disciplinary actions, identified several learning points, set up an action plan which included specific case management training for all officers handling ASB cases to ensure such failing wouldn’t happen again. Those were appropriate actions to take by the landlord.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord acknowledged its failing and offered some redress. It apologised to the resident and facilitated a management move, which in the circumstances, was reasonable to do.
However, the landlord has provided little evidence that it fully considered the impact and distress caused to the resident and her child. In this case:
1. The resident could not enjoy her home and was constantly harassed by her neighbour between 2018 and 2022.
2. The resident was a victim of ASB for over four years, three of which could have been prevented if not for the failings of the landlord in its handling of the case.
3. The landlord is not directly responsible for the ASB but it could have taken actions earlier than it did. For example, it could have taken legal actions against the neighbour, referred the resident to housing options or facilitated an earlier managed move for either party. Due to the delays in taking action, the resident and her child were left in a high-risk situation and feared for their health and safety.
4. The landlord had been aware from the start that there was a vulnerable child in the property and yet failed to evidence that it had considered the risk of detrimental impact on her safety, health, and well-being in its handling of the ASB reports.
5. The resident took time to keep records of the incidents and shared those with the landlord. Her reports were not fully and always considered or investigated. She also reports making numerous visits to her landlord’s office.
6. The resident reported that she could not enjoy her home during that time, felt unsafe and lived in constant fear.
7. She also reported the impact it had on her and her child’s wellbeing and health.
8. The resident reported that that their family had to stop visiting them.
9. The resident paid full rent during that time, and the landlord failed to meet its obligations and to work in accordance with its own policies.
10. The resident had to move. Until the resident was moved in August 2022, the only other option she would have had to escape the ASB was to abandon her property with her child.
11. The resident did not want to move, she had to move home with all the inconvenience and associated cost this brought. She felt that it was her only option to escape the ASB.
12. She said that her new property’s rent is £69 per week more than her previous home.
The Ombudsman recognises that there is no redress that can put the resident back to the position she was before the ASB started. The Ombudsman determined that in this case, financial compensation is an appropriate redress to reflect the prolonged impact the failings had on the resident and her child.
When considering the facts of the case, the offer of £250 compensation is not proportionate. This is because it doesn’t reflect the significant period it took to resolve the issue, the impact the failures had on the resident and her child, the distress caused and having to move. The resident and her child were left to live in fear daily for a significant period.
The resident and her child felt the impact of the failings and the ASB daily. The Ombudsman’s opinion is that a daily compensation at £5.00 a day for the resident and £3.50 a day for her child is appropriate. The compensation is approximately equivalent to 80% of the rent paid during the period.
In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidelines, which are published on the website, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that a more appropriate level of compensation is £10,616.50. This being equivalent to £8.50 per day for the 41 months (1249 days) between when the landlord could have resolved the case in March 2019 and the time the case was resolved when the resident moved out in August 2022.
This figure is in line with our Remedies guidance, which suggests amounts of £1,000 and above in cases where the landlord’s repeated failures have had a significant impact on the resident and where its response further undermined the landlord/resident relationship, it also takes into account the personal circumstances of the case.

The landlord handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to a complaint within 20 working days. The landlord’s response at stage one of the complaint process was 16 days over its published time frame and 26 days over the Code’s time frame. It offered no evidence that a new timeline was discussed with the resident. The Ombudsman saw no evidence that the resident spent time chasing a response to her complaint. Nevertheless, there was maladministration by the landlord.
The complaint’s policy says that it will respond to all the elements of a complaint. In her request for escalation, the resident said that she had received only one call from the landlord since the previous year. The impact to the resident was minimal, the landlord clearly communicated with the resident following its response. The resident moved within 12 weeks and then the reasons for ongoing contacts no longer applied. However, the landlord did not respond to this aspect of her complaint and it would have been appropriate for it to do so.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint policy; but it does not fully comply with the complaint handling code. It says that it will respond to a stage one complaint within 20 working days, the code requires a response within 10 working days. Compliance with the Code is important to ensure consistent and effective complaint handling across the sector.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of ASB.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to requests to be rehoused has been determined as being outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour

The landlord failed to meet its obligations and work in accordance with its policies in its handling of the reports of ASB. Its failures delayed the resolution of the ASB for a significant amount of time, which exposed the resident and her child to further incidents of ASB. The ASB had a significant and long-lasting impact on the resident and her child due to the distress caused, being unable to enjoy their home over a significant period as well as having to move from their home.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord failed to respond to the complaint within the published time scale of its policy at the stage one response, it did apologise but failed to provide good reasons for the delays or to agree a new time scale with the resident.
The landlord also failed to address all aspects of the complaint at stage two.
The landlord’s complaint policy does not comply with the Code.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its failures.
2. Pay £10,616.50 to the resident in compensation to reflect the failures in its handling of the ASB reports, as well as to recognise the distress and long-lasting impact this caused the resident and her child over a considerable period. It will also reflect the inconvenience and cost of having to move.
3. Pay £100 to the resident in compensation to reflect the failure in handling the complaint.
4. Evidence that all officers dealing with ASB have received ASB training, or to confirm the date by which the training will be delivered.
5. Evidence that ASB training will be provided during the induction of any new officers who will be expected to deal with ASB as part of their role.
6. Evidence that all officers dealing with children and vulnerable adults are provided training on the implementation of the landlord’s joint safeguarding policy, or to confirm the anticipated date the training will be delivered.
7. Provide evidence on how the landlord will share the learning from this case with the senior management team, members of the appropriate committee, and the housing team.
8. Provide a copy of the action plan it has devised to address the failings of this case.
Within 8 weeks of the report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to review:
1. Its record keeping of ASB cases, create an action plan to implement improvements needed. The action plan is to include a detailed procedure to record ASB cases, staff training and update its system following the review. The landlord should evidence the outcome of this review and training to staff with the Ombudsman.
2. To review its housing allocation policy, paragraph 16 ‘direct lets’. The landlord is to say what it classifies as a direct let, say what is the trigger for a direct let/ managed move and define the process to facilitate such moves. The landlord is also to share with the Ombudsman how it will roll out the policy changes and train the staff to ensure the policy is applied as intended, including the use of consistent terminology.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the resident contacts the LGSCO to determine on her complaint relating to the way her landlord handled her request to be rehoused. She can do so via https://www.lgo.org.uk/
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord complete the self-assessment of its complaint policy against the complaint handling code and update the Ombudsman on its action plan to implement changes to its complaint policy based on its self-assessment.