Places for People Group Limited (202206081)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206081

Places for People Group Limited

30 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of domestic abuse and her request for an urgent management transfer to flee the abuse.
This investigation also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
This investigation also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 16 August 2017. The property is a two-bedroom house which she lives in on her own.
At the commencement of her tenancy, the resident was fleeing domestic abuse from her previous partner. Prior to being offered this tenancy, the resident said she had attended viewings for two other properties that she was offered by the landlord, but she had to forfeit these properties as the partner turned up at the viewings so knew where she would be living. The resident said that she had to try and alert the viewing officers at the viewings that she was at risk. Each time the resident attended a viewing and the partner turned up, the landlord withdrew the offer and made the resident a different one because of partner finding location. She was eventually offered her current property which she was able to view safely and accepted.
The resident has vulnerabilities and complex needs which the landlord is aware of. As well as a survivor of ongoing domestic abuse, she had been diagnosed with a serious eating disorder and was being supported by a psychiatric nurse from the Community Mental Health Team. She also suffered from supraventricular tachycardia. Since moving into the property, evidence suggests her mental health deteriorated; her psychiatric nurse references that she had started to self-harm. The resident was also involved in a serious car accident, and sustained a frontal lobe brain injury – this affects her cognitive function, her ability to read and write as well as inducing epileptic seizures.
The resident has advised this Service that her ex-partner had stalked her since they split. In her correspondence to the landlord, she had pointed out that it was aware the ex-partner had on two occasions tried obtaining information on the resident from them. Within six months of the resident moving into the landlord’s property, the ex-partner found her and moved into a property close by to where she lived (0.5 mile). The harassment escalated, and the resident said that she had been trying to move from this property ever since.
The resident said she had been subjected to violence and rape by her ex-partner. She said the harassment since the ex-partner found her had been relentless, not only from her ex-partner but also associates of hers that harassed her in the streets and local shops; she had also been bombarded with text and telephone calls and had attempted break-ins. In April 2021, the resident had to apply for a non-molestation order from the court for her protection. This was granted on 29 April 2021, preventing the ex-partner from approaching her, threatening, or using violence against her, and this was further extended on 29 June 2021. The resident said the order was breached by her partner six times in six months and the police were notified each time.
The resident said she requested assistance from the landlord to move her whilst her injunction was in place, but she said the housing officer determined that the injunction provided enough protection, and did not constitute evidence she was in danger, so a move was not agreed.
The injunction expired in November 2021. The resident said she was still seeking assistance for an urgent move from the landlord, and was told that she had insufficient evidence that she was in danger because the injunction had run out.

Summary of events

In February 2022, the resident said she renewed attempts with her landlord to secure a move, as the abuse from her partner was escalating. On advice from the landlord, she completed transfer forms sent to her and provided the details of her previous injunction for evidence of the close proximity the ex-partner lived to her. She offered to obtain any information needed from the Mental Health Services team.
On 4 May 2022, the resident dictated an email (taken down by her father due to her difficulties) to complain about the lack of assistance the landlord had given her. In it she again requested an emergency transfer and advised that she was in the process of applying to the court for further orders of protection. As a result, the situation with her partner was escalating in retaliation. She advised she was being followed to work and had her CCTV ripped out and locks to her property damaged. Threats of violence should she proceed with the litigation had been sent to her via her solicitor and direct threats of violence were received from her ex-partner’s, new partner. She told the landlord she could no longer travel to work as the ex-partner was trying to make a counter claim that she was causing harassment to her as she travelled there. She told them she was now terrified to leave her house and had been paying for hotels outside the area or hiding out at friends’ houses to keep safe. She said this was causing her financial hardship, and preventing her from clearing her arrears. She said she could not stress enough how dangerous her ex-partner was, despite being female. There was no response.
On 9 July 2022, the resident contacted her housing officer, asking him to complete a reference form as she was applying for other properties through the council’s choice-based lettings system. On 11 July 2022, he emailed her asking for it to be sent in another format. When this was not possible, she asked him to print it, complete by hand and scan onto the system which was something she had needed to do with other forms for them. There was no response.
The resident contacted this Service for assistance as she was unable to get a response from the landlord. On 15 July 2022, this service wrote to the landlord and instructed it to contact the resident and provide a stage 1 response by 29 July 2022.
On 18 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and requested that the officer allocated to investigate her stage 1 complaint be changed as the officer was previously her housing officer and the subject of her complaint. She said this officer had previously made the decision personally that the court proceedings were enough to keep the resident safe. She said that it was not safe, as since then, there had been several breaches in the court order and several threats of violence. She reiterated in her email that same sex domestic violence was very real, and she should not have to live 0.4 miles from her rapist who had a ten-year history of stalking her around the country.
On 27 July 2022, the resident wrote to her housing officer, asking if he was deliberately ignoring her as he had not filled in the form which she needed to bid for other properties. She had lost the opportunity to bid on six properties now as a result of “no landlord reference”. The landlord wrote back the same day, apologising that it was unable to edit the document, and asking if she could get the council to email it directly.
On 29 July 2022, the resident wrote again to her housing officer, stating that it was making her really upset that she was having to go to the lengths of chasing the landlord, to get a reference to move somewhere safer.
On 29 August 2022, the landlord provided a response to the resident’s stage one complaint. In summary, it said:
1. It upheld her complaint as it had identified a service failure, for which it would like to apologise and for any inconvenience caused.
2. It said the resident had partial evidence to support her need for an urgent move, but she needed the landlord’s assistance to write to her support group who had advised she move out of the area. If she gave them the contact details, it agreed to contact them.
3. It explained the management move had to go through a process – it would be supporting the application to transfer and passing it to the senior management team to approve. Once approved, she would be placed on the transfer list and be contacted as soon as a suitable vacancy arose.
4. If the Senior Team did not approve the management transfer, she would be able to escalate the complaint to the next level.
5. In the resident’s complaint, she maintained the housing officer was inappropriate and did not take her case seriously because the ex-partner was the same sex. It apologised that she felt this way and tried to reassure her it takes all domestic violence cases seriously.
6. It aimed to have a decision back to her by 5 August 2022.
The resident wrote back on 4 August 2022 and gave the name of the domestic abuse support group. She advised she had provided this information several times before (since 2020) and felt the organisation would lose patience with her keeping asking for it. The organisation wanted correspondence direct from the landlord for GDPR purposes. She said she did not feel the additional information was necessary when she had an injunction in place, and had one prior to this.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the 8 August 2022, apologising that the requests for information were causing distress, and re-iterating that if the resident provided the details, it would make contact directly. The landlord responded to say that it would see what it could do to move this forward.
On 17 August 2022, the resident chased the landlord for any news on the management transfer and advised she had been bidding for properties to help herself but with little success as demand was so high. The landlord did not respond.
The resident asked for an update on her emergency transfer on 1 September 2022. The landlord did not respond.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 September 2022, reminding it that her injunction would run out in December 2022, and this would be the second to expire since she had been asking the landlord to assist with an emergency transfer. She said she had changed her name and telephone number all in preparation to leave, and was now concerned that come December, she would still be stuck at the property and the landlord would ignore her again until further orders were sought. She said she felt they were being negligent, and would not treat her like this if her perpetrator was a man.
On 14 September 2022, the resident contacted this Service, asking for advice how to escalate her complaint as the landlord had not resolved the situation, and was ignoring all her correspondence. She said she had only had one reply since July 2022.
On 15 September 2022, the resident received an acknowledgement of her stage two complaint from the landlord.
On 27 October 2022, the resident contacted this Service again, advising she had been called a week from the deadline of the stage two response to request an extension, as the landlord had forgotten to look at the papers. It was now a week passed the deadline, she was experiencing harassment at her home, was no nearer a transfer and no compensation had been awarded for having to sell all her belongings, as the landlord had ignored her rental relief application. She said she had no white goods or flooring and a very cold home and she did not think it appropriate to keep giving the landlord more time.
This Service wrote to the landlord, instructing it to provide the resident with a stage two response by 7 November 2022.
On 7 November 2022, the landlord sent a copy of its stage 2 response to this Service and the resident. The response was undated. In summary the landlord said:
1. It thanked the resident for her time taken to answer its calls and messages, and apologised for the delayed response. It upheld her complaint.
2. It had updated the safeguarding team of her change in details, and agreed to contact her on 21 October 2022 with what support they could give (this date had already passed).
3. It found that it had not followed up the contact about her request for a transfer, and her housing officer would be in touch to help with her application.
4. There was a lack of communication in regard to the hardship fund and it put this down to staff sickness. A colleague had been in touch that week, and the department was fully aware of her situation.
5. It offered a total of £75 for 3 service failings in line with its compensation policy, which as she was in arrears would be added to her rent account, in addition to the hardship measures she had agreed.
6. There were several lessons it could learn from her complaint, which it would use to improve its service.
The landlord’s stage 2 response gave the resident outdated advice on escalating a complaint to the Ombudsman. This Service wrote to the landlord advising it to remove the paragraph relating to the designated person and the requirement to wait 8 weeks wait before referral to our Service.
In the original stage 1 response, the landlord had agreed to support the resident’s management transfer request, advising it needed to go to the senior management team for approval. There was no evidence in the landlords’ records on the outcome of the requested management transfer or that this was ever followed up with the resident. As part of the investigation this Service asked for more information from the landlord on this issue. It responded on 16 November 2023, it said that the management move was rejected, after the stage 1 response, on the grounds that the evidence supplied by the resident was over a year old. The resident said she was unaware of this decision until we were provided with this information and told her. The landlord was unable to provide any written case or meeting notes that determined how and when its decision was made, as it said these decisions were often made verbally or via email, but no emails were provided in relation to this decision either.
Following the complaint response the resident disputed that she did not provide current evidence of the threat she was under. She said her housing officer contacted her at a weekend and not on a business line; this call was to challenge her on the cross undertaking of the court order made 22 May 2022 (so it did have the current order), in which he accused the resident of being a perpetrator of violence towards her ex-partner. The resident said she denied this and explained that she was advised to accept a cross-undertaking by her solicitor for her safety and to prevent lengthy drawn-out court proceedings. This ensured an order for protection for the resident could be obtained quickly if she did not challenge the false allegations that had been made about her. Emails show she has since made a complaint to the landlord about the housing officer not calling her through the appropriate channels.

Post Internal Complaint Process (ICP)

The resident contacted this Service on 17 November 2022 to express her dissatisfaction at the stage two response. In total, the compensation and hardship funding she was offered in the stage 2 response on 7 November 2022, totalled £250, which she felt did not address 5 years of being ignored whilst experiencing domestic abuse. She had no information still regarding a transfer and whilst the Tesco voucher offered via the hardship fund, would have been helpful, she was currently unable to use her local Tesco, due to the threat of domestic abuse.
On 2 December 2022, following further enquiries from the resident on her management transfer, an internal email requested the team update her on their progress and ensure a case was created as safeguarding issues were reported.
On 2 December 2022, the resident wrote to this Service, advising that there was no update on a management transfer, her court order had expired, and she was now terrified to leave the house. She was staying away for her own safety. The resident informed us she paid out for hotels and sofa surfed at friends away from the area in order to protect herself.
It is not clear on exactly what date, but the resident had post complaint process made a separate complaint about her housing officer. This was in relation to un-professional conduct, calling her out of hours on a private number, accusing her of perpetrating domestic abuse against her partner and not doing enough to support her as a victim of on-going abuse.
In May 2023, with her protective injunction expired, and no further progression on a management transfer, the resident contacted Shelter. Shelter’s advice included:
1. Referring to the landlord’s policy on management transfer which said it should inform her when it will make a management transfer, procedures for processing a management transfer request and the process in place for notifying her of their decision.
2. That the mere availability of injunctions in cases of violence make it unreasonable to continue to occupy the accommodation; case law was quoted (Bond v Leicester CC [2002] EWCA Civ 1544). Moreover, the expiration of an order should also not infer that it remains safe for a person to remain in their accommodation.
There was evidence the landlord had taken an improved approach following the intervention from Shelter. It did make the resident an offer of accommodation, but the resident felt that it was so remote and isolated she could not take it. She wants to leave the area, but she felt she would be vulnerable and isolated being as remote as the landlord has offered her. In addition her complex medical conditions require that she can access hospitals and medical services easily, she does not drive and had no access to a nearby GP or public transport to get to medical facilities from this location offered.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s Legal and Policy Context

In 2021, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021(DAA 2021) was introduced; its purpose was to address domestic abuse at every stage from prevention to rehabilitation, raising awareness of the issue and laying in statute the connections and provision of all cross-sector agencies and departments to tackle it.
Part 1 of the DAA provides a statutory definition for domestic abuse:
1. Behaviour of a person (“A”) towards another person (“B”) is domestic abuse if A and B are over 16, personally connected and the behaviour is abusive.
2. Behaviour is abusive if it includes physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling coercive behaviour, psychological, emotional, or other abuse.
3. Personally connected includes where persons are, or have been, civil partners of each other or they are, or have been, in an intimate personal relationship with each other.
The Act recognised that Social Housing Providers have a pivotal role to play in cases of domestic abuse, being ideally placed to identify those at risk and able to provide an effective and supportive response. The Act provides a steer for Social Housing Providers that they should adopt working practices which recognise, identify, and address domestic abuse in all its forms. Landlords were encouraged to update their policies and procedure in accordance with the DAA.
There is caselaw relevant to this complaint – TRX v Network Homes Ltd 2022 – this High Court ruling held that a landlord must consider all forms of domestic abuse as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, when considering management transfer applications. The same ruling held that when a landlord makes a decision about a tenant’s application for a management transfer, it must not be generic and the landlord must properly and adequately explain why its policy criteria have not been met, so the tenant understands why their application was refused.
Since 2018, the landlord has supported the Chartered Institute of Housing’s ‘Make a Stand’ campaign. It has three pledges for residents which include:
1. Put in place and embed a policy to support residents who are affected by domestic abuse.
2. Make information about national and local domestic abuse support services available on its website and in other appropriate places so that they are easily accessible for customers and staff.
3. Appoint a champion at a senior level in its organisation to own the activity it is doing to support people experiencing domestic abuse.
The landlord has a management transfer policy, designed for urgent circumstances which would not be addressed within local Councils’ allocations processes or through the landlord’s own transfer policy. Examples of where a management transfer might be appropriate in the policy included:
1. Court cases where the perpetrator is released to a nearby address, over which the landlord has no control. As a result of the perpetrator living nearby, the victim is caused further distress, and the evidence has been supplied.
2. Fleeing domestic abuse and the customer needs to move away from the current area that they live, and evidence has been supplied from the local Police or equivalent.
The management transfer must be approved by the landlord’s Director of Neighbourhoods and Head of Lettings and Marketing. In the case of those fleeing violence or harassment, the new home must be in a location that offers a realistic prospect of the tenant avoiding further violence or harassment.
The landlord has a Domestic Abuse policy in which it commits to the following:
1. Assess each case and complete an appropriate risk assessment to assess and identify the individual needs of the victim/survivor and their family, to prioritise their safety and welfare.
2. If the victim/survivor is a resident, it will log and record the report on its case management system. Once a case has been opened, it will agree an action plan with the resident, monitor the situation, and review progress within realistic timeframes that both agree to. It will offer the services of an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA), and the case will be monitored until it is closed.
3. It will consider a permanent move of address when a resident has been a victim of violence, is under a clear, evidenced threat of violence, and/or has been subjected to sustained and persistent harassment.
4. It will ensure that the new home meets the resident’s needs, setting specific criteria to ensure they are not disadvantaged in terms of affordability. It will also ensure that the new home is located to avoid further harassment.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. If it cannot put it right “on the spot” (within 24hrs), it will consider the complaint at stage one, which should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. If the resident is not satisfied with the outcome at stage 1, the complaint can be escalated, within 6 months, to stage 2. This should be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
The complaints policy also addresses ‘serious, high risk or high-profile complaints.’ The landlord commits to identifying them as they may require specific action or raise critical issues that need senior management’s direct input. If identified, they should go straight to stage 2.
The landlord has an “affordable housing compensation policy” which outlines the circumstances in which it will consider re-imbursement or compensation for service failures. The circumstances where it will consider compensation or reimbursement include:
1. Where a service included in the tenancy agreement has failed to be provided and was previously brought to the attention of the landlord.
2. Where there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord resolving a query or issue and the customer was not kept informed.
3. The overall experience of the customer requires some recognition to acknowledge that it has fallen short of expected standards.
The policy allows for service recovery gifts up to the value of £25. Where this is not considered adequate, discretionary payments can be offered for distress and inconvenience, offering payments of £25 on a scale of 1-5 with £125 being the highest. Discretionary payments can be made in addition to the guidance but must be approved by a senior manager.

The landlords handling of the residents’ reports of domestic abuse and her request for a management transfer.

The resident was the victim of domestic abuse as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. She had previously been in an intimate relationship with her ex-partner, and both were over the age of 16. The relationship ended when the resident fled, due to abuse she was experiencing from her partner; this included violence, threats of violence, sexual assault, psychological and mental abuse.
The resident maintains that the landlord was aware of her situation from the time her tenancy started, because it had needed to make her three offers of accommodation before she could safely accept the one that she lives in now. This was due to the ex-partner finding out the location of the properties she was viewing. The resident said there was also previous incidents where the ex-partner tried to falsely obtain information about the resident through the landlord, which was apparently noted on the file at the time. The Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the resident’s account that the landlord had been aware since the commencement of her tenancy, but this has not been evidenced. The initial paperwork and tenancy risk assessment did not note, a risk of domestic abuse was known.
There is however evidence that the resident had informed the landlord since then, that she felt threatened because the ex-partner had found her location within 6 months of her moving in, and moved within close proximity to her. The resident said she made the landlord aware that she had secured a non-molestation order in April 2021 from the court for her protection against her ex-partner in her previous bid to move. She said at the time the landlord considered the fact that she had secured the injunction was protection enough, and her transfer request was denied.
When the landlord receives a report of domestic abuse from a resident, its domestic abuse policy requires that it responds within 1 working day to make an evaluation. It should initially complete a risk assessment to determine the individual needs of the victim and prioritise their safety and wellbeing. The landlord has provided no evidence (even on request) that it completed a risk assessment, in accordance with its policy, when the resident reported the escalation in the harassment from her ex-partner in May 2022. This was not reasonable as this is a key process for landlords to establish the vulnerability of a resident, and estimate and appraise the likelihood and nature of the risk posed by a perpetrator. It is not until this is understood that it can determine the course of action needed to mitigate against that risk and whether the landlord has any safeguarding responsibilities.
The landlord’s domestic abuse policy also requires that when the victim is a resident, a case should be opened on its case management system for the purpose of action and monitoring. Some case records were provided on request, but these commenced from early May 2023 and were not relevant to this complaint. No case management records were provided in evidence for this time period, it is therefore reasonable to conclude, that a case was not opened at the time of her report (May 2022). This means the landlord had failed to act in accordance with its domestic abuse policy, which was not reasonable.
The landlord’s policy recognises “people with multiple disadvantage face multiple barriers and intersectional inequalities” often making it even harder for them to act when experiencing DA. To address this, its policy committed to supporting victims with protected characteristics to access support, and for it to be sensitive to those with intersectional backgrounds and individual needs. The resident made it known to the landlord that she was a vulnerable female, fleeing abuse from a same sex relationship and she met a number of the characteristics that this policy’s support is designed for. The landlord had the ability to offer the resident the help of an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA) to provide her with emotional and practical support, but there was no evidence that it offered this or signposted her to any other services that could.
The resident told this Service that she believed the continued lack of action and support received from the landlord was ‘because’ she was the victim of a same sex perpetrator. Whilst there was no actual evidence to support that this was the case, with no explanation as to the complete lack of action or adherence to its policy, it was understandable why she might have come to this conclusion. If the resident felt this way, the landlord’s policy commitment to act sensitively towards, and support, victims with protected characteristics had failed.
The landlord can consider, within its domestic abuse policy, a permanent move when a resident is under a clear evidenced threat of violence or has been subjected to sustained and persistent harassment. Its management transfer policy can also enable the landlord to make an urgent transfer. It gives examples which include the perpetrator in a court case released to a nearby address, causing the victim further distress, or the victim fleeing domestic abuse and needing to leave the area.
It was known to the landlord, by her complaint of May 2022, that the resident had previously fled domestic abuse, her ex-partner had moved around the corner to where she was living, and this caused her immense distress. The resident had previously been through a court case with her ex-partner to prevent her harassing, threatening or being violent towards her, and was in the process of taking the ex-partner to court again. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident’s situation met a number of the policy criteria in both its domestic abuse and management transfer policies that enabled it to consider moving her.
The resident had an injunction from the court in place until September 2021, and advised the landlord that she was in the process of applying for another in May 2022. It is this Service’s view that the securing of court injunctions and court ordered undertakings provides the clear evidence required in its policies that the resident was under the threat of violence and/or had experienced a sustained period of harassment. This was a view that was also held in later advice given to the resident by the advisory service Shelter.
The resident said a previous officer, following her earlier injunction, would not consider a move as she was protected by the court order. When that officer was allocated her case to investigate at stage one, the resident asked for a different investigator because of this. The landlord agreed, and changed the investigating officer, which was appropriate. The courts do not award orders lightly, and command sufficient evidence that protection is needed. Whilst these orders have consequences if broken, it cannot be assumed that they are enough of a deterrent to offer the victim the full protection required to safeguard them; perpetrators of domestic abuse have been known to breach the orders.
The resident advised the landlord that her ex-partner breached the injunction 6 times in 6 months, and this could be confirmed by the police. It is common practise in cases of DA for a landlord to proactively work with partner agencies to corroborate such reports, to gather further information and understand what other agencies are involved. This enables the landlord to work with the resident to obtain whatever information is needed to initiate actions to ensure their safety and determine the level of support available is being accessed. There was no evidence that the landlord contacted or worked with any other agency, including the police, to better understand the resident’s position, degree of risk, or get her any help and support needed. This did not align with its domestic abuse policy, or the multi-agency approach the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 required in England, to tackle domestic abuse at this time.
The stage 1 response said it would support a management transfer, but a management transfer was never progressed. Following a request for further information on this from the landlord, it said, the request for a management transfer had been denied because the evidence the resident supplied was out of date. It should not be assumed that a victim is safe or safe to remain in their home on expiry of a court order. The landlord took the approach that an expired court order provided no evidence of a threat to the resident’s safety as it was not current. This rigid stance taken by the landlord was not reasonable, it should have been more flexible and empathetic in its approach, as a court order expiration is not evidence that the threat of violence or on-going harassment has stopped.
The landlord’s records indicate that the onus was consistently put on the resident to supply information and proof via other agencies even though a court order was in place. Most victims who feel under the threat of violence are understandably under immense stress, and having to go to different agencies to try and gather evidence to prove the position they are in, only adds to that stress. In the resident’s email, it was evident that she was not happy about obtaining more evidence, she felt the court orders were sufficient to prove she was at risk. For this resident, suffering from significant mental health issues, a brain injury affecting memory, cognitive function and inducing epilepsy (a condition known to be adversely affected by stress), it was even more unreasonable to expect her to do this alone.
A legal undertaking was clearly ordered on 22 May 2022, by the local County Court, providing protection for the resident from her ex-partner. The fact that the resident, vulnerable and with complex needs, had provided a court order that was out of date only went to indicate that she was struggling and needed help. The landlord could have assisted the resident by contacting the police, the court, her solicitor, the domestic abuse support team, or a number of agencies involved that could confirm the resident was at risk and evidence was available. In the stage one response, it fixated on her gaining further evidence from a DA support centre. It offered to speak to them but insisted on her giving it the contact details which was not necessary. It had the name of the organisation, so it could have been pro-active and located their details itself – its failure to do so put her under undue stress.
The outcome of the resident’s application for a management transfer was not clear and hampered this Service’s investigation. On request, the landlord told this Service that senior officers had declined the resident’s request for a management transfer on the lack of evidence. The High Court judgement (referenced in paragraph 38) sets out that in relation to requests for a management transfer, a landlord must properly and adequately explain why its policy criteria have not been met so the tenant understands why their application was refused. There was no indication that the landlord had shared any information with the resident on its decision, in fact she was still unaware up until recently that her request for an urgent transfer had been rejected.
The resident was making her own efforts to try and move away from the area. She had applied to the local council, but required a reference from the landlord. It was not clear when or even if it provided this, but for over a month the resident was emailing weekly to chase the landlord for this. Being fully aware of the resident’s circumstances and urgent need to move, this was unreasonable. It maintained the form was not in the right format; the resident suggested filling it in by hand and scanning the document, which would have been an acceptable work around to speed up the process. The landlord however failed to do this (and provided no reasonable explanation) which delayed her application from becoming ‘live’ and resulted in the resident missing the opportunity to bid on a number of suitable properties. This approach was unreasonable on the part of the landlord.
A severe lack of communication from the landlord generally was also evident in the resident’s case. All contact was instigated by the resident; considering her vulnerabilities and the risk of violence, we would have expected to see the landlord checking in with the resident at regular intervals, but nobody did. There were many emails from the resident, asking for updates and chasing the decision on her management transfer. Those later in 2022 were more desperate in tone and content as the date for expiry of her court order approached, yet most went unanswered. The fear of remaining at the address with no injunction in place was clearly impacting the resident’s stress and anxiety and being ignored by the landlord added to it, which was not reasonable.
Within the domestic abuse policy, the landlord also had the resources and budget to offer improved security facilities at the property to increase the resident’s safety. Had it done this whilst she was living with the threat, and awaiting an outcome to her management transfer request, it might have provided her with some additional protection and reassurance that her situation was being taken seriously. There was no evidence to suggest the landlord gave any consideration to this service for the resident, which was not reasonable.
The result of the inaction of the landlord was that the resident used any means available to protect herself. These included remedies through the court, remaining housebound, giving up work, changing her name, staying at hotels and sofa surfing with friends and family miles away from the area. This impacted her financially as well as physically and mentally. She accrued rent arrears, applied to the landlord’s hardship fund, did not use her heating, and sold her belongings, including her white goods to enable this nomadic way of living for her safety. It was inappropriate that the landlord contributed to this situation. If the landlord had supported her request for an urgent transfer, she would not have had to pay to travel great distances away from the area or financially support herself in other accommodation whilst paying for a home she was too frightened to stay in.

Landlords handling of the resident’s complaints.

This Service has considered complaint handling as through the course of our investigation, we found a number of concerns with the landlord’s complaint handling process.
In July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman published a new Complaint Handling Code with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. All member landlords were required to complete a self-assessment against the Code and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was in line with the Code (by 31 December 2020).
The resident approached our Service in July 2022, because she could not get the landlord to respond to her concerns that she had been complaining about since May 2022. The Code states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. This Service had to instruct the landlord to take the resident’s complaint and provide a stage one response within a given timeframe – this was not reasonable or in alignment with the Code.
Landlords must respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may extend this timeframe, but not beyond 10 working days, provided an explanation is given to the resident with a clear timeframe for a response. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 September 2022. She contacted the Ombudsman for assistance saying she had been contacted a week before the deadline, requesting an extension, the reason given was that the landlord had forgotten to look at the papers. The resident did not think this was reasonable and this service agreed; the Ombudsman would not consider poor management of the complaint to be exceptional. On 31 October 2022, for the second time this Service had to instruct the landlord to provide the resident with a response to her complaint, within a given timeframe, (7 November 2022) which was not reasonable.
The stage one response did not set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint, as recommended in the Code. It referenced that a conversation had taken place with the resident, but gave little information in its response about what was discussed, so it lacked detail and context. The stage 1 response upheld the complaint for “service failure” for which it apologised, but did not indicate what that service failure was.
The stage 1 response also pre-empted that the landlord’s agreement to support a management transfer may fail, but that there was the ability to escalate if this happened. The Code does recommend the landlord include details on how to escalate a complaint if the resident is not satisfied. However, it was not appropriate to introduce the use of escalation as a fallback position, should the solutions on offer from the landlord in the complaint response fail. This could not have instilled much confidence for the resident in the landlord’s approach. The two-stage complaint process is recommended for a fast resolution, a full proof solution to resolve the complaint should be the aim at stage 1.
The stage two complaint response was sent out on 7 November 2022. In the paragraph headed “your personal circumstances” as part of the resolution, the landlord said it had briefed the safeguarding team and by, or on, 21 October 2022, it would update her on what support it would give. This date had passed at the time the response was sent. At this point, the landlord should have been providing details of what support from safeguarding was available and its failure to do so was unreasonable.
The stage two response did not demonstrate that the landlord had understood the complaint. Its complaint definition “the request for a transfer” did not reflect the gravity of the resident’s situation; her complaint was about the landlord’s failure to assist her to urgently flee domestic abuse, something the stage one response had suggested it would do. Whilst it acknowledged that it had not followed up on her transfer request, its solution was for the officer who had allegedly been ignoring her emails for the past few months to assist her with her application. This was not appropriate given her request had been for a management transfer and had been submitted almost six months before, her injunction was about to expire, and she feared for her safety. The response did not reflect any of this and the redress was not proportionate to the resident’s situation or the impact this was having on her.
The stage two response also contained outdated information; landlords are expected to keep abreast of amendments to the Code. The Ombudsman had updated the Code in 2022 to remove the requirement for a designated person. This was not reflected in the landlord’s response and this Service had to instruct the landlord to amend its correspondence.
A key aim of good complaint handling, set out in the Code, is to ensure landlords pick up any service failings and ensure lessons can be learned from them in order to drive service improvement. To demonstrate a landlord is achieving this aim, the expectation would be to see those service failings clearly identified, a written understanding of why they occurred and what specific changes a landlord intends to make to ensure it does not happen again. It was not appropriate for the landlord to just say it had identified service failings and learnt lessons for service improvement without detailing to the resident what they were.

The landlord’s record keeping.

This investigation also considered the landlord’s record keeping as there was an absence of records in relation to the resident’s reports of domestic abuse and her request for an urgent transfer. This included a lack of record keeping around the decision to refuse the management transfer when this happened and why. The awareness for improved record keeping within the sector was raised in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge, and Information Management (KIM), published earlier this year. This Service acknowledges that publication of this report postdates events in this complaint, but expectations, for good knowledge and information management already existed prior to the publication of this report.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a housing management service, particularly in areas of higher risk such as harassment and domestic abuse. This is not only so evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman when requested, but because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the case, the level of associated risk, mitigation needed, as well as enabling the monitoring of any action plan. Records also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in. This would also be applicable for any external collaboration on cases of domestic abuse or related inquiries, where the landlord’s participation could be required and detailed records would be critical.
The domestic abuse policy says that there is a case management system for the recording, assessing, and monitoring of domestic abuse cases. The case management system should hold risk assessments, action plans and updates on their progress. Whilst the landlord has since supplied evidence that show their record systems have improved in 2023, none of this was evident in the time period for this complaint.
Most records were in the form of email communication. There was a lack of file notes available that had recorded discussions, visits, and telephone conversations. These were often referred to in emails and complaint responses, but no details of the discussions or their content were available.
The sparce notes that were made available from its case management system at the time of the complaint, either lacked the appropriate level of detail, did not identify who had made the notes or provide any dates when they were taken.
The first indication the Ombudsman had that the resident’s request for a management transfer had been rejected was from information received on 16 November 2023, following a request to the landlord for further information. The original case records provided gave no indication if the request had progressed to the senior managers’ panel required in the management transfer policy, or if a decision on the request had been made.
It was explained that no case notes were available for this decision as these were often made verbally or via email. This was not appropriate; records should be available to show what consideration was given to the request by the landlord and how it came to its decision. The landlord’s records could not demonstrate this, which was a significant record keeping failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of domestic abuse and her request for an urgent management transfer to flee the abuse.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord has had a commitment in place since 2018 to help and support its residents experiencing Domestic Abuse. Despite having the appropriate policies and multi-agency connections in place, the landlord did little to help this highly vulnerable resident when she approached it for assistance to flee from her abuser. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has more recently made improvements to its processes, monitoring and communication when supporting victims of domestic abuse. However, in 2021-2022 when the resident reached out, the landlord could not evidence that its policies were followed, or that it provided the resident with any help or support. In her communication to the landlord, it was clear that she lived under the threat of violence, in a permanent state of anxiety, and relied on a nomadic existence for her own safety which went on for almost 2 years. Despite this, the landlord showed little regard for her safety or deteriorating mental health and the detrimental impact on the resident was significant.
The landlord’s complaint handling fell significantly short of the expectations set out in its complaint handling policy and the Ombudsman’s Code. Complaints were not taken in a timely manner, the responses lacked detail and context, the substantive complaint went unresolved and if any lessons were learnt, it was unclear. Its offer of redress through its complaint process was not proportionate to the level of detriment experienced by the landlord’s failings.
This Service found a distinct lack of quality record keeping from the landlord, which impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate. The case content relied on emails, mainly those sent to the landlord by the resident, as responses to her correspondence was poor. Key conversations, visits and phone calls were not recorded as file notes and casework system records were scarce. Major decisions and the decision-making process was not formalised, resulting in outcomes not being minuted or shared with the resident.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that an in-person apology is made to the resident by the landlords Chief Executive.
The Ombudsman orders that within 3 weeks an urgent review of the resident’s case is completed to consider her request to move, ensure that the relevant agencies are aware of her situation and that adequate support is in place for her. The reasons given for refusal of any previous offer should be taken into consideration in respect of the resident’s vulnerabilities. A copy of the completed outcome of this review should be sent to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord with in four weeks pays the resident a total sum of £ £4,000 compensation in addition to the previous offers made to her. This is made up of:
1. £2,500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the significant failings in its handling of her reports of domestic abuse and request for a transfer.
2. £1000 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its failure to keep proper records.
3. £500 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling failings.
The landlord should write to the resident to request evidence of losses she incurred in attempting to keep herself safe and accommodating herself elsewhere. It should explain to her what costs it is willing to reimburse her for
Within four weeks, if the landlord has not already done so, it should carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management. If it has recently undertaken that assessment, it needs to provide a copy to this Service.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has made improvements to case management systems, decision recording as well as its assessment and monitoring of DA cases under its ASB policy. The Ombudsman requires that within the next three month, the landlord completes a review of these improvements, cross referenced with this case, to ensure a similar case in the future would not fall through the net again. A report should be produced as part of the review to be considered by the Board and Directors
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders.