The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Ashford Borough Council (202232468)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232468

Ashford Borough Council

12 March 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The suitability of temporary accommodation offered by the landlord and its management of the resident’s homelessness application.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
    3. The landlord’s management of the tenancy, including his reports of being at risk.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns his homeless application and the suitability of temporary accommodation. In accordance with paragraph 41 (d) of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme ‘The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.’ These areas of complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because these activities form part of the landlord’s function as a local authority. If the resident wishes to pursue these specific matters further, he will need to refer them to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) for consideration.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant from June 2020 of a flat owned by the landlord, a local authority. The landlord has no vulnerabilities or special measures recorded for the resident. However, the landlord was aware at the time of the complaint of a number of serious incidents that had taken place during the tenancy. It was aware these incidents had left the resident in potentially an ‘at risk’ situation.
  2. Between 20 April 2021 and 11 January 2023, the landlord completed repairs to the resident’s door following a break in and boarded a window. It also changed the door lock when a key snapped in the lock and remedied bathroom drainage issues. In this same period there were multiple occasions when the landlord was unable to obtain access to the property to complete repair resolution action. This included repairs to the windows, damp and mould inspection and treatment and alterations to the resident’s wet room.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 January 2023 regarding a gas service. He informed it he had not been living there and there were squatters in the property. The landlord attended the property with the police on 18 January 2023 and it found no sign of squatters. It completed a repair to the front door and contacted the resident, both on the same day. He said he had moved out of the area and was now living with family and friends. He said he had been attacked at his property and feared further attacks. He did not want to return to the property and agreed for the landlord to install security screens to secure the properties windows and doors. The resident reported the assault to the police the following day, following guidance from the landlord.
  4. Between 20 January and 1 March 2023 the resident refused to return to the property or the local area. The landlord advised the resident to present as homeless to another local authority. The landlord spoke with the other local authority explaining the circumstances and the obligations of a local authority.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 2 March 2023. As part of its complaint investigation, the landlord spoke with the police who confirmed the following:
    1. The police provided information about the resident’s arrest on 25 August 2022.
    2. The police provided details of the reported assault by 3 males on the resident at his property on 26 August 2022. It said the resident was not willing to cooperate with any investigation.
    3. The police also advised that the resident was not safe to remain in the local area.
  6. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 23 March 2023 as follows:
    1. It said it could not uphold the resident’s property as being “derelict”. It said it was unable to complete a number of repairs as it was unable to gain access to the property. It also said on one occasion the property was in too much of an unhygienic condition for it to access.
    2. It said it could not uphold that it failed to assist the resident with his housing needs or that it contributed to him being homeless. The resident told it he did not wish to live in the property or area anymore. It made attempts to contact him numerous times but was unsuccessful. It said it had offered him face to face appointments. It also provided information about what it had done to support him in obtaining housing in other local authority areas. It had offered him travel warrants and spoken to local authorities directly.
  7. Between 23 March and 16 June 2023, the landlord supported the resident in obtaining temporary accommodation on a number of occasions, both in the local area and elsewhere. It did this as a discretionary measure whilst the resident spoke with another local authority about housing. The resident was concerned for his safety in some of the temporary accommodation and was assaulted on one occasion. He spent some of this period sleeping in a tent.
  8. The resident indicated from 31 May 2023 he wished to return to his property. The landlord completed an inspection of the property with the resident’s consent on 8 June 2023. It found extensive work was required and said once it had met with the resident it would complete work in 2 to 3 weeks.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint on 5 July 2023. The landlord responded on 24 July 2023. It provided the following responses:
    1. It asked the resident to complete a disclaimer for it to dispose of items at his property with his consent, which he provided the same day.
    2. It had provided the resident with appropriate and timely advice about his housing needs. It recognised the serious incidents the resident had encountered and tried to ensure his housing application with another local authority was dealt with quickly and fairly.
    3. It was working hard to return the resident to his property. It explained it needed to complete window repairs, create a functioning kitchen and bathroom. It also said it needed to ensure the resident could access utility services.
    4. Temporary accommodation was provided to meet the resident’s basic needs. It understood it was not ideal, but found it was suitable for a temporary duration in an emergency.
  10. On 19 September 2023 the landlord responded to a further complaint from the resident. This was regarding the timescale to complete repairs. There is no evidence it completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. The resident moved back into the property on 10 October 2023.
  11. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 2 October 2023. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 3 November 2023 all outstanding repairs were complete.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

  1. The Ombudsman will not consider the complaint about any repairs in the resident’s property after the landlord’s final response of 24 July 2023. These are separate issues to the complaint raised through the landlord’s complaints policy. This is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to provide its final response to this aspect through its internal complaint procedure. This is in line with 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues, he will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, request escalation of the landlord’s complaint response of 19 September 2023. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  2. This also included the resident’s dissatisfaction with the length of time it took for the landlord to complete repairs at the property. It identified during its internal complaints procedure this was to take two to three weeks. It is appropriate that the eventual delay in completing these repairs is considered separately, as a new complaint. This is because further issues occurred following its initial assessment of works. The landlord did not have the opportunity to address these issues in the complaint under investigation here.
  3. As a local authority the landlord has obligations to prevent homelessness. In considering the landlord’s management of the tenancy the Ombudsman will not assess the landlord’s actions in respect of its homelessness obligations as this would be within the remit of the LGSCO. This assessment will consider only the landlord’s management of the resident’s existing tenancy with it, particularly in relation to his various reports that he was at risk. Assessment of certain aspects in this report, such as consideration of safeguarding may be relevant to both this Service and the LGSCO’s jurisdiction. These points have been considered in this report to ensure comprehensive findings.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

  1. The Occupancy Agreement confirms the landlord will carry out any repairs to the resident’s property under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is responsible for repairing the exterior and structure of the property. It will keep in proper working order supplies of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, central and water heating.
  2. The Repair Handbook confirms the landlord relies on the resident to report any faults “promptly and accurately.” It expects a resident to provide access to its contractors at the appointed time. This is to ensure repairs can be undertaken within its timescales. It categorises repairs as the following:
    1. Emergency repairs. They are something that could not be foreseen and could cause damage to health, safety, or cause issue to the property. Examples include loss of gas, electrical power, or heating. It will respond to such reports in 2 to 24 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs. Examples include insecure windows and partial loss of space or water heating. It will respond to such reports in 5 working days.
    3. Non-urgent routine repairs. They are repairs that can wait for a short time. It will respond to such reports within 28 days.
  3. In his complaint of 2 March 2023, the resident stated he had received “months of help with no repairs”. He described the property as “derelict”, with lots of black mould within and the shower often flooding. This Service has reviewed the repairs logs associated with the resident’s property.
  4. The resident reported break ins to his resident’s property on 20 April 2021 and 2 April 2022. He reported damage to his windows and doors making them unsafe. The landlord acted in accordance with its procedure and classified the reports as emergencies. On both occasions it completed repairs to make the doors and windows safe on the same day. This was also in accordance with its procedure of completing emergency repairs in 2 to 24 hours.
  5. Upon completing an inspection to the resident’s flat on 18 January 2023 the landlord discovered damage to the front door. This had not been reported by the resident. It treated this as an emergency and made the door safe on the same day in accordance with its procedure.
  6. On 12 June 2022 the resident reported his key was broken in the lock. The landlord replaced the broken lock on 13 June 2022.  On 20 July 2022 the resident reported he was unable to secure his front door. The landlord attended on 21 July 2022, but the resident informed it the issue was resolved. The landlord treated both reports as emergencies and attended within 24 hours in accordance with its procedure.
  7. The landlord raised the repair to reglaze the broken window (reported on 2 April 2022) on 4 April 2022. It attempted to complete from 14 May 2022. It treated this as a routine repair which was appropriate as it had previously boarded up the window on 2 April 2022. The landlord attempted an appropriate number of attempts to complete the repair before cancelling. It attempted attendance on 14, 17 and 19 May 2022. The resident provided it with a new telephone number on 15 July and said he would rebook the appointment, but there is no evidence of this. The landlord acted appropriately in offering further appointments to the resident for 27 July and 8 August 2022. There is no evidence of the resident contacting it following this to rearrange the repair.
  8. The resident reported a blocked shower drain on 12 July 2021. The landlord treated the report as urgent and completed a repair, removing a blockage on the same day. This met its procedure for responding to an urgent repair in 5 working days. The resident reported his shower was not draining again on 10 May 2022. The landlord appropriately treated the report as urgent. It attempted to contact the resident between 10 May and 22 July 2022. It took appropriate action to close the repair on 22 July 2022 as the resident failed to contact it. This included replying to voicemails it had left.
  9. The landlord determined drainage in the resident’s wet room would be resolved by levelling the flooring. It raised this on 8 August 2022. Its records show it sent letters and voicemails (on unknown dates) to the resident without reply. It arranged an appointment for 7 October 2022 but was unable to gain access to the property. There is no further evidence of the resident contacting the landlord about the issue.
  10. The landlord opened a job on 17 May 2022 to complete a mould inspection following a report from the resident. It treated the report as ‘routine’ which was appropriate as there was no immediate risk to the resident. It left a voicemail for the resident on 23 May 2022 offering him appointments to complete the inspection for 24 or 26 May 2022. The resident failed to respond to the offer of these appointments. The resident refused access on 18 July 2022 due to a “large dog he could not control” in the property. The landlord agreed for him to send photos of the issue instead. The landlord arranged appointments to treat the reported mould and check any appointments on 7 September, 7 October, and November 2022. All appointments were cancelled by the resident. He stated on 7 October the appointment was “inconvenient”. The landlord took the appropriate number of steps to complete the repair but was hindered by its inability to access the property.
  11. The landlord arranged to service the resident’s extractor fans on 8 August 2022. This may have had some impact on the growth of mould in the property, due to increased ventilation. The landlord booked an appointment on 12 August 2022 but was unable to gain access. It attempted further appointments on 26 and 30 August 2022 but there was no response. It acted appropriately in leaving a final voicemail on 1 September 2022 for him to contact it. It cancelled the repair on 3 November 2022 when there was no further contact from the resident.
  12. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 23 March 2023 surmised that it had not completed a number of repairs as it had not been able to gain access. This was an appropriate response which is in line with the findings of this report as above. The landlord offered no further resolution to any outstanding repairs issues in its 23 March 2023 complaint response. This was appropriate as at that point of its response, the resident had left the property and stated he had “no desire to return”.
  13. The landlord was made aware after its internal complaint’s procedure had concluded, that there were potential ‘cuckooing’ and ASB issues at the property. Had it been made aware of the issues at an earlier point its response will have likely been different. The repair issues may have been identified or resolved much sooner.
  14. In his escalation requests of 5 and 11 July 2023 the resident failed to raise further concerns about repairs or the landlord’s response about repairs on 23 March 2023. It was therefore the correct approach for the landlord not to provide a further response in its stage 2 response of 24 July 2023. There was no further evidence for it to provide a different decision than it had previously provided. Furthermore, in correspondence to this Service on 3 November 2023, the landlord confirmed all outstanding repairs were complete. This included the repairs to the windows and bathroom and treatment for mould.
  15. In summary the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord handled the reports of repairs to the resident’s property in a reasonable manner. It completed all repairs it was able to attend within a reasonable timescale, in accordance with its procedure. The landlord had significant difficulty in its attempts to arrange and complete appointments for other repairs reported by the resident. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord made sufficient attempts to contact the resident before cancelling any repair requests. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s tenancy, including his reports of being at risk.

  1. The landlord’s Safeguarding Policy states it will protect people’s right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect. Its reporting and recording procedure states if a person is at risk or immediate or significant harm the relevant emergency services should be contacted. If the risk is not significant or immediate it should be raised with a senior manager for safeguarding referral.
  2. The landlord’s ASB Policy states it applies a “victim-centred approach” and considers the impact on victims “crucial”. The landlord will work closely with the police regarding intimidation, harassment, and violence. It will report any crimes reported to it, to the police.

Response from the landlord

  1. In 2022 the resident was being supported by a third-party organisation. He told them he was being targeted by travellers and felt unsafe in his property and the area. The third-party organisation contacted the landlord about this on 10 May 2022. This was the first evidence this Service can find of the resident raising this. The landlord provided the resident with two options. Firstly: to approach another local authority as homeless if he wished to move outside the local area. Secondly: if he wished to remain in the local area it could arrange for this with help from the police. This was appropriate resolution focused advice from the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns. There is no evidence the resident took up this advice at this time.
  2. From 20 January 2023 the landlord was aware it had no obligation to support the resident with temporary accommodation in the local area but continued to support him, nonetheless. This was because the resident wished to leave the area under the landlord’s remit. There are many instances of the landlord using its discretion to provide the resident with temporary accommodation between 20 March and 2 August 2023. This was despite it having identified it had no duty to do so. The resident presented as vulnerable as it was aware that he was sleeping on the streets and was at risk. It took reasonable steps to exercise its discretion and house him for short periods.
  3. The landlord went on to explain to the resident in calls on 15 and 16 February 2023 if he continued not to occupy the property, he would breach his tenancy. It stated internally if he was not rehoused by another local authority, and he refused to return to the property it would serve a notice to quit (NTQ) and recover the property. The landlord never took this opportunity which was reasonable in the circumstances. It allowed the resident the opportunity to continue to engage with other local authorities in his attempts to be rehoused while also retaining his tenancy with the landlord should these attempts not prove successful.
  4. From 31 May 2023 the resident told the landlord he wished to return to his property. He said he would consider a “flat swap” once he returned. The landlord acted quickly confirming to his probation worker he had the “right to return home as a secure tenant”. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations explaining it needed to inspect the property and complete any necessary repairs before he could return.
  5. Once the landlord completed an inspection of the property it explained that extensive work was required; it also provided a timescale for completion. The landlord was delayed in completing repairs, however this forms part of a complaint that has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and has not been assessed here by consequence. The resident was able to return to the property by 10 October 2023. All outstanding repairs were complete between 11 October and 3 November 2023.
  6. The resident told the Ombudsman on 28 June 2023 he had been a victim of ‘cuckooing’ when previously in occupation. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on 3 November 2023 it had no evidence the resident reported this to it. This Service can also find no evidence of the resident reporting this. Had the landlord been made aware of these issues, it would have had the opportunity to proceed with appropriate processes, such as safeguarding.

Landlord engagement with responsible organisations.

  1. The landlord was aware the resident had engaged with the police following a break in on 20 April 2021 and also when he experienced damage to his windows and doors on 4 April 2022. It made the property safe on the same day on both occasions. It also took appropriate action in signposting him to the police when he reported he was “in fear for his life” on 10 May 2022.  It continued to engage with the police between July and September 2022 supporting the police’s attempts to help the resident.
  2. There is no evidence the resident reported the assault at his property in August 2022 to the landlord or police. The landlord had no opportunity therefore to support the resident on the matter. The landlord only became aware of this by chance when it contacted him about an unrelated matter on 12 January 2023. It arranged to attend the property with the police in the event there were squatters in the property. However, it found no evidence of this upon attending and made the property safe on the same day.
  3. There is evidence of the landlord engaging with the Probation Service (who were supporting the resident) throughout the complaint. It kept them informed of what action it was taking and provided advice about rehousing. The landlord also invited the Probation Service to relevant meetings for continued awareness. This was evidence that the landlord had a fair understanding of the resident’s issues and support network.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response broke down all its communication with the resident. It provided evidence it had provided sufficient communication and was actively supporting the resident in obtaining housing outside the local area. It was clear it was attempting to abide by the police report to keep the resident safe.
  2. The resident stated in his complaint of 2 March 2023 the landlord had refused to speak to him in person. He said it directed him to contact it by telephone or through its website. This Service has seen no evidence of this. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 23 March 2023 provided an appropriate amount of evidence of its contact with the resident. It provided sufficient information to show it was doing everything it could to support the resident’s attempts to secure housing outside the local area. It said it was unaware why a face-to-face meeting between it and the resident had not taken place. There is no further evidence regarding this. However, this is a minor issue taken against the level of communication evident from the landlord.
  3. The resident raised concerns in his escalation request of 5 July 2023 that he was being asked to sign a disclaimer. He said he already told the landlord he wished for everything in his property to be disposed of. The landlord provided an appropriate explanation on 24 July 2023 in response to his concerns, clarifying that it was required to obtain this signed disclaimer in order to proceed with the disposal of his goods. It also ensured that it obtained the relevant disclaimer from him on the same date.

Safeguarding

  1. The resident told the landlord in his verbal complaint escalation of 5 July 2023 he was feeling “suicidal every day”. This was in relation to the standard of temporary accommodation, which is not being assessed as part of this investigation. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord took any action in response to the resident’s reports of feeling suicidal however. In doing so it failed to enact its Safeguarding Policy, which states all the landlord’s staff members are responsible in enacting. In accordance with the policy, it should have contacted the emergency services if it felt the resident was in immediate danger. It should have made a referral to its safeguarding support if it felt there, was no immediate danger. Its failure to do either failed to treat the resident with respect and mitigate against any prospective danger he was in.
  2. On 11 July 2023 the resident told the landlord he had “breathing difficulties” which were “monitored by a GP and referred to a specialist”. In correspondence to this Service in November 2023 the landlord said the resident had no vulnerabilities. It is unclear if the landlord completed a risk assessment on the resident’s health from 11 July 2023. This would be particularly relevant as he had previously reported and would go on to report the presence of mould in his property. The landlord has since confirmed as of 3 November 2023, it has treated mould at the property.
  3. In summary the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the landlord’s tenancy management in what was clearly a highly complex case. This included the resident’s multiple reports that he was at risk. The resident confirmed he did not feel safe in the local area, and this was supported by the police. It engaged with the police and probation service on the matter. It exercised its discretion to provide temporary accommodation to the resident on a number of occasions when it had identified it had no duty to do so. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord treated the resident with respect; it took his claims seriously, exercised reasonable discretion to ensure that he retained his tenancy and that he had access to temporary accommodation, liaised appropriately with other agencies and worked with him to return his permanent property to a habitable condition.
  4. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to continue supporting the resident with his application for rehousing outside or inside the landlord’s remit, as appropriate. Another recommendation will however be made for the landlord to consider its approach when information about suicide is made to it. A further recommendation will be made for it to complete a risk assessment of the resident and his property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the suitability of temporary accommodation offered by the landlord and its management of the resident’s homelessness application, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management of the tenancy whilst the resident, including his  reports of being at risk.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its compliance with its Safeguarding Policy. It should ensure all its staff members are aware of the correct process to follow when it receives information about, or a threat of suicide. It should consider any further staff training as necessary.
  2. The landlord should complete a risk assessment of the resident and his property if it has not already done so. This is to establish any vulnerabilities, particularly with respiratory issues. The landlord should then take any further appropriate action as necessary.
  3. The landlord should speak with the resident to confirm what further action he wishes to take with rehousing. Should he wish to leave the area the landlord should continue to support the resident as much as appropriate with this. If the resident wishes to remain in the area within the landlord’s remit it should support him with this, as appropriate.