Clarion Housing Association Limited (202211672)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211672

Clarion Housing Association Limited

13 October 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 residents reports of ASB, noise disturbance and racial abuse.
2. The landlord’s handling of the residents request to be transferred to another property.
3. This Service has chosen to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a two bedroom maisonette which is located on the second floor of the block. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 2 June 2014.
The landlord has no recorded disabilities for the resident. The resident has stated she suffers with anxiety.
Section 2 of the landlords ASB policy, states it classifies reports of ASB as Crime (category 1), Noise (category 2) and all other forms of ASB (category 3).
Section 3 of the landlord’s ASB policy states its thresholds for taking action. Crime (Category 1) is not subject to a threshold requirement. Noise and other ASB (Categories 2 and 3) must reach thresholds before they will be investigated. The thresholds are:
1. Three separate incidents reported in the last 7 days by the same person or a member of the same household.
2. Five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person or member of the same household.
3. Two separate incidents reported in the last 28 days by two or more people from different households.
4. For serious one-off events where the incident has been investigated by the Police or the local authority, and they ask the landlord to get involved where they feel it would help and it agrees with their assessment.
5. At a time of the landlord’s choosing, based on local intelligence (e.g. if several residents make isolated complaints about the same household).
All incidents of ASB will be recorded (with the exception of anonymous cases which will not be recorded). This will ensure that an automated assessment can be made to identify when a threshold has been met. If a threshold has been reached, the case will automatically move to the appropriate queue for the complaints to be investigated further. If the threshold has not been met the complainant will be advised by phone by the contact centre or by automated communication.
Section 3 of the landlords management transfer policy states, the conditions required for a management transfer are:
1. serious anti-social behaviour or harassment that puts a tenants life at risk.
2. domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put the tenant or a member of their households’ life at risk.
Section 4.3 of the landlord’s management transfer policy states management transfers should only be considered if the Police confirm in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to the tenant or their family that means it is no longer safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at the property and there is a realistic chance of a suitable property becoming available quickly.

Summary of Events

On 22 July 2021 the resident informed the landlord via a form on its website she was having ongoing issues with a neighbour. The resident reported that on 20 July 2021 the neighbour was sitting in the front garden, smoking drugs and listening to loud music. The resident stated she asked the neighbour to keep the noise down at nighttime and was racially abused which was reported to the police and her door was kicked. The resident stated the issues had been occurring since she moved into the property and she had complained numerous times. The webform was submitted as excessive noise.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day to inform her the report had been passed to the housing admin team who would contact her directly.
On 27 July 2021 the resident made a further report to the landlord of ASB from the neighbour. The resident stated her neighbour was intimidating her and her daughter, and were outside being loud and threatening. The resident provided a police crime reference number to the landlord and informed the landlord she had to live away from the property for six months during the previous year due to her fear of the neighbour. The resident said she felt scared and was going to stay with a family member. The resident said this had been going on for two years. The webform submitted was classed as violent or threatening behaviour.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 July 2021 as she had not heard from the landlord and requested someone contacted her.
The resident informed the landlord via its website that on 30 July 2021 there were large groups in the front of the neighbours garden smoking drugs and riding motorbikes up and down the road. The resident stated she felt intimidated on her return from work every day and was staying with a family member during the week to get away. The resident provided a crime reference number to the landlord. The resident stated the police had advised her to see if she could push for a move which the resident said she felt was her only option as the situation was affecting her mental health and anxiety.
On 4 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and asked the resident to complete diary sheets for 14 days. The landlord stated to the resident that for household noise it could not always take action on all types of noise but would be able to offer advice and support. The landlord asked the resident to contact the Council’s noise team about the loud music and to contact the police to report the harassment, drug taking and intimidation.
The resident responded the same day to say she would complete the diary sheets and had already contacted the police. The resident asked if there was a housing officer she could speak with.
On 9 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the police and requested details of the reports made by the resident to the police regarding the neighbours behaviours to enable it to consider enforcement action. The police responded saying it had received reports of anti social behaviour on 27 July 2021 and 2 August 2021 from the resident. The police stated there were no records of any charges or arrests taking place.
On 10 September 2021 the resident made a report of ASB to the landlord. The resident stated her neighbour downstairs had a dog that was continuously barking at night. The resident stated she was told this neighbour was related to the neighbour she had made ASB complaints about and had stopped talking to her since the reports were made.
On 21 September 2021 the resident made a report of a huge group of people standing outside her neighbours property when she got out of her car. The resident stated her daughter had gone to friends and was chased by two pit-bull dogs and believed two of her neighbours were bullying and intimidating her. The resident said she was being threatened because of her race.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and asked her to complete 14 days of diary sheets for the dog nuisance so it could make an informed decision. The landlord stated it had also requested for a tenancy breach process to commence against the neighbour.
On 28 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord via it’s online webchat system. The resident stated she had been contacted by her daughter who was at the resident’s property and said her downstairs neighbour had sent a relative to the resident’s property and was banging on their door and being verbally abusive. The resident informed the landlord she had called the police. The landlord stated the report would be logged. The landlord also stated the incident did not meet the threshold of anti social behaviour so the resident would need to continue to report any incidents.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2021 and stated the case regarding the recently reported anti social behaviour would be closed and no further action would be taken. The letter was not clear which report of ASB it was referring to as this was not stated in the letter or any reference numbers provided.
On 6 December 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident stated she had called and emailed many times throughout the year about her neighbours racist and abusive behaviours, plus antisocial behaviour. She was told to complete diary sheets but no one had responded or had even acknowledged it.
The landlord responded on 8 December 2021. It apologised for the resident not receiving a satisfactory response and that the resident was experiencing the issues she had reported. It said the email had been passed to its housing admin team who would contact her directly.
On 15 December 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and informed the landlord she had sent diary sheets to it by special delivery on 5 September 2021. The landlord stated it could not find records of it receiving the diary sheets. The resident said she felt it was bad service from the landlord and was a long line of poor customer service that she had received in the past year and was going to seek further advice.
On 18 February 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident stated she:
1. Had written to the landlord on many occasions in the last year and had been constantly ignored.
2. Requested the police contact the landlord.
3. Had completed 14 days of diary sheets which she had been told were misplaced by the landlord.
4. Had tried to go through the complaints procedure but no one had listened to her.
5. No longer felt safe in the property.
6. Was requesting a move to another property.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 February 2022 and stated the resident would be provided with a response within 10 working days.
The landlord contacted the resident by telephone on 4 March 2022. The landlord asked for the resident to provide details showing receipt of her ASB reports. The resident responded on 7 March 2022 by sending copies of five emails previously sent to the landlord on 22 July 2021, 27 July 2021, 21 September 2021, 6 December 2021 and 15 December 2021.
On 17 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and informed the landlord that she was not seeking compensation but wanted to be moved to a home to feel safe in. The resident stated she was barely living in her property due to the harassment and racist behaviour of the neighbours.
The landlords records show that on 25 March 2022 internal communications from the landlord asked for an officer to contact the resident to discuss the options of facilitating a move.
On 29 March 2022 internal landlord communications show the landlord established management moves could only come from a tenancy specialist following their involvement in an ASB case.
On 30 March 2022 the landlord issued its stage one response. The response stated:
1. It had received the complaint from the resident on 11 February 2022.
2. The resident had logged the complaint on 23 February 2022.
3. It had no record of receiving the diary sheets sent by the resident.
4. There was no ASB case open at that time with the last case being reported on 20 August 2021.
5. Where the allegations were of criminal offences that would need investigation by police, it would then work with the police and take action if charges were brought or convictions made. It applied to the police’s ASB team for disclosure regarding the allegations. With regards to the drugs allegations there was insufficient evidence for the police to take any action. The information was passed to the local Police Safety Neighbourhood Team for their information and to make regular patrols of the area.
6. The police could not provide any information of actions taken regarding the complaint of motorbikes going up and down the road. This was because the police searches were address specific and if the riders of the motorbikes were not residents of the alleged perpetrators address it would not show on their records.
7. No further ASB incidents were reported and the case was closed on 2 December 2021.
8. It appreciated that this contradicted the residents account and the supporting evidence that she sent in. It concluded that there were failures by the landlord to follow process causing the resident to have to chase for replies and updates.
9. It noted the residents solution was to be moved to an alternative property but it was not in a position to facilitate a move. This was due to it not having a surplus of properties and in line with its management transfer policy could only be approved where a tenant was at serious risk and immediate risk of harm or violence.
10. The Council managed the housing and transfer register on behalf of the landlord so all applications for rehousing needed to go through the Council.
11. The resident could consider the option of mutual exchange.
12. If the resident was still experiencing ASB she should contact the landlord and have a new case opened. But if the allegations were of a criminal nature such as drugs or traffic offences it encouraged the resident to contact the police. More evidence it had of the police taking action would enable it to take further action.
13. It offered £250 in compensation for the time taken to resolve the complaint, failure to follow process, the resident having to chase, failure to reply, misdirection of information given and inconvenience suffered. The landlord also offered £50 compensation for the delay in issuing the complaint response.
The resident requested a review of the complaint on 8 April 2022. The resident refused the offer of compensation stating she made it clear she wanted to be rehoused.
The landlords records show that on 17 May 2022 the landlord reviewed the case and noted it was advised by the resident she had been subjected to hate crime, but it appeared the information recorded by the resident had not been received. It queried if it needed to wait for the resident to reach the threshold for investigation bearing in mind it may have gone missing in its IT systems. It acknowledged it had paid compensation due to it mislaying the residents information.
Later that day it was concluded none of the reported incidents were investigated as race incidents. The landlord noted:
1. There was no open ASB case.
2. It did have an open complaint about vehicle noise from the neighbour.
3. It had a report from victim support on file about the resident but did not have any record of the diary sheets sent.
4. It decided to establish where the resident was currently staying, what the police did about previous reports, if there were any witnesses, was the resident registered with the Council for rehousing, had the resident submitted any medical evidence to the Council and was the resident looking to move from the area.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 17 May 2022, from the conversation the landlord established that:
1. The resident was not staying at the property as she did not feel safe. As she was away from the property that was why no further reports of ASB had been made.
2. The resident stated her neighbour had been racially abusive, she had her door kicked in, had been chased down her alleyway, had been physically attacked and the neighbour was loud and disruptive.
3. The police had classed the incident as hate crime but no further action was taken by the police. The police had contacted the landlord to say the resident was better off moving as there was not a lot it could do. No arrests had been made.
4. The landlord issued a neighbour with a warning but nothing had been done since.
5. The resident was not informed to register with the Council but had registered for mutual exchange but had not been successful.
6. The resident had medical evidence to provide to the Council when registering for housing.
7. The resident did not mind leaving the area to be rehoused.
8. The police had referred the resident for victim support for the hate crime who had contacted the landlord and stated the resident should move home.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 June 2022 asking for the Victim Support letter that had previously been sent to be sent again as it was unable to find it on its records. The resident provided the support letter the same day.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 13 June 2022. In the response the landlord stated:
1. It had reviewed the resident’s reasons for the escalation of the complaint.
2. The reports of ASB and hate crime incidences made to the police resulted in no further action being taken by the police.
3. In response to those incidents it had issued a warning to the perpetrators.
4. It concluded that further investigations following the reports of hate crime should have been carried out before determining the outcome of the resident’s case. It stated it would:
  1. Contact the police to get further information on their investigation into the resident’s complaint.
  2. Follow up the investigations with witnesses
  3. Follow up the information received by Victim Support.
5. Once the above was concluded it would issue a decision regarding the resident’s eligibility for a management transfer. In this period, a Tenancy Specialist Officer had been allocated to the resident’s case to ensure she was kept updated.
6. Non emergency transfers were managed by the Council so if the management transfer was refused the resident must register on the Council’s housing list.
7. The resident could also pursue the mutual exchange option.
8. It offered £350 in compensation for the issues involved in the complaint. The compensation consisted of £50 for the delays in responding at stage two and the £300 originally offered in the stage one response. The landlord stated the offer of compensation would not affect the decision on a management transfer.

Post Complaint

On 23 June 2022 internal landlord communications stated it was unable to locate any records of the police contacting it by phone saying the resident was better off moving. An officer of the landlord said the letter from victim support did not state it should grant a management transfer and it was asking for consideration of the rehousing options and they were yet to speak to another neighbour who was a witness.
On 27 July 2022 internal landlord communications from one of the landlord’s officers stated the police refuted the claims it advised the resident needed to move home. The victim support letter supported the resident moving home, but as hate crime did not meet the landlords threshold of a management transfer according to its policy the move could only be via the Councils register or by mutual exchange. The landlord’s officer stated it requested extra patrols from the police in the area.
On 29 July 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated she was told she would be contacted by the landlord in relation to her letter from victim support but had not heard anything. On the same day the resident made a further request for an update to her complaint and asked if she would be offered another property to live in. The landlord responded the same day to say it was aware the complaint concluded on 20 June 2022 but it was unable to check its system to find out as its system was limited.
The landlord sent a copy of the stage two response to the resident on 1 August 2022 after stating it was informed by the resident she had not received the stage two letter in June 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2022 and said after reading the stage two response it said she would be contacted by the end of June 2022 if she was accepted for a management transfer but she had not heard anything. The resident asked if she could be contacted.
The landlord responded the next day and said it was informed by the police that they had no record that it had contacted the landlord to request a management move for the resident. The victim support letter advised it to explore housing options with a view to a move and it had spoken to the resident’s witness.
The landlords records state it spoke to the resident on 16 September 2022 who said she would be accepting the offer of £350 compensation. However the resident had not received any communication from the tenancy specialist officer regarding the management move decision which was due by 27 June 2022, as advised within the stage two response. It noted the resident was aware of the landlords IT issues following a cyber attack and understood that may have delayed the correspondence.
On 20 September 2022 an internal landlord email stated an officer leading on the case had completed the tasks from the stage two response and assumed another officer had the forms for the resident’s management transfer request. The officer had been informed the other officer did not have those forms so had spoken to the resident and would get the forms completed. The landlord noted the last ASB incident reported to it was in 2021. It was aware the resident was staying at the property 3 times a week as she was in fear of the neighbour and during the summer stayed away from the property due to the neighbour watching her when she came home as the neighbour would sit in the front garden with other people. The landlord stated internally it did not feel the criteria for a management transfer was met.
On 22 September 2022 the landlords records show it established it did not meet the commitments it made in the stage two response as the resident had not been informed if she would be granted a management transfer.
The landlords records show a management transfer request form was completed on 22 September 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 September 2022 asking if a decision had been made on the management transfer request. The landlord internally confirmed it had refused the request but there was confusion by the landlord as to whether the management transfer request was an initial request which would grant appeal rights or was an appeal which would make the decision made a final decision.
The landlord after checking its systems concluded a management transfer decision had not been made previously so a management transfer request had not been refused previously.
The landlord informed the resident on 29 September 2022 it would not be granting a management transfer as the information provided did not show the resident was at serious risk of harm. It gave the resident the option to appeal within 10 working days. The letter stated to the resident that if she was temporarily absent from the property she was still required to pay the rent and under the terms of tenancy to notify the landlord if she was not living in the property.
On 7 October 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested a review of the management transfer decision. On 10 October 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to say she had not had a response to the email. The landlord confirmed on 11 October 2022 the appeal had been sent to senior management.
On 18 October 2022 the appeal was rejected on the grounds that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the residents reports of ASB, noise disturbance and racial abuse.

From the evidence provided it is clear the resident had made multiple reports of ASB from neighbours at her property, these included reports of not feeling safe and of hate crime.
Section 3 of the landlords ASB policy states before investigating the reported incident or incidents they must reach one of its thresholds if the reports are classified as noise (category 2) or other ASB (category 3). Crime is classed as category 1 and does not have a threshold requirement.
The evidence showed the resident made a report of ASB in July 2021 and provided a crime reference number. That report included that the resident stated she had received harassment and racial abuse and felt she was unable to live in the property due to the reported ASB. The landlord did take some steps to investigate this report of ASB as the landlord contacted the police to establish if the police had taken any action. There was however no evidence of any further action being taken by the landlord. A letter was issued to the resident on 2 December 2021 that informed the resident her case was closed.
When the landlord issued its case closure letter to the resident on 2 December 2021 the landlord provided no explanation or evidence in the letter to the resident of the steps it had taken to investigate her report of ASB or why the case was to be closed. The letter also failed to provide any case reference numbers. Given the resident had made multiple ASB reports by the time the letter was issued the resident would not be aware which report the letter was referring to. This would not have provided the resident with confidence that her case had been fully investigated or considered.
The resident had stated to the landlord she had suffered a hate crime, felt unsafe and informed the landlord she was living away from the property. By no longer being consistently resident in the property it is understandable that the resident would not have made any further reports of ASB. However, by not reporting any further incidents, the resident would not reach the thresholds for the landlord to open an ASB case to investigate as per its ASB policy. There is however no evidence that the landlord carried out any further investigations in response to the residents statement of being unable to live in the property or her fear to return to the property when considering any new reports of ASB from the resident.
The landlords ASB procedure states the landlord would interview the resident and create an action plan. There is no evidence this was completed by the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord offered any support to the resident to remain or return to her property. There was no mediation offered to the resident or evidence the landlord considered the reports of racial abuse and hate crime and conducted any form of risk assessment to determine the residents circumstances and if it was safe to return to the property.
It is noted the landlord issued diary sheets to the resident which the resident stated she returned to the landlord. The landlord said it did not receive any diary sheets from the resident. While there may be occasions the diary sheets could be returned by the resident but not reach the landlord, the landlord in this case has not evidenced it was in contact with the resident during this time or offered any further help, advice or solution once it established it did not have the diary sheets. This was despite it later acknowledging that the sheets may have gone missing due to IT issues.
The evidence provided shows the landlord conducted most of its investigations into the resident’s situation during the complaint process rather than at the time the reports were made. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that it failed to follow its processes and that the resident had to chase the landlord. Although the landlord did take more steps during the complaint process to investigate the residents reports, there was still no evidence of what support the landlord provided to the resident to enable her to feel safe to live in or return to her property.
The only evidenced response from the landlord to the resident regarding the resident living away from the property was when it wrote to the resident on 29 September 2022 following the stage two response and informed her she must continue to pay rent for the property even if she was living away from the property.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £250 for its handling of her reports of ASB. The amount of compensation awarded is not considered to be appropriate given the landlord has not evidence it considered all the reports of ASB made by the resident or that it has failed to evidence it provided any support to the resident to feel safe to return to the property, considered her reports that the ASB was racially motivated or provided support to seek rehousing through a non management transfer route such as the Councils housing register. An amount of £500 is considered to be appropriate given the insufficient actions the landlord took over an extended period to investigate and respond to serious reports of ASB
Given the contents of the letter from victim support stating the resident has a fear of returning to her property and the evidence that the resident has continued to report ASB cases an order has been made that the landlord contacts the resident to check whether ASB is ongoing and, if so, complete a risk assessment and an action plan as to how it intends to resolve the ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the residents request to be transferred to another property.

The landlord had reached its decision that the resident was not eligible for a management transfer based on evidence supplied by the police, victim support and witness statements. It is clear the landlord’s ASB policy in section 6.8 and the landlords management transfer policy in section 4.3 states management transfers should only be considered if the police strongly advise in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to the tenant or their family that means it is no longer safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at the property.
It is evidenced that the resident made reports about her neighbours to the police and was issued with crime reference numbers after doing so. It is also evidenced that the landlord did request information from the police regarding the actions it had taken. Whilst the police advice was to suggest the landlord consider moving the resident to an alternative property, they did not provide evidence to suggest that the tenant was at risk, should they remain at the property. There is no evidence the police stated to the landlord or provided in writing that the resident needed to move for her safety or that there was a risk for her to remain in the property.
The letter provided by victim support did state the resident felt she needed to be moved for her safety but the letter did not state it was advised by the police that a move was required based on a risk to the resident. The landlord has acknowledged this letter and the information provided by the police in its assessment of the management transfer request
The landlord’s assessment that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move set out in its management transfer policy is appropriate based on the evidence it received. There is no evidence that there was written confirmation from the police there was a serious risk or threat to the resident or her family that meant it was no longer safe for the resident to continue to live at the property.
The evidence shows the resident stated in her ASB report to the landlord on 3 August 2021 that moving home would be the only option for her. The landlord was also notified by the resident she wanted to make a management transfer request from her complaint made on 11 February 2022. However, it took until 22 September 2022 for the management transfer form to be processed and 29 September 2022 for the resident to be informed of the decision. The landlord’s management transfer policy does not provide a timescale for it to consider a residents request for a management move. This request took over seven months from the resident first making it clear she wished to be moved to the landlord issuing her with its decision. It also took 67 working days longer than the date the landlord said that the resident would be informed of the decision in its stage two response.
The landlord has not evidenced why it took so long to complete the management transfer request or that it kept the resident informed of the progress. Having informed the resident of a date for its investigation into the management transfer to be completed, the landlord should have provided an update by this date or kept the resident informed of any delays. This failure, along with the delay in processing the management transfer request is considered to be maladministration by the landlord.

The landlords handling of the complaint.

The stage one response stated the resident made the complaint on 11 February 2022 and the landlord issued the stage one response on 30 March 2022. This meant the stage one response was issued after 34 working days which was 24 days later than its complaint policy timescale of 10 working days. There is no evidence provided that the landlord informed the resident there would be a delay in issuing its stage one response.
The landlord stated in the stage one response that the resident logged the complaint on 11 February 2022, then further into the response said the complaint was logged on 23 February 2022. The stage two response stated the resident originally made the complaint on 18 February 2022. This meant the two complaint responses issued to the resident, provided three dates that the landlord stated the resident first made her complaint.
From the evidence provided from the landlord to this Service, the resident made the complaint on 18 February 2022. Based on this evidence, both the dates used in the stage one response would be incorrect.
The landlord stated in the stage one response that the most recent case of ASB was 20 August 2021 however this service has seen evidence of the resident reporting ASB on 10 September 2021, 21 September 2021 and 28 October 2021. While these reports were about two separate neighbours the resident made it clear she felt the neighbours were related to each other. There is no evidence the landlord has considered if these reports in conjunction with the reports made in July 2021 and August 2021 meant further action may be needed given the contents of the reports made by the resident.
The stage two response was issued on 13 June 2022 following the resident’s escalation request made on 8 April 2022. The stage two response was issued 42 working days after the escalation request was made and was 22 working days outside its complaint policy timescale of 20 working days. As with the stage one response delays the landlord has not evidenced it kept the resident informed of the delays in issuing the stage two response.
The landlord in the stage two response acknowledged the resident had made further reports of ASB and had to leave the property. The landlord made a commitment that it would carry out further investigations for it to make a decision about the resident’s request for a management transfer and would provide a decision to the resident by 27 June 2022.The evidence shows the resident requested an update on 3 August 2022 and the landlord failed to complete the management transfer form until 22 September 2022.
The landlord failed to act on the commitments it made to the resident in the stage two response and has not shown any evidence why it failed to do so and this prolonged the residents case longer than it should have.
The evidence provided shows the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction with the service she was receiving on two separate occasions. The resident stated in her email to the landlord on 6 December 2021 that she was making a complaint about poor service but there is no evidence provided by the landlord that it considered this complaint to be a formal complaint or discussed with the resident if she wish to log a formal complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 December 2021 and stated she felt she was receiving bad service from the landlord and that this was a long line of poor customer service from the landlord. The landlord had another opportunity to raise a formal complaint or discuss this with the resident and it has failed to evidence it did so.
The landlord offered £100 in total for its delays at both stages of the complaint process. The evidence shows the landlord did not appropriately respond to the resident’s emails on 6 December 2021 and 15 December 2021 about the poor service she was receiving. There were inaccuracies in the landlords stage one and stage two complaint responses. There were delays in issuing the stage one and stage two responses and there was failure to fulfil the commitments made in the stage two response regarding the management transfer. This Service considers that the level of compensation should be increased by an additional £200.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of ASB, noise disturbance and racial abuse.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to evidence it investigated the reports of ASB made by the resident in line with its ASB policy or has evidenced it offered support to the resident to enable her to feel safe to return to her property after being informed she felt unsafe and was living away from the property.
The landlord failed to consider the resident’s management transfer when requested in February 2022 and failed to complete the assessment of the application in the timescale provided to the resident in the stage two response.
The landlord issued its stage one and stage two complaint responses outside of its complaints policy timescales. The landlord’s complaint responses contained inaccurate information and the landlord failed to complete commitments made in the stage two response in the timescales it provided with no explanation for not doing so or apologising to the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to pay the resident £1,000 compensation (inclusive of the £350 already offered), made up of:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of ASB.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her management transfer request.
3. £300 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of the complaint.
The landlord should contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to establish her current situation and whether any ASB is ongoing. If so, it should conduct a risk assessment and provide the resident with an action plan as to how it will seek to resolve the ASB.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks to evidence compliance with the above orders.