London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202115193)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115193

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 August 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. Request for a:
  1. Letter confirming tenancy action taken against her neighbour.
  2. Review of its decision to serve a notice of seeking possession.
  3. Medical transfer.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 22 May 2017. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, evidence provided for the purposes of this investigation shows that the resident’s son is disabled and uses a wheelchair.
On 28 October 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and agreed to reopen a previous Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) case. The reports of ASB included antisocial driving and inappropriate use of CCTV by her neighbour. The landlord agreed to several actions in relation to its management of the ASB case. During April 2022 the resident was served with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) which she appealed. Following interventions the ASB case was closed on 20 April but was reopened again in September.
In October 2021 and January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord regarding her request for a move on medical grounds. On 20 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that she did not have a live application. It said it would ask for her to be rehoused on medical and ASB grounds.
On 27 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint, as follows:
1. She had experienced a lack of contact, response or action by the landlord.
2. She had been offered a panic alarm which she initially declined but then accepted. That was 10 weeks ago and she had not heard anything since.
3. The landlord had told her that it had served her neighbour with a NOSP and that any further incidents would result in court action being taken against her. However, she had been advised that the neighbour was served with a written warning as an alternative to court action.
4. The landlord had failed to log her reports of ongoing harassment against her by her neighbour.
5. The landlord had not provided her with a letter to support her civil application for an injunction against her neighbour.
6. The landlord told her it was ‘victim focussed’ but she had not found that to be the case.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 February 2023, the main points being:
1. It had no record of a conversation taking place with the resident about a panic alarm. It said it was unable to provide one however, the police could provide one that was connected to their systems. It apologised if the resident was incorrectly advised.
2. It contacted the police on the resident’s behalf on 2 February to request a panic alarm. They advised they provided them for “high risk domestic abuse cases” only.
3. The police had provided safety information and advice to the resident on 3 February.
4. It offered to provide its ‘VRA package’ (it is unclear what VRA stands for) to the resident to provide additional security measures and provided an email address for the resident to use if she wished to find out more.
5. It could not share information about her neighbour due to data protection. The Court could contact the landlord directly should it require any information for her court case.
6. It was working with partner agencies on the ongoing ASB and would discuss any breaches of tenancy with its legal team.
7. It was providing weekly updates to the resident.
8. The local authority had confirmed receipt of the resident’s application for a community trigger. If there were any new reports which had not been addressed it would open a new ASB case.
9. The resident had confirmed that her son was a wheelchair user and was unable to access the second floor of the property. It advised the resident to contact her son’s doctor to request an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment of her son’s needs. It would need an OT report to be able to consider carrying out any adaptations of the property.
10. It provided advice on mutual exchanges, including a link to a relevant website. It also signposted the resident to other housing options including the local authority, private rented and shared ownership accommodation.
11. It was not accepting new referrals to its rehousing service.
On 1 March 2023 the resident made a stage 2 complaint because the landlord had not:
1. Contacted her to provide weekly updates on her ASB case as agreed.
2. Actioned the extra security measures.
3. Acted in line with its ASB procedures.
4. Progressed her appeal of her NOSP.
5. Progressed her request for a medical transfer.
6. Provided a letter as evidence in her court case against her neighbour.
On 22 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. On 24 June 2022 it provided a written response to the resident’s appeal of her NOSP. It provided a summary of its response and confirmed that the NOSP would not be withdrawn. If the resident did not agree with Community Protection Warning (CPW) she should make an appeal to the issuing agency.
2. Additional security measures had been requested. It had raised orders for trellis, halogen spotlights and a mortice lock to be installed. It had contacted the resident and they were in the process of arranging dates for installation.
3. It could not be involved in her proceedings against her neighbour because they were separate to any action taken by the landlord.
4. It had provided a response to the resident’s concerns about CCTV on 24 June and had not received any further reports from the resident.
5. On 3 November it served her neighbour with NOSP in response to a section 59 notice from the police for dangerous driving on the development. It would continue to work closely with the police regarding any further breaches and incidents.
6. It was sorry that the resident was not happy that a warning letter was served on her neighbour. It said that warning letters were served to advise of the behaviour and to advise of next steps should it continue. Serving a warning letter was part of its actions to address and investigate the case in line with its policy and procedure.
7. It had been in contact with the resident on a weekly basis. They were confirmed in writing and added to the case accordingly.
8. It delivered a panic alarm to the resident on 14 March.
9. It advised the resident that if she wished to request a panic alarm connected to the police station she should contact the police directly.
10. The resident raised a community trigger on 23 February. The panel meeting took place on 2 March and the landlord awaited the outcome.
11. It was seeking an update from the police regarding an incident on or around 15 March when vehicles caught on fire in the car park. It confirmed it had made its legal team aware.
12. It was working closely with the resident, police and its legal team and would keep the resident updated.
13. It apologised for the resident’s “experience” and that she had cause to complain.
In an email to this Service on 24 March 2023 the resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s delayed response to her reports of ASB and its inaction against her neighbour. She also said she had been asking the landlord to review its decision to serve her with NOSP since September 2022 however, it failed to do so. The NOSP has since expired with no further action taken.
In her email to this Service on 24 March 2023 the resident said she was dissatisfied that her request to be moved had not been progressed.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord operates a choice based lettings scheme to help its residents move to another property. Residents are banded according to priority and those with medical issues are allocated to band 3. Medical evidence is assessed by an independent medical assessor on behalf of the landlord.
Its CCTV security/CCTV doorbells guidance says that if residents fail to comply with their obligations under data protection laws they may be subject to enforcement action by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The government’s guidance ‘putting victims first: more effective responses to antisocial behaviour’ says agencies should put the victim at the heart of their response, driven by an assessment of harm to the victim.
Its ASB policy (2021 and 2022) says that:
1. It will assign a priority for the case based on the type of ASB reported and assess reports using the evidence available, the harm or potential harm to the reporting party, victims and witnesses (…).
2. A vulnerability risk assessment matrix (RAM) will be completed on all high priority ASB cases (and where relevant on standard priority cases) to measure the harm caused to the victims and to guide staff on the actions to take to protect victims from further harm.
3. It will take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to prevent the problem escalating, for example the use of warning letters, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts.
4. It takes a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour.
5. It will provide advice and support. This could include making referrals to other agencies that can provide assistance and, where appropriate, empowering the reporting party, victims and witnesses to take positive action, e.g. support to gather evidence, and identifying any appropriate security measures to ensure that residents are safe in their property, or taking other necessary measures.
6. It will always try to contact the resident before closing a case to discuss it with them. If it is unable to make contact, it will write explaining why it is closing the case.
Its complaints policy says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Scope of the investigation

Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident about her neighbour, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 28 October 2021 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords, and with this Service, in a timely manner so that issues can be considered while they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

ASB

The landlord’s file note shows that on 28 October 2021 it agreed to reopen the resident’s ASB case about her neighbour. It appropriately agreed an action plan which included that the resident would follow advice of the ICO to take out her own civil proceedings against her neighbour in relation to use of CCTV. The landlord would continue to work in partnership with the police. It would present the case to the local authority’s ASB panel to discuss a joint approach.
There is no evidence that the landlord complied with its ASB policy by assigning a priority for the case and/or completing a RAM to assess the harm caused to the resident which was a failure. It also failed to have regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the resident’s disabled son.
On 10 November 2021 the mediation service confirmed that the resident’s neighbour had declined to participate in a session with the resident. The landlord’s referral to the mediation service was in line with its ASB policy.
On 18 November 2021 the local authority emailed the landlord to say it had reviewed video evidence provided by the resident. It did not think there was enough evidence to take further action against her neighbour for breaching a Community Protection Notice (CPN) it had issued but it would liaise with its legal team accordingly. This is evidence that the landlord was working with partner agencies to explore options to prevent the problem from escalating in line with its ASB policy.
On 2 December 2021 the landlord issued a written warning to the neighbour for breaching the terms of an undertaking that it had previously obtained. This was in relation to incidents that took place between 31 October and 24 November. The landlord acted appropriately by reviewing the evidence and taking proportionate action against the neighbour. However, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident to discuss the outcome of its review so as to manage her expectations.
The frustration caused by the lack of proactive communication was evident in the resident’s email to the landlord of 5 December 2021. She queried why it had said there was not enough evidence to take action against her neighbour, with it being ‘one word against another’, when other residents had also witnessed incidents. The distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of effective communication was compounded when it failed to provide a response. The resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 21 January and 15 February 2022 to chase.
The landlord responded to the resident on 23 February 2022. It provided an appropriate explanation as to why it could not use other resident’s evidence as in legal action against her neighbour. While its explanation was reasonable, its delayed response of 11 weeks was not. This is a further example of the landlord’s failure to proactively manage the resident’s expectations.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the neighbour to ask them to make contact to discuss ongoing reports of ASB, it also encouraged her to participate in mediation with the resident. On 22 December the landlord emailed the police to seek an update on a report that the neighbour had taken photographs of her children and their bedroom. This is evidence that the landlord continued to take appropriate steps in line with its ASB policy to review the resident’s evidence, work with partner agencies and consider a range of ‘tools’ to resolve the ASB.
During the period 11 to 20 January 2022 the landlord and resident exchanged emails regarding a proposed Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). Both parties had been asked to sign one, in line with its ASB policy. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction at being asked to sign the ABC. On 20 January the landlord confirmed that it was not compulsory for her to do so.
On 21 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to provide a video of antisocial driving directed at her and incited by her neighbour. She said this had happened “frequently” over the past 2 weeks along with her neighbour taking photographs of her property and her children. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm it was evidence building.
It said it had recommended that her front door be reinforced and said it would chase. Although this was a positive step it is unclear why it made the decision to do so. While this did not cause detriment to the resident it is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, the landlord failed to carry out an updated risk assessment or update its action plan which would have been appropriate if the landlord considered there to be a change in the circumstances.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to provide an update. It said its legal team had reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was not enough evidence to make an application to the court against her neighbour at that time. It appropriately set out the reason for its decision and encouraged the resident to continue to make reports to relevant agencies for review. However, it failed to demonstrate an understanding of how its decision might impact on the resident. It therefore also failed to offer any further support which would have been an appropriate consideration at that time.
There is no evidence that the landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss its intention to close her ASB case in line with its ASB policy. However, on 13 April 2022 it wrote to her to confirm the same, setting out the action it had taken and its reasons for closing the case. It said that in the event that the resident reported fresh incidents it would open a new ASB case.
In her letter to the landlord of 20 April 2022, in which she appealed the NOSP, the resident also raised ongoing concerns about her neighbour’s use of her CCTV. In its response of 24 June the landlord provided an appropriate explanation of its response to the ongoing issues in line with its CCTV security/CCTV doorbells guidance.
On 18, 25, 31 July and 2 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask that it respond to ongoing ASB caused by her neighbour including verbal abuse and threats. The details of the incidents have not been seen by this investigation.
The landlord failed to respond and on 3 August 2022 the resident emailed again to say she felt it was “ignoring her.” The landlord’s inaction was not acceptable because the resident felt unsupported during a time when she felt vulnerable. Furthermore, the landlord failed to comply with its commitment made on 13 April to open a new case should she log new reports. It therefore, also failed to carry out a RAM in light of the resident’s reports that she was being verbally abused and threatened which was inappropriate.
On 3 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the delay, advising that it had logged ‘negative feedback’ about the lack of response. It said it has passed the resident’s email to a manager who would reply within 10 working days. It provided diary sheets and asked the resident to log reports with the police if necessary.
The landlord failed to respond within 10 working days which was inappropriate, compounding the resident’s distress. Furthermore, it caused her inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord on 17 August 2022 to raise a formal complaint. The landlord replied on the same day to apologise and said it had forwarded her email to the head of housing.
The landlord’s file note shows that during a telephone call with the resident on 26 August 2022 she agreed to close the complaint on the basis that the landlord would open a new ASB case. While this was a positive step this came 39 days after the resident first emailed the landlord to report ongoing issues. The nature of her reports made this delay particularly unreasonable.
The landlord conducted a home visit to the resident on 1 September 2022. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced with its ASB case management. It appropriately confirmed an action plan, including that:
1. The resident would forward on emails and footage of incidents that she had provided to the police.
2. The landlord would:
  1. Contact the police to seek an update regarding its proposed action against her neighbour.
  2. Visit her neighbour to discuss the ongoing reports of ASB.
  3. Request a case review by its specialist ASB team and update the resident accordingly.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2022 to report an incident of antisocial driving by her neighbour. The evidence shows that the police issued a written warning to her neighbour on 22 September. A file note dated 28 October confirms that the landlord spoke to the resident to confirm that it was considering serving her neighbour with NOSP following the police action. The evidence shows it was served on 3 November.
This was further evidence that the landlord was committed to working jointly with partner agencies to resolve the ongoing ASB. It also demonstrated that it would take further action against her neighbour for breach of tenancy when the evidence showed it was reasonable and proportionate to do so.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the outcome of their telephone call the day before. It said the ASB team had initially declined to accept the case but had recently changed its position, considering the history of harassment by her neighbour and the recent police action. It said the team would be in contact with the resident within the next day or so. However, there is no evidence that it contacted it her, causing disappointment.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had issued the neighbour with a warning for breach of tenancy. It is unclear what incident prompted this action. However, it was positive that the landlord reviewed the matter, took further action against the neighbour and updated the resident. It also said it would ask if a “panic alarm” could be provided to her.
On 27 January 2023 the resident raised her complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB. On 31 March the landlord emailed the resident to apologise that she was having such a “frustrating time” and reassured her that it was doing “all possible” to resolve the situation. It agreed to a number of actions, including that it would investigate providing a panic alarm.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that she should contact the police to request a panic alarm. It said the police’s policy was that the request should come from the resident. The resident replied to query its response because she had previously been told she could have one. A file note was made, also on 1 February, to say that the case worker was asked to complete a ‘VR1’ for additional security.
It is unclear what prompted the landlord to offer additional security or what measures the landlord had considered. There is no evidence that a RAM was completed to assess the risk of harm to the resident. It is also concerning that while the landlord considered additional security measures it did not do so in the context of its duty under the Equality Act 2010. This is in relation to the resident’s son who was unable to access the second floor of the property due to using a wheelchair.
Given the confusion about the previous advice given to the resident on 2 February 2023 the landlord appropriately emailed the police to enquire about a panic alarm. The police emailed a reply on 3 February to say they were only provided to victims of high risk domestic abuse. They also confirmed they planned to take further action against the resident’s neighbour due to ongoing ASB.
On 7 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update on her case. She was frustrated that the landlord had not taken further action against her neighbour despite having served her with NOSP. The landlord replied on the same day to say that it was working with the police to build a legal case.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 22 March 2023 the landlord said that following service of a NOSP on her neighbour in November, it had issued a warning letter for ongoing breaches. It was sorry that the resident was not happy with this course of action but said it was in line with its policy and procedure.
Landlords will generally only make an application to court for possession of a property if the ASB is serious and persistent and all other interventions have failed. The landlord acted reasonably by liaising with its legal team to ensure it took reasonable and proportionate action against the neighbour. However, there is no evidence that it managed the resident’s expectations by regularly providing detailed updates explaining what action it took and why. This is an integral part of ASB case management and by not doing so it caused distress to the resident.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 7 February 2023 because she felt the landlord was not treating her safety as a “priority.” Due to its failure she had installed her own security system and had fitted privacy film at her property. The door had not been reinforced as promised. She felt she was “being left to protect herself.”
The landlord said it would arrange for the front door to be reinforced in February 2022. That the work had not been carried out a year later was inappropriate and, as clearly set out in her email, it caused the resident to feel unsupported and at risk of harm. This was not acceptable and was evidence that the landlord did not comply with its ASB policy to use risk assessments to guide actions taken to protect residents from further harm.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint (…). The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns about safety including its failure to reinforce her front door. This caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble when she raised the delay again in her request to escalate her complaint on 1 March 2023.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it would provide a personal panic alarm and that works to the door were “ongoing.” While this was a welcome step, it is unclear why it did not consider offering a panic alarm earlier in the process. It offered no explanation as to why the works to improve the security of the door were not complete and the delay was therefore unreasonable.
On 9 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request that it carry out additional security works “as soon as possible.” As part of her civil action against her neighbour had disclosed a medical letter dated 17 November 2022 in evidence. The letter stated that her neighbour had experienced thoughts of wanting to kill the resident. The evidence shows that the resident attached a copy of the letter to her email to the landlord of the 9 March.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered this information in terms of risk of harm and/or in terms of joint working with partner agencies which was inappropriate. The landlord replied to say it would chase the locks for the front door and would supply the panic alarm by 13 March.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 22 March 2023 the landlord confirmed it had delivered a handheld panic alarm to the resident on 14 March. It also requested additional security measures including trellis, halogen spotlights and a mortice lock. It had contacted the resident and they were in the process of arranging dates for installation. While this was a welcome step, it is unclear why it did not consider doing so earlier in the process. This is because there is no evidence relating to the landlord’s assessment of and decision making around risk.

Events post internal complaints process

The landlord emailed the resident on 7 July 2023 to confirm it had provided extra locks, a door chain, fireproof letterbox, trellis and a panic alarm.
On 25 September 2023 the resident obtained an injunction under the protection from harassment act 1997 against her neighbour.

Summary

In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on ‘live’ documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this case the Ombudsman would expect to see completed diary or log sheets and risk assessments as a minimum but they were not in evidence.
In line with the government’s guidance, it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to victims, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about ASB. This should be the starting point of a case management approach to dealing with ASB. The welfare, safety and wellbeing of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. A continuous and organised risk assessment will help to identify cases that are causing, or could result in, serious harm to the victim, either as a one off incident or as part of a targeted and persistent campaign of ASB against the victims.
It is concerning that the landlord did not assess risk of harm to and impact on the resident, particularly given the allegations of verbal abuse and evidence that the neighbour had experienced thoughts of wanting to kill her. The resident did not feel safe and took her own steps to reduce the risk, including security measures and her own civil action against her neighbour. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord had regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the resident’s disabled son.
Furthermore, when it did identify a need to support the resident with additional security, in line with its ASB policy, its response was unreasonably delayed. It took the landlord over a year to confirm it had fitted an additional lock to her front door and 7 months to offer a personal panic alarm.
It is acknowledged that the landlord followed its ASB policy by:
1. Liaising with partner agencies, including the police and the local authority, and its legal team.
2. Taking appropriate action against the neighbour for breach of tenancy.
3. Considering a wide range of tools to try to resolve the ASB.
However, it failed to engage in effective communication with the resident. ASB can be complex making it difficult for the resident to navigate. Therefore it is essential that the landlord is proactive by providing regular updates. It should manage resident’s expectations by explaining what action it will take and why. This investigation has highlighted several examples where the landlord’s communication failures caused frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident which was inappropriate.
Considering the above, the failures amount to maladministration. This is because there were a number of avoidable failures which had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the failure had a significant physical and/or emotional impact on the resident.
On 23 July 2023 the Ombudsman published a special investigation into the landlord. Since then, the landlord has actioned a number of recommendations, including:
1. Design and roll out associated staff training on its revised ASB policy and procedure.
2. Complete the review of the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, including the completion of the phased approach to its staff training around record keeping.

Therefore it has not been necessary to repeat those orders below.

Letter

On 20 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she intended to take her own civil action against her neighbour. She asked it to write a letter setting out any actions it had taken against her neighbour for ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which was inappropriate.
On 27 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request a letter confirming various aspects of her ASB reports to be used in evidence in her own proceedings against her neighbour. The landlord replied on the same day to say it had sent her request to the neighbourhood team. However, the team failed to provide a response. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 15 and 16 March 2022 to chase.
On 16 March 2022 the landlord replied to say that it could only send the resident copies of letters and emails she already had via her Subject Access Request (SAR). The resident replied on 20 March to request a letter setting out why it could not provide the specific information she requested. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate, causing distress to the resident.
On 14 April 2022 the court made an order that the resident file evidence relied upon by her by 6 May. It set out that the evidence should exhibit “all relevant documentation” from the landlord and other parties. In an email to the landlord of 6 May 2023 the resident said that the court had instructed the landlord to provide a letter but had still failed to do so.
The order instructed the resident to provide all relevant documentation, meaning any documentation which she had in her possession. There is no evidence that an order was made for the landlord to provide specific information to the court. If the court made such an order and the landlord failed to comply it would have been in contempt of court. In that instance the court would have dealt with the landlord’s inaction directly.
On 31 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm a recent telephone call, including that it would investigate what information it could provide for her court case.
It provided a timely response on 1 February 2023 to say it could only communicate information about other individuals directly with the court. The resident replied on the same day to ask that it provide this information in a letter which she could provide to the court because it was the court who had made the request. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate, causing distress to the resident.
On 20 February 2023 the resident sent the landlord a copy of the court order of 14 April 2022. On 23 February it emailed the resident to say that it had recommended to its legal team that it write to the judge about the case. It said this would have been easier had the court written to the landlord directly but that it understood this had been “difficult.”
It provided a further update in its stage 1 complaint response of 28 February 2023. It said it could not share information regarding her neighbour due to data protection issues. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 March 2023 confirmed it “would not be involved” as her own proceedings were separate to any undertaken by the landlord.
The landlord was not obliged to provide information to the resident over and above the information it had provided to the resident through her SAR in line with data protection regulations. Therefore, its decision and explanation for not doing so was reasonable. However, there were 3 instances where it failed to respond to the resident’s emails which was unreasonable.
The communication failures amount to service failure because they caused inconvenience, time and trouble and distress to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £75. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the failure would not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

NOSP

The evidence shows that the NOSP was dated 13 March 2022. However it was not received by the resident, through the post, until 19 April. The cover letter set out the resident’s right to request a review of its decision to “seek possession of the property.”
This investigation has not seen a copy of the NOSP however, in a letter to the resident of 13 April 2022 the landlord advised it had been served because the police had served her with a CPW for harassment/public order. It said that her behaviour was a breach of the terms of her tenancy agreement. It said that having served the resident with a previous warning letter it “had no option other than to serve NOSP.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 April 2022 to request a review of the decision to serve her with NOSP, as follows:
1. The warning of 4 March 2022 was the first and only warning issued to her by the landlord since her tenancy began.
2. The warning was only issued by email therefore, it could not be a formal warning. She asked for the warning to be removed from her file.
3. She disputed that she had ever admitted to writing offensive signs, the email that was referred to was about agreeing terms for an ABC. Twice in the email it said “I do not admit to this behaviour.”
4. That the landlord had not referenced those statements and was saying she admitted to the behaviour was evidence that her housing officer was prejudiced against her.
5. The CPW refers to alleged behaviours only, it was not proven.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to set out its response to her appeal. It apologised for the delay in its response and set out the reason for service of the NOSP. It set out the impact of the NOSP on the resident’s tenancy which was an appropriate step to manage her expectations. It also addressed each of the resident’s points, providing appropriate explanations.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about the email on which the warning was based, it said it had photographic evidence that she had put offensive signs about her neighbour in her window. Therefore, whether she admitted the behaviour or not, it had received evidence confirming it had taken place.
It also appropriately sought to reassure the resident that it had reviewed the records on the case and was satisfied that the housing officer had investigated the reports of ASB professionally and in line with its policies and procedures.
However, the landlord’s response was provided 2 months after the appeal was made. Service of NOSP is the first step in the landlord seeking possession of the property which caused distress to the resident. Given the potential consequence for the resident of being served with NOSP the delay compounded her distress. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide an explanation for its delay which was unreasonable.
On 25 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for a further review of the NOSP because she felt it was being discriminatory and prejudiced towards her. She said it had acted against her because of police action but not against her neighbour who also had police action taken against her. It also relied on the warning she had been issued which she had shown was “falsified.”
There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord on 6 December 2022 and 7 February 2023 to chase its response. The landlord again failed to provide a response which was inappropriate, causing distress to the resident.
On 6 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she still wished to appeal the NOSP. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response.
The were failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident. Its response to her first request, made on 20 April 2022, was unreasonably delayed. The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s second request made on 25 October or her attempts to chase on 3 occasions thereafter.
The communication failures amount to service failure because they caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the failure would not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Medical transfer

On 29 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on the status of her request for a medical transfer. She said she had handed in the necessary forms but had not received a response. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate.
This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 14 January 2022 to seek an update. The landlord replied on 20 January to confirm that she did not have a live rehousing application. It said it could put her case to its rehousing panel based on the ASB and medical factors. There is no evidence that it did so which was unreasonable because it had raised the resident’s expectations.
Furthermore, it caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed this Service on 24 March 2022 to report that the landlord had not logged her request for a move on medical grounds.
In its letter to the resident of 24 June 2022 the landlord confirmed that during a recent meeting she had been asked to provide medical information to support her request to be rehoused. However, it added that its rehousing list was closed and it was not accepting new referrals. It is unclear why the landlord asked the resident to provide the information if its list was closed. It is also unclear if the resident provided any medical evidence.
On 1 September 2022 the landlord visited the resident at the property. It was agreed that she would provide OT information regarding her son’s needs however, it is unclear whether she did so.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 28 February 2023 suggested that the resident contact her son’s GP to request an OT assessment of his needs. It appropriately signposted the resident to alternative housing options.
The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint (…). In her stage 2 complaint of 1 March 2023 the resident raised her dissatisfaction that her request for a medical transfer had not been progressed. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 March failed to provide a response. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she raised it in her email to this Service on 24 March.
This investigation has identified that the landlord failed to:
1. Provide a response to the resident’s email of 29 October 2021.
2. Refer her to its rehousing panel.
3. Provide clarity on how it would process any new medical information when its rehousing list was closed.
4. Address the resident’s complaint about rehousing in its stage 2 complaint response of 22 March 2023.
The failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge its failings and therefore made no attempt to put things right. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint handling

The Code says that a complaint should be raised when a resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request. On 14 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to set out her dissatisfaction with its response to her reports of ASB and request for a medical transfer.
The landlord failed to raise a stage 1 complaint causing the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed on 5 October 2021 to chase. The landlord’s file note of the same date said that a complaint should be raised or contact made with named officers on the case.
A file note dated 28 October 2021 recorded the landlord’s decision to close the complaint and instead reopen the ASB case. This was inappropriate because the landlord had delayed the resident’s access to is complaints process on 2 occasions.
Further inconvenience, time and trouble was caused to the resident when she emailed the landlord again on 29 October 2021 to request that in the absence of a stage 1 complaint, it should escalate her complaint to stage 2.
In the landlord’s response to the resident of the same date, 29 October, it said it had not seen the full content of her email of 14 September hence it did not provide a response. However, this does not explain why it did not raise a stage 1 complaint in response to the resident’s email of 5 October particularly as it noted this might be appropriate. It asked the resident if she wished it to carry out a stage 2 investigation. It is unclear if a response was provided.
The resident contacted this Service for support and on 10 October 2022 we wrote to the landlord to ask that it set out its final position. However, rather than provide a final complaint response the landlord referred it back to the housing team to review the ASB case. This was the third time the landlord has missed an opportunity to deal with the resident’s dissatisfaction as a formal complaint which was inappropriate.
Had the landlord provided a final response the resident would have had referral rights to this Service. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to provide a response delayed the resident being able to refer her complaint to us for investigation.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 27 January 2023. The landlord issued its response on 28 February which was 22 working days later and 12 days out of time.
This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord on 13 February 2023 to chase the response. She asked that in the absence of a stage 1 complaint response, the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2.
When she did not receive a response the resident contacted this Service to request assistance. We wrote to the landlord on 16 February 2023 to request that it issue its stage 1 complaint response by 1 March.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay which was inappropriate. Furthermore, it failed to consider offering redress as a means of putting things right.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 2 March 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response is dated 3 March however, this was incorrect because the letter referred to events which postdated 3 March. Evidence provided to this Service confirms that the response was in fact issued on 22 March which was still appropriately within time.
However, the landlord incorrectly advised the resident that she had to wait 8 weeks before we could investigate her complaint. This was not in line with the Code (October 2022) which dispensed with the need for the resident’s to contact a designated person or wait 8 weeks before referring their complaint to us.
Had the resident taken the landlord’s advice it would have delayed her contacting us to resolve her complaint having exhausted its internal complaints process.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures were:
1. It failed to raise a stage 1 complaint on 14 September and 5 October 2021.
2. It failed to provide a final response following intervention from this Service on 10 October 2022.
3. Its stage 1 complaint response of 28 February 2023 was delayed. It failed to acknowledge the delay and failed to put things right.
4. It stage 2 complaint response of 22 March 2023 was inaccurate.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. This is because there were failures which had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a medical transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a letter confirming tenancy action taken against her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a review of its decision to serve a notice of seeking possession.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1325 compensation comprised of:
  1. £800 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. £75 for the inconvenience and distress caused by its response to the resident’s request for a letter confirming tenancy action taken against her neighbour.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience and distress caused by its response to the resident’s request for a review of its decision to serve a notice of seeking possession.
  4. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its response to the resident’s request for a medical transfer.
  5. £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
2. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in the case. This should be provided by a member of the executive leadership team.
  2. Set out its position on the resident’s request for a medical transfer.
  3. Establish whether there are any ongoing issues with ASB and if so, agree an action plan.

Evidence should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should review the failures identified in this report with regards to its assessment of risk and vulnerabilities. It should satisfy itself that the changes it made to its ASB policy and procedure and staff training processes following the special investigation ensure that it will do things differently. If it cannot, it should develop an action plan. A copy of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.