Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202202116)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202116

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

30 April 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reporting of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s request to move.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a two-bedroom flat. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 21 September 2015. The tenancy agreement states the flat is situated on the first floor.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 the landlord will respond within 10 working days of the date the complaint was received. At stage 2 the landlord will respond within 20 working days of the date the complaint was escalated to stage 2.
The landlord’s ASB policy has adopted the ASB Crime & Policing Act 2014 definition or ASB which is:
1. Conduct that can cause, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy provides examples given of ASB including:
1. Unreasonable noise nuisance.
2. Intimidation or harassment.
3. Aggressive and threatening behaviour to another person.
4. Actual violence against another person.
5. Using accommodation to carry out illegal activity such as selling drugs and prostitution.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains that it will act with “service partners including the Local Authority, Police Services, Fire Brigade, Social Services and other Registered Social Landlords, to continually address ASB”. It adds that it “will carry out a victim vulnerability assessment on all victims who report ASB”.
The ASB policy sets out that the landlord “will act promptly to deal with reports of ASB and support victims and perpetrators of ASB to prevent escalation, however where this is not successful or appropriate say where there are serious threats and/or actual violence [the landlord] will take enforcement action which could include legal action”.
The tenancy agreement states in terms of the tenant’s obligations:
1. Nuisance – “not to cause or allow members of his/her household or visitors to cause a nuisance or annoyance to or show violent or threatening behaviour to or act in such a way as is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance or show violent or threatening behaviour to neighbours or other tenants of the Association or to employees, agents or contractors of the Association or to anyone visiting or otherwise engaging in lawful activity in the locality of the premises”.
2. Noise – “Not to cause or allow to be caused excessive noise including playing any radio, television, record, CD, tape recording, DIY, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, or musical instrument in a manner which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or other tenants of the Association or so as to be audible outside the Premises at any time and especially between the hours of 11pm and 7.00am”.
In terms of service standards, the landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will acknowledge a report of ASB within a maximum of five working days and this time will be reduced depending on the severity of the ASB. The landlord has added that it will contact complainants at least once per calendar month with an update and that it will undertake a vulnerability risk assessment for all assessments.
The landlord’s transfer’s policy explains that, due to the limited number of vacancies in its stock, “only tenants in priority need can register for an internal transfer”. Other residents requesting a move “will be referred to Homeswapper, or their local authority”.
The landlord’s transfer policy sets out that when a resident applies for a transfer “they will be assessed to determine whether they qualify within one of the following priority Groups”. It adds that if “an applicant meets the criteria for more than 1 priority group then they will be placed in the highest priority group which they are eligible for”. The groups are:
1. Priority Group 1- Decants
2. Priority Group 2- Management Transfers.
3. Priority Group 3- Under -Occupying Successors & Affordable Rent Applicants.
4. Priority Group 4- Medical & Disability.
5. Priority Group 5- Under-Occupation transfers.
6. Priority Group 6- Bedsit & Hostel Move-On.
In terms of the priority group for medical and disability, the landlord’s transfer policy sets out that applications needed to be approved by its independent medical assessor and “the tenancy Officer will be required to obtain a medical report from the applicants GP, hospital consultant /doctor or other medically qualified practitioner”.
The landlord’s transfer policy sets out that for management transfers one offer will be made on a like for like basis. Under medical needs, one offer will be made on a housing need basis.

Summary

The resident had contacted the landlord to raise a number of issues related to ASB concerning several different tenants/neighbours. Whilst the resident’s reports have over the years covered a number of different parties including those in the block opposite her property, her complaint primarily concerns the actions of the tenants of three particular flats. These are the tenants of the flat directly below her (herein referred to as A and subsequently B who had moved in following the death of A at the end of December 2022), the flat next to hers (herein referred to as C and D, where D had moved in after C had been given notice to quit in January 2022) and the flat directly above her neighbour (to the other side of C). They will herein be referred to as E.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 June 2021 in the evening explaining that C had been playing loud music since 8pm. She asked if the CCTV at the block of flats was working and whether it was directed towards C. The resident added that C’s friend was intimidating her. The resident sent a further email in the early hours of the following day explaining she had been woken up due to the noise of furniture being thrown across the flat. She added that her daughter was petrified and she needed the landlord to help as she could not “take much more of this”.
The landlord wrote to C on 11 June 2021 with a warning letter. It explained that it had received a number of reported incidents of ASB and it set out the details of incidents reported to it between 10 May 2021 and 6 June 2021 and reminded C of their obligations under section 3 of the tenancy agreement relating to nuisance. It explained that a “failure to comply with your tenancy conditions could result in tenancy enforcement action being taken against you in the form of a Notice of Seeking Possession, which will place your tenancy at risk”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 June 2021 enquiring about a vacant flat on the floor above her. She explained that she had been having issues with her neighbour, C, in relation to ASB which had resulted in her daughter being petrified and she wanted to move on the basis of mental health. The resident explained that she did not want to move from the estate as she had lived there for a long time, as had previous generations of her family including at the flat which she was enquiring about.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 June 2021 in response to her emails. It explained that a warning letter had been given to C and that the warning was serious as it could lead to possession proceedings. It added it would look to see why previous warnings to C had not been heeded. In terms of the resident’s request to move to a flat on the floor above her, the landlord explained that the property was occupied and that it was also a three-bedroom property.
The resident’s member of parliament (MP) emailed the landlord on 21 June 2021 regarding the resident’s concerns about ASB in the block of flats. It provided examples of concerns raised by the resident with C. The MP requested the landlord undertook a review of ASB complaints.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 June 2021 concerning C. She explained that people had been shouting in the early morning.
The landlord emailed the MP on 30 June 2021. In terms of the resident’s concerns with C it confirmed that C was a vulnerable adult and it accepted that his behaviour had been having a negative impact on the neighbours. It added that it had sent C a warning letter about the matter. The landlord also explained that there had been an increase in ASB in the estate recently and that it had an estate action plan in place to address these issues.
The landlord’s internal correspondence show that C had moved from the property in February 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 April 2022 concerning her new neighbour, D. She explained that D had a dog. The resident also explained that she had spoken to the citizen’s advice bureau and had been told that she and her daughter could move as a result of mental health concerns. The resident explained that there were two flats in the block opposite her which were free, and that she wanted to be moved there.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 April 2022. It explained that having contacted D, the dog the resident had seen did not belong to them but to a friend who had been visiting. It added that D had been made aware that they needed to ask for permission for a pet. In relation to the resident’s enquiries about the two properties in the block opposite her, it explained that one of these was currently occupied by one of its contractors “whilst they are on site completing the fire doors”. It added that, for the other property, the keys had only recently been returned to it and passed onto the surveyor/contractor. The landlord stated there had been no request for nomination on either property. It informed the resident there was “a process in place regarding medical grounds. You just need supporting documents from your doctor and agencies regarding the property not being suitable for yourself and daughter”.
The resident emailed the landlord later on 8 April 2022 confirming that she was due to visit her GP the following week and that she would be in touch “as soon as I have documents supporting our medical needs”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2022 to confirm that she had made an appointment with her GP for 26 April 2022. The resident explained that her fibromyalgia had flared up due to stress and that her daughter had exams pending and the ASB issues had caused her and her daughter both physical and mental stress.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2022 to explain she would be collecting the doctor’s letter on 28 April 2022. She sent a further email on the same day after she had seen a family viewing one of the properties she had been interested in. She reiterated she was in the process of providing evidence including a doctor’s letter to enable them to move.
The landlord and the resident exchanged a series of emails on 28 April 2022. The resident had asked the landlord to confirm that the property she had seen people viewing two days was still available. She also forwarded the GP’s letter. The landlord informed the resident that the property was no longer available as the people who had viewed had accepted it. The resident questioned the landlord’s actions as she stated she had been previously informed that contractors were in the property sorting it out. She asked how it had therefore managed to advertise and accept viewings in such a short time frame. She added she would be complaining about the matter.
The landlord replied to the resident on 29 April 2022 explaining that it did not manage the lettings process, so it did not know when the keys from the contractors had come back. It added that it had set out the process including the need for a medical letter to the resident when it had visited her. It added that one of the resident’s neighbours, C, had now left. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day to say she felt penalised by it. She said that her daughter needed to be moved as she was suffering anxiety and she considered the landlord had let her down. She added a new letter was being provided by her GP.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 May 2022 to ask if the new GP letter was the only supporting evidence which the resident wished to submit, or whether there would be anything else. The resident responded to say the GP letter was sufficient evidence for the move. She explained she had raised a complaint about the way she had been treated and that she had been in touch with a no-win solicitor over the matter.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 May 2022 and provided the case reference.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 May 2022 with regards to a neighbour who lived in an adjacent block, F. She explained that F had moved in three to four weeks earlier and they had been playing music at an unbearable level. The issue had progressively got worse since that time. The landlord replied to the resident on 23 May 2022 to explain that a lettings officer had undertaken a settling in visit to F the previous week. They had observed no stereo equipment in the property and so considered that the noise experienced by the resident may have come from the television. It added that it had not had any other complaints about noise. However it had explained to F the need to be mindful of noise.
Following the resident’s GP letter having been submitted by the landlord to its medical assessment team, the landlord emailed the resident on 4 July 2022 to explain that she had not been awarded any medical points.
The resident emailed her MP on 8 July 2022 in relation to the email from the landlord about the medical points. She explained that she was not happy with the landlord and wanted to arrange a meeting with her MP.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 July 2022. In her email she explained:
1. She had sent across emails to the landlord over a five-year period since 2017 concerning both repairs and ASB.
2. Together with her daughter they had “been living between people with serious health problems” and she was “being penalised for raising these issues”.
3. She had a number of issues with A which included A fighting with neighbours, being drunk and having “the police and ambulance service out on a daily basis, sometimes twice a day”.
4. There had been numerous concerns with C, which involved C “constantly throwing furniture out of his flat into the courtyard early hours of the morning, banging, loud music, shouting all night”. She added C had now been moved out but the damage to them had “already been done”.
5. She had had to buy a sofa bed for her living room as she was unable to sleep in her bedroom and this had impacted on her ability to go to work.
6. Her daughter had, as a result of issues she had witnessed first hand, not been able to sleep in her own bedroom for a number of years.
7. She had raised the matter with her MP, although this had not provided much help.
8. A flat in the block opposite her had become available. She had been told by the landlord that if she could provide a doctors letter “I could basically be accepted to move across”. She had got the letter yet the landlord had allocated the flat to another family.
9. She had been informed by the Housing Ombudsman to raise the matter with the landlord which she had done twice but she had not heard back from it.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 July 2022 to explain she had yet to hear back in response to her previous email of 12 July 2022.
The resident’s MP emailed her on 12 August 2022 in response to her previous email of 8 July 2022 and explained there was an option to appeal the decision concerning the medical points and asked if the resident had challenged the decision. The MP added that they would be contacting the landlord to ask about safeguarding.
The resident emailed the MP on 16 August 2022 as well as the landlord confirming that she was appealing the decision over the awarding of medical points. She added there had been ongoing issues with both A involving the calling out of emergency services on a daily basis and that C who had left the flat next to hers had returned that day and attempted to gain access to his old flat by climbing through the new tenant’s (D) window.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 August 2022 acknowledging the complaint which she had made. It apologised for the delay in responding. The resident replied to the landlord later on the same day explaining that A had been “continuing to make our life hell”. She explained that A was constantly swearing and drunk and had been calling an emergency service daily, sometimes even resulting in multiple visits on a single day. The resident added that “dodgy characters in and out of her place are very intimidating” and that the landlord was turning “a blind eye to this”. She asked why she and her daughter had to “suffer because of someone[s] mental illness”. She added that the landlord was not interested in helping either her or her daughter.
The landlord and the resident exchanged emails on 31 August 2022. The landlord had acknowledged the issue with A and said it would make contact with her. The resident replied to say A had called out the ambulance twice on that day and she was constantly screaming for the past few hours and this had been distressing her daughter.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 September 2022 reported further issues of A calling out emergency services that day. She stated that this was on multiple occasions each day during the first three days of September 2022. She added A was screaming in her flat threatening to harm herself and that her daughter had to listen to this on a daily basis. She added that the landlord had no “clue how this is affecting us” and “no one is interested whatsoever”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 September 2022. It apologised and explained that A had a professional team helping her. It added it was unable to discuss personal details of tenants with other tenants. In response to the resident’s comments on a man visiting A and being physical with her, it informed the resident she should call the police about the matter. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day to say that, whilst the landlord had informed her of the assistance it was providing A, no consideration was being made on the “mental health and the impact it’s having on us”. She added A needed to be sectioned as she was clearly unable to live there alone and that the landlord did not seem to care about that. The resident asked the landlord to respond to her complaint.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 6 September 2022. She explained someone from the flat below her had knocked on her door for the keys to A’s flat. She had found this intimidating especially as they would not leave for some time. She asked the landlord to respond to her complaint and to pay compensation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 September 2022 to explain that it was not ignoring her emails but that it had been trying to work with a team of professionals to assist A. It added that if she felt intimidated she should call 999.
The resident sent a chaser to the landlord about her complaint setting out the nature of it again on 12 September 2022. She then sent the landlord a further email on 23 September 2022 explaining that as it had ignored her complaint she was contacting the Housing Ombudsman.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 5 and 6 October 2022 set out that the medical advisor had confirmed that the resident’s “mental health is not severe or unstable enough to warrant urgent, enhanced psychiatric care”. It added no priority applied. The landlord noted that A had caused the issue and it accepted that A’s shouting and the presence of the ambulance could be disturbing however it noted only the resident had reported an issue over A. It added that A was awaiting rehabilitation which was scheduled to take place before Christmas.
The resident sent the landlord further emails on 11, 14 and 20 October 2022 concerning A’s behaviour which included shouting and swearing.
The resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman on 24 October 2022, noting that this had been the deadline provided by this Service for the landlord to be in touch with her concerning her complaint. She explained she had received no response from the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 October 2022 explaining that D had been playing loud music and also that A had been screaming. She questioned how she was supposed to live like this. She sent a further email about A being drunk and calling the police on 31 October 2022. She added A had been shouting and abusive until she had finally been taken away. She asked the landlord why tenants like this were allowed to stay there.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 November 2022 with its stage 1 response. It explained that it understood the resident’s complaint to be the length of time taken by it to deal with the ASB from her neighbour. It added that it understood the resident wished to be rehoused and receive compensation. It explained:
1. It was difficult for it to let her know what actions it was taking against perpetrators of ASB as it could not divulge anything of a personal nature. It understood how this could make the resident feel that nothing was being done to help her and her family.
2. It had been working with external agencies doing what it could with the matter, which was an ongoing situation.
3. It understood that her expectations had been raised with regards to being offered a transfer. It apologised that it had not made it clear that the medical letter “needed to support why your accommodation was not suitable under medical grounds eg, too many stairs for example”.
4. It had decided to give the resident a discretionary transfer to an alternative two-bedroom property. It provided the resident with a transfer form for her to complete and return to it.
5. In response to the resident’s request for compensation the ASB had not been caused by the landlord but by a third party. It added the landlord had taken appropriate action as it could not “just evict people”. It made an offer of £100 as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident emailed this Service on 5 November 2022 to explain she had received the landlord’s stage one response. She added she felt let down and wished to escalate the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 November 2022 in response to an email from the resident. The landlord has not provided this service with a copy of the resident’s email. The landlord confirmed it had received the resident’s email, which appeared to be in response to the stage 1 response and that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2.
The resident completed the landlord’s form for re-housing on 19 December 2022. The following day she emailed the landlord asking for its stage 2 response as she explained it had been 20 working days since it had informed her the complaint had been escalated.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 December 2022 offering a property which had become available. It asked the resident if she wished to view it. The resident replied on the same day to say whilst she understood the offer to transfer she felt “I would be going out of the frying pan into the fire”. She explained that the property, which was in the block opposite her had a tenant in the flat directly above it who “are a nightmare” and that she could hear their dog constantly barking, and that the tenant of that flat was always on her balcony in the night time playing loud music and shouting. She said whilst she understood in some flats you could hear noise “some tenants are just blatantly disrespectful”.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 20 December 2022 set out that it had sent the resident a diary log for her to complete and it had suggested writing to other tenants to see if they had witnessed noise. The correspondence had set out that the resident was unhappy with the suggestion of it writing to all the tenants in the block. The correspondence also noted that no one else had complained about either A or D.
The resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman on 24 December 2022 to explain the landlord had had over 20 working days to respond to her and had failed to do so. She asked what the next steps were.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 29 December 2022 noted that A had passed away and that she had been due to commence rehabilitation in January 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord concerning D on 29 and 30 December 2022 as well as 15 and 16 January 2023. She explained she wanted the landlord to contact the tenant regarding the noise levels.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 16 January 2023 noted that it would have a word with D about being a good neighbour. It also noted that the resident was on a transfer list and that one further offer would be made to her and that it would contact her once a suitable unit had become available. The landlord noted that having spoken to the D on both 15 and 16 January 2023, they had said they considerate towards the resident. D had also commented that the resident had left her windows open. The landlord’s tenancy officer had also enquired in an internal email whether it had any noise recording equipment.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 January 2023 to apologise for the delay in dealing with the stage 2 response. The landlord’s correspondence noted that the chief executive office had offered to speak to the resident either by phone or in person concerning the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 January 2023 to ask if it had contacted D. She explained she had been unwell and was unable to relax at home due to the loud noise. The resident also raised the issue of the smell of weed coming into her balcony although she did not specify from which flat this had emanated.
The landlord exchanged emails with the resident on 26 January 2023. It explained it had contacted the neighbour and issued D with a good neighbour agreement. It asked the resident to record any incidents of noise on the diary log. It also offered the option of mediation to the resident with D in an attempt to resolve the matter. The resident confirmed that she did not want mediation with D. She also asked for hard copies of the diary logs to be sent to her.
The landlord emailed the resident’s MP on 27 January 2023. It explained the resident had been in touch concerning noise issues with D. It added it had asked D to sign a good neighbour agreement and that it would be in touch again with D via a tenancy officer and would issue a formal warning letter to D concerning late night noise. The landlord confirmed that it had put the resident on an internal transfer list in December 2022 and it had offered a transfer to an adjacent block in December which had been declined by the resident. It added it would make one more offer to her but could not say how long this would take. It encouraged the resident to use Homeswapper as an option and that the resident could be eligible to bid for new builds under the local lettings policy.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 January 2023. She explained that she had issues with B and that this involved noises from B and partner from their bedroom all night long. In addition B had been screaming and shouting in the early hours. She asked the landlord to contact the tenant. The resident sent a further email in the early hours of the next day explaining that B had been loud and shouting again.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2023 concerning the noise from B. It explained it had attempted to contact the tenant and that it would issue a good neighbour agreement if there was no contact with B. It reminded the resident to complete a diary log to determine the extent of the noise. It added that it wanted a chronology of events. The landlord explained that it had noted the resident had sent it an email asking about a property in the block opposite her. It explained that that property was a three-bedroom flat and she was only eligible for two-bedroom accommodation. It added that the resident was on a management transfer list and it would let her know when it could make her an offer of alternative property.
The resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman on 5 February 2023. She explained that she had a meeting with the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer and that she had requested compensation of £5,000.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 21 February 2023. It explained it had discussed the complaint with the resident and her mother at the resident’s home on 8 February 2023. It noted:
1. The resident had complained about ASB concerning a number of different residents. These were A, B C, D, E as well as another two residents living in the same block of flats as her.
2. In response to the resident’s emails the landlord’s responses had been generally timely and sympathetic.
3. From looking at the records in almost all instances where the resident had raised complaints with it about the conduct of the neighbours, letters had been sent immediately to those neighbours to inform them of their obligations under their tenancies. In addition tenancy officers had visited and there had been extensive communication in those case where agencies had supported the tenants.
4. Two of the tenancies were short lived and this had been as a direct result of the landlord taking timely action to contain problematic behaviour. It added that it had previously explained at stage 1 that it could not divulge the personal circumstances of other tenants in dealing with her complaint. However it explained that two of the residents had been nominated to the flats by the Council and that whilst the landlord had not been made fully aware of those resident’s support needs it had “acted swiftly when it became obvious from your reports that the residents could not sustain tenancies” even with high support.
5. Since April 2022 the majority of the resident’s complaints had concerned A, who had passed away at Christmas 2022. It accepted the tenant had not been well and “would call ambulances and the police day and night which undoubtedly caused noise and disruption for her neighbours”. However it stated if the emergency services call handlers had, following triaging A’s calls, deemed the emergency services attended the property it could not constitute a failure on the landlord’s part. It stated, “a siren is noisy and disturbing but it is not ASB”. It added that whilst most of “her ire was not generally directed at others, rather at herself”, it had addressed the issue of drunken shouting and playing loud music with her.
6. It accepted that A’s disruption would have impacted the resident and her daughter and it had looked at what it could have done as a “landlord to lessen the impact of this resident on those around her, whilst supporting her to maintain a home”. Having done so it did not think what more it could have done. It stated whilst others had occasionally raised issues about A’s behaviour, they had not been as disturbed as the resident was. It added that its tenancy team had stated it would not have been granted an eviction order if it had taken steps to apply for one.
7. It had asked the resident to complete a diary log which it stated the resident had refused to do. It explained that the logs helped to show the frequency, duration and perceived severity of the noise nuisance and ASB and it was more helpful than an email which had stated a night of loud music. It added it had encouraged the resident to contact the Council’s environmental team to report noise and that, on one occasion that she had done so, it had stated this was below the threshold at which it would intervene.
8. In respect of the resident’s request to move it had seen that the resident had kept the tenancy officer informed since April 2022 about her desire to move to another property on the estate. This had included being kept up to date concerning the doctor’s supporting letter which was sent to an independent third party to judge if the threshold had been met to be placed on the landlord’s transfer list. It stated the resident’s application had not met this threshold however the resident had not been made aware of this decision until October 2022 which was “too big a delay”. It added the property she wished to move to had been let in the interim.
9. It noted the resident had requested to be moved to a three-bedroom property. It explained this would not be possible and that only a move to a two-bedroom property would be possible. It added a discretionary move had been offered to the resident at stage 1, although it considered that it should have used this discretion earlier.
10. It accepted the tone of the emails from the tenancy officer to the resident in April 2022 had “inspired hope that a transfer was more likely than it was in reality”.
11. It had made an offer to the resident of a transfer which had been turned down. It noted the resident, A, on whose behaviour it had made the offer to the resident to move had passed away. It however stated it would make one further option of a two-bedroom property. It noted the resident only wanted to move to two specific areas, however it urged the resident “to wide the area you are prepared to move to”. It added it had a reasonable number of homes within a 20-minute bus ride from where she lived. This would allow them to make a fresh start. It added that as a small housing association it had a limited number of two-bedroom properties, and that due to the acoustics, a move to the block opposite her would not be suitable.
12. Although it considered that it had taken the resident’s complaints of ASB seriously there was a “degree of ambiguity in the way we communicated with you about a transfer”. It noted it had offered £100 at stage 1 which it increased to £300. It stated that the outcome would not have changed as she would not have met the threshold. However she would have been told earlier about the matter. It also offered £100 for its failure in following the timescales in its complaints handling policy. This was as the complaint made by the resident in July 2022 had been dealt with as a complaint against her neighbour, rather than a complaint against it.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 March 2023 in response to the stage 2 response. She stated:
1. She had not complained about the police and ambulance sirens. She was merely commenting that the resident, A, had been screaming and shouting and calling the emergency services daily.
2. There had been no consistency in her dealings with the landlord. She cited the number of different people from the landlord who had been involved.
3. She disagreed with the landlord’s assertion that she should move away. She said she felt safe in her areas.
4. She had completed diary sheets previously and these had been a waste of time.
5. She did not accept the landlord’s discretionary offer of £400.
6. The damage to her daughter’s mental health had already been done. She confirmed that her daughter was clingy and withdrawn and would not sleep in her own room.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 March 2023 requesting a hard copy of the medical assessment form. The landlord replied on 23 March 2023 explaining it does not have a separate medical assessment form. Instead a doctor/consultant completed section four of the transfer form. It sent the resident a copy of the form which it said the doctor needed to complete. Once that had been completed it would be sent to its medical advisor to decide what, if any, priority for rehousing should be given.

Events since the end of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 14 July 2023 to explain that she was having an ongoing issue with “another problem tenant who moved in as one left next door”. It was not clear it the resident was referring to D or whether the issue concerned a tenant who had replaced D. She added the issue had caused her distress and anxiety and she was constantly contacting the landlord regarding ASB. She felt the landlord should have acted sooner.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 11 November 2023 to explain that her daughter’s bedroom was too small. She explained the area was less than the six and a half metres which a bedroom should be for a child exceeding 10 years old.
The resident has forwarded to this Service a letter from Barnardos concerning her daughter’s talking therapy due to anxiety in February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has continued to contact the landlord in relation to matters following the end of the internal complaints process in March 2023. This was in respect of ongoing concerns with one of her neighbours as well as concerns about whether her daughter’s bedroom met the definition of a bedroom based on the dimensions of the room and details of her daughter’s ongoing therapy for anxiety. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint or for which the resident has yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore the issue of the ongoing concerns with the neighbour and the concerns about the size of one of the resident’s bedrooms are outside the scope of this investigation.
The resident has also explained that she had originally raised the issue of ASB with the landlord in 2017. However from the evidence provided to this Service the resident did not raise a formal complaint with the landlord at that time. Whilst the resident has stated the landlord had not responded to her complaints, based on the evidence provided by both sides the initial complaint which she raised with the landlord was made in July 2022. Given this the Ombudsman considers that it is reasonable to look at events from the time of the resident’s complaint, whilst acknowledging that there is a longer history of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.

Whilst the Ombudsman has provided a summary of events, this is not an exhaustive account of all of the communication between the resident and the landlord over the issue. It instead covers the communication which the Ombudsman considers is relevant to this investigation.
Following the resident having initially raised the issue of ASB from C on 1 June 2021, the landlord had written to C with a warning letter. Within this letter it detailed a number of different incidents which had been reported to it about C, the last being on 6 June 2021. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord as the letter had been issued within five days of the last incident and within 10 days of the date the issue had initially been raised by the resident. The letter had set out the tenant’s obligations under section three of their tenancy agreement and set out the consequences if the tenant did not comply with their tenancy conditions.
In addition to writing to C the landlord also updated the resident with its actions by the next working day following it having issued the warning letter to the tenant. Within this letter it had clearly explained to the resident the implications if C did not comply with their tenancy conditions. This was both appropriate and reasonably prompt by the landlord.
Following having written to C in June 2021 the landlord had issued C with a notice to quit in January 2022. In this communication to C it had detailed the reasons why it was giving C this notice.
After the resident initially raised concerns with D in April 2022, concerning D having a dog at the property the landlord had made enquiries the following day and determined that the dog did not belong to D. It had also made D aware at that time that should they wish to have a pet they needed to ask permission of the landlord. This was in keeping with the tenant’s tenancy agreement and their obligations. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, in reminding the new tenant of their obligation and of the process they needed to follow should they wish to have a pet.
The landlord also acted appropriately over concerns the resident had with F who was another new tenant and whom the resident had accused of playing music too loud. It had both contacted the tenant as well as undertaking a physical site visit during which the landlord’s staff had not observed any stereo equipment in F’s property. Whilst the landlord would have been entitled to not take any action against F, due to the lack of evidence to support the resident’s allegation, it had still attempted to determine what other sources could have produced the noise, in this case possibly the tenant’s TV. It had also explained to F the need to be careful concerning the noise. This was reasonable for the landlord in putting the tenant on alert of the implications of the noise should it continue, in keeping with the tenancy agreement, whilst at the same time responding appropriately to the resident’s concerns about F.
The resident’s main contact with the landlord appeared to be in respect of A who lived in the flat directly below her. From the information provided to this Service, the resident had contacted the landlord a number of times about the behaviour of A and had cited that the actions of A meant that there was an emergency services vehicle at the property on a regular basis. Whilst the landlord has correctly not been able to share the personal details of A with the resident, it has explained that A had been receiving a high level of support and was not a well person. It added that it had been attempting to persuade her to go for rehabilitation and that this had been scheduled for January 2023.
In the stage 2 response the landlord stated that the noise of the siren from the emergency vehicles could not be construed as ASB. Whilst this is correct, this was not the point which the resident had been trying to make. Instead the resident had been suggesting that the actions of A in calling out emergency services regularly and often shouting outside her property at the police would constitute noise nuisance.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it required diary logs to understand the nature and frequency of the noise nuisance which the resident was experiencing. Whilst diary logs are a useful means of understanding trends and from this gauging the nature of the noise nuisance and whether it constituted ASB, the resident had sent the landlord a number of emails stating the nature of the ASB that she had been facing from A, as well as others. The correspondence from the resident shows that there were occasions where she had sent multiple emails to the landlord in a short period of time. Despite this the landlord at no time mentioned to the resident the option of either providing her with noise recording equipment, or if this was unavailable, to inform her to record the noise nuisance herself by means of her mobile phone. This was despite the landlord having been asked by a tenancy officer as to whether it had any noise recording equipment. As the resident had wanted the landlord to speak to the tenant in respect of the noise, the use of recorded evidence would have helped the landlord to determine the extent of any noise nuisance and whether it met the criteria of being ASB.
Although the landlord explained that A was receiving a high level of support and had not been well, needing rehabilitation, it has provided no evidence that it had issued her with a warning letter or explained the consequences to A if she continued to cause noise nuisance to the resident. The landlord explained that no other tenant had complained about A (or C) apart from the resident. In the absence of any record of the degree and frequency of noise nuisance or ASB from either of these tenants or the others which the resident had made a complaint about, the landlord has not demonstrated that it had looked in detail into the resident’s continued allegations rather than consider each in isolation. This was a failing on its part. The impact on the resident of this was to make her feel that it had not taken her allegations seriously and that it would follow up with A and C with the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.

The landlord’s transfer policy sets out the options available to residents who wish to move. The policy clearly explains that, in keeping with most other providers of social housing, demand outnumbers supply and “we are therefore unable to move everyone who expresses a desire to move”. The policy explains as a result of this that it would only consider tenants who fall into a priority group for an internal transfer and that anyone else not falling within these priority groups would need to be referred to Homeswapper or to the local authority.
The resident’s initial request to move to another property was made by email on 12 June 2021. In this email she had asked to be moved to a flat in the floor above her which she explained was vacant. The resident had explained the reason for the move was due to ASB by C. Upon checking the landlord had promptly informed the resident within two days that the property was not vacant and that it was a larger three-bedroom property. The landlord’s transfer policy had explained that in the event of a transfer for the majority of priority groups that this would be on a like for like basis. As the resident had a two-bedroom property she would not have been able to move to the three-bedroom one even if it had been vacant at the time. The advice the landlord gave the resident was appropriate in accordance with its policy.
Following this the resident then next asked to be moved in April 2022. The resident had explained that having spoken to the citizen’s advice bureau she had been informed that she could be moved due to mental health concerns. The resident informed the landlord that two properties in the block opposite her were vacant. The landlord responded to the resident on the next day and informed her of the status of both properties. It explained that there was no nomination on either property and that works were being carried out on one of them. The landlord explained the process for medical grounds which it explained would need a supporting letter from the resident’s GP. This was in response to the resident’s comment of being moved due to mental health concerns. The landlord’s response was initially appropriate and in keeping with its transfer policy. However when the resident had enquired with it about obtaining the medical letter from her GP the landlord failed to explain that a supporting letter on its own would not be enough to move, but that the evidence would be sent to its independent medical assessor. It also failed to send the resident a link to its transfer policy which would have clearly set out its policy in considering transfers. This was a failing and led the resident to believe that the production of a supporting letter would be enough on its own to move to one of those properties, which was not in keeping with the transfer policy. This would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
After the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s decision not to award any medical points, the landlord ultimately did agree in its stage 1 correspondence to offer the resident a management transfer. Whilst the resident was still considering appealing the landlord’s decision about the medical priority and has since provided it with further evidence to support this for her daughter, the landlord failed to explain to her that a management transfer was a higher priority group than a medical and disability group and would therefore support an earlier move, subject to a suitable property being available.
The landlord offered a property in December 2022 to the resident which she declined to take up. The landlord’s transfer policy explained that in relation to management transfers it would make one offer. As a result of the resident not wishing to move to that property, the landlord was strictly entitled to not make any further offer. However it had explained in its communication to the resident after she had not taken up its offer of the alternative property that it would make one further offer, although it could not specify how long this would take. The landlord’s correspondence to the resident from the time, showed that it had suggested the resident considered other areas where it held stock, for the purposes of the transfer. This was it as it would support an earlier move for the resident. However the resident had not wished to expand the area that she was looking to move to. This meant that the process of offering another alternative property was lengthened. The landlord has confirmed that it has, since the complaint has been referred to this Service, contacted the resident in January 2024 about an alternative property which was soon to be available.
Overall, the advice that the landlord gave the resident initially about a transfer in 2021 and in April 2022 was correct and in keeping with its transfer policy. It however accepted that its failure to fully explain the role of a GPs letter in its decision making led the resident to incorrectly believe that she would be moved. It has made an offer of £300 in respect of this aspect as well as offering a second management transfer, after the resident had decided not to move to the property it had offered in December 2022. This was reasonable given the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

Following the resident having raised her complaint on 12 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged and issued the stage one response significantly outside the timescales contained within its complaints policy. The complaint policy sets out that the landlord would acknowledge the complaint within five working days and issue the stage 1 response within ten working days. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 30 August 2022, after 34 working days. It did not issue the stage 1 response until another 48 working days had passed. This was after the resident had contacted the landlord a number of times in respect of her complaint and the lack of a response.
Following the resident having escalated the complaint to stage 2 the landlord once again did not adhere to its complaints policy. Whilst the landlord has not provided this Service with details of when it had received the resident’s request to escalate the complaint, following the acknowledgement of the escalation on 22 November 2022 it took the landlord a further three months from that time to issue the response. Whilst the landlord had requested a meeting with the resident to discuss the complaint and it was clear that the resident’s complaint about ASB was not limited to a single alleged perpetrator, this was an excessive wait.
The landlord in its stage 2 response did not offer any explanation for the delay. Nor was there any regular update by the landlord to the resident at both stage 1 and stage 2 on the status of the complaint, with it only replying after she had chased it a number of times to ask for an update on the matter. This was despite the landlord having been contacted by this Service on 10 October 2022 and informed that it needed to provide its stage 1 response by 24 October 2022. This was a failing and would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience given the length of time the matter had been outstanding and since she was looking to move as a result of the ongoing ASB issues with more than one neighbour.
Whilst the landlord did make an offer of compensation of £100 for poor complaint handling as part of its stage 2 response, the amount offered was not adequate to recognise its failings in this case. The landlord’s offer was based on it failing to recognise that the resident had made a complaint about it and not a complaint about her neighbour. However the landlord’s internal correspondence provided to this Service showed that it was aware a complaint had been made, following the resident’s MP also contacting it in August 2022. Its offer made no reference to the significant time it took to respond, outside of its own complaints policy nor did it keep the resident updated on the complaint. A total amount of £200 is reasonable given the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reporting of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

Although the landlord did respond initially and promptly to the resident about their concerns concerning a number of different tenants and it did issue warning letters to them and remind them of their conduct, the landlord did not deal with the ongoing cumulative complaints but rather looked at them individually in isolation. It also failed to provide or inform the resident of the need to record the noise nuisance to determine whether this did meet ASB and to support further action against the perpetrators.
Whilst the landlord has accepted that there was a degree of ambiguity in its communication over the need of a supporting letter from the resident’s GP to enable her to move, it did offer compensation at stage 2 including the offer of a second management transfer, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion constitutes an offer of reasonable redress.
There was a delay from the landlord at both stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process. It did not make an apology in either its stage one or stage two response. Whilst it did make an offer of £100 for complaints handling, this offer was not proportionate to the lengthy delay at both stages.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £650 which replaces the landlord’s previous offer as set out in the stage 2 response. Should the landlord have already paid the resident the offer of £400 it can deduct this amount from the total amount of £650 which is due. The amount is comprised of:
  1. £150 for its failure in its handling of the resident’s reporting of ASB.
  2. £300 for the handling of the resident’s request to move.
  3. £200 for its failure in its complaints handling.

Recommendation

The landlord should provide the resident an update on the property it had identified in January 2024 as a possible transfer option for her.