London Borough of Newham (202124872)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124872

Newham Council

10 July 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is regarding:
1. the landlord’s response to an emergency management transfer request
2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord and lived in the property with her two children. The landlord has advised that there are no recorded vulnerabilities.
The resident requested emergency re-housing in October 2020 due to her ex-partner (and perpetrator of domestic abuse) moving close to her home. On 17 November 2020 the landlord responded to a complaint the resident had raised about the matter at stage two of its internal complaints process. The resident was advised that her case did not meet the landlord’s criteria for an emergency move.
Following contact with the landlord in April 2021 and May 2021 (where she reported that she was ‘receiving constant verbal abuse’ and that her ex-partner ‘came to my property in a state and took my son…without my consent, this has also been reported to the police’), and having been advised that there was no change in the decision previously reached at stage two, the resident raised a new stage one complaint on 13 October 2021.
The stage one complaint related to the resident’s ongoing request for an emergency move on the grounds of domestic abuse. Within her complaint the resident referred to having raised her concerns with the landlord on multiple

occasions and having been declined support. She requested that the issues she had raised were addressed and resolved. The resident advised that she was being supported by a domestic abuse support service (the support service), that the police had a crime reference number, and that a safeguarding report had been done.

The landlord’s stage one response, issued on 19 November 2021, advised that the assessment of the resident’s housing needs had been undertaken in line with its allocations policy and that the complaint was not upheld. The landlord confirmed however that it had re-opened the case, pending a request to the support service and the police for information to help identify whether the threshold for a managed move had been met.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord advised the resident that the police did not have an open investigation, which the resident disputed, and the case was closed. In March 2022 however, the landlord requested that the resident’s case was referred to a panel review meeting. As a result of the review the resident was placed on the landlord’s emergency re-housing list and moved to a different property on 13 June 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 12 April 2022 to request assistance. She referred to:
1. the length of time taken by the landlord to move her and her family
2. the impact on her mental health
3. the financial loss she incurred
4. she would like to proceed for a financial remedy.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. This is high level, good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes

The landlord’s response to an emergency transfer request

In cases of domestic abuse, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine what the risks were, but instead to consider how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident and whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case, and in line with relevant policy and procedure.
This Service acknowledges that the resident and the landlord have referred to their contact with external parties including family services, a support service, and the police. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide copies of any correspondence concerning the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s housing needs, copies of any information provided by third parties, and copies of advice it may have sought from the police and other services. Copies of correspondence with third parties does not appear to have been provided.
The landlord’s Allocations policy advises that, “in every case the individual circumstances of each applicant are considered.”
The criteria documented in the landlord’s “Emergency (Violence or Harassment) Re-housing Request” form, at the time the resident raised her complaint, advised:
1. The Council’s emphasis is on identifying and tackling the perpetrator and undertaking work to enable the victim to stay in their home.
2. The victim will only be offered a transfer to alternative accommodation in urgent emergency cases where there is action in progress against the perpetrators.
3. For applicants requesting an emergency transfer as a result of domestic violence the applicant must be co-operating with agencies to reduce the risk of harm and at risk of serious harm from the person(s) or their agents and a move can be reasonably expected to eliminate or substantially reduce any further risk of harm. Applicants will also be expected to be involved in supporting action being taken against the perpetrator(s) unless the history of the case supports that this is unlikely to eliminate further risk of harm, or the vulnerability or special needs of the tenant are such it is not appropriate for perpetrator action to be applied as a qualifying criteria.
4. The request for an emergency move must be supported by information submitted by the Police, endorsed at Inspector level or above.
5. The victim will be expected to have a clear rent account and no other housing debts in line with the Choice Based Lettings criteria. However, in exceptional cases where debts are owed, a transfer under this procedure can be considered by the Strategic Housing Manager (Housing Needs) at the recommendation of the Emergency Re-housing Panel.
The Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance (DAHA) provides best practice guidance to housing professionals to improve the housing sector’s response to domestic abuse. DAHA highlights the importance of effective risk management, which relies on a Coordinated Community Response (CCR) to partnership working, information sharing and an ongoing review and revision of risks which it highlights can change quickly in cases of domestic abuse.
DAHA also highlights that families interlink and therefore the risks and needs of the whole family in the household, including children, should be considered at every point in a response to domestic abuse.
The landlord does not appear to have had a specific domestic abuse policy or procedure in place at the time the resident raised her concerns in October 2020: Nevertheless, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have taken action such as appropriately recording the resident’s report, discussing this with the resident, carrying out a risk assessment, considering safeguarding issues and signposting the resident to support organisations. No contemporaneous record of the resident’s initial contact has been provided, but a timeline set out by the landlord states that in October 2020, when the resident first contacted it about her concerns, it ‘advised that her current circumstances do not meet the criteria for emergency housing…was given advise on other routes for rehousing.’ There is no reference to the “Emergency (Violence or Harassment) Re-housing Request” criteria or how the landlord assessed the resident against this. There is no evidence that the landlord took any other action, enquired about children at the address, signposted the resident to support services, or expressed any concern about the situation. This unsympathetic approach was inappropriate.
On 17 November 2020 the landlord sent the resident a stage two complaint response. The landlord advised the resident that, following its investigation with the police and with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) team, there was considered to be no immediate risk of harm. The complaint was not upheld, and the resident was advised of alternative housing options, including mutual exchange and private rental options. While it was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the police, this Service has not received any evidence of the investigations that the landlord said took place, or any evidence that shows the outcome of these investigations. Neither is there a record of any risk assessment taking place.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reference to the advice she said her local MP and social worker had given her, which was that the best option was for her and her children to be moved. No information has been provided to this Service to demonstrate that the landlord made any further enquiries with the MP or social worker to establish what this advice was based on, or whether this line of enquiry ought to be pursued. This was potentially a missed opportunity for the landlord to gather additional information in relation to the resident’s case to help determine the family’s support needs.
The resident raised multiple concerns throughout her complaint about her and her child’s safety. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have signposted the resident to support and advice regarding potential security measures that could be taken while she lived in the property that may have helped her to feel safer. This would at least have reassured the resident that her concerns were being listened to and may have reduced some of the stress and anxiety she experienced.
In November 2020 the resident was advised that she did not meet the criteria for a management transfer as she was “not currently experiencing domestic violence”. This reasoning does not appear to reflect the landlord’s criteria which refers to a “risk” of harm. If a risk assessment had not been completed, the risk would not have been fully known. It is also important, especially in cases such as this, that all staff correctly interpret the landlord’s policy with regards to the criteria that is referenced. This is learning that the landlord should consider in its staff training and when developing and delivering new policies and procedures.
On 19 April 2021 the landlord noted that it had received a further report from the resident. The resident had advised the landlord of the history of the domestic abuse she had experienced and explained that letters from social services, which supported her request to be re-housed, had previously been provided to the landlord. The resident advised the landlord that, when contact with her child was denied, her ex-partner had become verbally abusive and threatened her.
In response to the resident’s contact, the landlord noted that she had not reported her circumstances to the police and that the police had no active investigation. It is acknowledged that the landlord gave the resident advice on contacting Citizen’s Advice or a family court regarding formal visitation arrangements. The landlord noted too that the police Officer in Charge (OIC) had spoken with the resident and that her reports were the same as those previously recorded. The resident was informed that she did not meet the criteria for emergency re-housing and was advised to report any further harassment to the police.
There is, however, no evidence that has been provided to this Service of the landlord’s contact with the police, and so its position on how it reached its conclusion not to consider a formal review of the resident’s request for emergency re-housing is unsupported. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s comments regarding the historic contact that she said social services had made with the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 May 2021 and reiterated that she had received constant verbal abuse, and that on one occasion her ex-partner had visited her property and taken her child without her consent. She advised that this incident had been reported to the police and that she would be taking the matter further because, in line with safeguarding, the advice she had been given by children’s services was to ensure there was no contact with her ex-partner due to a history of violence towards women and children. The resident explained that a member of the housing team had made her aware that the input from social services had not been taken into consideration by the landlord and neither had the police reports. This concern does not appear to have been addressed by the landlord during its communications with the resident.
The landlord responded promptly to the above contact and advised the resident that if the police had evidence that supported an emergency move, they could send this to the landlord’s antisocial behaviour team, and that if social services believed there to be a welfare issue, they could send a report to the social welfare panel for consideration.The resident was advised that the social worker could contact Allocations & Home Ownership for information on how to send the report for the social welfare panel to investigate. The landlord correctly provided advice to the resident regarding the option to escalate her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
The above response placed a responsibility on the resident to potentially arrange contact between several different parties, and no contact details appear to have been provided in relation to how to submit this information. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s reports of having experienced verbal abuse, or her child having been taken. The response was generic, lacked empathy and was not tailored to the resident’s individual circumstances. This is likely to have left the resident feeling that she was not being listened to, despite having disclosed serious concerns regarding her ex-partner’s behaviour.
On 18 November 2021, the landlord noted that the support service had confirmed it was supporting the resident and that her circumstances had changed. The landlord also noted that the police had sent a safeguarding report to social services and that police reference numbers had been provided. The landlord contacted the police OIC for an update on the case on 20 December 2021, and again on 31 January 2022 due to not having received a response.
The landlord’s follow up request to the OIC took place approximately 49 working days after it had advised the resident that it would make investigations into whether there was supporting evidence for a management move. It is reasonable to expect that the delays waiting for information increased the stress and anxiety that the resident was already experiencing while she waited for an update on her case. A partnership arrangement works where agencies work together effectively to share information with the purpose of assessing risk so that safe interventions can be planned to reduce the risks identified. The longer it takes to obtain information, the longer the risks remain unknown which is a cause for concern from a safeguarding perspective. It is recognised that the landlord attempted to follow up for a response with the OIC, however there were significant delays in this respect. The landlord’s policy that the request for an emergency move must be endorsed by the police, at Inspector level or above, potentially contributes to delays in the event of a senior police officer being unavailable.
On 17 February 2022, following contact from the resident, the landlord advised her that the police did not have an open investigation and were not providing a risk assessment. The resident advised the landlord that she did have an open case. There was a discrepancy between the landlord and the resident’s understanding. The landlord has not provided copies of the contact it had with the police, and this Service has therefore been unable to establish the reasons for this discrepancy. The landlord should however have clarified this matter directly with the resident and provided a clear explanation to resolve any misunderstanding.
In March 2022 the landlord requested that the resident’s case was referred to a panel review for re-consideration of her request for an emergency move. The first panel review meeting took place on 30 March 2022, followed by a second meeting on 4 May 2022. The landlord explained to this Service that the resident’s case was referred to a review panel following an update to its emergency re-housing criteria which took place between March 2022 and May 2022. In particular there was a specific revision of the criteria that related to domestic abuse cases.
The revised emergency re-housing criteria included reference to a trained professional completing a DASH-RIC assessment where possible (this is a risk assessment tool), and it was also updated to capture more detailed information to effectively assess a request for emergency re-housing. While this was a clear service improvement, it does not fully explain why a decision was made to review the resident’s case and offer emergency re-housing at this particular point in time. There does not appear to have been any new information presented to the landlord to initiate a review meeting. The letter dated 9 May 2022, sent to the resident following the panel review, referred to the following information having been considered in relation to the decision to offer alternative housing: information from the landlord’s antisocial behaviour team; information from the Resident Services team; the Housing Allocations policy; and information from the Police. The letter also states, “The Police are not involved in your case.” There is no evidence this Service has seen to suggest that the Resident Services team, or the antisocial behaviour team, had provided new information in support of an emergency move for the resident. This Service therefore considers that the review meeting could have been arranged at an earlier stage in the complaints process, and that a change to a landlord’s internal procedural criteria should not be the main reason to initiate a case review in instances where a resident or their child may be at any degree of risk.
The first reference that this Service has seen to the landlord’s request for a DASH risk assessment to be completed with the resident, followed the initial panel review meeting in March 2022. While this was an appropriate risk assessment tool to use, the landlord should have worked with partnership organisations to ensure the DASH form was completed when the resident first reported her safety concerns. Identifying and assessing the risk of harm establishes the needs of the individual and the whole family and enables the planning of actions that will reduce risks. If domestic abuse has been disclosed or identified, it is essential that risk is assessed and reviewed promptly and effectively.
The second stage of the panel review took place in May 2022.Resulting actions included contacting the resident to discuss making arrangements to clear any rent arrears and advising her that only one reasonable like for like offer of accommodation would be made. While the decision to offer alternative accommodation was welcome, the contact with the resident focused on the landlord’s internal policies rather than demonstrating any empathy or understanding of her main concern and reason for wanting to move, which was for safety. The landlord’s policy stated that in exceptional cases where debts are owed, a transfer could be considered by the Strategic Housing Manager and yet there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered waiting until the resident had moved and felt safe before discussing any arrangement with her to clear any rent arrears.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 May 2022 and advised that she had left her home due to the anxiety caused by the ongoing threat and harassment, and that she was staying with a family member. She advised that the move had been mentally exhausting and financially draining due to the travel costs she had incurred taking her child to school. She expressed concern regarding the requirement to clear her rent arrears before being able to move and advised the landlord that her decline in mental wellbeing had resulted in her resigning from her job. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the impact of the situation on the resident’s welfare, and this was unacceptable.
The resident also referred to an ongoing lack of acknowledgement to documents she had provided to the landlord over the previous two years, and she said that she continued to relive the trauma she had experienced. She expressed frustration that the panel review meeting had been adjourned twice and advised this Service that this was due to the landlord not having documentation that it had already been sent, such as the perpetrator’s history. She also explained that a move to another two-bedroom property would cause further disruption for her children and that their mental health would be impacted when the time came to move again to a property that met her family’s three bedroom need.
The final complaint response issued to the resident on 9 May 2022 reiterated that any rent arrears should be cleared prior to the offer of a new tenancy: “You should also note that your eligibility to move will also depend on you having a clear rent account”. As a result of the landlord’s reference to the need for her to clear any rent arrears, the resident experienced further worry and stress. She had incurred additional costs while living with her family and had resigned from work due to her mental health. She had explained that this had been financially draining. The landlord’s approach therefore lacked empathy and understanding of the wider impact of domestic abuse.
For residents who have been assessed as having a re-housing need due to violence and harassment, the landlord’s allocations policy states: “Agreed transfers will be on a like for like basis in terms of number of bedrooms.” Following the panel review, the resident was advised that any offers of accommodation would be on a like-for-like basis. While the landlord followed its policy in this respect, it does not reflect its own policy that: “In every case the individual circumstances of each applicant are considered.” Only considering a move to another two bedroom property, when the resident had a three bedroom need, is considered an unreasonable and impractical approach and added to the resident’s worries about her children feeling further unsettled when the time comes to move again.
Following the panel review meeting the landlord outlined alternative housing options available to the resident, including mutual exchange and private rental. The landlord should continue to support the resident in relation to her housing options as required.
While this Service recognises that there was information that the landlord had to provide to the resident, receiving a large amount of such information, including references to policies and procedures, could have been confusing and overwhelming for the resident especially at an already challenging time when her main concern was for her and her children’s safety. The landlord’s final response did not demonstrate any empathy for the resident’s personal situation or acknowledge the stress that she said she had experienced. It did not demonstrate a sympathetic or understanding approach in relation to her circumstances or her ongoing safeguarding concerns. The landlord should learn from this case and review the tone and content of correspondence sent to residents who are experiencing significant personal challenges, ensuring that residents are signposted to support services where appropriate.
Overall, the information available to this Service indicates that there was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the concerns raised by the resident in October 2020 and then again in April 2021. There were various ways in which the landlord could have been more sensitive to the resident’s situation to help build a more trusting relationship. At times the landlord treated the resident in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic and inappropriate manner and has provided little evidence that it signposted the resident to organisations who could provide her and her children with support. It is reasonable to expect that this approach contributed to the stress, anxiety, and frustration that the resident reported, and the time and trouble that she spent attempting to evidence her need to be moved.
It is considered that there were earlier opportunities for the landlord to organise a panel review meeting, and that this meeting should not have been because of a change in procedural criteria, but rather as a result of the resident’s personal circumstances and the length of time that she had been raising her concerns. Timely completion of a risk assessment would also have helped to identify whether a move should have been considered earlier on. While it is not possible to say with absolute certainty what the outcome would have been if the panel review had taken place sooner, it seems likely that it would have resulted in an earlier move for the resident.
Finally, this Service has not been provided with evidence of the landlord’s contact with third parties, which raises a concern regarding its record keeping. This same concern was raised by the resident in relation to supporting evidence that she advised third party organisations had provided to the landlord which it did not appear to have considered, and specifically information required for the panel review meeting which she advised the landlord did not have available.
This Service welcomes the draft amendments made to the landlord’s “Emergency (Violence or harassment) Rehousing Request” form, dated May 2022, that was provided to this Service. In the draft document, the landlord removed the requirement for a victim of domestic abuse to have a clear rent account and states: “The panel should bear in mind that victims of domestic abuse are significantly more likely to be in arrears…due to economic and other abuse.” This is a welcome improvement and demonstrates an increased awareness by the landlord of how to support residents.
This Service also understands that the landlord has developed a “Domestic Abuse Strategy 2022-2025”, designed to improve its response to domestic abuse. It is encouraging to see the work that the landlord is currently doing in this area, and this should help to avoid a repeat of the failings identified in this case.
While the new criteria for assessing suitability for an emergency move in domestic abuse cases is most welcome it came too late to “put right” the resident’s experience in this case.
In light of the above, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s emergency management transfer request, and orders for remedy are made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage “Housing Services” complaints process:
1. stage 1: The complaint is acknowledged within five working days and a full response sent within ten working days.
2. stage 2: The complaint is acknowledged within five working days and a full response sent within 20 working days.
On 11 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that, in response to her request to escalate her concerns to stage two of its internal complaints process, the outcome of the stage two response that was issued in November 2020 remained unchanged. The resident was provided with the Ombudsman’s details should she wish to escalate her complaint. This was appropriate advice.
On 13 October 2021 the resident submitted a further complaint regarding her ongoing concerns and request for emergency re-housing. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 15 October 2021 and provided a target response date of 10 November 2021. This was a proposed response time of approximately 18 working days and therefore not in line with its Housing Services complaints policy.
A holding response was subsequently sent to the resident on 12 November 2021, and she was advised that due to information needed from the landlord’s antisocial behaviour team, a response would be issued on 19 November 2021. Although the holding response should have been sent slightly earlier, it was good practice to issue it and to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a revised timescale.
On 19 November 2021 the landlord sent a stage one response to the resident. It advised that the complaint had not been upheld and that the assessment of her case was in line with its policy. The resident was however informed that her case would be re-opened by the antisocial behaviour team pending further investigation. This was a reasonable response and demonstrated that the landlord was open to continuing to review the resident’s concerns. However, the delay in providing the complaint response is likely to have exacerbated the resident’s distress.
In April 2022 the resident made contact with this Service as did the landlord, advising that it had logged a stage two complaint from the resident.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming the review panel’s agreement to award emergency re-housing. Following contact from the Ombudsman, asking the landlord if the panel review meeting letter was its stage two response, the landlord confirmed that it was the final response.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code outlines that landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at completion of stage two:
1. the complaint stage
2. the complaint definition
3. the decision on the complaint
4. the details of any remedy offered to put things right
5. details of any outstanding actions
6. how to escalate their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did resolve matters by agreeing to the emergency housing transfer. However, the panel decision letter did not constitute a ‘final response’ to the complaint as per the code. This meant that the landlord did not address all the concerns that the resident had raised throughout her complaint, and there was a missed opportunity to identify any failings and subsequent learnings from the case and take action to put things right for the resident. This Service has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and has made orders for remedy.
The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance outlines factors that may be considered when deciding the overall amount of compensation to offer a resident. These include:
1. the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience
2. actions by the resident or the landlord which either mitigated or contributed to actual financial loss, distress, inconvenience or unfair impact on the resident’s living arrangements.
The Housing Ombudsman suggests a level of redress between £100 and £600 for maladministration in cases where there has been no permanent impact on a resident, but where the service failure has adversely affected them and where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an emergency management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £900 comprised of:
  1. £250 for the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the matter with the landlord
  2. £450 for the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the matter, and
  3. £200 for its failures responding to the resident’s complaint.
2. Confirm that the updates in the draft “Emergency (Violence or harassment) Rehousing Request” form have been finalised and implemented.
3. If it has not done so in the last six months, review staff training to ensure that staff understand the risk assessment process and how to work effectively with partnership organisations to ensure timely risk assessments are completed.
4. Ensure that the resident’s customer contact record is updated with all relevant information regarding any vulnerabilities and third party information.
5. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

a. Review the policy of agreed emergency re-housing transfers being on a like for like only basis in terms of bedroom need.

b. Review the policy of supporting information that is submitted by the police needing to be endorsed at Inspector level or above.

c. The landlord advised this Service that it would continue to monitor the resident’s case and support her in her new property should any further concerns be raised. The resident recently advised this Service of difficulties she has experienced regarding repairs to a door in her current home, and the associated concerns she has regarding security. She advised that she has raised this issue with the landlord as a complaint. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss and resolve these concerns.

d. If it has not done so in the last six months, the landlord should review staff training to ensure that its internal complaints process is adhered to and it should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.