Portsmouth City Council (202224228)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224228

Portsmouth City Council

27 February 2024

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 conduct of the landlord’s staff in relation to the:
   1. Handling of the resident’s request to move.
   2. Formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. He occupies a 3-bedroom property with his wife and 2 children. The family have been assisted by a multi-agency network including social services, who have provided advocacy and support around their housing needs.
3. In October 2021, the landlord’s neighbourhood management team (NMT) were informed by social services that the resident and his family did not feel safe at home due to threats and intimidation from neighbours. This included an altercation between the resident and a neighbour following a request by the resident for the neighbour to control his dog. The situation was described as having a negative impact on the whole family’s mental health and wellbeing and the family wanted an emergency move, which was supported by professionals working with them.
4. The housing officer updated the family and professionals that no reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) had been made to the landlord since 2018. She explained they would need to submit evidence of ASB for the NMT to consider a management transfer and advised of other routes for enabling the family to move. On 12 November 2021 the social worker submitted a formal request for a management transfer to the housing officer.
5. From February 2022 onwards, several counter allegations were made by a neighbour against the resident’s family, which resulted in that family being approved for a management transfer at the end of May 2022.
6. In September 2022, the social worker applied for a transfer for the resident’s family on medical grounds via the allocations scheme. The NMT clarified that a management transfer was not being considered as, based on the evidence provided, the threshold had not been met. It was explained that the family would also need to consider a wider location in which to move as the issues would not be resolved by remaining on the estate, albeit on a different street.
7. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 October 2022, stating the housing officer had done nothing to support their move. He said he had only just learned they were not eligible for a management transfer and felt she had delayed or failed to submit the request to management. The resident accused the area manager of covering for the housing officer when he claimed she had submitted the request. He felt the housing officer had a personal vendetta against him dating back to 2018, when he said she had failed to act on his reports of ASB. He referenced a recent incident in which his son had been injured following an attack on the estate, and said he held the housing officer accountable as she had prevented their move. Additionally, he felt the housing officer had spoken badly about him and had been rude to his wife in meetings with professionals.
8. The resident submitted the complaint to the wrong department causing initial delays. The landlord then requested extra time to consider it, resulting in further delays. The landlord claimed it posted the response to the resident on 16 November 2022 and subsequently emailed it to him on 24 November 2022.
9. In its response, the landlord apologised if the case had not progressed as quickly as the resident would have liked and if he felt he had not been updated enough. However, it said the case had been considered in line with its ASB policy. It acknowledged it was a service failure that he felt he had been badly treated by the housing officer. It accepted there was confusion about the difference between a transfer via the allocations scheme and a management transfer and apologised if it had not clearly explained that the latter had not been approved. It clarified there had been input from the NMT and the ASB team and no one individual had decided what action should or should not be taken. Support was also offered in registering for a mutual exchange.
10. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 December 2022, alleging that there had been bias and collusion in the way the complaint was handled. The landlord responded on 29 December 2022 when it assured him there was no evidence of bias. It claimed the stage 1 response had been emailed to the resident by the area manager as the complaint handler did not have easy access to his email and said it was not unusual to share outcomes with staff involved in complaints. It did not agree there was corruption. It also said a management transfer could be supported if the resident was able to widen his area of choice.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The records show a history of ASB on the estate dating back to 2018, with allegations and counter allegations made by the resident and his neighbours. The resident complained about the conduct of the housing officer in relation to the handling of these historic reports and he is concerned that those events have impacted on how his case was handled following re-emerging reports of ASB in October 2021.
12. The Ombudsman will only consider complaints which were brought to the attention of the landlord and this Service within a reasonable period, which is normally within 6 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord can consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is still available to fully investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme). As a result, while the events dating back to 2018 are acknowledged for context, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s actions from October 2021 onwards.
13. There are different routes by which a resident can secure a transfer to another property within the landlord’s portfolio, and these are dealt with by different functions of the council. Management transfers are authorised by the NMT (more on this below) whereas transfers based on medical and other priority needs are dealt with by the housing options team under an allocations scheme.
14. This Service will not consider how applications for housing under the allocations scheme are processed and managed, as this falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (reflected at paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme). However, we have considered whether the landlord acted appropriately in its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
15. In addition to his concerns about particular members of staff, the resident also expressed in his stage 2 complaint that he considered there was more generalised corruption within the landlord. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider specific complaints about particular elements of service delivery. It is not within our remit to consider matters that relate to the processes and decisions concerning a landlord’s governance structures or wider systemic issues (reflected at paragraph 42(m) of the Scheme). Therefore, this investigation is focused on the conduct of specific officers, acting on behalf of the landlord, in relation to the issues raised in the resident’s complaint.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move

16. The council has a Code of Conduct that all employees are expected to abide by, which states that all employees should deal with one another and the public in a courteous and civil manner. The resident complained that the housing officer had spoken to him and his wife in a derogatory manner, which he said had been witnessed by professionals within meetings. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered a sincere apology and acknowledged it was a service failure that he felt this way. The landlord provided further explanation in its communication with the Ombudsman, accepting that the housing officer may have been short at times, and lacked empathy in her approach, but had not discriminated against the resident.
17. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of discrimination, inappropriate comments, or attitudes towards the resident within the records provided. However, given the landlord accepted there had been failings in the way the resident had been spoken to, we would expect it to have offered assurance it had addressed the officer’s behaviour with her. While the Ombudsman would not require the landlord to disclose personnel or performance related information on individual members of staff, has it not done so, the landlord is encouraged to take appropriate action to address the resident’s concerns internally.
18. The resident expressed frustration in his complaint that nothing had been done to move the family. He felt efforts to pursue a management transfer were impeded by the housing officer and questioned whether she had referred the management transfer request to management.
19. The landlord has not provided a policy regarding management transfers, so it is not clear what the process is for assessing such requests. However, the Ombudsman understands that such transfers are reserved for cases where there is immediate and significant risk posed to someone’s safety, and requests are to be submitted to management for review.
20. Following receipt of the resident’s request on 12 November 2022, the housing officer forwarded this correspondence to the area manager and estate manager. The area manager also confirmed, in correspondence with the social worker on 13 September 2022, that the housing officer had raised the request with management several times. The evidence suggests, therefore, that the matter was appropriately escalated by the housing officer.
21. The records show that the housing officer had communicated to the family and professionals that, to process the request for a management transfer, the landlord required evidence of incidents of ASB. This was expressed in meetings, or correspondence sent in advance of meetings, that were held in October 2021, November 2021 and March 2022.
22. Records of the meetings suggest the social worker was responsible for working with the resident to collate a list of incidents in support of the management transfer. They show he contacted the housing officer in March 2022 and said there had been delays as the family were exploring other housing options, but that he would send details of incidents. The landlord was clear that details of incidents were required to progress the request, and it cannot be held responsible if sufficient information was not then forthcoming.
23. The resident complained that he had reported many instances of ASB in 2018, which provided more than enough evidence to support a move. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration that he had previously done what had been asked of him and that he felt this demonstrated that the issue was long standing and warranted a move. However, it was reasonable that the landlord required details about new incidents to assess the risk and take appropriate action within the current context.
24. The family were clear that they did not feel comfortable reporting incidents due to previous retaliation by neighbours and a lack of confidence in the housing officer to investigate incidents with impartiality. The Ombudsman appreciates that the impact on the family remained the same regardless of whether incidents were reported. However, it is also accepted that without sufficient reports the landlord may have been unable to fully assess and mitigate risks or assess the risk that other potential properties raised.
25. While the family were not forthcoming with reports to the police or housing office, the landlord did have awareness of incidents occurring. When the social worker first approached the housing officer in October 2021 they communicated that there had been an altercation between the resident and a neighbour. The housing officer took appropriate initial action in opening an ASB case and making enquiries with the police. She also advised the resident and professionals of different housing options given their desire to move. As per the landlord’s ASB policy, it should record reports of ASB, make appropriate enquiries, give appropriate advice, and work with multi-agency partners, which it did.
26. Further incidents then came to light. The resident attended the neighbourhood office in March 2022 and said he had text messages evidencing an incident. He was told to report the matter to the police, but the police records indicate this did not happen. The case was allocated to an ASB officer at this time and she was asked to contact the resident. There are no records to suggest this happened. While the Ombudsman cannot be certain what action was or was not taken, it is recognised that this presented a potential missed opportunity to engage the resident and understand more about his experiences of ASB.
27. The resident reported in his complaint of 6 October 2022 that his son had sustained a head injury in August 2022, following an attack on the estate by another young person. In his statement for the meeting, the area manager said the resident had attended the neighbourhood office in September 2022 and referenced an incident, but the resident had spoken to the persons involved and did not want to take it further. It is difficult to assess the actions of the landlord here, as it is unclear if this discussion related to the same event and further details are unknown. We might accept that no further action was taken by the landlord on the wishes of the resident.
28. Ultimately, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether these incidents provided sufficient grounds for a management transfer, but whether the landlord managed them reasonably and fairly. With that in mind, the landlord could have better evidenced that it had given them due consideration and demonstrated that risk assessments had been carried out. We might also have expected it to agree an ‘action plan’ with the resident, outlining the expectations of all parties. The landlord’s ASB policy states that these actions should be taken in such circumstances, but the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of these. An action plan might also have clarified what was needed from the resident in terms of reporting incidents and helped manage expectations all round.
29. The landlord communicated to the resident and professionals that it was not approving a management move in September 2022. It was of great frustration to the resident that he felt he had waited 9 months only to be told that the transfer had not been approved. The landlord recognised that there had been confusion about the difference between a move via the housing register and a management transfer. In its stage 1 response it apologised that it had not been clearer about this, and the reasons why it had not approved the move.
30. The Ombudsman agrees that, while the position had been communicated throughout at multi-agency meetings, the landlord could have done more to ensure this was directly stated and understood by the resident at an earlier opportunity. There was complexity in the different approaches, with different teams responsible for assessing applications under each scheme. Members of the professional network changed, including the social worker, which may also have impacted on the general understanding of the status of the case and how to progress the move. Again, this is where it may have been helpful to use an action plan, to evidence and clarify avenues being explored and the respective responsibilities of those involved.
31. The position regarding eligibility for the management transfer was made more confusing following the stage 2 response, in which the landlord stated there would be evidence to support a move if the resident was willing to widen his area of choice. It is not clear why the position had changed regarding the assessment of the risk and this has only added to the resident’s sense that the housing officer and area manager were biased against him.
32. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of bias by staff involved in the assessment of the management transfer, however, directs that the landlord provides further clarity as to why its assessment changed. It should also clarify the current status of the application and whether it meets the threshold for a management transfer.
33. Overall, the Ombudsman considers there were failures in how the case was handled, which amount to maladministration. The landlord accepts it could have ensured the resident and professional network were clear about the status of the management transfer application at different junctures, and that there were failings in how the resident was spoke to.
34. The Ombudsman has found no evidence to suggest this was due to bias. But appreciates how the resident felt this was the case given the move was slow to progress and due to interactions with the housing officer in which he felt disrespected. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for failures in its complaint response, it did not go far enough to remedy these. The landlord is ordered to write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this case and pay £200 compensation for the distress caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Landlord’s handling of the complaint

35. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 October 2022, but submitted this to the wrong department as a complaint about an elected member. This was discovered when the resident’s social worker chased the department for a response on 17 October 2022. While ideally this would have been discovered sooner, we cannot reasonably hold the landlord accountable for the delay at this juncture given it had no knowledge of the complaint.
36. The complaint was referred to the complaints team and logged on 19 October 2022 and the resident was informed a response would be issued by 8 November 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy, which states that complaints will be responded to at stage 1 within 15 working days. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (Code) requires that landlord’s respond within 10 working days at stage 1. The landlord should address this discrepancy within its complaints policy and practice.
37. On 8 November 2022 the landlord notified the resident that it required more time and would respond by 15 November 2022. On 15 November 2022 it sent a further email stating it required until 22 November 2022. The Code requires that extensions must not exceed 10 days without good reason. While the landlord notified the resident and apologised for the delay, it offered no explanation for the delay other than to say it was taking longer than anticipated and informed him of delays at the last opportunity, which added to his frustration and was a service failure.
38. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 November 2022 stating he had not received the response by the deadline. The landlord confirmed it had been posted to the resident and arranged for a copy to be sent to him by email on 24 November 2022. The original response was dated 16 November 2022 and the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it was posted on this date. The resident claimed he did not receive this until 29 November 2022 and refuted that it was sent on this date.
39. Correspondence seen by this Service suggests the complaint was still being finalised on 18 November 2022, but that it was sent by 21 November 2022. While there is no evidence to suggest the stage 2 complaint handler was deliberately misleading, it was inaccurate to say it had been finalised and sent on 16 November 2022. This also added to the sense of mistrust and confusion for the resident.
40. The resident felt there had been collusion and bias in the way the complaint had been handled, which formed the basis of his complaint escalation. He felt it was inappropriate that the complaint had been sent to him by the area manager who had been a subject of his complaint. The resident inferred that the complaint handler had colluded with the area manager and had input into the investigation. In the stage 2 response the landlord explained that the stage 1 complaint handler had asked the area manager to deliver the response either by hand or by email as he had easy access to the resident’s details and was located on the estate. It added that it is not unusual for complaint outcomes to be shared by those involved.
41. However, from the records provided, the evidence suggests the area manager had a central role in drafting the stage 1 response. The area manager sent a copy of the draft to the complaint handler (in this case the Head of Local Authority Housing) to approve, with the suggestion he put it on his own letterhead.
42. The Ombudsman appreciates that a complaint handler inevitably must seek information from those involved in the matter to coordinate a response. However, it is not appropriate for the subject of a complaint to lead on a response, particularly where the complaint involves accusations of bias and a lack of impartiality. The Code outlines the expectation for landlords to take measures to address actual or perceived conflict of interest and the landlord’s own complaints policy states it will handle all complaints fairly and honestly. It failed to demonstrate it was doing so in this case, for which the Ombudsman finds maladministration.
43. The stage 2 complaint was allocated to the Assistant Director of Housing, and the records suggest she carried out the investigation and issued the response within the appropriate timeframe. In the stage 2 response she referenced a call with the resident on 20 December 2022. The resident refuted that he had been contacted prior to the complaint being issued. Unfortunately, in the absence of evidence either way it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether this happened, though appreciates the frustration felt by the resident that he considered this the case.
44. The resident also felt the complaint handler did not make appropriate enquiries at stage 1. He contacted the complaint handler and asked who he spoke to as part of his investigation but received no response. This formed part of his escalation request. The resident expected the complaint handler to contact professionals who he claimed had witnessed the housing officer speaking badly to his wife. The Ombudsman agrees this may have been an appropriate enquiry. There is no evidence contact was made, however the landlord offered an apology to the resident that he felt he was treated badly and acknowledged this as a service failure.
45. The records show there were follow up communications between the resident and the stage 2 complaint handler and further enquiries were made by the complaint handler after the response was issued. The complaint handler attempted to contact professionals who the resident claimed had witnessed the housing officer speak badly to his wife. While these enquiries could have been made prior to the response, it was appropriate for the landlord to continue efforts to understand and resolve the situation.
46. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there were complaint handling failures, most significantly in the handling of the stage 1 complaint, which amount to maladministration. The landlord is expected to write a letter acknowledging and apologising for its failures. It should also award compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman considers an award of £200 to be appropriate for complaint handling failures, in line with its remedies guidance.
47. The landlord must also ensure greater impartiality in the way complaints are handled with immediate effect. The Ombudsman will also be issuing new complaint handling guidance in the coming months and will require the landlord to review its complaint handling policy in line with this guidance, and to self-assess against the Code.

Determination

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the conduct of the landlord’s staff in relation to the:
    1. Handling of the resident’s request to move.
    2. Formal complaint.

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £400 compensation (£200 for distress caused by its handling to the resident’s request to move, and £200 for issues in its complaint handling). This should be paid directly to the resident and not deducted from any applicable rent balance unless requested by him.
50. The landlord should write a letter to the resident:
    1. Apologising for the failures identified in this case.
    2. Clarifying why the assessment of risk in relation to incidents of ASB appeared to have changed in the stage 2 response, with the benchmark for a management move considered met based on the evidence presented.
    3. Clarifying the status of the resident’s transfer application and whether he has been approved for a management transfer, as this remains unclear to the resident and this Service.
51. The landlord must ensure greater impartiality in the way complaints are handled with immediate effect. It should update the Ombudsman about the measures it will take in this regard.

Recommendations

52. The landlord should ensure that risk assessments are conducted and action plans used as per its ASB policy, to evidence its assessment of incidents and to demonstrate the actions to be taken by all parties.
53. The Ombudsman will also be issuing new complaint handling guidance in the coming months and asks the landlord to review its complaint handling policy in line with this guidance and self-assess against the Code.
54. Upon review of its policy, the landlord should also bring its complaint response times into alignment with the Code, from 15 to 10 working days at stage 1.