Camden Council (202120601)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120601

Camden Council

29 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in the building and on the estate.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of redecoration required following damage during the installation of a grab rail at her current property and reports of discrimination.
3. The resident’s report of the condition of her previous property prior to her decant in 2016.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant in 2016 and the resident’s report of discrimination at this time.
5. The resident’s report concerning the landlord’s consideration of a home loss payment and disturbance payment following the decant in 2016.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing under the local authority’s housing allocations policy.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(b), 42(c), 42(g) and 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The resident’s report of the condition of her previous property prior to her decant in 2016.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant in 2016 and the resident’s report of discrimination at this time.
3. The resident’s report concerning the landlord’s consideration of a home loss payment following the decant in 2016.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing under the local authority’s housing allocations policy.
Paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. The resident’s report of the condition of her previous property prior to her decant in 2016 was brought to the Ombudsman’s attention in 2021 which was more than 12 months after exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints process.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant in 2016 and the resident’s report of discrimination at this time, was not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint until 2021.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident’s report of the landlord’s consideration of a home loss payment following the decant in 2016 is pursuant to the Land Compensation Act 1973. As this is a legislative matter, the resident may wish to pursue legal advice, for example, from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau or Shelter.
The resident has reported issues of discrimination and may also wish to seek further legal advice with regard to the provisions contained within the Equality Act 2010 pertaining to discrimination against persons with protected characteristics described within this Act.
The resident has mentioned the amount of disturbance payment offered and may wish to refer this to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) who consider disputes concerning the amount of disturbance payment offered.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. A local authority’s housing allocations policy falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO deal with complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996, Part 6, i.e. applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria. This can include complaints about:
1. The assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
2. The operation of choice based lettings schemes and about the suitability of accommodation offered under those schemes.
The resident may wish to refer the aspect of her complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of her housing application to the LGSCO. Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord has since agreed to offer the resident a direct offer of accommodation. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of any direct offer, then she may wish to raise a further complaint concerning this matter to her landlord.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and her tenancy commenced on 23 May 2016. The property is a three bedroom flat located on the fourth floor of a purpose built block with a lift.
The resident is required to pay the rent and to grant access for “inspections and repairs” to the property with “reasonable notice except in the case of an emergency, such as a burst water pipe”.
The landlord has advised this Service that the resident and her children are reported as being on the autistic spectrum. One child is described as having chronic asthma. The resident is a wheelchair user. The resident lives with her partner and has five children, three of which are under ten years old.
The landlord’s essential repairs procedure details the landlord’s approach to the decant process. A decant will be provided if a resident is required to move out of their property primarily for periods longer than two weeks. It states that the “housing officer will find a suitable temporary home”. However, if the decant is for a longer period the resident is required to use the local authority’s choice based lettings scheme to bid on properties. The landlord will pay a “flat rate” disturbance payment of £330, along with “other removal costs such as phone reconnection costs upon the production of receipts”. It may pay additional costs such as removal contractor fees, storage and redirection of mail. For “essential repair transfer cases” a resident is “entitled to a maximum of three reasonable direct offers”. The landlord has a leaflet regarding statutory home loss and disturbance payments that entitles qualifying tenants to a “one-off statutory home loss payment of £6,100”.
The landlord’s obligations for repairing under the terms of the tenancy agreement are set out in its repairs policy. The landlord is responsible for repairing the external structure such as “doors and windows”, “rainwater goods”, “roof repairs, repairing brickwork, damp-proof work” and “repairs and maintenance of gullies and drains”, the “walls and floors” (excluding “internal decoration), the “communal and shared areas”, and the “heating, hot water, electrical and plumbing”. This is in line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of repairing responsibilities. No timescales are provided within its policy and as such for the purpose of this investigation a timescale of 20 working days is considered reasonable for routine repairs.
The resident requested reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Reasonable adjustments can be made under Sections 20(3) and 20(5). A reasonable adjustment can be changes to a “provision, criterion or practice”, for example, policies and practices that “puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to the relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. At the time the complaint was made its policy outlined that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within two working days. It will respond at stage one within ten working days (this may be extended to 20 working days in complex adult or children social care cases). It will respond at stage two within 25 working days (this may be extended to 65 working days in complex adult or children social care cases). It will not accept cases unless the complaint is submitted “within 12 months after the date of the incident”. The landlord has since updated its policy and the current policy 2023 alters the response time for stage two to bring this in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Code.
The landlord’s remedies policy sets out its approach to compensation which it states is based on the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It will consider:
1. £25 per month for “failure to provide a service”.
2. £100 – £300 (“Severe and prolonged up to £1,000”) for “distress”.
3. £100 – £300 for “time and trouble”.
4. £20 per month for “delay”.
5. £150 – £350 per month for “unsuitable accommodation”.
6. Up to £500 for “risk of harm”.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy and procedures detail:
1. It operates a “community trigger” that residents can use to report antisocial behaviour where the “same antisocial behaviour” has been reported “three times in the last six months” and it is considered that “no action has been taken”.
2. The trigger may be used if “five individuals have separately reported about the same issue in the last six months”. It “enables victims of antisocial behaviour and hate incidents the right to ask agencies to review how previous reports have been responded to and consider what further actions may be taken where the behaviour persists”.
3. If the application for a community trigger meets the “criteria then the council, police and other agencies involved will undertake a case review”. A resident will be contacted to “discuss and explain the next steps that will be taken with appropriate partner agencies”.
4. Residents “must not do anything in your flat, building (or on an estate) which could cause nuisance, annoyance or damage to other residents or the council”. This including using a property for “illegal or immoral purposes”.
5. If a resident is “suffering harassment or nuisance” then they should contact their “neighbourhood housing team”.
6. Antisocial behaviour should be reported to the landlord’s community safety team. It advises that “any behaviour that makes you feel unsafe or you fell may make others unsafe” can be reported including: “drug related ASB (drug use, dealing); youth related ASB; threatening behaviour; verbal and physical threats and abuse; vandalism and property damage; using a property to sell drugs or for any other illegal activity; harassment including incidents based on race, gender, religion, disability, or sexual orientation”.
7. If ASB is happening “on council estates between 4.00 pm and 4.00 am” the landlord operates a “responsive security patrol” for which a number is provided.
8. When ASB is reported, a resident “should receive an email from us with details of the action taken and a reference number that you can use in future communications”. It “may consult with partners such as the Police, adult social care or the youth offending service. It will “keep in regular contact with you and keep you informed of what we are doing to resolve the problem”.
The resident has mentioned both to the landlord and this Service the effects of the issues referred to in her complaint have had on her health. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident has health issues described. Unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. However, this Service can take into account avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble resulting from a landlord’s service failure.
The resident had made a prior reports concerning antisocial behaviour in 2017 and 2019. She had also made a formal complaint concerning antisocial behaviour on 22 May 2020 which pre dates her formal complaint of 26 July 2021. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, for the purpose of this investigation the timescale considered is six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to her landlord of 26 July 2021. As referred to above, paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 8 July 2021 with medical information regarding a request for rehousing. She also at this time asked for reasonable adjustments to be made. In particular she requested “keeping communication/language clear/giving me time to process information”, and also “clear time frames and information that we have discussed to be followed up in an email”. The landlord’s records detail that it phoned the resident on 8 July 2021. This concerned the resident’s request for rehousing and it states that it asked the resident to update her application. It did not give any detail regarding the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
The landlord’s records detail that the resident called in on 8 July 2021 “as she had received no response to calls/emails. She wished to enquiry about the home loss payment from her move in 2016. It details that “this has not been registered as a formal complaint”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 July 2021 concerning antisocial behaviour with regard to “people smoking in communal areas and smoke leakage into our flat through vents and the electrical box”. She advised that she had previously been told by the landlord in response to earlier complaints that “nothing could be done about it and we had mediation with our downstairs neighbour which temporarily helped”. However, the situation had deteriorated since lockdown. The resident advised that this was impacting on her health. She enquired about “my housing complaint”. It is not clear whether this was referring to an earlier formal complaint. She advised she would be updating her housing application to reflect her family’s needs.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 July 2021 with regard to the issue of the neighbour smoking in the communal area to request details of the address so that it could “contact them about the smoking in the communal area”. The resident replied to the email on the same day to advise that she was unaware of who it was “as there are multiple people doing it”. The resident also advised that she had received support “in writing a formal complaint”.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint by email on 26 July 2021. In this she detailed:
1. A history from 2005 to 2016 concerning the resident’s housing situation, overcrowding and medical needs.
2. Details of the condition of her previous address and the decant process from 2016 that she had outlined in a previous complaint at that time. She advised that her landlord had moved her into inappropriate/overcrowded accommodation at that time. She asked for “an appropriate direct offer”.
3. She advised of the unsuitability of her current property and that due to her mobility issues “when the lift is broken I am housebound”. As the hallways and the lift are “not wide enough for my wheelchair” she is housebound when “my mobility is bad”. She advised of her son’s autism and “climbing/opening doors/windows/escaping from the house/running up and down communal stairways”. She stated that the landlord’s housing officer had “agreed it was not safe for him to live in a flat with open communal balconies on the fourth floor”.
4. She advised of “chronic antisocial behaviour on the estate” including:
  1. “Gang violence”, including a “murder of a teen outside our building with a samurai sword and last month a machete fight where the whole road was closed down by armed police”.
  2. Issues of “smoking of cigarettes/weed in communal areas resulting in our house filling with smoke”. The Council had organised “successful mediation with neighbours”. It had “replaced missing no smoking signs”. Smoking was happening daily “from as early as 5.30 am”.
  3. Reports of “large parties/gatherings held in the car park/playground by residents/non-residents”. She advised that “they scream/shout/fight/drinking and drug use”. She advised that “they play loud music”. She had “multiple crime reference numbers and have made complaints to the council and police on many occasions”.
  4. “Deliberate loud banging on our ceiling at my son’s autistic melt downs”. She advised that due to the lockdown “they have been having all night weekend parties”.
  5. She advised that video evidence and crime numbers could be provided on request.
5. She complained of “poor caretaking on estate”. She advised of “poorly maintained communal bin cutes” (sic).
6. She advised that she had not been “told of the disturbance payment or statutory home loss payment” which she believed she was entitled to.
7. She advised of “extremely poor communication putting me at deliberate and significant disadvantage due to my autism”. She referred to the “lack of reasonable adjustments, not returning calls/emails throughout the moving process” in 2016.
8. She wished for “someone to contact me asap to agree reasonable adjustments to be followed”. She alleged that she had “been repeatedly discriminated against as a protected category in line with the Equality Act 2010”. She wished for compensation to be paid and the policy to be “refreshed for working with autistic adults in the housing department”.
The landlord’s records detail that the complaint was passed to relevant officers on 26 July 2021. The resident phoned the landlord on the same day to say she had not been contacted. The landlord chased up a response internally and in an email of 28 July 2021 it advised that the neighbourhood housing officer had “been in regular contact” with the resident.
An internal email sent on 3 August 2021 advised that the resident had “contacted the complaints team late on Friday afternoon asking for this email to be logged as a formal complaint”. It advised that it would “send the resident an acknowledgement shortly”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 August 2021 regarding damage to her hallway following work that was undertaken to install grab rails in 2019. In this she advised that she was “very disappointed that you have decided against honouring my requests for reasonable adjustments for my autism”. She advised that “a gentleman from the council knocked on my front door unannounced” and this “did not give me a chance to prepare myself for such a visit”. He had taken some photographs of “damage to my wall”. He had asked if the resident wished to have the “single wall where the damage was to be repainted”, however, this was not acceptable. The landlord had “fully repaired and repainted” the “other two rooms”. She had spent “over £2000 decorating my house only a few months before your workman carelessly drilled through three separate rooms”. She further advised that the works had been agreed by the landlord. She requested that the landlord repainted the hallway and for the reasonable adjustments to be adhered to.
The resident raised a separate stage one complaint on 13 August 2021. In this she detailed:
1. That on 6 February 2019 “a repair man came to install grab rails in my toilet and bathroom and drilled straight through to the other side of three separate walls”. This was through to “two separate bedrooms and the hallway”. She had “immediately contacted repairs and they sent the repairs man back to verify the damage as he was denying it had happened”.
2. She states that the landlord had apologised and “offered to carry out the complete redecoration of all three rooms”. It arranged for a plaster to “fix the damage, and then a painter and decorator to complete the agreed work”.
3. The contractor completed “two of the three rooms in 2019 and refused to do the hallway as he said that he didn’t want to move my freezer”. She advised that the landlord had promised to “move my freezer and promised to get back to me with a new date”. The date was not forthcoming and then “the pandemic hit”.
4. The resident waited “until things died down before contacting” which she did “early 2021”. The resident advised that it had been agreed to “sort out the hallway” and that the landlord would “move the freezer with no problems” due to the resident’s disability.
5. She had not had a date confirmed and that the landlord’s “last email communication to me was on 29 July 2021”. In this the resident was asked to provide “pictures of the damage”. She advised that she had requested the landlord to make reasonable adjustments and in particular:
  1. “all verbal communication to be confirmed via a receipt email stating you have received my communication and how long it will take you to respond (if you can’t give an immediate direct response)”.
  2. For a “receipt email stating you have received my communication and how long it will take you to respond (if you can’t give an immediate direct response”, for “accurate time frames and if they cannot be followed I will need email notification of extended timeframes” and “clear accurate language used as I can interpret communication literally”.
  3. She advised that “the initial basic reasonable adjustment I will require will be responses to my communications within a reasonable time and if you are unable to get back to me on something please send an email stating this (i.e. say you have received my email and you will get back to me in said timeframe). Please also follow up all conversations with me with minutes of what was spoken about via email”.
6. She advised that the landlord had sent someone round to “take pictures unannounced”. She was therefore unable to prepare for this visit. She advised that the landlord failed to take account of the reasonable adjustments required and that it had been “inappropriate to arrange for someone to show up at my house uninvited, and that this was now deliberate discrimination”. She requested the hallway to be redecorated and for compensation due to the “disability discrimination and for the sheer inconvenience and heart ache this whole situation has caused me”.
7. She advised that the only positive aspect was that her housing officer had “acted to the best of his understanding/capabilities to accommodate my request for reasonable adjustments, and has provided truthful communication and kept his word in contacting me when he said he would”.
The landlord sent its stage one response to the resident’s complaint of 26 July 2021 on 20 August 2021. In this it detailed:
1. An apology for the “long delay in responding” to the resident’s complaint.
2. It understood that the resident’s complaint was about “the history of your housing situation and disability discrimination you feel you’ve suffered”. It referred to the resident advising that she had not received a response to the original complaint. It was answering this complaint by “looking at your required outcomes you have requested”.
3. It advised of the situation regarding the availability of five bed properties in the areas and that when a property becomes void, it will be checked to see if it might be suitable for adaptation or for an extra bedroom. It was unable to consider a “direct offer” and suggested that the resident could pursue “a mutual exchange via home swappers” or consider “applying for a move via housing moves (which is a cross London mobility scheme)”. It would consider any medical evidence that the resident would submit.
4. It advised that its “housing officer will continue to work with you and provide support with your housing queries”. It was “glad to read that you feel he has already made positive adjustments to how you work together”. The housing officer would make contact “on his return to the office from leave”.
5. It did not believe that “there has been a breach of the Equality Act of 2010”. It advised that it had “responded to you in accordance to our allocations scheme and recognised you had a disability as part of this”. It advised that the “points allocation scheme is in place to ensure that all applications are considered in the same manner and are treated equally”. It had forwarded the resident’s suggestion of a “policy refresh for working with autistic adults” to its service development team.
6. It advised that its “essential repairs guidance states that a flat rate disturbance payment of £330 should be paid to residents who move permanently to a new tenancy”. It had seen that this payment had not been made for which an apology was given. It asked for the resident’s details to make this payment.
7. In response to the resident’s “initial basic reasonable adjustment” where she required “responses to my communications within a reasonable time” it apologised for the “delay in responding to your complaint”. It provided an email when it was unable to “meet the complaint deadline, but this was later than it should have been”. It advised that it could “agree in the neighbourhood team to follow up your telephone conversations with us with an email outlining the discussion”.
8. It awarded £300 compensation in recognition of the “long delay in issuing your disturbance payment”. It had upheld the complaint. This award was in recognition of the “time and trouble this has caused you”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 September 2021 with regard to redecoration following the installation of grab rails. The landlord advised in connection with the unannounced visit to the resident, that the “actions of the repairs supervisor were taken” following an email sent in July 2021. It apologised that it had not updated the resident prior to this. It had taken the decision in 2019 to “redecorate the two bedrooms and hallway”. It confirmed that two bedrooms were decorated at that time and that a “new order was to be raised” with regard to the hallway. It advised that it was aware that the resident had contacted regarding the matter in July 2021. It agreed after discussion with a team leader, manager and head of service that it could make an offer of a decorating voucher of £75 for the resident to decorate the hallway herself. Alternatively, the resident could “direct us to the relevant paint type/supplier”. It would then arrange to “redecorate the affected area in the hallway only”. It could “colour-match the paint and we will then redecorate the affected area in the hallway only”. It apologised for the delay in updating the resident. It advised that the offer to redecorate at the time was made as a ”goodwill gesture” as “internal decorations are a tenants responsibility”. It advised that the resident could submit a complaint if she felt that was appropriate.
The resident sent her landlord an escalation request on 2 September 2021. In this she advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response timescale in that she sent her initial complaint on 26 July 2021. She advised that she had phoned the landlord to request an acknowledgement of her complaint which had taken “ten working days” to acknowledge and provide a reference number. She then detailed:
1. Further communication issues with the landlord allegedly not returning her calls. She advised that she had tried to contact the landlord “multiple times” and that she had been “deliberately ignored”. She outlined the frequency of her calls and messages that had been left between 2 July 2021 and 26 July 2021 when her formal complaint had been made. She had then contacted this Service on 18 August 2021. This Service advised that it would chase up a response with the landlord. It was after this that she received a confirmation of the complaint on 19 August 2021 and an apology for the “delay in responding”. She advised of a “lack of follow through” which had put her at “a distinct disadvantage and causes me severe anxiety”.
2. She referred to the landlord’s response concerning rehousing and made allegations of a violation of “human rights”. She questioned the landlord’s response regarding not providing a “direct offer” and advised that moving out of the area would be inappropriate due to the needs of specialist provision which would mean “moving five children to new autism appropriate schools with five available places”. She advised of the difficulty of the mutual exchange option due to her additional needs and that this “requires a large amount of adequate social communication”.
3. She was “pleased to see that the disturbance payment will be honoured” though she was “yet to discuss the entirety of the expenses I have incurred as a result of moving house”. She also advised that there was “no mention of the statutory housing loss payment”.
4. She refused the gesture of £300 and would “await a more appropriate offer as is in line with the amount of work me and my carer have had to put into chasing staff unnecessarily”. She referred to the “hourly wage of the carer when making this offer as the number of hours could have been greatly reduced had the reasonable adjustments been carried out”. The resident stated that it had taken “45+ hours to write the original complaint, then each email that has been sent/all the phone calls and admin of having to keep a timeline and now also this second stage response”.
5. She requested “a proper and thorough investigation of all sections of my original complaint”, she wished for “reasonable adjustments” to be made and for a “meeting/phone call to discuss the statutory home loss/disturbance payments”, a more “appropriate offer of compensation” and an “overhaul” of the landlord’s approach to supporting “disabled tenants to achieve equality for all tenants”.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 15 September 2021 in response to the resident’s complaint of 13 August 2021. In this it detailed:
1. Its understanding of the complaint that in “February 2019, works to install grab rails in your bathroom were being undertaken and during the course of the work, the carpenter drilled through three walls which caused damage to two bedroom and hallway walls”. It understood that the hallway remained outstanding and that the resident had reported that “the offer had been withdrawn”. It apologised that the “work to the hallway was not completed at the time”.
2. It offered a “decorations allowance of £75 for the purchase of paints/papers etc”. Alternatively, it could “purchase or pay you to purchase” the paint/paper. It would then “redecorate the affected area in the hallway only, i.e. the affected wall”. It could “colour match the paint”.
3. The resident could “complete and submit a public liability form” to make a claim through the landlord’s insurance policy. It advised that the relevant form had been sent to the resident and provided an email address for the form to be sent back.
4. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint of 13 August 2021 on 19 September 2021. In this she advised that the landlord had failed to address the matter of disability discrimination by not making the requested reasonable adjustments. She referred to a number of emails she had sent to the landlord and that it had taken until “1 September (18 working days) to respond to my emails”. She wished to seek “compensation from the council for the time and energy wasted over the last two years fighting to get what was offered to me in the first place” and that this had “caused me a substantial amount of stress”. She referred to the “amount of care hours I have had to spend on getting support writing these complaints”. She again requested that the “disability policy to be reviewed and properly implemented”. She refused the decorating voucher offered “as I did not damage my own walls”. She asked the landlord to “restore the whole room as it was when they damaged it as it was freshly painted at the time of the damage”.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 19 October 2021 with regard to the resident’s complaint of 26 July 2021. In this it detailed:
1. It advised of a phone call with the resident made on 13 September 2021. It stated that it had mentioned that it was unable to “look into historical matters, beyond a year before your formal complaint”.
2. It apologised for the “poor communication”. It was “sorry that officers have not replied to you or responded outside of a reasonable timescale”.
3. It advised that its “essential repairs policy is a procedure note for officers”. It advised that the policy is “summarised” in the allocations scheme.
4. It advised that the £330 disturbance payment is a “one-off flat rate”. It stated that the “statutory home-loss payments are paid when a tenant is unable to return to their property or if it will be substantially different to how it was previously”. It advised that the resident was “asked to move due to disrepair issues in your home”. It’s policy “allows for a payment of £955, for carpet and curtains when permanently moving to a three-bedroom property”. It advised it would make these payments.
5. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint due to the communication issues and offered a further £500 compensation comprising £300 already offered and an additional £200 at stage two.
The landlord emailed internally on 21 October 2021 to advise that the resident “wants reasonable adjustments to be made when contacting repairs or she states that she will bring a claim of discrimination due to her autism”. It advised that “we are only offering £75.00 decoration voucher”. It stated that the resident had wished “all verbal communication follow up with an email detailing the things we have spoken about”, for a “receipt email stating you have received my communication and how long it will take you to respond (if you can’t give an immediate direct response”, for “accurate time frames and if they cannot be followed I will need email notification of extended timeframes” and “clear accurate language used as I can interpret communication literally”.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 22 October 2021 with regard to the resident’s complaint of 13 August 2021. In this it detailed:
1. An apology that it’s officer did not respond “as quickly as he would have liked” and that this was due to annual leave.
2. The officer had “denied vehemently of any discrimination”.
3. Following a “management review of the initial works which were agreed at the time as a gesture of good will any further redecoration will be considered as tenant’s responsibility”.
4. It offered a “decorations allowance of £75 for the purchase of paints/papers etc. to allow you to redecorate the hallway yourself”. It advised that if the resident could “direct us to the relevant paint type/supplier we can purchase this or pay you if you purchase this. We will then redecorate the affected area in the hallway only”. It offered to colour match the paint.
5. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to the “initial delay in response”.

Events following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident emailed the landlord on 18 November 2021 to again request the landlord’s consideration of a statutory home loss payment. She requested the “paper trail/evidence that was used to make this decision”. She would then share this with her solicitor.
The landlord’s records detail a visit made to the resident on 6 December 2021 when the issues of antisocial behaviour were discussed, along with the resident’s request for rehousing due to overcrowding. The resident raised the issues of a neighbour with “constant shouting, screaming and door banging”. She had said that she had contacted the police many times. The landlord’s records detail that another neighbour was “shouting, screaming and music” and that “police attended on the weekend”.
The resident contacted this Service on 7 December 2021 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint responses. She referred to her previous property, the repairs that were being undertaken at the previous property and her request for rehousing from the current address. This was due to the resident being overcrowded in the current address and that she and her family have particular medical needs. She advised of the antisocial behaviour prevalent on the estate and that she did not feel safe. She advised of the issue concerning a home loss payment not being paid. She referred to her other complaint concerning repairs and damage to the walls that happened whilst grab rails were being installed and that the works had not been completed.
The landlord’s neighbourhood housing officer emailed the police on 9 December 2021 referring to the issues of antisocial and criminal behaviour taking place in the building and on the estate. The landlord’s records detail that it was “made aware of this address in May 2021, when a music video was being filmed”. A “gang turned up with machetes”. It was reported that the resident’s son “witnessed this and spoke to the police”. As this was “in view of the gang” the resident was in fear for her and her family’s safety. She had reported that her son was “chased home by someone with a knife”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2021 to advise that her “younger son was a victim of racial abuse at school which today has escalated to the child threatening to stab him”. She reiterated her fear for herself and her family as she felt the “child knows where we live” and she gave a crime reference number. The landlord’s neighbourhood housing officer emailed back on 14 December 2021 to advise the resident that he had been in touch with the police “regarding a joint meeting”. He was awaiting confirmation of a date for the meeting. He requested the resident to keep a “diary/note of all the incidents that have taken place”. He would make “community safety aware of the latest incident”. The resident has since advised this Service on 15 September 2023 that no joint meeting took place.
The landlord’s neighbourhood housing officer emailed the police on 11 January 2022 to arrange a date to meet to discuss the antisocial and criminal behaviour. He also spoke to the resident by phone regarding “her housing situation and antisocial behaviour”. The records stated that the “neighbours have been quiet for the last month”. The record details that the landlord was to see if a direct offer might be possible. It was reported that the resident was to send in some medical notes. The landlord’s records of 22 March 2022 detail that it agreed to make a direct offer of accommodation to the resident. The resident has since advised this Service on 15 September 2023 that she had been moved to temporary accommodation a month earlier, pending construction of a property that would be more suitable for her and her family’s needs.
The landlord raised a works order to “paint the hallway walls only” dated 4 March 2022. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether this relates to the order raised date or completion date. However, the resident has since confirmed to this Service on 15 September 2023 that work had not been completed to paint the hallway walls.
The landlord advised this Service on 5 May 2022 in response to a request for information, that it had contacted the safer neighbourhood team with regard to the antisocial behaviour, however, the records do not detail when this took place.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in the building and on the estate.

The landlord’s records detail a previous history of reports made by the resident of antisocial behaviour as detailed above. More recently, prior to the resident’s formal complaint of 26 July 2021, the resident made a report concerning smoking in the communal areas on 14 July 2021. The landlord did contact the resident in a timely manner at this point to request further information from the resident. After the resident responded to advise that she was unaware of who was smoking in the communal areas, there is no record of any further action being taken by the landlord. It would be reasonably expected that the landlord consider what actions it could take to address the issue, such as sending a letter to all residents to remind them of the obligations concerning smoking in the communal areas. The landlord could have then updated the resident on the action taken. It therefore failed to act or keep the resident updated on the issue.
The landlord’s email to the Police from 9 December 2021 detail that it was aware of serious issues of antisocial behaviour in relation to a neighbouring property from May 2021 “when a music video was being filmed” and “another gang turned up with machetes”. The resident’s stage one complaint dated 26 July 2021 also gave examples of some of the very serious antisocial and criminal behaviour on the estate. Despite the serious nature of this antisocial and criminal behaviour, the next recorded contact with the resident about this was a home visit that did not take place until 6 December 2021, nearly five months later. No record has been seen of any earlier investigation into the antisocial behaviour to investigate the serious issues raised by the resident. There is no record of any meetings, including multi-agency meetings, concerning the issues raised or any other records of earlier contact with the Police to discuss this and to determine a plan of action. The landlord advised this Service of a referral to the safer neighbourhood team but there is no record of this or what the outcome was. It would be expected that a risk assessment be undertaken, however, there is no record of any risk assessment being undertaken. The resident was clearly fearful for her own and her family’s safety after a threat that was allegedly made with a knife to her son, along with the resident’s report that the perpetrator knew where they lived. The resident has since advised this Service on 15 September 2023 that no action had been taken and that a joint meeting that was promised with the Police never took place.
It was also contrary to the landlord’s policy above that states that an “email should be sent to the resident with the details of the action taken and a reference number” and that it will “keep in regular contact with you and keep you informed of what we are doing to resolve the problem”.
There were significant failings therefore given the serious nature of the antisocial and criminal behaviour, along with the threats made to the resident’s son that should have triggered more urgent action and consideration of whether the community trigger had been met under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which may have been appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate and did not show any other actions taken, in response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. This Service’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) highlights the importance of good knowledge and information management that allows a landlord to effectively manage service delivery and complaint handling. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the recommendations to improve its record keeping practices.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond appropriately and in a timely manner to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour within the building and on the estate. It failed to undertake an appropriate risk assessment, or to consider what actions that it could take in light of the risks identified. No records have been seen that it addressed the antisocial behaviour or followed up on the serious reports made by the resident in her stage one complaint of 26 July 2021 and in December 2021 with regard to the knife incident concerning her son. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate and it did not provide any detailed records of the reported incidents and follow up actions. No record has been seen that the landlord gave consideration as to whether its community trigger had been met which would be expected in a case such as this where there are serious issues reported. No records have been seen that the landlord offered any advice or signposting as appropriate to other agencies who could provide support. The landlord’s response was delayed and even though it was aware of antisocial behaviour from May 2021 no definitive action was taken in line with its policy. This caused considerable severe distress and detriment to the resident and her family who have vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of. These issues combined amount to severe maladministration for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of redecoration required following damage during the installation of a grab rail at her current property and reports of discrimination.

The resident and landlord both referred to the resident’s earlier report made in 2021 concerning the resident’s request for the landlord to redecorate the hallway after work to install a grab rail in 2019 caused damage to the wall. The date of the earlier report is stated by the landlord as being made in July 2021, whereas the resident reports that the date was earlier in 2021. There is insufficient evidence to confirm the exact date and this again indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping practice.
The damage had occurred in 2019, and the resident’s complaint was made in 2021. The resident stated that she was waiting for the landlord’s response to provide a date when it would make good the decoration in the hallway. She then reported that due to the pandemic that she had left things until it had “died down”. She then raised the issue in 2021, two years later. This Service would encourage residents to raise a complaint within a reasonable period, normally within six months of the matter arising when the matter is still current. However, it was reasonable that the landlord used its discretion to investigate the matter. Given the time lapse between the matter arising and the complaint, this meant that the person who agreed to the work being carried out was no longer employed by the landlord. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord consider the request afresh and gather evidence concerning the damage.
It is not clear whether the landlord kept records from 2019 which may have detailed the agreement that had been made, though it is possible that this was a verbal agreement. The landlord was aware from the resident’s previous correspondence from 8 July 2021 of the need to make reasonable adjustments. The resident also requested that any verbal communication be backed up in writing with the agreed points arising from the conversation. The evidence presented shows that the landlord did not always follow this request for reasonable adjustments which, given the resident’s disability was unreasonable. The resident detailed a number of communications that she says were not responded to, though the landlord’s records do not detail much of this reported communication concerning the issue. This indicates that either there were not as many reports made by the resident or that the landlord’s record keeping is insufficient. The evidence does not confirm either version.
There was evidence of communication issues in that the landlord had stated that another officer responsible for repairs and maintenance had arranged for the unannounced visit to the resident. Clearly the message concerning the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments had not been fully communicated throughout the organisation. This again shows the importance of keeping accurate records to provide an appropriate response to its residents and to take into account any particular requirements. The landlord needed to give notice to the resident to gain access to inspect and/or carry out work as required in the terms of the tenancy agreement. This clearly did not happen and given the landlord was aware of the adjustments needed, along with the situation of the resident being a wheelchair user the lack of notice was unreasonable. This was therefore a failing of the landlord.
In both of the landlord’s complaint responses it gave the resident options to make good the damage to the decoration of the hallway. The landlord had also referred to the work in 2019 being “a gesture of goodwill” and that the decoration is the responsibility of the resident according to the tenancy agreement. It is true that the tenancy agreement stipulates that decoration is a tenant’s responsibility, however, the landlord has an obligation to rectify damage to decorations as a result of repair work (as in the case of Bradley v Chorley DC (1985) 17 HLR 305. A mitigating factor was the length of time taken for the resident before further pursuing the matter with her landlord.
The landlord provided an insurance claim form in its complaint response for the resident to potentially make a claim on its insurance. However, depending on the policy, due to the time taken to report the issue, any claim may have been void. It is not clear from the evidence whether any check was made prior to issuing the form which would have been appropriate to avoid the resident any unnecessary time and trouble. No evidence has been seen that indicates whether any claim was made.
The landlord did raise a works order to redecorate the hallway 4 March 2022 postdating the internal complaints process. This was eight months after the landlord reported that it was aware of the issue and this was an excessive amount of time for the resident to wait for resolution of the matter.
In summary, the landlord’s record keeping and communication was insufficiently robust and accurate to enable it to deal with the resident’s request to redecorate the hallway following the damage caused by the installation of the grab rail. This was also the case with regard to the reasonable adjustments requested by the resident that were not always followed by the landlord or communicated with other departments. It did not provide any notice of its visit to inspect the hallway in line with the tenancy agreement. There was a delay in the resident reporting the matter to the landlord and by this point the officer who agreed to the redecoration had left the organisation. This meant that the landlord had to consider the request again. An excessive amount of time (eight months) elapsed between the landlord’s knowledge of the issue in July 2021 to the works order being raised in March 2022. This was unreasonable. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation

The resident’s complaint concerning alleged discrimination, rehousing, home loss and disturbance and antisocial behaviour

The resident’s complaint was emailed to the landlord on 26 July 2021. The resident had requested an acknowledgement after she contacted the complaints team on 3 August 2021. The resident reported in her escalation request that the acknowledgement was not sent until 19 August 2021, contrary to the timescale set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord was aware of the need for reasonable adjustments prior to the complaint being made and so after the resident’s contact, it was important to follow this up in writing. Instead the resident had the inconvenience of chasing the landlord to log and acknowledge the complaint which was unreasonable.
The stage one response was sent on 20 August 2021, which was 19 working days after the resident’s complaint was made. This was outside of the landlord’s policy timescale. No record has been seen of any written notification to the resident to extend the timeframe to provide a response which would have been appropriate under the circumstances to reassure the resident that her concerns were being treated seriously.
The resident requested an escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 2 September 2021. Its stage two response was sent on 19 October 2021 which was 33 working days later and this again was outside of the policy timescales. No record has been seen of an acknowledgement being sent to this escalation request, however, the stage two response indicates that a phone call was made to the resident on 13 September 2021. In line with the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments it would be expected for any phone call made to be followed up in writing, however, no record has been seen that this happened which was unreasonable.
With respect to the landlord’s responses at stage one and stage two, the landlord did not detail its response in relation to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. It did not cover the issue of poor caretaking either. A complaint response is an ideal opportunity for the landlord to respond fully to the issues raised by a resident to help to resolve the complaint. The complaint responses focussed instead on the alleged discrimination, the request for a direct offer of accommodation and the request for a home loss payment and disturbance payment. The landlord should have dealt with all of the key issues raised by the resident. Given the serious nature of antisocial behaviour reported, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the appropriate team to outline any actions that had been taken, or were to be taken as a result of this. No record has been seen that this happened. This was a failing of the landlord to not fully address the resident’s concerns in an attempt to resolve the complaint. The resident gave a useful suggestion for the landlord to review its policy in respect of dealing with residents with protected characteristics. The landlord advised that it had passed on the suggestion, though it would have been benefit for the landlord to provide feedback on whether any changes were made to its policy.
In respect of the compensation offered to the resident, the initial award of £300 for time and trouble was uplifted at stage two to £500 due to the communication issues identified in responding to the resident which was appropriate. The resident has advised that she has not accepted the compensation offered pending the outcome of this investigation. The overall offer of compensation is considered in the summary below.

The complaint concerning the resident’s reports of redecoration required following damage during the installation of a grab rail at her current property and reports of discrimination.

The resident’s stage one complaint was sent on 13 August 2021 concerning a matter that arose in February 2019. According to the landlord’s policy it would not ordinarily consider a complaint 12 months after the matter arose. However, the landlord used its discretion to investigate the matter and to provide a response which was reasonable after the resident requested an adjustment be made for the response based on her disability. The landlord’s stage one response was sent on 15 September which was 23 working days later. This was outside of the landlord’s policy timescales which stated at the time that a stage one response should be sent within ten working days. No record has been seen of an acknowledgement being sent to the resident for this complaint. The complaint response refers to an email being sent due to the landlord not being able to meet the deadline which was appropriate under the circumstances. However, this has not been seen by this Service. This again indicates the record keeping issues as mentioned above.
The resident’s stage two escalation request was sent to the landlord on 19 September 2021. Again no record has been seen of an acknowledgement being sent contrary to the landlord’s policy. It’s stage two response was given on 22 October 2021 which was 24 working days after the escalation request was made. This was within the landlord’s policy timescale for responses. This was a notably a longer timescale than the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which came into effect in July 2020 and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider adhering to the Code or to adopt an interim approach pending its review of its complaints policy. The landlord has since reviewed its policy in 2023 to reflect the timescales set out in the Code.
Although the resident made the landlord aware of the need for reasonable adjustments on 8 July 2021, it took until 21 October 2021, over three months later, for the landlord to email internally concerning the requested reasonable adjustments to avoid a claim for discrimination. Whilst the complaint responses gave options to the resident to decide a course of action to make good the decoration to the hallway, no records have been seen of any follow up with the resident after she rejected the options provided. It would have been appropriate to follow this up with the resident to clarify this point. This could have meant that action could have been taken at an earlierpoint to locally resolve the complaint..
No compensation was offered to the resident in respect of this complaint at stage two other than a decorations allowance of £75.00 for the purchase of paints/papers etc to allow the resident to redecorate the hallway herself. Given the failings to acknowledge the complaint, and the communication issues evident, along with the failure to provide reasonable adjustments, a compensatory offer would have been appropriate in this case.

Complaint handling summary

In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was generally not in accordance with its policy in terms of the lack of acknowledgements and the timescales for responses, despite the resident’s reports of the number of phone calls to chase up the landlord. Its response in connection with the complaint of 26 July 2021 did not answer all of the points raised by the resident. This meant that it failed to address the serious issues of antisocial behaviour raised by the resident or provide information on any actions that had been taken, or that would be taken as a result of this. Whilst the landlord reasonably offered £500 redress for the complaint handling failures in the resident’s complaint of 26 July 2021, it did not make any compensatory offer for the complaint handling associated with the resident’s complaint of 13 August 2021. The landlord failed to take note of or act on the reasonable adjustments that the resident had requested, for example, to follow up verbal communication in writing, and in turning up at her property with no prior warning. The resident had also made the landlord aware that she had a carer who she employed to help her to write her complaints. this meant that the resident experienced a quantifiable loss in progressing her complaints that would not be experienced by a person not needing the assistance of a carer. Therefore, the time and trouble, along with detriment to the resident was more exaggerated due to the nature of her disability. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in the building and on the estate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of redecoration required following the installation of a grab rail at her current property and reports of discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme the resident’s report of the condition of her previous property prior to her decant in 2016 is determined as outside of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant in 2016 and the resident’s report of discrimination at this time is determined as outside of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme the resident’s report concerning the landlord’s consideration of a home loss payment following the decant in 2016 is determined as outside of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme the resident’s request for rehousing under the local authority’s housing allocations policy is determined as outside of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The evidence shows that the landlord failed to address the residents reports of antisocial behaviour in the building and on the estate in a timely manner. It failed to undertake an appropriate risk assessment to determine the actions that should be taken. It failed to communicate effectively and within a reasonable timescale with the resident, the relevant departments and with other agencies such as the Police to determine a plan of action. It did not adhere to its own policy, with regard to communication and forming a plan of action. It did not consider any further support that could be provided to the resident given her known additional needs. The lack of response to the serious issues reported by the resident on 26 July 2021 left the resident over a period of nearly five months with no resolution to the issues raised causing considerable distress and detriment, together with the time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
The landlord’s inadequate record keeping practice meant that records had not been available of the agreement made to redecorate the hallway following damage caused to the wall when the grab rails were installed in 2019. There was delay in the resident reporting the issue in 2021, however in considering the resident’s request the landlord did not expedite the works order until eight months later. The landlord failed to act on the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments. There was evidence that the communication of the reasonable adjustments had not been followed up with other departments.
The landlord’s complaint handling was on the whole not in accordance with its own policy in respect of acknowledgements and in terms of timescales for responses. Its complaint responses in respect of the resident’s complaint of 26 July 2021 did not answer all of the points raised by the resident. It failed to take account of the reasonable adjustments required by the resident to follow up verbal communication in writing and in acknowledging emails. Whilst it offered some redress in respect of the recognised communication issues for the resident’s complaint of 26 July 2021, it did not offer any compensation in respect of the resident’s complaint of 13 August 2021 which would have been appropriate under the circumstances.
For the reasons set out above and in line with 42(b) of the Scheme the resident’s report of the condition of her previous property prior to her decant in 2016 is determined as outside of jurisdiction.
For the reasons set out above and in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant in 2016 and the resident’s report of discrimination at this time is determined as outside of jurisdiction.
For the reasons set out above and in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme the resident’s report concerning the landlord’s consideration of a home loss payment following the decant in 2016 is determined as outside of jurisdiction.
For the reasons set out above and in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme the resident’s request for rehousing under the local authority’s housing allocations policy is determined as outside of jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology from a director level or above for the failings outlined in this investigation.
2. Pay the resident directly £1,200 compensation in respect of in respect of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in the building and on the estate.
3. Pay the resident directly £200 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of redecoration required following the installation of a grab rail at her current property and reports of discrimination superseding the £75 offered for redecoration by the landlord.
4. Pay the resident directly £900 compensation in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation comprising:
  1. £500 already offered at stage two on 19 October 2021.
  2. £400 in respect of the resident’s complaint of 13 August 2021 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
5. Pay the resident the £330 disturbance payment offered and £955 offered for the carpets and curtains.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan, identifying actions to be taken by named postholders. This must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s governing body and resident’s panel outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website.
2. Its intention and a timescale to review its antisocial behaviour policy and procedures taking into account the needs of residents with vulnerabilities.
3. Its intention and a timescale to review its policy and procedures for dealing with residents with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 with a particular focus on those who are on the autistic spectrum.