Inquilab Housing Association Limited (202117243)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117243

Inquilab Housing Association Limited

18 July 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
2. reports of her difficulties in making contact with it;
3. request to move property and the associated record keeping;
4. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 21 January 2002. The property is a two bedroom ground floor flat, and the resident lives there with her adult son. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord’s record of the resident’s vulnerabilities states that she is registered disabled, elderly, has visual impairment and is hard of hearing. The landlord is further aware of physical and mental health issues that it was informed of in a letter from the resident’s doctor. The same letter also advised that the resident’s son was receiving medical care for mental health issues.
The resident’s reports of ASB to the landlord included issues with the son of a neighbouring tenant of the landlord, who had moved in with the neighbouring tenant following his release from prison. For the purposes of this report the neighbouring tenant is referred to as ‘the neighbour’.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it is a tenant’s obligation not to cause, or allow members of their household to cause, annoyance, nor commit harassment or otherwise interfere with the peace and comfort of another tenant. This Service has not seen the neighbour’s tenancy agreement, but it is assumed to have the same or similar terms to the resident’s.

ASB policy

The landlord’s ASB policy recognises its key role in creating safe communities, that it said can only be achieved by working in partnership with the Police, local authority, other agencies and its residents. It says that its victim centred approach involves early intervention, support, and swift enforcement.
It stated that along with its frontline staff, the landlord also used antisocial behaviour specialists (ASBS), who are contractors commissioned to deal with ASB. For the purposes of this report, both the landlord and the ASBS are referred to as ‘the landlord’.
It described the range of enforcement tools available to the landlord, which includes injunctions, undertakings and evictions.
It explained that the landlord would consider moving victims of ASB in exceptional circumstances, including where their welfare is being seriously compromised by remaining at the property, and in line with its allocations and lettings policy.

Allocations and lettings policy

The policy described the ‘choice based lettings’ system that existing tenants who had requested a transfer would use.
It said that priority is given to those with urgent needs through the use of ‘priority banding’. It said that the highest level of priority banding was ‘band A’. It explained that additional priority would be granted where a medical assessment had established a need.
The policy explained the landlord’s use of ‘management transfers’ to ensure that residents at high risk are moved quickly. It explained the criteria that must be met for a resident to be eligible for a management transfer, and agreed by its management transfer panel. It said that this included life threatening cases, and cases of severe harassment. It stated that in both these cases, Police or external supporting evidence was required.

Tenancy handbook

The tenancy handbook said that the ‘choice based lettings’ system for the area, was called ‘Locata’.
It said that the landlord will ensure its customer services are accessible. The ‘contact us’ section of the handbook included the landlord’s office address, and advised how to contact it via its web portal, website and email, but did not include a telephone number.

Complaints policy

The policy stated that the landlord operates a two stage process, with written responses issued to residents within 10 and 20 working days at stage one and stage two respectively.
It stated that the landlord will ensure that customers are kept regularly updated with the progress of their complaint.
It explained its objective to use learning from complaints to inform policy and service improvement.

Summary of events

On 18 June 2021, the landlord sent an internal email that provided an update following its discussion with the resident about her reports of loud music from the neighbour’s property. It said that it had been unable to get an answer when it called the neighbour, but that it had written to her about the reports. It stated that it had advised the resident to report the matter to the Environmental Health Team (EHT), but that it would monitor the matter closely.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord made a welfare call to the resident. The resident confirmed that she was still experiencing noise nuisance from the neighbour’s property. The landlord records stated that it would speak and write to the neighbour, and begin building a case.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident that regarded the multiple reports of ASB she had made about the neighbour. The letter confirmed that the landlord had an open ASB case, which it said that it was thoroughly investigating. It acknowledged that the resident was suffering panic attacks and severe anxiety as a result of the issues with the neighbour. It said it would feedback to her following its investigation, and provided a direct dial telephone number for her to report further issues.
On 28 June 2021, the resident called the landlord and asked for a call back. The landlord called the resident the following day. The resident confirmed that music was still being played from the neighbour’s property. The landlord advised that it would continue to monitor the situation following the verbal and written warnings it had given to the neighbour.
On 4 July 2021, the resident’s doctor sent a letter to the landlord that provided detailed information regarding her health issues and medication. The doctor’s letter stated that the resident had said that the neighbour’s loud music caused her stress and panic attacks, and that her son also felt very stressed. It asked that the landlord move the resident to a suitable property.
On 8 July 2021, the landlord made a welfare call to the resident’s son. The record said that the resident’s son had reported an incident to the Police the previous night, that concerned the neighbour’s son. It said that both the Police and landlord advised that, as the neighbour’s son had been recently released from prison, the resident’s son should call the Police at the first sign of further trouble.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord sent an internal email that detailed the impact that the neighbour’s son’s ASB was having on nearby tenants. It also detailed the outcomes of its discussion that day with the probation service.
On 7 August 2021, the landlord discussed the matter with the neighbour, who it said was cooperative and also appeared to be struggling with her son being there.
On 11 August 2021, the landlord spoke again with the probation service, who it said had made little progress. The landlord emphasised to the probation service how seriously it was treating the matter, and the steps it would take if further progress was not made.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord made a welfare call to the resident. The landlord said that it wanted to reassure the resident, and advised her that it would be writing to the neighbour that day.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the neighbour that advised that she was to be served a ‘notice of seeking possession’ due to the behaviour of her son. It said that this would occur once the landlord’s multi-agency partners had provided final disclosure. It advised of the further steps the landlord would take if the neighbour’s son’s ASB continued. This included gaining possession of her property through the court, and seeking an injunction order directly against her son.
On 16 August 2021, the resident’s doctor sent a letter to the landlord that concerned her son. The letter described the son’s mental health issues, and the impact that the ASB was having on him. It asked that the landlord support him to move to a suitable property as soon as possible.
On 25 August 2021, the landlord spoke with the neighbour, who advised that she had had time to reflect, and would support the landlord’s actions to remove her son from her property.
On 5 and 6 September 2021, the landlord made welfare calls to the resident. The resident stated that the noise and ASB was ongoing, and explained her fears of reprisals from the neighbour’s son for reporting it. The landlord emphasised that the resident could call it at any time.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord emailed the probation service, who it noted in its record had gone quiet. The email explained the actions that the landlord was looking to take. It requested an urgent discussion with the probation service.
On 9 September 2021, the neighbour’s son signed the landlord’s ‘ASB undertaking’ form. The form detailed the son’s agreement to no longer live at the neighbour’s property from 22 September 2021. It further confirmed the son’s understanding that the landlord would seek an injunction order against him if he breached the undertaking agreement. The landlord’s record stated that it confirmed its actions to the resident’s son the following day, who it said was very happy with this.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord spoke with the probation service, and again reiterated the enforcement action it would take if progress was not made.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord called the resident’s son and confirmed that the neighbour’s son would be moving out. The landlord’s record of the call stated that the resident’s son was very thankful, and had said that he and his mother were ‘over the moon’.
On 18 October 2021, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. The landlord told this Service that it was unable to provide a copy of the resident’s complaint that it was in response to. This Service is also unaware of the date that the resident made her complaint. The key points of the landlord’s stage one response were as follows:
1. It said that it was sorry to hear that the resident had experienced challenges in her home, which had resulted in her wanting to move property.
2. It advised that the resident’s transfer application and supporting documents were under review, and that it was awaiting a banding recommendation from its medical expert.
3. It stated that it was aiming to provide the resident with the outcome of this by mid-November. It advised that this would then allow the resident to bid for properties, or that a management transfer may be authorised if there was deemed to be a risk to life.
4. It said that it would attempt to contact the resident by telephone to further discuss her case and other available options.
5. It advised the resident of her right to request her complaint be escalated to stage two of its process if she remained dissatisfied.
On 25 October 2021, the landlord recorded that it had received lots of reports of noise over the weekend from the resident about the neighbour, which the neighbour was strongly denying. It stated that it had escalated the matter to the EHT to establish if it was statutory noise nuisance, and advised of the steps it now needed to take to comply with the EHT. It said that, for opposite reasons, both the resident and neighbour were very keen for the EHT to be involved.
On 28 October 2021, this Service wrote to the resident in response to her contact the previous day. The letter explained the role of this Service, and advised that the Ombudsman had written to the landlord and asked that it contact the resident and provide her a written response to her complaint.
On 29 October 2021, the landlord sent an internal email that provided an update on the resident’s case. It highlighted the success of its intense multi-agency working, and the pressure it had applied on the Police and Probation Service that had allowed it to avoid serving notice on the neighbour. It said that despite the neighbour’s son moving out, the resident had continued to report incidents of noise nuisance. It said that it thought that the resident’s tolerance had been left at rock bottom after all that she had been through, and it was hopeful that the issues would now quieten down.
On 9 November 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident, who confirmed she was still suffering from noise nuisance. The landlord said that it advised the resident it was awaiting the report of its medical expert, and would contact her again when it had an outcome.
On 10 November 2021, the landlord received the report of its medical expert. The report named the resident and her son, but the physical and mental assessment that it detailed was about the resident. The report stated that the resident’s property was contended to be unsuitable due to the ASB of the neighbour. It concluded that ASB is not a medical issue and should be dealt with by appropriate authorities. It stated that, as such, no medical priority was recommended.
On 23 November 2021, the landlord recorded that the resident had agreed to move home as part of a management transfer related to the ASB she had suffered. It confirmed that the resident’s ASB case had been closed.
On 16 February 2022, this Service wrote to the resident. The letter noted that the landlord had sent the resident a stage one complaint response. It advised that if she remained dissatisfied, she should contact the landlord directly, and request that her complaint be escalated to stage two of its process.
On 21 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord via its ‘app message’ (AM) service. The message was to her housing officer (HO), and explained that it was being written for her by her son, as she could not use a computer. She reported crime and gang activity, which she said that she had reported to the Police. It asked that she not be forgotten and expressed her hopes of moving to a safe home. It thanked the HO for all that she had done. It said that it had also sent an AM a few days earlier, and that her son was having trouble using it. The landlord replied the following day and said that the message had been passed to the HO.
On 5 May 2022, the resident sent an AM to the landlord. She expressed her hope that the HO was well, and asked that she call her urgently. The resident sent a second AM later the same day, and asked that her new HO call her urgently. The landlord replied the following day and said that the message had been passed to the HO.
On 9 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and asked that her complaint be escalated to stage two. The email was from the resident, but stated that due to her age and limited eyesight, it had been written for her by her son. The copy of the email provided by the landlord to this Service ended mid-sentence and appeared to be incomplete. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. It described her and her son’s medical conditions, and her belief that the landlord was “still playing games” regarding her property transfer.
2. She said that the landlord’s former housing officer (HO) had written to her on 11 November 2021, and had told her she was band A and a high priority for a transfer.
3. She stated that she had suffered from lots of noise from neighbours, which the landlord was helping her with, and lots of drug dealing and general crime, that she had had to report to the Police.
4. She said the former HO had told her that she would be given a direct property transfer, and that the landlord would do the bidding for her as she was unable to use a computer.
5. She stated that the landlord had offered her a lovely house in November 2021, but that she had been admitted to hospital for a week just ahead of the sign up. She explained that she had had no way of advising the landlord that she was in hospital, and as such had missed out on the property.
6. She said that the new HO who had taken over had told her that she would contact her as soon as a suitable property became available. She said that this was taking such a long time that she called the landlord to ask for an update, and only then found out that the new HO had also left the landlord’s employment.
7. She stated that since that time, nobody from the landlord would respond to her or provide her information.
On 10 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by AM. It said that it understood that the resident had spoken to a colleague the previous day, and that its housing case officer would contact her within 15 working days.
On 12 May 2022, the landlord requested that the resident email it documents, which its record stated that she did the same day. On 17 May 2022, the HO attempted to call the resident but did not get an answer, and so emailed the resident to confirm that the documents she had sent had been received. It asked that she allow up to 10 days for them to be reviewed.
On 19 May 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. The key points were as follows:
1. It said it was sorry that the resident had not yet moved, but confirmed that she was still band A priority.
2. It acknowledged that it had not followed up on its offer to help the resident place bids due to its team changes. It said that on that basis it was partially upholding her complaint.
3. It stated that it had asked a member of its team to contact her to talk through moving options, which would happen within five days.
4. It said that it understood that the resident’s son had previously helped her to place bids. It stated that it could not commit to placing bids for the resident on a weekly basis, but suggested that the local authority’s Social Services may be able to help her with it.
5. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 31 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM. She said that she had been promised a call back the previous week regarding her property move, but had not heard anything. She asked that the HO call her urgently. The landlord replied by AM the following day. It apologised for the delay and explained that it was dealing with a high volume of call back requests. It said that it had booked the resident a call back for after 2pm on 7 June 2022.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord’s HO called the resident and explained that she had been placed onto auto-bidding. She said that the landlord would also look for a suitable property for her.
On 18 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM. She complained that she could never speak to anyone from the landlord’s housing team, and the call backs she was promised never happened. She asked for a call from the head of operations regarding her move.
On 21 June 2022, the landlord replied to the resident by AM. It said that a HO had discussed its choice based lettings system, called Locata, with her on 7 June 2022, and attempted to call her again on 16 June 2022 and left a message. It offered a call back on 27 June 2022.
The resident and landlord exchanged further AMs until the HO called the resident on 27 June 2022. On 30 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM and said that she had not received the Locata information she had been promised during her call.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for the delay in it responding. It confirmed that the resident was still band A and was still registered for auto-bidding. It said that this would bid for the properties of other landlords as well. It said that, in the meantime, if one of its own properties became available it would make the resident a direct offer.
On 6 and 11 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM to ask for confirmation that she was still on auto-bidding. The landlord replied on 11 July 2022 and referred to its email on 5 July 2022 that had confirmed that the resident was still on auto-bidding.
On 11 August 2022, the landlord updated its record and stated that it had received recent reports from the resident’s son of ongoing noise nuisance from the neighbour’s property. It said that both the resident and her son had been very upset.
On 14 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM, and asked for a call back from the HO. She said that she had tried to call the landlord but could never get through. She stated that she had been offered a property that was not on the ground floor, and as such was not suitable for her disabilities. She said that she would still like to speak to someone from the landlord who was senior to the HO.
On 22 August 2022, the landlord recorded that it had spoken with the resident’s son about an incident involving the neighbour’s son, that had occurred the previous day. It stated that the neighbour’s son had banged heavily on the resident’s door, blaming him for the fact he could not live there anymore, and telling him to come outside. The neighbour was not at home, but her daughter had become involved and told the resident’s son to call the Police, as her brother was uncontrollable. It said that when the Police arrived the neighbour’s son had left, but that they advised that he would be arrested. It noted that the resident’s son had said that it had been the first time he had seen the neighbour’s son since the ASB case had been closed in November 2021. The landlord spoke to the Police and the neighbour the same day.
On 22 August 2022, the landlord emailed its solicitor and attached its own signed statement of the incident, and another by the resident’s son. Its record stated that it had reopened the resident’s ASB case. The following day, the resident provided a video that the landlord’s record said confirmed loud music was being played at the neighbour’s property.
On 24 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM, and said that she had just got the news that her HO was no longer assigned to her. She expressed her concern that she would have to start again with providing documents and explaining her situation to another new HO. She said that she had been told she was on auto-bid for a move, but did not know if that was still the case. She explained how stressful she was finding the situation, and implored that somebody call her. The landlord replied the same day, and said her message had been passed to her HO and the ASB team.
On 25 August 2022, the landlord’s record stated that it had obtained a signed statement from the neighbour, in support of the intended injunction against her son.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord updated its record to confirm it had issued a case to the court for an injunction order against the neighbour’s son. It said it had not yet heard back from the court, but that its solicitor was chasing daily.
On 31 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM and repeated her concerns from her AM sent 24 August 2022. She again asked that somebody call her.
On 5 September 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by AM, and apologised for not getting back to her sooner. It advised that the person she wanted to speak to was on leave, but would call her on her return.
On 13 September 2022, the resident’s son emailed the landlord’s HO. He enquired about using Locata, but stated their wish to remain on auto-bid. He expressed his hope that they got the property that they had been shortlisted for and expressed his gratitude to the HO. The HO replied and asked whether the resident would consider a two bedroom house with a garden that had become available. She said that she understood that they wanted a ground floor property, but that she thought she would check with them anyway.
On 28 September 2022, the resident’s son and the HO exchanged emails regarding his and the resident’s needs for their next property. The resident and landlord exchanged further AMs about this over the following days.
On 11 October 2022, the landlord updated its record, and confirmed that a “substituted service of the order” against the neighbour’s son had been achieved via his sister. It stated that there had been no further serious incidents since 22 August 2022. It said that it was maintaining contact with the resident, and would continue exploring options to help her move. It said that it was working with the neighbour too, who it also considered to be a victim of her son.
On 18 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM and asked that her HO call her. She said that her HO had been lovely, but that she knew that she would be away for a few weeks soon for health reasons. She asked that her best wishes be passed to the HO, but expressed her concern that her move would now be derailed, and that she had not received contact details for a temporary replacement HO. The landlord replied the same day and explained that the HO would pick her case back up when she returned, and that it would provide the temporary HO contact details as soon as they were available.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord updated its record following a court hearing the previous day. It confirmed that the injunction order against the neighbour’s son had been finalised.
On 31 October and 2 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM, to complain that she had not heard from the temporary HO. The landlord replied on 2 November 2022 and said that a HO would call her.
On 21 and 28 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by AM. She asked when her HO was returning, and complained that she had still not spoken to the temporary HO. She further complained that the landlord never answered its phone, and said that the Police and Victim Support had complained to her of the same.
On 1 December 2022, the resident emailed this Service and expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. She explained that she was extremely worried for her health and safety, and that where she lived was unsafe due to crime.
2. She said that the landlord never answered its phone, and that at times she had waited on the line for an hour without response. She stated that the landlord only took messages via its ‘app’, which she thought was ridiculous.
3. She stated that a neighbour who no longer lived there had threatened and harassed her and her son, and that she had called the Police many times. She said that the Police had requested that she be moved, but that the Police and Victim Support could not get a response from the landlord.
4. She said that ASB still continued with people prank ringing her doorbell, general crime and the smell of drugs. She stated that all of this had been repeatedly reported to the landlord, but that it had failed to act.
5. She explained that her HO had been on sick leave from October 2022. She said that since that time, the landlord would promise her call backs but fail to make them, and that every time a HO left she would have to start again with a new HO who did not understand her case.
6. She said that her house was still packed up from her proposed move in November 2021, that she had missed out on due to being hospitalised.
7. She said that she was afraid to continue living in her property, and needed a transfer urgently.
On 6 December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by AM, and apologised for the delay in getting back to her. It advised that her HO was returning to work on 19 December 2022 and would call her then.
On 20 December 2022, the landlord’s HO called the resident, and agreed that she would visit her in the new year.
On 14 December 2022, this Service emailed a letter to the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint. The letter stated that, having reviewed the landlord’s complaint responses to the resident, it appeared not to have addressed her reported issues of ASB, nor her difficulties making telephone contact with it. The letter advised the landlord of the next steps it should consider, including reissuing a final response to the resident. It asked that the landlord confirm its position to this Service by 4 January 2023.
On 18 February 2023, this Service wrote to the landlord and requested it provide evidence for the Ombudsman to investigate the resident’s complaint.
On 22 February 2023, the resident called the landlord and advised that she was now out of hospital and asked that her HO call her back. The HO called her back the same day.
On 28 February 2023, the landlord sent an updated stage two complaint response letter to the resident. It referred to its contact with this Service, and explained that it had reviewed its previous stage one and two complaint responses. It said that it had identified two issues from the resident’s complaint that it had not fully addressed, which it apologised for. The two issues identified were the ASB at the neighbour’s property, and the issues that the resident had experienced in contacting the landlord. It said that it would now provide a full response to the resident’s complaint, which it divided into four headings. The key points were as follows:
1. With regards to the resident’s housing transfer, it said that the resident had requested to move home in light of her and her son’s health issues, and to get away from the neighbour’s son’s ASB. It stated she had been awarded a band A priority and registered on Locata on 22 February 2022.
2. It noted that the resident had been offered a direct match but had been unable to proceed due to being hospitalised. It said that she had been offered a further property via Locata in September 2022, which she had declined.
3. It said that the resident’s complaint had highlighted her difficulties using Locata for bidding after her former HO had left the landlord’s employment in April 2022. It stated that this was resolved by her new HO who had placed her on auto-bid in May 2022, and who had maintained weekly contact with her since.
4. It noted that when it had discussed the complaint with the resident, she said she was keen to move but was happy with the support of the HO. It said it had upheld this element of her complaint due to the initial difficulties she had experienced with Locata.
5. With regards to the resident’s ASB reports, it noted that it had dealt with the issues in the second half of 2021, which had culminated in the neighbour’s son signing an undertaking to move out, and the ASB case being closed on 23 November 2021.
6. It stated that from 20 December 2021 to 22 March 2022 the resident had made further reports of ASB via the landlord’s web portal. It noted that the resident’s son had used the web portal, because the resident had said she had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to telephone the landlord.
7. It said that the ASB case was reopened following an incident involving the neighbour’s son on 22 August 2022. It said that it had finally resolved this by gaining an injunction against the neighbour’s son on 29 October 2022, which he had so far complied with.
8. It said it that it did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint, as it had taken reasonable actions to resolve the ASB.
9. With regards to the resident being unable to report the ASB by telephone, the landlord said it had discussed this with her in its recent call and was upholding this element of her complaint. It noted that she had confirmed she was happy with her current contact with the landlord, and with its resolution of the ASB.
10. With regards to the resident’s dissatisfaction with how it had handled her complaint, the landlord said it was upholding this element.
11. It said it believed the difficulties the resident had experienced with telephoning it had been a significant factor in this, and that it had not responded in a timely manner to her reports of ASB after the case had been closed in November 2021.
12. It accepted that it had also failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint in its original stage two response letter.
13. It offered the resident £300 compensation for the communication and support issues she had experienced. It assured her that it would continue supporting her in securing a property move. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 9 March 2023, the landlord replied to the email from this Service that was sent on 14 December 2022. It attached a copy of its updated stage two complaint response to the resident. The following day, the landlord sent a further email to this Service that advised that the resident had accepted its offer of compensation.

Summary of events after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 13 June 2023, the resident emailed this Service to provide an update. The resident advised that she was suffering from persistent leaks, floods and sewage in her property. She further advised that she was calling the landlord everyday but was not receiving call backs.
On 15 June 2023, this Service emailed a letter to the resident and explained that the recent flooding issues that she had reported would not form part of this investigation. The letter advised that this Service had written to the landlord, and asked it to contact her urgently, and handle the matter as a separate complaint if necessary.
On 3 July 2023, the landlord emailed this Service to provide an update. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It stated that the flooding issues at the resident’s property were in hand. It said that it had handled this as a separate formal complaint for which it had sent the resident its stage one response.
2. It said that it was actively addressing the resident’s continuing reports of ASB, and that its HO had continued to visit her monthly since she had returned from sick leave in December 2022.
3. It advised that it had recently offered the resident a further direct transfer to a property suitable to her needs. It explained that the property was in a desirable location, but not in the resident’s area of choice.
4. It stated that the resident had refused the property on 26 June 2023. It said it would continue to make frequent visits to the resident, and to support her with a move.

Assessment and findings

ASB handling

The level of ASB caused by the neighbour’s son is not disputed. Nor is the fear, stress and significant impact the resident described it as having on her. The resident also reported other ASB issues, concerning more general criminality and drug use in the neighbourhood that she reported to the Police. It was less clear from the evidence provided by the landlord, as to how effectively these elements were dealt with, although the resident did refer to the help her housing officer (HO) was providing in relation to this, in her email to the landlord on 9 May 2022. However, it is reasonable to conclude that any shortcomings in this regard were more related to the contact difficulties that the resident experienced, that have been separately assessed below.
The landlord has thoroughly evidenced its handling of the primary ASB issues caused by the neighbour’s son. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord, specifically its contracted ASB specialist, did handle the resident’s primary reports of ASB appropriately and in line with its policy. As such, a finding of no maladministration had been made.
It was not clear when precisely in June 2021 the resident first reported noise nuisance from the neighbour’s property. However, the landlord’s internal email sent on 18 June 2021 evidenced that it had already discussed the matter with the resident, and begun addressing the issue with the neighbour. For the remainder of June and into July 2021, the landlord made further welfare calls to the resident. The landlord followed this up in writing, emphasising its commitment to support her, and issued verbal and written warnings to the neighbour. This demonstrated that it took a victim centred approach that involved early intervention and support, in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord maintained contact with the resident through July and August 2021, and evidenced its partnership working with the Police, probation service and the neighbour, again in line with its policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to write to the neighbour and signal its intent to serve her a notice of seeking possession, and warn of the other legal enforcement actions it may take. This was in line with the stated approach of its policy, for it to take swift enforcement action where necessary.
The landlord continued working with the probation service through September 2021, and appropriately applied pressure when needed for it to secure alternative accommodation for the neighbour’s son. It was reasonable for the landlord to use a signed undertaking from the neighbour’s son, with a view to resolving the ASB by preventing him from living with the neighbour. The landlord’s actions were again in line with its policy, and therefore reasonable.
The neighbour’s son moved home in October 2021. The resident continued to report noise nuisance from the neighbour’s property, and it was appropriate for the landlord to continue liaising with both parties, and to involve the environmental health team. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to a managed move for the resident in November 2021. This was in line with its policy concerning moving victims of ASB in exceptional circumstances, and where their welfare is being compromised. The resident’s ASB case was closed on 23 November 2021.
On 21 August 2022, the resident’s son reported a serious incident of ASB involving the neighbour’s son, who had returned to her property. It was appropriate for the landlord to reopen the resident’s ASB case the next day, and it again acted decisively in liaising with the Police and gaining witness statements. The statements were passed to the landlord’s solicitor the same day, with a view to seeking an injunction against the neighbour’s son. This was again in line with the stated approach of its policy, for it to take swift enforcement action where necessary.
The landlord evidenced its own, and its solicitor’s, appropriate efforts to take legal enforcement action through September and October 2022. This culminated in a substituted service of the order against the neighbour’s son being gained on 11 October 2022, and a full injunction order against him being made by the court on 24 October 2022.
The Ombudsman again fully acknowledges the levels of stress and anxiety the behaviour of the neighbour’s son caused to the resident and her son. Nevertheless, the landlord has evidenced the decisive and effective actions it took in its handling of her ASB case, and in line with its policy. The landlord therefore acted reasonably, and a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Contact difficulties

Many landlords are going through a process commonly known as ‘channel shifting’, whereby they provide and encourage the use of digital methods of contact as an alternative to telephone calls. Whilst it is appropriate for landlords to seek the cost and efficiency benefits that this process can bring, it is essential that they continue to provide effective traditional methods of contact, particularly for more vulnerable residents.
Whilst the landlord’s telephone number is shown elsewhere, it was notable that it was excluded from the ‘contact us’ section of its tenant handbook. It instead provided three digital methods for tenants to access information and contact it. The resident had made known her difficulties with using the landlord’s ‘app message’ (AM) service, along with her poor experience of trying to contact the landlord by telephone.
It is of concern that an elderly and partially sighted resident would consider the landlord’s AM service to be her only somewhat reliable method for contacting it. It is of further concern to consider how much worse this might have been had the resident not had her son to support her with use of the AM service, and he too initially experienced difficulties in using it. All of this is in contrast to the landlord’s commitment in its tenant handbook, to ensure that its customer services are accessible. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable, and a finding of maladministration has been made.
The landlord acted appropriately in maintaining regular contact with the resident from the early stages of the neighbour’s son’s ASB, through to him moving out and the ASB case being initially closed, on 23 November 2021. It is the period after this time where the resident appears to have experienced the most difficulty in contacting the landlord, although it is acknowledged that she has also referred to it always having been that way.
The resident’s earliest use of the landlord’s AM service, seen by this Service, was the message she sent to her HO, assisted by her son, on 21 April 2022. The message made clear that they were struggling with the use of the AM, and were unsure whether their previous attempts to contact the landlord with it had been successful. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, including her limited sight, and of the distress she was experiencing from her reports to the Police of crime and general ASB in the area. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure the resident was aware that she could telephone it, rather than use AM, and to ensure this basic method of contact was available in line with its commitment to provide accessible customer services. Instead, and as was often subsequently the case, the landlord simply acknowledged the resident’s AM with a response that it had been passed to her HO. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The resident further chased contact from the landlord, again via AM, on 5 May 2022, and followed this up by email on 9 May 2022, when she asked that her complaint be escalated. The resident’s email emphasised the difficulties she had in getting through to the landlord by telephone, and with the use of the AM service. This was further compounded by the change of the resident’s assigned HO, which occurred on a few occasions. The resident had been complimentary of the efforts and support of her HO, but staff leaving the employment of the landlord, or being away from work, left the resident feeling that she was starting again each time with somebody new, and contributed to the prolonged contact difficulties she experienced. Whilst staff absence can be unavoidable, it would be appropriate for the landlord to ensure it has the processes and resources in place to offer reasonable continuity of service, particularly to vulnerable residents. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
It is reasonable to conclude that the change of HO and the resident’s difficulties in contacting the landlord did, at times, negatively impact the landlord’s responses to her more general reports of neighbourhood ASB. It also contributed to the delay between the resident being supported with her property bids on Locata, and her being set up for auto-bidding, and this latter failing is further considered in the complaint handling assessment.
The landlord’s updated stage two complaint response, sent to the resident on 28 February 2023, accepted the contact difficulties she had experienced and upheld that element of her complaint. It did not though offer any explanation of why the resident had suffered these service failings, nor how it would prevent them in the future. This again is further considered in the complaint handling assessment below.
The landlord often failed to respond in a timely manner to the resident’s AM enquiries, or requests for call backs. It also further failed to effectively respond to her calls, to the extent that she was left feeling that her only means of reaching the landlord was with a digital service she was ill equipped to use. These are significant failings by the landlord in its provision of the most basic of frontline services, and was further compounded by the resident’s vulnerable status, and the distress she would have been suffering. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration.

Transfer request and associated record keeping

The landlord’s updated stage two response sent on 28 February 2023, stated that it had upheld this element of the resident’s complaint due to her initial difficulties in using the choice based lettings system, Locata. This was largely due to the difficulties the resident experienced in contacting the landlord, as well as with its complaint handling, and has therefore been considered in those sections of this assessment. As such, this section of the assessment is focused on whether the landlord handled the resident’s transfer request in line with its policy, and its ability to evidence this through its record keeping.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord may well have handled the resident’s transfer request in line with its policy. However, the gaps and omissions in the landlord’s evidence provided to this Service have hampered the Ombudsman’s ability to assess this, or the landlord’s rationale behind its decisions and other key elements regarding the resident’s transfer request. This was in contrast to the landlord’s good record keeping in other areas, particularly that of its ASB specialist and some of its housing officers. Nevertheless, good record keeping is a vital element of a landlord’s function across all service areas. The landlord’s inability to evidence several of its key actions and decisions regarding the transfer request was therefore unreasonable, and a finding of service failure has been made.
The resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord on 4 July and 16 August 2021, with regard to the resident and her son respectively. The doctor asked that the landlord consider moving the resident due to the noise and ASB she was experiencing. It was appropriate for the landlord to initially focus on tackling the ASB in line with its policy, and as assessed above.
The landlord provided no evidence of when or how the resident’s transfer application or medical assessment was initiated, which was the beginning of its record keeping failures and was therefore unreasonable. The landlord’s letter sent to the resident on 18 October 2021 confirmed that the resident’s application was under review, and that it was awaiting the outcome of her medical assessment that would inform her priority banding. This was in line with its allocations policy and therefore appropriate. The landlord provided a further update to the resident on 9 November 2021, and received the resident’s medical assessment the following day. The assessment concluded that no medical priority was recommended.
The landlord’s record dated 23 November 2021 stated that the resident had agreed to move home as part of a management transfer related to ASB. It is acknowledged that this was likely the right decision for the resident, given all that she had described about the impact living at her property was having on her. However, the Ombudsman has seen no further evidence of how the decision was arrived at, nor how the resident’s request met the criteria stated in the landlord’s policy. Nor has any evidence been seen of when, or if, the decision was approved by its management transfer panel, again in line with its policy. Whilst the landlord’s consideration for the resident’s welfare was reasonable, its inability to evidence these key decisions was not.
Both the landlord and resident referred on several occasions to the property offer that the landlord attempted to make to the resident in November 2021 and, as such, this is not in dispute. However, it is not appropriate that the Ombudsman has seen no other evidence regarding the property offer. It would seem fortunate for a suitable property to become available so quickly, and regrettable that the resident’s hospitalisation was unknown to the landlord and left her uncontactable, and unable to accept the offer.
Nevertheless, the landlord has again failed to provide any evidence of its offer, nor its attempts to contact the resident to make it. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence that the landlord considered making enquiries with her son when it was unable to contact the resident, as may have been appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The resident’s email to the landlord sent on 9 May 2022 referred to the landlord advice to her on 11 November 2021 that she had been awarded band A priority. This was the landlord’s highest priority in line with its policy. The landlord’s updated stage two complaint response sent on 28 February 2023 stated that the resident’s band A priority became effective on 22 February 2022. The speed of the property offer that the landlord has said it attempted to make to the resident in November 2021 would suggest that the resident’s account of when she was awarded band A priority is the more plausible. It is also again acknowledged, that in awarding the resident its highest priority banding, the landlord did demonstrate its commitment to her welfare.
However, the landlord has again failed to evidence when or how the resident was awarded band A priority, which has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. The Ombudsman has also seen no Police nor external supporting evidence that the landlord’s policy stated was required to make the decision, particularly given the resident’s medical assessment had not supported it. Even in cases such as this, where the landlord’s decision is seemingly in line with the wishes and best interests of the resident, it should still be able to evidence its rationale and the following of its policy through its record keeping. That the landlord has been unable to do so is therefore unreasonable.
The resident chased updates regarding her transfer from the landlord through much of 2022, and her difficulties at times with getting a response has been assessed above. Similarly, there was a delay in implementing auto-bidding on the Locata system for the resident, which has been assessed as part of the landlord’s complaint handling below. The resident was put onto auto-bidding in May 2022, and this has remained the case since. The landlord has said that the resident declined property offers in September 2022 and June 2023, although it is again unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this.
The landlord’s poor record keeping of this specific element of its service has limited the Ombudsman ability to make an assessment. However, it is not disputed that the resident was awarded the highest possible priority banding, which remains the case, and was set up on auto-bidding for properties, albeit with some delay. She has also been offered properties, and had it confirmed by the landlord that she remains eligible to be direct matched to one of its own suitable properties if one becomes available. The landlord has failed to provide evidence of the timing or implementation of many of its actions and decisions, as well as the rationale behind them, or to the extent in which it acted in line with its policy. Nevertheless, it does appear to have more broadly acted in line with its policy and in line with the best interests of the residents. As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure, and made an order with regards to the landlord’s associated record keeping.

Complaint handling

In considering the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s responses, actions and offer of redress were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the resident’s original complaint. It was therefore not possible to assess whether its stage one complaint response, sent to the resident on 18 October 2021, was within the timeframe of its policy, nor whether it responded appropriately to the issues she had raised.
Following contact with this Service, the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint on 9 May 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord sent its stage two complaint response within the timeframe stated in its policy. However, it was not reasonable that the response failed to address some of the resident’s points, which would have compounded her frustration and distress that she was already experiencing with making contact and other issues with the landlord.
The landlord’s stage two response stated that it was partially upholding the element of the resident’s complaint concerning its lack of support with bidding for properties on Locata, and it was reasonable to advise that a HO would contact her to resolve this. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not simply respond that it would arrange for the resident to be placed onto auto-bid, as it ended up doing anyway, nor why this had not happened previously. The landlord’s response instead stated that it could not commit to regularly supporting the resident with bidding, implied that her son might help her instead, and referred her to Social Services. The landlord’s response was therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s response further failed to offer much in the way of explanation for the issues the resident had experienced, beyond putting them down to its “team changes”. It also failed to offer the resident any form of redress for its accepted service failings. As is further considered in the assessment below of the landlord’s updated stage two response to the resident, the landlord’s handling of her complaint was not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, and was therefore unreasonable.
Having reviewed the landlord’s complaint response, this Service wrote to it on 14 December 2022 and advised that it should consider reissuing a full response to the resident. This Service asked that the landlord confirm its intentions by 4 January 2023. It was therefore wholly unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to the Ombudsman, nor more importantly to the resident, until this Service further prompted it on 18 February 2023.
The landlord issued its updated stage two complaint response letter to the resident on 28 February 2023. The letter to the resident was more comprehensive than either of its previous responses, and accepted its failings with its initial support with Locata, the resident’s contact difficulties, and with its complaint handling. However, it again offered inadequate explanations as to why these failings had occurred and, as such, failed to demonstrate that anything had been learnt from the outcomes. It therefore failed to act reasonably, or in line with its own policy, nor with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord did make some effort to Put things right by offering the resident £300 compensation, which it said was for the communication and support issues that she had suffered. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that this amount was not proportionate to the identified failings, and did not consider the additional impact that the failings had in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It also failed to consider the landlord’s complaint handling failures, including the fact that the offer was being made over nine months after the resident had requested her complaint be escalated, and two months after it had been duly made to the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of difficulties in contacting it.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property, and the associated record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman fully empathises with the impact and significant distress that the resident has described the ASB as causing her. It is also acknowledged that the difficulties that the resident experienced at times in contacting the landlord, would have impacted on her ability to report general incidents of ASB. Nevertheless, the landlord has demonstrated that it acted effectively and in line with its policy in handling the primary ASB caused by the neighbour’s son.
It is of concern that a vulnerable resident would experience such difficulty in contacting the landlord via telephone, and was left to believe that the only communication available to her was a digital method wholly unsuited to her needs. It is of further concern that the landlord has offered no explanation for this, and that the resident’s more recent reports to this Service indicate continued difficulties with contacting the landlord. This was a significant failing, that caused frustration to the resident and directly impacted the resident’s ability to report general ASB, and to resolve her issues with bidding on Locata. An order has been made in this regard.
The landlord awarded the resident the highest possible priority banding, confirmed its willingness to offer her a direct match managed move, and has offered her, or attempted to offer her, alternative properties. As such, it is acknowledged that the landlord has likely acted in what it believed to be the best interests of the resident. Nevertheless, it is not reasonable that the landlord has been unable to evidence the implementation of, nor rationale behind, many of its key actions and decisions. An order had been made in this regard.
The landlord’s initial responses to the resident’s complaint failed to address all of the issues that she had raised. A fuller response was only provided to the resident after her complaint had been duly made to the Ombudsman, and even then was subject to delay. Whilst the landlord’s updated response did address the issues that the resident had raised, it provided minimal explanation for the identified failings and, more importantly, failed to demonstrate any learning or how it would prevent reoccurrence. The updated response did make an offer of compensation to the resident, but it was not proportionate to the identified failings, nor in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. A compensation order to review the resident’s complaint and provide additional redress has been made in this regard.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the service failings identified in this report, and to reaffirm its position with regards to her transfer request.
2. Pays the resident a total of £800 compensation, made up of;
  1. £500 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the difficulties the resident experienced in contacting the landlord, and the issues this caused;
  2. £300 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling.
3. The amount includes the landlord’s own compensation award of £300 (if that award was paid to the resident, the total amount now payable will be £500).

The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

The Ombudsman orders that within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord:
1. Reviews the resident’s complaint and contact difficulties to establish root cause and identify learning, and provides the resident and this Service, with a copy of its findings.
2. Reviews the record keeping processes associated with its allocations policy against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, and provides this Service with a copy of its findings.

The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.