Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202206371)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206371

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

3 November 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:
1. The resident’s request for it to replace flooring in her bathroom.
2. The resident’s request for her bathroom to be renewed.
3. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
4. The resident’s transfer request.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. From April 2019 through to late 2020, the resident reported noise from her neighbour. The landlord closed the ASB cases in April 2021 as there had been no recent contact from the resident on the matter. The next report of noise was made by the resident in September 2021, where she requested a property transfer due to the ongoing ASB.
On 10 January 2022, the resident reported uninsured and untaxed vehicles belonging to neighbours, who she said were also having bonfires which impacted anyone who had their window open.
During a visit to her property on 24 January 2022 to inspect unrelated works, the resident requested a new bathroom be installed. As a result, the contractor inspected the property and determined that the bathroom was in good, functional and operational working order.
On 10 January 2022, the resident reported that she had a slow draining sink in her bathroom. However, soon after she cancelled the repair, as her brother carried out the work. Following on from this, the resident informed the landlord that her brother had attended her property and identified a blockage in the pipework connected to her sink. The resident believed that the blockage was the cause of the slow draining sink, which she had reported in May 2019 and June 2020. Due to the pipework being under the flooring, the resident’s brother had to remove the flooring in her bathroom to gain access to the pipework. As such, she requested the landlord replace the flooring in her bathroom, as she believed that if the landlord had acted appropriately in 2019 and 2020, the flooring would not have been taken up/damaged.
On 2 February 2022, the resident complained, stating that she was still waiting for the landlord to make a decision on replacing her flooring. In addition, the resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s decision to not replace her bathroom, despite its newsletter stating bathrooms would be replaced in 2022.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 22 February 2022. In response to the resident’s concerns about a bathroom renewal, the landlord informed the resident that it was due for renewal in 2032, and any dates provided previously were subject to change. It apologised for the disappointment this would cause the resident, but financial restraints meant it had to reassess when replacements would take place. In relation to her concerns about damage to flooring, the landlord stated that as per the tenancy agreement it would be the resident’s responsibility to replace any internal floor covers, and as such, she would need to pursue a claim with her home contents insurer if she wished.
The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s reports of ASB but advised that whilst historically cases had been opened, it had been unable to successfully obtain enough information to take action on issues raised. In addition, it acknowledged the resident’s request to be moved, but informed her that there were challenges in finding a three bedroom property currently, and it was unable to say when she would be able to move. It acknowledged that the resident had been informed that her complaint had been closed previously, which prompted the resident to contact it again, causing her inconvenience. In light of this, the landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation.
In March 2022 the resident reported that her neighbours were driving around the neighbourhood on unlicensed vehicles, were noisy, and were being dangerous on two occasions.
In her complaint escalation the resident raised concerns about ASB in her neighbourhood. She stated that the ASB she had been experiencing had affected her mental health, and she had been requesting to move since 2019. In addition, she felt that the £100 compensation offer made was insufficient to remedy the damage caused to her flooring, and as such, the resident requested increased compensation.
In its stage two response, the landlord reiterated its stage one response, but clarified its stance on the £100 compensation offer made. It said that this was not awarded to the resident for the flooring, but was for the delays in its complaint handling. In relation to her further complaint regarding ASB, the landlord stated that the reports the resident had been making in relation to vehicles causing her nuisance were best suited for the police, and encouraged her to contact them also. In addition, it stated that it would work in conjunction with the neighbourhood policing team to assist in anyway it could.
Between April 2022 and May 2022, the resident reported that her neighbours were driving around the neighbourhood on unlicensed vehicles, and were being dangerous on at least seven occasions.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 28 June 2022. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB in her neighbourhood, and that she has not been able to move property. As a resolution, the resident would like the landlord to complete the and to be moved, due to the impact the ASB has had on her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Flooring replacement.

The resident reported in 2019 and 2020 a slow draining sink in her property.. There is a two to three year delay between the resident’s reports of the slow draining sink, and the repair her brother carried out in January 2022. This would be too far removed for the landlord or this Service to establish a connection between the events.
Furthermore, despite the resident reporting the slow draining sink in January 2022, the resident cancelled this repair, meaning that the landlord did not have an opportunity to attend the property and inspect the sink. Instead, the resident had her brother attend the property and investigate which resulted in the flooring being damaged to gain access to the pipes. Therefore, the landlord did not have the opportunity to investigate prior to the resident’s brother completing the work.
In addition, as it did not itself lift the flooring, and there is no identifiable failure in its service to the resident, the landlord would not be responsible for repairing or replacing the damaged flooring. Therefore, the landlord provided the resident with the correct advice in advising her to make a claim against her home contents insurance, as this would be the most appropriate action in the circumstances.

Bathroom renewal

In her complaint to this Service, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction that her bathroom will not be renewed until 2032, as the landlord’s newsletter and website stated that they were due for renewal.
The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) sets out that properties should have reasonably modern facilities. In the case of bathrooms, it defines this as being under 30 years old. Therefore, when a resident states that their bathroom is in a poor state of repair and requires renewal, the landlord should carry out an inspection prior to agreeing any overhaul of the bathroom.
The resident stated that the bathroom had not been renewed since she moved in, in 2016. In communication with this Service, the landlord stated that the bathroom had been installed between 2001 and 2004, meaning that it is not due for renewal until 2032, in-line with the DHS standards. As such, the landlord is not required to replace the bathroom until 2032, unless it cannot be economically repaired.
In this instance, upon receiving reports of the bathroom being in a poor condition during a visit to the property, the landlord acted reasonably in inspecting the bathroom whilst present. The landlord identified that the bathroom was in good condition, and whilst some repairs were required a full overhaul was not needed.
It is understandable that the resident might feel disappointed by the landlord’s decision to not renew her bathroom; however, social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. In view of this, landlords are entitled to opt to repair items rather than replacing them.
In the evidence provided, it is unclear if the information on the landlord’s website has been changed to reflect the change of renewal dates for bathrooms in the area. It is recommended that the landlord do this urgently, as its presence is setting unrealistic expectations for residents.
In light of the evidence provided, the landlord’s decision to repair items in the bathroom, and inform the resident that her bathroom would be renewed in 2032 was reasonable and in accordance with standards set by the DHS.

Reports of ASB

The resident stated that she had been experiencing noise nuisance from her neighbour which included playing loud music, in 2018 and 2020. She made a complaint about this at stage 1 , and the landlord issued its stage 1 response in August 2020. However, she did not progress the complaint to stage 2.
Under para 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure. In this case, the complaint relating to ASB in 2019 and 2020 has not completed the landlord’s complaint procedure. As such, we will not be considering this period.
However, this Service can consider the landlord’s handling of the 2021 and 2022 reports, and if it took appropriate steps in relation to the ASB and acted in accordance with its policy obligations. The landlord’s policy states that it will respond to reports of ASB within 5 working days. In most cases the matter would be assigned to the Community Co-ordinator (CC) for that area. The CC would then take full details of the issues, take details of any other witnesses to the incidents, and complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix. They would then outline what next steps can be taken to try and achieve the residents outcome and resolve the ASB. If the CC found that there was a case to take forward an action plan would be completed. However, where necessary the landlord may refer the case to another more appropriate agency, such as the neighbourhood policing unit.
The evidence available shows that the resident reported noise nuisance from a neighbour in September 2021. In January 2022 she reported uninsured and untaxed cars, as well as neighbours having bonfires in the car park. On 6 March 2022 the resident reported off road bikes belonging to a neighbour being used on the estate causing noise nuisance. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to any of these reports. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy, and therefore was a failing.
On 17 March 2022 the resident again reported the off road bikes causing noise. The landlord replied the same day saying that a CC would be in contact. However, there is no indication that this happened. On 28 March 2022 the landlord forwarded some pictures the resident had provided of the off road bikes to a PCSO.
In response to the resident’s enquiries the following month, the landlord stated there was no ‘live case’ for the ASB, although it had been picked up by another member of staff and a local PCSO who were investigating the matter. However, there is no further detail and it is unclear what this investigation entailed. It is unclear why there was no ‘live’ ASB case.
Following on from this there is evidence of the resident making more reports of off road bikes being used on the estate, and untaxed vehicles. The records show the landlord taking reasonable action in the following months such as referring issues with vehicles to the police. This in keeping with the ASB policy in referring the case to another more appropriate agency.
The landlord sought to arrange meetings between the resident and the neighbourhood policing team to facilitate conversations around the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord was unable to complete this due to the shift patterns and availability of the police.
After discussions with the resident about the involvement of the police, it was agreed for letters to be distributed to all residents alerting them to reports of ASB in the area. The landlord requested that anyone with reports of ASB come forward, and assured residents that any ASB would not be tolerated. This was a reasonable action to gather evidence, although should have happened sooner.
However, whilst it was appropriate to identify that it was best for the neighbourhood policing team to deal with the illegal and untaxed cars, this should not have been the end of the landlord’s actions. It could have attended the properties of those identified to be responsible for the ASB and discussed the allegations made. However, this did not occur.
Overall, the information available shows a failing by the landlord to follow its ASB policy. It did not respond to the resident’s first reports of noise nuisance, there is little indication that she was contacted by a CC, and no risk assessment was undertaken. While the landlord reasonably considered some of the issues around vehicles to be better suited to the police, it could also have taken further action itself. It is apparent that the resident was also complaining about noise and it is unclear why the landlord did not act on these reports.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident and this Service acknowledges that the landlord has acted appropriately in employing the support of the neighbourhood policing team. However, the landlord did not go far enough in recognising where it needed to act proactively itself in addressing the ASB. As such, this is a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
In consideration of the above, the landlord should pay the resident £350 compensation as a remedy to the failings identified above. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £100 and over where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right, but there has been no permanent impact on the resident.

The resident’s transfer request

It is noted that the resident requested to be moved to a different property, as she no longer feels comfortable in the property, in light of the events that have occurred and the impact these have had on her mental health. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord, and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing.
However, this Service can consider how the landlord has handled the resident’s request, including if appropriate support has been provided. The landlord’s allocations policy sets out that where urgent transfers are required, it will support residents to move to another property. These circumstances may arise where there is violence or a threat of violence.
The resident raised concerns about the progress of her transfer application in 2022 and requested an update be provided. The landlord informed the resident that it did not deem her request to move property to be “urgent” and advised her to explore other options such as a mutual exchange or management move. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to provide, as it set realistic expectations and provided alternative solutions to the resident.
Following on from this advice, the resident provided the landlord with a letter from her GP to support her application to move. The landlord explained that it was not refusing the resident’s application, but believed that she would be able to gain higher priority by speaking to a CC regarding the ASB she was experiencing. As such, the landlord acted reasonably by considering the resident’s additional evidence, and providing further support and solutions for her.

Complaint handling.

The complaints policy states that a response should be provided within ten working days at stage one of the complaints procedure. In this case, the landlord acknowledged a complaint on 2 February 2022, and a response was not until 22 February 2022, which is an additional ten working days outside of the landlord’s policy obligation. As such, the landlord failed to act within its policy obligations.
The landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation for the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. This is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, states that payments for time and inconvenience in the case of poor customer experience, can be awarded up to a maximum up to £100. Therefore, the landlord awarded the resident the maximum amount of compensation for time and inconvenience. As such, the compensation offered for the delays in complaint handling was in-line with the policy obligations placed on the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for it to replace flooring in her bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for her bathroom to be renewed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation for its poor handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This should be paid within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation offered for the poor complaint handling, if it has not done so already.
2. Change the details on its website, if it still states incorrect information in relation to major works.
3. Should the resident continue to have concerns about ASB, the landlord should contact the resident to agree an action plan to address these, and ensure that it handles reports in line with its ASB policy.