Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202103364)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103364

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

25 October 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 request to be rehoused.
2. The resident’s request for tree pruning.
3. The resident’s reports of repairs required to a wall.
4. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling and management of the resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom property let under an assured tenancy by a registered provider of social housing in 2007.
The landlord recorded the household as having disabilities related to mobility, respiratory issues, and mental health.
The resident lived next door to a privately-owned property that is not owned or managed by the landlord and was sublet to different occupants at different times.
The landlord administers access to a local authority choice based letting rehousing scheme via an online database called Locata. Locata operates using the local authority’s banding system which categorises applicants based upon their personal circumstances and housing need. Rehousing applicants bid on advertised property and are prioritised based upon their position on the rehousing list.
The resident was initially categorised as band B due to the medical needs of her household but was moved into band A when she decided she wanted to downsize to a smaller property. Downsizing to a smaller property attracted a greater priority on the waiting list than the household’s assessed medical needs.
The choice-based lettings scheme and the associated eligibility and banding procedures are administered by the local authority. As such any complaint about these matters is outside the scope of this investigation and would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The landlord identified that the local authority had registered a tree preservation order (TPO) on a tree located at the property. Owners of protected trees must not carry out, or cause or permit the carrying out of, any of the prohibited activities (listed as cutting down, topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damage, and destruction) without obtaining the written consent of the local authority.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It is committed to tackling anti-social behaviour (ASB) in a responsive, proportionate, and robust manner.
2. Where the Police are involved with a case, it will make use of the local information sharing protocols by requesting and sharing data with them (the local officer should use the Police disclosure request form).
3. On receiving a report of ASB, it contacts the complainant within 1 working day and offers to visit them within 5 working days. The initial response is to investigate and monitor any risk. If a crime has been committed, it would advise the complainant to contact the police.
4. In determining the seriousness of the ASB and what the proportionate action for resolving it would be, it would consider the nature of the ASB, the frequency of incidents and the impact that the behaviour is having on the complainant and the wider community.
5. It adopts a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB and offers the police and the local authority support when they are able to take action.
6. After a report of ASB has been investigated, it is drawn to a close.
The landlord’s repairs policy says:
1. Residents will be informed about progress with their repairs through an agreed channel convenient to them including telephone, text messaging and email.
2. The landlord is responsible for outside walls and garden walls.
The landlord’s complaint procedure 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 a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy states:
1. It will consider financial compensation where it has failed to follow its published policies or there have been unreasonable delays against its service standards.
2. It may offer a discretionary goodwill gesture to acknowledge that there has been a service failure.
3. Where distress or inconvenience is experienced following a service failure the landlord can make a discretionary payment of up to £250.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code says:
1. Under paragraph 4.1, when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt.
2. Under paragraph 5.1, landlords must respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
3. Under paragraph 5.3, landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
4. 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 decision of the complaint.
  3. Details of how to escalate the matter if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
5. 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

A ‘transfer binding form’ was completed on 19 December 2017 that categorised the resident as ‘underoccupied’. The landlord sent a letter to the resident the same day that confirmed she would be entitled to a 2-bedroom property as a band A transfer applicant.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 January 2019 to make a suitable offer of accommodation containing a ‘through-floor’ lift. The resident viewed the property and declined the offer on 28 January 2019.
The landlord raised a works order on 20 January 2021 for a quote to be provided to remove a tree that looked like it was going to fall down.
The landlord visited the property on 21 January 2021 to assess a wall repair. The contractor recommended it was taken down and rebuilt. A follow-on repair was raised for a quote to be provided on an undisclosed date. The works order was rejected, and the works order was later closed on an undisclosed date.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 8 March 2021 to provide information about alternative rehousing options. The email included links to relevant rehousing websites.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 19 March 2021 to enquire about transferring to 2 different areas. The resident said she had been awarded an extra bedroom by the department for work and pensions (DWP). The resident said she was in fear as ‘2 strange men moved into next door’s garden’ that were ‘scary and intimidating’ and that her family could not sleep at night. The resident also asked the landlord to add her 2 daughters to her household records.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 March 2021 to say:
1. She had been registered as a band A applicant and would need to check for suitable properties and submit bids via her rehousing account.
2. It did not directly offer property to residents.
3. It would update her rehousing profile if the resident provided a DWP letter that confirmed a larger property was required.
4. The resident could apply directly to the local authority for property in the areas she wished to move to if close family had lived in the same borough for longer than 5 years.
5. It could install home security adaptations in the resident’s home, so she felt more secure at her address.
6. It was not illegal for neighbouring tenants to change, but if she saw illegal activity she should report it to the police.
The landlord raised a works order to repair the external wall on 23 March 2021, but it was not allocated and was subsequently closed. The landlord noted the wall repair remained outstanding 16 months later, in an email it sent to this Service on 30 August 2022.
The resident phoned the landlord on 13 April 2021 to report issues with her neighbours. The resident expressed a need to move home due to her husband’s medical needs. The landlord advised it would help her in line with its transfer procedures.
The resident sent a text to the landlord on 16 April 2021 that said she was concerned about her family as they were waiting for a suitable offer of accommodation and were at risk. The resident said her abusive neighbours and their subletting tenants were very intimidating and had been making her husband very unwell and anxious.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 21 April 2021 to confirm that when a suitable property became available it would put their names forward first.
The landlord held a conversation with the resident on 23 April 2021 to discuss her rehousing status, the process for arranging a reciprocal move with another landlord and her concerns about her neighbours. The landlord texted the resident later the same day to advise that it would send reciprocal requests to the local authorities in the areas she had nominated after the approaching weekend. The landlord also advised that despite there not being an emergency situation, the resident could approach the local authority for rehousing assistance. Further that she should contact the police about her neighbours’ intimidating behaviour. The resident replied to the landlord’s text to advise that she had contacted the police because she had been threatened with a weapon and that the police would have a report.
The resident provided an incident summary to this Service which confirmed she had reported subletting of the garden shed in the neighbouring property. It is not clear when this was reported or to whom it was reported, but the resident confirmed the police had become involved in the matter on 23 April 2021. This resulted in ‘hoodies and illegal immigrants’ scaring the resident and her daughter who could not attend college. The resident also advised this Service that her husband had been spat at, called obscene names and that the neighbour had exposed himself to her daughter and had spat on the car. The resident captured images on CCTV but did not pursue prosecution due to concerns she had about ‘dangerous intimidating Romanian people.’
The landlord texted the resident on 27 April 2021 to advise it required supporting information about her need for an extra bedroom before it could send a reciprocal move request to other local authorities. The resident replied to the landlord later the same day with advice about her property preferences. The resident said she required either a 2-bedroom, or a 3-bedroom property with a downstairs room for her husband. The landlord subsequently explained that a 2-bed property with a spare room would be classified as a 3-bed property but agreed to send the reciprocal requests based upon the advice it had received. The landlord asked the resident to chase the police for a risk assessment, or a police report. Alternatively, to provide crime reference numbers for the landlord to request this information on her behalf via a third-party access request. The resident said the landlord was asking too much of her and asked the landlord to call the police.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord submitted 4 reciprocal rehousing requests to 4 local authorities that had been chosen by the resident.
The resident texted a crime reference number to the landlord on 5 May 2021.
The resident texted the landlord on 6 May 2021 to say she was not eligible to bid on a 3-bed property she had identified. The resident asked the landlord to sort the matter out because she needed the property desperately. The landlord raised the matter with a team coordinator and subsequently explained to the resident that she could not bid on the 3-bed property because she had been registered to downsize to a 2-bed property.
The landlord provided 2 crime reference numbers to the police on 7 May 2021 with a request for a police report. The landlord also requested a risk assessment from the police to clarify whether the household was in immediate danger from their neighbours.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord via its online portal on 10 May 2021. The resident said:
1. She had been neglected and told lies by 2 named staff members, who had “disgusting behaviour.”
2. She would sue for the neglect of a disabled person.
3. The 2 “horrible, rude imposters” caused more damage to health than ever before.
4. The landlord had deliberately removed her bidding account so she could not bid.
5. She wanted help to transfer as she had been a priority for 4 years.
6. A disabled man was sleeping on the floor.
7. The Police had been involved.
8. There had been neglect by the landlord.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 May 2021 to explain that 2 of the reciprocal rehousing requests had been declined by the local authorities.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 May 2021 to say she had been advised she could not add her daughters to her household record because 1 daughter did not live with her, and the other daughter was approaching 18. The resident asked the landlord to explain this further.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 May 2021 to say it had wasted her time and efforts and caused more health issues which would be dealt with in due course.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 May 2021 to explain that it would not be possible for her to be registered for a 2-bedroom property and a 3-bedroom property at the same time. The landlord explained that the resident had been moved to band A because she had agreed to downsize, which meant she was registered for a 2-bed property. The landlord further advised that it had received advice that the family required an extra room for her husband’s medical needs and so the household would require a 3-bed property. This would mean their rehousing application would change back to a medical band B as they were no longer downsizing. The landlord advised the resident to confirm if she wanted to add her daughter to the household records and to provide identification for this to progress. The landlord also requested further information about any ongoing ASB or police reports so that this could be reviewed.
The landlord sent an internal email on 26 May 2021 to check the status of the resident’s rehousing account. It was confirmed to be live and unblocked.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 May 2021. The landlord said:
1. It understood the resident’s frustration with her transfer request and was doing all it could to assist within its transfer policy.
2. Demand for transfers was high and many emergency, urgent and non-urgent situations required transfers.
3. A previous offer had been made and declined.
4. It did not often have the types of property the resident wanted in the areas she had chosen within its housing stock.
5. The resident’s rehousing account was live and had not been discontinued, but no bids had been placed for property.
6. The resident could bid for 2-bed property as she was in priority band A for downsizing.
7. The resident should clarify the property size she was looking to move to because her recent request for a 3-bed property contradicted the downsize band she had been placed in.
8. Additional people could not be added to a household record unless they were living at the address and identification for them would be required.
9. Adding household occupants would trigger a banding review.
10. It was the resident’s responsibility to locate a suitable property and bid.
11. Reciprocal requests to other local authorities had been declined because a suitable property had not been available.
12. The police had yet to respond to requests the landlord had sent for information about risks to the family, but advice would be issued about next steps when it was received.
13. There was insufficient evidence of the ASB reports to take further action.
14. It apologised for the resident’s view that her housing officer and another member of staff had “disgusting behaviour, were rude, horrible imposters” and more damage had been caused to the resident’s health than ever before.
15. There was a fair process for managing transfers.
16. “Whilst I understand your frustrations, this does not call for labelling me and judging my character, referring to me as an imposter. I serve my customers with respect, dignity, and professionalism always and as such the same is expected from them. This said, I will not tolerate your unsubstantiated comments and judgements about my character.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 May 2021 in response to its stage 1 complaint response to say it hadn’t listened to her, and she could not login to her rehousing account using her normal sign in information.
The resident emailed the landlord via its online complaint portal on 28 May 2021 to say her complaint and repairs were showing as resolved when none had been. Further that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 ‘and further’.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 June 2021 to ask what issues had not been responded to in the stage 1 complaint response or what she wished to be reviewed at stage 2. The resident replied the same day and said:
1. The previous respondent had plenty to say but it was not relevant to her problems and family situation.
2. She had been told in an online chat her rehousing account had been blocked, and then told it hadn’t.
3. Locata did not recognise her email address.
4. She had too many of her own difficulties without her housing officer giving false information.
5. The matter had gone on for too long and neglect was the most important aspect.
6. She wanted the landlord to look into incomplete repairs to an outside wall, a tree in the garden, emails to and from her housing offer and the police, and her husband’s medical needs.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 7 June 2021 requesting a copy of her daughter’s identification so that she could be added to her household records. The resident replied later the same day confirming she would provide a picture of her passport by email or WhatsApp.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 June 2021 to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint and provided a summary of its understanding of her escalation request.
The landlord emailed the police on 16 June 2021 to chase a response to its previous request for information.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 June 2021 to provide a link and instructions on how to access her rehousing account, along with the account reference number and password information. The landlord explained that all transferring residents had been set up with new rehousing account identification when the landlord completed a stock transfer. Further that this may have caused the access difficulties. The landlord emailed the resident the following day to say it had asked a team coordinator to look into the rehousing account access issue as a system error.
The police emailed the landlord on 22 June 2021 and confirmed it had sent an internal request for information about the ASB and risk assessment to the police safer neighbourhood team on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord sent an internal email on 29 June 2021 to enquire about its previous request for tree works to be completed and the process for this to be progressed. The landlord stated the works had not progressed because a purchase order had not been raised.
The landlord raised a purchase order on 30 June 2021 to complete tree pruning works at the resident’s property. The landlord instructed a tree contractor by email the following day and asked it to set up an appointment with the resident for the work to be completed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2021 to say she was concerned that she had been asked to use different login details to access her rehousing account and had been given incorrect information that meant she missed opportunities. She also asked about the progress of her complaint. The landlord replied to the resident the same day saying it had asked the team coordinator to contact her as the advice it had previously shared had been provided by them. The landlord also said her complaint response was being prepared and all of the communications with the housing officer were being reviewed. The landlord apologised for the delays. The landlord advised the resident the following day that a system error had caused the resident’s rehousing account access difficulties and access had been restored.
The landlord had an internal email exchange on 7 July 2021 about the presence of a TPO and delays it might cause to the tree work. The tree contractor advised it would check for the presence of any TPOs and advise a date when works could be completed. The tree contractor advised it was not advisable to provide a timeframe as dates can ‘go over’ but that it would contact the resident to update her about the expected timescales and agree a date when this was convenient.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 July 2021 to provide a summary of the resident’s transfer application. The email showed the resident to have been registered as having a 3-bed need in medical band B on 28 November 2017 and that this changed to a 2 bed need in underoccupancy band A on 19 December 2017. The email also provided a summary table of suitable properties that the resident could have bid for between April 2017 and June 2021.
The tree contractor emailed the landlord on 8 July 2021 to confirm an appointment had been made with the resident for the tree work to be completed on 16 July 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 August 2021 to advise that her neighbours had moved intimidating lodgers into the home, after the authorities had previously moved them out in April 2021. The resident said she had reported it to the police and asked the landlord to advise the neighbouring landlord. The resident reported that the trees had become overgrown and that the neighbours had put up barriers to block views into the property and were hiding in the house. She said she thought the neighbours were planning to rob her so she could not go out.
The landlord sent an internal email on 16 August 2021, which asked the housing officer to visit the private neighbours during an estate inspection and see if there was an ‘encroachment’ and to check with the police.
The landlord emailed the police on 18 August 2021 to chase for the information it had previously requested about ASB and risk to the resident. The resident emailed the landlord the same day to say she did not think it was a good idea for the housing officer to visit the neighbouring property because it would cause more abuse. The landlord replied to the resident’s email to advise:
1. It would inspect the property the following day and discuss the matter with the resident’s neighbours so as to obtain their landlord’s contact details.
2. It had made a request to ‘track the landlord’ and was waiting to hear back from that service.
3. If the trees sat on neighbouring property the landlord would be unable to complete works to the trees but would speak to the owner of the property for them to complete maintenance works.
4. If the situation was endangering life then it could be reported to the local authority environmental health team.
5. The landlord could not stop the lodgers from living in the neighbouring property but would raise the resident’s concerns with the property owner.
6. The resident should report concerns about being robbed to the police.
The landlord visited the neighbouring property on 19 August 2021 but was unable to make contact with the occupants and so left a calling card.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 August 2021 and asked it to email the details of a suitable alternative property it had offered.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 August 2021 to advise her that a suitable alternative 3-bed property with aids and adaptations would be available to view from 6 September 2021.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 25 August 2021. The landlord summarised the complaint as related to the blocking of the resident’s rehousing account login, a change of banding, outstanding repairs, and the resident’s husband’s medical condition. The response said:
1. The rehousing account matter had been resolved and access had been provided.
2. The landlord’s housing officers did not have access to the rehousing accounts, but team coordinators use the system which was managed by Locata and not the landlord.
3. Banding was changed from a non-emergency management transfer band B to an under occupying transfer band A in December 2019.
4. The housing officer correctly advised that banding would revert to a band B if the resident didn’t downsize.
5. Her husband’s medical needs did not warrant a band A for medical reasons.
6. Occupational health could be contacted to assess the home for aids and adaptations; therefore an immediate rehousing need was not required.
7. Issues with her neighbour did not warrant a change to band A.
8. The crime reference provided related to 1 incident and the responsible police officer could not provide a risk assessment based on it.
9. Further information from the police related to risk had been requested.
10. The request to add a daughter to the household records, and the requirement for an additional room for her husband meant her priority downsizing band A would no longer apply.
11. Clarity was still required regarding the number of bedrooms the resident needed in view of this.
12. Due to the availability of limited level access properties the resident should look for other rehousing options.
13. The resident could submit an updated medical report for her application to be reassessed.
14. Trees within gardens were a tenant responsibility but the landlord had arranged a quote for tree pruning in January 2021.
15. Communication failures had caused delays and works were not completed until July 2021.
16. Advice about a TPO which caused a delay had not been communicated appropriately.
17. A wall repair was raised on 23 March 2021, but was cancelled without reason.
18. It would chase the outstanding repairs with the asset team and clarify what work would be completed at a later date.
19. The housing officer did not block access so as to prevent bidding or provide contradictory advice; the banding was changed in response the resident’s request to downsize, not medical reasons.
20. A new medical assessment would be required for a further rehousing review to be completed.
21. It apologised for its repair handling delays and cancellations.
22. It offered £25 compensation because its stage 1 complaint did not provide escalation information.
23. It offered £75 as compensation for inconvenience and distress.
24. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint.
25. The complaint did not say if it was upheld.
Events that took place after completion of the internal complaint procedure:
1. The resident declined the property that had been offered when she had been told its location because she wanted to move to a different area. The landlord advertised the property.
2. The landlord subsequently emailed the resident to advise that she would be invited to view the property with other applicants, despite previously advising she did not want to move to the property in the area.
3. The landlord withdrew the offer of accommodation on 11 October 2021 when the resident implied it was not what she liked and asked if the adaptations could be removed, and the kitchen worktop raised. The landlord advised this was not possible because the property had been especially adapted for disabled occupants.
4. The landlord completed additional garden maintenance works on 2 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

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

The landlord changed the resident’s rehousing application band from a medical band B to an downsize band A in December 2017. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day to explain that this meant the resident had gained increased priority on the waiting list and could bid on 2-bed properties. The resident received an offer of accommodation in January 2019 suggesting her application had been active and was managed appropriately such that she could be linked to suitable 2-bed property as it became available.
The landlord emailed information about alternative rehousing options that were available to the resident on 8 March 2021. The email included links to the relevant websites. This was an informative approach for the landlord to take to raise awareness of the resident’s alternative rehousing opportunities.
The landlord responded to a rehousing enquiry it had received from the resident on 19 March 2021 promptly, within 1 working day of her enquiry. The landlord’s response was provided within an appropriate timescale. The landlord restated advice it had previously provided so as to explain that the resident could bid on 2-bed properties due to her decision to downsize to smaller accommodation. The landlord also asked the resident to provide a letter from the DWP that had said she was entitled to an extra room, for it to update her application. Providing up to date information to the resident about her application, as well as a requesting a copy of the DWP letter as evidence of its decision was appropriate advice for the landlord to provide.
The landlord offered to assist the resident with obtaining alternative accommodation in a different local authority via a ‘reciprocal rehousing arrangement’ in April 2021. This assistance was offered in response to concerns the resident had raised about her neighbours. The landlord issued reciprocal rehousing requests to 4 local authorities within 1 working day of the resident choosing the area. This was a solution focused approach for the landlord to take to assist the resident with locating alternative accommodation.
The resident alerted the landlord to an expectation that she could bid on 3-bed properties in May 2021 when she advised it she had been unable to bid on a 3-bed property that had been advertised. It was understandable for the resident to have thought she could bid on 3-bedroom properties because of the advice she had previously received from the DWP. The landlord subsequently reviewed the resident’s rehousing application and advised her that she had been registered to bid for 2-bed properties only due to her previous request to downsize. This was appropriate advice for the landlord to provide, but it did not address the resident’s understanding that she could and would not be able to bid on 3-bed properties while she was registered as a band A applicant. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have reconfirmed the resident’s understanding of her rehousing status and banding in view of this.
The landlord readdressed the resident’s rehousing circumstances again in its stage 1 complaint response 2 weeks later in which it clearly explained she was eligible to bid on 2-bed properties. The landlord took the opportunity to provide additional information about the availability of housing stock and the level of demand there was for alternative accommodation. Furthermore, the landlord provided information about adding household occupants to the household details it retained so as to manage the resident’s expectations of the likelihood of her locating suitable alternative accommodation.
The resident advised the landlord that she had been told conflicting information about how to add household members to her rehousing application and whether her rehousing account had been blocked. She explained this information had been provided by different staff members at different times. It was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it provided accurate information about these matters clearly. It was therefore inappropriate misleading information to have been provided and this caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing the correct information.
The landlord made significant attempts to understand the difficulties the resident experienced with accessing her rehousing account which she had reported in May 2021. However, the landlord’s assumption that the problem related to the size of property the resident could bid on prevented it from realising that the resident’s account had been impacted by a wider system error that prevented access. This caused inconvenience and distress to the resident who had to repeat the log in difficulties she had experienced before the landlord investigated further.
It was reasonable for the landlord to escalate its investigation into the access problem with the relevant rehousing database staff for the matter to be addressed. The landlord appropriately identified the cause of the problem and supplied the resident with new sign in details which was a reasonable response for the landlord to take. However the matter took 2 months to address in full during which the resident was unable to access her account. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to diagnose and remedy the system error which would have caused further inconvenience to the resident.
The resident reported her rehousing and account access concerns again in her stage 2 complaint which the landlord responded to with empathy and by providing further detailed information. The landlord took the opportunity to review the resident’s application and explain the resident’s rehousing band, status, and requirements for adding household occupants. The landlord explained that the resident’s access to her account had not been blocked in any deliberate way. Furthermore that the advice she had been previously provided with in the stage 1 complaint had been correct. The landlord asked the resident to clarify whether she wished to be registered for a 2-bed property or a 3-bed property for her application to be correctly registered. It was appropriate for the landlord to have provided the level of detailed information it supplied in response to the resident’s repeated concerns.
There was a delay in resolving the access difficulties the resident experienced when signing into her rehousing account, but this was identified to be a system error and did not affect the resident’s rehousing application beyond her access to it. Furthermore there was a misunderstanding about the size of property that the resident could bid for which the landlord had addressed in 7 different communications over a 4-month period. The landlord provided clear information to the resident about her rehousing application and banding throughout the case. It responded to her enquiries promptly and with a solution focussed approach. Taking all matters into consideration this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for tree pruning.

It is not clear to this Service when a request to carry out work to a tree at the property had initially been raised, but the landlord raised a works order on 20 January 2021 for a repair quote to be obtained. The landlord was not responsible for garden repairs and maintenance. The landlord’s decision therefore to carry out work to the tree was reasonable and resolution focussed.
It is unclear to this Service what action the landlord had taken between requesting a quote for the work in January 2021 and the resident reporting the outstanding tree work in her complaint of 1 June 2021, 6 months later. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to progress works and/or to update the resident about the when the tree works would be completed..
The landlord sent 2 internal emails in June 2021 to enquire about the progress of the tree works. This resulted in the landlord explaining that the works had not been progressed because it had not raised a purchase order. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have raised a purchase order to progress the tree work sooner.
The landlord had an internal email exchange on 7 July 2021 about the presence of a tree preservation order (TPO). This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord had an awareness of the TPO prior to raising a purchase order and subsequently assigning the works to a tree contractor. This Service would expect the landlord to have held robust records of the locations of TPOs in its housing stock. Notwithstanding the tree contractor advised it would complete appropriate checks to determine the presence of an active TPO on behalf of the landlord and then advise when the tree works could start.
The landlord asked the tree contractor to advise the resident about the TPO and the likelihood of delays in an email it sent on 7 July 2021. The tree specialist indicated that it would advise the resident when it could proceed with works but that providing timeframes was not advisable. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to take given it had become aware that of the TPO and that it would require permission from the local authority before it could proceed with completing the tree works.
The tree contractor sent an email to the landlord on 8 July 2021 to advise it had set up an appointment with the resident for tree works to begin on 16 July 2021. It is not clear to this Service when the relevant permission had been obtained. Notwithstanding, the landlord advised this Service that it completed the tree work in July 2021, and identified further garden works which it later completed in December 2021.
It is accepted that the landlord was required to respond to the requirements of the TPO and that this might cause some delays. However it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have checked for the presence of a TPO itself prior to instructing the contractor to complete the works. The landlord recognised the impact of the delay and its communication failings in its stage 2 response and offered the resident £75 as compensation for inconvenience and distress. This was an appropriate decision for the landlord to make, although this Service considers the compensation it offered was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the time taken for the landlord to complete the works and an increased compensation offer is therefore ordered below. Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for tree pruning.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to a wall.

The landlord visited the property on 21 January 2021 and recommended a damaged external wall be taken down and rebuilt. The landlord recognised the wall was its responsibility to repair, but subsequently raised a further repair order on 23 March 2021 for the wall to be reassessed by its asset team. It is unclear why the landlord was required to reassess a wall it had already inspected and for which it had taken photographs. Notwithstanding, whilst the landlord’s repairs policy does not provide explicit timescales for the completion of this type of repair 2 months was an unreasonable time for the landlord to take to raise the further works order to progress the repair.
The landlord failed to allocate the second repair order it had raised in March 2021, and this resulted in the works order being closed before the wall was repaired. This was an inappropriate handling of a repair the landlord had previously recognised it was responsible for.
The landlord noted in its stage 2 complaint response that it had not recorded why it had cancelled the works order. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have recorded the reasons for its actions so as to retain a clear audit of its decisions.
The landlord advised this Service in an email it sent on 30 August 2022 that the wall repair remained outstanding 16 months after it had originally assessed it. This was unreasonable. Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to a wall.

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

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.
The resident emailed the landlord in March 2021 to report that ‘2 strange men’ had moved into the neighbour’s garden and that she was in fear because they were ‘scary and intimidating.’ The landlord responded to the resident the next working day to advise the resident to report the matter to the police. This was appropriate advice to provide which aligned with its ASB policy.
The landlord offered to install security adaptations in the resident’s home so that she felt more secure at her address. It is not clear to this Service if the offer was accepted and/or what adaptations were installed but this was an appropriate response for the landlord to take within a timescale that was in line with its ASB policy.
The resident reported further concerns about her neighbours in communications she had with the landlord on 13 and 16 April 2021 and requested rehousing based upon her husband’s medical needs. The landlord acknowledged that the matters had caused the resident’s husband to be unwell and anxious and suggested it would offer assistance in line with its transfer procedures. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to take which demonstrated empathy towards the resident’s experiences.
The landlord advised the resident that she should report her concerns to the police again, 5 working days later on 23 April 2021. Restating the advice it had previously provided was an appropriate response for the landlord to take given the landlord did not own or manage the neighbouring property and therefore could not rely on an occupancy agreement to intervene. Furthermore, the incidents reported were of a criminal nature and so it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to the police to investigate.
The resident explained to this Service that she had not wished to pursue prosecution due to personal concerns she had about retaliation. It is understandable that living next door would have exacerbated the resident’s concern and increased the concern of the family who had been spat at, abused, and exposed to inappropriate behaviour. The landlord offered to contact the police itself to obtain information and ensure the matters were being addressed within 2 working days of the resident confirming she had reported the matter. This was an appropriate decision for the landlord to take to verify the incidents and understand the impact on the resident.
The landlord issued a third-party information request to the police within 48 hours of receiving 2 crime reference numbers from the resident. This was in line with its ASB policy and therefore appropriate and was completed within a reasonable timescale. However, the landlord had waited for the resident to provide the crime reference number(s) which resulted in the request being submitted to the police 10 days after the resident had reported the criminal incident. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have requested the information from the police sooner so as to understand the potential risk to the resident’s family.
The landlord chased the police for information related to the third-party disclosure request it had submitted 3 times between May and August 2021. Reapproaching the police for the information was an appropriate response for the landlord to take, but 3 months was an unreasonable time to wait to obtain the information. Given the resident’s circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have escalated its request for the information in line with the information sharing protocols it referenced in its ASB policy.
It is not clear to this Service in what form the police provided information to the landlord following its third-party disclosure request. However the landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that the crime reference numbers provided had related to 1 incident only and that the involved police officer could not provide a risk assessment as a result. Sharing the advice the landlord had been provided by the police was an appropriate decision for the landlord to take in response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord visited the neighbouring property in August 2021 to assess the obstructions caused by overgrown trees and shrubs and to contact the occupants to obtain the private landlord’s contact details. Inspecting the garden was a reasonable decision for the landlord to take in response to the resident’s concerns. However, the resident had expressed concerns about the possibility of ‘more abuse’ as a retaliation. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord not to have discussed the resident’s concerns with her prior to visiting the neighbouring property, especially given it had already used an online landlord tracking service to obtain the landlord’s information..
Taking all matters into account this Service find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

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. Failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 2 working days of receipt, in line with its complaint policy.
2. Issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 May 2021 which was 3 working days later than its complaint policy target date of 24 May 2021.
3. Used inappropriate language in its stage 1 complaint response when it included a paragraph that concluded with, “I will not tolerate your unsubstantiated comments and judgements about my character.”
4. Failed to provide information about how to escalate the complaint in its stage 1 response in breach of the provisions of paragraph 5.8 of the complaint handling code.
5. Failed to clearly state if the stage 1 complaint had been upheld in breach of the provisions of paragraph 5.8 of the complaint handling code.
6. Emailed an acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 2 complaint to the resident on 8 June 2021, which was 3 working days later than its target date of 3 June 2021.
7. Failed to comply with paragraph 5.14 of the complaint handling code by not agreeing an extension of time with the resident prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint later than its target time of 20 working days.
8. Issued its stage 2 complaint response on 25 August 2021 which was 41 working days later than the target date of 29 June 2021.
9. Failed to advise at what stage of the complaint procedure its response of 25 August 2021 was issued in line with paragraph 5.16 of the complaint handling code.
When a landlord is at fault it need to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord offered the resident and £75 for its complaint handling failures. Whilst it is appropriate for the landlord to have made an offer of compensation in recognition of the impact the matters had on the resident, the offer did not reasonably reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience its complaint handling failings had caused.

Determination (decision)

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 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 a request for tree pruning.
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 repairs required to a wall.
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.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord provided clear information to the resident about her rehousing application and band throughout the case. It responded to her enquiries promptly and with a solution focussed approach and regularly reviewed and restated her rehousing band based upon the information the resident provided. However, there was a delay in resolving a problem with the resident’s access to her rehousing account, which was later identified as a system error. Furthermore, the landlord provided contradictory information about the process for adding household occupants to the rehousing application and whether the resident’s account had been blocked.
The landlord accepted a responsibility to address a tree repair in recognition of a potential health and safety concern. However it took the landlord 6 months to raise a purchase order and for the works to progress which were instructed before it identified the presence of a TPO. The progress of the tree repair work was not communicated to the resident appropriately.
The landlord recognised it had a repairing obligation to rebuild or reinstate the resident’s wall. However it mismanaged the subsequent repair orders which resulted in the work being cancelled before the wall was repaired. It is not clear to this Service if or when the repair was completed, but the landlord confirmed it had not been completed at least 16 months after it had been first assessed.
The landlord failed to progress investigations into the resident’s reports of ASB using appropriate multi agency protocols. This resulted in the landlord not providing advice about the resident’s rehousing options or obtaining information about the potential risks to the resident from the police within reasonable timescales.
The landlord failed to comply with the principles of its own complaints policy and the housing ombudsman complaint handling code when responding to the resident’s complaint. This resulted in various failings including the resident waiting 62 working days for the landlord’s final response to be received, which was an unreasonable amount of time.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise in writing to the resident for its communication failings related to rehousing and its handling of reports of ASB, tree and wall repairs, and the resident’s complaints. This is to be provided in writing within 28 days of the date of this report.
Within 28 days of the date of this report and in addition to the previous £150 compensation it previously provided the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £100 for distress and inconvenience associated with the handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
2. £25 for inconvenience related to its handling of the resident’s request for tree pruning.
3. £150 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the delays in completing repairs to the external wall.
4. £150 for distress, time and trouble related to the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. £175 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.

The landlord is ordered to provide additional training to relevant staff ensure the use of risk assessments is undertaken for all cases of ASB and/or where staff are required to undertake activities that pose a potential risk to health and safety. This training is to be provided within 2 months of the date if this report.
The landlord is ordered to reassess the condition of the external wall and make arrangements to complete the wall repair, if it had not already done so within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review the information sharing protocols it holds with the local police so that an established service level agreement is agreed for the provision of information related to third party disclosure requests.
The landlord is recommended to complete a tree audit and compile an up-to-date register of tree preservation orders registered within its housing stock.
The landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services. In particular related to:
1. the availability and provision of records stored on its housing databases related to ASB, repairs, and property surveys.
2. the storage and use of information related to repairs and complaint handling.
3. the storage and use of photographic evidence for assessing repairs.