Westminster City Council (202218960)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218960

Westminster City Council

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about a pest infestation.
2. antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. the resident’s application for a management transfer.
4. the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The complaint relates to the landlord’s actions when she was at her previous address. The property was a one bed second floor flat. The resident’s tenancy began in 2018. She moved to her new property in January 2023. The resident lives with her husband and their three children who were aged 5, 4 and 1 at the time of the complaint.
The landlord’s ASB policy describes the interventions it will use to resolve ASB. This includes issuing warning letters to perpetrators, entering into Acceptable Behaviour Agreements, arranging mediation between residents, and making appropriate referrals for support. It states that it “will have due regard to the particular circumstances and vulnerability of perpetrators when considering the most appropriate form of intervention and support. However, we will also take enforcement action, including possession action, where this is proportionate and reasonable, and where all other avenues have been exhausted.”
The ASB policy also outlines the procedure the landlord will take when it receives reports of ASB. It states that it will respond to complainants within 24 hours and agree an action plan. It will also contact the perpetrator and other residents and, where relevant, make independent enquiries of the police. Where there is a report of harassment or hate crime, the landlord aims to meet with victims of harassment involving physical assault within 24 hours and within 3 days for other incidents. It further states that it will assist with a temporary or permanent move in exceptional circumstances and where there is a real risk of violence to a victim. Management transfers can be authorised by the housing service on an exceptional basis. Authorised management transfers are administered in accordance with the Housing Allocation Scheme.
The landlord’s allocations policy describes the process it follows in relation to a management transfer. It says that the Director of Housing or delegated person(s) also has the option of agreeing a management transfer on an exceptional basis. Applicants approved for management transfers will be given one direct offer of the next suitable property for the household’s need. If this is unreasonably refused, the management transfer application will be closed or, if the applicant had an existing priority at the time the management transfer was agreed (e.g. overcrowding), they will be placed on the previous list. It also says that management transfers will only be agreed where the household can be re-housed safely within the borough subject to a risk assessment and consideration of any other exceptional grounds. Where a resident is awarded a management transfer, they will be entitled to the same size accommodation as the current tenancy unless they are overcrowded by two bedrooms or more in which case larger accommodation will be offered.
The landlord’s pest control policy outlines the process for reporting a pest issue in its properties. It states that where rats are reported in a resident’s home, the pest control team will attend within 24 hours. Where mice are reported, they will attend within 3 days. Where a need for pest proofing works is identified, a job will be raised for a contractor to undertake the proofing work. If the infestation remains after the proofing has been completed, the landlord will visit the property to establish the cause of the infestation. The policy states that where a resident fails to provide access or contact the pest control team within 10 working days of reporting the infestation, the operative will seek assistance from local housing team to gain access. If unsuccessful after 14 working days, the job will be closed.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. At both stages the landlord aims to provide a response in 10 working days. The landlord states that where complaints may need longer to investigate, a holding response will be sent, explaining the reason for the delay, and informing the resident when they should expect to receive a full response.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and financial compensation will be considered when deciding on redress.
This investigation has been hindered by the quality of the records provided by the landlord. The Ombudsman bases its decisions on the documentary evidence provided to it by the parties and there is an expectation that the landlord, as the professional organisation with resources available to it, should be able to provide adequate evidence of its actions.
Information provided by the landlord about its attendance at the property to address a mice infestation is limited. This has meant that it has not been possible to obtain a clear picture of when appointments were raised, what the landlord’s response was and whether the actions taken were effective. Similarly, the ASB records provided by the landlord are incomplete, and documents relating to the management transfer process have not been provided. The landlord should therefore take steps to ensure that its record-keeping practices are adequate, and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
This report refers to incidents of ASB involving third parties. For this report:
1. the complainant will be referred to as “the resident,”
2. the person who is the tenant of the property where the perpetrator(s) of ASB lived, will be referred to as “the tenant” and;
3. The person(s) responsible for the ASB will be referred to as “the perpetrator.”

Summary of events

The resident reported to the landlord, on 13 May 2020, that there were mice and rats entering her property. She said that they were entering through open pipes in the boiler room. She stated that pest control had already visited her property on several occasions to put bait and poison down, but the problem persisted. The resident told the landlord that the last contractor said that mice would continue to enter the property unless proofing works were undertaken in the boiler room. The resident said that she had two children aged under two at the time, and she was worried about the risk to their health.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on the 4 June 2020. She said that pest control had since come out and undertaken proofing works in the property, but she was informed that they could not proof the boiler room as to do so would involve removing the boiler. She said that she had recently had two missed appointments from pest control. There was a missed call on her phone showing that they had attempted to contact her, but she was not able to answer the door straight away as she was attending to her children. This Service has not seen a copy of the complaint response, but the resident advises that she did not ask to escalate her complaint.
The resident has informed this Service that the pest infestation continued between 2020 and 2022. The landlord’s records do not document that further callouts were arranged following the appointments in May and June 2020.
From 2020, residents in the block had been reporting ASB from the perpetrator who lived in one of the flats with a relative, who was the tenant. The reports were that the individual was often intoxicated, and was verbally abusive, physically threatening and racially harassed residents. These complaints continued throughout 2021 and 2022.
In response, during 2021 the landlord took the following steps:
1. It issued the tenant of the property with a notice seeking possession because of the behaviour of their household and visitors.
2. It made enquiries regarding CCTV on the estate to see if reports could be independently evidenced. Where issues with cameras were raised, it asked that this issue be resolved as a priority. It also requested that additional cameras be installed on the estate.
3. It liaised with the police in response to every reported incident to determine whether any actions had been taken against the perpetrator.
4. It requested police disclosure and asked for a meeting to be set up with the police, to see how it could work jointly to address the ASB.
5. It referred the matter internally so that a Community Protection Notice could be considered.
6. It arranged a case conference with a local councillor to discuss the case, and it was agreed that any complainants would be contacted weekly and that impact statements would be prepared.
7. It liaised with the police and other services to identify whether the perpetrator was known to them and to facilitate a joint working approach in addressing the ASB.
8. It contacted its legal advisers to request that the process for issuing an injunction application to the court be started.
During 2021, the landlord continued to liaise with partner agencies, including the police, in relation to the ASB. It updated residents regarding the legal proceedings and sought to obtain evidence from them to support the application.
Save for an isolated incident, between June and November 2021 there were no reports of ASB relating to the perpetrator. While the landlord had obtained evidence in support of its injunction application, the information provided suggests that its legal advisers did not consider that, on the evidence, it would be proportionate to commence legal action given that the behaviour complained of was not continuing at that time.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to enquire whether she had been witnessed ASB on the estate. On 24 November, the landlord contacted the resident again by email and telephone and requested that she make contact. The landlord then included the resident’s complaint with the group complaint involving other residents from the estate.
At this time, the landlord contacted its legal advisers again to instruction them to prepare another injunction application regarding the perpetrator. During November and December 2021, it liaised with the police in relation to recent reports, to obtain supporting evidence for its application.
On 6 December 2021, the landlord sent an email to all residents who had made reports of ASB against the perpetrator. It confirmed that it was taking legal action and asked that residents continue to report incidents of criminal behaviour to the police and share details of crime reference numbers with the landlord. This would allow reports to be followed up by the landlord and included with evidence in support of the injunction.
The landlord’s legal advisers applied to court for an injunction order on 30 December 2021. The resident was informed on 11 January 2022 that the application had been filed with the court. On 13 January, a meeting involving the police, the landlord and residents was held where residents were updated as to what was to happen next in relation to their ASB reports.
In January 2022, the tenant was served with a notice of seeking possession and they signed an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) with the landlord.
The landlord chased up its legal advisers in January and February 2022, about the injunction application and a court date.
On 30 March 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there were mice in her kitchen and living room. An appointment was booked for pest control to attend on the 6 April 2022, however the landlord’s records show that there was no access. A message was left on the resident’s voicemail and an email was also sent.
An injunction hearing listed for 19 April 2022 was adjourned on the day by the court, with directions that it be relisted after 7 days. On 19 May and 9 June 2022, the landlord chased its legal advisers for an update on the rescheduled hearing.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 May 2022, in response to a further report of mice in the property. The resident was directed to its pest control team. No further details as to whether this was progressed by the resident have been provided.
On 26 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report that the pest infestation was continuing, despite pest control baiting and proofing the property. She said that the constant presence of mice was distressing for her 3 young children. The landlord responded on the following day to say that the housing team had been asked to raise a communal pest control appointment and that they would respond within 5 working days.
A pre-inspection was raised on 27 July 2022. The surveyor could not gain access to the property on that day. The surveyor attended again on 3 August and advised that the plinths and headboard backs to the kitchen units should be removed, and any holes found closed. An appointment was raised for 19 August 2022, however on this day the surveyor asked that the full units be removed to allow a full inspection. This was agreed and the works were rescheduled for September.
On 16 August 2022, there was an incident involving the perpetrator and the resident. The perpetrator was very agitated and was shouting and swearing outside the resident’s flat. When the resident opened her door, the perpetrator began to direct abuse at her, and it was apparent that he was holding a knife. He shouted racist abuse at her and threatened to kill her. The resident locked herself in her flat. The police then arrived but did not arrest the perpetrator. The perpetrator then left the area. The resident reported this incident to the landlord and said that her children were terrified by the perpetrator’s behaviour, and that she felt unsafe.
On the same day, the resident made a complaint to the landlord:
1. She said that she had complained about the mice in 2020 but the problem was ongoing. She had reported the issue to the landlord, but she did not receive a call back. She said that this was having a detrimental impact on her children. A surveyor had attended on the 3 August and said that the kitchen, toilet and sitting room needed to be fully proofed, and that the works would be completed within 10 days. This had not happened.
2. She said that she “lived in fear” because of the ongoing ASB. The perpetrator had threatened her on more than one occasion. She wanted this to be addressed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 18 August 2022. She was told to expect a response by the 31 August 2022.
In August 2022, the resident enquired about applying for a management transfer. On 22 August 2022, the landlord sent an email to the police requesting that they complete the management transfer risk assessment form. It asked that they provide information about whether they considered that there was sufficient risk to the resident to warrant a move.
The landlord informed the resident that it had sent the risk assessment form to the police on 24 August 2022. The resident chased this up between 24 August and 1 September. The landlord then notified the resident that her case had been discussed at the management transfer panel, and that she would be informed of the outcome.
On 30 August 2022, the resident was informed that the injunction application had been relisted for 2 September 2022. On 5 September 2022, the landlord informed the resident that an injunction had been obtained against the perpetrator.
Following the injunction, reports of ASB on the estate reduced significantly. However, the resident expressed concerns to the landlord that the perpetrator would be able to identify her as someone who had provided a witness statement in support of the injunction application. She said that, despite an exclusion zone being included with the injunction, she was worried that she would encounter the perpetrator in the local area, outside of the exclusion zone. She said that he had threatened her with a knife before, and she was worried for her safety and that of her children.
On 5 September 2022, the resident was informed that her application for a management transfer had been rejected. The landlord stated that the decision had been reached because it had concluded that the risk to her family was low. The issues were being managed by the ASB team and an injunction had been sought against the perpetrator. The resident contacted the landlord the same day to express her disappointment with the outcome of her application. She said that she did not believe the injunction was a sufficient deterrent, and that it was a short term measure. She asked to appeal the decision and requested a copy of the police risk assessment.
The resident submitted a Subject Access Request to the landlord for a copy of the police risk assessment on 7 September. On 14 September 2022, the landlord responded to say that the risk assessment was not on her file.
On 14 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response:
1. It said that the landlord had contacted the resident about the ASB incident on 19 August 2022. It invited her to a meeting with the police on 25 August and a risk assessment had been sent to the police to support an application for a management transfer. The landlord would continue to contact her weekly to update her.
2. With regards to the pest infestation, the landlord said that it was unable to look at matters that were more than 12 months old as part of its complaints process. It outlined the action it had taken to date and advised that an all-day appointment was scheduled for 14 September.
3. It said that it had not found any reports that the pest issue had been brought to its attention in the last 12 months, however, it would monitor the works to ensure that they were completed in a timely manner.
4. The complaint was upheld, and the landlord offered £40 in compensation which comprised of:
  1. £20 for the time taken to pursue the repair and,
  2. £20 for the delay in providing a response.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 16 September 2022. She said that the proofing works had still not been completed satisfactorily, and the response at stage 1 regarding works to date was inaccurate. She said that she had spent time and money to resolve the problem herself, and she remained dissatisfied with the service.
On 20 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request. She was informed that it would not cover her complaint about the outcome of her management transfer “as this process falls under the remit of the Housing Solutions Service and is subject to its own appeals process.” The resident was advised that she should expect a response to her complaint by 14 October 2022.
Between 20 and 22 September, the resident chased the landlord for a copy of the police risk assessment.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 October 2022 to advise her that her management transfer application had been passed to the Director of Housing for consideration. She was informed that the Director of Housing can exercise discretion to approve a management transfer. This would happen in instances where the relevant circumstances were not covered by the Council’s policies, or where further information had been provided which required the original decision to be reviewed. Her application had been reconsidered and her request had been approved. She would be made an offer of a two bed property as an emergency move. If she did not accept the offer, she would be able to continue to bid for 3 bedroom properties through its choice based lettings system.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response:
1. It confirmed that the proofing contractor had asked for the communal pipework to be removed to allow access. The surveyor did not agree to this. As a result, it was decided that the pipework should remain in place and any required proofing would need to be carried out in and around the area. Other works were undertaken to the kitchen.
2. The landlord had now obtained an injunction against the perpetrator of ASB which would remain in place for a year.
3. The landlord had also exercised discretion to offer the resident an alternative property away from the current locality.
4. While it had said that it could not consider the aspect of the complaint in relation to the management transfer, this information was incorrect. However, as it did not feature in the resident’s initial complaint, it would not be able to review it.
5. It failed to notify her of a delay in responding to her stage one complaint. An update had been sent to her, but only on 9 September, which was 9 days outside of the original deadline. An additional £20 compensation was offered in relation to this, bringing the total to £60.

Post complaint

On 29 September 2022, a meeting was held involving the resident’s association and the landlord. The residents raised concerns about a pest infestation on the estate which they said had been caused by recent heating works. The gaps around the pipework between flats had made it easier for mice to enter adjoining homes.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 November 2022:
1. She enquired when the pest issue would be resolved as there had been no progress for the last two months.
2. She was unhappy with the discretionary offers of accommodation made to her. She was offered a 2 bed property rather than a 3 bed property. She said that she had been made two offers of accommodation that were unsuitable. She believed that, had she been awarded a management transfer, she would have been able to bid for a suitable property rather than being given one offer only.
The landlord treated this as a formal complaint and responded on 20 December 2022:
1. It said that the pest issue had been raised through the resident’s association, and that it was collaborating with residents to respond to the issues they had raised. An update would be provided in due course.
2. It confirmed that while the police had provided a report for the management transfer panel, they had not provided a risk assessment as requested.
3. The panel concluded that, as the landlord had applied for an injunction, and the police had decided not to take action themselves against the perpetrator, the decision was not to agree a management transfer.
4. However, the resident’s case was then considered using the Director of Housing’s discretion, and a management transfer was approved. This put the resident in the same, or better position, as she would have been in had the management transfer been approved by the panel.
5. It confirmed that successful management transfer applicants would not be entitled to bid for properties, and instead would be given one direct offer of the next suitable property only. The level of points would allow them to be given a direct offer ‘out of turn’ only.
6. It apologised if the wording of its allocations scheme did not make this clear. It said that the scheme was being reviewed and that it would look at amending the wording as part of the review.
7. It said that the resident was in a more advantageous position as a discretionary case, as she had been made more than one offer of housing.
8. The resident said that she had a particular requirement for a property, but the landlord said that it had a limited stock of housing and there were very few properties that would meet the resident’s requirements.
Following further representations from the resident, the landlord updated its response and advised the resident that, for the purposes of a referral to this Service, it should be treated as a stage 2 response. In its response the landlord conceded that there had been a service failure as its policy had not been followed, however it did not consider that the resident had been disadvantaged as she had been offered a larger property and had received more than one offer of housing.
It offered the resident £250 for her distress and inconvenience and £50 in recognition of the delays in responding to her enquiries. Going forward it said that the police would be reminded that they must respond promptly to requests for risk assessments. The panel would also be asked to ensure that all documentation was available before it convened.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is noted that the resident has stated that both the pest infestation and the ASB has affected her mental health and that of her children. The Ombudsman understands that this had been a very distressing time for the resident and her family and notes the resident’s concerns about the impact of this on her health and that of her children. This Service cannot, however, draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be a matter for the courts. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that she had experienced.
This Service notes that the resident has raised this matter with the landlord over several years. Details of earlier reports have been helpful in providing a clear picture of the history of this complaint to date, and the landlord’s interventions. For the purpose of this investigation, however, these previous reports and the landlord’s responses are referenced for contextual purposes only. This is because, in accordance with paragraphs 42a and 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is limited to investigating only those issues that have been brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable timescale and that have progressed through its complaint’s procedure. Therefore, this investigation will focus on events from November 2021 onwards.
It is noted that there has been a significant amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is noted, the report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.

The resident’s reports about a pest infestation at her previous address

Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation. The investigation will look at whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law, and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
It is not disputed that the resident has experienced issues with mice in her property over several years. The landlord’s records show that reports of a mice infestation were first made in 2020. In response, it put down poison and bait and then undertook proofing works. This was then raised again with the landlord in 2022.
Records show it made several attendances to the property between May 2022 and September 2022 (the records provided to this investigation do not go beyond this date) and these were generally carried out in a timely fashion. It is noted, however, that pest proofing works scheduled after an inspection in August 2022 were carried out outside its target timeframe. The landlord’s records show that there were two no access appointments in 2022, following which it complied with its policy by making further attempts to contact the resident by email and telephone.
However, while the landlord’s records do show it was responsive to the reports it received, the fact it was required to make several repeat visits, should have alerted it to the fact its efforts were not resulting in a lasting, long-term solution to the issue. The landlord missed an opportunity, either within its complaint response or its wider management of the issue, to consider whether it needed to conduct a review of the proofing works undertaken. and whether additional measures needed to be put in place.
The notes of a residents group meeting with the landlord held in November 2022, show that this was also an issue that had affected other homes on the estate. The landlord failed to take a thorough and holistic approach to investigating the problem. The resident reported that the pest issue was continuing in November 2022.
Overall, the landlord’s response was inadequate, as the problem had persisted despite its interventions. The resident and her family undoubtedly have been caused a great deal of distress by the presence of mice in their home, until the resident moved out of the property in January 2023. Therefore, this Service makes a finding of maladministration and orders that the landlord pay an amount of £350, which is within the level of redress in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure which had adversely affected the resident. An uplift has also been applied as there are aggravating factors in this case, namely that the resident has young children, which will have meant that the landlord’s service failure would have had a greater impact on them.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident and her family. The resident has detailed how the ongoing issues they reported had impacted on their mental health and wellbeing and that of their household. It may assist to first explain that the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case, and with reference to its published policies and procedures.
The resident complained that legal action against the perpetrator was unreasonably delayed. Incidents of ASB can be sporadic. There can be a high number of incidents within a short time, followed by an extended period when there are no incidents. The landlord’s response to ASB must be reasonable and proportionate. It can only investigate issues as they arise and must consider whether it is appropriate to continue with a course of action if the ASB ceases for a period. This can be a cause of great frustration to those affected by ASB, who may feel that their reports have not been taken seriously, or that the landlord is taking too long to progress the case. Further, landlords must protect their resident’s personal data, therefore the landlord is limited as to how much information it can disclose to other residents about its interventions regarding a case.
The landlord’s ASB policy outlines the early intervention tools it uses to deal with reports of ASB, which include mediation, warnings, and referrals to partner agencies. In this case, it is apparent that the landlord took appropriate steps when responding to the reports it had received about ASB, in line with its policy. The landlord engaged with complainants and collaborated with partner agencies including the police, to address the problem. It was required to exhaust other options before considering legal action, and it is evident that this approach was taken.
It is also noted that the tenant and the perpetrator both had vulnerabilities, the details of which cannot be included with this report. While a landlord has a responsibility to address tenancy breaches, particularly where they may have an impact on the wider community, it must balance this with the need to support the tenant who is in breach, to keep to the terms of their tenancy. This is particularly relevant where a tenant has additional support needs or a vulnerability. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to explore with partner agencies whether the tenant could be supported. It also considered if the perpetrator’s behaviour could be addressed appropriately with adequate interventions from other services.
Where criminal behaviour is alleged, the police will be the lead agency as they have greater powers to take legal action. The police are required to investigate allegations of criminal conduct. In instances where the police do not take action, the powers of the landlord are limited. They can apply for a civil injunction, or they can apply for a possession order to end a tenancy. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the police where her reports related to criminal activity. It also reminded the resident to provide it with police references for each report made, so that this could be followed up. This approach was standard and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. It was reasonable for the landlord’s actions to be informed by information it sought and received from the police. Where further action is dependent on evidence provided by the police, the landlord is limited in what steps it can take in the absence of such evidence.
The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the police; however, this was outside of the landlord’s control. It is noted that the landlord did arrange a meeting involving residents and the police, to discuss their concerns. It also directed the resident to raise any complaints with the police directly, providing contact details with which to do so. It also directed the resident to the community trigger review process as well as its own complaints procedure, which was good practice and in line with its policy.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its legal team who reviewed the evidence at each stage and provided an opinion as to whether the evidential threshold had been reached, and if legal action could be justified. Where legal action could result in the loss of a person’s home or liberty, a court will need to be satisfied that the threshold for making an order has been reached. A landlord must also satisfy a court that it had pursued, and exhausted, all other available actions and that proceedings are a last resort.
It would not be an appropriate use of the landlord’s resources to pursue legal action which its legal team had concluded had, on the evidence, a low prospect of success. This Service has considered the records provided by the landlord detailing its interventions up to the date of the complaint and going forward. The Ombudsman is satisfied from the evidence it has seen that the landlord responded in a reasonable manner in the circumstances.
While the court application was filed in December 2021, there were delays with the case being listed for a hearing. At a hearing in April 2022, the case was adjourned and not relisted until September. This was a matter that was outside of the landlord’s control, and it is noted that the landlord chased this up regularly with its legal advisers.
There were, however, things that the landlord could have done better. The landlord had conducted an action plan and its own risk assessment dated 17 August 2022 however there is no evidence to suggest that the action plan was agreed with the resident or confirmed in written correspondence. Furthermore, regular risk assessments would have allowed it to track the changing risk level and prioritise the case accordingly if an increase in risk was identified. It is also unclear from the evidence whether the resident was offered a referral to any external support agencies, following the incident on 16 August 2022.
Clear record keeping and management is essential where reports of ASB are made, and investigations into allegations are undertaken. This is because such records form evidence which the landlord may review and rely on in its management of the ASB case. In this case, there are significant gaps in evidence which has not enabled this Service to obtain a full understanding of the history and handling of this ASB case.
The resident has raised that the landlord’s communication with her was poor, and she was not given updates as to what was happening. The information provided to this Service shows that the landlord did keep the resident informed of any progress from November 2021 onwards until legal proceedings were concluded and thereafter. The landlord responded promptly to requests for information and sought to answer the resident’s questions fully. There was a period between January and August 2021 when there was little progress to report, as the landlord was consulting with its partner agencies and awaiting a hearing date for its court application. It would have been good practice, during this time, for the landlord to have been proactive in reassuring residents that matters were in hand.
Overall, on the evidence provided, its actions in dealing with the reported ASB were reasonable and delays in enforcement action were largely beyond the landlord’s control. However, the records provided do not adequately evidence that the landlord communicated its action plan to the resident, and its decisions were not always clearly documented. A finding of service failure has therefore been made in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident an amount of £150 in compensation. An uplift has been applied, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, due to the resident’s circumstances, as outlined above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer

The procedure for a management transfer is included in the landlord’s allocations policy. This is outlined above. The landlord did not delay in assisting the resident to apply for a management transfer and it requested disclosure and a risk assessment from the police promptly, in accordance with its policy. However, the police risk assessment, upon which the management transfer application relied, was never provided.
While the landlord had asked the police for a risk assessment, it is unclear whether this was ever followed up with them. Further, there was no request that the panel meeting be postponed pending the receipt of further evidence. Delays in obtaining information from external agencies are understandable, but the landlord’s failure to satisfy itself of the risk posed to the resident was unreasonable. Further, in holding the panel meeting before the risk assessment was provided, the landlord failed to follow its published procedure.
The resident believes that she was misled during this process. While this Service does not find evidence of this, there was ineffective communication between departments which resulted in the resident being given conflicting information. The resident was put to time and trouble in trying to obtain a full explanation as to the landlord’s decision and to establish what evidence it had relied on. Information between teams was not shared in a timely way and this resulted in various cross-communications involving members of staff.
However, it is noted that the police had provided disclosure to the panel, and the panel did have regard to this information when reaching its decision. In its decision letter, the landlord evidenced that it had applied the correct criteria in determining whether the resident met the conditions for a management transfer. While the resident may have disagreed with the landlord’s findings, it was a conclusion that the landlord was entitled to reach.
The evidence does not show, however, that the landlord had explained to the resident the circumstances in which a management transfer would and would not be likely to be approved. It would have been good practice for the landlord to set fair expectations with the resident, and to give her full advice of the different routes for rehousing, should her management transfer application be unsuccessful.
The landlord agreed to reconsider the resident’s application and, in line with its policy, the Director of Housing exercised their discretion to allow a management transfer despite the decision of the panel. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take and showed that it had regard to the resident’s particular circumstances and the impact on her.
The resident believed that a discretionary management transfer deprived her of the option of bidding for a property, and as a result she was not offered a 3 bed property. The landlord’s response was comprehensive and provided an explanation as to why this was not the case. It stated that the discretionary decision put the resident in a more favourable position. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s explanation to be persuasive, however it is noted that there is ambiguity in the wording of the policy, which may lead to misinterpretation. The landlord has advised that its allocations policy is due to be reviewed, and that it will consider amending the wording of this section.
The resident said that she was unhappy with the accommodation offered to her which she had, reluctantly, accepted. She had some specific criteria for a property, a two bedroom property on a lower floor level, with two different levels and with outside space. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, the resident had been informed that such properties were in very short supply and that she may be waiting for a long time for a property of that description to become available. The Ombudsman accepts that there is a low availability of social rented accommodation, and that, as an emergency move, the landlord was unable to meet the resident’s full requirements due to its limited housing stock.
The landlord had offered the resident £300 for its service failures in relation to her complaint. This Service finds that the landlord did not follow its procedure in relation to the Management Transfer and its communication between departments and with the resident, was lacking. However, by offering the resident a discretionary management transfer, the landlord took steps to put things right for her and her family. Its offer of £300 compensation was also within the level of redress the Ombudsman would award for a service failure which adversely affected the resident. This Service therefore finds that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress, which satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued 11 days outside of its published timescale of 10 working days. The landlord failed to follow its policy, by not informing the resident in advance that its response would be delayed. The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided 5 days outside of its published timescales and while this would not have caused significant detriment to the resident, as with its stage 1 response, its policy required that an extension be agreed with a resident in advance, and this was not done. The landlord acknowledged these delays in its complaint response and offered the resident £40 in compensation for her inconvenience.
The landlord also provided inaccurate information in its complaint response. It informed the resident that it would not deal with her complaint about the management transfer because this type of complaint would be dealt with through an appeals process. This information was incorrect, and the landlord later acknowledged this in its response, and offered her an apology.
It was appropriate for the landlord to treat the resident’s letter, regarding the management transfer process, as a new complaint. However, its stage 1 letter was delayed beyond the target timescales in its complaints procedure. This response was subsequently reviewed and amended. The landlord advised the resident that the amended letter should be treated as a stage 2 complaint response for the purposes of a referral to this Service. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures at this stage and offered redress of £50 to the resident.
While there had been delays in the landlord’s responses, beyond target timescales included in its complaints procedure, these delays were not excessive. The landlord acknowledged the delays at each stage and offered redress. The landlord also apologised for providing inaccurate information to the resident about her complaint regarding the management transfer process. The Ombudsman considers that the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable, and within the level of redress that this Service would award for a service failure of this nature.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in relation to the management transfer, the landlord has offered reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s view, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in relation to its complaints handling, the landlord has offered reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s view, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord undertaking proofing to address the mice infestation in the resident’s property and the actions it had taken had not resolved the issue. Despite several visits between May and September 2022, the problem was ongoing in November 2022 with evidence that this was an issue on a wider scale.
While the landlord’s response to ASB was appropriate, the records provided do not show it communicated effectively to the resident in providing her with the action plan detailing what it was doing and timescales for this. Clear record keeping and management is essential where reports of ASB are made, and investigations into allegations are undertaken. In this case, there are significant gaps in evidence which has not enabled this Service to obtain a full understanding of the history and handling of this ASB case.
Although the landlord did not follow its own procedure in obtaining evidence ahead of the management transfer panel meeting, the landlord put things right for the resident by agreeing a discretionary management transfer and offering compensation.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures and offered the resident an apology and compensation which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. pay the resident the amount of £500 which comprises of:
  1. £350 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the pest infestation.
  2. £150 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. This replaces the landlord’s compensation offer of £20.
2. Confirm with this Service that it has complied with this order.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to undertake a self-assessment with reference to the recommendations outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not done so already, in addition to the sums ordered above, it is recommended that it pay the resident the amount of £390 that it had offered as redress for service failures around its handling of her complaint and management transfer request.