ForHousing Limited (202227888)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227888

ForHousing Limited

8 August 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of anti–social behaviour (ASB), including noise nuisance and threatening behaviour by a neighbour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management move.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident has stated they have dyslexia and find written communication difficult.
On 19 March 2024 the resident contacted this service to report their landlord was not responding to complaints they had made over the phone. We wrote to the landlord the following day (20 March 2024) to advise it was required to respond to the resident’s complaint. We explained the resident had told us their complaint was about:
1. How the landlord had dealt with reports of ASB.
2. Feeling unsafe in their property after a neighbour had threatened to kill them.
3. The suitability of properties the landlord had offered to the resident as part of their management move.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2024. It said:
1. It had opened 6 ASB cases since May 2021 in response to reports it had received from the resident. It explained the actions it had taken and why it had closed each case.
2. It had approved the resident for a management move in May 2023. It had offered the resident 3 properties, but the resident had declined all of them. Due to this, it had removed the resident from the management move list. It stated it had advised the resident about using the local authority’s choice based letting system and/or mutual exchange to find a suitable property.
3. On 5 March 2024 the police had told it that the resident had reported their neighbour had threatened them with a knife on 2 March 2024. It had recently become aware of further reports of threats to kill by the resident’s neighbour and that the police had released the neighbour on bail while the investigation was ongoing.
4. It would continue to liaise with the police about the ongoing criminal investigation. The outcome would inform any tenancy action it may take against the neighbour.
5. The police had made it aware that other tenants in the resident’s block had reported the resident for causing harassment. It advised it may need to speak to the resident further depending on the outcome of those investigations.
The resident contacted this service on 22 April 2024 to ask that we escalate their complaint to stage 2 on their behalf. We wrote to the landlord on the same day and advised that the resident was still unhappy with the action it had taken in response to the reports of threats by their neighbour. They also remained unhappy with the handling of their management move.
The landlord advised this service on 20 May 2024 that it had agreed an extension to the stage 2 process with the resident. It issued its final response on 4 June 2024. It said:
1. It had spoken to the resident to understand the outstanding concerns.
2. An executive management panel had reviewed the documents from the stage 1 complaint, information provided by the resident, and correspondence from senior management staff and the neighbourhoods team.
3. The review had concluded that the landlord had done everything possible to support the resident’s concerns within the complaint.
4. As the resident’s concerns about their neighbour was a criminal matter, it would act on action taken by the police and review its position after the criminal case was finished.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

In cases concerning ASB, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. The investigation is limited to considering the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to take specific actions against tenants.
The landlord has provided copies of the case files for the 6 ASB cases discussed within the stage 1 response. Having reviewed these files, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and that its actions were in line with its ASB policy. The handling of these reports was appropriate.
The landlord opened a new ASB case relating to the threats made against the resident by their neighbour. However, it did not do this until 25 April 2024 following a meeting between the landlord and the police. There has been no evidence provided to explain why the landlord did not open an ASB case when it originally became aware of the incident on 5 March 2024 or after the resident’s complaint on 20 March 2024.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that, where a resident is suffering violence (or the threat of it), it will meet with them within one working day and (where appropriate) take action against the perpetrator on the same day. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman can reasonably conclude the landlord met, or attempted to meet, with the resident within one working day of becoming aware of the threats made against them. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered whether it should take action against the alleged perpetrator. This was not appropriate.
While it is noted that the landlord did speak to the resident and the neighbour about the initial incident, there is no evidence the landlord did this as part of an ASB case.
Following the landlord becoming aware of the further incidents between the resident and their neighbour there is no evidence it considered opening an ASB case, promptly contacted the resident, or spoke to the neighbour again. This does not appear to be in line with its ASB policy and was therefore not appropriate.
There is evidence that the landlord contacted the resident after this service raised safeguarding concerns. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
The landlord has confirmed it did not do a risk assessment as the police were the lead agency in the criminal matter. It has also advised the resident that it would not be investigating the alleged ASB as it was the police’s responsibility to investigate and if the landlord were to intervene it would interfere with that investigation.
It is reasonable for a landlord to consider actions taken by other agencies when determining what action it may take under its own policies. However, it cannot defer responsibility to those other agencies. The role of the police is to investigate whether a criminal offence may have been committed. This is a different focus and level of required proof to determining whether a tenant has breached their contractual obligations to the landlord. The landlord also continues to have a responsibility of care towards its tenants and must be able to demonstrate it has taken reasonable steps to ensure their safety.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord, when made aware of the incident between the resident and their neighbour, to have opened an ASB case and progressed it in line with the ASB policy. It should have undertaken its own risk assessment and considered whether it was appropriate and/or necessary to take any immediate actions to safeguard the resident (or any other tenants). It should have kept the risk assessment and whether it needed to take action under review while investigations (both its own and the police’s criminal investigation) were taking place.
If the landlord had concerns that an internal investigation into the resident’s neighbour may have interfered with the criminal investigation it could have sought advice from the police to mitigate or prevent any such impact. There is no evidence it did this. The Ombudsman therefore does not consider the landlord’s position on it being unable to investigate was reasonable.
The landlord did not identify its failings or address these in its complaint responses. It did not offer any redress to the resident. This was not appropriate.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The resident has raised concerns about the landlord stating the police had told it that other tenants had reported the resident for harassment. While the Ombudsman appreciates this may have distressed the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to pass on this information to allow them to be aware of how others may have perceived their behaviour and, if necessary, make changes to how they were interacting with nearby tenants.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management move.

There is no dispute that the landlord approved the resident’s request for a management move. It was reasonable for the landlord to request up-to-date medical information when considering whether to approve the request.
There is also no dispute that the landlord offered the resident 3 alternative properties. Each of these properties appear to have been within the resident’s preferred location and were a suitable property type for their needs.
The landlord’s records indicate the resident refused the properties as they considered each one was too far away from public transport links and the hospitals they needed to attend. While the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s mobility difficulties, it must be acknowledged that there is currently a general lack of available social housing. There is no evidence the landlord had other more suitable properties available that it could have offered to the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to review the resident’s position on its management move list after they had refused the 3 offered properties. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 December 2023 to advise them of its decision and provide a copy of its frequently asked questions (FAQs) about management moves.
The landlord’s letter to the resident provided a clear explanation for its decision and advice about other methods the resident could use to look for a different property. The FAQs explained the landlord would now only be making one offer of alternative accommodation to anyone added to the management move list. It also explained that the resident could request a review of the decision to remove them from the list. This was reasonable information for the landlord to provide.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management move.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management move.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of his determination:
1. Review the resident’s reports of threats by their neighbour in line with its ASB policy. It is at the landlord’s discretion whether it opens a new ASB case to carry out the review or uses the existing case opened on 25 April 2024. It should maintain records to demonstrate it continues to handle the case in line with its policy.
2. Update the resident and Ombudsman with the outcome of the above review.
3. Pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
4. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset payments already made from the Ombudsman’s award. The landlord must make payments directly to the resident and not credit it to their rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.