Hightown Housing Association Limited (202400264)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400264

Hightown Housing Association Limited

15 August 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) including noise nuisance and the use of cannabis.
2. Response to the resident’s requests for soundproofing adaptations.
3. Response to the resident’s health conditions and its provision of reasonable adjustments.
4. Response to the resident’s request for rehousing.
5. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 1 bedroom house that is owned and managed by a housing association. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in February 2019. The landlord records that the resident has autism and mental health vulnerabilities.
The resident has been represented by an advocate in the handling of her complaint. For ease, both the resident and her advocate are referred to interchangeably as ‘resident’ in this report.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 1 February 2024 in which she said:
1. Her vulnerabilities made her very sensitive to noise and other stimuli and that the frequency and volume of the noise she experienced was detrimental to her.
2. The landlord had not taken her health conditions into account and that it had a duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. She further said that a failure to do so would constitute discrimination and that she had been treated unfairly.
3. She was seeking noise reduction measures and/or a move to alternative accommodation due to the smell of illegal drugs and noise she experienced. Further that the local authority had accepted her onto its housing register.
4. She would like staff to be more supportive of her health conditions and/or the landlord to increase awareness of autism with its staff. Further that she would like a named contact to handle all of her interactions.
5. She wanted the landlord to explain how it would engage with mental health agencies and adapt its channels of communication to suit her needs.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 15 February 2024 in which it:
1. Summarised the ASB conversations it had previously held with her and explained that it was essential that she reported issues and engaged with its ASB procedures. It also said that she had not submitted diary sheets, nor completed an interview to agree actions. It named a staff member to assist her further and asked if she had a preferred communication method.
2. Said that she should liaise with an occupational therapist (OT) about property adaptations and said that it had previously discussed some available support options and its safeguarding concerns with her.
3. Confirmed that discussions at a multi-professionals’ meeting had included a recommendation for her to move home based upon a housing needs assessment. It summarised its lettings process and nomination agreements and acknowledged that she had registered on the local authority’s rehousing register. It encouraged her to bid on advertised property and use home swap databases.
4. Confirmed that building control staff had rejected an application to adapt the property due to the minimal difference to soundproofing it would make. It confirmed that the property met required soundproofing building regulations.
5. Said that it could find no evidence that its staff had not considered her autism and sensory issues, nor any evidence that it had not taken any action to remedy the situations she was experiencing.
6. Said that she could escalate the complaint to stage 2 within 20 working days if she remained dissatisfied with the response.
The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 16 February 2024 in which she said:
1. Its stage 1 response provided conflicting information, was dismissive and patronising, and did not acknowledge the evidence of ASB she had provided that had been recorded by a visitor to her property.
2. It had an inadequate drug use policy and should enforce the tenancy agreement to address substance abuse. She also said that 2 named staff members and a police officer had witnessed the use of cannabis.
3. She expected the landlord to move her because she had registered on the local authority housing register which she had been told was required for her to obtain a managed move.
4. It should adapt the property so that she could reside peacefully without intrusion from drug sharing parties and noise.
5. She disagreed with its view that it did not discriminate against her.
The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident on 16 February 2024 and sent a stage 2 response to her on 18 March 2024. In addition to the advice it had provided in its stage 1 response, the landlord:
1. Offered her £50 for a delay in issuing its response to her stage 2 complaint.
2. Said that it did not operate a rehousing waiting list, but that it could agree a managed move in exceptional circumstances. It explained that it had limited properties in the areas she had chosen. It also said that it did not have an available property and that it was unlikely one would become available and therefore it was not in a position to support her with a move.
3. Said it had reviewed her ASB concerns, that it had employed a designated ASB Officer, and was considering using an ASB app for recording incidents.
4. Said that the letter was its final response and that she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
This Service wrote to the resident on 20 May 2024 to acknowledge her request for us to investigate the complaint.
During a conversation this Service held with the resident on 30 July 2024 she said that she was still experiencing noise nuisance and could smell the use of cannabis and that she was sleeping in her car.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

In the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 16 February 2024 she said that the landlord’s response had negatively affected her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she said that the landlord had not taken her health conditions into account and that it had a duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. She further said that a failure to do so would constitute discrimination and that she had been treated unfairly. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we have considered whether the landlord had regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB including noise nuisance and the use of cannabis.

In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she said that her vulnerabilities made her very sensitive to noise and other stimuli and that the noise levels she had experienced were detrimental to her health. It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
In responding to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord:
1. Asked the resident to report incidents, use diary sheets, provide recorded noise nuisance, and share the details of neighbours who could confirm her reports. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it will use appropriate methods to gather evidence, including diary logs, interviews, and witness statements.
2. Held a conversation with the police on 3 May 2023 about the resident’s reports of noise and cannabis use. This was in keeping with its ASB procedure which says the landlord should share information with the police for them to pursue their own investigations or enforcement action.
3. Engaged with support workers and community mental health teams (CMHT) in keeping with its ASB policy which says working with other agencies is a key part of preventing and tackling ASB.
4. Attended professionals’ meetings on 2 June 2023 and 12 July 2023 in keeping with its ASB policy which says it will attend partnership meetings and refer cases to ensure a multi-agency approach is taken.
5. Reviewed the resident’s audio recording on 7 June 2023 and reviewed her diary sheets on 11 July 2023. This was in keeping with recommendations in this Service’s 2022 spotlight report on noise complaints which says noise recordings should always be listened to by the case handler to ensure robust investigations are informed by a true understanding of the noise being reported.
6. Provided letters to the resident on 26 June 2023, 3 July 2023, and 16 August 2023 to explain actions it had planned to address her ASB reports and to restate the advice it had previously provided to her in person. This was in keeping with its customer charter that says it will provide clear guidance to residents about what actions it can take.
7. Requested consent from the resident to approach the neighbours in compliance with its ASB procedures which says a person making the report must agree to the landlord making contact with an alleged perpetrator.
8. Offered the resident access to mediation services in its letters of 27 June 2023 and 3 July 2023 and requested permission to approach a neighbour about the offer. This was in keeping with its ASB procedure which says it is fully committed to the use of independent mediation as a way of preventing the escalation of low-level cases, where all parties agree to take part.
9. Provided information about what it could do to address her concerns about noise nuisance, such as by referring to the use of noise cancellation equipment and earphones, which it noted the resident already used.
10. Submitted a safeguarding referral on behalf of the resident in keeping with its ASB procedure which says it will refer a resident for an assessment where safeguarding issues are identified.
11. Agreed to visit the property every time the resident reported noise. This was supportive and reasonable under the circumstances so as to gather evidence of the ASB; especially given the resident had not given consent for the landlord to approach the neighbour directly.
12. Complied with the resident’s suggestion to designate a single point of contact for her and asked her if she had a preferred method of communication. This was in keeping with the recommendations in this Service’s spotlight report which says landlords should have dedicated staffing where appropriate.
13. Completed an ASB case review on 22 August 2023 during which it noted that the resident had not provided any further evidence of ASB. The landlord subsequently noted that it would close the ASB case during a further ASB case review it completed on 4 October 2023.
However, the landlord:
1. Did not complete a risk assessment in compliance with its ASB procedure which says it would do so to assess vulnerability, risk, and support needs.
2. Did not discuss the use of an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) in keeping with its ASB procedure. It is noted that it had not received the resident’s consent to approach her neighbours. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained the purpose and benefits of using an ABA to address the noise transference and ASB.
3. Did not explain that children playing was not considered to be ASB under its ASB procedure and/or the level of additional evidence it would require to take enforcement action. This was not in keeping with this Service’s spotlight report which says residents must be clearly told if their noise report is considered to be ASB. Furthermore it was a missed opportunity for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations.
The evidence referenced in paragraph 13 shows that the landlord had taken a series of appropriate actions to engage with the resident and other agencies about the matters. However the landlord did not clearly explain the level of evidence it required for it to take tenancy enforcement action. It also failed to complete a risk assessment in line with its ASB procedure and it did not discuss the use of an ABA which was an available tool to tackle the matters. While these actions may not have significantly changed the outcome for the resident, they would have more effectively managed her expectations and her understanding of the landlord’s ASB and tenancy management service. Consequently this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB including noise nuisance and the use of cannabis.
An award of £100 as compensation is ordered below for the impact the matter had on the resident. This award is in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance for circumstances where a landlord’s action may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but caused distress and inconvenience, and a loss of confidence in the landlord.

Response to the resident’s request for soundproofing adaptations.

The landlord recognised the resident as a disabled person and that it was therefore required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord’s response to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and its accessible homes (aids and adaptation) policy is addressed separately below.
This Service’s 2022 spotlight report on noise complaints recognises that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building. The landlord investigated the resident’s soundproofing enquiry of 29 March 2023 and concluded that the windows complied with building standards when they had been installed in 2017. The landlord noted that it was not aware of any requests to adjust the windows, and that there was no reason to do so as the area was quiet. It was reasonable for the landlord’s qualified staff to have reviewed the matters and share their conclusions internally 2 days later. However, there is no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s enquiry of 29 March 2023 to share its conclusion which was unreasonable.
The landlord discussed the matter with the resident on 3 May 2023 during which she reported that an OT had approved window soundproofing in 2019, which had not happened because of the COVID-19 pandemic. She also reported that a support agency had agreed to fund the works in 2021 and that the local authority’s building control staff had visited and assessed the property in 2023. The landlord subsequently investigated the resident’s reports further and found that her soundproofing request had been progressed via the local authority. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the matter further based upon the information the resident had provided. The landlord subsequently updated the resident on 22 May 2023 and encouraged her to contact the local authority about its progress which was reasonable under the circumstances.
The landlord’s accessible homes (aids and adaptations) policy says that requests for major adaptations need to be recommended in an OT report. Further, it says that residents should apply for a means tested disabled facilities grant (DFG) through the local authority’s adult social care services. It is evident from discussions held at a professionals’ meeting on 2 June 2023 that adult social care had applied for a DFG to complete soundproofing works. Further that the local authority had declined the DFG due to the cost, age of the building, and the low impact the works would have in addressing the noise transference issues. It was appropriate for the landlord to have relied on the local authority’s decisions about the DFG funding. Further, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain the local authority’s decisions to the resident when it met with her on 7 June 2023 and in its letter of 27 June 2023.
The landlord addressed the soundproofing matters again in its complaint responses. It restated that the local authority’s building control team had rejected a soundproofing application and it confirmed that the property had met current building regulations when it was built. It also signposted the resident to an OT if she required a further assessment of her needs and/or if she wished to pursue the matters further. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide this advice to manage the resident’s expectations. Furthermore, it was appropriate for it to have referred her to an OT for a specialist assessment to be completed in compliance with The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (sections 1 & 2) which places a duty on social services to assist disabled persons in obtaining suitable adaptations within their home.
This Service is unable to assess the local authority’s handling of the resident’s soundproofing request, the support agency’s funding application, and/or the local authority’s DFG funding. We are also unable to assess the decisions reached by the local authority and its building control staff about the soundproofing application as complaints about local authorities are matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
As set out above it is evident that the situation has been distressing for the resident. However, the decisions about funding and the building control’s decision to decline a soundproofing application were not decisions the landlord could make. The landlord investigated the history of the resident’s request for soundproofing, and it communicated the decisions that external agencies had reached to her in person and in writing on several occasions. Furthermore, it reassured her that the property met current soundproofing building regulations. This was in keeping with this Service’s spotlight report which as previously outlined noted that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building. Consequently, taking all matters in account this Service find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for soundproofing adaptations.

Response to the resident’s health conditions and the landlord’s provision of reasonable adjustments.

The Equality Act 2010 Section 6 says that someone has a disability if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that has a long-term and substantial adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Autism is regarded to be a recognised disability under the Act.
The landlord was aware that the resident was autistic and therefore disabled. Its accessible homes (aids and adaptions) policy says that it will make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to services which ‘put a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.’ In keeping with its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and in response to the resident’s disability and health conditions the landlord:
1. Engaged with external agencies working with the resident and attended professionals’ meetings with support workers and a CMHT which were centred around the needs of the resident.
2. Recognised that the resident did not need to have a diagnosis to be considered disabled in keeping with the Equality Act 2010. It accepted the resident’s statements about her health needs and retained these on its databases along with supporting statements from external agencies (CMHT and OT) without evidence of a formal diagnosis.
3. Completed a ‘Connected Lives’ needs assessment which summarised the resident’s health and housing circumstances with reference to her disability under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord appropriately shared the document with support agencies, and it became a point of reference during discussions about the resident’s circumstances at professionals’ meetings.
4. Held a conversation with the police on 3 May 2023 and asked them to complete a welfare check in response to the resident’s reports of self-harm.
5. Signposted the resident to adult social care and the local authority with regard to her requests for soundproofing adaptations and communicated the local authority’s decisions to her. This was in keeping with its accessible homes (aids and adaptations) policy as previously outlined.
6. Responded to statements the resident had made about her vulnerabilities and health conditions on 7 June 2023 by raising safeguarding concerns with the appropriate safeguarding professionals.
7. Considered and held discussions about moving the resident to suitable alternative accommodation in recognition of her vulnerabilities.
8. Engaged with the resident’s representative at an advice and support charity and made adjustments to ensure the resident felt safe by offering appointments at a local centre as well as at the landlord’s offices.
9. Arranged for a female member of staff to visit the resident with male staff in response to her vulnerabilities and her advice about a past history of abuse.
10. Emailed the resident on 10 July 2023 to signpost her to autism and mental health support agencies, indicating it was concerned about her wellbeing.
11. Explained to her that it had to defer to specialist support teams for the provision of care and support that was outside of its remit. Further, that it was limited in the support it could provide her if she chose not to engage with the specialist CMHT.
As set out in the preceding paragraph, the landlord demonstrated that it took into consideration the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities and provided a wide range of support in recognition of her health needs. Further that it made adjustments in the ways it communicated and engaged with her. It was in keeping with the landlord’s aids and adaptation policy for it to engage with support services and professional staff and for it to seek to adjust its services in response to the resident’s disability, vulnerabilities, and health needs.
The landlord addressed its response to the resident’s disability in its final complaint response in which it said it could not find any evidence that staff had not considered her autism or sensory issues when interacting with her. It was appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed its response to the resident’s disability which further evidenced that it had considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It was appropriate for the landlord to have set out its findings in its response to the resident’s complaint. Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s health conditions and its provision of reasonable adjustments.

Response to the resident’s request for rehousing.

The landlord operates under different local authority nomination agreements. It lets its properties via their choice based lettings schemes and signposts its residents to local authority housing registers. The landlord does not operate an internal transfer list and advertises any vacant properties that are not subject to nomination rights via online property websites.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s health and housing needs in its ‘connected lives’ assessment on 1 June 2023. It noted that she would benefit from moving to somewhere quiet to suit her sensory needs. It was appropriate for the landlord to have assessed the suitability of the resident’s current property with respect to her disabilities, as previously outlined.
The landlord discussed rehousing the resident at a professionals’ meeting held on 2 June 2023 during which it was recorded that the resident did not wish to move into supported accommodation. It is unclear whether the landlord or another agency had discussed supported housing with the resident, or when this had taken place. Notwithstanding it was appropriate for the landlord to have engaged in discussions about suitable alternative accommodation in recognition of the resident’s circumstances and health needs.
A support worker emailed the landlord on 14 June 2023 to confirm that the resident wished to stay in her current home. It also said that she had been interested in over-55’s property but that the local authority had said that it would not accept her onto its rehousing list. The resident also told the landlord on 11 July 2023 that the local authority had not accepted her housing application because she was suitably housed. This Service is unable to assess the decisions reached by the local authority in assessing her eligibility as these would be matters for the LGSCO.
The landlord discussed the resident’s rehousing options with her on 22 June 2023 and summarised the discussion in writing on 27 June 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the rehousing process so as to provide information about wait times, the location of its housing stock, and the availability of property. The landlord also stated in its letter that the meeting had not been arranged to offer her a managed move to manage her expectations.
In the resident’s stage 2 complaint she reported that the local authority had accepted her onto its rehousing waiting list. She further stated that she therefore expected the landlord to fulfil its word to offer her a managed move. The landlord’s final complaint response explained that it did not have a property for the resident and that it was not in a position to support her with a managed move because it was unlikely a property would become available. This advice was in keeping with its allocation policy which says that ‘managed moves will only be approved as a last resort where other action has failed or been impossible and there is a suitable property available for letting’. The landlord also explained that it operated under nomination agreements and did not manage its own waiting list. Further, it encouraged her to bid on advertised property and to continue to seek mutual exchange swap partners. Providing this advice to the resident was reasonable under the circumstances. Consequently this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for rehousing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
1. Did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) in place at the time which says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt.
2. Provided contradictory information in its stage 1 response about whether the resident had or had not submitted ASB diary sheets.
3. Did not fully address the resident’s complaint such as by responding to her request for window shutters and/or acoustic wall panels. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
4. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in accordance with paragraph 5.8 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
5. Did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 16 February 2024 until 18 March 2024. This was 11 working days later that its policy.
6. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in accordance with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and an offer of compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acknowledged a delay in issuing its stage 2 response and it offered the resident £50 as compensation. This amount was proportionate to the time and trouble its delay of 11 working days had caused to the resident. However, the landlord’s final response did not take into account the additional complaint handling failings this Service has identified in paragraph 40. An additional award of £75 has therefore been ordered below. This compensation is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for instances when, as here, there have been minor complaint handling failings by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident but caused her to incur time and trouble in getting matters resolved.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB including noise and the use of cannabis.
  2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Request for soundproofing adaptations.
  2. Health conditions and its provision of reasonable adjustments.
  3. Request for rehousing.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the £50 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
2. Pay the resident an additional £175 in compensation made up as follows:
  1. £100 for distress and inconvenience related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £75 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. Contact the resident to discuss her concerns about noise transference and the ongoing use of cannabis.
The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to discuss her transfer application and available housing options, including moving to other areas and to clearly explain the requirements for it to be able to offer a managed move.