Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202105364)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105364

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 April 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident‘s requests for rehousing, handling of complaints of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by and about the resident and that the landlord would not allow him to keep a pet at the property.

Background

  1. The resident had a six year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy which commenced in January 2014.  It is a one bedroom first floor flat. The resident has been represented by his mother in making the complaint to this service.
  2. The resident has Aspergers Syndrome, anxiety and depression.  His partner, who also lived at the property, has learning difficulties.
  3. The resident began enquiries about moving to a different property in late 2018 and provided medical information to the landlord about the unsuitability of the property in 2019.
  4. From March 2020 the landlord received a number of complaints from a neighbour about the resident’s behaviour. The resident in turn complained that he was experiencing problems with noise from his neighbour. There was police involvement regarding the resident’s behaviour. The resident complained that the landlord accepted the complaints about his behaviour without asking him for his side of the story.
  5. On 8 February 2021 the landlord served a Notice of Seeking Possession on the resident. On 9 February 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a first stage complaint response and on 9 April 2021 the landlord provided a Final Response Letter.
  6. The resident states that the landlord’s action have resulted in his relationship breaking up and that he has had to move in with his parents. He submits that the landlord’s actions (or lack of actions) had a significant impact on his mental health.

Scope of the complaint

  1. The Ombudsman notes that in his submission to this Service, the resident has referred specifically to the landlord’s “eviction” of him. The Ombudsman understands that this relates to the landlord serving a Notice Seeking Possession on 7 February 2021 . The Ombudsman is only able to consider complaints which have gone through the landlord’s complaint process. The Ombudsman notes that in its letter to the resident of 9 April 2021 the landlord invited the resident to raise a separate complaint about the Notice Seeking Possession and clarified that it was a separate issue. The complaint brought to the Ombudsman, which has gone through the landlord’s complaints process, was made before the Notice Seeking Possession was served. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s specific complaint about being “evicted”.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman starts by noting that we acknowledge the health challenges that the resident faces and appreciate that this has been a challenging situation for him.

Handling of ASB complaints

  1. The resident is unhappy with the way in which the landlord has handled complaints about ASB received about him and from him. The resident states that the landlord has not engaged with him directly and has not responded to communications.
  2. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  3. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns he has reported have affected and caused distress to him. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  4. The background to this complaint is one of allegations of ASB by the resident and counter allegations by his neighbour. It is relevant for the Ombudsman to acknowledge at the outset that ASB cases involving a number of parties with allegations and counter allegations of the extent presented in this case can be amongst the most difficult and intractable for a landlord to resolve. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important that the Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged that there was a failing where it did not respond to a specific nuisance complaint that the resident made about his neighbour in October 2020. Whilst the landlord appears to have recorded the complaint, the landlord did not specifically provide the resident with a diary to record unreasonable noise incidents. The landlord apologised in its letter of 9 April 2021 and provided a booklet at that time. The Ombudsman notes that it appears that the landlord made some attempts to contact the resident which he did not respond to. However, nonetheless the Ombudsman considers that the landlord could have taken further steps to communicate with the resident.
  6. It appears that one of the main causes of distress to the resident was the sound of his neighbour using a door in their property. The resident’s position is that the landlord should have taken further steps to assist him given that his condition makes him particularly sensitive to noise. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident found the noise from his neighbour, and especially the noise from a door, distressing.
  7. The landlord noted in its Final Response Letter of 9 April 2021 that “day to day living noises” would not be considered to be a “noise nuisance”.  Whilst the landlord appears to have failed to take adequate steps to follow up the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman is not persuaded there are steps which the landlord could reasonably have been expected to take regarding the  neighbour’s door which it did not take. The noise of the door shutting can reasonably be considered to be a typical domestic noise that can be expected in adjoining properties. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s Aids and Adaptions (England) – Group Policy. This considers the aids or adaptions that the landlord may make where a resident has a disability, which includes a mental impairment. The Ombudsman is not persuaded that altering the doors in an adjacent property where the level of noise created can reasonably be considered normal domestic noise would fall within the scope of this. Therefore, while the Ombudsman considers that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s complaint about noise from his neighbour’s property, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could not have been reasonably expected to have taken any steps regarding the neighbour’s door.
  8. The Ombudsman nevertheless finds that it was a failing that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s specific complaint of October 2020. The landlord has apologised for this and offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £55. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is a reasonable level of compensation for this failing. In coming to this view, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s Compensation Guidance, which sets out that payments between £51-£100 are appropriate for “delays or difficulties raising a complaint”. The Ombudsman considers that this is a reasonable approach.
  9. The resident has also complained about the landlord’s handling of ASB complaints about him from his neighbour. He complains that the landlord did not communicate with him properly and that the landlord has been biased towards his neighbour. He complains that the landlord failed to take into account his vulnerabilities.
  10. The evidence indicates that there were a number of communications between the landlord and the resident with regard to his neighbour’s complaint against him. The evidence indicates that there were direct and email communications. Following incidents of the resident talking to the landlord in an inappropriate manner, the landlord conducted all communications in writing. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord took reasonable steps to communicate with the resident.
  11. Section 6 of the Tenancy Agreement states that:

“The landlord shall not tolerate behaviour which causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance or damage to neighbouring, adjoining or adjacent premises or the other people.”

  1. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence supports the landlord’s position that the resident behaved in a manner that can reasonably be considered to be inappropriate towards his neighbour. This evidence includes incidents that required police involvement. The Ombudsman is persuaded that the landlord was reasonable to consider that the resident was engaging in anti social behaviour.
  2. The landlord’s “Antisocial Behaviour – Housing and Support Procedure” identifies that Stage One of the process is for the landlord to “assess vulnerabilities”. This requires that the landlord is aware of, and takes into account, any vulnerabilities of both the victim and the perpetrator. The landlord sets out its approach to ASB situations where a perpetrator and/or a victim has mental health needs. The procedure sets out that the landlord should address and take into account these needs, which in some cases may include referral to or working with other support agencies. The procedure states that:

“Staff should not and cannot overlook the impact of mental health conditions on behaviour (of both victims and alleged perpetrators). Failure to effectively acknowledge and deal with any mental health issues will lead to an ineffective investigation and a higher likelihood that the behaviour will continue”.

  1. The landlord has been unable to provide copies of Vulnerability Assessments for the complaints which the resident made about his neighbour and those which the neighbour made about the resident. The notes on the landlord’s system indicate that vulnerability assessments may have been made on some of them as there are records of “categorisation”. The landlord has acknowledged this as a failing. The landlord has advised that it has given feedback internally.  
  2. The Ombudsman finds it a failing by the landlord that it did not record the Vulnerability Assessments and that it may have failed to undertake them at all for some of the complaints. Whilst there were challenges in the landlord communicating with the resident, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord had sufficient information to make an assessment. However, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that this would have materially changed the way in which the landlord handled the matter and that it has had a material impact on the resident. The resident was supported and represented by his mother and the evidence indicates that he had medical support. It is not clear what further steps the landlord could have taken. The landlord also had an obligation to other residents. On this basis the Ombudsman has not made a finding against the landlord, however the Ombudsman has made a recommendation about its future approach to Vulnerability Assessments.

Rehousing support

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has a number of personal challenges, which can present particular challenges in a housing environment. The resident feels that the landlord should have done more to rehouse him.
  2. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord was on reasonable notice that the resident had a disability. The “core lettings log” from the resident’s move in to the property records that the resident has a disability. However, the resident was not a “special needs” or a supported living tenant.
  3. The landlord has obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including section 13, which means that the landlord must not discriminate against someone on the grounds of a disability. As a general principle the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be sensitive to the individual needs and vulnerabilities of the resident. However, the landlord did not have an obligation to provide alternative accommodation for the resident or to procure alternative accommodation from another housing provider to rehouse him. In this situation where the resident’s continuing occupation of the property was problematic, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to signpost the resident to other organisations and explain the process for seeking rehousing to the resident, including providing him with information on bidding and banding and what his banding is.
  4. The evidence that the Ombudsman has been provided with shows that the landlord assisted the resident to be placed in the top band for rehousing within the “Homes Direct” system. This is the social housing allocation system used for the area in which the resident wished to move. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord explained to the resident how the system worked and that the resident needed to make bids on the system. The landlord also provided information on other ways that housing could be found and advised the resident to contact the council and other housing providers for support. The Ombudsman is also satisfied that the landlord told the resident that if he was having troubles using the system it could offer more support. Ultimately the resident needed to place bids for alternative properties. It is unfortunate that he found the system difficult to navigate. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord provided sufficient support to help the resident use the system In its letter of 9 April 2021, the landlord explained that the system had now changed and the resident would need to contact individual landlords and the council. The landlord provided relevant contact details.
  5. The Ombudsman understands that this has been very upsetting for the resident. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord provided the resident with an appropriate level of support regarding rehousing.

Pet

  1. The resident has also made a specific complaint that the landlord would not give permission for a pet to be kept at his residence although his neighbours had a pet. The Ombudsman is satisfied that section 10 of the Tenancy Agreement clearly states that a pet must not be kept at the property without the consent of the landlord. The keeping of pets in other properties is not relevant to the resident’s own right to have a pet. There is no evidence that the resident made an application to keep a pet in the property which the landlord unreasonably dealt with.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of an anti social behaviour complaint by the resident, however the landlord has already offered reasonable redress to the resident.
  2. In accordance with section 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the regarding its handling of anti social behaviour complaints about the resident.
  3. In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds that there has not been maladministration by the landlord regarding it handling of the resident‘s requests for rehousing rehoming the resident.
  4.  In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds that there has not been maladministration by the landlord regarding the resident keeping a pet at the property.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its processes and approaches to Vulnerability Assessments to ensure that they are undertaken and recorded as required by their policies and procedures.