Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202215495)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215495

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited

29 February 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 the resident’s application for rehousing.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by 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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for rehousing.

Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for rehousing is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
On 17 January 2022 the landlord issued a letter to the resident which informed her it had assessed her housing register application and had awarded banding criteria for overcrowding and having a child under 10 living in the property. This meant the resident was awarded the gold plus banding. She was eligible to bid on two bedroom properties and had been advised to place bids through a choice based lettings system.
On 20 January 2022 the resident submitted a health and disability assessment form to the landlord. On 8 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident and informed her it was unable to increase her banding on medical grounds as she did not meet the criteria for a higher banding.
On 2 August 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and made an enquiry about bidding for properties.
On 7 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked why a bid she had made for a two bedroom bungalow which was not in the restricted age category had been skipped. The landlord responded the same day and stated it was due to the advert stating preference would be given to applicants on the housing register and not to existing tenants. The resident was automatically skipped because she was an existing tenant and was on the transfer list.
On the same day the resident asked that her concerns regarding the handling of her application for rehousing were elevated to a complaint. This included being told by the landlord she could be waiting over two years, she had been told she was in the highest banding but had been made aware there was a higher banding called priority which the resident felt that was the band she should be awarded. She had bid on properties including bungalows and was skipped as they were properties reserved for those on the waiting list.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 12 October 2022.
This is not a complaint that this Service can investigate because this falls properly under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO considers complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. This includes applications for re housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf, which could include a housing association), and covers:
1. Assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
2. Operation of choice based lettings schemes and about the suitability of accommodation offered under those schemes.
As a result, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for rehousing is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It is open to the resident to submit her complaint to the LGSCO along with this report in support of the finding that the complaint is within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Background

The resident lived in a one bedroom flat located on the ground floor. The resident lived in the flat with a young family member who came to stay with her in December 2022.
The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the tenancy began on 24 February 2021.
The resident has informed this Service she has moved from the property and the landlord confirmed the tenancy ended on 28 December 2023.
The landlord has a two stage complaint process. At stage one a response would be within 10 working days and the resident would be contacted if there was any delay.
At stage two the complaint response will also be issued within 10 working days and will be investigated by a director.
The landlords anti social behaviour procedure states it will send an acknowledgement of a report of anti social behaviour within three working days. It will assess each case in line with its policies and procedures, will review a case every twenty days while the case is open, keep the resident informed throughout the process and will write to the resident when a case is being closed.
The anti social behaviour procedure also states mediation services will be offered if necessary and it is limited on actions it can take on anonymous complaints.

Summary of events

Between June 2021 and October 2021 the resident made reports of anti social behaviour regarding anti social behaviour form her neighbour. The landlords records show these reports were investigated and the case was closed on 1 November 2021.
On 2 August 2022 the resident told the landlord she was compiling a complaint about a drug dealer being placed next door to her.
The resident asked for her concerns regarding her application for rehousing to be elevated to a complaint on 7 September 2022. In this compliant the resident did not mention a complaint relating to her reports of anti social behaviour. The resident was informed by the landlord the same day a response would be issued by 21 September 2022.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 13 September 2022 to discuss the complaint. In addition to the resident’s complaint about rehousing, the landlord established the resident felt her neighbour was drug dealing and the issue was worsening. She advised the police had been out and the neighbour was a known drug dealer that had spent time in prison. She did not understand why the landlord would house a known drug dealer next to clean tenants and felt the landlord should do more to protect current tenants.
On the same day the landlord opened an anti social behaviour case file following the reports of anti social behaviour from the resident regarding her neighbour. The landlord contacted the resident and offered her an appointment at its offices as she wished to be anonymous.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 22 September 2022. The landlord stated it was sorry to hear the resident was experiencing issues with her neighbour and in terms of alleged drug dealing it had passed it to its communities team who would be in contact with the resident.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day and informed it she would be escalating her complaint to stage two.
The landlord’s records show that on 26 September 2022 it spoke to the police who confirmed no reports had been made regarding drug dealing from the neighbours property.
On 28 September 2022 the resident notified the landlord of her reasons for escalating her complaint to stage two. The resident informed the landlord that she was following up her complaint about her neighbour who was smoking cannabis and had accelerated to dealing to visitors some of whom were walking by her balcony windows, stared at times quite menacingly and tried to use her door bell to get access to the building.
The landlord acknowledged the stage two escalation request on 29 September 2022 and informed the resident it would issue the stage two response by 13 October 2022.
The resident attended the landlords offices on 6 October 2022 and said:
1. She had been informed that the next person to move into the other flat next door to her knew her other neighbour that she had reported for anti social behaviour.
2. The noise from the neighbour swearing and shouting was upsetting the young family member in her household.
3. She had seen the neighbour drug dealing and people were ringing her buzzer asking to be let in to the building to see the neighbour.
4. There were many arguments that happened with visitors over the balcony which was feet away from her flat.
5. She was happy to report to the landlord but did not want the neighbour to know she was reporting.
On 10 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and informed it that from third party information, the new tenant who was due to move in next door to her was an acquaintance of the other neighbour she had complained about. She stated that after her complaint which highlighted she already felt aggrieved, the problem may get worse. The resident said considering the landlord said it had hundreds of prospective tenants on the waiting list, who was authorising those people to be placed in the apartment block with law abiding tenants. The resident asked why they had been allocated ground floor accommodation when there were more deserving applicants needing a ground floor property. The resident asked for this information to be added to her stage two complaint.
On 11 October 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that screaming had been coming from the neighbour’s property and the police had attended.
The landlord responded to the resident on 14 October 2022 and confirmed it had been notified of the incident by another tenant and confirmed it was the landlord who had called the police.
The landlord’s records show that on the same day it notified the police of the reports it had received about the resident’s neighbour in the hope it could add to any existing intelligence the police already had on the property.
The landlord issued it’s stage two response on 12 October 2022. The landlord stated:
1. It had visited the resident and discussed her concerns about the neighbour. It understood the resident was working with a housing officer and it encouraged the resident to continue to report further concerns so it could take appropriate steps.
2. The landlord stated the resident was satisfied it was working with her to address her concerns regarding her neighbour.

Post Complaint

On 14 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and stated she felt drug dealing was still happening.
The landlord called the resident on 21 November 2022 for an update on her reports of anti social behaviour. The resident said she had witnessed shouting, swearing and arguing. The landlord followed this up with the neighbour.
On 12 December 2022 the landlords records show it rang the resident for an update of the anti social behaviour. The resident said there had been no further arguments with drug dealers but said the drug dealing seemed to be taking place in the carpark or would go to the neighbours door. The landlord advised the resident to report to Crimestoppers if she saw deals happening as they could build a case.
On 5 January 2023 the landlord issued a letter to the resident. The landlord said:
1. It had received further reports from other neighbours in the block about her neighbour but it had not heard from the resident since 12 December 2022.
2. It hoped the resident was still making reports to Crimestoppers.
3. Confirmed it was in contact with the police and meetings were scheduled but at present there was not a lot of calls made to the police to justify either a warrant or further action.
4. It was concerning as it had received further reports of antisocial behaviour that had escalated. The resident was advised to contact Social Services if she had any concern for children.
5. If it did not hear from the resident when it reviewed the case in one months time it would be duty bound to close down the resident’s side of the case if reports ceased but confirmed it would not be closing down the landlord’s side of the investigation.
On 9 January 2023 the landlord called the resident to ask her if she was okay. The landlord asked if the resident had reported anything to social services as it could not, as social services were stating it was hearsay, especially as the police had attended and not made any reports.
The resident said she had an officer of the landlord visit her who was no good. The landlord stated that her reports to it were logged, it was building a case and it was important that it gather as much evidence as possible. It tried to encourage the resident to ring social services.
The resident stated she was not going to offer any further information and she would pass her concerns over to her social worker that week. The resident stated the police needed to have had more presence, drug dealing was going on right under their noses and people were too frightened to report. The landlord told the resident it would close down her side of the anti social behaviour case but it was not going to close it’s case as it needed reports and it needed agencies to work with it. It asked the resident to think about it and to contact it if she wished to.
The landlord’s records show that on 9 January 2023 the landlord had put the resident’s anti social behaviour case on hold as it was aware the issue had not gone away and the resident was not willing to provide any reports as she was upset that the landlord had put the neighbour in the block of flats knowing his history.
On 18 January 2023 a letter was issued to the neighbour regarding the allegations made, the actions the landlord would take and what the neighbour should do.
On 7 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and asked for an update on how things were next door since other agencies had started to get involved. The resident responded the same day and said it had been a little quieter, but the neighbour still had many visitors at all times and there was drug smell.
On 8 February 2023 the landlord asked the resident if it was ok to share the information with other agencies and it would keep her identity anonymous. The resident agreed for the information to be shared.

Assessment and findings

The resident in her correspondence to the landlord asked about why the neighbour had been placed in the property originally and had also been reporting anti social behaviour to the landlord from at least 2021. The resident made a report of anti social behaviour in June 2021 that was closed in November 2021.
Under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman would not usually consider complaints that were not brought to a member landlord’s attention within six months of the matters arising. The resident’s complaint was made in September 2022. There was no evidence a formal complaint was made about the landlords handling of the anti social behaviour reports made in 2021 before the complaint made in September 2022. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour made as part of her complaint in September 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

From the evidence provided the resident was making reports of anti social behaviour to the landlord but wanted her reports to be classified as anonymous and for her neighbour not to know she was making the reports. As anonymity was important to the resident the landlord agreed to this, however this would have restricted some of the actions the landlord could have instigated to try and resolve the situation such as mediation.
Mediation would have required both parties to discuss the situation with each other, however this would have alerted the neighbour to the residents reports and this is something the resident did not want to happen. It is understandable therefore that the landlord did not offer this to the resident.
The landlord did advise the resident to make reports to Crimestoppers and there is evidence on file to show the landlord also made contact to the police following reports made to it from either the resident or other tenants of the block.
The lack of evidence would have made it difficult for the landlord to progress proceedings with the neighbour for breach of tenancy
The landlord has demonstrated it took what action it could by speaking to and issuing a letter to the neighbour regarding the anti social behaviour reported. The landlord has demonstrated it took appropriate action where it had the opportunity to do so. Whilst the evidence shows that the landlord had acted within the remits of its policy, this Service appreciates that it must have been disheartening for the resident to hear this.
The landlord has demonstrated it followed it’s anti social behaviour policy and processes as it kept in touch with the resident asking if there had been any updates, it provided suitable advice to the resident, took appropriate action itself when it had the opportunity to do so and notified the resident when it was considering closing the residents side of the case due to a reduction in reports being made by the resident.
Importantly though the landlord did state it was keeping the case open from it’s side. This was an important and appropriate response by the landlord as it demonstrated a willingness to keep the case open and try to reach a suitable conclusion.
The resident made her complaint at the time she made her latest reports of anti social behaviour. This meant it was difficult for the landlord to provide a substantial response to the anti social behaviour element of her complaint in either the stage one or the stage two responses due to the time scales between the complaint being made, the anti social behaviour case being opened and the complaint responses being issued.
The landlord’s stage one response acknowledged the residents anti social behaviour reports and stated it had been passed to the relevant team to deal with the reports. The stage two response explained the landlords actions were ongoing and for the resident to continue to keep reporting so it could take appropriate steps. The landlord has evidenced that post the stage two response being issued it continued to receive reports from the resident and took the actions where it could including attempting to liaise with the police and social services, eventually issuing letters to the neighbour.
The landlord has evidenced the actions and steps it took in response to the antisocial behaviour reported during the period considered in this investigation and these are considered by this Service to be appropriate actions taken. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of anti social behaviour reported by the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

Reasons

The landlord followed its anti social behaviour policy and procedures. It recorded the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour, signposted her to appropriate agencies and took action itself when it was in a position to do so.