Peabody Trust (202120467)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120467

Peabody Trust

9 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
   2. handling of the resident’s appeal in connection with decisions made by the landlord’s priority move panel.
2. This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy began on 10 August 2012. The resident lived at the property with his partner and 3 children. 2 of the children were aged over 10 years and of the same gender. The other child was an infant. There are no known vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord for the resident, other than the eldest child having diagnosed allergies.
4. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor, 2 person flat, with a rear garden.
5. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour, who will hereafter be known as the ‘neighbour’. The neighbour lives directly above the resident.
6. The resident makes repeated reference and complaint about the actions of named members of the landlord’s staff. For clarity, these members of staff will be referenced in this report by their job role or level of seniority as may be appropriate.
7. The landlord is a partner of home hunt, a national choice-based lettings website. All partners of home hunt share the same housing register.
8. The resident and landlord signed a neighbour agreement on 10 August 2012, which states:
   1. The resident:

i.        will respect their neighbours right to peaceful enjoyment of their home and neighbourhood, and will act in accordance with their tenancy agreement

ii.      will recognise that people have different lifestyles, which may sometimes cause conflict. Where conflict arises, the resident has a duty to resolve this through negotiation or mediation, and will take reasonable steps to do so.

2. The landlord will take appropriate action against residents who are causing nuisance or who are not meeting their responsibilities under the tenancy agreement or the neighbourhood agreement.

Relevant policies and procedures

9. The landlord’s complaints policy describes a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
10. The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaint process, however if it will always look to see if it can resolve the matter without the need to record a formal complaint. The policy states:
    1. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged in 3 working days and are responded to in 10 working days. Stage 1 complaints remain open for a further 10 working days to allow the resident to raise any concerns. If an alternative resolution cannot be reached, the complaint will be escalated to stage 2.
    2. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged in 3 working days and are responded to in 15 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
    3. At both stages, the landlord may extend its response by 10 working days providing there is a “good reason for this”.
11. The landlord has a compensation policy, which indicates it will pay up to a maximum of £400 in recognition of time, trouble, and inconvenience. In respect of poor complaint handling, it will pay up to a maximum of £100.
12. The landlord has a lettings policy, which states:
    1. A limited internal transfer list is kept, helping to rehouse existing residents in need of priority rehousing.
    2. Lettings are subject to the verification of an applicants’ circumstances, identity, and an affordability assessment.
    3. A couple with 3 children, where 2 children can share a bedroom will be awarded a 3-bedroom need. Couples with 3 children, where 2 children cannot share a bedroom are awarded a 4-bedroom need. The number of bedrooms required is based on the age and sex of each child. Children of different sexes, where the eldest child is at least 10 years old are not required to share.
13. The landlord has a rehousing policy. The landlord has adopted a banding approach, as a way of prioritising housing need. The highest band is band A. Each band is further sub divided. For example, an applicant with a B1 banding, has higher priority than a B4 applicant. Of particular note:
    1. Applicants who are severely overcrowded are awarded a B4 band. Applicants with a health or disability are awarded a B1 priority.
    2. Applicants who are awarded a management transfer are given a higher priority A3 banding. Such applications are considered through its priority move panel.
    3. All offers are subject to verification of the applicant’s circumstances and household composition at shortlisting, and before a formal offer is made.
    4. It will consider appeals made in relation to B1 medical banding or the reasonableness of an offer of accommodation. The priority move panel will determine if offers related to a management transfer are reasonable.
14. The landlord has an ASB policy, which sets out its approach to dealing with ASB. The landlord states it will:
    1. Ensure its targets support to the most severe cases and high-need customers, whilst offering early intervention to ensure residents are able to self-manage lower-level issues that they may be experiencing.
    2. Will not usually take action where a complaint concerns behaviour that results from different lifestyles, or which would not generally be considered to be unreasonable.
    3. Will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours.
    4. Will encourage and expect residents 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.
    5. Will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention and legal action to tackle ASB. 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.
    6. May consider a management transfer for those assessed as at risk, in line with the criteria outlined in its transfer policy.
    7. Will agree an action plan with the complainant and any witnesses and keep them informed of the actions taken. It will contact the resident when closing a case, giving its reasons for doing so.
    8. “Will refer all crime, including threats or acts of violence, to the police.
15. Expected timescales for action under the landlord’s ASB policy are summarised as follows:
    1. At the point of initial contact, the landlord will immediately assess the ASB and complainants’ risk of vulnerability and allocate the case.
    2. On allocation, the case manager will contact the resident within 1 working day and agree an action plan within 5 working days.
    3. Over the following 10 working days, the case manager will visit the witness and perpetrator to gather evidence.
    4. Over the following 15 working days, the case manager will decide what action can be taken and update the complainant, seeking their agreement with the action plan where required.
    5. The case will be monitored at least every 2 weeks and the complainant updated monthly or at agreed contact intervals.

Scope of investigation

16. This investigation covers the period from March 2021 until 21 December 2021, when the landlord’s internal complaint process completed. The landlord’s actions after this date fall outside the scope of this investigation. Any references to historical events are included for background purposes, to place the resident’s complaint in context.

Summary of events

17. The resident made a rehousing application through home hunt in February 2020. An assessment of housing need was decided based on the information provided by the resident in his home hunt application at that time. The resident was placed in band B4 and was awarded a 4-bedroom need. The landlord had not verified the resident’s circumstances at this stage. On 22 September 2020, the resident’s GP provided evidence of the resident’s eldest child’s allergies. The GP did not indicate that the child could not share a room.
18. It is understood that in March 2021, the resident told the landlord that his neighbour was letting their dog defecate in communal areas and repeatedly opened the front communal door without a key (by putting his arm through the letterbox), which the resident felt compromised the security of the property. The landlord has provided no evidence to show the action it took at this time. However, it is understood from the landlord’s complaint responses, that the neighbourhood manager communicated with the neighbour about those issues and reminded them about having consideration for others.
19. The resident reported noise nuisance from his neighbour on 5 May 2021. This included talking, shouting, playing music and a loud TV. The resident said that while the neighbourhood manager had addressed dog fouling with the neighbour, this had resulted in an argument between the resident and the neighbour. The resident said that he had tried making the neighbour aware of the excess noise, but there was no response. More recently, there had been a grinding sound, which the resident claimed was the neighbour’s dog eating a bone. He also reported a humming noise, believed to be coming from a heater. The neighbour was still putting his hands through the communal door letterbox to gain access to the building. The landlord opened an ASB case, which it assessed to be “low risk”.
20. On 6 May 2021, the landlord raised an order to fit a fire-retardant letterbox with a back–box to improve security. The landlord chased the works order on 10 May 2021.
21. The resident phoned the landlord on 10 May 2021, reporting more noise nuisance over the weekend. The resident said when he tried to speak to the neighbour he was ignored, and the noise intensified. The resident asked the landlord to fit a restrictor over the opening of the letterbox on the communal door, to prevent the neighbour from accessing the building via the letterbox.
22. In an initial telephone conversation with the resident on 11 May 2021, the landlord suggested that the resident report incidences of noise nuisance to the local authority. In a later conversation, the resident indicated that he was able to talk to his neighbour. Although the neighbour had not answered the door to him on the latest occasion, the music was turned down after confronting a guest. The resident mentioned that there had been no more dog fouling. It was agreed that the resident would keep a note if the issue persisted. Follow on case notes suggest the landlord advised the resident that a new letterbox would be fitted.
23. The landlord also spoke to the neighbour on 11 May 2021. This conversation was confirmed in writing. The landlord indicated that it was satisfied that proactive steps were being taken by the neighbour to minimise and avoid noise transference. The landlord noted that the neighbour had agreed to stop giving his dog a bone and had placed his heater on a rug. The neighbour had denied playing his TV or music excessively loud or for extended periods.
24. The landlord’s case notes suggest it warned the neighbour about using the letterbox as a means of access. It did not consider the resident’s complaints to be excessive in nature or volume and remarked that statutory noise nuisance could be reported to the local authority. The case was considered internally, where the landlord concluded that the matter was a “one off occasion where the music was too loud, and the neighbour did not answer his buzzer”.
25. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2021. The landlord:
    1. Explained that the noise nuisance, dog bone, and heater sounds did not meet its criteria for ASB under its ASB policy.
    2. Noted the neighbour had turned down the volume of his TV when asked in the past. The neighbour had shown compliance, by taking proactive steps to minimise noise transference and help avoid distress.
    3. Said “the structure of the building and its lack of complete sound proofing, means that noise can be amplified through properties and noise transference will occur. It is my opinion, appropriate actions have been undertaken to minimise this as much as possible, where applicable”. 
    4. Stated “if you feel that there is a statutory noise nuisance taking place, please contact the local authority noise team who can investigate this with more authority”.
26. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 May 2021, following further noise and general disturbance from the neighbour. The resident said that he had rung the neighbour’s doorbell but had been ignored.
27. On 20 May 2021, the landlord issued the resident with a consent form and asked the resident to provide evidence of the neighbour using the letterbox as a means of entry.
28. Between 23 June 2021 and 25 June 2021, the landlord received letters from the resident’s GP and children’s school, expressing concern about ongoing ASB and verbal threats made against the family and their 2 older children. The GP indicated that the children were experiencing anxiety, panic attacks, and felt stressed in their home. The GP asked the landlord to consider suitable alternative accommodation.
29. The landlord received several communications about the neighbour on 24 June 2021:
    1. The resident reported threatening behaviour toward the landlord’s contractor who had been prevented from completing work to the letterbox, and toward the resident’s partner.
    2. The resident’s mother advised that the resident’s children had been threatened by the neighbour and the police had advised them not to walk home alone due to ongoing harassment.
    3. The resident completed a complaint form, in connection with the incident between the neighbour and the landlord’s contractor. The resident said he was concerned for the safety of his family, who no longer felt safe living in the property. He asked for the letterbox to be completed immediately and for the neighbour to be reprimanded for his violent behaviour towards him and the landlord’s contractor.
30. In response, the landlord opened a new ASB case, and carried out a risk assessment. The landlord deemed the level of risk to be “high”. It phoned the resident on 24 June 2021. The landlord said that it planned to contact the neighbour. However, the resident said this would not make the neighbour stop. During the conversation, the landlord warned the resident about his own use of language towards the landlord.
31. The landlord’s records reflect a conversation with the neighbour on 25 June 2021. The neighbour said that his abuse was directed at its contractor not towards the resident and that he had stopped the work because he did not have a key to get into the block. The notes reflect that its contractor did not report the incident and the police were not contacted by the contractor at the time. However, the police were believed to have escorted the resident home following the incident.
32. The resident completed a further online complaint form on 1 July 2021. The resident said that its operative had put the resident and his family in danger, by divulging that it was he who had requested modifications to the letterbox. This had directly resulted in the neighbour making threats toward the resident’s partner who was frightened to leave the property.
33. The resident submitted a further complaint form on 17 July 2021, that the resident’s neighbour threw a coffee mug at him from his window, which narrowly missed his head. The resident said that the landlord should move his family to a safe environment as a priority. The resident said that the neighbourhood manager and their managers had done nothing about the continued ASB. He asked the landlord to confirm how it could resolve the complaint. He said that he had waited 4 or 5 months for the neighbourhood officer to visit him and he was still awaiting responses from senior managers.
34. On 19 July 2021, the resident reported that the neighbour was stealing his mail and that he was going to report this to the police. The case notes indicate that the landlord would investigate the possible mail theft.
35. The resident also submitted a further complaint form on 19 July 2021, that the neighbour was throwing rubbish into the resident’s garden, including items of clothing, branches, and a coffee cup. The coffee cup had just missed the resident’s head. The resident wanted the landlord to acknowledge the escalation of harassment by the neighbour, which he said the landlord had done nothing to stop. Also, to stop the neighbour putting his rubbish in his garden and to clear the rubbish. The case notes indicate that the landlord opened an ASB case which incorporated these allegations. Follow up notes reflect that the landlord spoke to the resident about these reports. It is unclear exactly how the landlord responded, but the case notes reflect that the resident remained dissatisfied.
36. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 July 2021. The resident provided a crime reference number regarding threats of physical violence towards his children, which he said the landlord had “disregarded”. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s suggestion to hand back objects thrown into his garden. Furthermore, the resident wanted to know what the landlord was going to do about the neighbour stealing his mail and discarding items into his garden. He said that he looked forward to the landlord’s visit the following week, which had been promised for the last 4 or 5 months.
37. The resident later reported on 20 July 2021, that his neighbour had thrown a hammer at him from his window, and his neighbour had threatened to get people to kill him. The landlord asked the resident to complete a consent form so the landlord could obtain disclosure from the police. The case notes show that an ASB case was opened on 21 July 2021, which incorporated these allegations.
38. The evidence suggests that the landlord met with external agencies on 21 July 2021. It told partners that it was unable to provide temporary accommodation but could put the resident forward for a management transfer. It requested police disclosure. The landlord then discussed the case further with the resident, who indicated that he was now living with a family member out of fear. The resident refused the landlord’s offer of mediation. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day setting out an agreed action plan. The action plan included:
    1. Updating the resident when police disclosure had been received.
    2. Submitting a priory transfer application, which it would present to its priority move panel once it had all supporting documentation.
    3. Obtaining regular updates from the police to help determine what actions they were taking against the neighbour.
    4. An external agency would assist the resident with seeking temporary accommodation.
    5. The resident would contact the police to request an escort to the property to collect belongings as required.
    6. The landlord would keep in touch by fortnightly telephone updates.
    7. The landlord would provide the resident with its housing options leaflet.
39. On 23 July 2021, the landlord chased the police for urgent disclosure. The local authority lettings team asked the landlord for an update, which the landlord provided.
40. The landlord received police disclosure on 28 July 2021. Police disclosure indicated that the neighbour had vulnerabilities. The landlord updated the resident and advised that it would submit the management transfer application. The case notes from the same day reflect that the neighbour was arrested for grievous bodily harm in connection with the hammer incident, however no evidence had been found regarding threats towards the resident’s children.
41. The landlord also received contact from the local authority housing needs team on 28 July 2021, who suggested that it would consider an emergency placement, if it had a reasonable timescale for when the family would be moved into alternative accommodation. The local authority suggested that if the family needed longer term emergency accommodation, they would have to give up their tenancy rights, and would possibly accommodate pending a successful move into the private sector.
42. The landlord submitted a priority move application to its panel on 29 July 2021, with supporting evidence. The application remarked “that the decant form puts him down as a 4-bed need”. Also, that “he had been advised that he would receive 1 direct offer within [the area of his choice]”. For clarity, the resident wanted alternative accommodation within the same locality as his existing property.
43. The landlord phoned the resident to confirm the outcome of the panel, although the case notes are undated. The landlord told the resident that he had been approved for 3-bedroom accommodation. It explained that “safety was first and preferred locations were secondary”. The case notes state that the resident said he understood and accepted this. The resident advised that he would now consider moving to temporary private accommodation on the basis that the landlord was seeking a permanent move.
44. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 August 2021. It said that the priority move panel had approved a management transfer and had awarded him an A3 banding. He had been given a 3-bedroom entitlement and would receive 1 direct offer, which would not be within [the area of his choice] due to risk. It said that the aim of a management transfer was to “remove you from the area of risk as soon as possible. It is not intended to address any other housing need or help you trade up to a more attractive home”.
45. The resident told the landlord on 4 August 2021, that he wanted to appeal the rehousing assessment made by the landlord’s priority move panel. He said he had a 4-bedroom need and should not be excluded from accommodation within [his area of choice]. In internal communication the following day, the neighbourhood manager reminded decision makers that the resident had specifically requested to be moved to a 4-bedroom property, within his area of choice. The neighbourhood manager indicated the resident had since been told a 3-bedroom move had been approved by the panel.
46. The local MP asked the landlord to review its housing assessment on 11 August 2021. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord. He said that he had not received a response in regard to his housing assessment appeal, or to complaints made about his neighbourhood manager. Neither had it provided an update on actions taken in connection with his ASB case. He said he remained homeless after being attacked with a hammer and threats to kill by his neighbour.
47. The resident made a further complaint on 13 August 2021. The resident:
    1. Reminded the landlord of his reasons for needing to move as follows:

i.        his family had been victims of harassment and violence from his neighbour, who was a tenant of the landlord

ii.      after complaining about the neighbour for over 6 months, his neighbour had been arrested for attempted grievous bodily harm. The neighbour had attacked the resident with a hammer in front of his children and had made threats to kill. The resident had hoped that such a violent escalation could have been avoided with the landlord’s intervention.

2. Wanted to appeal the landlord’s rehousing decision, which he found “unacceptable”. The landlord’s [rehousing] assessment was inaccurate and showed that the landlord “did not care about or refused to consider” his concerns.
3. Requested that the landlord provide permanent accommodation, within the catchment area of his children’s current schools, to give much needed stability to his children and reduce the uncertainty of their living arrangements.
4. Suggested that the landlord lacked empathy and believed that his children’s welfare had been considered as an “afterthought”. He reminded the landlord that his neighbour had also made threats towards his children.
5. Said that the landlord had not taken his child’s medical situation into account when making its decision about accommodation size. He asked the landlord to stand by its previous rehousing assessment from February 2020, which indicated a 4-bedroom entitlement. He said this had been agreed with the neighbourhood manager.

48. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 August 2021. It said that it had received the resident’s email about its priority move approval. The landlord:
    1. Confirmed that “a priority move application was made in reaction to ASB reported and was a direct safeguarding response. This meant you and your family’s safety is of the most paramount of importance, and we have done [what] we can, to ensure a move was approved as soon as possible”.
    2. Explained that it had asked its priority move panel to consider a move to a 4-bed property because he had said his eldest child could not share a room on account of his allergies. However, the property move panel approved a 3-bedroom move after considering the ages of the children, how they could share rooms and because of the limited availability of 4-bedroom accommodation within the resident’s preferred area of choice.
    3. Explained that “considering the ASB reported, it would not have been fitting to have approved a request for a 4-bedroom property when that could increase your wait time by so long”. While it could take up to 5 years to receive an offer of 4-bedroom property, an offer of 3-bedroom accommodation might be expected within 6 months.
    4. Said it was sorry for incorrectly stating that an offer would be made outside of the resident’s area of choice. It understood that the location of a potential property was to be as close to the resident’s current property as was possible.
    5. Stated it had looked into the resident’s concerns about how it had responded to reports of ASB. The landlord considered that its actions had been proportionate.
    6. Said that it “must hear and consider all factors of the circumstances that the ASB developed in and are not able to evict a tenant based on a subjective view”. It “must take into account each individuals situation and act appropriately. In this instance there were factors, which at the time of incident, exacerbated the frustration of the neighbour and provoked a response”. It stated that it had taken appropriate actions and supported a priority move application resulting in its approval.
    7. Said that the neighbourhood manager would continue to support the resident and his family, until suitable accommodation could be provided.
49. Undated case notes from around this time, indicate that the landlord received counter allegations from the neighbour about the resident. The neighbour asserted that he had not thrown a hammer at the resident, no fingerprints were found on it, and he had been released from custody.
50. The landlord requested an update from the police on 16 August 2021. It is not clear what date the police provided disclosure, however the police confirmed that enquiries were ongoing in relation the incident with the hammer. The police had closed the case involving threats made in connection with the letterbox.
51. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 August 2021, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s “dismissive response”. The resident:
    1. Questioned whether the landlord’s response was in response to his complaint about the landlord’s staff, his housing appeal, or both. He noted that his previous complaints about the actions and opinions of members of the landlord’s staff prior to the hammer incident had not been addressed.
    2. Listed several behaviours related to the neighbour and asked it to confirm whether these were part of its ‘subjective view’ that did not allow it to evict its tenants.
    3. Reminded the landlord that he had previously been registered on the home hunt website with a 4-bedroom eligibility. He said that he was not adverse to accepting a 3-bedroom property and accepted that an offer of 4-bedroom accommodation was improbable. However, he pointed out that it was not impossible for a 4-bedroom property to become available and asked the landlord to make him eligible.
52. The landlord’s case notes are undated, however they indicate that the landlord was endeavouring to maintain fortnightly contact with the resident.
53. The resident’s family support worker emailed the landlord on 23 August 2021, stating that the family were in need of support due to the impact of ASB and concerns about their housing situation. The landlord was asked to contact the resident if further support could be offered with housing.
54. The landlord’s records from 23 August 2021, indicate that the landlord considered next steps, and created an action plan to guide its response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s notes suggest that it had been handling the resident’s previous contact as a chief executive enquiry but acknowledged that it should deal with the resident’s concerns about staff as a formal complaint. It noted that concerns regarding the ASB case would be dealt with under the landlord’s ASB policy, not as a formal complaint, in line with its complaints policy. However, this service has seen no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaints.
55. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 August 2021. The landlord:
    1. Investigated the resident’s dissatisfaction with how the neighbourhood manager had handled the resident’s reports of ASB against his neighbour.
    2. Summarised the actions taken by the neighbourhood manager as follows:

i.        In March 2021:

(1)  The resident complained about his neighbour letting their dog defecate in communal areas. The resident advised that his neighbour repeatedly opened the front communal door without a key, which the resident felt compromised the security of the property.

(2)  The neighbourhood manager communicated with the neighbour about those issues and reminded them about having consideration for others.

(3)  A new letterbox was fitted to provide additional security, but authorisation delays and obstructive behaviour from the neighbour meant that this did not take place in a timely manner.

ii.      In May 2021:

(1)  The resident reported the neighbour for shouting, playing music and a loud TV.

(2)  The resident reported a grinding and humming sound from the neighbour’s flat. It was discovered that the grinding sound was from the neighbour’s dog and the humming sound was from a heater.

(3)  The resident reported that the neighbour argued with his girlfriend and the police were called.

(4)  The neighbourhood manager contacted the neighbour about their behaviour and signposted them to support services. The neighbourhood manager also provided information on different ways that the resident could move.

(5)  The resident asked for a senior manager to deal with these matters, but after reviewing the actions taken by the neighbourhood manager, it decided no intervention by a senior manager was needed. However, it noted that this was not communicated to the resident at the time, for which it now apologised.

iii.    In June 2021, the resident:

(1)  Reported issues with flies coming from rubbish bins. The neighbour was given advice on how to dispose of their rubbish, to avoid attracting flies.

(2)  Contacted the landlord on several occasions, asking to speak to more senior managers. The landlord noted that his requests for a call back were not actioned, for which the landlord now apologised.

iv.    In July 2021:

(1)  The resident alleged that his neighbour was stealing his mail. The landlord pointed out that as mail theft was a criminal act, there was little that it could do unless there was a police conviction. In this case, the police did not take any action following the resident’s report.

(2)  The resident reported the neighbour for cutting some tree branches, which fell into the resident’s garden.

(3)  The resident reported that the neighbour had thrown a coffee mug and hammer through his window at him whilst he was in the garden. In addition, the neighbour had made threats towards the resident. An ASB case was opened to log the reports. It understood that the resident vacated his property following the incident on 20 July 2021.

(4)  The neighbourhood manager requested disclosure from the police regarding the incident with the hammer, however as the investigation was ongoing the police had only provided basic information. Despite not yet receiving full police disclosure, the neighbourhood manager submitted a management move application which had been agreed.

v.      It was satisfied that the neighbourhood manager had acted in accordance with its ASB policy, that all allegations had been investigated. It considered that reasonable steps had been taken. The neighbourhood manager had kept the resident informed, had been in contact with the neighbour, issued warnings where appropriate and had made referrals to agencies to support the neighbour with their behaviour.

vi.    While it appreciated the resident’s frustration, the landlord could only act within the confines of its tenancy agreement and action taken must be proportionate and reasonable.

vii.  The majority of the earlier complaints, related to the neighbour being inconsiderate, rather than demonstrating a wilful intent to cause ASB. The neighbour had also made counter allegations which were considered.

viii. A copy of the landlord’s ASB policy was attached.

ix.    Offered £50 compensation for failure to return repeated escalated call back requests from senior officers.

56. The local authority’s rehousing team emailed the landlord on 28 July 2021, indicating that they had explored long term rehousing options with the resident, but the resident did not consider these to be viable. While they could assist the resident in the private sector, the resident did not wish to give up his security of tenure. The local authority indicated that they would consider emergency accommodation placements if there was a reasonable timescale for when the family would be moved by the landlord. The landlord’s case notes of unknown date, state that the resident told the landlord that he had not gone any further with the local authority’s offer of temporary accommodation. The resident did not wish the landlord to make contact with the local authority on his behalf.
57. The landlord requested a police update on 1 September 2021 following new ASB reports of a domestic nature, made by other neighbours about the resident. The landlord said that this was “to help determine legal action to be taken against the suspect”. The police responded on 3 September 2021, advising the landlord on the status of the investigation.
58. The resident and landlord exchanged several emails between 8 September 2021 and 10 September 2021:
    1. The resident:

i.        Confirmed that his complaint was about:

(1)  the neighbourhood manager and their manager’s refusal to act upon his concerns about his neighbour and his ASB, “including his violent threats that eventually played out in front of my traumatised children”

(2)  the landlord’s “inability to follow the guidelines of the [landlord’s] complaint and ASB policy and the neglect of my family under the duress of ASB and harassment”

(3)  the landlord’s failure to address all of his points, which included why the complaint procedure and ASB policy were not followed in his case.

ii.      Suggested that his previous complaints were ignored and were not responded to within 10 days. He questioned how the complaint could be at stage 1 considering the previous complaints he had made, and its complaint response being given by a senior manager.

iii.    Said he was not satisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response.

2. The landlord:

iv.    Clarified that complaints regarding neighbours were not reasons to go through its complaint process. Its complaint process dealt with dissatisfaction due to a failure.

v.      Clarified that complaints regarding the neighbour’s behaviour were handled by neighbourhood managers. Complaints regarding the handling of ASB were dealt by area managers or head of neighbourhoods.

vi.    Said it took all feedback seriously, which aided its training and improvements in customer service.

vii.  Acknowledged that the resident’s initial contact was not dealt with as a formal complaint, however when it recognised this was the resident’s purpose, a complaint was logged accordingly. If the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident could escalate his complaint to stage 2.

viii. Reviewed the actions taken by the neighbourhood manager and found that they had acted in accordance with its ASB policy. It asked the resident to explain why he believed that it had not followed its complaint and ASB policy.

ix.    Appreciated that the situation had escalated to a point where he no longer felt safe in the property and that he may have felt that action could have been taken to prevent the last incident occurring. However, it could only act within the confines of the tenancy agreement.

x.      Acknowledged that senior managers had not responded to call backs, for which compensation had already been offered.

59. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021, requesting that the landlord approve a 4-bedroom entitlement. The resident repeated his previous argument for this and resent the GP letter evidencing his eldest child’s medical condition. The landlord responded to the resident by email on 15 September 2021. The landlord:
    1. Said the resident had been awarded a band 3 management transfer priority, which was a higher banding than he previously had.
    2. Stated that the resident had a 3-bedroom need, as his 2 eldest children could share a room.
    3. Said it was sorry to hear about his child’s medical condition, but the evidence provided did not stipulate that they could not share a room. It suggested the resident complete a medical form, which its independent medical advisor could assess.
    4. Indicated there was a shortage of 3 and 4-bedroom properties, but as a high priority case, it was seeking a 3-bedroom property for the resident.
60. Following a previous phone conversation of unknown date, the resident emailed the neighbourhood manager on 28 September 2021. In the email, the resident misspelled the neighbourhood manager’s surname on 10 occasions in the same way, spelling out a profanity. The resident:
    1. Said that he did not give permission for the neighbourhood manager to update him once a month, rather than every 2 weeks as previously agreed.
    2. Wanted the neighbourhood manager to refrain from calling him with “pseudo concern” for his wellbeing.
    3. Said that he was aware that the neighbours had reported more ASB to the landlord.
61. The landlord and resident exchanged several more emails on 4 October 2021:
    1. The resident:

i.        Said that that he found the neighbourhood manager “unprofessional, unsympathetic and unsupportive” to his complaints and concerns about his family’s safety and wellbeing.

ii.      Considered that the complaint had not been handled in line with the landlord’s complaint policy.

iii.    Set out 30 questions, that the resident considered remained unanswered in relation to his complaint.

2. The landlord:

iv.    Expressed concern about the way the resident had addressed the neighbourhood manager and issued him a final warning.

v.      Said that the neighbourhood manager had been instructed not to respond to any direct emails from the resident and the ASB case had been assigned to another member of staff. All future communications were to go via the landlord’s customer hub. This restriction on access would be reviewed in 6 months.

vi.    Said that it would need time to review the resident’s communication and fully respond. It aimed to respond by 14 October 2021.

62. On 14 October 2021, the landlord provided a second stage 1 response (as referenced in its case notes). In summary, the landlord:
    1. Said that it logged a complaint as soon as it recognised this was required. Although a senior officer considered the complaint, stage 2 responses were provided by its customer experience team who were independent of the neighbourhood’s team. The landlord clarified that “this response will not be a stage 2 response”.
    2. Noted that prior to the incident, the resident had reported low level incidents and made allegations of a threat of violence. These reports were investigated, and warnings were issued as appropriate.
    3. Suggested that the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the “dysfunctional relationship” with his neighbour. It said that while not wishing to victim blame, some of the resident’s actions could be seen as provocation. It listed examples, but said “no one would say that you deserved any of the behaviour you report you were subjected to”.
    4. Said the neighbour had denied intentionally throwing anything out the window, but “as a result of this incident you and your family fled your property”. The police were still investigating the incident.
    5. Said that the neighbourhood manager had acted in accordance with its ASB policy, by recording reports, offering advice, arranging support from external agencies, communicating with the police, and keeping in regular contact with him. An application for a priority move was approved and the landlord was looking for suitable available accommodation.
    6. Pointed out that a threat of violence was a criminal matter. It said, should the allegations against the neighbour be proven, the landlord would take appropriate action. However, a social housing tenancy did not give it the power to end a tenancy without substantive proof and any action taken must be proportionate.
    7. Said its offer of compensation recognised the resident’s requests to speak to more senior members of staff, which were not followed up.
    8. Said the resident’s reports of dog fouling, excessive noise and threats were treated as reports of ASB, which were logged and investigated. The neighbourhood manager spoke to both parties in line with its policy and provided advice and warnings. The letterbox had also been changed. A copy of the landlord’s ASB policy was attached to assist in clarifying its actions.
    9. Apologised for not explaining that during the height of the pandemic and the lock down, visits were restricted to essential visits to protect both its residents and staff.
    10. Said that in having oversight of the resident and neighbour’s reports, there was a conflict of lifestyles. It had referred the neighbour to relevant agencies, after identifying some vulnerabilities and support needs. It said that it “could not be held responsible for the behaviour of its residents”.
    11. Asked the resident to state what actions he felt the neighbourhood manager should have taken. It stated the resident had been offensive in the way he had addressed the neighbourhood manager.
63. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 October 2021, to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 18 October 2021. It said it hoped to allocate the case within 5 – 7 days, due to the high number of review requests it was dealing with. However, it was unclear on the reasons for escalation and asked the resident to confirm this. On the same day, the landlord’s case notes reflect reports that the resident had made personal comments on social media about the neighbourhood manager. The resident also submitted a new medical form, to support his need for an additional bedroom
64. On 22 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again asking to appeal the landlord’s decision on eligibility for 4-bedroom accommodation. The resident maintained that if there was something wrong with the 2020 assessment, the landlord had over a year to address and rectify this, but it had not. The resident attached the 2020 home hunt assessment and a new medical form.
65. The landlord and resident exchanged emails between 25 October 2021 and 26 October 2021 about rehousing:
    1. The landlord:

i.        Explained why the resident had a 3-bedroom need. It could not “comment on any previous assignment by home hunt which had been over-ridden, as it did not have this information”. It asked the resident to bear in mind that 4-bedroom houses were very rarely advertised on home hunt.

ii.      Said that the resident’s current banding reflected the need for a management transfer, which was a higher banding than could be attained for a medical transfer. However, it would pass the medical application to the relevant team to process, who would get back to him about this.

iii.    Said his 3-bedroom entitlement would have been determined when awarding higher priority for a management transfer. The rehousing team could give no further advice on this, however if the resident wished to take its decision about size allocation higher, he should raise this through the customer hub. The resident could speak to someone in the priority transfer team if he wished.

2. The resident:

iv.    Reaffirmed that he was not appealing on medical grounds, but on the change of entitlement to a 4-bedroom property.

66. On 28 October 2021, the resident suggested the landlord was ignoring his concerns and representations about his housing assessment. He asked the landlord to confirm at what stage the complaint was now at. The landlord responded on the same day, stating that it had not ignored his concerns. It had explained the actions that it had taken and the advice it had given about his rehousing eligibility. It directed the resident to the customer hub to enquire about any outstanding complaint.
67. After the resident chased the landlord for a response to his stage 2 complaint, the landlord emailed the resident on 2 November 2021, confirming that the complaint had now been assigned for investigation. It asked the resident to clarify what elements of the complaint the resident remained dissatisfied with. It said it aimed to provide its stage 2 response by 23 November 2021. The resident said that he remained dissatisfied with the following matters:
    1. The treatment he had received from the landlord, most notably the neighbourhood manager and their failure to follow the landlord’s ASB and complaint policy, their failure to de-escalate the ASB of his neighbour, their failure to provide or implement safety measures agreed and, their lack of assistance.
    2. The managers of the neighbourhood manager, who failed to respond to phone calls and emails of complaint against the neighbourhood manager.
    3. That other senior managers did not follow the landlord’s complaint policy and “purposely delayed escalating my complaint for a number of months. Like [the neighbourhood manager] they have both blamed me for the violent behaviour and ASB of my former neighbour, failing to acknowledge the harassment and distress he has caused my family for over a year”.
68. On 15 November 2021, the resident raised a new complaint form which stated that he had been prioritised for a move and the transfer team sent an approval letter with incorrect information on 4 August 2021. On the same day he wrote to the priority transfer team challenging this information. Ther resident requested a response and amendment, which he said had been ignored. He had asked senior staff to assist but had received unofficial assurances which would not suffice. To resolve his complaint, he asked that a named senior manager in the priority transfer team respond to his email of 4 August 2021 and change the bedroom allocation in view of his previous housing needs assessment.
69. The landlord emailed the resident on 20 November 2021, advising that due to annual leave commitments, its stage 2 response would not be provided until the week beginning 29 November 2021.
70. The landlord requested a further police update on 24 November 2021. It is unclear if the police responded.
71. The resident and landlord exchanged emails between 26 November 2021 and 4 December 2021. The landlord’s priority housing team asked the resident to complete another medical form. The resident asked why the landlord kept referring to medicals when the basis of his appeal was about the change in bedroom eligibility from 2020, which the landlord refused to address. The landlord insisted that the resident must provide evidence if an additional bedroom was needed for medical reasons. The resident remained unsatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked for his complaint to be escalated.
72. The landlord’s internal records from 29 November 2021 indicate, that there was “no medical case”, as it could not “process a new [medical] application without evidence”. The landlord communicated this to the resident on the same date. The resident was asked to submit a new form, with medical evidence for consideration by its independent medical assessor.
73. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 December 2021. The landlord said:
    1. It was “reviewing the complaint logged on 25th August 2021, regarding staff conduct, ASB case handling, as well as communication and subsequent communications from various members of staff regarding this”.
    2. Staff had acted in accordance with its ASB policy and had taken action to refer him onto external agencies where appropriate. It had updated the resident with actions taken, and while it appreciated his frustration that the behaviour continued, it was unreasonable to expect the landlord to control the neighbour’s behaviour.
    3. Some of the comments made by the resident related to the neighbour being inconsiderate, and issues that were outside of its control. It said that it was also relevant to note that the neighbour made counter allegations which were taken into account.
    4. Agreed that the resident’s repeated requests to speak to senior managers were delayed, “though it is not always feasible to expect that a specific staff member of your preferred seniority will be able to handle your case, as there is a finite amount of personnel available”.
    5. In line with its complaints policy, active ASB cases were handled through its ASB process rather than the complaints process. It said, the outcome of an ASB case will not necessarily be modified by a complaint being made about it. “Any current or future ASB issues will not form part of a complaint, and this will continue to be managed as part of any live ASB case”.
    6. Its powers of intervention were limited, and it did not have the same powers as a local authority.
    7. It did not underestimate the impact of ASB. It had committed resources to tackle ASB though a dedicated neighbourhood team, which was further supported by several other teams. However, there were several challenges:

i.        It must balance proportionality with effectiveness. It must ensure that its “actions are reasonable and proportionate to the issue; this will consider factors such as (but not limited to) the frequency, impact, and severity, along with the effectiveness the of any possible action (i.e. whether the action will resolve the issue)”.

ii.      Obtaining sufficient evidence. “From experience in other cases we know that the court expects us to take legal action only as a last resort”. It said, even where it recognised ongoing and persistent reports of ASB, the available evidence may restrict the options available to it.

iii.    The need to take into account vulnerabilities of the accused, as it had a duty care to all parties.

8. “To ensure we successfully tackle ASB and navigate around the challenges we are faced with, we have a range of legal and non-legal tools and options”. It said that in this case, it utilised several tools and avenues, some of which may not have been visible to the resident.
9. While it was unable to disclose all of details of the actions it had taken and would be taking, it would continue to work with the resident and other neighbours “on evidence and information gathering”. It had also approved the resident’s priority move application to further safeguard him and his family.
10. Aside from the issues with regards to communication, it was satisfied that it had appropriately managed the ASB case. Responses had been provided and the related complaint had been responded to in a fair and responsible way, in line with its policies.
11. In relation to property size and rehousing need, it was satisfied that the request has been handled appropriately. It noted that its initial application proposed a 4-bedroom need. The priority move panel had approved a move to a 3-bedroom property based on the number of bed spaces needed. It also took into consideration that 4-bedroom properties were exceptionally limited, which could have increased the wait time by upwards of 5 years. When considering the grounds for the priority move, it was not appropriate to approve a priority move where the potential wait time was so significant.
12. In learning lessons and putting things right, it echoed previous comments about its communications, for which £50 compensation had been offered at stage 1 and “the case had been fed back”.
13. It recognised that it was unable to provide a response at stage 2 within its stated timeframes and was employing more staff to reduce complaint handling delay. It offered the resident a further £50 compensation in addition to the £50 previously offered, in recognition of his added time, trouble and inconvenience progressing the complaint at stage 2.
14. Apologised for any areas during the handling of the resident’s complaint that fell short of his expectations.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

74. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the resident was subjected to ASB or nuisance. However, this service does acknowledge the impact on the resident, as described within his communications. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the appropriateness and adequacy of the actions taken by the landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of ASB. This includes whether the landlord acted reasonably, proportionately, and in line with its policies and procedures.
75. The resident first reported low-level nuisance from his neighbour in March 2021. From the evidence provided to this service, it has not been possible to form a view on whether the landlord took proportionate steps to investigate and act upon the resident’s reports. However, the landlord’s case notes reflect the resident advising the landlord that there had been no further dog fouling since its intervention. Furthermore, after warning the neighbour about his means of accessing the block, the landlord raised a works order to fit a more secure letterbox. It is not in dispute that there were delays in authorising this work, or that further delay was caused by the neighbour’s behaviour. While such delays may have been frustrating, the direct impact of this delay on the resident was minimal.
76. The resident mentioned that no home visits were carried out by the landlord in response to his early reports of ASB, expected under the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord has explained that it ceased all non-essential visits during the Covid-19 national lock down to protect its residents and staff. This was common practice for most landlords at the start of lock down and this approach was in keeping with government guidance. It is also noted that the landlord apologised to the resident for not making this clear to the resident at the time, which was reasonable.
77. The landlord responded to the resident’s new reports of noise nuisance in May 2021, by opening a new ASB case and carrying out an assessment of risk. It is unclear if the landlord contacted the resident within 1 working day of the case being allocated to a case manager. However, the landlord did gather evidence and decide upon the action that it could take within expected timescales. Similarly, lock down guidance would have precluded the landlord from carrying out non-essential home visits. It is noted that the landlord continued to make enquiries by other means, which was appropriate.
78. The evidence shows that the landlord later spoke to the neighbour, who agreed to minimise sound transmission to other parts of the building. It was reasonable for the landlord to close its ASB case with agreement of the resident, if it felt that its criteria for ASB had not been met under its policy. The landlord’s decision was in keeping with its ASB policy which stated that it “will not usually take action where a complaint concerns behaviour that results from a difference in lifestyles” and “it would only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequent, excessive in volume and duration and occurs at unsociable hours”. The landlord gave relevant advice on the local authority’s role in investigating statutory noise nuisance. It appropriately suggested that the resident keep a note should issues persist. Considering the evidence available, the level of risk and frequency of the behaviour, the landlord’s decision to close the ASB case was both reasonable and proportionate.
79. When signing his neighbour agreement, the resident agreed to resolve any conflict arising from differences in lifestyle, and to take reasonable steps to resolve any conflict through negotiation or mediation. When the resident alerted the landlord on 13 May 2021, that his attempts to resolve new incidents of noise nuisance with the neighbour had failed, the landlord should have considered offering both parties mediation. This could have been facilitated over a virtual platform in view of the Covid-19 restrictions in place. An offer of mediation would have been in keeping with the landlord’s commitment towards early intervention under its ASB policy and would have allowed the parties to air their differences in a controlled manner in order to reach mutual agreement. There is no evidence that mediation was considered as a viable option at this point, which was a missed opportunity.
80. It is also noted that days earlier, the landlord advised the resident to approach the local authority if he felt there was a statutory noise nuisance taking place, as they could “investigate this with more authority”. While this may be the case, the landlord was still required under its ASB policy to consider noise complaints that were frequent or occurred at unreasonable hours. As the noise nuisance was becoming more frequent and was occurring at unreasonable hours, the landlord should have considered issuing diary sheets to the resident. This would have allowed it to monitor the frequency, duration and timing of the noise, and make evidence-based decisions regarding the meeting of its ASB threshold. The landlord’s inaction perpetuated the resident’s dissatisfaction and left the resident’s concerns unresolved.
81. Toward the end of June 2021, the landlord received supporting documentation from the school and GP, expressing concern about the impact of threats of violence toward the resident’s 2 eldest children. This service appreciates that this must have been a worrying time for the resident. However, this service has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of such threats prior to 24 June 2021. This restricts the ability of this service to form a view on the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions prior to this date.
82. However, when the landlord became aware of new threats of violence against the children, the resident and his partner on 24 June 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by immediately opening a “high risk” ASB case. In accordance with its ASB procedure, it contacted the resident, began gathering evidence and spoke to the neighbour about the allegations made. It is unclear from the evidence seen, whether the landlord had resumed visiting residents in accordance with its ASB policy, as restrictions eased following lock down. If a visit was undertaken, this was not recorded in the landlord’s case notes, which is inappropriate.
83. Under its ASB policy, the landlord was required to decide what action it would take and agree an action plan with the resident by 15 July 2021 (being 15 working days of it gathering evidence from the resident and neighbour). There is no evidence that the landlord met this target. This was unreasonable, as it left the resident uncertain as to how the neighbour’s threats against his family were being managed, and he remained in fear for their safety.
84. It is noted that the resident made 3 new reports of ASB between 17 July 2021 and 20 July 2021, which culminated in allegations of a hammer being thrown at the resident and threats to kill. In view of the escalating nature of the behaviour, it was appropriate that the landlord reconsidered its approach. The landlord’s records reflect it making reasonable enquiries with the resident and its partner agencies. Police disclosure from around this time, indicated that the neighbour had vulnerabilities, which the landlord was obliged to take into consideration. However, the landlord’s well-intentioned offer of mediation at this stage was arguably misplaced, considering the severity and escalation of the behaviour reported. It was unsurprising that the resident declined the landlord’s offer of mediation, who by this point had fled the property.
85. Through its action plan, the landlord demonstrated that it was treating the resident’s reports of attempted assault and threats to kill with the seriousness they deserved. From the evidence seen by this service, the landlord progressed the case in accordance with its action plan and endeavoured to provide updates to the resident, which was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
86. As the outcome of the police investigation would influence any action that the landlord might take, the landlord appropriately and periodically asked for updates from the police in connection with their ongoing investigations. It is noted that the police were unable to substantiate reports of violence towards the children. The police also closed their investigation into the earlier threats made on 24 June 2021, without further action. While a lack of evidence would have certainly limited the action that the landlord might have taken, this service has seen no evidence that the landlord explained the action that it would or would not take on becoming aware that the police had discontinued those investigations. The lack of a formal resolution to these matters likely contributed to the resident’s overall feeling of injustice and frustration.
87. At the time the landlord issued its final complaint response, the police investigation into the threats to kill and grievous bodily harm were ongoing. While it is understandable that the resident might have expected the landlord to have taken robust and timelier action against the neighbour in connection with this, the timescale for completing the police investigation was not within the landlord’s control. The immediate risk to the resident and his family had been minimised by them fleeing the property and staying with family members. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the outcome of the police investigation, or any resultant court action, before determining a proportionate and effective course of action in regard to the neighbour.
88. The landlord endeavoured to support the resident’s interim housing need by providing supporting evidence to the local authority rehousing team. As the landlord was unable to provide emergency or interim accommodation, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. The resident’s longer-term housing need was addressed by the landlord approving a management transfer, which it progressed promptly following the reported incident with the hammer. The landlord’s approval of the resident’s management transfer was a fair decision in the circumstances of the case.
89. When considered cumulatively, this service finds maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s appeal in connection with decisions made by the landlord’s priority move panel

90. The landlord’s rehousing policy sets out limited circumstances when a resident may appeal a decision made by the landlord. For appeals concerning priority moves, the priority move panel will determine if offers related to a management transfer are reasonable. The policy does not set out any rights of appeal concerning the panel’s assessment in relation to size of accommodation or restrictions on areas. It is therefore unclear to this service, the basis upon which the landlord responded to the resident’s representations. The evidence suggests there was no single point of contact to handle the resident’s request, and the resident was passed between teams. A lack of oversight concerning the resident’s representations left the resident’s concerns unresolved, which was unreasonable.
91. The landlord acknowledged that it had made an error by prohibiting the resident from securing accommodation within the area of his choice, for which it apologised and then corrected. However, in view of the level of risk following threats to the resident’s life, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have encouraged the resident to move away from the area he lived, even if this had the potential to cause disruption to schooling. Considering the limited availability of 3 and 4-bedroom accommodation in the area of the resident’s choosing, a wider area of choice might have increased the resident’s chances of a timelier move.
92. It remains unclear to this service why, if it was not the landlord’s aim “to address any other housing need or help [the resident] trade up to a more attractive home”, the landlord approved the resident’s eligibility for a move from a 1-bedroom flat to 3-bedroom accommodation. Securing alternative accommodation of a similar size and type to the resident’s existing property was likely to have secured a quicker move, which was the goal. However, the landlord’s willingness to consider the resident for larger accommodation showed that the landlord had taken the resident’s latest household composition into account when making its decision. This was of benefit to the resident and showed reasonableness in the landlord’s decision making.
93. From the evidence seen by this service, the panel’s assessment in connection with the size of the accommodation needed by the household, was made in line with its lettings policy. This was based on the resident’s 2 eldest children sharing a room. While a medical diagnosis had been confirmed for the eldest child, the GP had not stated that they could not share a room. The landlord was entitled to assess the resident’s eligibility based on the information available to it at the time. In view of the perceived risk to the resident and his family, it was also important that the panel’s decision to grant a priority transfer was not delayed by as yet undetermined factors.
94. The landlord’s response on 16 August 2021 implied it would not grant a 4-bedroom management transfer within the resident’s area of choice, due to significant waiting times for such accommodation This service does agree that a wait time of up to 5 years for 4-bedroom accommodation would call into question the appropriateness of a management move as means of resolution. However, after deciding to take the resident’s housing need into account when approving the transfer, this service questions the fairness of continuing to restrict the resident from bidding on 4-bedroom accommodation if he could prove such need. Had this been evidenced, the landlord could have worked with the resident to extend his areas of choice, which would presumably have improved his chances of securing suitable accommodation in a timelier manner.
95. It is noted that the landlord did eventually advise the resident to submit medical evidence to support his request for an additional bedroom. However, this was not suggested until nearly 6 weeks after the resident first raised his appeal request. The resident submitted a new medical form on 18 October 2021. However, the landlord asked the resident to submit another medical form on 26 November 2021, in response to further representations made by the resident. The records suggest that the author was unaware that the resident had already submitted a medical form. This may suggest an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. Nevertheless, the landlord’s request was unnecessary and confusing. If the landlord was unable to assess declared medical needs based on the information provided by the resident, the resident should have been made aware of this sooner. The landlord’s communications were likely to have perpetuated the resident’s frustration and caused him further distress.
96. The 2020 home hunt assessment determined the resident to have a 4-bedroom need, which was based on information given by the resident on his application form. It is noted that the resident repeatedly asked the landlord to explain why his assessment of housing need had changed since 2020. It is understandable that it may have been difficult for the landlord to comment on this fully if the information had been overridden over the passage of time. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not explain this at an earlier stage. It would have aided the resident’s understanding, had the landlord also explained that any offer of accommodation was subject to verification of a resident’s circumstances. Had it made an offer of 4-bedroom accommodation based on the 2020 home hunt assessment, this could have been withdrawn if the evidence did not support this later. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his change in entitlement from the 2020 housing needs assessment was inadequate
97. When considered cumulatively, this service finds maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s appeal regarding a management transfer.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping

98. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s policy said that “if we receive an expression of dissatisfaction, we will look to resolve a matter without the need to record a formal complaint”. This was in direct contravention of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) which states that a landlord shall “accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so”. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not recognise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction as a complaint until 23 August 2021. This led to unreasonable delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, increased frustration for the resident, and caused confusion. On review of the landlord’s website, it is noted that the landlord has since amended its complaint policy to comply with the Code.
99. The resident filled in 5 complaint forms between 24 June 2021 and 13 August 2021 and made a further expression of dissatisfaction on 20 August 2021. In accordance with the Code, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not acknowledge any of the resident’s formal stage 1 complaints. It was also inappropriate that it did not explain at the outset which elements it would deal with as a complaint, and which were best suited to an investigation under its ASB policy. This was not fully explained until the landlord’s stage 2 and final response. The landlord’s failure to explain this at the outset, created unnecessary confusion, resulting in the resident dealing with several members of staff across several teams at the same time.
100.      The landlord’s stage 1 response recognised that senior management had not responded to the resident’s requests for call backs, for which it made a reasonable offer of compensation. However, it did not recognise any failings in regard to the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
101.      The Code states that a resident shall be given a fair opportunity to comment on any adverse findings before a final decision is made. To this end, the landlord’s policy at the time, allowed residents an additional 10 days after issue of a stage 1 response, to make additional representation. However, in this case, as the landlord was unable to deliver a formal response in a timely manner, it should have logged the resident’s dissatisfaction as a stage 2 complaint. Instead, the landlord provided a second stage 1 response several weeks later, which elongated the complaint process and prevented the resident from advancing his complaint sooner. It also caused unnecessary confusion for the resident who expressed uncertainty about what stage his complaint was at.
102.      The landlord’s second stage 1 response attempted to respond factually to the 30 supplementary questions posed by the resident. However, the tone of the landlord’s response lacked empathy and at points lay blame on the resident for his situation. By way of example, the landlord said “it could be argued that your own actions contributed to the dysfunctional relationship with your neighbour”. The landlord also said that his neighbour had denied intentionally throwing anything out the window at him, “but as a result of this incident you and your family fled your property”. The landlord’s response was likely to have contributed to the resident’s feeling of injustice and distress. Learning from complaints published on the landlord’s website recognises a “need to manage resident expectations better and also provide explanations for why we have taken a certain decision or course of action in a clearer and more empathetic way”. The website indicates that the landlord was making improvements accordingly.
103.      There was a delay in allocating the resident’s stage 2 complaint, on account of the landlord dealing with a high number of reviews. Once allocated, the landlord said that it would provide a full response by 23 November 2021. Before this date, the landlord advised that it could not provide a response until 29 November 2021 due to “annual leave commitments”. This service does not consider this to be an adequate reason for delaying resolution of the complaint. It was also inappropriate that the landlord failed to provide its response until 21 December 2021, 16 days later than the landlord indicated.
104.      The landlord’s stage 2 response offered an additional £50 compensation in recognition of the resident’s added time, trouble and inconvenience progressing the complaint at stage 2. However, it is this the opinion of this service, that the landlord’s offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.
105.      While this service was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided by the landlord, the landlord’s case management records did not consistently record dates of actions and transactions. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk not taking appropriate and timely action, miss opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate, and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.
106.      The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions and transactions, relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. However, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. It is however, again noted from the landlord’s website, that the landlord has already identified issues with its record keeping in connection with ASB cases and is making improvements in this area.
107.      Overall, the landlord’s complaint’s process was unduly long, overly protracted and was poorly managed. The impact on the resident was confusion, uncertainty, as well as increased time and trouble. In relation to its management of ASB, the landlord’s record keeping fell short of expected standards. When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

108.      In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
109.      In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s appeal in connection with decisions made by the landlord’s priority move panel.
110.      In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Reasons

111.      The landlord missed an opportunity to offer mediation at an earlier stage. The landlord did not issue diary sheets when new reports of noise nuisance were made, which would have allowed it to consider if its thresholds for investigation had been met. The landlord did not meet its expected timescale for agreeing the action it would take following threats of violence towards the resident and his family. There is no evidence of the landlord confirming its proposed course of action following the conclusion of police investigations.
112.      There was no single point of contact for dealing with the resident’s continued representations concerning the priority move, and a lack of oversight over the resident’s concerns. The landlord delayed advising the resident to submit a medical form to support a 4-bedroom housing need. The landlord’s handling of the residents completed medical form was poor and its communications were confusing. The landlord did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about a change in entitlement from an earlier housing needs assessment.
113.      The landlord’s complaint process was unduly long, overly protracted, and poorly managed. The landlord did not recognise and deal with the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction as a formal complaint in a timely manner at stage 1. When the landlord did issue a stage 1 response, it did not explain the scope of its complaint investigation. The landlord delayed escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2, by issuing a second stage 1 response several weeks after issue of its initial/first stage 1 response. The landlord’s second stage 1 response lacked empathy and blamed the resident for his situation. The landlord did not provide an adequate reason for delaying issue of its stage 2 response, which was further extended without agreement with the resident. The landlord’s offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings identified by this service. The landlord’s record keeping fell short of expected standards.

Orders

114.      Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £650 to the resident, which is reduced to £450 if the landlord has already paid the compensation previously offered. This award is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
     1. £250 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
     2. £250 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s appeal in connection with decisions made by the landlord’s priority move panel.
     3. £150 in recognition of the resident’s time, effort, and inconvenience, in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
115.      The landlord must write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report to:
     1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
     2. Offer to meet with the resident to discuss any outstanding issues with ASB. Where a meeting does take place (this must be done within a reasonable period of time), the landlord must agree an action plan with the resident, making clear who will do what and by when.
     3. Offer to meet with the resident to discuss the resident’s longer term housing need if this has not already been resolved. Where a meeting does take place (this must be done within a reasonable period of time). The landlord must agree an action with the resident, making it clear who will do what and by when.
116.      The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
117.      Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review of the learning in this case and advise this service of its intentions. As minimum, the landlord must review the circumstances under which the landlord will consider a review about decisions made by its priority move panel. The landlord must consider if its lettings policy should be revised to cover circumstances such as those surfaced in this case. In any event, the landlord should ensure that it has a clear procedure for dealing with such requests.
118.      The landlord must bring into its operations any identified improvements within 3 months of the date of this report.