Orbit Group Limited (201808557)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201808557

Orbit Group Limited

14 May 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to move to another property
2. Repairs and adaptations to the property
3. Reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that point (a) of the complaint definition falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction. This is as the Ombudsman notes that this matter was already considered and decided on within the Investigation Report issued on 17 January 2019 under case reference 201709336. As per the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. The Ombudsman has therefore only investigated and comment on the landlord’s handing of:
1. The repairs and adaptations to the property;
2. The reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB); and
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Non-Shorthold Tenant, in respect of the property, since 2015.
The property is a two-bedroom bungalow, located within a cul-de-sac.
The resident has several vulnerabilities including mobility issues and a recent stroke. The resident is also the carer for her daughter who has progressive Multiple Sclerosis as well as other conditions. The resident’s daughter requires a wheelchair.

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once the reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

Tenancy Agreement

The landlord has provided this service with a template tenancy agreement. This details the expectations of resident’s as well as the landlord’s own obligations. The Ombudsman has noted, where ASB is concerned, that:
1. Residents are prohibited from playing any radio, TV, sound system or musical instrument so loudly that it is likely to annoy or cause nuisance.
2. Residents are prohibited from harassing other residents.
The agreement reiterates the residents right to repair and indicates that this should be in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy.

Responsive Repair Policy

In considering the landlord’s responsibilities under its own procedures, the Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s responsive repair policy. This outlines the landlord’s commitment to providing an effective service and maintains:
1. It will be responsible for repairing and maintaining buildings and any fixtures and fittings originally provided.
2. Emergency repairs will be responded to within 4 to 24 hours.
3. Routine repairs will be addressed within 28 calendar days.

Aids and Adaptations Procedure

The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s aids and adaptations procedure and of particular relevance to this case, noted that for major adaptations – those likely to cost more than £1,000 – an assessment by an Occupational Therapist (OT) is required.
The procedure suggests that adjustments deemed necessary by the OT will not necessarily be agreed or funded by the landlord. Decisions are made once the results are received and assessed.

Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Policy

The Ombudsman has also reviewed the landlord’s ASB policy. This outlines the landlord’s approach to tackling ASB and explains:
1. General household noises (such as doors banging, or footsteps) will not be considered ASB.
2. Any action taken will be proportionate to the type of allegation and made at the landlord’s discretion.
3. Where appropriate, the landlord will work proactively with other organisations such as the local authority and the police to share information and address issues.

Group complaints and feedback procedure

Finally, the Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s complaints procedure. This defines a complaint as:

“dissatisfaction about the actions, decisions or failure of…[the landlord’s] services after… [having] had the opportunity to put things right”

And details the landlord’s two stage complaints process. It explains:

Where a formal complaint is made, an acknowledgement will be sent within three working days.
The complaint will be investigated at stage one and responded to within 10 working days.
If the complaint is not satisfactorily resolved at the investigation stage, it will be passed to a manager to review. A final response will be issued within 10 working days.

The Ombudsman notes that where repair complaints are concerned:
1. If the repair cannot be resolved within 10 working days from receipt, the complainant should be informed and given a clear and honest estimate of when the repair/maintenance issue is expected to be resolved. Clear details of when works will be undertaken should form part of a holding response.
2. For outstanding repairs, the complaint should be kept open at the investigation stage until all issues are resolved. Only once all the repairs from the original complaint are completed, should the final response be sent. Whilst it is important to complete complaints within timescales, the aim is to resolve the complaint.

Scope

The resident has suggested that as a result of the landlord’s failure to undertake the necessary adjustments / repairs to her property, and its failure to address the ongoing ASB, her daughter’s and her own health has been impacted. Whilst this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the tenant’s / tenant’s daughter’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the tenant wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.
Moreover, the Ombudsman recognises that both the matter of outstanding repairs and ASB, extend back as far as 2016. While the Ombudsman has reviewed the repair records and communications from this period, this investigation will only consider matters from April 2018 onwards. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is reasonable as it is six months prior to the resident first raising her complaint (via the Ombudsman Service). As per paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, any earlier failings which the resident was dissatisfied with should have been brought to the landlord’s attention within six months of the matters arising.
Finally, as the resident’s complaint has been separated so that the events following the landlord’s final response can also be considered, the Ombudsman has only investigated matters up until 13 October 2020. All other matters after October 2020 will be considered under complaint reference 202010844 (as outlined in the correspondence on 20 January 2021).

Summary of events

On 17 July 2018 the landlord’s records show that the resident raised a repair request for the following works:
1. Decorative work to her kitchen ceiling.
2. A new trickle vent in the kitchen.
3. Adjustments to the front door.
4. An outlet in the kitchen to enable use of the tumble dryer.

Records suggest that this was completed on 1 August 2018. As the landlord had reportedly damaged the resident’s doorbell while installing her new front door, this was attended to on 14 August 2018.

On 18 July 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to her reports of ASB. It acknowledged the resident’s reports of:
1. A loud bang at the front door of the property.
2. Weed killer applied to her grass.
3. The fence becoming loose as people were climbing over it.
4. A car revving its engine at her.

The landlord observed that the reports had also been made to the police but found to have insufficient evidence. It highlighted the resident’s claim that she knew who the perpetrator was, but refused to disclose this information. The landlord advised that as there was no evidence no further action could be taken, the case would be closed.

On 7 August 2018 the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord in relation to her bathroom repair. Following various correspondence, the landlord confirmed that works had been raised, some of which had been completed and the remaining due for completion by the end of the month. It explained that it was continually working with the resident to resolve the issues.
It was highlighted by the local councillor that the resident’s bathroom tiles were the most urgent items, as a large cavity of the wall was exposed.
The resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord again on 26 September 2018 highlighting that the works to the bathroom tiles were still outstanding. It was asserted that following a recent inspection, the surveyor had been appalled by the state of the property.
The landlord explained to the local councillor on 1 October 2018 that it had raised a job for its contractor to re-fix the loose wall tiles, and an appointment would be arranged as soon as possible. A quote had also been requested to renew the resident’s front and rear doors to allow them to be wheelchair friendly. The landlord explained that the issue with the tiles had been ongoing as several jobs had been raised but then cancelled by the resident at the last minute. The landlord recognised that the resident was unhappy with the layout of her bathroom, due to a change in circumstances, and advised she would need a referral from an OT to begin making the necessary adjustments.
On 2 October 2018 the landlord’s contractor scheduled an appointment to address the resident’s bathroom tiles (on the following day). The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did attend the resident’s property on 3 October 2018 however the works were refused by the resident. The resident was subsequently left with a series of solutions which she confirmed she would decide on over the weekend.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s notes that the landlord visited the property on 10 October 2018 with its contractor. It advised, in its email to the resident’s local councillor, that the resident did not want any works carried out until a new OT assessment had been undertaken. It therefore could not agree a way forward until this was done. Temporary repairs to make the property more usable in the meantime had been offered, however the resident declined these.
On 15 October 2018 this service informed the landlord that we had received a complaint from the resident in relation to the handling of the repairs to the bathroom and a request for the resident’s interior doors to be widened. With no acknowledgement, this service contacted the landlord again on 31 October 2018. The landlord was informed that it needed to consider the resident’s dissatisfaction under its complaints process if it had not begun doing so already.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did make contact with the resident in November 2018 and discussed the outstanding repairs at her property. The landlord also confirmed with this service (on 13 November 2018) that it would register the resident’s dissatisfaction as a formal complaint.
It is unclear whether there was any communication or attempted works in December 2018.
In January 2019 the resident reported to this service that the work to her bathroom was still outstanding. She expressed that the property was unsuitable for her/her daughter’s needs. The Ombudsman recommended, within the Investigation Report for a separate complaint (ref: 201709336), that the landlord subsequently arrange an OT assessment to consider the appropriateness of the resident’s property.
On 1 April 2019 this service wrote to the landlord. It was explained that the resident had reported the following outstanding works:
1. Works to the bathroom.
2. The sink was too high.
3. Repairs to the damp in the toilet.
4. The water supply into the bathroom was dirty.
5. Access for her daughter into the property due to the dropped curb.
6. Widening of the internal doorways.
7. Plug sockets in the kitchen.

The landlord was asked to write to the resident once it had received the OT assessment report, to confirm the adaptations that would be carried out and the repairs to be undertaken.

The Ombudsman notes that the OT inspection was undertaken by the local authority on 2 April 2019. The resident’s property was also inspected by the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Officer and the Senior Housing Options Officer (SHOO) (also from the local authority) on 11 April 2019 to establish what adjustments could be made.
The ombudsman can see that on 26 April 2019, within the landlord’s inter-departmental emails, it explained:
1. The wet room had been fitted prior to the resident moving in and without specification from an OT. The issue with the loose tiles on the false wall and the reinstatement works had been ongoing as the resident consistently agreed works before cancelling them again (on at least five occasions). It was most recently agreed in October 2018 for the wall to be taken down to make more room in the bathroom, however this was refused at the last minute. A temporary repair was also offered to the wall by fitting a shower board to allow the shower to be used. This was also refused as the resident wished for an OT to assess the property first. The resident did not want any work done until then.
2. The resident had complained about the purity of the water in the bathroom and kitchen. Upon inspection, a few black bits were found coming from the cold tap. This was due to limescale build up in the aerators of the tap. New taps were subsequently fitted without aerators in the bathroom and kitchen, however the resident was not happy it did not have these. On 20 February 2019 The Water Company were contacted to arrange a water purity check. The resident was informed, as per The Water Company’s request, that she needed to arrange an inspection. The resident explained, however, that she wanted the OT to see the water.
3. It had attempted to measure the width of the doorways as the resident’s daughter had been given a new wheelchair (which was wider than the previous). The resident declined this until the OT assessment.
This service spoke to the landlord on 3 May 2019. The landlord explained that no action could be taken as it still had not received the OT assessment report from the local authority. The landlord confirmed that it would chase this up.
On 8 May 2019 the Area Inspector (AI) met with the SHOO, the OT and the DFG Officer to discuss the available options. The resident was unable to attend.
A second meeting was held on 24 May 2019 which the resident (and her daughter) were able to attend. Minutes from the meeting show:
1. The OT had initially been under the understanding that no adaptations could be made to the property. After speaking with the other members of the meeting, it was agreed that there was scope for resolution.
2. The SHOO raised that the resident’s daughter had been in a self-propelling wheelchair prior to moving into the property. In relation to the inclined hills in her area, it was highlighted that these were present when the resident viewed and accepted the property.
3. It was thought that three of the doorways within the resident’s property could be widened (the kitchen, bathroom, and lounge). The Area Inspector noted this was not 100% necessary as the wheelchair was able to fit as it stood.
4. It was proposed that changes could be made to the bathroom to make it more usable. One of the walls could be taken down and the shower/sink re-positioned. The OT explained she was happy to assist to ensure that the best layout could be achieved, and the AI added that, if necessary, the whole bathroom could be ripped out and started again. The resident explained, however, that this would be too difficult with her daughter’s care needs.
5. The AI advised that authorisation had been obtained for the resident to be decanted, however the resident explained that this would not be possible as her daughter relied on an air mattress. The OT was positive that this could be moved to the hotel however the resident explained that she did not want to leave her home empty as items had been stolen in the past.
6. The resident was concerned that works done to widen the doorway and update the bathroom would create mess. The carpets would also be ruined and no longer fit the size of the room. She was advised that charity funding was available to help with things such as this.
7. The AI confirmed that if works were to commence, he would attend the resident’s property daily to monitor the progress. The front and rear door were waiting to be changed and could be done at the same time to limit disruption.
8. The resident and her daughter expressed that the property was too small. It was agreed that the works could be done, but that the property would still be all wrong. The resident was informed that if she wished to proceed with the repairs, she could take some time and confirm this on 30 or 31 May. At this point, the plan and timeframes for works would be discussed.
9. It was confirmed for the resident that there were no other properties available to rehouse her. She was advised that partaking in a mutual exchange or being a Homeswapper would be the best way to achieve a move.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails that a further meeting was scheduled for 27 June 2019 (with the same parties). The landlord’s records suggest that this was cancelled (on 25 June 2019) by the resident. This was schedule for 7 August 2019. It was noted that the resident had refused works until these meetings took place.
Following a prompt from this service, the landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2019. It confirmed that following a recent visit, the following repairs had been identified as outstanding:
1. Fit shower board to false wall in the bathroom.
2. Re-site shower to required position, including renewing the hose and spray riser rail.
3. Renew water basin with a slightly smaller type and lowering the new basin..
4. Fit a spurred outlet and socket in the kitchen for use of tumble dryer.
5. Fit a new bolt in the loft hatch cover.
6. Renew shower seat.
7. Lower the dropped curb in the carpark.
8. Renew WC seat.

The landlord explained that due to annual leave, it would contact the resident after 27 August 2019 to arrange and commence works.

This service advised the landlord on 23 August 2019 that according to the resident, the list of works suggested was incorrect. The resident had asserted that, within the multi-agency meeting, it had been agreed:
1. The trickle vents would be replaced.
2. A socket for the tumble dryer would be installed.
3. The front and rear door would be replaced.
4. Internal doors would be widened.
5. The shower room would be completely refitted.
6. The kitchen and bathroom taps would be replaced.
7. The sink would be lowered.
8. The toilet pipes, thermostat, leaking radiator and doorbell would be replaced.
9. The curb outside the property would be lowered.
10. The mould in the kitchen would be addressed.
11. A facility would be installed in the kitchen for her daughter.

This service noted that some of these matters were new and outside of the scope of the original complaint, however requested that the landlord offer the resident a response.

The landlord confirmed on 28 August 2019 that it would log and respond to each of the resident’s points in due course.
On 27 September 2019 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one response. It thanked the resident for her patience whilst it investigated her complaint and explained that:
1. While it had previously done so, a further replacement of the trickle vents in the kitchen would be arranged.
2. A job had been raised to install an electrical socket in the kitchen for the tumble dryer. This had not been undertaken previously as the resident’s daughter used a high risk air mattress which required constant pressure and could not be turned off. This meant that the power could not be isolated for the new socket. As it was now able to turn the power off for an hour, this would be completed.
3. The front and back door (as chosen by the resident) had been manufactured and was waiting to be installed. As the resident had since changed her mind about the type of door required however, enquiries needed to be made to see if it was able to cover the cost of a new door.
4. Widening the doors frames was not something that it would carry out. This would need to be carried out by the local authority under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).
5. Works to the shower were agreed on 7 August 2019, as well as a slightly smaller wash basin. It had also authorised a new shower seat, shower rail, hose and spray, new WC seat and the shower could be re-sited.
6. A job was raised on 8 January 2019 to renew both the kitchen and bathroom taps. The wash hand basin taps were replaced however the kitchen tap replacement was refused.
7. The sink had been lowered and an order had been raised to replace the toilet pipes.
8. The radiator was found not to be leaking.
9. It would not replace the doorbell.
10. It had changed the thermostat on two occasions. If this needed replacing again, authorisation needed to be sought.
11. The curb would be taken up and lowered to allow better wheelchair access.
12. No damp was identified in the kitchen. Small black spots of mould were seen on the top of the internal window reveal which was caused by condensation. This was considered to be the resident’s responsibility to wipe down.
13. If the resident wished for a new facility to be installed for her daughter in the kitchen, she needed to speak with the OT about this. This had never previously been discussed.

The landlord therefore concluded that it would not uphold the resident’s complaint as it needed time to complete this work. It stated that the repairs above had only been agreed in a meeting on 7 August 2019. An appointment would be arranged to undertake all repairs listed and the AI would be the resident’s point of contact.

The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails that it spoke with the resident on 2 October 2019 and was informed that she did not want any works to take place until she had spoken with this service.
On 15 October 2019 this service informed the landlord that the resident remained dissatisfied with its response. She had not offered the reasons for this but would endeavour to do so in due course.
The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. She explained that her neighbour’s TV was very loud all day, and her daughter had also been subject to verbal abuse from other residents. She noted that the landlord had visited her twice since she had reported this, however, was dissatisfied that no action had been taken. This service requested that the landlord register a new complaint in relation to this and write to the resident confirming this.
The Ombudsman can also see from the landlord’s internal emails that the resident first reported her neighbour’s TV on 27 August 2019. It was noted that while the tv may have been very loud, this was only in the daytime. The landlord noted that the resident was advised to make diary entries so that the neighbour could be addressed however failed to do this. Still, while no diary entries were provided, the neighbour was addressed in September, and a further visit was arranged for 18 October 2019. The landlord noted that the resident had also reported intimidation from other neighbours as (she alleged) they smoked and talked about her outside their homes.
The landlord explained to this service on 17 October 2019 that as the resident had failed to supply evidence of the ASB, it would not be registering a complaint.
On 21 January 2020 following contact from the resident, this service explained to the landlord that she wished to escalate her complaint as:
1. The Occupational Therapist (OT) had identified the property as unsuitable on 2 April 2018. The shower room was unsuitable to manage her daughters care needs and the doors needed to be widened. She was displeased that the OT then contradicted this at the multi-agency meeting.
2. She had requested that a window be installed in the front and back door so that here daughter could look out to see who was there. She had heard nothing back on this.
3. She had overheard that the works to the dropped curb would not be carried out properly.
4. The bathroom taps had not been changed to the correct taps. There was also “black stuff” still coming through the taps. Similarly, “black bits and gunge” were coming out of the kitchen tap. Samples of this were taken but no outcome advised.
5. There was mould in the kitchen ceiling and a crack where the mould was coming through. She disputed the finding that she needed to remove this.
6. The whole shower needed to be replaced.
7. The doorbell was not working, and the thermostat was making noises at night.
On 30 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It acknowledged that the resident had made contact with this Service and explained that it would now review the resident’s complaint. It reiterated the points raised by the resident and explained that it would provide the resident with its final response.
On 4 March 2020 this service wrote to the landlord to encourage it to make contact with the resident. The landlord explained that it had attempted to make contact on several occasions however had been unsuccessful. Further attempts would be made within the next two weeks.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 March 2020. It noted:
1. All works had been delayed as per the resident’s request, in light of the COVID outbreak and the underlying health issues within her household.
2. It recognised that the resident wished to move closer to her family, but explained that it did not have properties in the desired area to accommodate her.
3. It would contact the resident on 31 March 2020 to discuss her case further.
In further correspondence with this service, the landlord explained on 1 June 2020 that the resident was unwilling to allow anyone into the property as she was shielding. It added that as its contractors were also only working on an emergency basis, it would resume the repairs when business returned to normal. The landlord reiterated this on 25 June 2020.
The landlord’s notes suggest that on 30 June 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident at length about her concerns with her neighbours. She was informed that the neighbours had not breached any of the conditions under the tenancy agreement and therefore it would require further evidence from her if any further action was to take place. It noted that the police had issued a Community Resolution Order (CRO) which her neighbour had signed, and no breach had since occurred.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident neighbour gave notice to end their tenancy after speaking with the landlord on 1 July 2020.
Between 1- 5 July 2020 the resident reported ASB. She stated that her neighbours had been advised by the police not to interact with her but were still banging on her door, messing with her car, and continuing with their harassing behaviour. The landlord logged an incident report and confirmed that it would share the breach of the CRO with the police.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord made contact with the resident’s neighbour on 7 July 2020. On 8 July 2020 it advised the resident that most of her reports – such as the neighbour speaking on loudspeaker (allegedly about the resident) – would not be considered a breach of tenancy. The landlord asserted that there was a clear divide between the resident’s interpretation and the action that could be taken.
On 11 August 2020 this Service contacted the landlord and encouraged it to update the resident on the status of her complaint by 25 August 2020.
On 17 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that a different neighbour had shouted abuse at her and her daughter as she sat outside her door.
On 21 August 2020 the resident called the landlord to provide updates on the activities of seven of her neighbours. The resident reported criminal activity and that one neighbour had called her a “dyke”, which she had reported to the police. She asserted that this needed to be dealt with. A further instance of verbal abuse was reported on 24 August 2020.
On 27 August 2020, the landlord informed this service that as the resident’s shielding had been lifted, it hoped works could resume. In relation to the ongoing ASB it explained that as there was no breach in tenancy, a CRO had been signed, and the resident’s neighbour had moved out on 19 July 2020, it had closed the resident’s ASB case. It stated it had not issued a final response as no action could be taken to address the outstanding repairs during the resident’s shielding. It would aim to arrange this in a call with the resident later that day.
This service requested, on 28 August 2020, that the landlord provide the resident with an update on her complaint within five working days.
On 14 September 2020 the resident reported that her new neighbour had moved in over the weekend with a trolley full of blankets and bedding covered in fleas. She followed this up on 16 September 2019. She advised that the neighbour had moved in with four others, as opposed to three others. They had also kept her daughter up all night.
The landlord met with the resident on 21 September 2020. The Ombudsman can see from its internal emails that a full list of repairs was agreed as well as times for a suitable contractor to attend. The resident provided her availability for works to be completed in September. The resident was also informed that in relation to the ASB, that there was not yet a resolution however the landlord would continue to liaise with her and other agencies (such as the police) to resolve the issue. The landlord reported that no noise was heard during his visit to the resident’s property. It also noted that several support services had been offered to the resident which had been refused.
On 23 September 2020 the resident reported that her neighbours had been outside drinking and remarked “I’ll come back and get you later”. The resident advised the landlord that the police had been contacted.
The resident made further contact with the landlord on 25 September 2020 asserting that her new neighbour had kept her awake playing PlayStation loudly and shouting.
The Ombudsman has seen that the resident’s GP submitted a request for a Community Trigger on 28 September 2020.
On 2 October 2020 after a visit to the resident’s neighbour, the landlord spoke with the resident. It explained that it had met with her neighbour and that only three people occupied this premises, with a fourth younger grandson visiting and staying occasionally. It found no evidence of overcrowding. The landlord explained that the noise was also discussed with her neighbour who had advised that it would address the volume of the TV. The resident was dissatisfied that nothing more could be done.
On 5 October 2020 the police issued Community Protection Notice Warnings (CPNWs) to a number of the resident’s neighbours. This appears to be the result of joint collaboration with the local authority and the landlord. On the same day, however, the local authority rejected the resident’s Community Trigger application.
The resident was visited by the police on 7 October 2020 and informed of the CPNW’s issued. The police noted that since the issuing of the CPNW’s, the resident had made further reports of people gathering. She was advised that unless the ASB was directed at her, she did not need to get involved.
On 12 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident outlining the list of repairs that had been agreed (as it appears the resident had not received the landlord’s email). It explained that once the resident had confirmed that she was happy with this list, contractors would be arranged, and contact made to arrange the appointments.
On 13 October 2020 the landlord offered its final response. The landlord explained:
1. The works had been scheduled to go ahead however repeatedly refused by the resident as she wished to move to a different area. The resident had also refused to liaise with the landlord at this time.
2. It had called the resident on 11 February 2020 and advised that it would complete all repairs as long as it was provided access. The list of repairs was discussed with the Housing Ombudsman Service, however the resident disagreed with the proposed list of repairs. The landlord noted that it attempted to discuss the list with the resident however the resident advised she no longer wished to discuss this and ended the call.
3. Further attempts were made to make contact with the resident on 25 February, 2 March 2020, and 12 March 2020. On 13 March 2020, the resident advised that due to COVID-19, she would not provide access to her property. The landlord explained that it subsequently agreed to postpone this by two weeks.
4. As the resident and her daughter were shielding, it was unable to complete the works for some time. Several calls were made to the resident however, and voicemails left.
5. A visit was arranged following the lifting of lockdown to discuss the ongoing ASB. An inspection was also arranged to review all works that needed to be done and a list of the repairs was sent to the resident for her agreement, as requested. The landlord noted that the resident added several additional items which needed addressing.
6. In respect of the resident’s request for the OT report, the resident would need to take this up directly with the OT. It additionally explained that as it was able to make adjustments to make the property suitable, the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move.
In relation to the ASB reports, the landlord highlighted that CPNW’s had been issued. It explained that it was waiting on the police to provide any further updates in regards to breaches.
In relation to the resident’s neighbours gathering outside, intimidating and drinking, the landlord advised that letters would be sent to those involved, however noted that the COVID restrictions may have resolved this. It stated it would work with the police to establish next steps if this had not been resolved. It explained that as this was ongoing however, it could not fully resolve the matter at this time. She was advised, moreover, that her noise complaints needed to be raised with Environment Health. The landlord stated that it could not see that this had been done. It apologised that the resident did not feel supported but noted that it spoke with the resident regularly.
The landlord subsequently concluded that the delays in repairs had been caused by both the resident’s refusal to allow access and the restrictions created by COVID-19. In relation to the ASB, it advised that this was an ongoing investigation, and would therefore continue to monitor the situation and to update the resident.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord liaised with the police throughout October 2020. The police reported undertaking several patrols of the area and being unable to witness the behaviour reported.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs and adaptations to the property

As per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Responsive Repair Policy, the landlord has a responsibility to maintain and keep in good condition the resident’s property. The landlord is obligated to recognise a resident’s request for repair (which it is responsible for) and to act within good time to restore any defects to working order. This is particularly important where vulnerable residents are involved and where the issues for repair are having a significant impact on the resident’s living conditions. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make reasonable attempts to attend to the resident’s support needs and to proactively seek resolution. With this in mind, the Ombudsman has considered the way in which the landlord handled the resident’s repairs and adaptations, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made reasonable attempts to undertake the required works.
The landlord suggested, following contact from the resident’s local councillor, that there was no progress with regards to the resident’s repairs between August 2018 and October 2018, as the resident had cancelled several jobs at the last minute. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify this on review of the landlord’s records and therefore is unclear whether this was the case or whether there was an omission here, on the landlord’s behalf. The Ombudsman can see, however, that there were subsequently several attempts to arrange and undertake the outstanding works which were met with obstacles.
The Ombudsman notes that on 3 and 10 October 2018 the landlord attempted to undertake works at the resident’s property however this was refused by the resident. The resident advised that she wished for the property to be assessed by the OT before any works were undertaken (and therefore declined temporary works too). Similarly, on 20 February 2019, the resident advised that she wished for the OT to assess the water purity before arranging an inspection with The Water Company. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord agreed to wait until it received the OT’s assessment report before taking any further action.
Noting the resident’s desire for this to take place however, and with an awareness that changes to the bathroom layout would require advice from an OT, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have sought to arrange an assessment sooner. The Ombudsman can see that the inspection did not take place until 2 April 2019, almost six months after the resident had advised that she wished for her property to be assessed. It was also recommended within the Ombudsman’s Investigation Report in January 2019 that the landlord arrange an assessment, however several months still passed before this was done.
With this said, the Ombudsman appreciates that as the OT is a local authority resource, and not part of the landlord’s service, the landlord would not be able to dictate when this assessment would be undertaken. Therefore, while the Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord should have been more proactive in arranging the assessment, there is limited evidence to conclude that the landlord was responsible for this delay.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord had not received the assessment report until some time in early May 2019 (as confirmed with this service). It was therefore unable to undertake any works during this time. Nonetheless, an inspection was arranged on 11 April 2019 enabling the landlord to discuss a way forward with several members of the local authority on 8 May 2019. This was appropriate.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to meet with the resident, along with the SHOO, DFG Officer, and OT, to discuss the available options for the resident. While the resident was initially informed that the property was unsuitable, it was clarified within this meeting that adaptations could be made to meet the resident’s support needs and therefore make the property suitable.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord advised that the bathroom could be completed restructured and also that authorisation had been obtained to decant the resident to avoid disruption. While this was understandably declined by the resident, with considerations for her daughter’s health and her personal belongings, the landlord’s offer was reasonable.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident was given time to consider the landlord’s proposed adjustments nonetheless, and following a request for a further meeting, before she would allow any works to take place, met with the landlord (and the above parties) to agree works on 7 August 2019 (after cancelling a meeting in June 2019). This was appropriate.
The Ombudsman is content that the landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2019 outlining the repairs that would be undertaken and signposting when it would seek to make contact to arrange this. It was also reasonable, although somewhat delayed, that following the resident’s proposed list of repairs on 23 August 2019, the landlord outlined its position on 27 September 2019.
As there was some dispute surrounding the works that remained, the Ombudsman can see that the resident again refused to commence works until she had discussed the matter with this service. This was not subsequently re-raised until 21 January 2020 in the resident’s complaint escalation response. The Ombudsman has been unable access the landlord’s telephone records to verify the landlord’s assertion, however the landlord did highlight for this service (and the resident within its final response) that it made several attempts to contact the resident following this February and March 2020 without success.
Within the landlord’s final response, it explained that its inability to undertake the works was partly due to the impact of COVID-19. The Ombudsman notes that on 13 March 2020 the landlord was informed of the resident’s / resident’s daughters shielding needs and therefore was informed it would not be given access the property. The landlord confirmed for this service that this was still the case on 1 June 2020 and 25 June 2020.
It is unclear when the resident advised the landlord that the works could resume however the Ombudsman notes that on 27 August 2020, the landlord advised this service that the resident / resident’s daughter had stopped shielding and the works could resume. It was subsequently appropriate, as a result of the length of time that had passed and the ongoing discrepancy with the list of outstanding repairs, for the landlord to visit the resident’s property on 21 September 2020 to undertake an inspection and agree works. A list of works was re-sent to the resident (as it seems she had not received an earlier copy sent via email) on 12 October 2020 and following a telephone call with the resident on 13 October 2020, was updated within the landlord’s final response.
This, with consideration for all circumstances of the case, has led the Ombudsman to conclude that the delays which occurred were not result of a poor service. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord made several reasonable attempts to identify and agree the outstanding works, and to begin putting things right, however this was hindered by a clear inability to gain access and to obtain the OT report. While the landlord could have been more assertive and proactive in getting works done, ultimately, the Ombudsman cannot see that there was maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)

Similar to the above, where reports of ASB are made, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to accrue evidence of the ASB, to undertake proportionate interventions / enforcement action, and to liaise with the police and other agencies where necessary. This is in line with good practice and the landlord’s own ASB policy.
With this in mind, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions in this case and while the landlord was unable to offer a resolution by the time of its final response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions were proportionate.
The Ombudsman can see that as early as 18 July 2018, the resident made a report of ASB to the landlord and the police. As no evidence of the allegations were provided or found however, and the resident was unwilling to disclose the alleged perpetrator, the ASB case was closed. This was appropriate. For an investigation to take place, the resident must be willing to participate and share sufficient information with the landlord which it does not appear happened. The Ombudsman is satisfied that no further action could be taken with the lack of evidence and cannot see that there were any further ASB reports until more than a year later.
It appears from the landlord’s records that the resident began making reports of ASB again in August 2019. The Ombudsman notes that while the resident was encouraged to complete diary sheets to support her allegations, this was not done. As the collection of evidence plays an important role in the way in which the landlord will investigate ASB and the options available to it, the lack of diary sheets limited the landlord. Still, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate action here. While it was unable to follow up on the resident’s suggestions of intimidation, it did visit the resident’s next-door neighbour in relation to her reports of a loud TV in both September and October 2019. This was appropriate.
On 30 June 2020 the Ombudsman notes that the resident was advised that through liaison with the police, a CRO had been issued to the next-door neighbour. The resident was informed, however, that as there had not been a breach of this or of the tenancy agreement, no action would be taken. In light of the lack of evidence, this was fair. The Ombudsman can see that details of a later breach was shared with the police and that the landlord monitored the situation until the resident’s next-door neighbour moved out of the property on 19 July 2020.
In August and September 2020, the Ombudsman can see that the resident began making reports of ASB and abuse from several of the surrounding neighbours (to both the landlord and the police). The resident also reported noise nuisance and overcrowding from her new next-door neighbour. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord subsequently visited the resident on 21 September 2020 to discuss the matter. It also visited the resident’s next-door neighbour on 2 October 2020 to discuss the noise reports and investigating the allegation of overcrowding. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman can see that the resident was updated on the details of the conversation and was advised that the next-door neighbour would seek to address the noise.
In relation to the resident’s reports of verbal abuse and intimidation, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord liaised with the police which resulted in CPNWs being issued to several of the resident’s neighbours on 5 October 2020. The landlord updated the resident of this and advised that it would continue to work with the police who would share information where there was a breach. The resident was also advised that letters would also be sent to those allegedly involved in drinking and intimidating. This was reasonable.
As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach to addressing the noise from her next-door neighbour, it was appropriate for the landlord to remind the resident that she needed to complete diary sheets. The Ombudsman notes that the resident had also been appropriately advised on the role of Environmental Health.
The Ombudsman has therefore determined that while the resident’s concerns had not been fully resolved, the landlord took reasonable steps which were proportionate to the allegations. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate intervening action and that it liaised with the police where necessary. It is clear from the landlord’s records that it maintained communication with the resident and the Ombudsman can see that several support services were also offered (but declined).

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord will often attempt to put things right before registering a complaint under its formal process, on 15 and 30 October 2018 this service advised the landlord that as the resident had been dissatisfied with the handling of her repairs and adjustments for some time, it needed to offer a complaint response. This therefore should have been acknowledged with the resident within three working days, as per the landlord’s process and responded to within 10 working days. The Ombudsman notes, however, that not only did the landlord fail to acknowledge the complaint within the suggested timeframe, its stage one response was not provided until 27 September 2019, almost a year later. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable. The landlord was given several prompts by this service to address the resident’s complaint however failed to do so.
What’s more, the Ombudsman is displeased with the handling of matters at stage two of the landlord’s process. On 30 January 2020 (nine days after being informed by this service of the resident’s further complaint), the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and confirmed that the complaint would be reviewed. This service contacted the landlord on several occasions to encourage it to update the resident on the progress of her complaint and to offer a final response, however the landlord failed to do so. The landlord was given several deadlines by this service yet still, no response was offered until13 October 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this too was unacceptable.
The Ombudsman recognises that as per the landlord’s complaints policy, where repairs remain outstanding, the landlord will keep the complaint open until the repairs are completed and will not provide a complaint response before this time. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this was why the landlord may have been reluctant to offer the resident a complaint response at stage one and two.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, this approach was unreasonable. As explained to the landlord within the back-and-forth correspondence with this service, the resident should not be expected to wait indefinitely until the time that the landlord is able to complete the repairs as this, as seen in this example, could take years. This would not give the resident an opportunity to raise her dissatisfaction with the landlord and to receive an appropriate response in real time, and in accordance with the standard timeframes under the complaints policy. This would also, as has been the case here, significantly delay the resident in exhausting the landlord’s process and subsequently in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman Service for investigation.
While the Ombudsman may have considered this to be reasonable if the landlord had been able to advise when the repair was expected to be completed, no such details were given. There was therefore no indication of when the resident would receive a complaint response / achieve resolution. The Ombudsman is further displeased that the reason for the delayed complaint response was not brought to the resident’s attention.
In relation to the resident’s ASB complaint, this service advised the landlord on 15 October 2019 of the resident’s dissatisfaction with how things were being handled. The landlord was encouraged to register a new complaint for the resident and to write to her confirming this, however it explained on 17 October 2019 that as the resident had not supplied evidence of the ASB, it would not be registering a complaint.
While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord’s reasoning, it was still the case that the resident was displeased with the service provided and the outcome. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to this, with a formal complaint response.
Though the Ombudsman has recognised (above) the lack of evidence which was available, the steps taken by the landlord and the ongoing support that was offered, it is still the case that the landlord’s failure to offer a complaint response resulted in the resident’s dissatisfaction not being formally recognised until October 2020, with no stage one response being offered. This was inappropriate. All circumstances considered, the Ombudsman has subsequently concluded that there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs and adaptations to the property;
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB); and
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:

In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made several attempts to undertake and actively address the outstanding works. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made reasonable attempts to understand how it could support the resident and her daughter’s needs, and engaged outside agencies (such as the local authority) to accommodate the resident’s needs. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the works remained outstanding for a significant amount of time, it appears to the Ombudsman that the delays were not caused by the landlord. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports were proportionate. The Ombudsman has reviewed the ASB reports made and has seen that much of the activity would not have been considered a breach in tenancy. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of this and to try to manage her expectations. Where reports were made to the police of abuse and intimidation, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord liaised with the police and enforcement action was taken. The resident was also updated on the action that had been taken. This was appropriate.

It was also reasonable for the landlord to make contact with the resident’s next-door neighbour in response to the resident’s reports of loud TV noises. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident sought more action from the landlord earlier on, it is noted that the resident was advised to make diary entries for the accrual of evidence, however, did not do this. Finally, the Ombudsman is pleased that the landlord assured the resident that her case would not be closed, but rather, that the matter would continue to be monitored.

The landlord’s approach was unreasonable, despite its policy, and resulted in a failure to respond to the resident within good time. The landlord provided no clarity on when the resident could expect a complaint response and no indication (to the resident) of why it continually delayed in offering this.In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline its final position and its intended actions in resolution of the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity. This would have enabled the resident to accept the landlord’s attempt to put things right or to request investigation by this service within good time. Instead, the landlord’s unreasonable delay in allowing the resident to exhaust its process delayed this services intervention (and any chances of closure) significantly. This was inappropriate.

What’s more, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s ASB complaint despite the advice of this service. This too delayed the resident in obtaining a response and resulted in a one stage response only, providing no opportunity for her to challenge the landlord’s response. This was inappropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £300.
This should be made to the resident within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord revisits its complaints policy to ensure that complaint responses are provided within good time. Where the complaint relates to works that are still outstanding, rather than delaying the final response, the landlord should issue its stage two response setting out its position and any intention (where necessary) to put things right. It is unacceptable to delay the response until such time that the works have been completed.
The landlord should be more proactive in acquiring OT assessments / reports. This will enable it to better assist, and make adjustments for, residents with support needs, and within good time.