Flagship Housing Group Limited (202200146)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200146

Flagship Housing Group Limited

27 October 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour.
2. The resident’s request for a property move.
This report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaints handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background.

The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced on 6 March 2018. The property is a two-bedroom first floor flat.
The landlord has vulnerability of hemiparesis recorded for the resident. This was a weakness of muscles on the right side of her body.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises three stages. This follows on from the initial there and now option which attempts to resolve complaints prior to them being passed to stage one of the complaints procedure.
Stage one of the landlord’s policy is known as the investigation and resolution stage. The complaint will be passed to the learning and resolution team within 24 hours. The aim is to provide a resolution within 10 working days. If the complaint remains unresolved the complainant will be offered a review.
Stage two of the landlord’s complaint policy is the review stage. The complaint if escalated to this stage will be reviewed by a relevant senior manager. If the complainant remains dissatisfied following a review they will be offered an appeal.
The third stage of the landlord’s complaints policy is the appeal. The complainant can request an appeal for their complaint to the Tenant Experience Group (TEG). If the complainant remains dissatisfied following this they can go to their MP or to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy explains that it will aim to complete an assessment of the vulnerability of the victim and the level of harm alongside the original report of ASB to help manage the case. The harm caused to a complainant is recorded by the initial call team as well as the ASB team and is graded as one of standard, medium or high risk.
In addition the landlord grades all incidents of ASB in relation to the severity of the incident as well as the level of harm caused to the complainant. This is either at level one or level two. Level two covers low level or on-going complaints which can be persistent or one-off incidents. Level one is the most serious ASB or criminal behaviour which will often require joint working in partnership with other agencies.
The ASB policy explains that the landlord is committed to taking a victim centred approach to tackling anti-social behaviour and harassment and that it aims to work in partnership with residents, partners and other groups to prevent anti-social behaviour using a range of methods. Harassment is defined as any deliberate unwanted action or behaviour that causes annoyance, alarm, distress or intimidation to another and this type of behaviour ranges from unpleasant remarks to physical violence.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will decide on what enforcement action is most appropriate on a case-by-case basis after taking legal advice. Some of the legal remedies the landlord uses includes civil injunctions, community protection notices, fixed penalty notices, demoted tenancies, possession and suspended possession orders.
The landlord’s management move procedure sets out that a management move should be considered when it meets exceptional tenant needs and/or is beneficial for the landlord. Examples of this include when the resident is at risk of harm if they stay in their current home or has a medical need that is not met by the current home.
The management move procedure explains that there does not need to be a suitable home available for a management move. Instead approval could be sought in advance and the resident placed on the management move waiting list.

Summary of Events.

The resident called the landlord on 24 June 2020. She explained that she had been assaulted earlier in the day by her neighbour (herein referred to as B) who had been drunk. The resident explained that she had opened her door in the early hours and had her hair pulled by B and she had been thrown down the stairs. She had then been kicked and punched by B who had also assaulted a police officer whilst being arrested.
The resident requested a call back from the landlord on 25 June 2020. The notes of her call noted that she was very scared following the assault and she no longer wanted to live at the property.
The landlord emailed the police to find out the status of B on 25 June 2020. It was informed B had been released on bail whilst the matter was investigated and that she had been told she could not go upstairs or contact the resident.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 June 2020. It noted that the resident was aware of B’s bail conditions. She was informed she should contact the police if there was any breach of them. The landlord explained that it had nothing available that the resident could be moved to. Instead she was told to contact the local council. The landlord explained it would support a move if this occurred via the local council. The resident explained that she had previously informed the landlord that she feared an assault was likely to have occurred, however nothing had been done.
The resident submitted an application to the local council to request a move on the basis of harassment. The resident’s housing officer emailed the landlord on 29 June 2020 to explain she had been assaulted and he wished to know the current situation as well as finding out what action had been taken.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 30 June 2020, having exchanged voicemail messages the previous day. It noted that the resident was unhappy that B had been bailed back to the property. The landlord explained this was a police decision. The resident explained that she had spoken to the local council looking to move however she had been informed nothing was available. The resident added that she had told both the landlord and the police about the likelihood of an attack in March following a threat which had been made to her on social media. The landlord informed the resident that she could make a complaint about the matter. It explained that it would ring the resident the following week.
Internal correspondence noted on 30 June 2020 that the landlord had sent B a letter which explained it had been made aware of the issue and that it would be made aware of the police outcome. The letter added that, depending on the offence, it may need to consider the future of B’s tenancy and that it would write to B again in due course.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 July 2020. It noted that the resident had gone to her GP to speak to the mental health nurse and been prescribed medication. The resident added she had seen B and that B had accused her. The resident added that she wanted to move and asked the landlord to help her including with the moving costs. The landlord noted that the resident had approached the local council.
The resident left a request for a callback from the landlord on 13 July 2020. The resident’s message was that B had been charged with actual bodily harm (ABH) and the matter could be proceeding to court.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 17 July 2020. The resident explained that she had heard B speaking about her. The landlord informed her to let the police know about the matter.
The resident called the landlord on 30 July 2020. She wanted to know about the eviction process for B. The landlord explained that it needed to follow a process. The resident informed the landlord that she had been unsuccessful in obtaining a different property as she had not registered in time.
The resident followed up her call with an email on 31 July 2020. She explained that she understood the landlord had a process which it needed to follow. However she wished to know who she could address a complaint to. The resident added this was as she felt the system appeared wrong.
B contacted the landlord on 3 August 2020. This was in response to the letter which the landlord had sent to the individual on 30 June 2020. The landlord attempted to call back B on 5 August 2020. However it was not able to speak to the individual and it left a voicemail.
The landlord called the resident on 11 August 2020. The resident explained B had broken bail conditions by being at her property and she had contacted the police about the matter. The landlord explained this was not part of B’s bail conditions.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 August 2020 to explain B was playing loud music and she had been on the stairs when the resident went to walk her dog. She explained this was unacceptable.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 27 August 2020. The resident complained that B had been playing loud music the previous day and the same had occurred on 15 August 2020. The landlord confirmed that it would send her diary logs which needed to be completed. It followed up the call with a letter to the resident in which it explained a named individual would call the resident regularly to follow up on the issues of ASB.
The resident called the landlord on 2 September 2020 to inform it that she had made a housing application to the council in which she had detailed her medical problems and how these impacted her being in the first floor flat.
The resident informed the landlord during a telephone call on 4 September 2020 that a charging decision had been made against B. She also confirmed that a panic alarm had been fitted for her. The resident confirmed that she was reporting any concerns over bail to the police and she would be logging incidents involving noise and sending these to the landlord.
The resident called the landlord on 11 September 2020. She explained that she had received a letter from the local council concerning her disability as it needed further information. It had therefore suspended her housing application. She wanted to speak to tenancy support as a result.
The landlord has not provided any details of when it called back and spoke to the resident about the issue that she was raising at that time.
The resident called the landlord on 22 September 2020 to inform it that the police had provided an update informing her the matter had gone to the crown prosecution service and it could take some time. She added that the police would also be looking at a restraining order to stop B from being in contact with her.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 September 2020. The resident informed it that she had spoken to an occupational therapist over the phone who had completed an assessment during the call. The therapist recommended a wet room and a stair lift but explained that another colleague needed to also agree to this before the change could be effected, however there was a waiting list for the second assessment. The landlord explained the local council would do nothing without the report and that the occupational therapist report saying she was inadequately housed was the key to getting her priority reviewed. The resident explained that the crown prosecution service had agreed to prosecute B and that she was due to be charged. An injunction had also been issued to keep B away from the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 October 2020 to explain it had sent the resident’s most recent logs to the local council. It had also requested noise monitoring equipment for her.
The resident informed the landlord during a weekly call on 14 October 2020 that B had been playing loud video games each night. She added she had started the logs for this. She also informed the landlord that the court date had been scheduled for 24 November 2020.
The resident called the landlord on 26 October 2020. She explained that B was standing outside her property making threats with a different neighbour against her. She confirmed that she had called the police.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 November 2020 following a call back request from the resident. She explained she was not sleeping well and was not planning on attending the court date which was due to happen in the following week. The resident stated she was concerned that she had been left in a situation with no protection and nothing had been done. The landlord confirmed that once it knew the outcome of the court action it could consider legal action.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 2 December 2020. She confirmed the noise monitoring equipment had been installed. The resident explained the new court date was now on 22 December 2020. She added she was desperate to move and that she had had to leave a volunteering job as people had been talking about her. She added she was regularly contacting victim support.
The resident informed the landlord on 4 January 2021 that she was awaiting the noise monitoring device again and that B had pleaded not guilty so the matter was due to go to trial in May 2021. She added that B had been making more noise than normal.
The landlord called the resident on 6 January 2021. It explained it would need to give the noise monitoring device again to the resident as it had not sent any letter notifying B of any issue of noise nuisance. It added it would be starting to put together legal paperwork.
The landlord called the resident on 29 January 2021. The resident explained B had been quiet at that time. The landlord explained the noise monitoring equipment had not shown any evidence of any noise coming from B so it was unable to take any action on this basis. The landlord confirmed that it would contact the resident every two weeks until the trial date.
The landlord called the resident on 5 February 2021 following a call back request. She explained that noise was being made every night by B. The landlord explained that she needed to complete logs as there was nothing on the monitoring equipment. It also explained that it would not be able to do anything in terms of appropriate tenancy actions until the outcome of the trial was known. It added at that point it would obtain legal advice. The landlord added that it was unable to evict someone especially with the ongoing pandemic.
The landlord completed an assessment of support needs for the resident on 17 February 2021. This was forwarded by it to the local council on 23 February 2021.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 March 2021. She informed it of the murder of her sister. She confirmed she was not happy living above B who had assaulted her. She added that she had not heard back from the local council. The landlord advised her to speak to her GP and to chase up the local council.
The resident reported to the landlord on 11 March 2021 that B had been playing loud music and had the television on at a loud volume. She added that she had been actively bidding on properties and was hoping to move. The landlord confirmed that it would chase up for the noise monitoring equipment and it informed the resident to keep bidding on properties.
The resident informed the landlord on 19 March 2021 that she was feeling fairly low but she had been prescribed new medication. She added that the noise levels from B were high. The landlord checked about the noise monitoring equipment and said it could install it in a few days as a set had become available.
The resident completed a mutual exchange form on 17 May 2021, and confirmed on the form that the lack of support following the assault had affected her mental health and she wanted a fresh start.
The resident informed the landlord on 19 May 2021 that B had pleaded guilty and that a hearing had been scheduled on 21 June 2021.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 25 May 2021. She asked about the timescales for the mutual exchange. The landlord confirmed that it was trying to catch up with the backlog from lockdown and that it would be in contact once it was able to go ahead with the mutual exchange.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 May 2021. She explained that she had put in for an exchange but that her safety had never been thought of by the landlord. This was despite what it had stated on its website over the issue. She added that there was a lack of support for her as a disabled person.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 June 2021 in response to her email of 27 May 2021. It asked if there had been any new incidents. It also noted that the resident wanted to move, and asked if it could help.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 June 2021 enclosing a copy of the mutual exchange form. It asked the resident to complete it and return it to it as soon as possible. During a call on 18 June 2021 the landlord confirmed it was still awaiting paperwork from the other party in relation to the mutual exchange.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 23 June 2021. She explained B had appeared in court for ABH. She had been sentenced to 15 months which had been suspended for 18 months. She explained that she would like help with costs as she wanted to move out of the area. She added that the landlord should help as there had been a lack of support from it, and she felt that she had been left in a vulnerable position.
The resident made a number of calls to the landlord between 28 June 2021 and 5 July 2021 asking if the landlord had received the mutual exchange forms from the party she was exchanging with.
The resident called the landlord on 13 July 2021, after having received a letter from it confirming it had received the mutual exchange form from the other party. She asked about timescales and the checks which she confirmed the other party had already done.
The landlord called the resident on 22 July 2021. It apologised for not having responded to her call of 13 July 2021. It explained it would email for a property inspection as well as looking at funding the moving costs for the resident. It confirmed in a letter it was granting permission for the exchange subject to the property inspection and the rent account being clear.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 August 2021 confirming the property inspection had come back. It asked her to think of a date for her to move. The resident explained that she was still looking at help with the funds to move. The landlord sent an internal email looking into the funding issue.
The resident called the landlord on 30 August 2021. She explained the other party had withdrawn from the exchange as the heating was no longer included in the rent. The resident stated the other party would be notifying the landlord the next day.
The landlord received an email from the landlord of the other party on 6 September 2021. It explained that it had received a reference and had sent one. It asked the landlord if it was ready to proceed as it could do. It emailed the mutual exchange landlord back on 15 September 2021 asking if a reference had been sent. It added it was not ready to proceed.
The landlord’s internal email on 23 September 2021 explained that the total moving costs would be £1,900. It added it might be able to partially assist with the costs. However it needed to ascertain how much the resident could contribute. The resident confirmed to the landlord that she could contribute £500.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2021 to explain B had placed a note on the bin cupboard which had been there for some time. The landlord replied via email the next day. It confirmed that it would put a note on the system. It explained that it was still seeking funding for the mutual exchange and it apologised for the time being taken.
The mutual exchange landlord emailed the landlord on 20 October 2021 to explain that its resident had decided to withdraw from the exchange. It asked the landlord to notify the resident which it did on 27 October 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 November 2021 to explain that B had made friends with another neighbour on the same floor as her and so she was up and down the stairs. She explained that she did not feel safe. She had contacted the police who were unable to help. She asked the landlord for assistance.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 November 2021. It explained it was unable to stop B walking past her door. It did however say it could assist if statutory nuisance was being caused. However this would not extend to the issue of going into flats. It asked the resident for further information. It also asked, as it had noted her mutual exchange had fallen through, if would she like assistance gaining access to the local council housing register.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 November 2021 to explain that she did not wish to put in a complaint as this would put her at risk of being attacked again by B. She did however wish to take advantage of assistance in moving and support.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 November 2021 explaining that if she did not wish to make a complaint it would close the complaint down. It added it would be in the area the following day and would call on her. The landlord noted that the resident had only bid on one property since February 2021 and asked if she was having any difficulty in using the system. The resident had informed the landlord she was registered with the local council and had a band one priority which was the highest band available.
The resident called the landlord on 23 November 2021, and stated that it had done nothing to support her. It had let her be attacked and nothing was done to B who had attacked her. She questioned why B had not been evicted. The landlord informed the resident if she remained unhappy she could raise a complaint, which the resident duly did.
The landlord issued the stage one complaint response on 3 December 2021. It acknowledged that ASB could cause distress and inconvenience and that it had had acted in accordance with its ASB policies and procedures. It added that it had an open ASB complaint which was being handled by it and that its community management team worked closely with the police.
The landlord sent an internal email to its ASB team on 3 December 2021. It asked for an overview with regards to what had been done on the case, in particular the ASB which had been reported by the resident. The ASB team responded on 10 December 2021, and explained it had limited dealings with the resident and it was looking at getting her moved. It was unaware of what was happening with B who had caused the assault.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 13 December 2021. Following the call the landlord emailed the resident to ask her to send over any copies of emails sent to the landlord following the assault, in particular when she had emailed the community management officers about the criminal proceedings. The landlord explained this would allow it to create a timeline of events. It also requested a letter or email from the resident’s counsellor or doctor expressing the need for her to move as it was detrimental to her mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder. The resident sent in a copy of the letter from the police dated 22 June 2021 which set out the sentencing for B as well as her emails to the landlord when she had made it aware of the further instances of ASB since that time.
The landlord’s housing officer completed a management move request form for the resident to move to a two-bedroom maisonette on 15 December 2021. The housing officer noted that the landlord had been notified of the charges against B and that it had failed to update the case log with this. As a result it had missed the timeframe to evict B over the issue.
The resident chased up the landlord on 1 February 2022 over whether a decision had been made about the move. This was because she was informed by the landlord that there was an issue with the banding she had been given.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 February 2022. It noted that she was on band one for a move on the basis that she needed ground floor accommodation. It explained that she may need to be reassessed and if this occurred it could change the banding but also allow the resident to bid on other properties.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 February 2022. It explained that it had contacted her a number of times since she had raised her concerns about the lack of action and support from the community management team on 23 November 2021. It added that it had followed the process in line with procedure set out in its ASB policy. It added it had emailed the resident to discuss the case but had not heard back from her. It added it had investigated the issue as a formal complaint in line with its complaints policy and it was closing the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 March 2022. She explained she was informed that she needed to wait until B was charged before the landlord would do anything. Whilst this occurred in June 2021 nothing had been done by the landlord. She added she had bid on a property in February 2022 which she had been informed about by the community management team. Whilst she was preparing to move to it, this had been stopped due to a housing needs report undertaken at the time of the assault (when she suffered head injuries). Although she had since recovered from the head injuries and could manage stairs, bath and shower she was then informed she was not allowed the property which had left her “back to square one” on the issue. She therefore wanted to have the complaint looked at.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 May 2022 following the resident having contacted this Service about the matter. It explained that it had now escalated the complaint to stage two of the process and that the response time was 20 working days.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 20 June 2022. It explained:
1. In terms of the assault the resident had provided evidence of the proof of conviction to the landlord. However this information had not been added to the case file or shared by the landlord’s officer with their line manager. As a result tenancy action against B did not occur. Since the matter had not come to light until six months after the date of conviction, it could no longer be used in legal proceeding against B’s tenancy. It had therefore offered £250 compensation for the effect this had had on the resident.
2. In terms of support for a move to a different property the landlord had offered a few properties to the resident since January 2022. Some had been unsuitable due to being too small or due to a lack of garden space. In addition one was unsuitable based on a housing needs assessment which had been undertaken.
3. It understood the resident had discussed the matter with the community management team and looked at undertaking a mutual exchange, with someone else the community team were supporting. If this did not materialise it added that the management team would continue to work with the resident to identify suitable properties.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

Since completing the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident continued to contact it in relation to further instances of alleged ASB by B as well as trying to secure a move to another property. The landlord has confirmed that the resident moved to a different property via a management move with effect from January 2023. This investigation has focused on events which occurred until the landlord’s final response, but it has noted that the reports of ASB continued afterwards. This is because this Service is unable to consider issues which have not been considered initially by the landlord or which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

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

The landlord has stated to this Service that there had been a longstanding issue between the resident and B which had been going on for a number of years. It stated that there had been allegations including of ASB made by both parties about each other. The landlord has provided some evidence, in response to a request for evidence of issues prior to June 2020 about the historical issues between the resident and B. The landlord has provided five call notes going back to August 2019 which shows that the resident had made the landlord aware of abusive messages by B including on social media as well as an issue where she had been abusive to workmen who had attended the block.
Effective case management is essential when dealing with cases of ASB. This is because, by maintaining records, the landlord is provided with the opportunity to review its handling of the case, through its complaint procedure. In addition, it provides contemporaneous evidence for Ombudsman investigations, and to support any legal proceedings. The absence of evidence, and records, presents a risk that these processes cannot be fully utilised, disadvantaging the resident as a result. In the absence of clear evidence when requested by this Service about the resident’s allegations that she had informed the landlord of the threat of an assault in March 2020, the Ombudsman is unable to assess what action the landlord took in the lead up to June 2020.
The landlord has not disputed that an incident took place on 24 June 2020 which resulted in the police attending and B being arrested at the time. In addition to what had occurred between the parties, B had also assaulted a member of the police at that time. Following the incident the landlord had spoken to the resident the following day who had explained from her perspective what had occurred and the effect the incident had on her. The landlord had undertaken a risk assessment based on the resident’s comments in keeping with its ASB policy. At this time the resident had informed the landlord of her desire to be moved.
The landlord had also checked as to the bail conditions which applied to B at this time and made sure the resident was aware of them. This was appropriate, especially as this was during the Covid 19 pandemic and the resultant national lockdowns and the effect of social distancing. Landlords were not offering a complete service at the time and home visits had been put on hold. Instead communication had primarily been undertaken by means of telephone calls. The bail conditions involved no contact between B and the resident and, as B had been released to her flat in the same block as the resident, it was important to explain this to the resident. Whilst the landlord stated that the resident had been aware and understood the bail conditions, the resident had called the police on 11 August 2020 when she thought they had been breached. The landlord’s conversation with the resident at that time demonstrated that the resident had not clearly understood the bail conditions in regard to B being allowed back in her flat.
Although the resident was concerned that B had been bailed back to her flat, the landlord was correct in saying that this was a decision which was made by the police and not it. The landlord set out with the resident that it would undertake regular contact with her. This was reasonable and it is clear from the call notes provided by the landlord that it had adhered to contacting her mainly by phone weekly during the first few months. Although there were occasions when the resident had been unavailable, it responded to call back requests from her.
In addition the landlord had referred the resident to victim support and to its tenancy support. It had also advised the resident when speaking to her and listening to how the assault had affected her to visit her own GP. This was appropriate given the circumstances.
The resident has explained that the landlord had set out that it was unable to take any action against B until the outcome of the court case was known. This was reasonable as B had initially denied the charges made against her at the outset and so the landlord would not have had grounds on which to begin possession proceedings against B at that time since she had not admitted to the assault against the resident. Whilst the landlord had informed the resident that it needed to await the decision of the court, the landlord did write to B on 30 June 2020 (within a week of the incident) to inform B that it would be reviewing the position with her tenancy and following it seeking legal advice on the matter. This approach was in keeping with the landlord’s policy and procedures on ASB.
However although the landlord had followed the letter up with a voicemail on 5 August 2020 after B had called it and left a message, it did not attempt to contact B after this point. The landlord has been unable to confirm if it held email details for B who is a resident of it. The landlord missed this opportunity to contact B over the matter and to have the issue noted on the case file. Ultimately this lead to it not following up and following through on possession proceedings against B once she had been convicted in line with its ASB policy.
The resident’s main priority at the time had been to try to move from the property. As the landlord had explained that it had nothing available from its own stock at the time it directed the resident to alternative methods including contacting the local council. Whilst the resident has confirmed that she was also looking at a mutual exchange in 2022, it is not clear if the landlord had discussed this as an option when the resident initially approached it in June 2020. However at the time due to the covid 19 pandemic and the ensuring lockdowns which were in force most landlords had put moves including mutual exchanges on hold. Therefore even if the landlord had discussed the option of a mutual exchange with the resident, this may not have been an option it could have followed through with at that time.
The landlord informed the resident that, should B have breached any bail conditions, she should contact the police. Whilst the resident did do this, the landlord’s responsibility to her included the need for it and not the police to look into potential issues of ASB which she was reporting against B. By seemingly directing the resident to go direct to the police the landlord was giving her the impression that it was not supporting or safeguarding her at the time. Given the impact of the assault on the resident and the reported post-traumatic stress the resident has indicated that she had suffered at the time, this apparent lack of support by the landlord was not appropriate and not in keeping with its own ASB policy, particularly as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains that in the event of the most serious ASB or criminal behaviour this will often require joint working in partnership with other agencies. This would include the police. In this instance the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence of the joint working which it undertook with the police or with other multi-agencies. The landlord’s interactions with the police had been at the outset when determining what bail conditions B had been given. All of the follow up, including when B was due to go to court, had been undertaken directly by the resident who was keeping the landlord updated. Similarly in relation to the local council the landlord had seemingly left it for the resident to contact it rather than the landlord proactively liaising with the local council and making sure that it had all the information needed and that the council was aware of the circumstances.
The landlord’s failure to continue to liaise with the police ultimately contributed to it not taking any action with regards to B’s tenancy. It acknowledged that the officer whom the resident had informed of B’s conviction had not recorded it on the case file nor discussed the matter with the line manager. The failure to do this meant that, as the process had not been completed within six months of the date of B’s conviction, the landlord missed the opportunity to take any action against B including the process of seeking possession of her flat.
Whilst this Service cannot say for definite whether the landlord would have been successful in seeking possession and ultimately an order to evict, as these were decisions that the court would make, its failure to take appropriate action or identify the error that had been made at an earlier stage was a significant failing. This is particularly the case as the landlord was aware that this was a resident with vulnerabilities, who was regularly and proactively updating it on what was happening including a number of other situations where she felt that B had been continuing to harass her. Although the landlord made an offer of compensation of £250 in the stage two response this offer was inappropriate, as it failed to fully recognise the extent of its failings and resulting impact on the resident. It also misrepresented to the resident in February 2022 that it had followed its ASB policies and proceedings at the time, despite it being aware that it had not done this. Further the landlord’s stage two response failed to give the resident any assurance that it would address any future reporting by her of ASB appropriately, given what had happened in the past.
The landlord’s internal notes confirm that the circumstances of the assault were sufficient for it to have looked at seeking possession proceedings on B. Had it done so at the time, the resident would not have continuously had to pursue moving herself. In the end her move did not occur until significantly after the end of the landlord’s complaints process in January 2023, some two and a half years after the assault had taken place and some 18 months after B had been convicted of the assault.
The landlord had initially carried out an assessment to identify potential risks and to make decisions on how they could be managed. The landlord’s ASB procedure, whilst explaining that it considered cases involving violence to be the most serious type of ASB, did not specify if the resident could be referred for temporary accommodation, should staying in the property not be a viable option.
While the resident described feeling unsafe at times, there is no evidence that the landlord gave any consideration to any additional safety measures, for example a camera doorbell, additional locks, extra lighting, or temporary accommodation. Although it does appear a panic button was installed into the resident’s property, it is not clear whether this was undertaken by the landlord or by another party.
Following the resident’s initial concerns relating to the assault, she reported further concerns about B. These related to harassment and predominantly noise nuisance. In terms of the harassment the landlord had referred the resident to contact the police. In terms of the noise nuisance the landlord initially asked the resident to complete diary sheets. It also arranged to provide noise monitoring equipment to the resident. There was a delay in the landlord providing the noise monitoring equipment to the resident. This had been caused as the landlord only had a limited number of this type of equipment and so had been waiting for it to be available before it could provide it. There is no indication that the landlord attempted to delay providing it to the resident and it even offered it again to her. This had followed the first instance of using this proving inconclusive in determining if there was statutory evidence of noise nuisance caused by B.
On another occasion the resident had herself decided following notifying the landlord of issues with B, not to proceed further with her complaint following the earlier notification. The landlord could not be held accountable if the resident decided that she did not wish to pursue the matter any further, which she explained was for fear of retaliation. However the landlord should have taken the opportunity to reassure the resident that it would deal with any allegation of harassment and ASB and for her not to be worried about the fear of any backlash. There is no indication that it did this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property move.

Following the assault and the release of B back to her flat the landlord made it clear to the resident at this time that it did not have any other property within its stock which she could be moved to. The matter was impacted by the national lockdown in place as a result of the Covid–19 pandemic. This had placed restrictions on moves which were in place for residents and, following the easing of restrictions, landlords faced a lengthy backlog in terms of dealing with this issue. The resident’s recorded vulnerabilities had restricted any moves to a ground floor flat as she was noted as having difficulty coping with stairs.
Whilst the landlord stated it did not have scope to move the resident, even to temporary accommodation at the time, it did refer her to alternative options for moving including via the local council and also by means of looking at mutual exchanges. Whilst the resident did have a mutual exchange arranged, which fell through, this was not due to the actions of the landlord but concerns over what had been included in the rent.
Whilst the landlord did request a management move for the resident with effect from 15 December 2021, this was 18 months since the time of the assault and just under six months after B’s conviction for it. The landlord, in line with its management move procedure, should have placed the resident onto the waiting list at an earlier time, even if it did not have any alternative property available at that time, based on the threat of harm to the resident. In addition the resident was staying in a first floor flat and her recorded vulnerabilities and assessment following the assault noted an inability to navigate stairs. The landlord’s actions in December 2021 appeared to be reactive based on its failure to take action against B.
In addition to referring the resident to alternative means to secure a move the landlord also looked into the issue of contributing towards her moving costs. This was above what a landlord would be expected to do in terms of a move. The landlord had approached a number of different areas to secure an element of the moving costs. This had also involved it obtaining from the resident what proportion of the costs she could cover herself.
Whilst the resident’s move to another property via the local council fell through in 2022, this was not due to the landlord but based on the property being offered not being in keeping with the resident’s recorded banding following an assessment based on her vulnerabilities. The landlord had set out to the resident that should she be reassessed, as the resident explained the assessment had been carried out two years earlier at the time of the assault that it could affect her banding and therefore the time taken to get a property move.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that the process comprised three stages. Following the review stage if the resident remained dissatisfied then there was an appeal to the TEG which occurred prior to the referral to this Service.
However during the course of the resident’s complaint the landlord did not proceed with the appeals stage although the stage two response had offered this option to the resident. This was as the resident had not requested an appeal within the twenty-day limit required under the landlord’s policy and also as the resident had already contacted this Service prior to escalating the complaint to stage two.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out the requirements for landlords to allow them to respond to complaints fairly and effectively. This code explained that the complaints process for landlords should comprise two stages only, but that the Ombudsman would welcome involvement by residents or senior executives outside the complaints team as part of the review process. It added that if a landlord believed that a third complaints stage was necessary this should not have protracted the internal complaint process. In this case as the resident had already contacted this Service prior to the second stage this meant that the use of the third stage would have protracted the complaint and so it was appropriate to allow the resident to bypass this prior to this Service’s consideration of the complaint.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Whilst the landlord has provided details of most of its email communication as well as telephone notes with the resident it is clear that it asked the resident over sixteen months after the assault for copies of the emails she had sent to not only to one individual but to a number of its staff.
The landlord also failed to act on the information provided to it by the resident about B’s conviction. Whilst this information was known to it, the officer the resident had informed about the matter failed to record it and discuss the matter with the line manager.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s reporting about ASB and her request for a property move. This recording failure amounts to failing on the part of the landlord which would have caused the resident inconvenience as well as bringing back memories of the assault at a time when she was trying to get over the matter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s recording keeping.

Reasons

The landlord made a number of failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, some of which were cumulative in nature. This included a lack of liaison with the police, not recording key information about the assault on the resident’s file, and not progressing matters with B including looking at commencing possession proceedings. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot say without doubt that B would have been evicted had the landlord acted within the scope of the ASB procedures, the failings in this case did have a significant impact on the resident. The landlord recognised at stage two of its complaints process that the service provided had not met its standard and whilst it made an offer of compensation this was not sufficient for the distress and inconvenience which it had put the resident through. Even following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process there appeared to be no clear plan by the landlord in terms of managing the resident’s ongoing situation.
The landlord set out it was not in a position to offer a transfer from within its own stock. However it provided assistance to the resident to look at alternative ways for them to move. Whilst it eventually considered a management move for the resident in December 2021, it is unclear why the landlord did not undertake this option at an earlier stage, even after allowing for the Covid-19 pandemic and the national lockdowns which were in place.
The landlord did not protract the internal complaints process by insisting on the resident undertaking an appeal by TEG at stage three prior to referral of the resident’s complaint by this Service.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the lack of recorded notes of the email communication between the resident and the landlord’s staff following the assault and the conviction of B.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further £600. This is in addition to the £250 set out in the stage two response which it has previously paid to the resident in July 2022. This further amount comprises:
  1. £400 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s cumulative failings.
  2. £100 for its failure to request a management move for the resident prior to December 2021.
  3. £100 for the landlord’s failure in its record keeping.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has explained that its staff have taken further training to address ASB. It should ensure, if it has not already done so, that all reports are responded to in accordance with its policies and that serious incidents are addressed with appropriate speed and actions, such as warning letters and any tenancy action against the perpetrator.