Longhurst Group Limited (202112139)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112139

Longhurst Group Limited

27 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 response to:
1. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about her neighbour.
3. Reports of ASB it received about the resident.
4. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
5. The resident’s MP about her housing circumstances.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom property which was let in 2009 under an assured tenancy agreement by a housing association.
The landlord noted that the resident had vulnerabilities which related to her mental health.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has alleged that the landlord discriminated against her and her daughter. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. It is not clear to this Service if the resident has contacted the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) about this. The EASS are the appropriate body to assist in dealing with allegations of discrimination.

Relevant policies and procedures

The assured tenancy agreement says:
1. The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining kitchen and bathroom fittings and fixtures and electrical wiring.
2. The tenant is responsible for:
  1. The behaviour of every adult and child living in or visiting the property.
  2. Not acting in any way that causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to anyone living, visiting, or working in the neighbourhood.
  3. Not allowing any noise that may cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.
The landlord’s repairs policy says:
1. Emergency repairs which put the health, safety, or security of a tenant or leaseholder at immediate risk or cause harm to the structure of the property will be attended to and made safe within 24 hours.
2. Appointed repairs which are repairs that tenants and leaseholders can reasonably live with for a period of time will be completed within 21 days.
3. Dangerous or exposed wires/electrical fittings are prioritised as an emergency repair.
4. Bathroom fixtures and fittings are prioritised as an appointed repair.
The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It will work in partnership with the Police, Local Authorities, and other partner agencies to respond effectively to reports of ASB.
2. It will assess the vulnerability of customers (complainants and respondents) and offer assistance if appropriate and available, including a referral to its safeguarding team if appropriate.
3. It will encourage customers to resolve their disputes amicably by communicating with each other and offer mediation where appropriate.
4. It will respond to high-risk incidents of ASB within 1 working day and all other reports of ASB within 5 working days.
5. It will review any potential vulnerability and the risk of harm to a complainant by completing a vulnerability matrix and further risk assessments throughout the case.
6. It will agree an initial action plan with the complainant(s) and further action plans will be completed until case closure.
7. It will refer and signpost to support agencies where they are available, and it is appropriate.
The landlord’s transfer policy says:
1. There are two pathways to transfer:
  1. A management priority transfer.
  2. A direct transfer which is normally only accepted if a tenant is subject to overcrowding or critical medical need.
2. It will only accept transfer applications, and subsequently make an offer of rehousing, where all terms and conditions of the tenancy have been met.
3. It will only make one reasonable offer of accommodation.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and provide a written response to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and within 20 working days for a stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will consider awarding compensation if it feels there has been a failure in service and/or if, without good reason, it fails to complete a repair within the agreed priority times scales. The procedure incorporates the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance into its procedure and applies its compensation awards using these principles.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) says:
1. Under paragraph 5.7, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated in the stage 1 response if they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or if it would unreasonably delay the response the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
2. Under paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16, landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 1 and 2 in clear plain language:
  1. The complaint stage.
  2. The complaint definition.
  3. The decision of the complaint.
  4. The reasons for any decisions made.
Under paragraph 5.14, if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 7 May 2021 to advise her it had received allegations of noise nuisance that had related to shouting, screaming, and impact noises that had occurred within the property. It had also been alleged that the activities were regular and occurred frequently during the early hours of the morning.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 12 May 2021 to arrange a home visit to discuss the reports of noise nuisance it had received. The landlord suggested 2 dates and for the resident to confirm which of the dates was the most suitable.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 17 May 2021 which said it had received further reports of noise nuisance, which was a potential breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord confirmed that it had booked an appointment for it to visit the resident at the property to discuss the matter.
The landlord received 4 reports of noise nuisance which was reported to have been coming from the resident’s property between 21 and 31 May 2021. The noise nuisance reports were described as music, guitar playing, banging, shouting, a party, raised voices, and shouting in the garden.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 24 May 2021 to summarise the discussion it had held at the property on 21 May 2021. The landlord also attached an ASB action plan which said the resident should:
1. Keep actively looking for a move to a larger property.
2. Complete the internal transfer form and return it to the landlord with supporting evidence ASAP.
3. Take any necessary steps to try and minimise noise whenever possible.
The resident phoned the landlord on 25 May 2021 to ask if it had received the medical information that had been discussed during the home visit. The resident also said she was a little confused by the previous conversation she had held with the landlord and that the neighbour had been making things up. The landlord subsequently made a file note of the conversation it had held with the resident about her noise complaint, her transfer request, and the associated medical evidence.
The landlord prepared a housing transfer report on 25 May 2021 which summarised the resident’s housing circumstances and recommended an urgent move to 3-bedroom property with a downstairs toilet to accommodate the medical needs of the family.
The resident phoned the landlord on 26 May 2021 to say she was concerned about the allegations that had been made about her. The landlord advised it did not intend to take any further action about the matter at that time and would submit a management priority transfer recommendation later the same day.
The landlord received 3 reports of noise nuisance which was reported to have been coming from the resident’s property between 1 and 30 June 2021. The noise reports were described as loud voices, a dog barking, and shouting. The landlord also received a report that cannabis smells were coming from the property.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 June 2021 about the noise reports it had received. The resident advised the landlord that she was not happy and that this was harassment. The resident said she was doing everything she could to keep the noise down. The landlord advised the resident that it was not just her children’s behaviour that had been complained about but that it was also the behaviour of her and her partner. The resident started to shout and said that her boyfriend kept getting complained about.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 June 2021. The resident said:
1. She wanted to complain about her housing officer’s handling of her noise nuisance reports.
2. Her 13-year-old daughter had been diagnosed with autism and had sleep difficulties and OCD tendencies.
3. Her partner’s 6-year-old daughter had recently moved into the property which had created overcrowding.
4. She had requested medical records and obtained an occupational therapy assessment which confirmed that the resident required an urgent move.
5. Her housing officer was initially helpful.
6. She was aware of the noise problem and had arranged for her daughter to stay with her dad for a period of time to reduce the impact of noise.
7. That untrue complaints had been made about her which had included drug use and heavy drinking.
8. She was worried about the false accusations and would never have allowed drugs and heavy drinking around her children.
9. The housing officer had said the resident needed to show she was receiving help which she had found insulting.
10. She had over 140 letters from paediatricians and doctors which showed “the lengths she had gone to”.
11. She had issues with mental health but took medication and had been stable for many years.
12. She was not well due to stress and persecution which had been caused by the constant lies and insensitive nature of the housing officer, not that she was mentally unwell.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 June 2021 to complain about her neighbour. The resident said that her neighbour had accused her boyfriend of smoking cannabis, had called her a slag in front of her children and had pushed her to resign from her job. The resident said that she would ensure a restraining order was in place if the neighbour spoke to her or her family. The resident provided a timeline of the interactions she had had with her neighbour between May 2021 and June 2021. The resident also reported that her neighbour had sworn at her child when she had accidentally hit her car with a ball and that she had felt victimised.
The resident called the landlord on 21 June 2021 to request an update about her transfer request and to explain that the police had become involved in responding to the ASB. The resident said that a behavioural order was being processed by the police, that she was being harassed by her neighbour, and that her children were being verbally abused which was not acceptable.
The landlord called the resident on 22 June 2021 to say it was unlikely that it could help with her transfer as it did not have many 3-bed properties with downstairs toilets in her area. The resident advised that she had contacted the local authority about her rehousing application and had been told it would take 30 days before her application would be processed. The landlord offered to visit the resident at her home which the resident declined. The landlord suggested the resident could speak to her councillor to try to get rehoused more quickly. The landlord advised the resident that it was not going to take any action towards her despite the fact that it had made her aware of the complaints it had received about her and her boyfriend.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 22 June 2021 that referred to the conversation she had held with the landlord the same day. The email re-addressed her housing, medical, family, occupational, financial, and rehousing circumstances. The resident also said that she had found it difficult to speak to her housing officer and that she had previously said that she wanted to deal with her line manager, but that this hadn’t happened.
The landlord phoned the resident on 28 June 2021 to say that her management priority transfer rehousing request had been accepted and that the required transfer paperwork had been posted to her. The landlord subsequently sent a letter to the resident on 1 July 2021 to confirm that she had been accepted onto the landlord’s management priority transfer list and would be entitled to receive one offer of a 3-bedroom property.
The landlord received 6 reports of ASB which were reported to have been coming from the resident’s property between 1 and 30 July 2021. The ASB was described as shouting and swearing, threats made to stab all the neighbours, calling the neighbours “faggots”, and music.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 2 July 2021. The landlord said:
1. It was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.
2. It must take all reports of ASB seriously and had been obligated to investigate and discuss the allegations that had been made about the resident with her.
3. The housing officer had noted that there was no evidence to support the allegations it had received, and that no action had been taken towards the resident.
4. The resident’s management priority transfer application had been approved and the associated transfer paperwork would be provided to her.
5. It expected any housing officer to discuss the type of support customers may have in place so that they could see if they need to signpost customers to any additional support agencies.
6. The housing officer had taken the correct steps when responding to the ASB allegations that had been made.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 12 July 2021 to ask if she wanted it to visit her neighbour to discuss the ASB issues she had raised, because she had previously advised the landlord not to visit the neighbours because she was completing her own investigations. The landlord left a voicemail message asking the resident to call it back.
The landlord sent an internal email on 26 July 2021 to say that it had been about to make an offer of alternative accommodation to the resident but that this might need to be reconsidered because the resident had been causing ASB.
The landlord received 13 reports of noise nuisance from the resident’s property between 1 and 30 August 2021. The noise reports were described as loud music and shouting and screaming. Two of the reports also referred to nuisance from a child being encouraged to scream while walking down the street. A further report referred to threats being made from the resident’s household to smash windows and stab people.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s ASB case and prepared a timeline of the ASB activity on 5 August 2021. The landlord noted that it would contact the police about the recent ASB reports it had received and set up a meeting with the resident to issue a stage 1 ASB warning letter.
The resident called the landlord on 6 August 2021 to report that her neighbours had been calling the police, but when the police had visited there was no action for them to take. The landlord advised the resident that it would visit her to discuss the case in person.
The resident called the landlord on 15 August 2021 to advise that her daughter no longer wanted to live with her due to abuse she had received from her neighbours. The resident said that she wished to move for her own safety and mental health.
The landlord sent an internal email on 16 August 2021 that advised it had prepared a stage 1 ASB warning letter to send to the resident.. The landlord also said that it would have to put her transfer on hold due to the ASB reports. The landlord also had an internal email exchange on the same day about some safeguarding concerns it had had about the welfare of the resident and her family.
The landlord visited the resident on 23 August 2021 to advise her that her transfer request could no longer progress because of the ongoing ASB reports that had been made towards her and her partner. The landlord had been unable to hear the resident’s side of the story during the meeting which it reported to have been due to her attitude towards the landlord. The landlord subsequently noted that the resident had not been prepared to listen or let the landlord speak and was angry and aggressive. The resident had terminated the meeting and asked the landlord to leave the property.
The landlord issued a stage 1 ASB warning letter to the resident on 23 August 2021. The letter explained that it had been sent because the resident had breached her tenancy as a result of reports of nuisance behaviour.
The landlord reviewed the timeline of ASB activity it had previously prepared during an ASB case review it completed on 24 August 2021.
The landlord held a conversation with the resident’s care coordinator on 2 September 2021 who had contacted the landlord to advocate for a move for the resident. The landlord advised that it could not go into detail but that it had an active ASB case that prevented a move at that time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2021 to report ASB from her neighbour. The resident attached pictures to the email which she referred to as evidence of bullying and intimidating behaviour.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 15 September 2021 to advise her that it was unable to substantiate her reports of harassment based upon the information she had provided and that it could not take any further action. The landlord also emailed the resident to ask her to return a third-party authorisation form if she would prefer the landlord to speak to her partner about matters. The resident apologised that she had not provided the third-party authorisation form. The resident said that she wished to provide permission for her partner to speak on her behalf, however, did not attach a signed third-party authorisation form to the email.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident’s MP on 18 September 2021 which said that the resident had been registered for a management priority transfer and that when a property became available she would be made an offer.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 20 September 2021 that asked the landlord to speak to the police because they had found no evidence of wrongdoing. The resident also said that she found it offensive that the landlord had previously asked her to contact the Samaritans, and that the care it had shown towards her was questionable and had caused a decline in her mental health. The resident said that the landlord had not complied with its complaint procedure or spoken to her carer (partner) even though she had asked the landlord to respond to him quickly.
The landlord completed an ASB case review on 21 September 2021. It subsequently made contact with the resident and her partner to advise them that it would close her ASB case about her neighbours unless she could provide any evidence. The landlord also issued the resident with a stage 2 ASB warning letter because it had received ongoing noise reports about her. The landlord’s records said that the resident started swearing at the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2021 to request a copy of all of the recordings it held, including a recording of her 6-year-old daughter in a paddling pool. The resident said that she would inform the police and provide the reference number to the landlord later the same day.
The resident’s partner sent a stage 2 complaint email to the landlord on 23 September 2021 which said:
1. The landlord did not previously provide a timescale in which to escalate a complaint so a stage 2 complaint could be made.
2. The complaints were about discrimination arising from a disability and harassment.
3. The landlord had visited the resident at home but did not listen to the evidence she had made available.
4. The resident had been told that the landlord did not hear the police evidence she had previously supplied with incident numbers.
5. The local authority had classified the resident as needing rehousing due to harassment and based upon police evidence.
6. The resident had a list of false allegations, some of which were private recordings, and which were classed as an invasion of privacy.
7. The resident had been told that the landlord had recordings of her 6-year-old daughter in the paddling pool.
8. The resident and her daughter had been continually ignored.
9. The landlord had 20 days to reply to the email and if police incident reports were not looked into questions would be asked.
The landlord sent an internal email on 27 September 2021 in response to the resident’s statements about the noise recordings and the evidence of nuisance it held. The landlord said that it was good that the resident had reported the matter to the police so that it could show the police that it did not retain any inappropriate recordings and that it was investigating noise reports it had received.
The landlord tried to call the resident on 28 and 29 September 2021 but was unable to make contact with her. The landlord sent an email to adult social care services on 29 September 2021 to find out if the resident already had a social worker assigned to her and to arrange a multi-agency meeting about the matters. Adult social care services replied to the landlord the same day to advise that it had had no involvement with the resident.
On 30 September 2021, the resident received a copy of the landlord’s letter dated 18 September to the resident’s MP. The resident emailed the landlord later the same day to advise it that she had received the letter which said she had been accepted for a management priority transfer, despite previously being told a transfer would not happen. The resident said that she now required a 2-bed property because her daughter had moved out and that the property no longer needed to meet any medical requirements.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 October 2021 to advise that it had not received the third-party authorisation form it had previously provided for it to engage with her partner. It asked her to return the form as soon as possible.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 October 2021 to ask the difference between a management priority transfer and a transfer. The resident said that the letter had been factually incorrect as she had never been offered a management priority transfer and had been told that she could not have a transfer due to ASB complaints it had received. The resident also asked who the letter referred to as it had made a reference to ‘Miss’ rather than ‘Mrs’ and therefore it was unclear if the letter had been written about her daughter.
The landlord sent an internal email on 1 October 2021 that said it needed to explain to the resident that the actions it had taken to withdraw the resident’s access to the management priority transfer superseded the information that it had provided to the MP in its letter.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 October 2021 to say that she had previously provided third party authorisation for her partner in an email she had sent to the landlord on 15 September 2021. The resident also said that she had been upset on that day due to the conversations she had held with her housing officer. She further said that her housing officer had confirmed that she would engage with her partner from that day onwards. The resident restated her permission for her partner to speak on her behalf in the email she sent.
The landlord issued a stage 2 ASB warning letter to the resident on 4 October 2021. The letter explained that this had been issued because the resident had breached her tenancy as a result of nuisance behaviour she had caused and included the latest ASB action plan and advice that the resident had been removed from the transfer list..
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 October 2021 to say that she had provided her housing officer with verbal consent for her partner to engage on her behalf. The resident requested a further copy of the third-party authorisation form and asked the landlord to stop making phone calls and to use email to communicate with her. The landlord replied to the resident’s email later the same day to confirm that it had sent the third-party authorisation form to her by post.
The resident sent a further email on 4 October 2021 to provide the dates of 6 emails that she had previously sent to the landlord about her housing circumstances. Three of the emails that she sent in August 2021 had requested contact from the landlord. The resident also forwarded the emails that she had previously sent to her GP about her housing circumstances and her mental health.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 October 2021 to say:
1. She was angry that the landlord had continued to contact her verbally.
2. She had already emailed third-party authorisation to the landlord but would send the authorisation form to the landlord in due course.
3. She wanted the landlord to inform her where she stood in regard to the unproven complaints by her neighbours and whether it had disclosed her mental health.
4. She had received the stage 2 ASB warning letter and asked the landlord to contact her support worker in future.
5. None of the noise disturbances that had been made about her were within the “allotted times given by the council.”
6. The police did not consider there to be an issue.
7. She was allowed to argue in her own property and given the stress she was under this was completely understandable.
8. A piano and a child in a paddling pool was normal noise.
9. She had previously asked her housing officer not to speak to her as she had given third party consent for her partner.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 October 2021 that said that the resident had emailed 5 times so far that day and 15 times on 4 October 2021 and once on 3 October 2021. The landlord emailed the resident’s support worker the same day to request a multi-agency meeting. The landlord subsequently advised the resident that it had contacted her support worker in an email it sent the following day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 October 2021 to apologise for some factual errors it had made in the letter that it had sent to her MP. The landlord asked the resident to explain what the errors were so that it could try to correct them. The landlord explained that it could not put her request for a transfer through because of ASB from her address.
The resident’s support worker sent an email to the landlord on 8 October 2021 which said, “Please refrain from corresponding with the resident, the relationship is irreparable, and the effects of correspondence are having a detrimental effect on the mental health and wellbeing of the resident.”
The landlord sent an internal email to confirm that it had cancelled a multi-agency meeting that had been planned for the following day because no one from the support services could attend. The landlord also contacted the local authority to enquire about its homelessness decision. The local authority advised the landlord the next day that the resident’s case was being reviewed based upon information she had supplied. T The landlord provided information about the ASB and enforcement decisions it was considering and further advised the local authority that a possession notice had not been served.
The support worker sent an email to the landlord on 18 October 2021 to advise that she would be unable to attend a multi-agency meeting on 19 October 2021. The landlord rearranged the multi-agency meeting for 10 November 2021.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 21 October 2021. The resident said:
1. As the landlord was aware it had, according to the Housing Ombudsman, until the next day to respond to the stage 2 complaint.
2. The local authority had classed the resident as homeless due to harassment, bullying, and mental discrimination.
3. She would not have a choice over location of where to live.
4. She would await the landlord’s further response.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 26 October 2021 to say that it wanted to speak to the resident about her stage 2 complaint. The landlord asked if she would be happy to speak to the landlord about the matter or if it should contact her support worker.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 November 2021 to say that she was scared to ask the landlord for vital repairs due to its approach toward her. The resident said that the following required repair: the smashed outsider electrical supply box, waste drainpipe from the kitchen, the kitchen cupboard doors, a hole in the back door and the extractor fan in the kitchen.
The landlord responded to the resident on 3 November 2021 and advised her to report the repairs directly to its repairs contractor.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 November 2021 to say that she had received a letter advising her that 2 staff members would visit her at her property to discuss an alleged noise complaint. The resident said that she no longer dealt with the landlord as she had provided third party consent. The resident said that by writing to her 2 days previously the landlord had caused her anguish. The resident asked the landlord to stop and to consider her rights as a tenant.
The resident phoned the landlord on 4 and 5 November 2021 and emailed it on 5 November and 9 2021 to and asked it to arrange for its repairs contractor to contact her because she had been unable to get through to it herself. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 November 2021 asking her to contact the repairs contractor herself to report the repairs.
The resident confirmed that she had made contact with the repairs contractor in an email she sent to the landlord on 11 November 2021. The resident advised that she was waiting for a planning team to provide her with a repairs appointment.
The landlord completed an ASB enforcement review on 17 November 2021 in which it considered the reports of ASB it had received about the resident. The landlord said:
1. The resident had breached her tenancy because her household members and/or visitors had been responsible for noise nuisance.
2. The noise nuisance included shouting and arguing, piano playing, and loud music which was played at an unacceptable volume at various times of the day and night.
3. There had been reports of verbal abuse and video footage of 2 males appearing to be fighting outside the neighbouring property.
4. There were numerous complainants that were affected by this behaviour.
5. It had decided to issue a stage 3 ASB final warning to the resident.
The landlord produced a comprehensive list of nuisance reports in a report it prepared on 17 November 2021. The report listed ASB occurrences at the resident’s property on 12 days in May 2021, 2 days in June 2021, 3 days in July 2021, 10 days in August 2021, and 12 days in October 2021.
The landlord issued a stage 3 ASB final warning letter to the resident on 17 November 2021 explaining that nuisance behaviour and the reports of threats had been a breach of her tenancy agreement.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 November 2021 to say that she had phoned the repairs contractor 7 times and had been cut off 7 times. The resident said that she required an urgent repair to the electric meter door because wires had been exposed which were dangerous. The resident requested a call back from the landlord. The landlord replied later the same day to ask the resident to continue trying to contact its repairs contractor to report the repair herself.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2021 to say that she had repeatedly asked for a dangerous repair to be fixed but that the earliest appointment had been 6 January 2022. The landlord replied later the same day to say that if the repairs contractor had considered it an emergency it would have set up an emergency appointment. The resident advised that she had reported the matter to Environmental Health the same day who would make contact with the landlord to review the repair.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 November 2021 to say that it appreciated that the resident had obtained advice from Environment Health who thought that the repair was an emergency, but that its repairs policy did not classify the repair as an emergency. The landlord reconfirmed that the appointment had been booked for 6 January 2021. The resident replied to the landlord later the same day to say that the appointment was unacceptable because her stepdaughter had hoarding issues and had a predisposition to cut things with scissors. The resident stated that the exposed wires were dangerous and asked the landlord to provide clarity on the danger and the risk to health.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 December 2021 and asked her to clarify how the meter door had been damaged. The resident replied the same day to explain that she did not know how it had become damaged, but that she was a victim of harassment and abuse. The landlord said that it would look into the matter and get back to her.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 December 2021 to ask it to provide the recordings of noise it held, in particular those of her stepdaughter giggling in a paddling pool. The resident said that illegal photographs had been taken of her private property and that she was a victim of bullying and harassment and that she wanted a fresh start away from the property. The resident emailed the landlord again the next day to say that the landlord had not reviewed the police reports when it had previously visited her at her property and that her neighbour had been warned by the police about her (the neighbour’s) conduct.
The landlord phoned the resident on 2 December 2021 to say that it had raised a works order for an alternative contractor to repair her electric meter door. The landlord also said that the remainder of the repairs that she had referred to had been booked with its repairs contractor for completion on 6 January 2021.
The landlord drew up an acceptable behaviour contract on 2 December 2021 that referred to the reports of ASB it had received from the resident’s neighbours.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 December 2021 to say it that had cancelled a home visit it had planned the same day.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2021 and asked it respond to a complaint about the resident’s outstanding repairs, its handling of ASB reports, and the information it had provided to the resident’s MP.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 6 January 2022 to complete the repairs it had scheduled but the resident was not at home and the works did not proceed.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 10 January 2022 to advise it that she had not been at home for the repairs appointment due to an emergency. The resident asked the landlord to rearrange the repairs as soon as possible. The landlord replied to the resident the same day to advise her to contact the repairs contractor to book new repair appointments.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 January 2022. The complaint response letter:
1. Provided a timeline of communications, missed appointments and actions related to the handling of the repair to the electric meter cupboard door.
2. Advised that the meter cupboard door repair, along with the other repairs, had been passed to the repairs contractor for new appointments to be scheduled.
3. Said it had numerous contacts with the resident over the preceding 6 months and that the contact had been notably different when she had been a complainant of an issue or the respondent of an issue.
4. Advised it had not recorded a request for contact to be made via her support worker which meant it had contacted the resident instead. The landlord apologised for this.
5. Said there were times when it did not return the resident’s calls and a less than sufficient response had been provided to some of the ASB evidence she had provided.
6. Said the resident’s contact with the landlord could have been clearer because she had copied in other agencies to her emails.
7. Said it did not consider there to have been any service failure in its handling of the ASB allegations it received about the resident. It said this was because it had received sufficient evidence of tenancy breaches.
8. Explained that the information that it had sent to the resident’s MP was sent before it had circulated the decision to remove the resident from the management transfer list.
9. Advised the ASB warnings it had provided were not issued to prevent her moving. The landlord said that it was a criterion of the management transfer policy for there to be no proven ASB from the applicant.
10. Advised that its response at stage 2 of the complaint procedure was its final response confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaint process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.

The resident sent an email to the landlord on 3 November 2021 in which she said that she required 5 different repairs at the property. The landlord advised the resident that she should report these repairs to its repairs contractor herself. It was appropriate for the landlord to have provided this advice to the resident to ensure that the repairs were given the correct priority by staff employed to assess and raise repairs in line with its repair policy. Furthermore this would have ensured the resident could make an appointment for the repairs to be completed at a convenient time that was in line with the landlord’s repairs handling policy timescales.
This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm that suitable repair appointments had been made within reasonable timescales, despite the resident making contact with the landlord on 7 different days in November 2021. The resident confirmed in an email that she had sent on 29 November 2021 that a repair appointment had been made for 6 January 2022. This date was later than the landlord’s 21-day policy timescale for an appointed, routine repair and was therefore inappropriate, especially given the resident had first notified the landlord about the repairs on 3 November 2021.
The resident reported that she had been unable to contact the repairs service throughout November 2021, despite making numerous phone calls to it and sending subsequent emails to request call backs. It is not clear to this Service why the landlord did not call the resident back given she had said that she had unsuccessfully contacted the landlord 7 times and been cut off 7 times. Instead the landlord insisted that she should continue to try to contact the repairs staff using the same phone number. This would have caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident in pursuing a repair. Furthermore, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to have offered to assist the resident in making contact with the repairs staff, especially given that the resident had previously advised the landlord that the repairs included damage that had exposed the electric meter.
The resident raised concerns that the electricity meter and electric wiring had been exposed and that this presented a health and safety risk to her daughter. The landlord’s repairs policy said that exposed wiring would usually be repaired as an emergency within 24 hours. However, the landlord initially failed to recognised the repair as an emergency. The landlord sought to put right its failure on 2 December 2021 by advising the resident it had booked a repair appointment separately to the other repairs she had reported. It is not clear to this Service when the repair was completed, but it would have been completed at least 30 days later than its policy timescale. This was inappropriate and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB about her neighbour.

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbours amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
It is noted that the resident has said that she considers that the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports it received to have exacerbated her medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the ASB and the resident’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
In response to the resident’s reports of ASB and her complaint the landlord:
1. Made a file note of the conversation it had with the resident on 25 May 2021 where she said that the resident’s neighbour had been making things up.
2. Opened an ASB case that related to the resident’s ASB concerns about her neighbour, which it later close due to insufficient evidence of ASB.
3. Recorded a file note on 4 June 2021 that confirmed that the resident said she considered her neighbours had been harassing her. The file note also said that the resident’s boyfriend kept getting complained about.
4. Visited the resident at home to discuss the allegations of ASB that the resident had made about her neighbours.
5. Did not visit the resident’s neighbours to address the ASB reports that it had received because the resident asked it not to..
6. Subsequently asked the resident if she wanted the landlord to visit her neighbours to discuss the ASB issues she had raised on her behalf.
7. Approached adult social care services and verified the support that the resident was receiving so as to take a multi-agency approach to the ASB allegations.
8. Sent a letter to the resident to advise her that it had reviewed the photographic evidence she had provided and that it could not substantiate the resident’s reports of harassment and therefore could not take any further action.
9. Completed an ASB case review and subsequently advised the resident that it would close her ASB case unless she could provide evidence of ASB.
The landlord’s actions set out in the previous paragraph were appropriate responses to the resident’s allegations of ASB, demonstrating that the landlord had taken some steps to consider how to resolve the ASB reports in accordance with its policy and procedure in response to the resident’s allegations.
Although the landlord’s actions set out in the previous 2 paragraphs were appropriate, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB as the landlord:
1. Did not provide letters or summary notes to the resident about its investigations into her reports of ASB..
2. Did not agree an action plan with the resident to set out how it would address her reports of ASB about her neighbours.
3. Did not complete a vulnerability matrix, or risk assessments so as to comply with its ASB policy.
4. Did not provide the resident with diary sheets for her to keep a record of ASB incidents that she experienced so as to build a case of evidence.
5. Did not consider offering mediation to the resident to assist her in managing her relationship with her neighbours.
6. Did not appropriately consider the evidence that the resident had provided, including police reference numbers when it visited her at her home.
7. Did not contact the police so as to substantiate the ASB reports that had led to the police processing a behavioural order towards her neighbours, even though the landlord had been made aware that the police had visited both parties about the resident’s ASB reports.
8. Did not provide evidence that it had completed any type of case review of the resident’s reports of ASB about her neighbour.
9. Did not reassess the resident’s reports of ASB when the local authority confirmed that it had accepted a housing duty based upon the evidence of harassment the resident and police had provided.
10. Did not always respond to the resident’s emails about the ASB and harassment that she said she had experienced.
11. Acknowledged in its stage complaint 2 response that there were times when it did not return the resident’s calls about ASB.
12. Acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it had provided a less than sufficient response to the evidence of ASB that the resident had provided.
13. Acknowledged in its complaint response that it had not considered all the facts of the case.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and recognition of its ASB handling and communication failures), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in apologising to the resident that it had not responded consistently to her contact and for its less than sufficient response to the ASB reports she had made. Furthermore the landlord said that it had areas of improvement which had been reviewed by its housing team. However, the landlord said that its communication failings were because the resident needed to be clearer, and this was unreasonable. The landlord was expected to have clarified its understanding of her communication if it was unclear. Furthermore, the landlord did not explain in detail what lessons it had learned and what it would do to address the learning in this case to avoid similar failings in responding to ASB reports on the future.
The landlord did not consider or offer the resident any type of compensation for the failings it had recognised which it was entitled to do in keeping with its compensation policy. This report has also identified further failings by the landlord which it did not recognise nor address. Whilst the landlord offered an apology this did not put things right. This Service has therefore referred to our own remedies guidance and has ordered an award of financial compensation for the landlord’s handling of the ASB below.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB about her neighbour.

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB it received about the resident.

In response to reports of ASB the landlord received about the resident the landlord:
1. Opened an ASB case file on an undisclosed date which it subsequently reviewed on 5 August 2021.
2. Sent a series of letters to the resident to advise her that it had received reports of noise nuisance and described the noise reports in detail.
3. Arranged a home visit to discuss the ASB allegations it had received about her.
4. Visited the resident in her home to discuss the ASB allegations it had received.
5. Reviewed the information that the resident had provided about the support the family had been receiving as well as the information that had been requested from different agencies in support of the family’s needs. It was appropriate for the landlord to have asked the resident about the support she had received, furthermore for it to signpost her to support agencies such as the Samaritans.
6. Referred the resident to its own management priority transfer list as a means to assist her in locating alternative accommodation that was more suitable for the family. It was appropriate for the landlord to have taken this approach as an opportunity to improve the resident’s housing circumstances and to address the ASB reports that had been aggravated by her living conditions.
7. Emailed a summary of the conversation the landlord had held with the resident within 1 working day of the home visit. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to have taken to document the agreements that had been reached during the home visit as evidence and a record of fact.
8. Reapproached the resident in response to new ASB incidents that had been reported and appropriately provided this information so that the resident was clear about the extent of the ASB reports.
9. Appropriately responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint by reminding the resident that it had to take all reports of ASB seriously and that it had been obligated to investigate the allegations it had received about her.
10. Issued stage 1, 2 and 3 warning letters to the resident about the ASB and nuisance reports it had received. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take in line with its ASB policy.
11. Prepared a timeline of ASB activity so as to decide on and implement a proportionate means to address the ASB reports it had received demonstrating that it had taken a reasonable, evidence-based approach towards the resident.
12. Asked the resident to provide third party authorisation for it to engage with her partner who had raised questions with the landlord about its handling of her ASB case.
13. Completed ASB case reviews prior to issuing warning letters which it documented on appropriate forms. This was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy..
14. Engaged with adult social care to find out if the resident had previously been assigned a social worker.
15. Sought to engage with other agencies in support of the resident by setting up a multi-agency meeting with appropriate partners.
16. Engaged with the resident’s support worker, upon the request of the resident, to address its ongoing concerns about the ASB and the resident’s wellbeing.
17. Provided evidence and information to the local authority to assist it with its determination of the resident’s rehousing need.
18. Completed an ASB enforcement review prior to deciding whether to instigate legal action towards the resident for a breach of the tenancy conditions.
19. Prepared an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) as a method for addressing the reports it has received from the resident. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to have taken, however it was not appropriate for the landlord to have waited to do so until December 2021, 8 months after it had initially contacted the resident about the ASB reports it had received. However, this Service has not seen any evidence to confirm if the ABC was issued prior to the resident moving from the property.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB it received about the resident.

The landlord response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The landlord held a conversation with the resident about her housing circumstances on 21 May 2021. It is not clear to this Service if the resident had already registered a transfer application directly with the local authority, but the landlord subsequently advised the resident to keep actively looking for a move to larger property. This was appropriate advice for the landlord to have provided after visiting the resident at home and seeing the overcrowded conditions the family had been living under and the impact this had on creating noise transference that was heard by her neighbours.
On 21 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would consider the family for an internal management move. The landlord asked the resident to complete and return the required application form and provide supporting evidence.
The resident provided the requested medical information to the landlord on 24 May 2021 and the landlord subsequently prepared a housing transfer report within a further 24 hours. The report referenced the medical needs of the family and advocated for the resident to be accepted onto the internal management transfer list. The landlord acted reasonably and took a resolution focussed approach to the resident’s housing circumstances in considering her for a management move and detailing the impact her housing circumstances had on the wellbeing of the family in the transfer report. The landlord also mentioned the benefit a move would bring in the reduction of noise nuisance on neighbouring properties.
The landlord did not provide the resident with any further information about the progress of her management move transfer request, despite her making contact about the matter in her stage 1 complaint on 7 June 2021 and in a separate phone call on 21 June 2021. The landlord’s transfer policy does not state what timescales it works towards when assessing applications for a management move but the landlord could have explained this to the resident so as to manage her expectations.
The landlord notified the resident that her application had been approved by phone on 28 June 2021 and in a letter it sent 3 working days later, as well as its stage 1 complaint response dated 2 July 2021.
The landlord sent an internal email on 26 July 2021 that said the presence of ASB would prevent the landlord from making an offer of accommodation to the resident. This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm that the landlord notified the resident that she was no longer eligible for an offer under its management moves policy until it conducted a visit a month later on 23 August 2021. The landlord’s transfer policy does not provide timescales for providing updates to residents such as a change in status. However, the landlord would have demonstrated good customer care principles if it had provided this information to the resident sooner, given she had been under the impression that her application had been progressing and also that she had explained that she wished to move for her safety and mental health.
The landlord did not reauthorise the resident’s management move application again as a result of presence of an ongoing ASB investigation. The landlord explained this to the resident in subsequent communication it had with her during its ASB investigations. As the landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response the decision not to reauthorise the management move was appropriate because it was a criterion of the management transfer policy for there to be no proven ASB from the applicant.
The landlord acted reasonably in providing information to the local authority in support of the resident’s separate rehousing application so as to assist with its assessment of her circumstances.
This Service was notified that the resident was eventually accepted onto the local authority’s rehousing waiting list and received an offer of accommodation based upon the information and evidence of ASB and harassment she had submitted. The resident had been in the process of arranging to move from the property when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s MP about her rehousing circumstances.

The resident’s MP contacted the landlord and asked it to provide information about her housing circumstances. The landlord acted reasonably in responding to the MP in writing on 18 September 2021.
The letter the landlord sent contained incorrect information that the resident had been registered for a management move priority transfer and that when a property became available she would be made an offer. The letter also referred to the resident as ‘Miss’ rather than ‘Mrs.’ It was unreasonable for the landlord to have issued a letter to the MP which contained factually incorrect information.
The landlord recognised its error in an internal email it sent on 1 October 2021 in which it said that it needed to explain the cause of the error to the resident. This would have been a reasonable approach for the landlord to take to put the matter right and recognise the detriment the matter had caused the resident. However, the landlord failed to do so before it sent a further letter to the resident on 4 October 2021 which restated that she had been removed from the transfer list.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 October 2021 about the incorrect information it had sent to the MP. The landlord apologised to the resident but asked her to explain what its errors were so that it could try to correct them. This was an unreasonable approach for the landlord to have taken. It had been aware of the errors it had made and had already received information from the resident about the confusion the letter had caused.
The landlord considered it’s response to the MP in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord advised the resident that the information had been provided to the MP prior to its decision to withdraw the resident from the management move waiting list. This information was incorrect given the resident had already been told on 16 and 23 August 2021 that her position on the management move list had been withdrawn prior to the letter being issued. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have verified the accuracy of information it provided to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response, or to provide an apology or other type of redress in recognition of its failings. This caused further inconvenience and distress to the resident.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord response to the resident’s MP about her housing circumstances.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its policy timescale of 2 working days.
2. Provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident 9 working days later than its complaint policy response target of 10 working days.
3. Did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint that had been made on 23 September 2021.
4. Did not acknowledge the resident’s email of 21 October 2021 that said it had until the next day to respond to her stage 2 complaint.
5. Recognised the resident had sent a stage 2 complaint which it referred to in its email of 26 October 2021, yet did not respond to it within its complaint policy timescales. Instead the landlord said it wanted to speak to the resident about her stage 2 complaint.
6. Did not provide a stage 2 complaint response to the complaints that had been made on 23 September 2021, 21 October 2021 and which it had referenced in its email of 26 October 2021.
7. Did not register a new stage 1 complaint about the resident’s repairs in line with paragraph 5.7 of the Code following an email that this Service had sent on 7 December 2021.
8. Added the resident’s complaint about repairs into its stage 2 complaint response which it issued as its final response on 13 January 2022. This approach did not provide the resident with an opportunity to escalate these complaint matters if she had remained dissatisfied.
9. Provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 January 2022 which was 58 working days later than its policy timescale of 20 working days.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB about her neighbour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of ASB it received about the resident.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s MP about the resident’s housing circumstances.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

There were delays, misdiagnosis, and mishandling of the resident’s reports of repairs by the landlord. The resident also experienced communication difficulties when trying to make contact with the landlord.
The landlord failed to appropriately investigate the reports of ASB the resident had made about her neighbours, despite the resident raising her concerns in various different ways and in different settings. The landlord did not complete risk, or vulnerability assessments in keeping with its ASB policy, nor engage with the police to substantiate the resident’s reports. The landlord recognised and apologised for its ASB handling failures in its complaint responses. However, this did not provide the resident with a reasonable level redress for the detriment the mismanagement of the ASB reports had caused.
The landlord appropriately investigated the neighbours reports of ASB and utilised many different elements of its ASB policy to provide information, advice, and support to the resident.
The landlord added the resident to its management moves transfer list in recognition of her housing need. However it later advised her that it had to withdraw her access due to her involvement in ASB. This was in keeping with the landlord’s transfer policy. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have notified the resident and withdrawn the offer of a management move which it did in writing and in person during its ASB investigation.
The landlord failed to verify the status of the resident’s management move application before providing information to the MP. The landlord said it wanted to put right the matter by asking the resident to clarify what its errors had been. The landlord subsequently failed to issue an apology to the resident in its complaint response, nor offer any other type of redress.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing her repair requests, her reports of ASB about her neighbour, for the incorrect information it provided to her MP, and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided to the resident in writing within 28 days of the date of this report.
In additional to any compensation offered previously, and within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests.
2. £300 for distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. £100 for distress caused to the resident in its response to the resident’s MP about the resident’s housing circumstances.
4. £250 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.