London Borough of Hackney (202315642)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315642

London Borough of Hackney

3 July 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a managed transfer via the exceptional case panel.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat located on the third floor of a 4-storey block. The resident has lived there since July 2001.
  2. The resident raised previous complaints with the landlord that this Service has investigated, most recently our reference 202110599, which followed the landlord’s stage 2 response of 1 November 2021.
  3. The resident raised the complaint under investigation in this case on 16 March 2022. He said that he was promised in 2008/9 that he would be moved but this was never progressed.  He said that meetings had been delayed and there was a lack of communication from the landlord and he was unhappy he was told he still would not be moved.
  4. The landlord sent its stage1 response on 30 September 2022, in which it acknowledged that there had been poor communication between October 2021 and March 2022 and it apologised for this. However, it said that it had handled his request for rehousing fairly and it provided him with options to consider in relation to finding suitable alternative accommodation.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord on 2 October 2022, saying that whilst a managed transfer was no longer something the landlord offered, as it was offered to him in 2007 it should still be available to him. He said that he had tried a mutual exchange however people were put off by the noise and the condition of the property.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 December 2022 in which it said that any application from 2007 was out of time and it had already answered concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and damp and mould in the previous complaint. It said that it had reviewed its stage 1 response and believed it to be comprehensive.
  7. The resident contacted this service on 28 July 2023 as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said that he had been promised a move and despite previous involvement with this Service, the landlord would not help him.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. According to paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 2 November 2021 which addressed the resident’s concerns about ASB and damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman has since issued a determination on these issues on 4 July 2023, under reference 202110599. When the resident raised the complaint under investigation in this report on 16 March 2022, there were no new issues relating to ASB and damp and mould raised, and the previous complaint was still ongoing with this Service.
  4. As this has since been determined on by this Service, the resident’s concerns about ASB and damp and mould are outside the jurisdiction of this Service, as we have already made findings on these matters. The resident has since raised a further complaint with the landlord, to which it sent its stage 2 response on 12 April 2024. If the resident would like to pursue this complaint with this Service, he would need to raise this with us as a separate case.

The resident’s application for a managed transfer

  1. This Service previously determined case 202002516 on 25 May 2021 and concluded:
    1. ‘As the landlord had no evidence to corroborate the resident’s ASB allegations it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to offer him alternative accommodation on the grounds of ASB.  The Ombudsman notes that management transfers are generally only considered in exceptional circumstances, for example where there is an immediate threat of harm to a tenant, and which is supported by the police.  
    2. The evidence shows that while the landlord was unable to grant a management move, in response to the resident’s requests for alternative accommodation it provided information on alternative options to secure new accommodation, such as bidding on properties via the local authority’s choice-based lettings scheme and considering a mutual exchange.  This was appropriate as the landlord understood that the resident was not happy in the property.  The evidence also shows that the landlord submitted an application on behalf of the resident for a reciprocal transfer with a neighbouring local authority in March 2019’.
  2. This Service also previously determined case 202110599 on 4 July 2023, following the landlord’s stage 2 response of 2 November 2021, and concluded:
    1. ‘Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
    2. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the assessment of such applications.
    3. Therefore, any request for rehousing is outside of the scope of this investigation. However, it was not disputed that the resident was on a transfer list for pan London. The landlord then removed the resident’s application as it said that the resident did not meet the criteria for a move under this scheme. The resident has requested that the application be reinstated.
    4. The criteria for a pan London transfer are listed on the ‘safer London’ website. The scheme is reserved for ‘Londoners who fit any of the following criteria: domestic violence and abuse; sexual violence and exploitation (including prostitution and trafficking); so called ‘honour’ based violence including genital mutilation and forced violence; stalking; hate crime; serious youth violence’.
    5. While the resident has described threats and harassment by the neighbour, there is no evidence seen to demonstrate that the resident met the criteria for a pan London transfer. Further, there is no evidence which shows the police or other authority determined the resident should be removed from the property for safety reasons. While the resident was initially placed on the list for a pan London transfer, the landlord acknowledged this was not reasonable in consideration of the criteria and resident’s circumstances. Therefore, the landlord’s approach not to reinstate the resident on the pan London transfer list was appropriate in the circumstances.
    6. The landlord acknowledged that it was incorrect in placing the resident on the pan London transfer list. There was no evidence to show the resident met the criteria for a pan London transfer. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in refusing to reinstate the resident’s application’.
  3. As this Service has already issued determinations relating to the resident’s requests for rehousing, this investigation has only looked into the landlord’s actions between 2 November 2021, when it sent its previous stage 2 response, and 8 December 2022, when it sent its stage 2 response to the complaint under investigation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as explained above.
  4. The landlord told the resident in October 2021 that it would see if a special exception could be made for a housing transfer at a meeting that month. The resident said that he tried to get hold of the landlord’s staff member every week but was told they were on leave. The meeting was delayed until 9 December, however the resident was subsequently told that there was no update and that the member of staff dealing with this was on leave again until 13 January 2022.
  5. The resident continued to chase the landlord for a response during January and February 2022, however he did not get a response until 15 March, when the landlord said that the exceptional case would not be progressed. It said that the resident was adequately housed and would need to explore a mutual exchange or the private rented sector.
  6. The landlord has provided a copy of its terms of reference for its exceptional case panel (ECP). The purpose of the ECP is to consider cases where exceptional circumstances mean the housing need is not described or anticipated by the allocations policy. The ECP is to consider residents whose circumstances are unusual or extraordinary.
  7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the resident’s circumstances were not considered unusual or extraordinary as there was no evidence of threat to life and limb.  It said that its ASB team had investigated cases with the police over a number of years but had found no evidence to substantiate the resident’s claims.
  8. This Service has not been provided with any evidence from either party that there was a threat to the resident’s safety, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that this did not meet its criteria to be referred to the ECP.  Whilst this Service appreciates that the resident says he was offered a managed transfer many years ago, when that option was available, the previous determinations outlined above have already considered this, so any potential promises made prior to November 2021 have not been considered.
  9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided information to the resident on his options for moving home by either applying for a mutual exchange or using home swapper to find accommodation. It also said that he could approach any local authority or housing provider of his choice and discuss moving options with them.
  10. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a managed transfer via the exceptional case panel. No evidence has been provided to show that the resident met the criteria for a referral to the ECP, and so the landlord has not acted unreasonably in not progressing his application. However, it has acknowledged in its stage 1 response that its communication was poor in relation to this issue.
  11. The landlord agreed to discuss the possibility of the ECP at a meeting in October 2021, and did not provide updates to the resident whilst this was ongoing. It did not provide an outcome to him until March 2022, and did not respond to his requests for updates. Whilst it recognised its poor communication in its stage 1 response, it did not offer redress to the resident and the Ombudsman does not consider that it did enough to put things right for him.
  12. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay to communicating its decision not to refer the case to the ECP.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and took too long.
  2. The landlord has told this Service that it did not have a specific complaints policy in place at the time of this complaint, so the Ombudsman has considered the complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, which was in place at the time. This sets out that landlords should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receiving it, and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of this acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord should issue a response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
  3. The resident raised the complaint with the landlord on 16 March 2022 and the landlord did not send a response acknowledging this. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 April by phone to chase a response. The contact notes show a call back was promised, however no evidence has been provided that this call back took place. The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 April and 4 May to chase, but again there is no evidence an update was given on these calls.
  4. On 16 May the landlord spoke to the resident to discuss the complaint, where he confirmed that he did not want the previous complaint looking into again, but wanted a new complaint raised.
  5. No evidence has been provided of any further communication with the resident until the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 30 September 2022, more than 6 months after the complaint was raised. The landlord did acknowledge the severe delay in responding, and said this was due to it having to liaise with different housing service areas. However, this did not represent a reasonable explanation for such a severe delay, and for the landlord’s lack of updates throughout this period.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 October 2022 to say he was not happy with the stage 1 response. The landlord did not respond to acknowledge the escalation request until 17 October, and said that it aimed to provide its stage 2 response by 3 November. It said it would update him if there was a delay.
  7. On 1 November 2022 the landlord let the resident know that due to the complexity of the case it needed more time to respond, and extended the timescale to 17 November. As the resident had not heard anything, he contacted the landlord on 21 November asking if it needed more time. The landlord responded the next day, apologising for the lack of communication and saying it expected to respond within 2 weeks.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 December 2022, 48 working days after the escalation request. Whilst it had said that it needed more time due to the complexity of the case, this response reiterated its stance in its stage 1 response and so it is not evident that the delay in responding was reasonable.
  9. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not respond to either stage of the complaint within a reasonable timescale, taking almost 9 months to complete its internal complaints process. At stage 1 it did not proactively keep the resident updated, nor did it provide call backs to update him when he requested this. At stage 2, whilst it did provide some updates, it did not always update the resident when it failed to meet an agreed timescale.
  10. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  11. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to carry out a case review to establish why it took so long to respond at stage 1, and ensure it has a more robust process in place to prevent this happening again.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s application for a managed transfer via the exceptional case panel.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a managed transfer.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to carry out a case review to establish why it took so long to respond at stage 1 of the complaints process, and ensure it has a more robust process in place to prevent this happening again.