Wandle Housing Association Limited (202116243)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116243

Wandle Housing Association Limited

21 December 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 regarding the landlord’s;
1. Handling of the resident’s request for an LGBTQ+ staff member as a point of contact.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
3. Response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
4. Handling of the resident’s reports that they were verbally abused.
5. Handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation and issues with their windows.

Background

The resident has occupied the property since November 2009 under an assured tenancy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 September 2021 to raise a formal complaint. He stated he wished to complain about a specific member of staff who he believed had treated him unfairly and provided examples of these behaviours. He further complained about an occasion where he had reported rats entering the property which he had to resolve himself. He also complained about neighbouring properties having window replacements which he did not receive.
The resident went on to advise that for the previous 7 months there had been an issue with sound disturbance from the property above. He had reported this and provided medical evidence supporting his need for an urgent move but had seen minimal input from the landlord. The resident stated that officers of the landlord had attended his property to record the sound disturbance and suggested he sleep in the kitchen which was not practical advice. The resident stated that he had requested a LGBTQ+ staff member as his point of contact to assist him with abuse he had been receiving from a previous neighbour, he did not receive a response to this request.
The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 17 September 2021 and provided its stage one response on 21 September 2021. The landlord confirmed the criteria required to get a management transfer and advised that the resident did not meet these criteria. It explained that all other move options had been discussed with the resident. The landlord stated that the comment made to the resident regarding sleeping in his kitchen was a general observation not direct advice and apologised for the comment being misleading.
Regarding the noise disturbance, the landlord advised that the resident had previously stated he did not wish for it to approach his neighbour as he was aware the noise was not deliberate. The landlord also stated that the property is a conversion and as such noise transference can be prevalent. The landlord stated that it had found no evidence of a staff member persecuting the resident. The landlord concluded that it had acted within policy and apologised for the resident being disappointed with the service.
On 5 October 2021 the resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two, stating that the stage one response did not address all of the issues.
The stage two escalation was acknowledged on 5 October 2021 and a response was provided on 4 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s recent heath concerns and stated that it was keen to provide him with support. The landlord reviewed communications sent by a member of staff on 20 September 2021 and 15 October 2021. It found that both communications lacked empathy and were poorly written. The landlord stated that not providing its LGBT policy to the resident had been an oversight but no evidence of homophobic behaviour had been found. It apologised and confirmed that it did have an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy.
Regarding a move the landlord confirmed it had been supporting the resident to transfer via a mutual exchange and advised that it was unable to provide a management transfer, again stating the criteria for such a move. The landlord also stated that it could not provide a management transfer as it could not guarantee a move to a property with no sound transference and there were several scenarios which could mean a move would put the resident in a more difficult position. The landlord confirmed that it would contact the upstairs neighbour and discuss mediation. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the poor level of service received in relation to the poorly written communications, delays in having any loose floorboards repaired and oversight in responding to the resident’s query.
The resident remains dissatisfied and by way of resolution is seeking a management transfer, the landlords acknowledgement of its failing, with specific reference to not responding to his request for an LGBTQ+ staff member and compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the resident’s request for an LGBTQ+ staff member as a point of contact

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The CHC states “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”.
In the resident’s initial complaint, he stated that he had requested an LGBTQ+ member of staff to assist him with homophobic attacks and abuse he had received from a previous neighbour, but this request had gone unacknowledged.
This was not addressed in the landlord’s stage one response, however it was addressed in its stage two response. The landlord stated the complaint was regarding a homophobic member of staff who had failed to respond to the resident’s query regarding its LBGT policy. The landlord went on to confirm it had reviewed two communications between the resident and the staff member and found both to be poorly written and lacking in empathy. The landlord concluded that no homophobic behaviour had been evidenced and apologised for not responding to the resident’s query. It stated that it did have an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy which had been discussed with the staff member in question. It also offered £200 compensation for various failings, including the poorly written communications.
Discussing the policy with the staff member is a practical solution to an accusation of discriminatory behaviour. However, it is clear to the Ombudsman that the landlord did not understand the resident’s request. The resident stated they had requested an LGBTQ+ staff member as their point of contact, at no point was a copy of the landlord’s inclusion policy requested.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident’s request for an LGBTQ+ member of staff may not have been reasonable as this would require staff members to disclose their sexuality and being selected for work based on that disclosure. However, the landlord would be expected to consider and respond to the request.
Had the landlord responded to all complaint points in its stage one response, it would have allowed the resident the opportunity to clarify the complaint when the escalation request was made. As it did not, the landlord’s response did not address the actual issue.
This is a failure in service. The landlord should take learning from this circumstance, specifically ensuring all complaint points are addressed at each stage and clarification is gleaned from residents were necessary. This will allow complaints to be resolved at the earliest opportunity.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance

The landlord’s anti social behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person. This includes intimidation, harassment, actual violence, persistent noise nuisance or noise nuisance outside of sociable hours.
The policy also sets out behaviours which are not considered ASB. These include babies crying, smells of cooking, sounds of normal day to day living such as opening and closing of doors, clashes of lifestyle and children playing.
The policy describes a number of methods that can be used by the landlord to investigate reports of ASB. These include, collating diary sheets, speaking with parties involved and home visits.
While the landlord can take legal action against the perpetrator, it is more likely to try other actions first, as possession proceedings will often be the landlord’s last resort.
In July 2021 the landlord responded to correspondence sent via a representative regarding the noise nuisance reported by the resident. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the correspondence sent by the representative to elicit said response.
The correspondence stated the landlord would make contact with the alleged perpetrator to discuss the matter and asked for confirmation of their address. The landlord also explained that it could not provide the resident with a management transfer to a new property and sign posted him to a number of resources he could use to gain a move. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm the address of the alleged perpetrator and make contact with them to discuss the report. It was also appropriate for the landlord to sign post the resident to transfer resources when he expressed his desire for a move.
The landlord then conducted a visit to the block on or around 26 August 2021. The alleged perpetrator was visited, the noise report was discussed, and property assessed. The landlord also visited the resident and did witness noise, however the noise was found to be sound transference and general household noise. The landlord suggested the resident look to switch his bedroom with his kitchen as the kitchen had very little noise transference.
Landlords are expected to follow an evidenced based approach to ASB, to ensure their services are fair and an efficient use of resources. Therefore, it was appropriate and proportionate for the landlord to visit the alleged perpetrator to discuss the noise reports and assess the property. This allowed the landlord to ascertain if there were any lifestyle circumstances or property defects that were exacerbating the noise issue.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident to witness any noise nuisance and understand the layout of the property so recommendations could be made.
However, it was not appropriate to suggest the resident switch his bedroom and kitchen. The kitchen is a specialised room, designed specifically for its purpose and not emulated to other rooms within the property. As such, it would not be practical and likely very costly to switch the rooms.
In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged that the suggestion was a general observation and not direct advice and apologised. It was appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to apologise.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 20 September 2021, summarising all information and advice that had been provided to him. The landlord confirmed the noise experienced was sound transference due to poor sound proofing within the building, which was common in properties of that type. The landlord confirmed it had concluded the neighbour was not causing any nuisance. It confirmed it was unable to install any sort of sound proofing due to budgets and again sign posted the resident to a number of transfer resources he could use to move home.
It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of the outcome of the investigation and inability to install sound proofing. It was also appropriate for the landlord to reiterate sign posting to allow the resident to make a planned move out of the property.
Ultimately, during the considered time period, the landlord responded to the resident’s report of noise nuisance appropriately and conducted an adequate investigation, the outcome of which was communicated to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer

In his initial complaint the resident requested an urgent move based on the sound transference from neighbouring properties effecting his sleep which was ultimately effecting both his physical and mental health.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states a management transfer will only be considered in situations where a tenant or members of the tenant’s household are at serious risk by remaining in their current home and need an immediate move. The policy listed the criteria for consideration of a management transfer as:
1. Survivors or victims of domestic abuse.
2. Victims of racial, gender or sexual orientation based crime, or other harassment, where police are investigating/taking action and support a move.
3. Witnesses to a crime, who need to move for their own protection as requested by police.
4. Households who need to move urgently at the request of social services, for child protections reasons.
5. Other urgent moves based on safety as approved by the lettings panel.
The landlord outlined the above policy in both it’s stage one and stage two responses. It acknowledged the resident had been experiencing health issues and was going through a different time. It explained that the resident’s circumstances did not meet the requirement for a management transfer as this type of move could only be offered where the tenant, or a household member was at risk of serious injury or death should they remain within the property. It also provided examples of circumstances when this type of move could be offered, such as domestic abuse cases or where harassment and abuse poses a serious threat to life. This was accurate and in line with the landlord’s allocations policy on management transfers.
The landlord sign posted the resident to a number of resources which would allow him to apply for a planned move. These resources were provided to the resident on 27 July 2021 and again on 20 September 2021. The landlord also offered the resident support with any application processes.
It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s request, explain the policy and confirm that the resident did not met the criteria for a management transfer. The landlord communicated this clearly with the resident and provided appropriate sign posting and support.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that they were verbally abused by a previous neighbour

In his initial complaint the resident advised that he had, historically, received racial and homophobic abuse from previous neighbours.
This was not addressed by the landlord in either it’s stage one or stage two response. The Ombudsman requested evidence of any correspondence or actions taken as a result of the resident’s report. The landlord advised that it had addressed this point in its stage two response and investigated it as part of its staff capability procedures.
It appears to the Ombudsman that again the complaint and subsequent information request had been misunderstood by the landlord. The landlord appears to believe the report of verbal abuse relates to a staff member not a previous neighbour of the resident. Had this been addressed at stage one, the resident, again, would have been given the opportunity to clarify the complaint point.
It is likely that the report of historic abuse could not have been acted on or investigated by the landlord as it relates to previous neighbours who are no longer in situ and likely happened a significant time ago. Even so, the landlord is expected to respond to the complaint and confirm what, if any, actions could and would be taken. As it did not and no information has been provided to the Service, we are unable to conduct a full investigation into the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report.
This is a failure in service. The landlord should, again, take learning from this situation, ensuring all complaint points are addressed at the earliest opportunity and clarification requested. The landlord should also ensure robust record keeping processes are in place to avoid similar issues in future.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation and issues with their windows

In his initial complaint the resident advised neighbouring properties had their windows replaced and his had been missed out. The landlord advised its records confirmed it had not installed new windows within a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman acknowledges that whilst no evidence of this was provided, such as repairs records, it would be inappropriate for the landlord to provide records for neighbouring properties. As such the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s account of its own records.
Within the initial complaint the resident advised that he had reported rats entering his home and the landlord had promised it would be resolved but this did not happen, and he had to resolve it himself.
The landlord is expected to keep a robust record of contacts, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.
The Ombudsman requested any information relevant to the resident’s reports of rats entering the property including all correspondence and evidence of any investigations or outcomes. The landlord responded advising pests are dealt with as part of its neighbourhood management policy and a letter was sent to tenants. It appears this may not have been properly recorded as it was not provided to the Ombudsman for use in our investigation.
When there is a disagreement in the accounts regarding pests within the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how the pests had been controlled to a satisfactory standard. As the landlord did not provide communication records between it and the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine that the landlord’s handling of this element of pest control was reasonable.
As outlined above, it is concerning that the landlord has not been able to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the resident’s contact, along with any investigations, outcomes or internal communications relating to the pest control issue. Within its response for information the landlord has simply written “Pests are dealt with as part of the neighbourhood management policy. Letter was sent to tenants”.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission… If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information… The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlord not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment… [and] contribute to an increased risk to resident’s health and safety… [vulnerabilities] may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress”.
The report, therefore, recommends that landlords take steps to improve their knowledge and information management, including by implementing a strategy for this, benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice, reviewing internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities, and carrying out appropriate staff training. It is of concern that there is no indication that the landlord has taken such steps to do so in light of its poor record keeping in the resident’s case, as outlined above.
The landlord has been recommended to take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an LGBTQ+ staff member as a point of contact.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that he was verbally abused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation and issues with his windows.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within five weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is;
1. To pay the resident a further £200, in addition to the £200 offered at stage two, comprised of:
  1. £50 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to appropriately understand and answer the resident’s request for an LGBTQ+ member of staff as a point of contact.
  2. £50 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to appropriately understand and answer the resident’s report of verbal abuse.
  3. £100 in recognition of the landlord’s poor record keeping and the impact this had on the Ombudsman’s ability to properly assess the impact the landlord’s action or inaction had on the resident.
2. To provide a written apology to the resident, with specific reference to it’s failure to address all points within the complaint and any learning it has gained from this.
Within eight weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is;
1. To conduct a review of its record keeping practices in light of the finding of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
2. To review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping.
The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders, within the above stated timeframes.