Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202104352)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104352

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

22 June 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. reports of domestic violence;
   2. request for alternative accommodation.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. At the time of the complaint, the resident had been a secured tenant of the landlord since 12 April 2010. The resident was a joint tenant with his sister. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
4. The landlord operates an antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. The policy notes the landlord will work with the police when investigating ASB.
5. The landlord operates a domestic violence policy. The policy defines ‘domestic violence’ as violence or abuse between family members, which includes financial abuse of controlling behaviour. The policy notes that possible civil remedies include a ‘non-molestation order’ for the protection of a victim of domestic violence, or an ‘occupation order’ which is an order to remove a perpetrator of domestic violence from the home. Where there has been an incident of domestic violence, the landlord’s policy notes it may offer temporary accommodation or a management transfer.
6. The landlord operates an allocations policy. The policy notes that a management transfer may be offered where a resident is put at “serious risk” by remaining in their property.

Summary of events

7. In or around early 2020, the resident’s relationship with his sister, with whom he resided, had broken down. It is not disputed that the resident attended the landlord’s office in February 2020 and sought advice regarding his options. The resident has advised he spoke with multiple different members of the landlord’s staff and that he was concerned that the advice given was not consistent.
8. This service has been provided with messages to the resident from a member of the landlord’s staff discussing the possibility of seeking a ‘property adjustment order’ against his sister. The landlord’s staff member confirmed the resident should seek legal advice in relation to this option. The resident has also advised that one member of the landlord’s staff advised he could voluntarily give up his tenancy, however, the resident has expressed concern this would result in him being ‘voluntarily homeless’ and would make it difficult to apply for new accommodation.
9. In or around April 2020, the resident reported domestic violence against him by his sister. The reports included that his sister was preventing him from entering the property, that she had stored belongings in his bedroom making it unusable, and that she had threatened him and knocked his mobile phone out of his hand. The resident also reported that his sister’s boyfriend was functionally living at the property and that he also felt intimidated by him. As a result, the resident had not resided in the property since February 2020.
10. The landlord opened an ASB case in relation to the resident’s reports. As part of its investigation, it interviewed the resident’s sister, who denied the allegations, and also denied she was preventing the resident from entering the property. The landlord was unable to find any corroborating witnessed. The landlord reported the allegations to the police, who completed their own investigation at this time, but chose not to take any further action.
11. While unable to conclusively determine domestic violence or ASB, the landlord offered mediation to help resolve the breakdown in the relationship, however, the resident’s sister declined this offer.
12. On or around 15 June 2020, the resident made a formal complaint. The complaint included the differing advice received from the landlord’s staff and that the landlord’s staff had not behaved in a sympathetic manner.
13. The landlord provided a stage one response on 2 July 2020. It apologised that the resident had had to deal with multiple members of staff due to there not being a permanent housing officer for his property, and that the advice given had not been consistent. It also advised that its staff had apologised if they had come across as unsupportive, and that they remained committed to providing assistance. The landlord noted the steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns about being denied entry to the property and advised that his sister had confirmed she would not stop him from entering the property. Regarding ending the tenancy, the landlord advised it would not be able to offer a split tenancy (i.e. offer two one-bedroom properties) and confirmed that if the resident chose to end the tenancy, he would be considered to be ‘voluntarily homeless’.
14. Following this response, the resident referred his concerns to his local MP who chased an update from the landlord. On 24 August 2020, the landlord advised that further to its formal response, it was willing to offer both the resident and his sister a one-bedroom property each if they mutually agreed to end the existing tenancy. The landlord also advised the resident could consider legal advice in relation to resolving the dispute between them.
15. In February 2021, it evident that the resident’s sister obtained a non-molestation order against him which prevented him from entering his property.
16. In March 2021, the resident made a further complaint that he was now homeless due to the non-molestation order. He also raised concerns that the landlord had not adequately investigated his earlier reports of domestic violence, and that it had failed to resolve the issue by offering alternative accommodation.
17. The landlord provided a further stage one response on 18 March 2021, which included the following:
    1. The landlord reiterated the steps it had taken following the resident’s reports of domestic violence, and that based on the evidence it had been provided, it was unable to substantiate the allegations or take further enforcement action.
    2. It also noted it had offered separate properties to the resident and his sister, but that his sister had declined this offer.
    3. It noted that the resident had requested temporary accommodation, but that it had previously advised that on the basis of the non-molestation order against him, it was unable to offer this.
    4. It further noted that because the resident had not been residing at the property since at least October 2020 and there had been no further ASB incidents, it was not able to offer a management transfer.
    5. It noted that the resident had been in contact with “the homeless persons unit” who may be able to assist him with an application for housing in the private sector.
    6. It noted that the resident was intending to appeal the non-molestation order, and that if successful, it may be able to consider temporary accommodation.
18. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint and on 25 February 2021, the landlord provided its stage two response. The response reiterated the landlord’s position as set out in its stage one response and concluded that in the absence of a finding that the resident was the victim of domestic violence, both he and his sister would need to mutually agree to end the tenancy in order for it to offer alternative accommodation.
19. Following the period of the complaint, the resident has advised this service that with the assistance of the landlord, he relocated to a new property with a different landlord in December 2021. The resident has advised that it is his understanding that his sister remained at the property.

Assessment and findings

Domestic violence

20. The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s experiences throughout the course of the complaint have been distressing. In circumstances where there are allegations of domestic violence, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether domestic violence has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman will consider whether a landlord carried out a reasonable investigation into the allegations. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the realities of the availability of evidence can lead to an inability for landlords to corroborate allegations and make a conclusive finding. While this can be frustrating for victims, it does not diminish the experience of those involved.
21. The resident reported to the landlord in April 2020 that he had been the victim of domestic violence by his sister, including threatening and intimidating behaviour, and an instance of a physical altercation. It is not disputed that following this, the landlord opened an ASB case and investigated the allegations by speaking with the resident’s sister, requesting further information, and reporting the incident to the police. These actions were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, and what the Ombudsman would consider best practice. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the resident also reported his sister’s behaviour to the police at this time.
22. Given that the resident’s sister denied the allegations, that there were no additional witnesses, and that the police chose not to take any further action, it was reasonable that based on the available evidence the landlord was unable to make a conclusive finding that domestic violence had occurred.
23. Additionally, the resident had reported that he was no longer able to reside at the property, which in the context of domestic violence, meant that it was unlikely to reoccur. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord closed its ASB case.
24. In instances where there are disputes amongst residents, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to offer alternative dispute resolution. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered the parties mediation. The landlord, however, was unable to force the parties to engage in this process. While it is unfortunate that the resident’s sister declined this offer, it was nevertheless an appropriate attempt to resolve the dispute by the landlord.
25. Following the resident raising his concerns that his reports of domestic violence had not been adequately addressed, the landlord appropriately set out in both its formal responses the steps it had taken to investigate the reports, which as discussed above, were reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord also appropriately reiterated this to the resident’s MP.
26. The resident has also raised concerns that when discussing the breakdown of the relationship with his sister, the landlord’s staff did not take his concerns seriously. The landlord appropriately investigated this concern by speaking with its staff, who apologised for creating this perception, and the confirmation that they were committed to assisting was an appropriate response to this concern.
27. In summary, to reiterate, the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s reports of domestic violence, however, the landlord’s investigation was reasonable and in the absence of additional evidence or further action from the police, its advice that it was unable to make a finding of domestic violence was also reasonable.

Alternative accommodation

28. Following the resident’s initial requests for advice about his tenancy options in February 2020, it is not disputed that the landlord’s staff gave him differing advice. The resident has also reported that the advice given was not necessarily appropriate for his circumstances.
29. As noted above, the follow up messages from the landlord indicate that its staff members did not instruct the resident to take any particular form of action, but instead gave advice about possible actions prefaced with the need to seek further legal advice. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to be in a position to give legal advice specific to an individual’s needs, and so it was reasonable to have offered more general advice in this circumstance.
30. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately identified in its initial stage one response that the differing advice given by its staff would have been frustrating for the resident. Its acknowledgement of this and subsequent apology was therefore appropriate. It also appropriately reiterated the need for legal advice in relation to the resident’s tenancy options.
31. The landlord’s allocations policy notes that it may offer a management transfer where a resident is at serious risk from remaining at the property. Additionally, the landlord’s domestic violence policy notes it may offer a management transfer where domestic violence has occurred.
32. In its later stage one response, the landlord advised that has there had been no recent reports of ASB, it was unable to offer a management transfer. It reiterated this position in its stage two response.
33. As noted above, it was reasonable for the landlord to have not been able to conclusively find that domestic violence had occurred. In addition to this, it is not disputed that the resident was no longer residing at the property. It could not be said, therefore, that the resident was at “serious risk” at the property. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord was unable to offer a management transfer in the circumstances.
34. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord appropriately used its discretion to attempt to resolve the issue outside of its management transfer policy by offering both the resident and his sister one-bedroom properties if they mutually chose to end the tenancy. While it is unfortunate that the resident’s sister declined this offer, it was nevertheless appropriate for the landlord to have offered this in the circumstances.
35. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, which defines what complaints the Ombudsman can consider, is set out in The Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme notes that the complaints that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman are outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
36. Complaints relating to a local authority’s housing allocations, including in instances where a resident is homeless due to not being able to reside at their property, fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As noted above, the landlord is a local authority.
37. It is not disputed that due to the breakdown in the relationship with his sister, the resident was not able to reside at the property and was functionally homeless. Local authorities have a responsibility to provide housing to homeless people, and the Ombudsman notes that in the March 2021 stage one response, the landlord referred to the possibility of the resident making an application in the private sector through “the homeless persons unit.” The landlord also noted that on the basis of the non-molestation order, it was not able to offer temporary accommodation.
38. Whether the application through the homeless persons unit discharged the landlord’s obligations, or whether the landlord’s allocations policy prohibited an offer of temporary accommodation in the resident’s circumstances are questions outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident wishes to pursue this element of the complaint, he should refer his complaint to the LGSCO.
39. In summary, the landlord appropriately applied its management transfer policy, and its apology for poor initial advice was reasonable. The remaining elements of the complaint relating to homelessness and temporary accommodation are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Determination (decision)

40. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of domestic violence;
    2. request for alternative accommodation.

Reasons

Domestic violence

41. The landlord carried out a reasonable investigation of the resident’s reports and appropriately referred the reports to the police. Given that it was unable to corroborate the reports, and that the police chose to take no further action, it was reasonable for the landlord to have been unable to conclusively find that domestic violence occurred.

Alternative accommodation

42. The landlord appropriately applied its management transfer policy, and its apology for poor initial advice was reasonable. The remaining elements of the complaint relating to homelessness and temporary accommodation are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and should be referred to the LGSCO.