London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202200638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200638

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 November 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 about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to be moved on medical grounds.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident is the sole tenant and her daughter is named as part of her household.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the second floor.
The resident suffers from mental health issues including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts. She also suffers from arthritis, limited mobility, and breathing problems.

Summary of events

On 10 November 2020 the landlord made an internal referral to its ‘mobility’ team. The basis for the referral was that the resident had previously been referred for safeguarding due to having suicidal thoughts and trying to self-harm. She had recently lost her sister and mother and wanted to move but needed assistance in doing. Between November and January 2021, the resident and landlord exchanged emails regarding the referral to the mobility team.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 11 March 2021 to say that the matter was becoming urgent due to her medical issues. This was forwarded to the team on 18 March. The resident chased the landlord on 31 March and 9 April 2021 as she still had not heard from anyone in the mobility team.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 July 2021 to ask her to complete a medical assessment form. The resident replied on the same day to say the property was a “hazard and dangerous” for her to live in. She said that she felt like she wanted to kill herself because of her anxiety, stress and depression. She said she was at “rock bottom” because the stairs were too much for her legs. She added that she had breathing problems and severe depression.
On 21 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she had completed and submitted her medical assessment form. The form set out that she suffered with depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and arthritis for which she was prescribed medication. She said the arthritis in her feet and legs meant she was in constant pain. She said she could not manage the stairs.
On 7 October 2021 the landlord’s independent medical advisor concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend a direct let using the criteria adopted by the landlord that medical needs were “so severe that the resident cannot remain in their home.”
On 8 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to report an incident that someone was “throwing stones at her car from her bedroom window and shouting homophobic things.” She said the previous week she had called the police as someone else had damaged her car. The incident had been reported to the police and she requested to be moved as soon as possible. She said the incident had caused ‘major’ distress. She said she “felt for her daughter” who was also going through it. She asked for her medical assessment to be carried out urgently. The resident also reported the incident by telephone, adding that she would commit suicide if she was not moved “now.” The landlord advised it did not have emergency accommodation and the resident would need to approach the council for assistance. It called the police to report a safeguarding concern who said they would attend with an ambulance.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 October 2021 to report that she was being harassed by her neighbours’ vandalism. She had called the police “numerous” times and had 3 crime reference numbers. She said she did not feel safe and, given she was already struggling with her disability in the property, felt scared to live there. She said her daughter was so scared she was on anti-depressants. She said their safety and mental health would be at risk should they remain in the property.
The resident sent a further email on the same day to confirm that police and ambulance had attended the day before. She said she still felt suicidal, adding that the property was “killing her slowly.” She said she had been in “chronic pain” and could not walk up the stairs anymore.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 11 October 2021 who was crying “uncontrollably” stating she was scared to leave her home or even open her curtains. She said she and her daughter were being subjected to “homophobic abuse and slurs” relating to her mental health. Her car had been vandalised and the incident had been reported to the police. It explained that it did not have temporary accommodation however it would try to source emergency hotel accommodation for that night. It said it would provide her with a supporting letter to take to the council to request temporary accommodation, while it completed its investigations and put her forward for a priority let.

The landlord’s records show that on 12 October 2021 it logged the suicide risk on its database.

The landlord contacted the resident on 13 October 2021 for the purposes of providing a letter to support her approach to the council to make a homeless application. It asked what antisocial behaviour (ASB) she was experiencing, and she provided the same details. She was frustrated that different people kept calling to ask her the same questions. The resident said it was not her who should be approaching the council and felt that the landlord was not supporting her. She said she would contact her MP.
On 13 October 2022 the landlord emailed its supporting letter to the resident for her approach to the council for assistance. On 14 October 2021, it also emailed the council to provide further information following an earlier conversation. It advised the council that if it was satisfied that there was risk to her life, it could consider a direct let priority offer, availability pending.
The resident called the landlord on 14 October 2021 to confirm that she had approached the council and had provided the documents it had requested. However, it has said it would not consider her again until the following morning, by which time her current hotel accommodation would have run out. She requested a phone call back to advise on next steps.
On 15 October 2021 the resident called the landlord to say that the hotel accommodation ended at midday. She had tried to call the council but it was not taking calls until the afternoon. She was concerned she would not have anywhere to go and requested an urgent call back. She later updated that she was staying in her car.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 October 2021 to say that she had not been able to contact the council and was still sleeping in her car. She was advised to contact the council that morning which she agreed to do.
The landlord’s internal email dated 19 October 2021 confirmed that the landlord had offered her temporary accommodation from its own stock the previous day. However, she decided to remain in her current property.
The landlord’s internal records show that it spoke to the resident on 19 October 2021 and confirmed that it had no other property to offer. It would, however, look into providing additional security to her, such as a spyglass, chain lock (internally) additional locks on windows/doors. It also advised her to chase up the council on her application for emergency rehousing and speak to its lettings team regarding her application for a transfer. The resident confirmed that her medical assessment had been denied.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2021 to seek an update in the installation of additional security.
An internal email, dated 11 November 2021, shows that the referring officer had put the wrong name on the referral form. It was therefore resent on that same date with a request to carry out the work urgently. On 7 December 2021 the works order was issued to repairs.
On 5 January 2022 the landlord suggested closing the case on the basis that:
1. The case was investigated, and a supporting letter was provided to assist the resident in her approach to the council.
2. The council did not offer emergency accommodation.
3. The resident had moved back to property and no further incidents had been reported since the initial report.
4. A works order for an additional lock has been raised.

Case closure was approved on 11 January.

The landlord issued a case closure letter on 3 March 2022. In it, it noted that the repairs team had said that the additional locks could not be installed on her door. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and intended to raise a complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2022 to say that her car had been scratched again over weekend. She believed a neighbour to be responsible but did not know which one. She said she did not feel safe, and the additional security had not been installed as promised. She felt nothing was being done for her.
The landlord’s file note dated 10 April 2022 shows it advised the resident that she would have to approach the local authority as its housing list had been suspended. Alternatively, she could seek a mutual exchange.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 April 2022 to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her request for a medical move. She said she suffered from mobility issues and as she lived on the second floor, she had to climb 3 flights of stairs to get to her property. She said this was affecting her physically and mentally. She said that her neighbour damaged her mobility car and a neighbour made homophobic comments towards her daughter. This made the resident and her daughter feel unsafe in the property. She was seeking a move on medical grounds and ASB to a ground floor property.
We wrote to the landlord the same day, 11 April, to advise that the resident had contacted this Service to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for a move on medical grounds and her reports of ASB. We requested it contact the resident by 27 April 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 April 2022 to confirm receipt of her stage 1 complaint, adding that it would reply to her “as soon as possible.”
The landlord’s file notes dated 25 April 2022 note that the request for a medical move was declined in July 2021 but that it could not locate the outcome letter sent to the resident. It concluded that if one had not been sent, that the resident should be advised before the complaint response was issued.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response sent 28 April 2022, as follows:
1. The complaint was not upheld.
2. Reports of ASB were investigated in accordance with its processes.
3. The resident requested its support with the council to assist with her housing application and this was provided.
4. Temporary accommodation was offered, in accordance with its process, and the resident declined to accept the offer.
5. It had installed a door chain and spyglass.
6. The resident had completed a medical assessment and the outcome was no additional priority to support a need to move.
The resident replied, also on 28 April, to request to escalate her complaint. She said she had been on the transfer list for 13 years due to her disability which had gotten much worse. She had made an application for a move on medical grounds, when she received a response 6 months later, she was told she had been unsuccessful. The landlord advised her to approach the local authority which she did but despite her landlord providing a supporting letter she was still “turned down.” She said she was constantly in pain, and having to walk up 3 flights of stairs. She had provided medical evidence and did not feel she was getting any help from her landlord.
On 7 May 2022 we wrote to the landlord to ask it to provide a response by 20 May. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 May 2022 to confirm receipt of her stage 2 complaint. It said it would reply by 20 May.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 May 2022, as follows:
1. The resident had completed a medical assessment and there was no recommendation that a ‘priority pass’ was justified for a medical transfer. It would only be reassessed if she presented new medical supporting evidence.
2. It had dealt with the reports of ASB in line with its policy and processes.
3. There had been no further reports of ASB since October 2021.
4. Under normal circumstances it would require the police to recommend that a resident needed to be moved because of risk should they remain in the property. However, its rehousing process was “currently paused.”
5. With regards to her request for a visit from an OT, it signposted the resident on how she could contact the council to make a request.
On 19 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say she did not agree with its evidence, and she would contact this Service.
On 24 November 2022 the resident emailed this Service to confirm that she wished her complaint to be investigated. She said she did not feel safe and wanted to be moved.

Events post internal complaints process

On 10 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to ask what it would be doing to help her move. The landlord returned her call to say she would need to approach the council for a medical move because its housing list was suspended.
The resident called the landlord on 4 October 2022 to request hotel accommodation. She was described as being “upset and angry” about the ongoing ASB issues because she did not feel safe to stay in her home. She said:
1. She could hear people “prowling” about her home all night.
2. Her anxiety was “peaking”, and she could not cope despite being on a the “highest” dose of medication.
3. She said she might do something to herself that night if she was not moved out to a hotel.
4. The mental health team were checking on her every evening.
5. She had previously been moved to a hotel, for respite from on-going ASB issues and these same issues were on-going still.
6. Her new car had been vandalised.
7. Every day she was living with hate mail and aggressive behaviour from her neighbours against her daughter.
8. The police were investigating and had advised her to contact the landlord to request a move.
9. They were being targeted because they were identified as being homosexual.
10. It was unsafe for her and her daughter to live at the property, they needed to be moved into an accessible property because she had mobility issues.
The landlord opened a new ASB case on 18 October 2022. On the same day the resident called the landlord to report that her car had more scratches on it and the damage had been reported to the police.
The landlord’s ASB officer called the resident on 19 October 2022 who said that over the past year she had been receiving abuse from 2 of her neighbours, including throwing stones at her vehicles, notes through her door and homophobic slurs. She did not feel safe.
The landlord’s internal records dated 16 November 2022 show that the ASB officer had not updated the case since the call to the resident on 19 October. An update was provided the following day regarding the resident’s request for hotel accommodation.
The ASB officer emailed the police on 17 November 2022 to ask them to provide a letter of support for rehousing due to the hate crime committed by her neighbours. The internal records also show that on that date the landlord created a task to write to the neighbours once the supporting documentation had been provided by the police.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to ask whether there had been any further incidents. It confirmed that it had asked the police to provide a supporting letter to be rehoused via its transfer list. It asked her to confirm if she wished to approach the council for temporary accommodation so it could provide a supporting letter.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 17 November 2022 who said she was still waiting for an update from the police regarding the homophobic slurs and had yet to make a statement. Her key worker and social worker would be writing a letter to support her request for a move. She had a mobility car. She applied for a medical and was turned down. She said that she had further evidence and did not know why she was still in a flat on the second floor. The weather has not been good so there had not been any incidents. She was happy for the landlord to contact her neighbours.
The landlord’s file note for 17 November 2022 set out the outcome of its ASB case review, including that a risk assessment be completed, and safeguarding considered.
The landlord emailed the police to chase their response on 18 November 2022.
The resident emailed this Service on 24 November 2022 to say that her health was deteriorating because the property was not suitable for her. She said she had tried to commit suicide and was receiving daily welfare checks from the mental health team. She said she was experiencing breathing difficulties which meant she was struggling with stairs and walking to her car.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 December 2022 to update that it was waiting for update from police and to enquire if there had been any recent incidents.
On 21 December 2022, a task was set for the ASB officer to chase the police. The rehousing team needed to know if the offer of rehousing should be extended or withdrawn. ASB officer was also asked to provide their own recommendations on whether the resident would be at risk were she to remain at the property. However, an internal note dated 22 December says the rehousing team had no record of the case.
The landlord emailed the police to chase their response on 12 January 2023.
The ASB officer phoned both neighbours on 25 January 2023 to discuss the complaint made about them. Neighbour ‘A’ denied that their household was involved because their child was a teenager and no longer “played outside.” Neighbour ‘B’ said there had been an incident the previous year where a child from another property apologised to the resident for an incident in relation to her car. The resident felt there had been problems which arose from a parking issue when the resident moved in.
The landlord tried to contact the resident by phone and email on 25 and 26 January 2023 to enquire whether there had been any further incidents.
On 15 February 2023 the senior housing lead chased the ASB officer for an update regarding the police disclosure. She added that if there was no update by 28 February, she would have no other option but to withdraw the case from the rehousing list. She requested that the resident be informed that it could not keep a rehousing case open if there was no risk to life with supporting evidence. This was actioned on 22 February 2023 and the resident replied to say she still did not feel safe. She also provided a letter from her mental health support worker.
In an internal email of 23 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s statement that she still did not feel safe. However, it also noted that there were no details provided of recent incidents. It reiterated the need for the police disclosure otherwise the case would be closed.
The landlord’s records show that on 3 March 2023 the ASB officer emailed the senior lead to say they continued to chase the police disclosure. However, they did not feel like there was an immediate threat to life and intended to close the case.
The landlord emailed the police to chase their response on 6 March 2023.
On 14 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to warn her against abuse to staff following an email she sent on 6 March. It also advised her that her case was closed.
The landlord’s ‘housing management review panel’ file note dated 14 March 2023 confirmed that the resident was considered for a move following a hate related incident by her neighbours on 4 October 2022. The landlord had spoken to her 2 neighbours and issued them with letters. Police, keyworker and social services were listed as supporting the resident at the time the direct offer was approved. It was noted that there was no supporting evidence and there was no involvement from other agencies. It concluded that the case did not “meet the threshold for the high harm panel.”
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 March 2023 to confirm that it had reviewed its rehousing list. It confirmed its offer to rehouse the resident had been withdrawn because there had been no further reports of ASB since joining the register. Therefore, the risk was removed. It provided information on alternative rehousing options. Should the resident still believe there was a “significant” safety reason not to remain in her home it would complete a new investigation.
On 25 October 2023 the landlord told this Service that the purpose of its mobility team, now disbanded, was to assist residents with their housing options such as mutual exchange. It also confirmed that there was a file note to confirm a decision letter regarding the resident’s application for a medical move, made in July 2021, was emailed to the resident. However, it was unable to locate a copy of the letter itself. The landlord said that the resident was never added to its rehousing list.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s allocations and letting policy dated June 2021 says it will:
1. Support residents who request to move by assessing their circumstances and presenting them with a range of options appropriate to their needs, including:
  1. Mutual exchange.
  2. Application to the local authority’s housing register.
2. Directly rehouse residents on an emergency, temporary or permanent basis through its rehousing list. For a resident to be added to the rehousing list their circumstances must meet one or more of the following criteria:
  1. A resident is at risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang-related behaviour or any other type of ASB.
  2. Either the resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home.
3. Access to the rehousing list must be approved by the landlord’s rehousing panel.
4. The rehousing panel meets weekly to discuss new cases, although it can be convened at short notice if an emergency arises.
5. When it is an emergency, or the resident is at immediate risk of harm, its priority is to ensure the resident’s safety. In these instances, it may offer a property which is the same size as the resident’s existing home despite their need for additional bedrooms.
Prior to this policy, transfer applications were assessed by an “independent medical assessor” appointed by the landlord. The assessor made recommendations as to whether the landlord should accept applications, and what priority they should be awarded.
Its ASB policy says that it will:
1. Review all reported incidents and will consider the risk in each case.
2. 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.
3. High priority cases of ASB will be logged and assessed within 1 working day. All subsequent incidents of the same ASB case will also be assessed within 1 working day.
4. Record hate-related incidents an ASB type.
5. Where necessary, arrange an interview at the place of choosing of the reporting party, victims and witnesses, and identify any particular circumstances or needs that should be factored into the handling of the case.
6. Follow safeguarding procedures if there are concerns regarding a vulnerable adult at risk.
7. Agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated throughout the case.
8. A vulnerability risk assessment matrix (RAM) will be completed on all high priority ASB cases to measure the harm caused to the victims and to guide staff on the actions to take to protect victims from further harm.
9. Take a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour. This includes working with agencies such as social services, environmental health agencies, the police, mediation services and local authorities.
10. Take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to prevent the problem escalating, for example the use of warning letters, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts.
11. ASB cases will be closed where there is insufficient evidence and/or no further action is possible.
The government’s guidance on the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 says that hate crime and non-crime hate incidents can be motivated by the following 5 protected characteristics which can be actual or perceived:
1. Race.
2. Religion.
3. Sexual orientation.
4. Disability.
5. Transgender identity.
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.

Request to be moved on medical grounds

The resident has asked this Service to investigate her complaint into the landlord’s response to her request to be moved on medical grounds. The resident’s first application was made to the landlord in July 2021, at which time it was running its own housing list. However, when the resident made a further enquiry on 10 April 2022, she was advised that the landlord’s rehousing list had been suspended. It said she would need to apply for a medical move through the local authority.
This investigation can only investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move on medical grounds while it was under the remit of the landlord, prior to 10 April 2022. Any complaint made by the resident in relation to her application for a medical transfer after that date, when it was under the remit of the local authority, would be better suited to the local government and social care ombudsman. It can be contacted by visiting www.lgo.org.uk or by telephoning 0300 061 0614.
The resident was originally referred to the landlord’s mobility team on 10 November 2020. Owing to a lack of communication from the landlord, the resident tried to expedite the matter on 11 March 2021. She said her medical issues were becoming worse and her need to move was now urgent. She chased the landlord’s response again on 31 March and 9 April 2021, which caused her time, trouble and inconvenience.
It took the landlord until 20 July 2021 to advise the resident that she should complete a medical assessment form. It is unclear why this advice was not provided sooner. The resident replied to say she was at “rock bottom” because issues with her legs prevented her using the stairs. She said her housing situation was impacting on her mental health and that she was feeling suicidal.
The delay was unreasonable because it prevented the resident from formally progressing her request by 4 months, during which time she reported that her physical and mental health had deteriorated.
The resident submitted her medical information on 21 July 2021, setting out her reasons as to why she should be moved on medical grounds. On 7 October 2021 the medical advisor concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a direct let because her “situation was not so severe that the resident could not remain in her home.” It took the landlord 3 months to assess the medical information which was an unreasonable delay. It is outside the expertise of this Service to assess the merits of this decision based on the medical evidence. However, the reasons cited by the medical assessor were in line with the landlord’s allocation and lettings policy and therefore appropriate.
In an email to the landlord on 9 October 2021 about an incident of ASB the resident said that she had been in “chronic pain” and could no longer walk up the stairs. The landlord failed to acknowledge this during its conversation with her on 11 October which remained solely focussed on ASB. It therefore missed an opportunity to update her on the outcome of her application. This demonstrated a lack of joint working between departments and a failure to take a holistic, customer centred approach to the issues raised.
The landlord has advised this Service that it made a file note that a decision letter had been issued to the resident. In her stage 2 complaint the resident complained about the delay in notifying her that medical was refused. The landlord has been unable to locate the letter in order to provide a copy for the purposes of this investigation. However, in a conversation with the landlord on 19 October 2021 the resident confirmed that her medical assessment had been denied. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that notification of the decision was issued relatively soon after the decision was made.
On 10 April 2022 the landlord advised the resident that if she wanted to apply for a medical move again, she would need to approach the local authority. This advice is consistent with its website which says it would not assess any new medical applications submitted after 7 February 2022.
However, the landlord confused the issue when, in its stage 2 complaint response, it said that that the resident’s medical assessment would only be reassessed if the resident presented a “new medical with supporting evidence.” This suggested that fresh evidence could be presented to the landlord, not the local authority for reconsideration. Therefore, its communication regarding the change in process for the application for a medical move lacked clarity.
Taking into account the delay in providing advice to the resident, in issuing the outcome of the medical assessment and the landlord’s confused communication, there was maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation.

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

On 8 October 2021 the resident reported that her car had been vandalised and she had been subjected to homophobic verbal abuse. Given the nature of the complaint it would be reasonable for the landlord to treat the report as ‘high priority’. It therefore appropriately logged and contacted the resident within 1 working day, on 9 October, in accordance with its ASB policy. However, it missed the opportunity to carry out a risk assessment and explain the process to the resident at the earliest opportunity. Risk Assessments help to put support in place while process and action plans give assurance to residents that their concerns are treated seriously and they know what the landlord intends to do.
The resident told the landlord that she had reported the incident to the police. During their phone call on 9 October 2021 said she had 3 crime reference numbers in relation to various reports. Despite the incident being reported to police there is no evidence that the landlord contacted them to discuss the situation. It therefore, failed to take a multi-agency approach to the situation and in doing so did not follow its ASB policy which was inappropriate.
The resident asked for an urgent move and said she would commit suicide if she was not moved “now”. The landlord appropriately advised it did not have emergency accommodation and the resident would need to approach the council for assistance. It acted appropriately when it called the police to report a safeguarding concern however, it should have also raised a safeguarding concern with the local authority.
In its conversation with the resident on 11 October 2021 the landlord said it would put her forward for a “priority let.” According to its allocations and lettings policy in place at that time, the resident would need be referred to the rehousing panel for a direct let to be considered. However, there is no evidence that this was ever followed up. This was unreasonable because it raised the resident’s expectations who had said she was “scared” to live at the property and did not feel safe. Furthermore, it was particularly inappropriate given that the landlord was aware of how much she wanted to move and the impact on her mental health.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord logged the resident’s suicide risk on its database. While it was appropriate for the landlord to record the resident’s vulnerability on its database there is no evidence that it took meaningful action accordingly. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sensitively discussed the situation and at the very least asked permission to share information with her GP and/or the mental health team on a proportionate basis. That it did not do so was a failure and demonstrated a lack of a harm centred approach in addition to failing to comply with its ASB policy.
When the landlord contacted the resident on 13 October 2021 for the purposes of providing a letter of support, it once again asked her to recount the details of the incident. This approached lacked empathy and understandably caused frustration to the resident. Asking a victim of ASB to repeatedly recount their experience can be traumatic and cause further distress. It also gives the impression that the landlord does not take their complaint seriously enough to record the details they have already provided on a centralised database. This is further evidence that the landlord failed to take a harm centred approach when investigating the complaint.
On 13 and 14 October 2021 the landlord liaised appropriately with the local authority to support of the resident’s homelessness application.
When the resident informed the landlord on 18 October 2021 that she had been sleeping in her car it made the decision to offer her temporary accommodation from its own stock. It was not obliged to make such an offer however, it appropriately used its discretion to reduce the risk of harm and evident distress caused to the resident.
The resident declined the offer of temporary accommodation. On 19 October 2021 the landlord offered to install additional security at the property in the alternative. However, it transpired that the referring officer put the wrong name on the referral, so it had to be resent on 11 November. The works order was then not raised until 7 December 2021, 7 weeks after the offer was made. Given that the resident was scared of imminent harm, which was detrimental to her mental health, this was an unreasonable and inappropriate delay.
The reasons cited for the landlord’s closure of the file on 3 March 2022 were reasonable and in line with its ASB policy. However, when the resident made a further complaint on 4 April there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss this complaint and/or considered opening a new ASB complaint which was inappropriate.
The resident made a further report on 4 October 2022 however, the landlord once again failed to open a new ASB case which was inappropriate. It only did so on 18 October, when the resident phoned that same day to report further damage to her car which had been reported to the police.
In line with its response times on high priority cases, the landlord contacted the resident on 19 October 2022. She said that she had been receiving abuse from 2 of her neighbours, including throwing stones at her vehicles, notes through her door and homophobic slurs. However, there is no evidence that the landlord attempted to gather evidence in relation to the complaint which was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ask whether any photographs were taken of damage to the vehicle and/or of the notes put through the door. There is also no evidence that it asked exactly what was said during the homophobic slurs, when, where and by whom. The fact that by 16 November the ASB officer had not updated the case is evidence that the landlord failed to conduct an appropriate investigation into the report. This meant the resident, who had a history of suicidal thoughts, was left without support which was inappropriate.
The resident told the landlord that the police were investigating her complaint and had advised her to contact the landlord to request a move. The ASB officer appropriately emailed them on 17 November 2022 to ask them to provide a letter of support for rehousing. It was positive that the landlord contacted the police however, its approach was not thorough enough. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to discuss the case with the police to find out what steps they had taken to date. It would also have been appropriate to enquire how they might work together to take a meaningful joint approach, in keeping with its ASB policy.
The landlord’s records, also of 17 November, noted that it intended to write to the alleged perpetrators once the supporting documentation had been provided by the police. The landlord emailed the police to chase their response on 18 November, 12 January 2022. It is unfortunate that the landlord experienced issues obtaining a response from the police however, it is not clear why it relied so heavily on their response as justification for contacting the neighbours. In doing so, it waited until 25 January 2022 to contact the alleged perpetrators by phone.
Obtaining further details from the resident about her complaint, as set out in paragraph 85, and contacting the alleged perpetrators in a timely manner were fundamental to this case. The landlord also failed to adhere to its commitment to “take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to prevent the problem escalating.” This because it took over 3 months to contact the alleged perpetrators from the point at which it opened the ASB case, which was unreasonable. Not only was it further evidence of a lack of a harm centred approach, the inaction did not reassure the resident that the landlord took her complaint, and the impact on her, seriously.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 18 May 2022, the landlord said that “under normal circumstances it would require the police to recommend that a resident needed to be moved because of risk should they remain in the property. However, its rehousing process was currently paused.” This was appropriate and in keeping with the messaging on its website saying it was closed from 7 February 2022.
It is therefore unclear why it wrote to the resident on 17 November 2022 to confirm that it had asked the police to provide a supporting letter to be rehoused via its transfer list. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord confused the closure of its transfer list with its consideration of direct offers of accommodation. Direct offers of accommodation, often known as management moves, are considered if and when police confirm a resident is at risk of harm in their property and are usually made outside of a landlord’s transfer process. The landlord’s confusion fed through in its communication with the resident which was inappropriate. Furthermore, on 21 December 2022 and 15 February 2023, the ASB officer was asked to update on the police response because the rehousing team needed to know if the offer of rehousing should be extended or withdrawn.
The landlord’s records show that on 3 March 2023 the ASB officer noted that they did not feel there was an immediate threat to life and intended to close the case.
On 6 March the resident sent an inappropriate and abusive email to the same member of staff. The ASB officer appropriately wrote to the resident on 14 March 2023 to advise that the email was abusive and would not be tolerated. However, the officer added “please note I will no longer be progressing your case and your case will be closed. Do not contact me again.” This wording was inappropriate, particularly taking the resident’s vulnerabilities into account, and lacked professionalism. Furthermore, in sending a letter of this nature the landlord missed an opportunity to explain what action it had taken to investigate the resident’s complaint, why the case was being closed and what the resident could do should she experience further ASB. It is important to send full closure letters so that the resident can be confident the landlord has taken the complaint seriously and responded accordingly.
The landlord’s ‘housing management review panel’ meets to consider applications to the rehousing list based on a number of factors, including risk to a resident by remaining in their home due to ASB. The panel’s file note dated 14 March 2023 confirmed that the resident was considered for a move following a hate related incident on 4 October 2022. Police, keyworker and social services were listed as supporting the resident at the time the direct offer was approved. It was noted that there was no supporting evidence and there was no involvement from other agencies. It wrote to the resident on 14 March 2023 to confirm that it had reviewed its rehousing list and its offer to rehouse the resident had been withdrawn because there had been no further reports of ASB since joining the register.
The landlord’s internal note dated 22 December 2022 said the rehousing team had no record of the case. The landlord was asked to provide evidence of the notes relating its decision to add the resident to the rehousing list for the purposes of this investigation. In its response of 25 October 2023 it said there was no record of the resident having been added to the list. The landlord’s inconsistent messaging to the resident about whether she was able to join the rehousing list was confusing which was inappropriate. Furthermore, while it has provided records relating to the decision to remove her from its rehousing list to this Service, it is evident that some of its staff are not able to access those records which is a failure.
On 9 October 2021 the resident expressed suicidal thoughts and through her conversations with the landlord it was aware that the ASB was having a significant impact on her. Beyond making a report to the police and logging a safeguarding risk on its database there is no evidence that the landlord attempted to engage with health services or took other appropriate safeguarding measures. When the resident contacted the landlord on 4 October she said she was on the “highest” dose of medication and that the mental health team were checking on her “every evening.”
On 17 November 2022 the resident advised the landlord that her key worker and social worker would be writing a letter (not seen by this investigation) to support her request for a move. Furthermore, the landlord’s ‘housing management review panel’ file note dated 14 March 2023 lists “keyworker and social services” as supporting the resident at the time the direct offer was approved.
There is no doubt that the landlord knew other professional services were working with the resident. Despite this, there is no evidence at all that the landlord considered the resident’s increasing vulnerability by taking steps to safeguard the resident and liaise with appropriate professionals to manage the risk posed to the resident. This was inappropriate and once again demonstrated a lack of a harm centred approach to its handling of ASB reports. It is also evidence that it failed to comply with its ASB policy in taking a multi-agency approach.
The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses said that the reports of ASB were investigated in accordance with its processes. The evidence does not support the landlord’s conclusion. This is because the ASB case management is poor, specifically there is no evidence that:
1. Letters were sent to confirm that an ASB case had been opened with a reference number, confirmation of the priority rating and the ASB type recorded as a hate-related incident.
2. Action plans were discussed and agreed with the resident.
3. It took a multi-agency approach by working meaningfully with the police and health services.
4. It attempted to undertake a timely and comprehensive investigation into the incidents to establish the facts before considering how best to proceed.
5. It took a harm centred approach by:
  1. Offering to interview the resident, which would have been reasonable given the nature of the reports.
  2. Prioritising the installation of additional security to the resident.
  3. Following appropriate safeguarding procedures throughout the lifetime of the case.
  4. Carrying out risk assessments. The landlord’s ‘housing management review panel’ file note dated 14 March 2023 has a space at the bottom of the form on which the risk assessment matrix score can be entered. It is blank which is further evidence that risk assessments were not carried out.
In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on 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. Based on good practice, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidenced gathered, risk assessments and action plans as a minimum. The landlord was asked to provide these documents but has not done which has hampered the investigation.
The landlord’s ASB case management was poor, and it repeatedly failed to comply with the standards set out in its ASB policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right which amounts to maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £1000. The amount of compensation has been set at the higher rate of maladministration to reflect the level of failure and distress caused.
In July 2023 the Housing Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord. In its response the landlord said it would:
1. Complete the review of its ASB policy.
2. Design and roll out associated staff training on the ASB policy and procedures.

Record keeping

This investigation has found evidence of record keeping failures, as follows:
1. The landlord has advised that it issued a letter communicating its decision on the resident’s application for a move on medical grounds but has been unable to provide a copy for the purposes of this investigation.
2. The landlord has been unable to provide key ASB case management documents across the board.
3. An error was made on the referral form for the request for additional security which had to be resent on 11 November 2021.
4. Despite providing notes of the rehousing panel meeting on 14 March 2023, and a letter communicating its outcome to the resident on the same date, the landlord is unable to provide notes relating to its decision to add the resident to the rehousing list. On 25 October 2023 the landlord advised this Service that it has no record her being added to the rehousing list.
Record keeping is a core function of landlord services, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its landlord obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of tenancy management issues affecting its residents. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The record keeping failures amount to maladministration.
In July 2023 the Housing Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord. In its response the landlord said it would “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.”

Determination (decision)

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 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 record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in advising the resident to apply for a medical transfer and later, in assessing the medical information provided. Its messaging around its rehousing list was confusing.
The landlord repeatedly failed to adhere to the principles of effective ASB case management, as set out in its ASB policy. It also failed to follow up in the resident’s first request for permanent move on the grounds of ASB.
The landlord’s ASB case records are sparse, fundamental documents are missing from the investigation process. The landlord has been unable to locate a copy of the letter communicating the outcome of the application for a transfer on medical grounds.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1250 compensation, comprised as follows:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor administration of the resident’s application for a medical transfer.
2. £1000 for distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the residents reports of ASB. This includes distress caused by its record keeping failures which contributed to the detrimental effect on the level of service provided to the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should write to the resident to:
1. Set out who she should contact at the local authority to apply for a medical transfer.
2. Apologise for the failings in the case.

A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

When completing the review of its ASB policy as recommended by the Ombudsman’s special investigation report, it should ensure that:
1. It gives sufficient weight to its understanding of and response to hate related incidents.
2. Consistently takes a harm centred approach to all reports of ASB, as set out in the government’s guidelines.