Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202102321)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102321

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

20 May 2024

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 handling of:
1. The resident’s requests for rehousing.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a bedsit. The resident has multiple mental and physical health conditions, which the landlord is aware of.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 March 2022 to say that she had been trying to get rehoused for 16 years. She stated that she had sent in medical evidence for why she needed to be moved but had not received a response. She referred to a vacant property which she wanted to move into and said she felt victimised as it seemed people from a “certain country get the favouritism to be rehoused”. The resident said the traffic fumes impacted her sinuses and the buskers had been affecting her mental health. She said the vacant property would not have those issues and would not have drug dealers and boys hanging around there. She asked the landlord to consider moving her into the vacant property.
The landlord responded to the resident on 29 March 2022. It said it was sorry to hear of the issues she had experienced, however, a direct move to another property was not something it could offer and she would need to register for the moving options it had previously outlined to her. It said if she was experiencing ASB she should provide more information so it could be investigated. The resident responded on the same day to reiterate the issues she was having with the property. She said she needed to know where she was at with the internal bidding system and asked why no-one had got back to her regarding her medical evidence. She also asked to speak to someone about the boys who constantly gathered outside her door and did not live in the building.
The resident continued to report issues to the landlord and submitted her formal complaint through the Ombudsman on 22 August 2022. On 23 September 2022 the resident clarified to the landlord that the complaint was about:
1. Being in a tiny bedsit for over 19 years and she had requested to be rehoused due to her mental and physical health. This included that she had a slipped disc in her neck and if she had an accident she could be paralysed. She said she had provided all the information in medical letters.
2. She said that she had to pull out a chair every day to sit in and it hurt so much that she was in tears. She said she could not buy a proper chair or sofa as she had no room.
3. She said lots of people were being rehoused because they knew someone who worked in housing and she felt discriminated against because she was white.
4. The noise and ASB affected her. She referred to sensitive information which would explain why she could not handle the boys outside her flat and how the noise affected her tinnitus and sinuses.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 September 2022. It apologised for misunderstanding the complaint. It said:
1. The decision to let a property was not based on familiarity with individuals who work for the landlord but rather priority and banding which was discussed with a medical third party.
2. It confirmed the resident had been registered on its internal bidding service since May 2022. It said a letter was uploaded from her GP but it was unsure if it was taken into consideration when banding. It asked the resident to provide an updated letter so it could be reviewed.
3. The local safety neighbourhood team were involved with the noise and ASB complaints but the resident did not wish to proceed with a case at the time. It said no further reports had been received since April 2022 and it believed the issue was resolved. However, if the resident felt it was outstanding, she should contact her local housing manager.
4. Works in the property had been put on hold due to leaks into the shop below which were being addressed first.
5. It partially upheld the complaint due to possible medical documents not being considered when determining banding. It provided her with the options for rehousing and offered £100 compensation. £25 was for poor complaint handling and £75 for time and trouble.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 April 2023. She said she had no response in relation to her banding. She said the situation had worsened and her mental health had deteriorated. She referred to a recent incident where a woman had jumped off the nearby car park building and a rumour was spread around the estate that it was her. She said the ASB had not improved and young boys were still hanging around her door smoking and throwing rubbish. She said there were drug addicts on the stairwells and urine which made the stairs slippery and could cause an accident. She said she had to wear earplugs because of the noise outside. The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 May 2023 to say the complaint was mainly to do with relocating to more appropriate housing and a response about her banding.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 May 2023. It said a visit had been arranged for 6 June 2023 so a suitable assessment could be made to find a solution to best suit her needs. It said it would discuss the reports of ASB she had raised and her medical evidence in the visit too. It said it noted a concerning level of distress in her communication and feared for the resident’s wellbeing so raised a safeguarding referral to the resident support team. It agreed it had not been as responsive as it could have and upheld that part of the resident’s complaint. It also acknowledged the delay in escalating to stage 2 and upheld that part of the complaint also. It awarded £150 compensation. £50 for poor complaint handling and £100 for time and trouble. It said following the meeting on 6 June 2023 it would assess her housing support needs and provide an action plan.
The resident did not feel the complaint was resolved and referred the case to the Ombudsman. She felt she had been ignored and wanted the landlord to move her to another property.

Post internal complaints procedure

The visit with the resident took place on 8 June 2023 and the resident was informed on 9 June 2023 that her housing priority banding for transfers had been increased from D to B1. The landlord also confirmed that the doors had been fixed. It said it introduced security patrols on the estate for a period of time and there had been a reduction of ASB on the stairwells as a result. It said it would continue to monitor and work with external partners in relation to the issues. It said a letter would be sent to everyone on the estate about reporting ASB and not giving access to people they do not know. It said it would continue to monitor the cleanliness of the stairwells and it would arrange a deep clean within the next few weeks.
On 8 April 2024, the landlord contacted the Ombudsman to state that it recognised it had made failings and that there had been an impact on the resident through its delays in responding and addressing her concerns. It acknowledged that the resident felt unsupported through its lack of communication and reassurance in relation to the circumstances. It said it was in the process of writing a new policy for vulnerable customers and training would be provided to ensure at risk customers get the support they need. It said it had employed a significant number of new staff over the last 12 months to help yield better compliance levels moving forward. The landlord wanted to offer a further £250 to acknowledge the overall inconvenience and distress experienced throughout and the poor complaint handling. It outlined the overall compensation amount as £400.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to issues and events which span over 18 years. This investigation focuses on events from 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in August 2022 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response in May 2023. The Ombudsman has considered this to be a reasonable period to evaluate the landlord’s handling of the issues raised. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure have not been investigated and are referenced for contextual purposes only.
The resident has stated that the landlord treated her unfairly due to her personal characteristics. It is acknowledged that this is a serious allegation. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of her vulnerabilities and its response to her concerns around discrimination. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for rehousing

The landlord’s transfers process is that it will make “vacancies available to transferring tenants subject to local authority nominations restrictions and local lettings criteria”. It has associated criteria for transfer bidding with priorities based on the urgency of a move as follows:
1. Band A1 – ‘emergency’ due to safeguarding need such as a need to avoid an imminent threat to life
2. Band A2 – ‘high priority’ due to safeguarding need such as a need to avoid a potential threat to life (supported by third party evidence) or a medical or welfare need such as the resident being unable to return to, or live in the property
3. Band B1 – ‘medium priority’ due to serious safeguarding need (that is not life threatening) or a medical or welfare need such as the resident only being able to occupy the property in the short-term
4. Band C1 – ‘low priority’ due to a safeguarding need or a medical or welfare need such as the property being unsuitable
5. Band D – ‘no priority’ but the resident has requested a move to another area.
There are additional bandings included for those left in occupation, moving on from supported housing, and overcrowding.
In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a resident should be rehoused or whether a property adaptation should be allowed to occur. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health, as this is not in our expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions.
The resident had been requesting to be rehoused for a significant period of time. In response to the resident’s requests the landlord appropriately outlined what options were available to her. As the resident’s request to be moved was on medical grounds, the landlord should have evidenced it had considered her medical evidence in line with its processes and that the appropriate banding was applied. The resident repeatedly requested an update regarding the medical evidence provided when she first registered with the landlord’s internal bidding service in May 2021. The landlord did not appear to provide a response until its stage 1 response in September 2022. The delay in clarifying whether the medical evidence had been considered was not appropriate.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it was unsure whether it had taken the resident’s GP letter into consideration when she registered on the internal bidding service in May 2021. It is a failing that the landlord’s records do not reflect whether this was considered. Given the time which had passed since the initial letter, it was appropriate for the landlord to request new medical evidence. The resident provided the evidence in January 2023 and it took a further 6 months for the landlord to confirm that her banding would be increased from D to B1. The further delays were not appropriate and prevented the resident from bidding for properties under the correct banding. The change in banding also suggests that the original medical evidence was not considered at the time.
The resident provided GP evidence alongside her request to be rehoused, which was in line with the landlord’s policy. The medical information provided outlined that the resident required a specialist chair and that there was no space in the resident’s property to accommodate the chair. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident to obtain an occupational therapy assessment. This may have assisted the landlord in considering the suitability of the property and whether any adaptations were an option. In doing so, the landlord would have shown that it had considered what other actions could have assisted the resident while she was bidding for other properties.
In response to the resident’s reports that she was being discriminated against, the landlord explained that the decision to let a property was based on priority and banding which was discussed with a medical third party. It then outlined that her medical documents may not have been considered. It stated that there was no evidence of bias when determining her banding or records to suggest her move had been hindered deliberately. The landlord’s response was reasonable given the circumstances. However, without sufficient explanation as to why her medical evidence was not potentially considered at the time, it is understandable that the resident was not reassured by its response.
Overall, it took over 2 years for the resident’s medical evidence to be considered in relation to her banding on the landlord’s internal bidding service, which was not acceptable. While the landlord took some steps to acknowledge its failings in handling the resident’s requests to be rehoused, it did not go far enough. There is no explanation for the delays in communication prior to the formal complaint and the compensation offered does not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident throughout. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for rehousing.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £400 for its poor communication, delays in considering the medical evidence, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has acknowledged some failings and made an offer to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the Ombudsman’s findings.

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

The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person” and “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises”. It states that when it first receives a report of ASB, an initial assessment will be carried out to determine the priority of the case and where initial reports do not meet the threshold, it may ask for more information.
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlines that when responding to reports of antisocial behaviour, agencies must consider the effect that such behaviour has on victims and witnesses. It also states that agencies should recognise and consider the debilitating impact that persistent or repeated antisocial behaviour can have on victims over a period of time.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 March 2022 to advise that if she was experiencing ASB at her property to provide some more information regarding what was happening so it could investigate it. The resident responded the same day and stated that everyone hung outside her flat and she had no privacy, she referred to people smoking drugs outside her door. She said she needed to speak to somebody about “these constant guys who do not live here hanging outside my door”. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the information provided by the resident or arranging to speak to her, which is a failing.
The resident continued to report the issues with people gathering outside her flat to the landlord. In her email dated 5 April 2022 she said that she was tired and anxious because of the number of young boys hanging around her door. She said it was starting to become worrisome and to the point that she was nervous entering her flat, as she often had sexual remarks said to her. The resident’s reports were in line with what the landlord defined as ASB; therefore, it should have been recorded as an ASB complaint and the landlord should have followed its policy. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the reports made, which is a further failing.
The landlord has provided evidence of it regularly contacting the local safety neighbourhood team throughout 2021, 2022, and 2023 regarding rough sleepers and groups of youths loitering in the stairwell and residents reporting concerns for their safety. It asked that they look at the area of concern on their patrols. In the emails it outlined that it had ensured all communal doors were fixed and that it temporarily hired private security in the summer of 2021. It said it had also written to residents to ask them not to let unknown persons into the building. An email from the local safety neighbourhood team dated 7 April 2022, stated that it would incorporate the area into its foot patrols. It asked the landlord how outsiders were gaining access to the building and if it had considered improving security at the doors or introducing new fobs for the residents. The landlord reiterated that it had issued letters to all residents regarding tailgating and not opening doors to unauthorised people.
It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise and work with the police in relation to the reports made. It is clear from the communication that multiple residents in the building had raised concerns regarding the youths loitering in the stairwells and the concerns for their safety. It is positive that the landlord ensured the doors were fixed when broken and issued letters to the residents regarding allowing access into the building. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have considered additional security measures it could take, in line with the email from the police on 7 April 2022. This could have included CCTV in the communal areas, new fobs for the residents, or hiring security again. There is no evidence that it considered any additional security or target hardening measures prior to its stage 2 response. Given the length of time that the issue was ongoing and the number of residents impacted, it is a failing that the landlord does not appear to have done more to address the ASB.
In its stage 1 response on 27 September 2022, the landlord said its records show it involved the local safety neighbourhood team to monitor the situation but the resident did not wish to proceed with an ASB case at the time. It said it had not received any further reports since April 2022 and believed the issue to be resolved locally. It said if the resident felt the matter was outstanding it could investigate it via its ASB process and to contact her housing manager to do so. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the resident stating that she did not wish to proceed with an ASB case, however, as she continued to raise issues it is unclear why the landlord felt it was resolved. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have outlined what action had been taken to resolve the issue.
In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that the resident felt it had not kept her informed regarding her ongoing concerns about ASB, rehousing and the overall service had been poor. It said the team were assessing the ASB raised and it would discuss it with her on a visit scheduled for 6 June 2023. It agreed that it had not been as responsive as it could have regarding the communication she had sent and call back requests made.
It is positive that it upheld that part of the complaint as there is little evidence of it responding to the resident’s reports, and it awarded more compensation for the resident’s time and trouble. However, it did not appear to take into consideration the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident throughout. There is no evidence that it assessed the risks to the resident and her vulnerabilities until the stage 2 response where it submitted a safeguarding referral. The Ombudsman finds this was a significant failing by the landlord as it was already aware of her health needs and vulnerabilities.
Overall, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of ASB in a timely manner or in line with its policy. It is positive that it liaised with the police and acknowledged some of its failings in its complaint response, but it did not go far enough. The landlord failed to consider the impact that living with ongoing ASB would have on the resident and the additional risks associated with the resident’s vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
An order has been made for further compensation of £400 to be paid to the resident for the failures identified and the distress and inconvenience caused. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to give a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If it is not possible for the landlord to respond within these timescales, it will agree a further extension with the customer and may take a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided 24 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised for not escalating the complaint sooner. It also awarded additional compensation for that. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s offer of redress for the delay was fair and reasonable.
In its stage 2 response the landlord outlined that it had arranged a visit to discuss the resident’s housing. It said its team was assessing the ASB raised and would discuss it with her then. It is unclear why the landlord could not address why it had not been responsive in relation to her ASB concerns and confirm any action it had taken, if any. As this was not done, the resident was still unclear on what course of action was being taken to address her concerns. This was likely to have been frustrating for the resident. While it provided an update after its stage 2 response, the landlord must ensure that it suitably updates residents within its complaints responses.
The landlord has since contacted the Ombudsman and acknowledged the impact that its failings had on the resident. It is positive to see the changes it has made; however, the Ombudsman expects landlords to make appropriate and proportionate awards to resolve complaints within a reasonable timescale, and this was not the case here.
The landlord did not fully address the reports of ASB within its complaint handling and the resident has stated that the issue is ongoing. The landlord’s complaints procedure is an opportunity for it to put things right for the resident and the landlord should reflect on its complaint handling in this case. When a compensation offer is revisited after the landlord’s complaint process it is harder for the landlord to demonstrate it will act fairly and consistently in all cases. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for rehousing.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to offer a meeting with the resident to understand any ongoing ASB concerns. The landlord should act in accordance with its policies and procedures. Where appropriate it should conduct a risk assessment, agree an action plan, and communicate with the relevant parties. It should consider any target hardening measures it can put in place for the resident and any specialist support referrals which may be appropriate too.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £850 compensation (this is inclusive of any previous compensation offered by the landlord) comprising of:
1. £400 for its handling of the resident’s requests for rehousing.
2. £400 for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. £50 for its failure to fully address the ASB complaint within its complaint handling process.
The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should advise the resident on how she can obtain an occupational therapy assessment, should she wish to do so.
The landlord should reflect on its complaint handling in this case. As part of this exercise, it should consider why it revisited this case and if it would do so equally in all cases. This will ensure the landlord is acting fairly and consistently in all cases.