Sanctuary Housing Association (202014997)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014997

Sanctuary Housing Association

16 August 2022

 

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 complaints referred to this Service are about:
    1. Rent and service charge increases since the start of the resident’s tenancy and the landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account.
    2. The landlord’s decision to serve a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) on the resident due to rent arrears.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reassess her housing priority banding.
    5. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property, a 2-bedroom, second floor flat, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord beginning on 14 May 2019. The resident’s daughter, who also lived at the property, has a neurological condition affecting her mobility and was provided with a wheelchair in 2020.
  2. The resident received Universal Credit (UC) payments in respect of her rent. This was initially paid to the resident, who would then make payment to the landlord. In July 2019, the landlord advised the resident that arrears had accrued on her account, noting that rent must be paid in advance. The resident cleared the outstanding debt and brought the account into credit but raised concerns about the landlord’s calculation of her rent and regular rent increases. In August 2020, the resident requested that her UC payment be made directly to the landlord, to avoid further confusion.
  3. On 25 February 2021, the landlord issued an NOSP in respect of rent arrears. The resident complained to her MP and to this Service, insisting that her rent account was in credit. At the Ombudsman’s request, the landlord opened a formal complaint.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that arrears had accrued because the resident was responsible for paying an “ineligible” weekly heating and hot water charge, which was not covered by UC. Although the resident’s rent account had been in credit, this had been eroded by her failure to pay the additional charge and the account was now in arrears, resulting in service of the NOSP. The landlord explained how the rent, service charge and heating charges were calculated and confirmed that annual increases were to be expected. The landlord partially upheld the complaint, as it acknowledged that it had failed to make sufficient attempts to contact the resident before serving the NOSP. The landlord also identified delays in its complaints handling. It offered the resident £425 compensation.
  5. The resident also raised concerns about ASB, including harassment, racial abuse, and excessive noise by tenants of 3 different properties. Between 11 March 2020 and 14 February 2021, the resident reported incidents involving intimidation, verbal abuse, interference with her daughter’s wheelchair and excessive screaming and banging.
  6. The resident complained to her MP and to this Service that the landlord had failed to take action in response to her reports of ASB and noise. She also reported that it had failed to increase her housing priority banding as promised. The landlord then raised a formal complaint. During its investigations it found that its record keeping had been poor and it had failed to follow its ASB policy, which required it to complete a risk assessment and an action plan following a report of ASB. The landlord had also failed to review medical evidence provided by the resident, which caused a delay in her housing priority re-banding. The landlord offered the resident £550 compensation in recognition of its failings.
  7. The resident notified the landlord on 1 September 2021 that she had vacated the property and wished to return the keys. The landlord stated that on receipt of the keys the tenancy would be terminated. The landlord lodged a possession claim at the County Court on 16 December 2021 due to the level of arrears it stated had accrued on the resident’s rent account. At a hearing on 3 February 2022 the judge made an outright possession order. The keys to the property were returned on 2 March 2022 and the tenancy terminated. As of 24 May 2022, the landlord reported to this Service that arrears of £4,320.36 had accrued on the resident’s rent account, which included court costs awarded at the possession hearing.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident complained about the landlord’s administration of her rent account, including that it had miscalculated the amount due, unreasonably increased her rent and service charges, and insisted that she was in arrears when she had previously been informed that her account was in credit. She also complained that its decision to serve an NOSP in respect of rent arrears was unfair and unwarranted.
  2. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. The Ombudsman may investigate complaints about the administration of a resident’s rent account, including whether the landlord kept accurate records and communicated appropriately, in accordance with its policies and procedures.
  3. Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 39(g), the resident’s complaint about unreasonable increases to her rent and service charges is outside this Service’s jurisdiction. Further, the resident’s complaints about the administration of her rent account and the service of an NOSP in relation to rent arrears, are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 39(h). This is because the resident had the opportunity to raise her concerns about the landlord’s calculation of the arrears and its decision to serve the NOSP at the possession claim hearing held in the County Court on 3 February 2022. Should the resident wish to take this matter further, she would need to seek independent legal advice.
  5. In its final complaint response, the landlord identified failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint about her rent account and service of the NOSP. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reoffer the compensation awarded to the resident.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. When considering complaints about the landlord’s handling of ASB, the Ombudsman does not look to determine whether ASB has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman reviews the action the landlord took following a report of ASB and considers whether its response was timely, appropriate, and in line with the requirements of its policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord’s ASB Policy states that it operates a 4-stage process. The landlord will contact the resident within 5 working days to obtain further details and conduct a risk assessment to determine whether there are any relevant vulnerabilities that may impact the response. During the investigation stage, the landlord may interview the alleged perpetrator or any witnesses, as well as liaising with other agencies, such as the police. It may also consider using diary sheets or noise recording equipment to obtain further evidence. An action sheet should be completed and uploaded to the landlord’s system, with a copy provided to the resident. The landlord should respond to enquiries about an ASB case within 5 to 10 working days. If the landlord concludes that there is insufficient evidence to warrant further action, and the alleged perpetrator denies the allegations, the landlord should write to inform the resident.
  3. In response to reports of ASB, the landlord can consider taking both formal and informal action. Under the landlord’s ASB Policy, informal action may include mediation, signposting to support services, verbal or written warnings, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and Environmental Health referrals. Formal action may include possession proceedings, civil injunctions or tenancy demotions.
  4. According to the records provided to this investigation, the resident first complained about interference with her daughter’s wheelchair by other tenants on 11 March 2020, referring to an incident on 8 March 2020 where she had observed a young male playing with the wheelchair while his friends were laughing. The resident also reported that other tenants moved the wheelchair to store their own belongings and that she had observed someone dumping papers on top of it. The resident and her daughter understandably found this behaviour very disturbing and upsetting. A further report was made on 13 March 2020, where the resident stated that she felt repeated tampering with the wheelchair was deliberate, racially motivated intimidation.
  5. In its complaint responses, the landlord identified that its record keeping around the incidents of wheelchair misuse was poor. It is noted that the landlord did not open an ASB case at the time which, given the allegations of intimidation, may have been more appropriate and ensured an adequate investigation and response.
  6. The landlord did speak to the resident’s Housing Officer as part of its complaint investigation, who confirmed that he had discussed re-siting the wheelchair within the resident’s property to prevent further issues. The landlord’s call notes from 6 April 2020 indicate that the resident agreed to this, however, the landlord admitted in its complaint response that this may have caused the resident additional upset. The resident raised further concerns on 10 April 2020 about difficulty manoeuvring the wheelchair up and down stairs, which did not receive a response. The landlord should have assessed whether it was required under the Equality Act 2010 to make any reasonable adjustments. It could also have considered writing to other tenants to remind them to be respectful of the resident’s property or designating a space for the wheelchair within the storage area.
  7. During its complaint investigation, the landlord identified that the resident had reported an incident of verbal harassment on 14 May 2020, but an ASB case was not opened until 2 June 2020. It apologised that the case was opened late and that it had failed to complete a risk assessment and action plan, in line with the requirements of its policy.
  8. According to the information provided to this Service, on 15 May 2020 the resident also reported an incident of racial abuse that happened on 8 May 2020, which was referred to the police. On 19 May 2020 the resident provided the landlord with a crime reference number and the landlord responded stating that more evidence may be required for this to influence her housing priority banding. Although the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was attempting to manage the resident’s expectations, its response was insensitive, as it should first have opened an ASB case and investigated the resident’s concerns.
  9. The complaint response noted that where the police are involved, the landlord may allow their investigation to “take the lead” before considering further action, which is a reasonable approach. This should have been explained to the resident at the time of the report and she should have been kept up to date about the progress of the investigation. The landlord could also have considered whether there was any informal action it could take whilst it awaited the outcome of the police investigation.
  10. On 22 June 2020 the police informed the landlord that they would be taking no further action. There is no evidence that the landlord progressed its own investigation, or updated the resident, prompting her to contact her MP for assistance on 11 January 2021. The resident finally received a response from the landlord, via her MP, on 11 February 2021.
  11. There is no evidence that the landlord considered offering diary sheets or noise recording equipment to the resident and it was not until 28 May 2021 that the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it would not be taking further action. Although its decision was reasonable on the basis of the available information, a delay of almost a year to provide a response was unacceptable.
  12. Although an ASB case was opened within 1 day following the resident’s report of noise on 15 June 2020, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated or updated the resident until it was contacted by her MP. This was despite her making reports of ongoing noise in September, October, and November 2020.
  13. The landlord’s response of 11 February 2021 stated that it was investigating her concerns, but its system notes show no further discussion until April 2021, where it noted that the noise was unintentional and unavoidable due to her neighbour’s medical condition. The landlord also failed to review a recording provided by the resident on 3 July 2020 until April 2021.
  14. The resident repeatedly asked the landlord to make applications for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) against 3 households she had complained about. The landlord’s ASB Policy refers to the possible use of civil injunction orders, which replaced ASBOs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to tackle ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this request, despite its policy stating that it should reply within 5 – 10 working days. The landlord should have explained to the resident what evidence would be required to pursue formal action.
  15. There was a significant delay in responding to the resident’s communications and overall concerns about ASB by her neighbours. This, coupled with the fact that the landlord did not proactively assist the resident with gathering evidence, left her feeling frustrated and unsupported. Although during the complaint investigation the resident’s Housing Officer referred to some undocumented actions, such as discussions with the alleged perpetrators, the landlord did not take appropriate action in response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord has identified that this was due to pressure on its services at the time and a lack of available resource. Although there may have been more the landlord could have done to resolve the issues informally, it reasonably concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant formal action.
  16. Overall, the landlord’s complaint investigation was thorough and effective. It identified several areas where it had failed to meet its standards, including failure to follow due process and to keep the resident updated. This demonstrated that it is willing to learn from complaint outcomes, which is one of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  17. The landlord offered a total of £550 compensation. The Ombudsman recognises the significant distress that the resident and her daughter experienced, which was enhanced by the landlord’s lack of action. In circumstances where the landlord has identified failings during the complaints process and made a reasonable offer of redress, the Ombudsman will not make a finding of service failure. The Ombudsman considers that in this case, the landlord’s apology and the compensation offered satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reassess her housing priority banding

  1. The Ombudsman does not investigate issues relating to applications for re-housing under a Local Authority’s housing register. In this instance however, it is evident that the landlord operates its own banding system for re-housing applications for existing or prospective tenants. It was in relation to the landlord’s own re-housing system that this aspect of eth complaint relates.
  2. The resident telephoned the landlord on 3 September 2019 to request that her housing priority banding be increased to band A. She contacted the landlord again in November 2019 to inform it that her daughter would soon become a wheelchair user, and the landlord noted that an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment would be required. There is no evidence that this was followed-up, although the landlord did confirm on 13 December 2019 that the resident had been moved to band B.
  3. The resident next raised concerns about her banding in a telephone call on 19 February 2020. There is no evidence that she received a response. In an email to the landlord on 19 May 2020, the resident requested that her banding be increased to A due to the ASB, and because the property was unsuitable for hers and her daughter’s medical needs. The resident stated that the bathroom had no adaptations and her daughter’s bedroom was too small for her to comfortably move around. On 9 June 2020, the resident reported that her daughter’s mobility issues had escalated and that she was seeking a move to a bungalow.
  4. There is no evidence of what occurred between June and October 2020, although an OT assessment was completed at some point during this period. Again, the landlord’s record keeping was poor, and this has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate its actions. There is no evidence, however, that the landlord adequately supported the resident with the reassessment of her banding between February 2020 and October 2020. This was unacceptable, as the landlord was aware of the household’s vulnerabilities and the ongoing issues with ASB and noise.
  5. On 17 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord a copy of an OT report, which concluded that the property was unsuitable for her daughter’s needs. The resident chased a response to her email on 18 October 2020, 6 and 29 November 2020, and 10, 16, 22 and 23 December 2020. She then emailed her MP on 11 January 2021. The landlord’s response of 11 February 2021 inaccurately stated that she had not provided medical evidence, although the landlord later located a copy of the report on its system. The landlord has failed to explain why the resident’s communications did not receive a response.
  6. It took almost another month for the landlord to assess the evidence and inform the resident’s MP that her banding had been increased to band A. The resident was not given written confirmation until 24 March 2021, and the letter then failed to state the reasons for the banding increase. The landlord did not write to the resident to apologise for the delay until the final complaint response of 18 June 2021.
  7. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reassessment of her housing priority banding was extremely poor. It took more than a year from when the resident raised concerns about the suitability of the property for the landlord to arrange an OT assessment and review its findings. This was wholly unacceptable.
  8. The landlord did acknowledge in its complaint response that there had been delays in re-assessing the resident’s banding and that its communication was poor. However, the Ombudsman feels that the response and the overall offer of compensation did not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of its failings.
  9. The Ombudsman makes an additional award of compensation, to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her daughter due to the landlord’s failure to progress her request within a reasonable time, and its poor record keeping and communication. The Ombudsman also makes an order that the landlord review its policies and procedures in relation to banding allocations, to ensure that adequate records are kept and that there are adequate processes in place for when a resident requests the reassessment of their banding, to avoid such lengthy delays in the future.

Complaints handling

  1. In its final complaint response, the landlord accepted that there was a delay in providing an initial response to the complaint at its “Front Line Resolution” (FLR) stage. According to its policies and procedures, the landlord will aim to propose a resolution within 10 working days. Although the landlord’s Complaints Policy put an emphasis on discussing the complaint with the resident and agreeing a verbal resolution, it also stated that all complaints should receive a written response. The written response should outline the complaint investigation, state whether the complaint was upheld and provide details of how the complaint can be escalated.
  2. The resident’s complaint was acknowledged on 10 February 2021 and the landlord claims that an FRL response was provided on 24 March 2021. However, the letter sent to the resident on 24 March 2021 was not a complaint response, it was a letter informing the resident of a change in her housing priority banding. The resident did not receive a response to her complaint about ASB until 28 May 2021, in which the landlord also addressed her complaint about her rent. Neither the letter of 24 March 2021, nor the email of 28 May 2021, stated whether the resident’s complaint was upheld or provided details of how to escalate.
  3. The landlord failed to provide an adequate response at the FLR stage and its decision to respond to both the rent issues and the ASB issues in a single email caused further confusion about the status of the resident’s complaints. The landlord also provided responses to the resident’s MP but its processes for responding to MP enquiries should be distinct from its complaints process.
  4. The landlord offered compensation of £125 in recognition of its poor complaint handling at the FLR stage. The Ombudsman considers that this offer was reasonable and in line with the amounts set out in this Service’s Remedies Guidance, taking into account the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the apology and offer of compensation set out in the landlord’s complaint response satisfactorily resolved this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 39(g) and (h) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about rent and service charge increases, and the administration of her rent account is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to serve an NOSP is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves her complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reassess her housing priority banding.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves her complaint about its complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following Orders to:
    1. Pay the resident £250 compensation in respect of its poor handling of her request for reassessment of her housing priority banding.
    2. Review its processes for considering requests for re-banding to ensure that adequate records are kept and that requests are responded to in a timely manner.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the sum of £425 compensation, as awarded to the resident in its final complaint response of 18 June 2021, in recognition of the failings identified in its handling of her complaint about her rent account and service of the NOSP.