A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202209837)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201837

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

8 September 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. Request to be rehoused.
This report will also consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident initially signed a 6-year fixed term tenancy which started in 2019 (with a probationary period). The probationary period was for 12 months unless extended, which has not been indicated in the information provided. This was converted in May 2022 to an assured lifetime tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom, second floor flat.
The resident has lumbago sciatica and vulnerabilities relating to her mental health. She has a diagnosis of prominent episodic anxiety and emotionally unstable personality disorder. She has 3 children, 1 of whom has been diagnosed with ADHD. The landlord was aware of this information.
The fixed term tenancy states there is no right to exchange during the probationary period of the tenancy, but after the probationary period has expired, there may be the right to exchange the premises subject to obtaining prior written consent from the landlord.
The landlord’s ASB policy identifies a victim centred approach, and where appropriate, the perspective of the victim will direct their investigation. It condemns all harassment, intimidation and threatening or violent behaviour. It may complete risk assessments and offer face to face meetings. It also states that:
1. it aims to respond to reports within 48 hours to take details and agree an action plan.
2. it will keep fortnightly contact with complainants in live ASB cases.
3. it will consider and arrange support for complainants where appropriate and possible.
4. if dissatisfied with its response to ASB complaints, residents have a right to request a review of their case by using the community trigger.
5. residents can make a complaint if the landlord has failed to follow its antisocial behaviour policy and procedure, or as a result provided them with an unsatisfactory service.
6. if considered vulnerable (including mental health), it will make referrals to support agencies and work in partnership with statutory and voluntary agencies and participate in case conferences with other professionals.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy confirms that residents with a starter tenancy, a probationary tenancy, or an assured shorthold fixed-term tenancy of less than 2 years do not have the right to exchange properties.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Complaints are to be acknowledged within 2 working days (unless taken by telephone). Stage 1 complaints will be answered within 10 working days. If the resident is not happy with the decision, then they can request this to be escalated (within a reasonable timescale) to stage 2. A response at stage 2 will be provided within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The information provided by the landlord includes 2 documents that appear to be ‘cut and paste’ details from emails sent by the resident. The ‘title’ section was missing; there is no date or addressee. This service was only able to establish which document was ‘the complaint’ as it specifically mentioned the resident wanting to move to a 3-bedroom property, which was detailed in the stage 1 response from the landlord.
According to the landlord’s ASB chronology, on 19 March 2021, the resident reported ASB from a neighbour. The notes state that the ASB case was closed as the resident did not want to disclose the identity of the perpetrators; therefore, the allegations could not be investigated further.
On 26 September 2021, reports of abusive/threatening behaviour from neighbours were reported to the landlord by the resident. According to the landlord, the allegations were from an incident 2 years ago. As no other incidents were reported at the time, the case was closed in December 2021.
The landlord confirmed in an email to this service on 7 August 2023 that a phone call had taken place with the resident on 28 September 2021. The resident confirmed that she was shouted at by a neighbour, and a cigarette was left outside her flat. The landlord said it would investigate and requested diary sheets and updates of any further allegations.
In the same email of 7 August 2023, the landlord advised that it had made a follow-up call to the resident on 19 October 2021, who advised that there had been no recent incidents. The landlord explained to the resident that it would be closing the case as the incident was from 2 years ago, and “if no new reports, there was no ASB.”
On 23 February 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord to find out why her Homeswapper application had been denied (Homeswapper is a national mutual exchange scheme which matches social housing tenants so they can swap properties). According to the landlord it redirected her email, and the account was authorised on the same day.
The landlord confirmed that on 23 March 2022, the resident submitted medical information. This was sent to its independent medical advisor for an assessment of medical priority for a management transfer. This was responded to on 28 March 2022 and seen by this service. No medical priority was awarded. According to the landlord’s notes a copy of the letter was sent to the resident 3 days later.
The medical assessment advised that:
1. overcrowding was not primarily a medical matter and “attracts its own priority”.
2. the threatening behaviour from the neighbours, whilst distressing, was not a medical problem and should be dealt with by the relevant authorities.
3. the medical information provided no details to “preclude some stairs” and therefore no compelling medical grounds to award a medical priority.
The resident called the landlord on 1 April 2022, to discuss a management transfer. According to the landlord there was no information on its system relating to a management transfer, and no incidents reported that could have warranted an application being processed.
The Ombudsman has seen the resident’s undated complaint email. The information provided indicates the email was sent in early April 2022. The complaint stated that the resident:
1. suffered daily threatening and abusive behaviour by a neighbour which had been reported to the landlord and the police.
2. had numerous mental and physical disabilities of which the landlord and the council were aware of
3. had written to the local member of parliament (MP) with emails and evidence over the years and was not being supported adequately.
4. was told by the local council to apply for a management transfer.
5. was pregnant with high-risk issues.
6. was entitled to help and support as the property she was living in was not suitable for her needs.
7. was in receipt of personal independence payment (PIP)
8. would obtain supported documentation to take matters further.
9. requested a move to a 3-bedroom ground floor property with minimal stairs.
On 12 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint via email. The acknowledgment advised that it would respond within 10 working days and that it would either provide a full resolution, or information on how it intended to progress the complaint with a plan of action to resolve the outstanding matters.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord responded at stage 1. This was within the landlord’s policy timescales. The response outlined the resident’s complaint and its decision. It said:
1. following “our chat” and what it had included in the response would help explain the action it had taken.
2. verbal abuse from a neighbour was reported in April 2021 and a case was opened, but the resident did not want to disclose who the perpetrators were. The case was closed as it was unable to investigate further.
3. abusive and threatening behaviour was reported in September 2021. The case was opened and closed in December 2021 as the reports were over 2 years old, and no further incidents had been reported.
4. although the resident stated that ASB from the neighbour was still occurring, the resident did not want to open another ASB case as this would make matters worse. The resident advised that the only way to resolve the issue was to move her.
5. the resident claimed that the property was not suitable due to medical conditions but the criteria for a management transfer was not met. Medical documents could be sent outlining medical conditions and why the property was not suitable, which would then be assessed.
6. the complaint was partially upheld due to the service failure in its delays in converting the tenancy to an assured tenancy. £50 compensation was offered.
The resident replied to the stage 1 response by email on 25 May 2022. She said:
1. the ASB from neighbours was not 2 years ago and had been ongoing for 2 and a half years, since moving in
2. the case was opened, and she disclosed who the perpetrators were, and it was “investigated for 2 months”.
3. she had not been in direct contact with these neighbours and had to constantly avoid them to prevent the situation escalating.
4. the last incident was a few weeks ago which was reported to the police and the landlord.
5. she had been advised to submit medical records for a change in banding to bid for a 2-bedroom property. She would only be eligible for a 3-bedroom property once the baby was 6 months old. She did not think this was right as she was having a high-risk pregnancy, had medical needs and mental health conditions.
6. she had missed 2 years opportunity to swap her home due to the backlog to convert her tenancy and was offered £50 compensation which she refused.
7. she had called the landlord on 13, 23 and 25 May 2022, she was advised to put her request for the complaint be escalated, in writing. In the interim she had not received any communication from the landlord about her complaint nor received any updates.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord advised this service that the delay in converting the tenancy to an assured tenancy was because there were approximately 3000 tenancies to convert. Due to the pandemic the landlord experienced some delays to its service delivery. It was unable to do mobile visits, which also contributed to the delay/backlog.
A stage 2 response was issued on 7 July 2022. The landlord apologised for not being able to resolve the issue so far and thanked the resident for allowing a few additional days for it to investigate and respond in full. It referred to:
1. the historic ASB concerns as detailed in paragraph 20 and recommended that the resident make contact again to discuss the current and ongoing ASB. It would then consider how it could support the resident in resolving the issue.
2. the assessment by the independent medical advisor in March 2022 had not awarded any priority. It advised that if there was any further information to be considered to submit it for assessment.
3. the resident had not applied for a management transfer as suggested in the stage 1 response and advised that she would not be transferred if she did not make an application.
4. it confirmed that if the resident applied for a transfer, she would be eligible for a 3-bedroom property.
5. apologised for the delay in converting the tenancy to an assured tenancy, and that the resident was not able to sign up for Homeswapper because of this. It assured that if this had been known, it would have prioritised converting the tenancy.
6. it agreed with the decision made at stage 1, that the complaint was partially upheld, as it had dealt with the reports of ASB as best as it could with the information provided but did not convert the tenancy as quickly as it could have.
7. compensation of £250 was offered. £100 for service failure and £150 for the length of time it took to convert the tenancy.
An email was received by this service on 10 August 2022, from an MP requesting an investigation of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. This was amalgamated with the original complaint acknowledged on 12 April 2022.
On 8 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord as she had been advised in the stage 2 response that she could apply for a 3-bedroom property and wanted to know how to apply. She also advised that she wanted help with childcare as promoted on its website. she had tried calling the landlord, but her calls were only being passed on and she had not had a response.
The resident registered on the internal transfer system with the landlord, according to its records. It advised that she wanted to move because she was overcrowded by 1 bedroom and was experiencing ASB.
An internal email from the landlord dated the 8 September 2022, stated that as the complaint had been closed there was nothing more that it could do for the resident. The landlord forwarded the email to a different team to request clarification as the resident was deemed a 2-bedroom housing need on the transfer list. This contradicted the stage 2 response which stated she could apply for a 3-bedroom property. It was confirmed 84 working days later that as the resident was over 28 weeks pregnant, she qualified for a 3-bedroom property.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It advised that the medical information provided by the resident could not be submitted to the independent medical advisor for assessment: it did not provide the detailed information required to substantiate a move on medical grounds. If she wanted to be considered for medical priority, she was to provide up to date correspondence from a medical practitioner confirming why her current medical conditions were being exacerbated by her housing situation. She needed to show how moving to a different property would alleviate the symptoms and the medical issues that she was experiencing.
The resident replied on the same day, stating that she had supplied medical information, and asked how the landlord was qualified to decide if the information was sufficient to be referred to a medical advisor. She advised that MRI scans were only performed every 5 years and that her only option would be to pay for a report.
The landlord responded on 27 October 2022, advising that the information submitted would not be enough to secure a medical priority banding and provided her with a document which would allow her doctors to understand the level of information required for assessment.
Between 8 December 2022 and 17 July 2023, this service wrote to the landlord at least 6 times requesting additional information with regards to the reports of ASB. To date, only a brief 6-point chronology has been provided, of which only 2 points referred to the ASB.
On 6 February 2023, the landlord advised this service that there were no vulnerabilities on record for the resident or anyone in her household.
A letter dated 15 June 2023, was sent to the resident from the landlord advising that she was not awarded a medical priority and a copy of the report was attached. It also advised that there was no appeal process, and that the landlord was governed by the independent medical advisor’s decision. The letter advised that if there was any change to her medical situation or it worsened in the future, she could send this information to the landlord for it to be considered. Alternative transfer systems and housing options were also listed.
In July 2023, this service spoke to the resident. She confirmed that:
1. she was still on the housing transfer list in Band C.
2. the bedroom requirement had changed back to a 2-bedroom need.
3. she had not been granted any medical priority.
4. the landlord had been in touch to discuss a possible reciprocal move.
5. whilst there had been ongoing harassment from the neighbours this had not been reported to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinions, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

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

On 19 March 2021, the resident reported ASB from a neighbour. The ASB case was closed according to the landlord, as the resident did not want to disclose the identity of the perpetrators. However, this was disputed by the resident as she advised that she had disclosed the alleged perpetrators details. Because the landlord failed to provide any corresponding records, the Ombudsman was unable to establish the correct version of events.
On 26 September 2021, reports of abusive/threatening behaviour from a neighbour were reported to the landlord by the resident. According to the landlord, the allegations were historic and as no other incidents were reported at the time, the case was closed in December 2021. The resident disputed this in her escalation request on 25 May 2022. She advised that the incidents did not happen 2 years ago and the ASB was still ongoing. Had full detailed notes been provided by the landlord, the correct timeline would have been evident, and discussions clarified.
The resident’s complaint in April 2022, refers to a recent incident when the police were called. This was mentioned again in the escalation request dated 25 May 2022, where she had contacted both the police and the landlord. In an email from the landlord dated 7 August 2023, it states that there is no record on its file of any allegations of ASB during this period. Due to the lack of comprehensive file notes provided from the landlord, this service was unable to establish what calls to the landlord were made, and when, and the reason for the contact. This made it difficult for this service to clarify a true version of events.
Despite this, the resident did mention these events in both the complaint and the escalation request in April and May 2022. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident or the police to establish what happened, nor other support agencies to assist and support the resident. This was not appropriate and contrary to the landlord’s ASB policy, which states it will contact the resident within 48 hours and supports multi agency working. As the resident was vulnerable, the policy states that it would make referrals to support agencies.
In all 3 reports of ASB, no evidence was provided to confirm the details of the reports, nor what conversations took place between the landlord and the resident. No letters acknowledging the reports or closing the case have been provided. There is no evidence of action plans being written, no risk assessments nor advice or support given to help the resident manage the situation.
In live cases, according to its ASB policy, the landlord is to keep in contact with the complainant fortnightly. It was confirmed that the ASB case in September 2021 was open for 2 months. However, there was no evidence provided to suggest that the landlord adhered to the fortnightly contact. This was not appropriate. The landlord did not comply with its own ASB policy or contact the resident to confirm the latest status of the ASB, to assess the resident’s support needs during the 2-month period. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she was not provided with an update of her case nor what the landlord’s intentions were.
Without the detailed file notes this service was unable to confirm exactly what the incidents were about, what would have been a reasonable assessment from the landlord, and the most appropriate support, interventions, and action the landlord should have put in place. This was not appropriate and does not adhere to the landlord’s ASB policy and procedures. The failure to do so created frustration, inconvenience, and distress for the resident, prompting her to make a complaint and seek alternative advice.
When the resident advised the landlord that the ASB issues were ongoing and that the police had been called, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to establish the current situation, the risks outstanding and offer any support or referrals necessary. It should also have contacted the police to review their thoughts and potential actions. The landlord failed to do this. This was not appropriate as the landlord would not have been able to assess the immediate risk to the resident nor the distress that it was causing. This was not compliant with its ASB policies and procedures. The landlord’s management of the situation was detrimental to the resident.
The stage 2 response recommends that the resident call the landlord to discuss the third and ongoing reports of ASB. This was not appropriate. The resident had already contacted the landlord to report the issues. Information should have already been recorded, an action plan drafted, and a risk assessment completed. This would have been in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure. The landlord’s poor record-keeping likely caused the resident additional inconvenience. This delay was not appropriate considering the resident’s health concerns and the disabilities within the family. This resulted in a lack of confidence in the landlord and a breakdown in the relationship between the landlord and the resident.
Whilst there have been further incidents of ASB, the resident has not reported them to the landlord. It is understood the resident declined to make additional ASB reports due to her previous experience.
There has been no evidence of any investigations being made, or remedies being sought by speaking to the resident or the alleged perpetrators. There was no offer of mediation or an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC’s) to de-escalate the ASB. There is no evidence of multi-agency working, bearing in mind the landlord was aware that the resident has a mental health support worker and the police had been informed. The landlord failed to follow its own policy and procedure with regards to the reports of ASB. This amounts to maladministration.

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

The resident raised a query with the landlord in February 2022, with regards to her application on Homeswapper not being activated. The landlord activated the account, but the resident was not eligible to join. The information provided by the landlord states that this was because she did not have an assured tenancy. However, the tenancy agreement does state that fixed term tenancies can exchange if there is more than 2 years left in the agreement, with permission from the landlord. The resident was not in her probationary period and had more than 2 years left on her fixed term tenancy (a 6 year tenancy which started in 2019). It was therefore unclear if it was Homeswapper’s criteria that did not allow the exchange or the landlord. Either way this caused additional distress and confusion to the resident.
Whilst the landlord decided to convert all its fixed term tenancies to lifetime assured tenancies, it had no legal obligation to do this. It did recognise that it could have converted the tenancy at an earlier stage but was delayed due to the volume of cases it had to convert, in conjunction with Covid restrictions at the time. An offer of £50 compensation was made due to the delay. This was reasonable bearing in mind the landlord had no obligation to convert the tenancies.
The landlord advised that the conversion of the tenancy would be completed by 13 May 2022. It was converted on 27 April 2022. In the stage 2 response, the landlord advised that if it had known that this would have prevented the resident from signing up with Homeswapper, it would have prioritised converting the tenancy. The resident first queried this issue on 23 February 2022, which was 44 working days previous. This postponement was not appropriate and created an additional delay in allowing the resident to look for a mutual exchange via Homeswapper.
The landlord offered an apology and compensation. The stage 1 response offered £50 due to its “slipped standards”. In its stage 2 decision the compensation offered increased to £250. This was proportioned at £150 for the delay in converting the tenancy agreement and £100 for the detriment and inconvenience caused to the resident. This was appropriate and proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
According to the resident, she had to contact the landlord on several occasions to establish why she could not register on Homeswapper. There was also confusion as to her bedroom entitlement, as she was initially registered for a 2-bedroom property and was told that the baby had to be 6 months old prior to counting for a bedroom.
The resident queried what size property she would be entitled to on 25 May 2022. An internal email from the landlord dated 6 July 2022, had to clarify the bedroom entitlement as it found the allocations policy “a little unclear”. The landlord confirmed on the same day, that as the pregnancy had passed 28 weeks, the resident would be a 3-bedroom housing need. This information was not passed back to the relevant team until 20 September 2022. This was not appropriate. It was 84 working days after the resident’s initial query. This was would have caused additional delays in the resident being able to bid for appropriately sized accommodation.
The lack of clarity in the landlord’s policy meant that the resident had to chase it to confirm her housing need, and to change the computer systems to reflect this accordingly. This caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. It also highlights the need for the allocations policy to be amended so that it reads clearly and concisely to allow staff members to interpret it accurately, ensuring that residents are assessed with the correct property size.
The resident also applied to move via an internal transfer due to being overcrowded and the ASB she was experiencing. Her application was approved on 8 September 2022. She was awarded a ‘Band C’ as she was overcrowded by 1 bedroom which is in accordance with the landlord’s allocations policy.
The resident submitted medical evidence on 23 March 2022, to be considered for medical priority, which was assessed by the landlord’s independent medical advisor on 28 March 2022. This was timely and appropriate. No medical priority was awarded.
The landlord advised that there was insufficient medical information provided to send to the independent medical examiner in October 2022. To assist the resident, it provided her with a copy of a letter to pass to her doctor to clarify the depth of information required. This was both helpful and appropriate.
Whilst the landlord’s notes state it sent a reply to the resident with regards to the independent medical advisor’s decision within 3 days, this letter was not evidenced. The resident was sent a letter on 15 June 2022, with regards to the independent medical advisor’s decision (which was seen by this service). This was 53 working days after the decision was made. This delay was not appropriate and would have caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience due to the waiting time and uncertainty. The letter did provide other options for moving which was appropriate.
The landlord followed its policies and procedures with regards to the management transfer and the mutual exchange process. Whilst it took an unreasonable amount of time to convert the tenancy, it apologised and offered proportionate compensation, which would have amounted to reasonable redress. However, the medical priority decision letter was not sent to the resident for 53 working days after it was received. It was also unclear of its allocations policy for a resident having a baby and took the landlord 84 working days to clarify its position on this issue. This caused additional distress, confusion, and inconvenience to the resident, leaving her chasing the landlord for decisions. This therefore amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Between November 2022 to date, this service sent the landlord at least 6 requests for further information with regards to the resident’s reports of ASB. No detailed evidence was received. This suggests that the landlord does not have sufficient records to provide. The information that the landlord sent was a 1 page ASB chronology with 6 points of which 2 related to ASB. This was not appropriate. The lack of evidence provided by the landlord hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation as it was unable to clarify timelines, or what was reported or discussed. It delayed the start of the investigation and therefore the decision to the resident. This would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that its members must abide by the terms of the scheme. As part of its obligation to the scheme, the member must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is relevant to the complaint. The member must provide the requested information within a reasonable timescale. The landlord failed to meet its obligations in providing the documentation or an explanation for its absence. This delayed this service’s investigation, which caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The information provided by the landlord included 2 ‘cut and paste’ documents that appeared to be emails from the resident. The documents had no ‘title’ section and so the addressee, subject title and date of the information was not available. This was not appropriate. It made it difficult to establish which document was the official complaint, and who the recipient was. This would have clarified its purpose and relevance. This could have led to important information being missed and the complaint not being dealt with thoroughly. This in turn would have had a negative impact on the resident creating further distress and inconvenience to her.
On 6 February 2023, the landlord advised this service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her family. This was not appropriate. The resident was requesting a management transfer from her property due to her medical needs based on her mental health and her physical disabilities. Her child was also diagnosed with ADHD of which the landlord was made aware of. The timeline shows the resident signposted the landlord to her vulnerabilities within her transfer request and the impact the ASB was having on her mental health. She also submitted at least 4 medical letters to support this. Further, it should have been aware of the vulnerabilities from the beginning of the resident’s formal complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) repeatedly found that resident’s vulnerabilities had not been appropriately recorded, despite the landlord being advised repeatedly and the procedures stating explicitly that vulnerabilities would form part of the decision making process. In the absence of that information, wrong decisions were made, those most in need were not prioritised and residents were treated insensitively.
An order has been made in relation to this to ensure that both temporary and permanent vulnerabilities are recognised, recorded, and removed from records, if necessary, once no longer appropriate. Resident information and personal characteristics change on a regular basis and records should be appropriately reviewed to ensure that the landlord continues to know its residents.
The landlord sent to this service, a chronology of the resident’s ASB reports. However, missing from the list was the latest incident of ASB which was reported to the landlord and the police in May 2022. This was not appropriate. Failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributed to inadequate communication and redress.
The stage 1 response from the landlord dated 22 April 2022, referred to “our chat” which it had with the resident. No record of this discussion was provided to this service. This suggests that if was not recorded. This was not appropriate as the details of this conversation may have assisted in clarifying information and investigating this complaint.
This lack of documentation, evidence and correspondence was inappropriate. The evidence shows the landlord’s poor record keeping was not limited to its ASB operations. The landlord failed to keep adequate and up to date information and was therefore unable to evidence how it had used its discretion in applying relevant procedures. Without the key complaint evidence, it proved difficult for this service to understand exactly what happened. Assessing the case in these circumstances was unreasonably difficult. This amounts to severe maladministration with regards to the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

No evidence was provided to confirm that the landlord followed its policy and procedures with regards to the ASB complaints. There was no evidence of any investigations being made, no action plans, or risk assessments being carried out. The landlord failed to contact the resident on a fortnightly basis when the cases were live. No interventions were used such as mediation or ABC’s to de-escalate the ASB. There is no evidence of any multi-agency working.
The landlord followed its policies and procedures with regards to the management transfer and the mutual exchange processes. Whilst it took an unreasonable amount of time to convert the tenancy, it apologised and offered proportionate compensation. However, it failed to convert the tenancy in a timely manner when the resident first queried the issue as this was completed 44 working days later. The medical priority decision letter was not sent to the resident for 53 working days after it was received. The landlord was also unclear of its own allocations policy applicable for a pregnant resident and took 84 working days to clarify this.
From the limited information provided by the landlord, significant information was incorrect or missing. The landlord failed to keep adequate and up to date information and was therefore unable to provide evidence as to how it had used its discretion in applying relevant procedures. Without the key complaint evidence, it proved almost impossible for this service to understand the full details of events. Assessing the case in these circumstances was unreasonably difficult.

Orders

A senior manager is to issue the resident with a written apology within 4 weeks. It should recognise the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the letter.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1050 in compensation within 4 weeks. This includes the £300 previously offered, which should be deducted if already paid. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears if accrued. The compensation comprises:
1. £800 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified failures in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
The landlord is ordered within 6 weeks of the date of this report, to review this complaint and provide a report of its findings. The review is to be completed by a senior manager and should consider:
1. the landlord’s processes and procedures for responding to reports of ASB
2. the landlord’s processes and procedures for recording vulnerable residents and identifying them at an early stage and how best to review this information during the tenancy lifespan.
3. provide appropriate staff training with regards to its ASB policy and procedure with a refresher course on a yearly basis
4. appropriate staff training with regards to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report KIM, in conjunction with its own processes and procedures it has in place for record keeping.
5. identifying its failures and how they could have been prevented if the current procedures had been followed. If any gaps in the current policy and procedures are found, then to update them within 2 months to incorporate in its findings.
The landlord to review its allocation policy to ensure the correct and consistent information is held with regards to pregnant residents and their entitlement.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance and confirm its intentions with regards to the orders within 4 weeks.