Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited (202125741)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125741

Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited

17 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: – 
   1. The resident’s reports of anti social behaviour.
   2. The resident’s request to move home.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. Until August 2022 the resident was the secure tenant of a two bedroomed semi-detached house which she moved to in around October 2016. She reports that by the end of December 2016 the landlord had given her recording equipment to use as she was experiencing excessive noise coming from a neighbouring property. By mid-2019 a managed move had been agreed by the landlord. According to the resident, the neighbour was made the subject of a restraining order, having threatened her; having damaged her property; and after the resident had made numerous reports of anti social behaviour (ASB). She said that this action took place as part of criminal proceedings. 
3. On 5 March 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the situation. She considered that it had breached data protection requirements in the handling of her move; she complained that the alternative accommodation she had been offered in 2019 had been inappropriate for her needs; she was unhappy that because she had refused the accommodation, her priority was now classified as low. 
4. The landlord responded that it had a limited stock of housing and had offered three suitable properties but these had been turned down. It explained that the bidding system was run by the local authority and it had no control over it or the banding offered. It confirmed it had not breached the resident’s data in any way. It explained that it had closed the resident’s ASB case when she had not responded to its enquiries. It stated there had been insufficient evidence to support ongoing claims or to warrant any further investigation.
5. The resident continued to make reports of ASB and in early December 2021 she raised the same issues with the landlord about its handling of the situation. It declined to investigate further on the basis it had already investigated and responded to her concerns and she was raising nothing new.
6. The resident referred the matter to this Service. She wanted the landlord’s handling of her reports to be investigated. By way of remedy, she wanted her neighbour to be evicted and she wanted compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling. She also wanted a move to another property. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation and jurisdiction

7. There are two issues to note at this stage in our process.
8. Firstly, this Service has no remit to investigate breaches of data protection. That is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office and the resident was signposted to that organisation by the landlord as part of its complaint handling.
9. Secondly, the resident’s complaint centred around her move. It did not specifically question how the landlord had handled her ASB reports. As set out above, the resident started making those reports in 2016. Criminal proceedings took place against the neighbour in 2019. The resident reports an injunction order was made. The reports of ASB continued afterwards. The resident has questioned why the landlord did not use that as an opportunity to evict the neighbour. It is clear that this matter has an involved and detailed history spanning a lengthy time period. However, much of what happened is now historic.
10. When the resident sent a further “formal complaint” to the landlord on 4 December 2021 she again concentrated on her move but touched upon the issue of how the reports themselves were handled. She has referred that issue to this Service for investigation. That complaint was rejected by the landlord on the basis the issues had already been considered in previous complaints. Consideration has been given below to whether the landlord should have taken that communication as an escalation request relating to the complaint made nine months earlier. However, even if it should have been, the landlord was reasonably entitled to decline to examine its ASB handling on the basis the resident was introducing new issues into that complaint at that point.
11. This Service’s remit is set out in our Scheme Rules which require residents to exhaust a landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) before referring matters to us (Paragraph 42c). It is clear that the question of the handling of the ASB reports was not included in the complaint under consideration and has not therefore completed the landlord’s ICP on this occasion. The landlord’s letter of 16 December 2021 suggests its handling may have been scrutinised under an earlier complaint in any event – but again not as part of the one referred to this service.
12. Under these circumstances the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports themselves is out of jurisdiction and will not be examined as part of this investigation.

The resident’s request to move home.

13. In mid-2019 the landlord agreed to a management move for the resident. She was offered three separate properties which she declined as unsuitable. As a result she lost her priority status and was required to bid for a transfer under a system administered by the local authority – and not her landlord.
14. The resident has complained that the landlord failed to offer properties in the locality she was aiming for. She further states that one property had to be turned down when her neighbour found out where it was; another because it was too close: and the third because its stairs were too steep and failed to accommodate her physical limitations.
15. The resident suggested it was the landlord’s fault that the neighbour was aware of the location of one of the properties. There is, however, no evidence to support that and as already set out, data breaches are for the Information Commissioner’s office to look into.
16. The resident has also questioned why she could not have been allocated a larger property with more bedrooms as she was willing to pay the difference in rent. The landlord refused to agree to this and its stance was reasonable given such property would be required for larger family groups.
17. With regard to the location, the landlord has explained that it was restricted in what it could offer according to what property it had available at the time. Social housing is generally oversubscribed with demand outweighing supply. Where a move is being managed the landlord may well be limited in what it can offer and the resident may not be offered their ideal solution. There is nothing to suggest the landlord failed to do the best it could to arrange alternative accommodation for the resident. When her priority was downgraded that was out of the landlord’s control.
18. The landlord did try to assist the resident in her search. She indicated she had no internet access and it offered to put in “automatic” bids on properties on her behalf to secure her interest. It could not, however, offer property that it did not have available, and it did not necessarily own property in every area the resident was interested in. Since referring this complaint the resident has now been rehoused.
19. In conclusion the landlord’s handling of the situation was fair and reasonable.

The resident’s complaint

20. The landlord operates a Complaints Policy. It sets out a two stage complaint process. Once the complaint is made, the landlord commits to acknowledging it within five working days with a stage one response to be given in ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied they can request an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. A full response can then be expected from the landlord in 20 working days.
21. The resident complained on 5 March 2021 and this was acknowledged as received on 10 March 2021. The landlord gave a detailed response on 19 March 2021 and which covered the issues raised by the resident. No escalation request was made. The landlord dealt with the complaint in accordance with its timescales and it’s handling was in line with its policy and was appropriate.
22. On 4 December 2021 the resident sent another “formal complaint” which covered  the same issues. It complained about the way the house move had been handled and suggested data protection breaches had taken place. It also touched upon the question of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The letter stated that the complaint was to be “escalated” to this Service and that she required “a deadlock letter” for that to take place. It is not clear whether the resident intended to make a new complaint about the same issues. It is possible to interpret the letter that she meant to escalate her March complaint to stage two of the landlord’s procedure.
23. On 16 December 2021 the landlord replied with a letter marked “Complaint Refusal”. It took the communication to be a fresh complaint rather than an escalation request. It was nine months after the previous complaint had been addressed without any response being made. In the Ombudsman’s view this was not necessarily unreasonable because the letter did not make it clear what the resident’s aim was.
24. The landlord stated that it had replied to complaints in February and March 2021 and in September 2021 and it had addressed multiple issues since 2017. The landlord added that: –
25. “As there are no new issues raised in your letter that we have not previously addressed and that the majority of these incidents occurred over six months ago, I will not be opening a complaint at this time. This is in accordance with our complaints policy.”
26. The landlord then signposted the resident to this Service if she wished to take matters further. Irrespective of whether the complaint was ‘fresh’ or an escalation request, it is clear that the landlord considered it had made its final response. Its internal complaint procedure can therefore be treated as concluded.
27. The landlord’s policy confirms that “there are some instances where the initial enquiry will not be treated as a complaint”. This includes “where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over six months ago”. The policy does allow the landlord, however, to refer to older reports, where there is a recurring issue to provide background information.
28. The issues highlighted by the resident in this new communication did go over points previously raised and which were largely historic. The landlord’s refusal to open a new complaint was reasonable. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s handling of the resident’s communications was fair and appropriate to its policy.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of: –
    1. The resident’s request to move home.
    2. The resident’s complaint.
30. In accordance with paragraph 42 c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.