Peabody Trust 2018 (202002013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002013

Peabody Trust 2018

30 November 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 concerns:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a first-floor one-bedroom flat. The tenancy started on 17 July 2019.
The resident has vulnerabilities which are noted in the landlord’s records.
The resident made ASB reports to the landlord regarding noise from neighbours soon after moving into the property. The resident mentioned that he had mental health issues which made him sensitive to noise and a referral was subsequently made by the landlord to its Tenant and Family Support Team (TFST). A Tenant Advisor (TA) was appointed in September 2019 to assist the resident.
The resident moved out of the property at the end of December 2019. The resident did not relinquish the tenancy at this time; he had joined the landlord’s internal transfer process and did not want to lose his right to apply for a housing transfer.
On or around 10 January 2020, the resident and agencies acting on his behalf including the local authority’s Mental Health Services (LAMHS) applied to the landlord for priority banding on medical grounds citing antisocial behaviour of neighbours, as part of his request to transfer. LAMHS sent their supporting Medical Assessment Form to the landlord by post.
The resident’s initial application was declined by the landlord. In its response to the resident dated 3 February 2020, the landlord advised in order to qualify for transfer on medical grounds, evidence that a medical assessment had been carried out would need to be provided. The LAMHS appealed this decision and emailed the resident’s Medical Assessment Form to the landlord on 7 February 2020 as part of its appeal. LAMHS advised this was the second time it was sending the form to the landlord.
Around the same time, the resident was awarded four weeks temporary accommodation funded by the local authority.
On 29 April 2020, the landlord awarded the resident priority banding B1 on medical grounds.
The resident and LAMHS raised concerns with the landlord about the service it had provided during the priority banding application process, including its non-receipt of the Medical Housing Assessment with the first application. These concerns also related to the landlord refusing to offer the resident temporary accommodation whilst he appealed its decision and its refusal to meet the resident in person to discuss the outcome of first application.
On receipt of the award for priority banding B1, the resident and LAMHS subsequently complained to the landlord about the lack of information it had provided, for example the length of time the resident was likely to wait for a property with this banding status.
On 7 May 2020, the landlord confirmed it would log their concerns as a formal complaint and said it would be assigned to the relevant team to respond.
The LAMHS contacted the Ombudsman in June 2020 regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and his request to transfer. They said:
1. The resident was experiencing PTSD relating to his housing situation resulting in him living on the streets during Covid lockdown. The landlord said it would not consider this transfer unless he provided a log of evidence which was impossible given he could not return to the property as this would exacerbate his medical conditions and increase his suicidal ideation.
2. The landlord had not agreed to their request for it to provide temporary accommodation to the resident whilst awaiting the outcome of the appeal.
3. The landlord had not answered questions asked during the application process including about the likely timeframe he would have to wait for a property.
4. The landlord failed to treat correspondence as a formal complaint until 7 May 2020.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in July 2020 asking that it respond to the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of his reports of ASB and its response to his request for a transfer.
The resident told us in October 2020 that he had not had a response from the landlord to the complaint. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord again asking that it respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 3 December 2020 noted that soon after the resident moved into the property in July 2019, he visited the landlord’s office to complain about ASB and requested to be rehoused. The landlord’s internal communications also noted that:
1. The ASB complaint related to noise and that as the resident had only just moved in and did not have any furniture/flooring he was advised that the noise was exacerbated by the empty nature of his flat. He was encouraged to start furnishing the flat.
2. It made a referral to TFST because the resident had mentioned he had mental health issues which the alleged noise and ASB were impacting upon. A TA was appointed to assist the resident.
3. The resident repeatedly made complaints about noise from other tenants however the complaints consisted of reports about household noise and door slamming. A door closer was fitted to the door nearest the resident’s property to reduce the impact on him. The resident subsequently moved out of his property in early 2020 due to the deterioration of his mental health and was housed temporarily by the local authority. After the temporary housing came to an end due to no further funding, the resident did not return to his property. As a result of his non occupation, it had not received any further reports of ASB from him.
On 8 December 2020, the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident. Within its response it stated:
1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance had not been substantiated and its neighbourhood team (NT) was unable to investigate due to lack of evidence.
2. The resident was registered on ‘Home Hunt’ as he was seeking a transfer. It said he could also register on the free to use mutual exchange sites ‘House Exchange’ and ‘Homeswapper’ as this was often a faster way to move.
The landlord advised that if it could be of further assistance in regard to his transfer request, the resident should let it know. It advised this was the final response to his stage one complaint.
On 8 December 2020, the resident requested that his complaint was escalated to stage two of its complaints process. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response as after more than a year of complaints, involvement from LAMHS and social services, being homeless and then being awarded B1 priority on medical grounds, the landlord had not adhered to its promise to re-house him.
The landlord acknowledged his request on the same day and on 15 January 2021, it provided a stage two complaint response. Within its response it:
1. Acknowledged that the resident had complained about noise from his neighbours soon after moving into the property in July 2019. It said however that its records showed that no evidence was provided to substantiate that the noise was more than daily household noise transference. It said therefore this was not deemed to be ASB and no further investigation took place.
2. Confirmed that it had made a referral to its TFST as the resident had advised of mental health issues which made him sensitive to noise. A TA was appointed to provide support where he may have needed it.
3. Acknowledged the resident had moved out of the property at the end of 2019 and that as part of his transfer request, submitted a medical application. It confirmed this was initially declined and that he appealed the decision, providing evidence for his application. It confirmed his appeal was upheld and that he was awarded a priority banding B1, under medical grounds. This meant he was eligible to bid on the Home Hunt website.
4. Acknowledged that LAMHS had raised concerns about the medical application process. It apologised that this was not a positive experience for him and for the delays in him being notified with information. It said as learning it would feed back details of this complaint regarding the medical application process for it to be reviewed to ensure staff were aware of correct procedures and time restraints on providing information to residents.
5. Advised that it had reviewed the events leading up to then and it acknowledged the impact this matter had on him and that it would have increased his anxiety. It acknowledged he had not returned to the property and had been living with friends. Its TSFT team had remained in communication with him and had notified safeguarding agencies when necessary to provide support for his wellbeing. However, it said it recognised that the service he had received was not a positive one and said it extended sincere apologies for his experience.
6. Acknowledged the “poor investigation” and lack of resolution principles used during the handling of his complaint at stage one of the process; the response failed to explain details of his complaint and its position during this time. It said as a learning, the Customer Experience Team would work with the Rehousing team to review the processes and procedures used when managing stage one complaints.
7. Regarding his housing status, it advised that he should continue bidding on the Home Hunt site. It said although he was registered under band B for a transfer, with increasing demands for accommodation in the London area, it could not guarantee the time scales in which a property would become available, but said it would contact him directly at the time a property became available.
8. Offered:
  1. £100 in compensation for complaint handling – for providing a response with poor investigation principles.
  2. £100 time and trouble he had experienced pursuing this matter.
The resident replied on 18 January 2020 advising its response downplayed the landlord’s incompetence and poor service provided. He said it had not acknowledged that his mental and physical health had deteriorated badly as a direct consequence to the ASB he suffered at the property. He disputed that there had been an investigation into ASB from his neighbours. He said the truth was he had been living a nightmare since moving into the property and whilst he had the full support of LAMHS and social services, this had been to no avail.
On 9 November 2021 the landlord told the Ombudsman that in respect to the resident’s current housing situation, its letting team had advised:
1. The resident was awarded Band B1 medical priority and last logged into its internal transfer site Home Hunt on the 23.9.21
2. The resident currently had two transfer applications on Home Hunt; one was for sheltered accommodation band F3 and the other was for general needs..
3. He had bid for four properties and was also on Hyde Housing Association transfer list and had bid for one of their homes in February 2021; the resident had specified a one bed ground floor in one area, which reduced his chances of being housed quickly.
4. Currently there were 261 B1 (medical priority) applicants on Home Hunt.

Assessment and findings

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

The landlord’s ASB policy states:
1. The types of behaviour it considered to be ASB include: repeated prolonged high-level noise nuisance. It will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours.
2. It will encourage and expect residents and customers to take responsibility for solving personal disputes between themselves where appropriate. This may include collating evidence, liaising with other agencies and taking part in mediation.
3. It uses a range of preventative measures, early intervention and legal action to tackle ASB. This includes the full range of tools and powers available to it as outlined in the ASB, Policing and Crime Act 2014. The methods used will be proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour, the level of risk that it poses to those affected, and the evidence available to support the case.
The landlord acknowledges that the resident complained about noise from his neighbours including door slamming, after moving into the property in 2019. It explained in its final response that because there was a lack of evidence to show the noise was more than daily household noise transference, it was not deemed to be ASB and therefore no further investigation took place. It is noted that the resident did not raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports whilst he was still living in the property. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep contemporaneous records of its communications with the resident in respect to his reports of noise and ASB made at that time. The landlord has not provided evidence of any such communications or records relating to this timeframe despite the Ombudsman requesting this. This constitutes a failure in the service provided by the landlord. In the absence of this or any evidence from the resident in relation to ASB he encountered in 2019, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the landlord’s conclusion that the noise complained about constituted daily household noise transference as oppose to ASB, was reasonable or not.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did make a referral to its TFST when the resident advised he was suffering from mental health issues and that a TA was subsequently appointed to support the resident with settling into his new home where needed. This shows the landlord had taken steps to support the resident’s wellbeing which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident did not make noise reports after 2019 due to not being at the property as the LAMHS have said ASB and noise he experienced whilst at the property exacerbated his medical conditions and increased his suicidal ideation. In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the LAMHS expressed a concern that the landlord had said it would not investigate the noise issue without a log of evidence from the resident of ongoing ASB as they said this was not possible given the situation. Whilst this is understandable, the landlord’s ASB policy makes clear that residents are expected to collate evidence in support of ASB reports. This is because without evidence to build a case the landlord would not be able to take any preventative or enforcement action to address any ASB as per its policy. Therefore, the landlord’s response in this regard was appropriate in the circumstance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.

The landlord’s Transfer Policy states:
1. Residents of sheltered and supported housing schemes, both directly and agency-managed, may apply to join the internal transfer list. These applicants will also be advised of other suitable rehousing options.
2. Regarding its transfer banding system, it says it will assess all applicants to determine whether they fall into one of its priority bands for an internal transfer. Highest priority is given to bands A1 to A3 and lowest priority to bands C1 to C2 and B1 is for health and disability.
As part of his request to transfer, in January 2020 the resident applied to the landlord for its priority banding on medical grounds. After initially declining this request the landlord awarded the resident priority banding B1 on medical grounds after he appealed its original decision. The landlord’s original decision letter to the resident indicates that it had not taken into account the Medical Assessment Form which LAMHS said it sent by post in support of the priority banding application. Furthermore, after they re-sent this form to the landlord, it upheld the appeal, awarding the resident B1 medical priority. Whilst this indicates the resident’s first application was declined as the landlord had not considered the Medical Assessment Form, there is insufficient evidence to show the landlord’s non-receipt of medical evidence sent via post by LAMHS was due to any fault on its part.
Nonetheless it is clear there was a delay of nearly three months from when the LAMHS re-sent the Medical Assessment Form to the landlord and it notifying the resident of the outcome of his appeal, which was unreasonable.
In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged that LAMHS had raised concerns about the priority banding application process. The landlord did not specify the concerns but said there were delays on its part in notifying the resident with information during this process. This shows the landlord recognised that there were issues with its service and processes when the resident applied for medical priority banding which it acknowledged negatively impacted him. Furthermore, it also said as learning it would feed back the details of his complaint regarding the priority banding process for it to be reviewed to ensure staff were aware of correct procedures and time restraints on providing information to residents. The landlord’s response therefore demonstrates learning on its part which is in accordance with the Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles.
However, the landlord did not address the specific issues raised by LAMHS at the time or explain in its response why it had not done so at the time. Apart from the loss of the Medical Assessment Form, these concerns included the landlord’s refusal to meet the resident in person to discuss outcome of first application and then the lack of information given about the likely waiting time for priority banding B1 at the time of the award. The landlord did give an update regarding his housing status in its stage two response, which reflected the situation at this time, this was appropriate. However, on balance the landlord did not adequately address the resident’s concerns raised about its service provided during the priority banding application process.
Given the resident’s circumstances; he was rough sleeping/in temporary accommodation as a result of him leaving the property, the delays and failure by the landlord to respond to concerns raised during the priority banding process would have had a significant impact on the resident.
Whilst the scope of this investigation is restricted to the events and complaints that were raised by the resident during the landlord’s complaints process prior to the landlord’s final response on 15 January 2021, it should be noted that in November 2021 the landlord provided the Ombudsman with an update regarding the resident’s current housing status which gave details of his bids as well as information about the number of applicants on its internal transfer in the same priority band as the resident. It also advised that because the resident had specified a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a particular area, this would reduce his chances of being housed quickly via its internal process.
Therefore, whilst the resident has been awarded priority banding B1 on medical grounds, the landlord has reiterated the advice it gave in its stage two response that it may take some time before one of its properties become available, particularly as the resident has made specifications about the property type and location. Given the landlord has a limited housing stock and the number of applicants with the same medical priority as the resident, it is unreasonable to expect the landlord to provide the resident with a timescale of when a property will become available, therefore, the landlord’s update is understandable.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says it operates a two stage complaints process. This states the landlord will provide a response to stage one complaints within 10 working days and a response to stage two complaints within 15 working days. It also states if it cannot meet these timescales it will tell the complainant why.
In response to concerns raised by LAMHS and the resident during the medical application process, on 7 May 2020, the landlord confirmed that a formal complaint would be logged and responded to by the relevant team. The landlord failed to provide a stage one response to the resident either within the 10-working day timescale referred to in its complaints process or within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, despite contact from the Ombudsman in July 2020 requesting it respond to the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not provide a stage one response until 8 December 2020. This was only after further contact from the Ombudsman after the resident confirmed he had not received any response.
The stage one response from the landlord was extremely brief and failed to acknowledge its previous delay in providing a complaint response after initially promising to log the resident’s complaint on 7 May 2020. In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged that there had been failings with its stage one complaint response including there had been a lack of resolution principles used and that it failed to explain details of the resident’s complaint and its position in relation to this. However, again the landlord did not acknowledge the prolonged length of time taken for it to provide a complaint response after initially promising to log the resident’s complaint on 7 May 2020. Neither is there any evidence of it explaining the delay to the resident at any time prior to this. As the landlord failed to acknowledge its failure to follow the timescales in its complaints process or the impact of this on the resident, this is evidence of a failure in the service provided by the landlord.
The landlord’s stage two response also failed to address all of the complaints that LAMHS raised with the Ombudsman, the details of which the landlord was made aware of. This included the complaint that it had not provided the resident with temporary accommodation when LAMHS had raised this whilst the resident appealed the priority banding application process. The Ombudsman expects landlords to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. This is reflected in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Whilst the Code was not in force at the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s failure to respond to all the complaints raised by LAMHS and clearly explain its position in relation to the issues raised in particular regarding the priority banding application process, is evidence of poor complaint handling.
Whilst the landlord offered £100 for complaint handling and £100 for time and trouble pursuing the complaints, this did not adequately reflect the extent of the failures in service when handling the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the landlord did not adequately resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint during the complaint process. In the circumstance, the landlord shall pay the resident a further amount of £300 in compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s request to be re-housed.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately referred the resident to TFST when the resident had told it that the noise at the property was impacting his mental health. No ASB reports were made by the resident after he left the property at the end of 2019 and therefore the landlord was unable to investigate this issue, which was in accordance with its policies. However, the landlord has not provided evidence in relation to the resident’s ASB and noise reports made in 2019. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether its conclusion reached that the noise complained about constituted daily household noise transference as oppose to ASB, was reasonable or not.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for failures in the service it provided during the priority banding application process including delays and the impact this had on the resident. However, it did not sufficiently address the issues raised by LAMHS or the resident either at the time or in its stage two response. Neither did it offer compensation in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by these failures in service.
The landlord at stage two of its complaints process, acknowledged that its stage one response lacked detail and information showing a poor investigation had taken place and it offered reasonable compensation for this. However, it failed to acknowledge or address the seven-month delay taken to provide a stage one response and the impact this would have had on the resident. It also did not address all the points raised in the complaint. Therefore, the landlord did not sufficiently resolve this complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident £500 in total compensation (in addition to the £200 offered in its complaints process) comprising:
  1. £100 in compensation for the service failure when responding to the resident’s ASB reports.
  2. £100 in compensation for service failure when handling the resident’s request to be re-housed.
  3. a further £300 in compensation for poor complaint handling.
2. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord take steps to ensure it keeps records of reports of ASB from its tenants and its response to these.