Milton Keynes City Council (202102710)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102710

Milton Keynes City Council

13 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
2. The resident’s concerns about the condition of her property.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident had an introductory tenancy with the landlord, a local authority for a one-bedroom end terrace property with two floors and a garden. The tenancy began on 28 September 2020. The introductory period was due to end on 28 September 2021, however the landlord extended this by 6 months to 28 March 2022. The resident is currently living in supported accommodation not within the landlord’s remit.
The landlord has confirmed that it is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities including her mental health and respiratory issues. The resident has been supported by mental health charities, social services, and a psychiatric nurse. The resident was also detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 between January to April 2022, and October 2022 to January 2023.
The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the definition of ASB provided by the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This defines ASB as ‘conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.’ It also states where a behaviour reported constitutes a crime and is high risk the victim is encouraged to report the matter to the police in the first instance.
The landlord adopts a ‘support first’ approach for ASB cases to try and influence behaviour change through informal action such as warnings and ABCs. When it receives a report of ASB it will assess the risk of the victim and ensures it puts safety measures into place without delay.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for internal and external doors, fences, gutters, water pipes and water heating. It will complete repairs in a reasonable time depending on how urgent the repair is. It will write to the resident to confirm any received repair requests and confirm when it will complete any appropriate work.
The tenancy agreement also states the resident must report repairs, faults, or damage to the landlord immediately. The resident must also allow the landlord or other people into the property to complete repairs or inspect the state of repair. The resident must take good care of the property and keep it in a good state of repair, keeping it clean, sanitary and in a habitable condition.
The landlord initially registered a complaint from the resident about alleged ASB around 16 December 2020. It closed this complaint on 15 February 2021 as the resident was unwilling to discuss the complaint with it.
This investigation is concerned with the following complaints that the resident raised with the landlord:
1. 22 April 2021 – About the condition of the property and alleged ASB from her neighbour which the landlord initially responded to on 6 May 2021 with its final response on 27 January 2022.
2. 23 April 2021 – About leaving her former property in 2013 which the landlord responded to on 23 April 2021 with its final response on 25 May 2021.
3. 7 July 2022 -About alleged harassment and stalking from her neighbour who she said was also dealing drugs. The landlord provided its initial response on 16 August 2022 and its final response on 29 September 2022.
This final complaint of 7 July 2022 brought the case within the Ombudsman’s formal remit for investigation at the point that the resident confirmed that she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate (November 2022). Given the overall circumstances of the case, including the resident’s vulnerability and the fact that she requested the Ombudsman’s formal intervention in a timely manner, all three complaints will be considered here.
The complaint submitted by the resident on 23 April 2021 however was responded to solely by the landlord to explain that these issues were out of scope for any substantive investigation due to their historical nature. It also said it was due to it having previously responded to multiple complaints from the resident on these matters. The Ombudsman finds this position both reasonable and appropriate. Having previously responded, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to re-investigate issues and, in any case, it is relevant that a landlord is unlikely to be able to fully investigate issues that occurred years previously as records will not usually remain in place for it to do so in a thorough manner.
The evidence indicates historical issues pre-dating the complaints noted above. While elements of these historical issues have been referenced here, this is largely for contextual purposes. This investigation is concerned with the complaints under investigation and the events that immediately led to the concerns raised.

Summary of events

Between the 2 November 2020 and 22 April 2021, the resident raised the following issues with the landlord:
1. From 16 December 2020 she reported her neighbour had thrown rubbish into her garden and attempted to get into her property. She asked for it to remove the rubbish from this date and said her door was broken but said she would not allow the landlord to fix it.
2. From 18 December 2020 an unknown male had climbed into her garden and urinated against her backdoor. She asked for it to clean the urine from this date.
3. On 25 January 2021 she said the landlord was discriminating against her for having mental health issues and not taking her seriously.
4. The resident raised a notice to quit the property on the landlord’s website on 22 February 2021 she said due to the alleged ASB and condition of the property. She told the landlord she would move out to “live on the streets.” She said on 23 February 2021 her neighbour was growing and selling drugs.
In between 2 November 2020 and 21 April 2021 the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of alleged ASB and the condition of her property took the following action:
1. On 2 November 2020 it provided her with ASB diary logs to complete and return and referred her for safeguarding on 18 December 2020.
2. It attempted to discuss the ASB complaint with the resident between 27 January and 15 February 2021 but when she did not engage it closed the ASB complaint on 15 February 2021. It put a single point of contact (SPOC) into place from 8 February 2021 to respond to the numerous correspondence from the resident.
3. On 7 April 2021 it asked if it could remove rubbish from her garden, clean the property and install additional locks, but the resident refused this the same day.
4. It increased her introductory tenancy by 6 months to 28 March 2022 as it said she had breached her tenancy several times. It rejected her NTQ, explaining it would not allow her to “give up her property to live on the streets.”
The resident raised a complaint on 22 April 2021 raising the following issues:
1. Her property had a broken window left from the previous tenant.
2. A male climbed over her fence and urinated against her wall. She had reported this to the landlord and police.
3. Her property was in disrepair and had a poor energy rating.
4. The landlord refused to provide security for the property and refused to move her to safe accommodation.
On 23 April 2021, the resident raised a further complaint about not being able to collect her belongings from a former property. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to this complaint on the same day telling her she had made several complaints about her former property and no outcomes offered by it were acceptable to her. It said it was unable to uphold her complaint based on its previous responses to her. These previous responses have not been made available to this Service. It provided escalation rights for her complaint.
The resident contacted this Service and on 4 May 2021 a request was made to the landlord to respond to the complaint of 22 April 2021 within 10 working days. The landlord responded to the complaint of 22 April on 6 May 2021 and told her the following:
1. It had rejected her NTQ and was in regular contact with mental health support for the resident, but it understood the resident had rejected this support.
2. It had looked through the available evidence on the ASB case file and could find no evidence to support her reports. It had checked her garden and found it was clean and clear on each occasion. It confirmed that she could report any neighbourhood issues to her SPOC.
3. It had sent out multiple tradespeople to investigate and complete repairs, but the resident had either refused entry or was not in. It said it was committed to fixing any issues. Her SPOC would support arranging repairs.
4. It would arrange for the Welfare Support Team to speak with her about her energy bills for support. It provided the resident with details about how to escalate her complaint.
On 18 May 2021, the resident asked for her an escalation of both complaints as follows:
1. With regard to her complaint of 22 April she said wind was blowing through her closed door, her house was damp and cold and smelled of urine. She said it was infested with insects and had an ‘E’ energy rating.
2. With regard to her complaint of 23 April she said the landlord needed to respond.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response to the resident. As its response only referenced the resident’s concerns about her former property it can be concluded the landlord only responded to the complaint of 23 April 2021 at this time. It said it had reviewed its stage one complaint response and would not take the complaint further and there was no evidence that would change the outcome in a further investigation. It said its final decision was its stage one response of 23 April 2021.
Between the 1 June and 10 November 2021, the following events of note took place:
1. The resident said she was willing to start engaging with the landlord’s ASB team on 21 June 2021 and provided it with the ASB diaries on 9 July 2021.
2. The resident reported on 8 and 9 July 2021 her neighbour sent death threats through social media and on 8 August 2021 she reported hearing a guest of her neighbour saying they had a gun. She also reported drug dealing going on outside her property and local kids were ringing her bell and harassing her. She reported her neighbour was stalking her on 25 November 2021.
3. The landlord investigated the alleged drug growing and selling by the neighbour on 17 September and found no evidence of this. It completed a professionals meeting on 6 October 2021, deciding on closer working between health professionals and a social worker for the resident. It also said it would consider a community trigger if the issues with the resident’s neighbour continued.
4. The landlord arranged for cleaning of the resident’s interior and exterior, it agreed to remove any rubbish and clear blocked gutters to alleviate a damp issue in the kitchen.On19 August 2021, the resident cancelled all scheduled work to the property.
5. The landlord suggested she consider ‘Home Swapper’ on 24 November 2021 if she wanted to move.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 November 2022 about her outstanding escalation request for her complaint of 22 April 2021. This Service requested the landlord respond to the resident by 17 January 2022. The landlord provided a further stage one response on 27 January 2022 telling the resident the following:
1. It took what she said seriously and investigated her reports of repairs, ASB and harassment but it did not believe her complaints were new or different to what she has previously asked of the landlord.
2. It would continue to support her ensuring it would deal with any repairs promptly.
3. It said there was no case to answer and would not take the residents complaint further.
A contractor working for the landlord reported on 20 May 2022 that the resident had reported repairs to her property but did not want it to fix them. She only wanted the contractor to board up a window, remove a boiler and erect fencing. The resident’s social worker added a note to say they would pursue repairs the following week.
The resident raised a new complaint on 7 July 2022 stating her neighbour was harassing and stalking her, had hacked her Wi-Fi and phones, and was dealing drugs. She said that she had reported this to the police. She contacted this service on 15 July 2022 when she did not receive a reply from the landlord adding that her neighbour had had a party and threatened to break into her property. This Service contacted the landlord on 4 August 2022 advising them to provide a response to the resident by 18 August 2022.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 16 August 2022 telling the resident the following:
1. It raised a community trigger about stalking/harassment on 5 August 2022. The landlord contacted the police and found she had not made any reports to the police regarding this in 2022.
2. The landlord had reviewed CCTV footage from the resident and only found two significant incidents. One was a suspected drug deal, but it found no evidence of anything being passed in the video. The other was a young girl pressing the resident’s doorbell and running away laughing. The landlord confirmed the girl was not linked to the resident’s neighbour. It provided details for its ASB officers.
3. The landlord could not find evidence in its own records or following liaison with the police that the resident reported the neighbour having discussed plans to break into her property on 14 July 2022.
4. It said although the resident had said she was in hospital due to the impact of her reports, it was aware that she was detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act from January 2022 to April 2022. It said she was receiving support from a psychiatric nurse and social worker and urged her to continue engaging.
5. It said the resident cancelled an inspection for damp and mould, as was an inspection of the doors and windows in 2021. It said the resident could arrange reinspection with the contractor.
6. It said it was supporting the resident in finding supported accommodation following a visit to her on 9 August 2022.
On 6 September 2022, the resident asked to escalate her complaint saying harassment and stalking was ongoing and that the landlord was “negligent” as her neighbour had been “doing this” for almost two years. The resident contacted this Service on 15 September 2022 stating the landlord had not replied to her escalation request. This Service requested the landlord provide her with a final response by 30 September 2022.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 29 September 2022. It told the resident the following:
1. It identified a male knocking on the resident’s door and referred this to the police. It could only identify the suspected drug deal and girl pressing the doorbell in all the evidence the resident had sent as significant. She should speak to her doorbell provider about improving the quality of the recordings.
2. The resident should call the police if she believed herself to be in danger of being stalked and harassed.
3. It was unlikely the new neighbour was linked to the old neighbour as they had come from a waiting list. If she felt the new neighbour was harassing her, she should report this to the police or the ASB officer.
4. The resident had cancelled investigations to her doors and windows in 2021 and for damp and mould in 2022. It said it could raise this with the contractor again if the resident wished.
5. It could not investigate someone accessing the resident’s wi-fi and she should report this to the police.
The landlord reported on 6 October 2022 the resident had been detained under the Mental Health Act. It asked her if it could access her property to investigate damp and mould whilst she was away from the property, but she refused.
The resident was dissatisfied with the responses from the landlord and on 3 November 2022 asked the Ombudsman to investigate. On 4 January 2023, the landlord reported the resident had moved out of the property into supported accommodation and closed her ASB complaint case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident raised concerns with this Service that the landlord treated her differently due to her health. While it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make legally binding findings on discrimination allegations, this Service will consider the overall handling of the resident’s complaint and whether the landlord treated her fairly.
With all the evidence considered, this Service will focus on the overall landlord’s handling of the issues raised by the resident, including its handling of the situation. This will be particularly about whether it responded to the multiple ASB reports and reports about her property, in the context of the complaints submitted by the resident.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about her neighbour, including stalking and harassment.

Vulnerability of resident.

The landlord’s ASB policy determines when a vulnerable adult experiences ASB it will follow its Vulnerable Adult Pathway, which advises to refer to the council’s safeguarding team or police as examples. The landlord aware of the resident’s vulnerability did raise a safeguarding alert in accordance with the pathway in a timely manner on 17 December 2020. It did this as the resident stated she was going to leave the property that day. It took appropriate further steps to escalate this to the NHS and raised a Community Alarm on 21 December 2020. The resident later admitted she was grateful for this intervention on 16 January 2021.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns on 20 January 2021 that it was discriminating against her due to her mental health. The landlord’s website states it will “Improve the way we engage, think, plan and act to deliver equality and inclusion for everyone, every day.” The treatment of the resident in ignoring her report was not in line with its goals and commitment to equality and diversity.
This Service can find no evidence the landlord completed its own risk assessment for all parties at the start of the reported ASB and at significant milestones thereafter. In completing risk assessments and focusing on the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of the ASB. The landlord should have been able to demonstrate it considered the impact on the resident (given her vulnerabilities) in a retained written record that it could later refer to or share.
The landlord recognised the risk related to the NTQ raised by the resident on 22 February 2021, as the resident said she was going to “live on the streets.” It acted reasonably in rejecting the NTQ and supporting the resident in providing private accommodation or using ‘Home Swapper’ as she had indicated. It is not common practice for a landlord to fail to accept an otherwise valid NTQ. However, in these circumstances, the landlord recognised the needs of the resident and considered and progressed down an alternative route, which saw the resident retain her home while the landlord sought support. In the Ombudsman’s view, this presented as a reasonable exercise of the landlord’s discretion.
Despite the landlord referring the resident for mental health support a number of times between 17 December 2020 and 6 September 2022, there is evidence the resident chose not to engage with the support available which was her prerogative to do. However, when there was a new or significant issue raised it did not make a safeguarding referral. When the landlord was aware the resident was receiving support from a psychiatric nurse it encouraged her to continue with this support.
Due to the amount of correspondence received from the resident the landlord introduced a SPOC to support the resident from 8 February 2021 which was in place throughout the period of the complaint. It also put into place a tenancy sustainment officer (TSO) and the community support team (CST) to visit the resident and continue to support her from March 2021 onwards in her day-to-day life and reporting ASB and repairs issues. This was all appropriate in managing the resident’s contact and supported her in feeling she had access to speak to someone at the landlord.
The landlord introduced professionals’ meetings for the resident from March 2021 which suggests it took her vulnerability seriously. As a result of these meetings the landlord was able to comprehensively discuss and produce an action plan regarding the resident’s intention to commit suicide in July 2022. It also enacted a Community Trigger on 5 August 2021, completing a meeting with the police as part of this in accordance with it ASB Policy. As a result of its multi-agency approach it determined supported accommodation was appropriate to supporting the resident, which is where she moved to by January 2023.
In summary although there is no evidence of the landlord completing risk assessments, there is clear evidence of it supporting the resident throughout her time at the property, through a Community Trigger, installing a SPOC, direct support from its TSO and CST, completing professionals meetings and working towards finding her private and then supported accommodation.

Complaint of 22 April 2021.

Following the resident’s reports of alleged ASB in November 2020 the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy up to 15 December 2020 in providing the resident with ASB diary logs to return and complete and confirmed with the police the resident had not made a report to them. It determined at this point the resident’s reports were not ASB but there is no evidence it informed the resident it had come to this conclusion or the reasons why.
Although the landlord referred the resident for safeguarding from 17 December 2020 there is no evidence it supported her with addressing the alleged ASB in accordance with its ASB policy. The resident reported on 18 December 2020 she felt “scared and intimidated.” On 22 December 2020, a mental health practitioner from the NHS asked the landlord to act on any ongoing ASB investigation to help her feel safe. There is no evidence of the landlord having taken further action despite this information to make the resident feel safe and failed in its ‘support first’ approach in its ASB policy.
The landlord did not begin investigating the resident’s reports until 16 January 2021. An ASB officer attempted to discuss the issues with her on 27 January 2021, but she declined. An ASB officer visited her on 12 February 2021 and discussed a number of things but not her reports of ASB. This was an opportune time to investigate the reports and consider taking further action or explain to the resident why it could not. As it did not the matter remained unresolved, and the resident continued to send a considerable number of emails on the matter. Providing an intervention at this stage would have been beneficial to both the resident and landlord as it had the opportunity to provide the resident with a determination it could later refer to.
The resident reported to the landlord she had received death threats from her neighbour verbally on 16 January and through social media on 9 July 2021. She told it the police had looked at the evidence. She reported feeling like she was “waiting for something bad to happen, had no sleep, her hair was falling out and was having chest pains.” It did not follow its Victims Code in its ASB Policy when either report was made, as there is no evidence of it contacting the resident to signpost her to support services.
The resident reported to the landlord her neighbour was responsible for growing or selling drugs on 23 February, 8 August, and 17 September 2021. The ASB policy does not determine what action is appropriate when drug dealing is being reported, but it does have a “zero tolerance approach to organised crime.” Despite having a ‘zero tolerance approach’ the first evidence the landlord investigated this was 17 September 2021, equivalent to 207 days from the date the resident first reported it. There is no evidence the resident informed the resident of this outcome which allowed the issue to remain of concern to the resident causing distress to her.
The landlord confirmed in its stage one complaint response of 6 May 2021 it had investigated all alleged ASB incidents thoroughly and could find no supporting evidence for her reports. As such it said it was unable to take any further action under its ASB procedure. The landlord’s response should have been more detailed including why it had earlier determined her reports were not ASB. It should have also provided information on how to report ASB and what it could do to support her moving forward, for reassurance to the resident.
From the 12 February 2021the landlord reported the resident chose not to engage with the landlord’s ASB officer which impacted on its ability to investigate the reports made by the resident. The resident started engaging with the landlord from 21 June 2022 and provided the landlord with completed ASB diary logs it gave to her in November 2020. Although it had informed her in its reply of 6 May 2021 it had investigated all the ASB incidents reported, there is no evidence it went on to consider the logs and re-examine its earlier findings.
Furthermore, the landlord’s response of 6 May 2021 failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the treatment of a former resident at the property by the neighbour. In accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) the landlord would not have been able to discuss a former tenant. It should have explained this to her, so she could understand its reasoning. Its failure to do so left the issue open and of concern to the resident.
The landlord’s internal notes confirm when it visited the resident’s property on 12 August 2021 it was able to clearly hear day to day noise from the neighbour, including a telephone call that was taking place. This was despite the resident’s windows being closed. The landlord failed to consider whether noise transference was impacting on the resident’s reports of alleged ASB, including her neighbour banging on the walls and hearing her telephone calls. This Service has not seen if it has a specific policy for addressing a report of noise transference. The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on: Noise Complaints’ provides information and guidance for neighbourhood management of reports which could be treated as noise transference.
There is no evidence of the landlord working proactively to manage the neighbour dispute. It would have been reasonable for example for the landlord to consider other options outlined in its ASB policy such as an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) or mediation. Such actions often act to diffuse tension between parties and prevent further escalation as they can enable parties to consider their own behaviours and the perspectives of their neighbours.

Complaint of 7 July 2022.

The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s reports of stalking, harassment and her neighbour saying they would break into her property. This included the landlord viewing a significant amount of CCTV videos provided by the resident and following up on two notable incidents with the police for further investigation.
The resident reported to this Service on 15 July 2022 her neighbour had a party on 14 July 2022 and had threatened to break into her property. In its response of 16 August 2022, the landlord decided to take no further action as the resident had not reported this to it or the police. This was not sufficient, and it failed to investigate this issue independently with the resident or neighbour or support her in reporting the issue to the police.
The landlord acted appropriately in raising a ‘community trigger’ on 5 August 2022 in accordance with its ASB policy and met with the police to discuss the reports and support moving forward. It provided her with an explanation of this in its complaint responses of 16 August and 29 September 2022 and urged her to report any serious incidents to the police. It also sufficiently explained to the resident it was unable to investigate alleged hacking of the resident’s phone or wi-fi and this would be a matter for the police.
In its final response of 29 September 2022, the landlord sufficiently addressed the residents’ concerns about her new neighbour being an associate of her former neighbour. It told her this was highly improbable as housing allocation was based on individual needs and not relationship to previous residents.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the difficulties experienced by the landlord in the amount of correspondence received. It was supportive in managing the resident’s vulnerability and liaised with the police when relevant on most reports from the resident. This Service has not seen a thorough investigation of the resident’s ASB reports back in 2020/2021, nor appropriate steps taken to resolve the matter or stop it from further escalation such as noise transference reduction measures, mediation, or behaviour agreements. The landlord failed to implement its ASB policy in completing risk assessments and “putting victims first” in this regard. Had it done so it could have considered appropriate victim support to the resident.
As such the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged ASB. Compensation of £200 has been awarded for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord to the resident. However, it must be noted a different approach by the landlord may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. This figure is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure. A recommendation for staff training on this has also been made below.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of her property.

For the period December 2020 to September 2022 there is evidence the resident believed she had a valid NTQ to leave the property and her departure was imminent. As such there is evidence throughout the period, of her reporting repair issues and then cancelling or refusing appointments. She states on a number of occasions that she “does not want better conditions for a new tenant” in the property.
In accordance with the Housing Act 1996 the landlord extended the resident’s introductory tenancy by 6 months as she failed to meet the terms of her tenancy agreement which included not taking good care of her home. It informed her of the extension within 8 weeks of her tenancy ending in accordance with the Housing Act.
The resident reported numerous issues in her property through the period November 2020 to September 2022, which have been summarised under separate headings below for ease of reading.

Complaint of 22 April 2021.

Cleaning of urine on resident’s back door.

The landlord was delayed in responding to the resident’s report of 19 December 2020 of urine against her back door. The resident raised this a further 5 times, but the landlord did not respond until 7 and 9 April 2021. The delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident whilst the issue remained of concern to her. On 7 and 9 April 2021 it told her it would complete a deep clean of the property at its own expense, which was reasonable.
The resident told the landlord it was not her problem and refused cleaning. As cleaning of the property is the resident’s responsibility under the Tenant Handbook it was not unreasonable for the landlord to take no further action.

Energy rating and high fuel costs.

In its response of 6 May 2021, the landlord signposted the resident to further support from its Welfare Support Team and Community Support Teams for help with fuel costs. However, given the customer’s health it may have been appropriate for the landlord to make these referrals itself and directly support the resident.
In its response of 6 May 2021, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the energy rating for her property which made her feel she was not being listened to.
The resident raised an escalation request on 18 May 2021 telling the landlord her property was an ‘E’ rating. This Service has not seen evidence of the assessed energy rating. However, in accordance with the Domestic Minimum Energy Efficient Standards (MEES) properties can be let if they have a minimum E energy rating. At the time there were no statutory requirements for the landlord to conduct any recommended energy efficient measures at the property.

Broken doors and window.

The resident reported disrepair to her front door on 6 January 2021, to her back door on 4 March 2021 and to her window on 30 March 2021. The landlord was delayed in considering all issues until 7 April 2021 where it reported them to its external provider and asked for permission to complete the repairs. As the resident failed to respond it took no further action.
The resident told the landlord her door was still broken on 4 May 2021 and the following day it told her it had tried to arrange numerous tradespeople to attend her property, but they were not allowed access, or she was not in. Although this may be true, this Service has seen no evidence of this.
The landlord attempted a further repair of the back door on 19 August 2021, but the resident refused the appointment as she believed the contractor who initially investigated was “lying.” The resident did not raise the repairs to her door with the landlord again following this, but it did inform her on 16 August 2022 she had cancelled its previous attempts to investigate and repair both doors and the window in 2021. It explained to her how to raise the repair issue again.
The ‘Tenancy Handbook’ classes boarding of a window as an emergency repair with a temporary fix being completed within 4 to 24 hours. It is therefore alarming that it took no further action for such a long period after 7 April 2021, to make any repair to the window. The resident had raised the issue on in her escalation request of 18 May 2021 and again on 20 May 2022.
The landlord had the opportunity to take legal steps to gain entry to complete the repair if the resident was insistent, she would not allow it to be completed, but there is no evidence it considered this. The resident was left in an unsafe condition throughout this time period which caused distress and inconvenience to her. However, it must be noted, that the resident’s unwillingness to allow the landlord to access her property was a significant mitigating factor to it addressing the window issue.

Rubbish in the garden.

The landlord was delayed in responding to the resident’s report of 12 December 2020 that she had rubbish in her garden. It first told her on 7 April 2021 it would attend the following day to remove the rubbish. By this point the resident had raised the issue a further 6 times. There is no evidence which shows the resident’s garden was cleared the following day as it had stated.
The landlord told the resident on 6 May 2021 when it had inspected her garden it had been clean and clear on each occasion. It did not clarify when it had visited or explained why it had not spoken to her about the issue between 12 December 2020 and 6 May 2021, which would have been appropriate to do as the resident continued to raise the issue.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord arranged for its contractor to visit the property to remove the rubbish which is counter to what it told her on 6 May 2021. The resident chose to cancel this appointment on 2 July 2021 stating she was moving out.
Following this the resident reported the issue one more time, on 7 September 2022 she asked for it to remove the rubbish. There is no evidence at either of these points that the landlord spoke with her about removal which caused the issue to remain of concern to the resident.
It is unknown if there was rubbish present in the resident’s garden and how long for as the reports from the landlord and resident are unclear or contradictory. The landlord was unable to resolve the issue up to 2 July 2021 as the resident would not allow it access to do so. However, from this date onwards it failed to respond to further reports from the resident to address the issue.

Radiators condition and size of property and garden.

In her complaint of 22 April 2021, the resident raised concerns about the age and condition of the radiators and that the size of the property and that the garden was too big for the resident to manage with her disability. There is no evidence the landlord addressed either of these points with the resident in discussion with her or in its complaint responses. It should have done so, and the unresolved issues remained a concern for the resident.

Escalation request of 18 May 2021.

The resident escalated her complaint about the condition of the property on 18 May 2021 and this Service supported her in obtaining a response from the landlord. The landlord did not provide its response until 27 January 2021 and its response failed to address concerns raised about an insect infestation at the property.
The resident had initially reported an “insect infestation” on 6 April 2021. The landlord responded quickly, asking her twice the following day if it could arrange for pest control to attend at the property. In accordance with the ‘Tenancy Handbook’ pest control is the responsibility of the resident in the property, as such the landlord’s response showed discretion to go beyond its responsibilities and it offered to attend anyway. The resident failed to respond to the landlord’s offer of support despite it asking twice and therefore it took no further action.
She raised the issue of insects again on 18 May 2021 and 3 August 2021 however at these points the landlord did not offer to arrange pest control which was appropriate as under the Tenant Handbook pest control was the resident’s responsibility. However, it was unreasonable in not advising the resident that this was her responsibility or referring her to the Tenant Handbook for further information.

Complaint of 7 July 2022.

Damp and mould.

The resident reported the smell of damp in her property on 4 May, 18 May, and 3 August 2021. The evidence shows an external contractor visited the property on 12 August 2021 and determined damp was due to the gutter being filled with vegetation. The landlord arranged a repair for 6 September 2021, but the resident cancelled this on 19 August 2021 as she felt the contractor was “lying.” The landlord attempted to attend the property to fix the gutter on 25 February 2022, but the resident cancelled the appointment stating the work was not required.
In its complaint response of 16 August 2022, the landlord explained to the resident how to re-raise the repair she had cancelled on 25 February 2022 if she felt there was still an issue with damp and mould. The landlord had a duty of care to the resident considering she had respiratory issues. It could have considered a more proactive approach at this point to investigate the presence of damp and mould in the property by any means available to it.
It also had the opportunity to take a more proactive approach when the resident was in hospital indefinitely from 6 October 2022 and rejected its approach to access the property. This was despite the resident denying she had ever reported there was mould in the property.
There were significant mitigating factors to the landlord taking any action including the resident’s refusal to allow access to her property and her absences from the property whilst in hospital. The landlord had the opportunity to take legal steps to gain entry to investigate the issue and take any respective action but did not do so.

Repairs to doors and windows.

In its complaint response of 16 August 2022, the landlord told the resident she had cancelled its previous attempts to investigate and repair both doors and the window in 2021. It explained to her how to raise the repair issue again.
The ‘Tenancy Handbook’ classes boarding of a window as an emergency repair with it completing a temporary fix within 4 to 24 hours. The damage to the resident’s window was present from 30 March 2021. It is therefore alarming that it took no further action for such a long period to make any repair to the window. The landlord had the opportunity to force entry to complete the repair if the resident was insistent she would not allow it to be completed.
In summary in the opinion of the Ombudsman there has been service failure in the landlord’s response to repairs. It is acknowledged that there were significant mitigating factors in the landlord’s attempts to investigate and address repair issues at the property, principally the resident’s refusal to allow the landlord access. However, there was evidence of delays in completing repairs and insufficient evidence that it went beyond its normal repairs service for a very vulnerable tenant to ensure that the property was in a suitable condition. As such compensation of £200 has been awarded to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. This figure is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaints and Compliments Policy confirms the following:
1. It will acknowledge stage one complaints in 5 working days. There is no timescale in the policy for acknowledging stage two complaints.
2. It will respond to both stage one and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
3. Escalation requests will be investigated and if the decision remains the same it will confirm its stage one complaint response as its final decision. When this happens, the resident has the right to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Complaint of 22 April 2021.

From the evidence provided it is unclear when the resident first raised a complaint with the landlord, but the landlords’ notes confirm it called her on 16 December 2020 to discuss her complaint. It was delayed in following this up, up to 27 January 2021 where it visited the resident, but she was unwilling to discuss the complaint. It acted appropriately in writing to her on 2 February 2021 to request further information about her complaint and that it would close the complaint if she did not respond by 15 February 2021.
The landlord closed the resident’s complaint on 15 February 2021 stating she had failed to engage during a visit on 12 February 2021 and there was no further contact from her. This decision was incorrect for the following reasons:
1. There was a considerable number of emails from the resident to the landlord in which she clarified the details of her ASB complaint between 2 and 15 February 2021.
2. The landlord stated the resident failed to engage when it attended at her property on 12 February 2021. However, its internal records show its ASB officer did in fact attend at the resident’s property and spoke with her about a number of matters.
3. The incorrect closure of the resident’s complaint significantly delayed the resident receiving a response to her concerns at the earliest possible opportunity.
The resident was frustrated with the lack of response from the landlord to her concerns of 22 April 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman on 4 May 2021. This Service asked the landlord to provide her with a response within 10 working days, confirming to it all the concerns raised by the resident. The landlord responded to the resident on 6 May 2021. The reply took 10 working days to provide which was within its Complaints and Compliments Policy for reply. Although the landlord provided its response within the correct timescale, it is unknown if it would have completed this without this Service’s intervention.
The resident raised an escalation of her complaints of 22/23 April 2021 on 18 May 2021, and it can be concluded the landlord only provided a stage 2 complaint response to the complaint of 23 April 2021. This was because the landlord only referred to the resident’s issues with her former property and not the different issues she raised on 22 April 2022. If the landlord was referring to both complaints at this point it should have made this clear to the resident.
The resident frustrated with the landlord’s lack of response contact the Ombudsman on 24 November 2021 stating her concerns remained unresolved. This Service asked the landlord on 24 November 2021 to reply to the resident within 5 working days. It did not do so, so this Service sent a final request for action on 5 January 2022 asking it to respond by 17 January 2022.
The landlord provided its response on 27 January 2022. The response took 255 days from the resident’s initial escalation request which far exceeded the 20-day timescale for response in its Complaints Policy. Furthermore, the Ombudsman expects landlords to use its multistage complaints process to address issues raised. It did not do so in its response of 27 January 2022, only stating the resident had raised nothing new. Had it investigated here it may have identified and put right some of the issues assessed previously in this report.

Complaint of 7 July 2022.

On 7 July 2022, the resident raised concerns with the landlord that her ASB concerns were escalating. She contacted the Ombudsman on 15 July 2022 when the landlord had not responded. On 4 August 2022, this Service asked the landlord to reply by 18 August 2022. It provided a stage one complaint response on 16 August 2022 which was equivalent to 29 working days, outside of the 20 working days in its policy. The delay between 7 July to 16 August 2022 caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. It affected the landlord/resident relationship and gave the resident the impression she was not being listened to.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 September 2022. She contacted the Ombudsman on 15 September 2022 when she had not received a response. This Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident by 30 September 2022. It provided its stage two complaint response on 29 September 2022. This was equivalent to 15 working days which was within the landlord’s timescale for response. However, it is unknown if it would have met this timescale without intervention from this Service.
The landlord failed to reference any of the above delays in any of its correspondence with the resident. It should have done this at each point in which it reviewed the resident’s complaint, apologised, learnt from it, and considered offering compensation to the resident.
Overall, although the significant amount of correspondence from the resident in 2021 and 2022 was a mitigating factor, there were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. It failed to effectively communicate with the resident at the earliest opportunity. There were delays in responding to the resident and she asked this Service to support her obtaining a response from the landlord a number of times, which contributed to her distress over a considerable amount of time. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy or acknowledge, learn from, or apologise for the unnecessary delay it caused to the resident.
As such this Service finds there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. To reflect the resident’s inconvenience and distress due to the landlord’s failures, £200 compensation has been awarded.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There is clear evidence the landlord was proactive in managing the resident’s vulnerability. However, its failed to meet its ASB policy in responding to the resident’s reports of alleged ASB and failed to demonstrate that it took a victim centred approach. Given the nature and the intensity of the neighbours’ reports it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the police investigation. However, it had not demonstrated that it was proactive in trying to resolve the issues and looking at other options such as mediation or noise transference reduction in its ASB Policy.
The landlord attempted to enact its Repairs Policy when the resident reported issues with her property on most occasions. However, it was delayed in doing so either through its own failure or through the resident denying it access to attend. It had a duty to attend at the property in accordance with its Repairs Policy, but it is acknowledged it was exceedingly difficult for it do so. The landlord failed to treat an emergency repair as such. In doing so it gave no consideration for the detriment failing to complete the repair would cause to the resident.
This Service identified failures of the landlord to follow clear process, additionally, to the failures related to delays in escalation and communication, which the landlord identified in its complaint handling follow up response. Its failure to provide complaint response without instigation from this Service cause confusion as to the positioning of the resident’s complaint in the process. This had raised some valid concerns in the resident about the landlord’s treatment being unfair.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £600 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the delays and ineffective handling of her reports of alleged ASB.
  2. £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the delays and inappropriate handling of her reports of repairs.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord for its unreasonable complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide further training to its staff about how best to follow its ASB policy in complex cases like this when the police are involved, but no further legal action is taking place.
The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are informed where there is likely to be a delay in issuing a complaint response, that each aspect of a complaint is addressed, responses clearly detail where service failures have occurred and there are mechanisms in place to establish points of learning from the complaint.