Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Stockport Homes Limited (202305080)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305080

Stockport Homes Limited

18 June 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. Requests to be rehoused and subsequent mutual exchange.
    3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was the introductory tenant of a 3-bedroom maisonette, above a row of shops, owned by the landlord (property A). She moved to a 2-bedroom ground floor flat (property B), as a secure tenant, where she resided with her 2 sons. Both properties were owned by the landlord, an arms-length management organisation (ALMO) for a local authority. The resident has mental and physical health concerns, and her younger son is neurodivergent.
  2. The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) by unknown perpetrators, on public land outside property A, to the landlord on 12 March 2022. She said she was desperate to move and would consider accepting a 2-bedroom property to facilitate this. She reported more incidents throughout April and May 2022. She applied for a mutual exchange on 18 May 2022 which completed on 15 July 2022. She submitted a new mutual exchange application on 1 September 2022 as she needed a larger property.
  3. On 17 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about how it had managed the ASB she experienced in her former property. She felt it had dismissed the impact of the ASB on her mental health and that it had made her feel like she was wasting its time. She also felt it had manipulated her into accepting the mutual exchange for a 2-bedroom property, leaving her in an overcrowded property which was unsuitable for her family. She requested a move to a more suitable property.
  4. The landlord provided its response to the resident on 30 January 2023. It explained how it had managed her reports of ASB, which included agreeing an action plan, issuing additional points for its housing bidding system, providing target hardening and working closely with police to manage the situation. It confirmed that it added her to its priority list for rehousing. It explained its mutual exchange process and said that she could have withdrawn at any point prior to completion.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 31 January 2023. She said the landlord had lied in its complaint response, it had not offered target hardening measures and had not advised her about withdrawing from the mutual exchange. It acknowledged this on 1 February 2023, but it took no further action. She requested escalation again on 2 May 2023. It refused this request on 9 May 2023, as she was outside of the 20-working day escalation period. After contact with the Housing Ombudsman, it accepted escalation of her complaint on 12 December 2023.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 11 January 2024. It explained that it had decided to try to offer the resident a different property on the basis that her eldest son would be moving out. When she later stated that this was not the case, it updated its records to show she needed a 3-bedroom property. She completed the mutual exchange to a 2-bedroom flat and it stated that it had no legal grounds to refuse this. It denied the resident’s claim that it had falsified records of communication and called her from a mobile to avoid call recording. It stated that it had correctly followed its ASB policies and procedures and found no failing. It accepted its failure to escalate her complaint in January 2023 and apologised offering £100 compensation for the delay.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaints and brought them to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint the resident explained how the ASB, and delays had impacted her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the delays and the resident’s health concerns. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental and physical health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.
  2. As the landlord is an ALMO for the local authority, allocations, outside management transfers and mutual exchanges are dealt with as part of the duty of the local authority. Therefore, this report has only considered the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange and the adequacy of its responses to the resident’s rehousing request. We have not considered its handling of allocations or the awarding of points for that purpose. Any mention in this report of points awarded, or other actions taken in line with the local authority’s housing duty are for context only as the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is the appropriate body to investigate these matters.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s good neighbourhood management policy and procedure detail its approach to ASB as follows:
    1. It must record all reports immediately and explore them thoroughly.
    2. It must contact all customers within 72 working hours to discuss the reported issue.
    3. It will complete a risk assessment with the resident and review this quarterly.
    4. It must agree an action plan with the reporting party. The action plan must detail what support it will put in place for the resident.
    5. The landlord may contact police to support its investigation where appropriate, along with any other relevant agencies.
    6. It may offer of target hardening for its residents. This may include, but is not limited to, offering:
      1. Fireproof letter boxes.
      2. Security lights.
      3. Dummy cameras
    7. It may explore an acceptable behaviour contract with the perpetrator where known, alongside the police.
  2. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy and procedure both set out its approach to the process. It states that it may refuse an exchange under specific grounds laid out in schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985. Introductory tenants have no statutory right to exchange, but it may permit them to do so in exceptional circumstances. Exchanges must be completed within 42 days of an application. If an application takes longer than this, the customer can exchange without its permission.
  3. The landlord’s allocations policy explains its approach to calculating the size and type of property required by an applicant for rehousing by choice-based letting. To calculate the size, it usually considers the following as needing separate bedrooms:
    1. The applicant and their partner.
    2. Additional adults (although siblings would be expected to share).
    3. 2 children of the same sex, irrespective of age.
    4. 2 children of different sexes, if both are under 10 years old.
    5. Any single child not paired as above.
  4. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process as part of its customer feedback policy. Complaints at stage 1 will be responded to within 10 working days, with an additional 10 working days available in exceptional circumstances when agreed with the complainant. Complaints should be escalated to stage 2 within 20 working days of its first response and will be responded to within 20 working days, with an additional 10 working days available in exceptional circumstances when agreed with the complainant.
  5. Alongside its customer feedback policy, the landlord operates a compensation policy. This explains that financial redress covers cases where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or unfair effects from a service failure. It states that most cases will be resolved at the lowest financial gestures of £10 to £50.

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

  1. The resident reported ASB to the landlord on 12 March 2022 in which she stated that her son had been threatened with knives by local youths. She also said the youths had been throwing bricks and metal bars onto her balcony. It emailed her on 14 March 2022 to request further information and passed the report to its ASB team. She made a further report of ASB on 28 and 29 March 2022. It contacted her on 30 March 2022 to complete a risk assessment and sent her a copy of the agreed action plan on 1 April 2022. The resident and landlord agreed the following actions:
    1. It would begin an investigation.
    2. It would request further support with her housing application.
    3. It asked her to record the date, time and as much detail of the incidents as possible.
    4. It provided details of an ASB reporting app she could use.
  2. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s ASB reports was reasonable and in line with its policy of responding within 72 working hours and subsequently completing a risk assessment and action plan.
  3. The resident reported incidents of ASB to the police and the landlord throughout April 2022. On 20 April 2022, it completed a case review and decided it would visit the site to see if it could place CCTV in a discrete location. On the same day it responded to an MP enquiry, advising that it was working with the police to identify if any of the local youths and their families were tenants of its properties, along with visiting local shops with police to view CCTV. Its response to the MP was thorough and demonstrated its ongoing approach to multi-agency working to attempt to solve the problems, in line with its policy and the agreed action plan.
  4. On 11 May 2022, the landlord met with the resident and police to discuss the ongoing ASB. At the meeting, the police confirmed that it had identified some of the individuals and they would be interviewing these individuals with the landlord. It would then consider the use of acceptable behaviour contracts and community protection notice (CPN) warnings if the youths or their parents were its tenants. It requested additional security lighting for her property as a target hardening measure. The agreed actions were positive and in line with its good neighbourhood management policy, along with showing continued adherence to the agreed action plan.
  5. The resident reported further incidents of ASB between 11 May 2022 and 18 May 2022. On 12 May 2022, the landlord completed a joint visit to local shops with police to view CCTV footage of an incident in which her son and neighbour were threatened with stabbing by one of the youths. It requested target hardening measures on her balcony and suggested that it would refer her to its special housing panel to assist her with a move. Also on 12 May 2022, she told it that threats had been made to petrol bomb her property. On 16 May 2022, she emailed it stating she had the letter box block on every night. It is unclear when she was provided with this or whether it was provided by police or the landlord, but this further demonstrates that efforts were made to provide target hardening equipment as part of multi-agency involvement.
  6. There was no further evidence provided, by either party, to suggest that there were any further reports of ASB after 18 May 2022. However, the landlord provided a quote for additional security lighting at her property on 23 May 2022. This demonstrated its ongoing work to put preventative measures in place, in line with its policy.
  7. The resident moved to a new property on 15 July 2022 and the landlord closed the ASB case. Its decision to close the case was appropriate in the circumstances.
  8. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 January 2023, stating that it had managed her ASB reports poorly and that it made her feel like she was wasting its time. She said it did not offer her any target hardening. It responded on 30 January 2023, outlining the steps it had taken to support her. It said that it had agreed to fund the cost of additional electricity for its planned CCTV installation, but she had declined having CCTV. It said it had worked closely with police and offered target hardening. It found no failings in its handling of her reports of ASB. Its response to the complaint was fair, appropriate, and thorough.
  9. In her first complaint escalation request on 31 January 2023, the resident said that the landlord was not being truthful about the situation. She said it did not offer her a security light or target hardening. She did not offer any further complaints about ASB in her second escalation request on 2 May 2023, other than stating that her previous neighbour had proven that it failed in its handling of a linked ASB case. It incorrectly refused to accept this escalation request, and this will be assessed separately further in this report.
  10. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 11 January 2024, following contact from the Housing Ombudsman. In this response it stated that it had correctly followed its policies and procedures for ASB cases by completing the following actions:
    1. It opened a case.
    2. It interviewed the resident.
    3. It completed a risk assessment and agreed an action plan with her.
    4. It worked closely with police.
    5. A multi-agency meeting took place.
    6. It offered CCTV.
    7. A dispersal order was put in place in conjunction with police.
  11. The landlord said that it had taken a thorough, proportionate, and victim-centred approach to try and resolve the situation. It acknowledged that there had been difficulties identifying some of the perpetrators, which hampered enforcement action. It found no failing in its handling of ASB. While delayed, its complaint response about its handling of ASB was thorough due to good record keeping throughout the investigation. It relied upon these records, along with its policies, to ensure it provided a fair and appropriate response.
  12. In conclusion, while the impact the ASB had on the resident and her family is clear, this Service has been unable to identify any failings by the landlord in its handling of the ASB case. The landlord supported her where it was within its remit to do so and worked in line with its policies and procedures by completing a risk assessment, interview, and action plan, offering target hardening measures, and working closely with the police to provide additional support and preventative measure where possible. Its approach to ASB in this case was reasonable and proportionate.

Resident’s request to be rehoused and subsequent mutual exchange.

  1. Following ongoing ASB, the resident first told the landlord that she was desperate to move on 12 March 2022. It noted internally on 14 March 2022 that it would like to see if it could offer her any support with this. She repeated her desire to move on 29 March 2022. On the same day, it asked its ASB team to award her with social needs points to increase her priority status on its property bidding system. This was completed, with extra points being awarded on 4 April 2022, which it advised her of on 5 April 2022. It also advised her to apply for a mutual exchange. Its initial response to her request to be rehoused was fair, proportionate, and demonstrated that it was taking her situation seriously.
  2. On 19 April 2022, the resident emailed her MP to ask for assistance in securing a move to a new property. The MP forwarded her request to the landlord. It responded to the MP on 20 April 2022, explaining that it was not able to move her in the near future as it did not have much available housing stock and it was struggling to keep up with the demand for homes. While this was an honest and factual response, it had not advised her of this when it told her it had awarded social needs points and may have missed an opportunity to manage her expectations at the time.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for updates about her housing situation throughout April and into May 2022. Following a serious incident of ASB on 12 May 2022, it suggested referring her to its special housing panel (SHP). The role of the SHP was to determine housing case priority or make recommendations for direct offers of housing where the circumstances were not reflected in its allocations policy. The SHP meeting took place on 6 June 2022, and it informed her that she had been successful on 28 June 2022. This indicates that it had made the referral promptly and her case was heard at the next available meeting. This was a positive and appropriate step for it to take in the circumstances.
  4. On 18 May 2022, the resident applied for a mutual exchange. She requested a 2-bedroom property, as only 1 of her sons would be moving with her and said she had found a match. The landlord accepted the application and advised her that the process can take up to 42 days. She chased the status of the mutual exchange 4 times between 26 May and 16 June 2022, before deciding to pull out of the process for unknown reasons on 22 June 2022. She told it on 27 June 2022, that she now needed a 3-bed property as her son was no longer moving out. It asked its mutual exchange team to look for a 3-bed property on the same day. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its mutual exchange policy. It accepted her application and conducted the property inspection. It then promptly asked internally for a 3-bed property to be found and for her SHP status to be changed to reflect this.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a comprehensive email, explaining her rehousing situation, on 28 June 2022. It stated it wanted to manage her expectations to prevent further distress. It confirmed it would update the relevant teams that she was now needed a 3-bedroom property. It advised her that if she felt her life was in danger, she must go to its office and present as homeless to access temporary accommodation. It explained that it was not able to remove all properties from its system to provide her with a home ahead of others on the list, but that it would be in touch when a suitable property was available. It noted that this may not be quick as she required 3 bedrooms. It offered to help her with private rental properties and advised her to keep looking for a mutual exchange. This correspondence was clear, factual, and it provided her with appropriate advice and information.
  6. During a phone call with the resident on 29 June 2022, the landlord advised her that mutual exchanges were the quickest way to move as its housing stock was limited. It offered to assist her son if he wanted to move on his own. It noted that she raised concerns about the other party in the exchange and it advised her to prioritise her own needs, stating it would deal with any fallout from this. At the end of the call, she confirmed that she would continue with the mutual exchange and asked it to let the relevant team know. Its communication with the resident demonstrated good practice and demonstrated its ongoing work to support her with rehousing.
  7. The mutual exchange completed, and the resident moved from property A to property B on 15 July 2022. At this time, she still had both of her sons living with her and the landlord was actively seeking 3-bedroom properties for her after she told it about her eldest son’s housing situation. The evidence in this case suggests that it allowed the exchange to complete due to the impact the ASB was having on her. However, it may have considered refusing the exchange under Ground 4 of Schedule 3 in the Housing Act 1985, as follows:
    1. The extent of the accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is not reasonably suitable to the needs of the proposed assignee.
  8. The landlord has stated in correspondence to this Service, that its intention remained to directly offer a suitable 3-bedroom property to the resident when one became available. The evidence in this case demonstrates that it was actively working to support her with rehousing due to the ongoing ASB and ultimately decided not to refuse the exchange because of the impact this was having on her.
  9. In conclusion, while the landlord could have refused to allow the mutual exchange as outlined above, the resident made an informed decision to move to a 2-bedroom property. She had repeatedly asked it to rehouse her since March 2022 due to the ongoing ASB. It had made it clear that a mutual exchange was the quickest way to move due to issues with low housing stock, but that it was still actively searching for a 3-bedroom property. It took every reasonable step to assist her with finding a more suitable property in the time between her first report of ASB and completion of the mutual exchange.

The associated formal complaint.

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was fair and thorough. It was provided on 30 January 2023, within the 10-working day timeframe set out in its policy. However, there were significant delays and failures in its handling of her stage 2 escalation request. She requested escalation of her complaint on 31 January 2023. It acknowledged this on 1 February 2023, saying it would be in contact with her. There is no evidence showing that it contacted her again until she called it to discuss her complaint on 2 May 2023, over 3 months since her request. This was not in line with its complaint policy and its communication with the resident at this stage was poor.
  2. After the resident’s phone call with the landlord on 2 May 2023, it forwarded her a copy of the stage 1 response from 30 January 2023. She responded with a further escalation request on the same day. It told her by email on 9 May 2023 that it would be refusing her escalation request as she was outside of the 20-working day request period. It followed with a further email providing her with a link to its community trigger process if she wished to undertake a review of its handling of ASB. This was not reasonable in the circumstances as she had previously made a clear request to escalate her complaint in January 2023.
  3. In correspondence sent to this Service by the landlord, it explained that it had made further contact with the resident on 12 December 2023 after contact from the Ombudsman. It offered to complete a stage 2 review of her complaint as it had identified its failure to escalate and respond to her complaint in January 2023. It said it would include complaint handling as a complaint element and would seek to offer reasonable redress to her for its failings. This was positive but it must be noted that without intervention from this Service, it is unlikely that it would have identified its failings.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident on 11 January 2024. This was within 20-working days of its acknowledgement on 12 December 2023. However, it was almost a full year since her original escalation request. It stated that it had made a “clear error” by not escalating her complaint in January 2023. It acknowledged that its refusal to escalate her complaint in May 2023 was not reasonable and it failed to recognise her contact in January 2023. It offered her the following remedies:
    1. £100 compensation for the delayed investigation.
    2. An apology for the additional stress this caused her.
    3. It explained that it recently adopted a new process for managing contact in its complaints team, to make instances like this less likely to occur in future.
    4. It would be reviewing its customer feedback policy and procedure, including considering whether to extend the timescale for customers to request a stage 2 escalation as it understood that there were often complex situations which made it difficult for customers to pursue complaints immediately.
  5. This Service’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The remedies offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response were reasonable and appropriate except for the level of compensation offered. The amount offered did not appropriately take into consideration the level of failing identified. Its apology and explanation of new processes and policy reviews going forward were fair and demonstrated a willingness to learn from the outcomes of this case. As such, a further order for compensation will be made in the orders section of this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour at a previous address.
    2. Requests to be rehoused and subsequent mutual exchange.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £200, broken down as follows:
      1. £100 for service failure in its handling of her associated formal complaint.
      2. £100 as previously offered as part of its stage 2 response if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord must provide proof of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.