Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust (202216191)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216191

The Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust

19 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured non-shorthold tenancy. The property was a two-bedroom house. The resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident suffers from cyclothymia and a disability.
  3. Between February 2020 and 25 October 2021, the landlord made five offers of accommodation to the resident. The resident declined all of these. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 May 2022 to report ASB from local children. The children were verbally harassing the resident and making threats towards her cats. The resident also informed the landlord that she wanted to apply to move as the property was affecting her health. The landlord directed the resident to contact the police regarding the immediate issue and to keep a record of crime reference numbers.
  4. The resident again reported ASB to the landlord on 8 May 2022. The landlord visited the resident to discuss the issue and drop off diary sheets on 13 May 2022. The landlord also followed up on the potential identity of the perpetrators however was unable to locate the relevant parties. The resident reported ASB incidents to the police on 21 May 2022, 23 May 2022, and 24 May 2022. The landlord visited one of the alleged perpetrators on 30 May 2022 to interview them and provide a warning. The police informed the landlord on 10 June 2022 that as there was no criminal aspect to the ASB, it would be unable to take any further action. The resident reported further ASB to the police on 12 July 2022. On 12 September 2022, the resident completed a mutual exchange and moved out of the property.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 22 September 2022. She felt the landlord did not do enough to resolve the ASB. She informed the landlord she moved out of desperation and that she wanted to be allowed to apply to be housed at her desired development. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2022. It did not uphold her complaint as it felt that it had taken appropriate action. It said it had contacted her immediately, asked her to identify the perpetrators and sent her incident diaries. It said she had never returned the incident diaries, so it had little evidence to act on. It said that after 24 May 2022, it had not received any further reports of ASB. It also felt it had handled her request to be rehoused fairly and in line with its allocations policy.
  6. The resident rejected the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2022. She felt the landlord had failed to take the ASB seriously and was unhappy her housing officer told her ‘they are only kids’. The resident also said she did not fill out the diary sheets as she did not understand how they would help. The resident said she felt she had no choice to accept the mutual exchange as the landlord would not offer any additional help to facilitate a move. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 October 2022. It again did not uphold her complaint. It maintained that it believed it had responded appropriately to the ASB. It also mentioned that the resident was able to apply for a move in accordance with its allocations policy from 27 October 2022 and it would assess any medical needs in this.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 8 November 2022. She was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and said she felt the landlord had not covered the fact that she had been forced move due to the ASB. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord, asking it to revise its stage 2 to include this issue. It provided its revised stage 2 response on 21 December 2022 but still did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The resident confirmed on 22 December 2022 that she wished for the Ombudsman to consider this complaint. She said she would like the landlord to allow her to move to her desired block to resolve the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that ‘in most cases we begin to tackle the anti-social behaviour using early interventions which may include a combination of interviews and warning letters’. It also highlights the need for residents to record incidents via diary sheets for evidence. It finally says that if early interventions do not work, it will proceed to more formal steps, followed by legal action if the ASB remains unresolved. 
  2. The landlord fairly followed its ASB policy in handling the resident’s reports from May 2022. It visited her after her initial reports to provide diary sheets to allow it to gather evidence. It also located the alleged perpetrators of the ASB and initiated a meeting with them during the same month. Following this, no further reports of ASB were made to the landlord.
  3. It appears that following this the ASB did continue, with a further report made to the police directly. Since the landlord was not aware of this report, it was unable to act regarding this. The landlord cannot be held at fault for not knowing the ASB remained ongoing when this was not reported to it.
  4. The resident has stated that she failed to fill out the diary sheets as she did not know who the perpetrators were, and she was unsure what the sheets would achieve. The landlord provided these to her in a face-to-face meeting, therefore the Ombudsman has no evidence of the exact information it provided to the resident. However, the Ombudsman would still expect that the resident fill these out to document the incidents to provide the landlord with an appropriate picture of the ASB.
  5. The landlord also discussed the reports of ASB with the police, who informed it they would be unable to take further actions against the alleged perpetrators. This was due to the incidents not reaching a threshold to be considered criminal. The landlord appears to have acted fairly in communicating with the police in trying to resolve the situation. It also acted fairly in communicating with other agencies to try and prevent the perpetrators continuing the ASB.
  6. The landlord potentially could have done more to provide support to the resident. For example, it could have provided her with a list of the available resources available for supporting her throughout the ASB. However, as the resident was being assisted by victim support (provided through the police), this would not constitute service failure. The landlord should consider providing information on relevant support services to residents in the future.
  7. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It followed its policy, promptly tracked down the alleged perpetrators and to the best of its knowledge believed its actions had resolved the ASB. It also communicated fairly with the resident and other parties to try and respond to the reports appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to be rehoused.

  1. The landlord’s allocations and letting policy states that ‘Where an applicant has refused 2 reasonable offers’, it ‘will cancel their application and remove it from the housing register. The applicant will not qualify to be registered on the housing register for a period of 12 months from the date of cancellation.’.
  2. The landlord’s decision not to allow the resident to apply for alternative housing was because it had previously made 5 offers to her between 2020 and 2021. This meant the resident was unable to join the housing register from 28 October 2021 to 27 October 2022. The resident contacted the landlord about re-registering early due to her mental health concerns and her ASB. However, the landlord maintained that she would be unable to register until her suspension elapsed. This decision was in line with the landlord’s policy and therefore fair.
  3. The resident has stated that she felt the landlord should have done more to enable her to move due to the ASB mentioned above. She felt the landlord acted as though the sole reason for her move was to be closer to her children, when ASB was also a significant factor in this. Prior to the ASB, the resident had rejected properties based on her desire to move closer to her children. There is no evidence the landlord’s alleged belief about the resident’s reasoning for moving affected its decision not to allow her to reregister. This was based on its policy.
  4. The resident also mentioned she felt the landlord should have enabled her to register for properties on the basis that she had previously rejected these due to her mental health. In the handling of the previous offers, the landlord appeared to go beyond its policy in making five separate offers to the resident in the span of 24 months. The landlord ordinarily would have only made 2 in this time. The landlord also worked with the resident to handle her anxiety, agreeing to contact her husband directly to reduce the stress placed upon her. There is no evidence of a failure from the landlord that should have led to it allowing the resident to re-register for the property.
  5. Had the landlord allowed the resident to register, there is no guarantee a property in the desired development would have been offered within the short term. The landlord helped the resident with the mutual exchange to allow her to move in a very short space of time, prior to the 12 month register suspension period elapsing. There is no evidence therefore that the landlord’s actions caused the resident any additional distress or inconvenience as the move allowed the resident to get away from the ASB as well as being closer to her daughters. The landlord has also since provided the resident with the means to join the housing register for her desired property again, despite moving landlords.
  6. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint fairly. It responded to her complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints policy at both stage 1 and stage 2. Its responses were broadly fair in content and in tone.
  7. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider signposting any relevant support organisations to residents who are reporting, and may need support regarding, antisocial behaviour.